mar in ymen who see t e bokell te o l alive and well and doing this. and maybe there will be others, and maybe there will be others in this country. so it's not just a question of borders, it's a question of very, very, smart, focused thinking abo what could these >>d t. i k yoo t advances in nanotechnology -- >> right. >> -- mass computation in smaller areas, battery technology and things like that, you start ceatinghe art of the possible in ways where thres b canel i er w. t t's nocain hto keep our eye on. >> yeah, i agree. i mean, this is a tall order, but divesting a little bit in this kind of future thinking out of the box for right now probably would save us a lot in the years ahead. thyou ry m toll haou.ir admiral allen, it was very

helpful to hear from you some of the problems that existed prior to the department of homela cu'sat temus at'ts these agencies were working cooperatively before they were brought together and somehow bringing them together made them not works well. yoti, could sense a certain frustration with how the department could be functioning better. for example, you talk abo a coaby f unirmity, anrare in budget presentations across the department. you say, but the departnt has struggled to evolve in soina g. lu planning and mission

what do you believe needs to be doneto solve some of the problems that you iustrated in yo written testimony? if coulin m testy,e t vi i t answers. one involves mission execution and one involves mission support. i still have people that work for me in the coast guard, you either execute the mission, or you support the mission. and if you can' explain what exedr dding, either we haven't yb. tis sport side, let's go under appropriations because i think you hit the place where ther is discretion to do something. we moved components into the department with different appropriations structures from i'lkab-- a yre tag at pproiations level, the project program and activity level to create the firewalls which you need to

reprogram between and how you represent personnel costs, operating costs, i'm sorrt. costd fh 'm i costs. you cannot put the budget side by side and look at comparability on personnel costs, salaries, operations and might nantz and capital investment. and this is meg tha-- re t s ts. e nitieeo t arbu has comparability in the way the numbers are presented, and the appropriations committees are going to have to understand, there's going have to be some flexibility to put this together where we have a comprehensive and understandable basis by which to understre coasattht. ats th does not need any legislation, that is a management activity at the d. at omb which plays a big part of this and on the hill. on key thing is to ha ture yeasomd sri

plan. we have never realized that. there are a lot of forces inside the office of management and budget that don't want to commit to a five-year projection, but this really kills capital investment and acquisitions management. we he brches in acquisition ograms that adg duuuonee t userneanen scussion about having a sustained, consistent, five-year capital budget plan. on the mission execution side, it has everything to do with unity effort which is undergirded by operational coordination and plaing. if you talk about t re vienatdisend l tifntma 'sardo a component level. but we need to create the capacity and the competency at the departmental level to be able to look at this thing as a portfolio to talk about future cases, to look at how do you trade f what can passhroh elon y,eople, conveyances and so forth. we have to create the capacity to be able to discertain the important few from, you know,

the many that are out there ty have to deal with every day. and we have to create the pacindpatydo thcry ry s consequential in the planning and execution of ongoing operatio and export that competency with credibily across government. >> thank you. inlld nkasinr,a 7,000 -- or maybe 2,000, rather, 2,000 different i'm i.t. progra, and thatat had been narrowed opinth e department. and i was thinking when senator johnson was talking about t tension between being part of a great big organization versus a smaller organizaon whi can offntfiv

at fundamental issue that has never really been answered about the department has to do with the amount of authority at the deptment lelehi thie fciic of those positions, chief acquisition officer. what's your view on that? should the cretary-level thmp agencies in the area of information technology, for example? >> well, i -- if you go back and look at some of the work that we've donever theears we've yseecndns h crne,hhe cfo did not have, not only did not have sufficientresources, but did not have appropriate authorities to compel the

components to follow certain ma ich the department or the secretary had envisioned. secondly, it was the cio. i have reported and made recoendations that the cio, one, did not have sufficient resours in t offe ofhe o,llide ffntho t cl offices to follow the departmental guidelines and directions. and the same holds true with the chief nancial officer. allhr iugve iedad recommendations that the chief financial officer as well has additional resources and authority to insure compliance at the component lel. one of the things i uld li ddveheorty is that because when we stood up

and the components were brought together with retaippedder authority, often times because it was the environment we were livingn, and it wase otl rot,t the the -- one, expectations were too high. we thoht, you know, now that we have homeland security, all of our problems are going to be solved. well, we kneth was not going topeut pc todvgeth. and secondly, it was of the mission demands that were put on us at that point in time in our history trump just good business practice. because we're saying we expect this to happen, we expect to cuurrd sphe le ira,ke sure -- everything had to be done yesterday. and that just trumped good -- and we made a lot of mistakes. and i think we've learned from that. the dust has settled. now we're able to alyze

exactly what we've done, lessons leneheo an t g itus er getting the resources to get it done. and the authorities. thank you. >> admiral allen -- >> comment back to senator johnson because your analogy to the business world,and i understand it, you have every right to askhises. asbae ou dinc thanks, senator collins. i want to give senator johnson, senator akaka a chance to ask questions if they have more. congresswoman harman, i understand you may have to leave soon. if you do, wewill understand anilovou aur] iat a hint? >> no. no. [laughter] i don't think i've ever said that to a witness before. laugh but, you know -- [laughter] but, you know. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman, i love you too. [lauter] if it's onmore rod ess pe? j sornsnd toak >> yes. i'd be happy to say. >> just a quick one.

when we were talking about cybersecurity yesterday i was asking about the priorities of what needed be done, and i really came away with that is sehendrs ings weha to o ouieses paofti trd on cybersecurity? >> i think thetechnical expertise on cybersecurity is in the nsa. the a i shouldem thee. rmf being the public face to do the cybersecurity work that is not in the, in the dot.mil and dot -- we, espeallyn theot go e, i think the homeland department has to do it, implement it. but i don't think it should try to recreate the chnical expertise of thensa. >> i think there's a role for government in oversight the

ans. c gyonal owrenter that failed in the deepwater hidessen spill two years ago was built to industry standards, was not subject to independent third party inspection mandated by the governme it is now. so i think we need to understand what ishe rolef gvernnt, ho d pceheec ovghsh thit's logical it should be the department of homeland security. how you evolve the standards can be, you know, part of how the legislation is put together, but that has to be affirmed, there has to beaccountability, and somebody has to be aware on haf thamanpl kaha >>el i g te a collaborative effort. i believe nsa and nsit plays a role as far as establishing standards, and those standards are not going to be set in stone. they're going to evolveover timebecaeerri i an fsovg t oversight on the least domestic side of the house, i believe that should rest within the

department of homeland security. it's a logical home for it. >> those were very government-centricners. teofreto any leutse thap ting? -- that type of thing? >> if i could just add, i think that's a performance outcome. my basic training in public administration is executive, legislative or regulatory management. i worked in eeguloryield for coec. e he tve g oor is redon't get -- we don't get into this a rulemaking process that takes ten years. whatever we do has to bring the best of the private sector in get to a conclusion. we wana violent atackof >> icojudt. nacos said, 35% -- 85%, i think, of our capacity is in the private sector and the private sector in this area is much more agile than t government sector. so this has to be a i tht wkiho

ld dop w should implement -- i don't now remember it was about the standard setting. yes, the legislation should set the standards or set up the process and set the standards. the point i was making is tt insi govnmenourchl et o tat >> okay, thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator johnson. senator akaka. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i know that time isaluable to the congresswoman, and i just wanto s dven restoru, i'm the last here. but meaning you can leave if you need to. [laughter] skr,an shat re lfad d experts here today, and we're fortunate to have you. mr. skinner, as you noted in

your written testimony dh has reed heavilnntor e s iti arla in service contractors working side by side with federal workers. i have worked closely with the the president on its effort -- thth the department on its rt thtze i fal oy to contractor mix. my question to you is, does the department currently have the right federal employee to contract t balceo ave min he fe? >> at the time of my retirement, no, it did not. but at the same time i was aware of initiatives to bring that right balance. and i have been reading reports and observghs gon thheart. m los achev

though i'm retired. and i see that there is progress being made there. bunever the less, there's still an imbalance. i know recentlythast guard ad enog i in in-house employees to do what was governmentally inherent jobs instead of relying on contractors. but at the same time, they still do not have -- and ts is as thffnt resources to to ree complete their mission. so they're still relying on contractors to do what they would like to be doing themselves. but there is a very, a very ncd rt thiee il e components as a result of the leadership that i have seen napolitano and deputy secretary bring to the acquisition

management process. >>irll un demeas worked very hard to improve its strategic human capital functions. however, dhs still faces challenges in imemng is pante f objectives and goals such as improving employee morale and retention. what are the mostressing fo aowodrs facing thehs w them going forward with dhs? >> thank you for the question, senator. i would d, and i can provide, i have provided it to staff, and they can provide it for the record, i testified in marc hoondubiton the partners for public service

rankings and morale at the department, and there's a more extensive discussion on that, i'll try and high some of the issuesere -- highlight some of thishere. me othe esate ed a, itos icca ey're technical, and then i'll get to the ones i think are equally important. when immigration service went away and we formed i.c.e. can and cbp, we redefined two different work forces that came wiienprinst dtm ct,fe pay benefit structures, different work rules, different grade structures. the ability to try and estimate salaries in that environment continues to be a problem today in if cbp, plus a lot of their la aun t o diens are legacy fees from from agriculture, immigrations and land border entry. that is a pretty difficult environment to try and manage and create a human resource

progm and equaly are estela. icnsthot oueyey have to do things in the middle of the year. employees know that, it effects morale. so i think spix fixing some of these structural issues will ha a satary effect on the workorceinw. in iosty was morale isn't something you mandate or set out as a goal and achieve. morale is a by-product of performance in the workpla where employees feel they're powered and have the right tools and understand that their leadershiptheye dog the th taring tab tsusf en heatua morale. and so i think what the department needs to do is put the conditions in place which improve e performance that we've talked about here today, and i think morale becomes a natul by-product of that. i think we need to understand pele d't lve ganiti tusy ondep tnin department. there's a dhs fellows program, they've just established a

department of homeland security capstone program f senior executives, we now have a leading edge program for executives across federal vernnt. leshevmerosout to beom tencff budget to become programs of record that don't require the people that are managing these programs to go, you know, hand to hand every year and try to deal with reprogrammed funds or what's left over at the end of the year. >> , ku uor . ou lke to finally ask mr. skinner in particular seems ho e hal problems, for instan, in tsa. the turnover there is great and has been, and it seems as though it's a prt ofhth

workers have problems. can you make any expressions on that and the problem and th changeales ceaul i tsa? >> senator, this is something we did not or threet i have never studied with regards t tsa. i was well aware of the turnover issues there, and weidsc wh whe private meetings. one of the problems that we've observed with regards to tsa is just the pure nature of its work. it's very tedious, hard work. and ople's ctnsn al met.e n secondly, it's there is, there was -- when we talk about the

leadership, you know, this is the leadership up and down the chain of command. a oleshensvidualirs and people's expectations of their leaders were not being met. but as to actually come up with empirical information or a conclusi as twhhere highrntemori dn -r l when i was the ig, we nver completed a study in that area. be. >> thank you. thank you very mu, mr. chairman. >> thanks, senator akaka. um, this has been a very productive morning. i want to thank the tree dienayelp to restore our country, andf i may say so, i think you added to it another step in that direction by both your prepared testimony which was very thoughtful which will be part the permen record andy yreony isni

u ghemi a l to think about, i think you'll give the new committee leadership in the next session a lot to think about and, frankly, i think you'll give both the current and new leership of the dpartment an ageda forioont reprss def but, obviously, a lot of work to be done. senator colin, do you wantto add anything? >> i just want to add mythank to those of the chairmen. i've enjoyed working with a three ofur wness ore s, iseic them back today to share their extraordinary experience and inghts with our committee. so thank you all. >> thank you. so the record of the hearing will rai opeor 1s adon emr questions. again, thank you very much. the hearing is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations [inaudible conversations] [inaudibleonveations]

>> this morning the center for strategic and international studies examines the conflict in syria, thetake in the lives of an estimated17,000 pople inatl set foreign affairs analyst. live coverage begins at 10:30 eastern on c-span. we have, actuly, noplan enu rzehaes weot ming to his aid, but were trying to escape, really, to the west. that's when he collapsed, when he felt -- he realized finally it had come to an end, and it was only a question of suicide.

>> historian antnyvth k tecwo rm a hitler's rise to power to his dark final days. >> his main objective was not to be captured alive by the russians. he was afraid of being paraded through moscow in a cage and being at at andridiculed, an eva brawn was determined to die with him. >> sunday at 8 on c-span's q&a. this weekend on american history tv -- >> the campaign collection is abou 10, ots oeom vgig tatangogh up to the present. that's important for us was what we're -- because what we're trying to do is keep this large tradition, you know, full and documented and reflect the larger story omerican decr n acatis,ok sso's idal campaign

memorabilia collection sunday at 7 p.m. eastern and pacific. also sunday mo from the contenders, our series on key political figures for peopleho ran for president and lost but chged ti hry ee wlllk n ror political office before winning the 1940 republican presidential nomination. he would never hold office. he would become an unlikely ally to fdr. at 7:30 american history tv >>mbof touay art issuing subpoenas to investigate recent national security leaks during the obama administration. the leaks revealed the name of the pakistani doctor who helped locate osama n laden, the ane of cr ckf ones n ain. a house judiciary subcommittee is looking into the leaks and how current laws can be applied. this is just over an hour and half. amanpldhestfittee wl ceto

e d have become privy to an astonishing number of revelations concerning the secret operationof our armed forces and national intention agencies. we have learned that a kistani or cpedth u. top te osama bin laden. we have learned that the president of the united states personally decides the human targets of drone strikes in other countries by looking at mug shots and brief biographies of targets, and t w hve en esed ah hoeokyo we have learned that the united states in if cooperation with its ally, israel, sabotaged the iranian nuclear campaign with stuxnet virus. we have learned that a thruccta mitse way into the internet in 2010. we have learned that the united

states sabotaged iranian computers with the flame virus. we have leard that thecia dqa p ken an airliner with a double agent tricking terrorists into handing over a prized possession, a new bomb purportedly designed to slip through airpor secuty. we aled thhe ubntloot lyudab idlearn of these secret programs and details through spies, other country's diplomats or even from the wikileaks scandal. we learned of these secrets from the pages of "the new york times" a other newaps. or o"theew yk me ahe pa h iclany tha they see themselves as having a duty to inform. during the bush administration, "the new york times" and other newspapers savaged president bush and the intelligence community for itsactics inhe hes sle of the headline

that accompanied tse latest national security leaks; obama order sped up waves of cyber attacks against iran, "the new york times." secret kill st proves test oba's inesnd w k s. stuxnet was the work of u.s. and israeli experts, officials say, washington post. these are not the type of critical headlines that pursue bush administratio oicials. nomped aseas tmira articles, but officials make a planner, operator and commander of seal team six who killed osama bin laden available to a hollywood director and screenwriter worki on a movie about thisuccessful raid. coo pgoia records obtained by judicial watch who got the information through foia requests. the fo leaders of the

intelligence communities have condemned theseeaks. setor feinsinaid that she s deeplyised b e s nt stiond'si ..

examine issues related to sensitive government information. sometimes classified, sometimes not classified. is hearing is motivated in no small part brecent stories in e nsa ppa ov er s iormation leaked information from within the federal government. these stories include details of cyberwar for an event, covert

mission to thwart a suicide bomber bou for the united ates, anddira es noti sts yemen and pakistan. although these stories may have given some members a renewed sense of urgency, it's important to put them in context. two points to bemade here. iniganoseobamamiraor ec eis without peer. this administration has prosecuted more leaks than all previous presidential administrations combined. attorney geral eric holder has appointed to u.s. attorns o lead the federalivgatns diornaal llceesppas ed r tte future incidents among the rules authorizing the inspector general of the defense communy to conduct an independent administrative investti if h jue ert cl incim arin cas second, the problem of leaks and

the federal government is not new. we have grappled with this problem since the first world wa d mode e o ing foio tss tok r security interests, of a free and robust press. with the interest of a freeand robust press for the better part of 50 years. these probms are not minimal to eitherolution, particulay in lit of het atwo al a oe e epom. awt to protect national security so that we can keep our citizens safe, but w cannot disregard the right of american citizens in a system of self-governance that reuires the public to be wellnford whenovtoilks prthev the government is engaged in unlawful act committee, do we simply lived up to the same governments discretion as to whether to procute the person for possibly serving t publics

whbo oioio dn i tiecurity interest at all? overclassification is an enormous problem in the federal government, and current law does not distinguish between leaking clsified information with the intent to harm the united states and blowingthe wle on thrsaclaie congress will, may soon consider legislation that attempts to address these shortcomings in existing law. as we move forward we must be careful. any decision to limit what the public officials and prvate citins m ay utsense baedinmpnt issues of free speech, due process, and the requirement, and the fact that some of this information may reveal improper or even criminal govnment io atf oft espionage act of 1970 did not anticipate our problems with

leaks in digital information age, there may be unforeseen consequences of any changes we make today. it i easy to overlook react sesin lctioarms eul before limit what people say, particularly and respect to operation of our government. i thank u, mr. chairman and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair of the full committe theentlan from s, sth yope smeelth mr. chairman, recently except highly classified information poses serious threat to national security and put the lives of americans and our allies at risk. national securexperts om bothpuan democratimiras apessed outrage over the leaks and the effect they have on ongoing and future intelligence operations. what sets these links apart from other leaks we hav seen is that the media repots hmn f

eshcm iy placed administration officials. if true, this means that administration oicials are weakening our national security and endangering american lives. tional security operational neelncmmyxist to mke h crt pcte ic le as fbi director mueller rently testified quote, leaks such as this threaten ongoing operations, puts at risk the lives of sources, makes it much more difficult tecit parss i ore nsnt l like this is taken exceptionally seriously and we will investigate thoroughly. director moment on to say quote i don't want to use the were devastating the fizz of the geac ou bl bes your ability to recruit sources is severely hampered. so it is also, so it also has some long-term effects, which is

why it i so important to make certain that the persons who are responsible for theeak brouttoje,te. clfi information claim to promote increase government transparency. but i wonder if their real motivation is self-promotion and increased circulation. they claim to be inur ve gnmwogg thr actions may be wrong or damaging to the country. these leaks have also resurrected debate on first amendment protections afforded to media publications. whatre the bounaries of free speech? how do w aacetisd thgve otcenatio i hope the justice department will bring the full force of the law against those who leaked protected information. we can judge whether the administration is willing to conduct a serious and objective fas.stigatioby odeg

one, whether they will hold administration officials responsible, and number two, where the investigation is completed before the general eltion. otherwise, the americanpepe adstonhi t utd en american security and american lives. mr. chairman, finally i want to say that the administration's track record is not encouraging but was point out by he ranki memr of h adston, fact, initiated a number of investigations of leaks. but very little, if anything, has come out of those investigions. i hope this time it will be different. thank you, mr. chairman. i will yield back. mian mr. conyers.e e >> thank you, chairman sensenbrenner, and good morning to our witnesses.

this is a dificult mattr, natial sitak h gfr f texas, the chair of this full committee, wonders if self-promotion played a role, and if there were prominent mmbers of the miniration involved in the ak well, that's a we are here to try to determine. he hasn't mentioned any names, so i presume he'sot sure who is doing i. avur own investigative capacity, and so why don't we inquire ourselves? we also have the rgula powerpen odyets

ought to talk to, we should talk to them. if there's somebody that isn't cooperating ith us in this disi we should subpoenagiteuecr them. spent if the gentleman will yield i will take the entleman up on his offer immediately. i suspect the chairman of the subcommittee will as well. if you're goingoupport or efrts o sbpoe iiu tniti cudnkfe. >>l,t'y i'm suggesting it spent if the gentleman will yield to if you will submit to the subcommittee chair a list of people that he wishes o subpoena, and the full committee chair does t same, sen.ubaisui >> o problem is that at this point neither of you have anybody that you want to subpoena, i presume.

d neither do i. >> i will be happy to come u wi somme >>l,y. ll ht'gre. you know, we could've had this discussion beore 10 a.m. on the 11th day of july, but right now his hearing isgoi thayongho he ulkeo talk with. and now we've all agreed to pull togeth three bipartisan lists. i'm very sure the former torney general from thcmi,hld easho is a member uwth a list. >> i will give you some right now if you'd like to but how about all the people who were in the situation room? >> wait a minute. just a moment, sir. spent that time belongs to the wan time, but i'm

not hererequesting names. i'm here pointing out that we don't apparently have any names. now all of a sudden we have paan anl,ryi llto produce names. and by the way, i didn't say that i had any names myself. you'hes rnihe ismrtsut.hs i ree with you. but i just, i just want to describe the nature of te etting as it starts out with. now, lete ito up things. we must react to concerns about les in ways that do not

unine nend sparcy ome as beginning point. i think i would like to hear some discuson about the issue of overclassification's of gomuments in the fedal in 's w o attention. and then a law passed in 1917 needs to be looked at gn. wn as espionage in the early part of the 20th century i don't think as much relevance now, and i think there's a lot of work for thecmiee onte aniscote particular. >> the gentleman's time has expired. without objection he is given two additional minutes.

>> well, i thank you, chairman sensenbrenner, and i won't use o minutes. but i will just conclude by isofek,t k at them across a period of time that includes all the former as was the current administration. and i thank you for your generosity, and i retnthe tavrmetm haou without objection all members opening statements will appear in the record at this point. witht objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses during both on the house floor. it is now my pleasu to tre y'stnss enn rtr e of cadwalader, wickersham & taft, where his practice focuses on corporate internal investigations. he is also an adjunct professor at georgetown law school. . stse sn

thut dic f new york and in the district of columbia. later he served as the u.s. attorney in d.c., and then was assistant attorney general for national securit. s. mleref osffdiretor rert ths resident george w. bush's homeland security adviser. he received his undergraduate degree from the university of virginia and his law degree from the university of california at berkeley. profsoof er sosstan ivtyoo l. before coming to george mason, sales was deputy assistant secretary for policy development in the u.s. department of homeland security. he previously served as counsel and senior counsel in the ofce ealpolic at u rtut. he was the john m. olin llow at georgetown university law center in 2005-2006.

come 2003-2005, he practiced at the washington, d.c. law rmo wiley d essaclfoe honorable david d. sentelle of the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. he received his undergraduate degree from miami university and his jdfrom do. colonel ken alla is a mmento o forign pol d ctyises fomore than a decade he was a featured military analyst on nbc news, msnbc and cnbc. in 2006, he joned the faculty of unirsity of exs n nia eciv deinsnior lecturer and management. his military career included overseas services and intelligence officer, as was tours of duty as a system professor at we point, special asanemyeff f, dfde

e iowrcge he received his undergraduate degree, his mba from harvard, and his ph.d ininternational security from the fletcher school of law anddpocyatft ofr heae esof asste f scholarship at american universi washington college of law. he is also a supreme court fellow at the constitution project. nnacu loi arnalfitor of a ortror he lawfare blog, a member of the executive committee of the section on federal courts of the association of american law schools. previously, he was an associate professor of law at he laiversity of miami school of esvlk ker hra as berson on the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit, and the honorable rosemary barca on the u.s. court of appeals for the 11th circu.

he received his bachelor of arts from amherst, and hs jd frm le a co wiseulatt bteinte eo in their entirety. i ask that each of you summarize in five minutes or less, and to help you sy with the time limit, there's a timing light on your table, and you all know what that means. io eog .ns. >> chairman sensenbrenner, ranking member scott, chairman smith, ranking member conyers, and distinguish those of the subcommittee, it's an honor to appear before you today into ifd alongside y distispais. wowhi thtal e and scented information place in our operations in dallas operations can be putin jeopardy whenever the information is compromised. the problem o national security relyeus ovrcome t h lo thl wmg s while these recent leaks are

alarming, the reality is government leaking has been happening for as long as government has exsted to every american administration since the founding of the republic has suffered its shofa ass fr national security program. they can compromise a specific national city operations as happened in 2006 with the disclosure of the treasury department sigir program or trkingro finan ey omium itcrtt ad saudi source that helped foil al qaeda's recent airplane bombing plot. and keep in mind that whenever sources leak, sources identity our existence is leaked, no only negate the eetiveness o paroure,a ao deedaii develop and cultivate sources in the future. leaks can also come from eyes are methods of september happen with the recent disclosure of our alleged use of ma were to attack the iranian nuclear weapons program. gomepenekeertainly endanger ou

cho tews icut then killed by terrorists in athens in the 1970s. and importantly they can weaken our alliance is operational relationships between us and for and sevices that are so vital to r inrtacn dyo gio efs otou country. that's why going to different types of leaks but the most common scenario these days is the leak of sensitive information to the press but a govement official. and officials motivation they rangh sel-test abestowt tl roindng rn otifoe better. i share congress concerned abou the need to enhance our defenses against such illicit disclosures. an importt part of that effort apri c wngg that is the dise oti secrets. as you know, however, the justice department does not have

a lengthy record of success lead to prosecutions. that thin track record is not for lack of trying, however. rather it is the result of myriad obscles that stand in oulinn rscu thnc tlow first, it's difficult to identify the leaker in the first place. given a large universe of people are often privy to sensitive information that get disclose. send, r le neson e t ne ri mion tus department's internal regulations. limitations that are in place for all the right personnel and reasons. and, finally, even wen investors can get by those challees, and the leaks are identified, the agency whose infoation was compromise is prutou fthry cai ulllbo highlight the compromised information and disclose further sensitive information that wants to keep confidential. for all these rasons leak investigations and leak cases are chalnging, and th qutions htean f

adsecag of the governing legislation. i agree with those who say that our current espionage statutes are cumbersome and antiquated, and i would support congress' efforts to reform them. re eotl eri complicated because it directly implicates intention but when national security and our cherished first amendment values, legislating in this area is challenging and it raises a hostf complex issues. for example, consideration of the law that ould flatly exatno po punishndsl overclassification of government information. also, any effort to revive the espionage act will lead to debate whether the person receives and publishes leaked information, i.e. the press go shou be subject to thee im oa e ventic wak ir pe. these are certainly complex issues. given the damage caused by the continued leaks and the

inadequacy of our current leak legislatio however, it is important congress take these issues on and consider an bu mte eon dseslative espse teclal um e oull recognize the unchecked leaking of classified and sensitive information can cause great harm to our national sigir to. congresslays an important role in addressing that problem, and i applaud this committee for the initiative shownwith tday's inin hiont your foan sn swny uio you may have. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. professorsales. >> chairman sensenbrenner, ranking him scott, jim smith, reggie member colleges, think you l for, and other mmers, toti becbsh tter arfo ga i like you've a testament to outline some of the legal tools the government has available to combat leaks. first, federal courts have held that it's a crime under the espionage act for officials to thess.lassified infoation o

sey e wtho to work for the government at the supreme court is healthy secrecy contracts are enforceable. these tools are useful but they're not perfect. as a blogger the espionage act in particular is notoriously vague and congressmen want to stngh inlandinit. thic thrust of the a in us act is fairly straight forward. it's a crime for officials to quote reveal information relating to the tional defense to any person not entitled to receive it. this law, quitpiyap spice but is when officials gave secrets to the press. a leading case in i states versus morrison. morrison was a naval intelligence officer, and e is convicted ofviolating the espionecaedlaie brh zi in 1984. the fourth circuit affirmed his conviction. squarely holding tht the law applies to leaders, not just to

spice. the recently discovered prosecuted said the court is thpie asefe plain language of cohe turns. the court also emphasize statutes prohibit card covers a school in 1917 was to prevent secrets from falling ntothe g n ataerae regards whether our enemies get their secrets directly from spies or indirectly by reading about it in the newspaper. what about the constitution? the fourth cirit rejected the notion that morrison had a first amdmrighto lk. oerwiseuotewobe route ta rp oe tadm is such an important president because it stands relatively alone. there simply aren't that many cases applying the espionage act two leakers but to the sy morrison remains the only person ever convicted of leaking clfied information o the s,ugev os pulii

ge over the 100 year lifespan of espionage act, the government has over charges against the lakers nine times. six of those prosecutions have come since president obama took office in 2009. next i'd like to discuss a ssnoutll a imanol cti ak somesthe government will get advance notice of that employee or former emplee intends to leak classified information but that isn't just a potential crime. it's also a potential reach of contracted ths is a eaus llceficicll gnrearem aa ndn cs classified information to the government can go to court on these contractual obligations enforced. the supreme court in the fourth circuit both upheld these sorts of secrecy agreemes. the two case eacolving rmiaicwhnt wog hecaouisti again, the first amendment is not an obstacle. according to the supreme court thegovernment's interest in preventing leaks is so strong it

can rtrict officials from reing asedfrio enhon es ef.aquen t se sf these laws might be improved it's no secret that some of the key terms in the espionage act are ambiguous. just what does information relating to the national defense mean anyway? and to spellpon nilet ei tdgndads elping the congress over the resolve these and other interpretive mysteries for more than a decade. there's another problem in t act. the espionage act makes it a crime to leak informatio relating to he atnalef inat oopylsi si nat result the statute has the potential t produce a false positive and false negatives. in other words, the law might criminalize some leaks that aren't really harmful, and it might fail to criminalize other akatare hm neveobwh s probably more severe. imagine what would happen if

somebody leaked the u.s. negotiate a strategy for ongoing talks over a free trade agreement. that information all certainly does relate to the national bee n anght eeths for orers of the espionage act, it might not be unlawful even though such a liquid called would cause cost except for greater. congress are to consider and has in the ast considered either twting the espionage act to resolve these ambiguies rhohtcost thyoaanour . y nsaness. >> thank you very much. let me say that the yellow and red lights don't seem to be working, so i will help the wiesses wrapup, and thank you, pfso thlo la?pe wituthep >> could you please pull the mic a little closer to you and make sure it is turned on. [inaudible] >> for your invitation and also the membs of the committee.

mrchairm, my wy h - ud] their airport they dedicated a certain portion of the terminal to a memorial to midway. very appropriate, but while there is a great quote from pr se ewsehr of the battle of midway. what he said on that memorial i think if every important for us to be. he looked back at the naval intelligence apparatus at midway. he said, the fate of the natnite theiwo careers to peace and war to regular intelligence. that intelligence gave the edge at me with the it really meant the difference between life and death, victory and defeat. totoiseqy tal th teanei ut happened is in my lifetime unprecedented. we all have seen leaks.

i've been around government for the better part of 30 years. if you see government you se leaks. biiseds vrylly l,ryadston os pt and so if you try to amend the espionage act, you've got to be very, very careful, but i've been much associate myself with reluanms if being extemy i in what you must do first is look back at the original, going back all the way to philadelphia, between furthering sponsibility, between particularly the obligation of maure e eteing oendeto wheaconsoa i that we seek him as i said, something i never thought i would ever see in my lifetime. when the articles began to appear, when his book appeared, i never thught i wuld see ose veonerng usin oprth

e n, hen you --against his sovereign power companies and children that is by definition an act of war. pure and civil. and the key thg about intelligence sr mbty wit ve armies marched and navy's sale. that's what just happened. now, with iran, they have links of care that other people are much for expert than i m but on this eyhwoa o etyrom general keith alexander. general alexander happened have been my student at the war college. what he said was we are an extremely vulnerable, too. any form of terrorism by virtue of cyberm caudts how sort of people in glass houses should not throw stones. that's what just happened here. and we look at he.

it should bring the committee of sure but becase you get a esagt nkcahepublt he dy erh s. ggerpfor what this congress can do in terms of investigation but i've been here myself. [inaudible] it's true i was in these halls for to occasion. thec as aco1994.ichols but and both of those actual landmark legislation to they were both accompanied by a gret degree of rigor. intellectual, every othe way. to make sure the laws that ae being loed are bng orza w the oldest game in the town. is look at time and again. finally, we need to adjust this law, here's why. with the cquisition, 800 laws and said here is ho defense he h whst

statute. that was done. by the way, hat statute that was passed in 1994 is still the remaini statute today. so there's every means and i think incentive forthib mrndcoouso correct. [inaudible] international age. we are now in an information ag what you do when you on source id ostu whu. foe 1ven ng ivfr it. now doing some writing on i'll tell you i've never seen anything remotely like this where suddenly have the access to information that you. and some conr xcesof thn 94 legislation was whistleblowing to guess what? it extremely important to do now as well. the last thing i would say to you, we also had to be very

teyihpeoing tis case,i'l poon.eir what mr. sankar did was -- what mr. sankar did was having a kgb operation running against the white house. yooui hho investigatewch inred noboeo n somewhat, let's put this, let me put this to make sure they are well aware of what the rights are and make very sure of the fact that there's accountability their first and foremost. more thanta, il ly one key thing, make very sure that when you look at them, you look into things from the stand of -- [inaudible] thank you, mr. chair spent t ychanr vlade. nsen, inmb otisui es e omee anu thvion testify today.

and in such distant which cover. i've read on as i previously alongside professor sales and mr. wainstein, buthe factthat we in colonel allard contued to be called beforeyou d of naalurleprehcong y vsoni of the recurring nature of such unauthorized disclosures of classified information and the difficulties that generations of lawmakers, lawyers an addition law professors have confronted trying to address them. th alhug nu rce opi igr ate itofgiving to prosecute those leisure responsible for the unauthorized disclosure of national security information, i hope to convince you two related points that should transcend the politics of the moment. first, nnal secity leas are anysym hemu adieaha is our been alluded to this morning with overclassification to a problem that congress unquestionably has the power if not always the inclination to amiorate.

beestaaonsur if the submiee s helar obwia oon and that this administrations fairly aggressive track record has not been sufficient aggressive, the primary statuteof the federal government has thus far used to prosute alleged leakers, the espionage act which isur been discussed, is terrib ill suited to the es stofgreswatorsfti amllvithe federal classification, and as part of the scheme provide a far more narrowly tailored and carefully crafted sanction, specifically targeted as government employees who intentionally disosop pu wutin harm our national security. until and unless reforms like these are undertaken, national security leaks will refer, regardless of whether a democrat or a republican sits in te white house. gome aesrre,iven ot st cd aenpbi sely through these kinds of laks, so long as the

classification regime remains in its current form, this may not be an entirely undesirable result. i won't belabor the members wit a long discourse on e pervasivess ira hsrey d aiwe b tup in the q&a if it's. i just want at a couple of brief points about what has already been said with respect to the espionage act. so mr. wainstein from professor sales talk about the age of elat ai tnage act, themii . stn athe the espionage act does not focus on the initia party who wrongfully discloses national defense infoation, instead it aplies in this term to anyone who knowingly disseminates, the it vyiprtan,e retains i tnk inattoch they are not entitled without immediately turning the material to the relevant government officer authorized to possess it. in other words, the text of the act draws no disssion between the leak, the recipient of the

wedsrretransmits or even retains the national defense information that by that point is already in the public domain. this is a big part of why the act raises such profound first minute questions. not because as professoral suggested with the firstn ghftelr,ut caof fmnn rights of the to retransmit the leak and those of us who read about the leak on the page of "the new york times," the "washington post" and so of the moreover, the potential leak of the espionage act as governor britain, it is a-tef tlwectac projects the disclosure of a violation of any law, rule or regulation only if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and of such information as a specifically required by executive order to beept secret in inrest of naonaldfno oi ire lechth st other federal whistleblower statute. file at the espionage act does not do with a real element -- of

the in group situations where individuals close classified information that ld nev ha bee lifi h rsacclg rmn t wf ventgran ties stssionate every court to consider the question as rejected the o-call improper classification of his correctly by the defendant that could not violate the espionage act because thinfoiohe i clfisingult ve b tig re h rmt el ctt lligence in 1979, the general counsel of the cia described the uncertainties around the espionage act as the worst of both worlds. as he explained cocom on the one hand the laws arde and a ened l int cathmeg cu an b nevent is likely that the very obscurity of these laws serve to deter perfectly jaded exprssion and debate by persons who must be as ensure other liabilities as i am unsu the lion at o v osc

le mhan,la central critique drive somebody who's in the white house should prosecute bashes the lakers will always be a legally and politically fraught proposition to think and look foard to your questions. >> thank you very much. we iloqtns atstilcos gentleman from california. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman but i appreciate that. does anybody believe that a law woo properly come into play with the alleged rvelation of, or participation, if true, in the stuxnet virus orthe flvrs >> i'll give a law professor energy. i think it depends on how the information was tually disclosed.

so -- >> okay, you're going to the question, are u suggesting th it's a qution of erssat o, iuginer ul information, an official has the authority authorize the disclosure, provides that the further i don't know that when the weather not that is true in this case. >> would it bother you to kno that the detail twa riine y meif true, is a level of detail not presented to members of congress such as the chairman of the cybersecurity subcommittee on homeland security? that is, happe tbee aur] >>out g. >> so wouldn't that bother you that an administration that is supposed to b working with the proper role of thelgsiv chvrsight, utilizes

classification in such a way that members are not aware of the particulars, unless they read in yourtms atifais e rkestoic t would bother me but it would hardly be the first time that members of congress found outbout those kind of programs from the press as opposed to the administration. it would bother me no matter who was in congress. >> that allgoes -- that also touratar having malefactors in the executive branch in areas of serious concern. colonel, you said this is unecented. es in yoxen bsel . can you tell you what you believe it is unprecedented, in addition to the fact that you mentioned the experience of midway, i do recall there was an

expression utilize during world war ii that we loose lips sink ships. cycu s autsn n. for reasons that you alexander pointed out on this very hill two days ago, we are vulnerable to delete form of cyber means that we're more dependent on es ud] athou ort g cyber virus comes in to us, the same way we did to iran, apparently, we were vulnerable. [inaudible] buheanact asmehe m boed me was the consistent access he had picked because you can't write, i've written five books myself but you can't write a book in the ship there and talk about these things tat h s e oradeopl t toimt al cu. enqupeatis in, at's like the kgb is

actually in operation spent it at "the new york times" line or they have access to information of a particular detailhat could only have m siio oatn and that's what has been evolving prosecution in the past can you do look to motivation to try and figure out where your investigation would take you. >> that'right. usoenial whobe unreasonable would apparently be involved in the discussions that were revealed in these articles? >> as i read not only mr. sanders but but also - i two chapters are classified top secret code with. i look at the, okay, how do -- i would say ince most great question, who benefits? whose position is enhanced by

th w yeg ts? stioen no s bity it. that is the navy seals who are involved in the operations and thr families. i know that those professionals who were working with usn the era of cybersecity areno naalscrdte ed states are not benefited by this. and so we ought to be looking at what is benefited by this. >> the gentleman's time has expired. t ymrai.eman from virginia, esai fv inutes you can detail things as you head in your statement. you went through the definition of the sins willfully communicatin, meaning any information relad to t enedre t e, pe n ciasso to believe that information could be used to injure the united states or

advantage any other country, a lot working there that subject to interetation. bitaottatttnal ns tlid iar >> it certainly includes military matters. >> you mentioned trade deals, a trade deals not coveed by quote national defense? >> i don't think it clearly is covered in way thatinlligce rmn d covr cod.tioue sof the legislation we've considered included trade deals. >> i think a tade deal argued that could be in some circumstances, but t's not as clrly leva as tary foion intlie inrmatnwude. >> w ngaot only classified information being vered, or can sensitive information has not been classified the covert? >> under the current statute it's possie that unclassifie ucion at leds o

tif rgr imability. >> all classified infortion covered? >> not necessary. there might be some forms of classified information that are not properly classify. there may be some forms that do not relate to national defense. >> iimproperly classified a a fd olagil act ofessor vladeck ghana, most courts, in fact all courts rejected that. >> professorvladeck, we had aks to the e fhe t w pgo rs if -- is a reporter liable for this if he reports what he heard speakers we talked about this before. think the text of the statute i think could be used to go after a reporr. efohe ct is t ima b en h after falling onto it when he is not entitled to but i think the comp has always been very, very reluctant to

pursue those cases because of the very serious first amendment concerns they raised it but in the pentan cses -- papers caseous,aou urou tpth york times from publishing the pentagon papers, the nixon admin session could potentially prosecute th after the fact. >> so the state of a long out i what? >> i think the best i can say is the law isuncear. inesorofesagn ocs t e gomeas osecuted a third party. that is a recipient of information as opposed to the leader. that case fell apart. that was the aipac case in virginia 2000 by. i think of the series was an thoscornve ysuchacase but ucoiithe cannot prosecute. so that's why i referenced that would about the uncertainty about the scope of the tatute. >> if you're talking about the press generally, we've got some big problems, who i a journalistnd whoitit sa gejolipeit espcfr axact

reason as historically resisted giving special content to the press clause of the first amendment because they don't want to draw the distinction between "the new york times" and a blog i think it's a part of the merging is here. >> and then the ls,h blr orli >> well, if the government were to ever to go after julian assange under the espionage act i'm sure that he would try to raise a first amendment claim along the lines it is clearly the press we transmitting this informion. gel,t'efee eeme tlean whistleblower? >> perspective here i ean -- >> doesn't he intends to do harm for this statute? >> the problem is, there's examples of indualwho have been prosecudreakinn hs e wavery good example of the. th's why think of the course of perspective. i think was long, it was the whistleblowing, calling attention to ways our misconduct

on the part of the government, i think sometimes that wl include leaking oation h do.ba iteul ol, nt to? >> there are two things. attesting first of all is irrelevant, is a germane to the national defense? the second thingwhat's your va? lete aines va, wh t tion here? a promiscuous government secrets, or it doesn't intend to do something else was a very tough line to draw. >>hank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman'sime has expired. geemro s ro, mr. gowdy. >> thank you, mr. chair mr. wainstein, you said that leaks have been around for time immemorial but it strikes me one way to have few weeks as to actuly prosecute a put in isonhe pe o e in it alt a

second. i couldn't fi a federal statutory reporter privilege. am i missing it? pregiarr , u'itt tot exist in a statute so the would have to turn to the common law, and i'm not aware of any privileges that are unqualified, and certnly the reporter's privilege would be lited and would be fllowed by. wh bsestefoved to hsarea nihes s an have any limitations on the. so i that maybe you and i together with the help from our friends who e law professors, cacome up with some examples on whether our limitations o people's fst andment rihts. grs scy. atno o professor? >> no, in new york versus minnesota -- >> you don't have to cite the cases. >> information about ships

sailing dates spent how abot hoouud oghn afllln p. of first amendment rights. how about libel? how about government employees? so the notion that the person has no limitations whatsoever is balderdash. legally and s nfs or leaves me with this conclusion. we are asking the u.s. attoney, i think in the district of anif e ol d cynvestigatelea. fomosh an election for permission to subpoena a reporter in a case that may wind up being embarrassing for this administration. so why do we not have a special prosecutor in thiscs? rerring to the internal doj guidelines that require that

attorney general personally signed off on a request to subpoena reporters. >> that's exactly righthat doj is inplac ece prut d the -- >> it's certain not the law. that is just doj policy spent doj policy spent if you look at the espionage act there's nothing in the espionage act as you point out there is no privilege keep in mind, however, you can thakseonthnestigatio, a ycnbut you can also win murder cases without calling the eyewitness. you can win a purchase without calling the dnaexpert. why not send a subpoena to the report? put them in front f gad . coptad go to jail, which is what i thought all reporters aspire to anyway last night i become all of us aspire to be committee chairman. i thought that was the crown jewel in the reporter's resue is to actualo al

giheaty t >> yeah, there's a reporter who got the crown jewel and spend whatever it was, 70 days in jail. you can sleep for 70 days. >> but you make a good point, which is that the eaiest way t ma t cses o ifu thepr'on coeail records spent these were the prosecutor, what would you do other than that? if you were the prosecutor and your job was to get to the bottom of it as quick as you thoto hduy.puuldsend a subpna >> keep in mind, i'm going to defend the existence of the regulation but not necessary to finish the application of it and now -- >> i'm not saying that every line a u.s.a. andeverydistrict in the country should beab o oe rtuot yiha m tsoin important and compelling, if you want you to constitutional analysis, if you want to talk

about computers of scrutiny, something as compelling as national security, and has to asthettornegeneral for rmontsba emasfcpattern four months before a general election. how, you know, we have to have confidence in the outcome. and you have to have confidence in the process. ha da av apee what lots roto y do it? i've never heard of law professors ssilent before. >> i think it asses facts not in enc gel ng quest ofny two u.s. attorneys, two highly regarded u.s. attorneys, specifically chosen for this task -- >> well, as the reporr, has the reporter appeared before a grd jury get? f hweldw.

g j hngr ed >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you very much. chairman snsenbrenner, i first of witnesses, who, from the very varied experiences have made this a very important a interestingh. wad to begin with just two observations. one, i'd like any of you that would like to tell us aotyt,ad r perspective of this subject of national security, that have

come to your attention as a result of the discussion that u ahade elo commtee. t does anyone ave something they would like to add to the record? colonel. >> mr. conyers, when i talk about the fact, 're to be very careful in visi the espiagt,syt, w a special agent myself. i've also been before for federal investigations myself. bad on this article which cam out in 2008. it took is committee, i thought, ittokten e ers$2.3 million to exonerate these people, including myself. so guess what? when i talk about the fact of the law, i know what i'm talking about. g ha

you don't forget that. fortunately, under to tell you that they should probably kill me first because i managed to succeed. believe me when i tell you, if you're not right, they're coming afryou. tr e legislation, be very careful. because you're going right back to piladelphia. >> thank you. . wastwhouo r hiissio i >> i guess you're asking if there's anything new today. the thing that struck me, we're talking about this at the beginning, this is our third hearing on this issue in the la year and a half. 20abuheonache ea tfierfoy al and aftermath of the wiki latest disclosures, and then today, all about what we knew about the espionage act. if anything that reinforces my mind that there's a real

imperative to take legislation and make it, bring it into the mode g. >>nk ouofr les? >> thank you, congressman. the follow-up to what mr. wainstein said. congress did this in 2000 in both houses passed legislation that would've ceated an liweusear. statue along the foalwt leakers. press is a separate issue and emotional public at issue, but that's a question to what e do with government employed to congress act to solve the problem a decade ago. and for sure that legislation disin what the ability is for officials who leak. >> professor vladeck, should we just rewrite th whole subject ofsecurity ls, or hoe stvet 11

version? >> you know, congressman, i think i would go futher. i was in not only would there be a careful calibrate a minute of the espionage act, nt that i thincongress could see spart t rtm he i k reasec historically, has not exercised the power and a that i think clearly it has, to not leave this all up to the executive branch. the atomic energy act in 1954 ov dleciti ler eta forms regard our nation will -- nuclear program. but all of the other classifications done by executive order. and so i think, you know, if the committee is serious abo going rw hnkthat e n'clake i has to be front and point on how we classify national security. ..

t ymr chanan from florida. . sts leaking what reports or diplomatic cables endanger innocent people in harmon our natnal security? >> certainly can come and i think in the wikleaks there was he uoudgtou articularly to buy the documents government public. who knows what's happened to some of them but some of them

fear for their lives. >> colonel come if you could, how would you address your allies? you know, i'm sure ty are concned th rbem r llcerv, o id nr in ability to secrets and such. how would you repair the damage and how would you address it if you could? >> i'mot sure. i was a young intelgence officer in germany during the aringsack in aesk atasay you know what, i'm not going to do that for you because i don't want to see myself on the front page of "the new york times" or "washington post," and i know how they felt. i want t tell you somethg. you ah ee sources to believe and confidence in the united states, that is a huge blow. it takes years to overcome this and i don't think will be over, unless and until this congress 10sses legislationthati g

hao ethe input as well as the output. we are over classified, and so you take everything and you protect none of it. by the way, the iraqi people are tired f paying these things,i we rndhi very well. >> hearing your statements active war gb, unprecedented, consistent access to documents formatn suld sid, yuee u hikhaif this is true it should have been classified? >> there's no question about the fact what's in his book as ll asn the front page of "the new york times" is a valid xercise of classificion. thas not clasifieh inis asri sit of every single one of us here. if all of a sudden the utility's

ock uprising you have him to thank for it. >> so then you would agree that what you've read is in fact true should have been classified, efthsha ou n come stio >> they're absolutely should. as i said in my statement, i was here when the congress investigated. what really bothers me i think about this is it's become an agency for ameican secretsto coeporrspo ndgrhaatul not be happening. i guess the benefit of reporters or whoever are benefiting at te detriment of the merican people, and as you said,e ar puurrpeople what risk. and with that, i am going to yield to my colleague. se bifane leingo

dym lorida for out to me as a lawyer. mr. wainstein, i want you to assume that you and another highly decorated fmer prosecutor and former attorney general and the great state of california mr. lundgren werepodu hsunae poer command subpoena everyone in the situation room, right, before a grand jury? >> congressman, i have to go back to what steve said. it depends on the circumstances bethne n of, you know, who would dds h hou mefwere theeak came from. in terms of the report relating to thepecial counsel, don't quote me on this but they wouldn't be encumbered by the same regulations. so they might be able to go ahead andspea e rr. we tarngb si ote rsaed concerns as well, and i wouldn't be surprised if the special counsel does try to exhaust other avenues of investigation before immediately --

>> that leads to my final question which is this why would porter be entitledt anym otonthete atrorsmewh worked on the white house staff who may have overheard it? why are we affording -- because it's not statutory, and the common law is weak as water -- why ae you giving more protection to a reporter than thersbaee siatioroomf ben part of but that penetrations over time -- it's a concern with not showing the free press. it's a recognition that they serve a very important function in society and if we start subpoenaingtem wit gulaty, ey'rgoint e ret foronm government. and reporters, as you know, reporters serve a vey important function of disclosing wrongdoing ithin the government. not necessarily secrets, but wrongdoing, so it's a balncing act. and th's t re tho th teafoe luce suggest

willy-nilly subpoena reporters on a regular basis. that being said, i am firmly i support when the time is right and the circumstances justify it to bring the reporter come and especially i the case whe ere serous aa othe tenanimhs expired and the gentleman from cafornia, ms. chu. >> thank you mr. chair. i would like to ask a question to professor sales and see what professor vladeck might think about this aftrwas. d its a llowp on h e hepes isgesbye riic that one way to get the flow of classified information as to discourage the press from publishing such information by fili criminal charges or seeking injunctions from court. however, both of these consrig cnuon ee how do we balance the need to keep certain information confidential with the importance of upholding free speech and freedom of press? >> thank yo congresswoman.

if i had an answer to that queson i would probay b18 ths mliollr es. there are compelling values on both sides of the ledger. on the one hand, the first amendment is a guarantee not only of individual rights to speak and receive information, thse eoraomingnt td civic valu d thv t thout transparency and openness. on the other hand, highly classified and properly classified national security information needs to be kept secret. if it les we cannot wipe o osama bin laden if iteaks urgeugnte hobn he different set of considerations are equally vital land is pulling in different directions. it's impossible like to say in the abstract. i think that question can only be resolved in the contt of a specific case, so in"thenew york tmecse fmos nt pee, ht dnati tk? as it turns out, and formation

phill classified wasn't all that embarrassing any way. it was embarrassing but it wasn't operational detail here is the name of our stores in hanoi. it w a history of th u.s. inlvemt insuhta. bncegs the compelling interest in free speech it's easy to see why information of that minimal sensitivity, not no sensitivity but minimal sensitivity, why the balance tilts in favor of the press but on the othrnd, formiooue o e aandcor siuin tracking down osama bin laden is now in jail for three decades that is a much more profound harm to the national securities of first amendment equity in that case might look very diffent. itiks s ne th colloquy with mr. wainstein because mr. wainsin suggested the attorney general guideline is there to protect the press. i think it's also there to protect the government, because i think the more the government was after the press, the ore

exsiara gee inseant pursuing the press and things like this. the more theourt will be inclined to step in and protect the press. if the government builds its credibility for cases along the lines of professor salewhere it mht actuly have asrg b rng the courthouse for a subpoena every time it looks like there's a national security leak. i think the reality is about one stand in possible to strike in e abstract. the closest the supreme court has come is theacmmodati atman peon reinre the highest party and the most disfavored and after the fact prosecutions are a separate issue that will wory about when we get there and i think it says a lot abt the national security we have weathered over time at tre hanevebepoio o mbf hes violating the espionage act. we have never had one. i think th is actually a

strong testament to striking the balance carefully as anything like said. >> professor vladeck, i also wanted to ask about the question wheer esulsguh twoiti there are lots of different reasons why a leak could occur. some are motivated by government whistleblowing and seeking to raise awareness about a issue for policy. moteicios ilhe might just be doing it because of flattery, why a reporter. how much consideration should be given to understand the motivation behind th a >'sreuen. in ry des atsesh am if the harm is the disclosure of the protected information writ large, then i think motivation is relevant. and i think that is part of the problem with the espionage act the way it is currently crafted. that is the premise frowi thnce rmn ot

naal security, it doesn't matter why it's out there. i think a more carefully colored statute could take into account these things suggest if the goal was to reveal wte and fraud fowas tolleaio gomeroheeg perhaps that would be a way to narrow the statute. the problem is the way the law is right now there is no rom for that and we have the conversations here and the editorial pages but not in the urt. thntn etleman'sei got. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we appreciate the witnesses being here. we certainly do. but this department of justice policy to getapprovafrom the isig rssi t marag said the ig policy protects not only the reporter, but ao the

government. and i keep coming back to who is protecting the people? thople are teosat osob protected. how about who is protecting the soldiers? we have a doj policy that protects the ag and one that also protects the reporter. gas noati acting the vvseas? laden? i mean, who is protecting those who are helping us? and i am not getting the impression that we have anybody dng that right now. i know that at this very table hthtoeyne o e edaesty before the full committee in his words there are political dimensions to justice. that goes agains tin y l esi'vr

heard told me and taught me it goes against the free democratic party member teacher i had taught me. they knew this country. denu founded this cotry,nd i iniisa na me n t bwth out for the people and for the man that is going to do three decades in prison unless we firm about stepping up and helping him. i uld keknf o' acitowho is going to stand up and protect those who are out there protecting nests clacks as you are thinking about that let me tell you the father of one of e members told metatatr we'te ao far where they got disclosed and we saw the vice president on tv saying something like let's hear

from themoming and one of the team members told me thas ught-in-w fml pretty instant military protection because they knew that the vice president just outed these guys. and when the president picks that up and starts talking about the sesmsxwhat taliban target helicopter with nearly two dozen of the members who was out there protecting them in the vice president and the president out and? we n trenn asesreno bu about in these other cases the? is their anybody else you could propose the would actually be looking not out for the government, not out for the reporter but for the people, for those that are trying to poect us t tn pe ec ildikhao >> i think those are excellent

points and that is why the doj created this regulation in the first place. let's go back to the first principles. doj recognized there could be a peance f prety o resifo investigating -- >> you left this that's why we have this regulation you're talking about the ones that require the attorney general pesi sta wyre to g is yis toi? >> because of a potential for conflict of interest there is a mechanism now for appointing a special counsel and outside of the normal presidential chain of command to give a measure of independence so they don't have to getapproval fromthe pes use art lsreeo ngtanvga steps such as issuing a subpoena to the reporter. i think the example from 2003 is a very good a samplof a regulation can work in practice. after it was alleged the th

seni admistrion fi >> msome oi tsa attorney general has appointed were asked f an investigation by an inspector general of the doj who got the tape of a conversation with a federal agent, and rather th acting le a uenctor prutdo h road, she turns it over to the federal agent. you better listen to this before i ask you questions. we've got a real problem in the department of justice if that is thekind o pi veat wt ngd i d t of scant the chair after he recognizes the gentleman fro georgia he will recognize himself for the next series f quetios. the ntlen fo gi i' just wondering where is the

moral and dignity in our age and e like that has beendsplayed befos rng e ht when valerie plame, a covert cia action was out by the previous administration, where wa the indianura?ile le i was outraged richard r. medish wasn't prosecuted. he should have been and i still hope he will be felt in her. >> reclaiming my time. i'm glad to know there is at least oneof ycleues n otsif hat ic indignation but i think you may have been by yourself on that. it seems like there was pl ut actors in thata

now, but now we want to beore some h goksan tnk i thea abu ghraib was a good leaked and there were se that are bad. would you generallyaree? smsngvipn sthtat means yes in america. is that correct? seogpl nds owhere yoare flow of information they can

cost lives. they've done so -- maybe they've had some good wes and that wee i don't things you a diagree. ry edleab ughraib so that we could correct what was going on over there and the problem is that sometimes ur lawcan g24s as -- too farce of us to kill free speech, and i think that is a conflict that we probably need thme written by the deputy assistant attorney general john yoo and assistant attorney general advised the u.s. government that acts widely exiv interpretation of

presidential authority. and at least one of these memos was leaked to the public while hers were obtained from litigation. asllywndraidy rtci indefensible. president obama repudiated the opinions and early 2009. the source of the ead for the haeahahv occurredu,e throughout every administration that has served in america. is there any particular reason we should be so dramatically er btteret hekst have occurred? >> if i cold come congress and, you put your finger on an interesting point. but there are good or bad, and

some people will say look we have to alow some because that is the nly y frmion t gd ihe rn iingt buthat is in the case. now congress in its wisdom has paed a series of whistle-blower protection laws that say if you are a whistle-blower if you are a person in the government tosee yonk t nformation oft and in the intelligence community can take it up to the intelligence committee in congress the point being there is an avenue for surfacing the information other than going to the press, so the rgument that de whistle-blowers to take precedence over the espionage of statutes? issiite on isteyveseo

that if you follow as a government employee follow the whistle-blower protection procedure and disclose things to the right of people -- there's a concern thse things have be ffnt >> gem tis expired. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes for the final questions. first of all, ltme potou pl leak it was by an administration reporter and there was a special counsel appointed, patrick fitzgerald the was the attorne for the u.s. dtrict of illns d ine rte convictions critic and we all know who was convicted. the other thing is i agree with of the colonel there's no such

thing as a good week. it'sometinat u are thgtamaged in the natial security realm and that bad leak is that you disagree with it. nobody should get damaged in the tional security realm and the thing ifsoebo is gage whloprti act some do provide for protection of a whistle blower that sends the information up the chain of command to people that have been eared including theemr f snatpenle mme nge. having said all that, this is a very difficult area to legislate, and i don't think we have the time left this congress to deal with te vaou ssues. rsagwi h rofsor vladeck of the espionage act of

1917 is outdated. the tide of espionage this country faces is not the type of in howwri.idi i would point out there was a package that would roll wilson got passed and putting the sedition act which resulted in one of my predecessors s th representative of the fif district oisonsigetng geg e be, constituency that mr. wilson decided the constituency that decided that mr. wilson chose the wrong side to fight for and the firstowar and pent te as ig er itms me that the history of those acts mean that we ave to update that. i am not for having an offical secrets actlike it occurs in

thun kindom,btvme clfionand ey're not to be some type of almost fix liability and the leak somethig that he or shows to be asedsmbyt doesn't have a security classification. finally, and this is the question that i would like to asked me and we will start with you, mr. wst are there anyicanse tg reer in jail for publishing a leak permissible under the first amendmt? >> idphe satchel you can get thicon cas idy heca rne" cull d fahat we've broken the japanese code in 1942 that could've been devastating

and resulted in a loss of thousands of not tens of thousands more american lives under certain circumstances you can see that that if smebody ha donehith punity a leof eue haneahdad ubli ha shi i think would be worthy of prosecution and punishment. >> how about the constitution puniment for those that discsed that actually went up and took out binladen? >> in retrospect what it would have done to world war ii it is hard for me to know if the fact they would operate in the secret for the same damage or not and it aioeat behindte. something that should be looked at by a prosecur. >> here we are talking 70 years after the fact the japanese code on midway perhaps 70 years from cote bu tweo h t

als team six, which i think emphasizes the fact that we do need to update the loss for the professor sales. >> if i could mr. trance, the distinctionbetween punishing and prosecuting te newspar isfrrocug 's very difft nig h leaker whether you should put the reporter in jail that is a bigger stp. >> professor sales, and then my time is already pbn ti i k ant question is yes, it depends. there are circumstances in whic it certainly would be constitutionally permissible to hold reporters to the same criminal slar haer fiit ie ed esexedt olm fact the supreme court in the pentagon papers recognized that there may be circumstances would

be consistent with t first amendment to apply the terms of the espionage act tothe repoerasedif haou euh. i would like to think all of the witnesses for appearing. i think what is a very interesting hearing that has a lot of interrelated and diffict policy usions lvilynkte exness we should take a whack at trying to put something together that updates the law and an attempt to balance the competing interests and how they interrelatwith each other, ecogzing tetaa t begio h process everybody will come and testify against something that is in the law. but i think it is unacceptable tol tiueo teing on the

leaks and as well as the issue of espionage because espionage now is a lot different than it was in the first world war. that having been said, thank you all fo coming and without objetion, the hein i jod.

president obama today begins a campaign tour in virginia house speaker john bonner oke to the construction industry trade group earlier this week in washington. he said he opposes president oba's tax pl. t pdentanoexte e eaxs pele kilsan owr 00 year, but not for

people who make more than 250,000. just before mr. boehner spoke, ohio senator ron portman addressed the grou. hayurause] ulw introduce our first speaker, the honorable rob portman. mr. portman is the junior u.s. senator from ohio. he was elected in 2010 after cova vs regnson velopeg in washington. senator portman previously represented ohio's second district in the house for over a decade bs bfore serving in the cabinet levepost as the unied atepseind te tirr the office of management budget. he was one of just three senate republicans apinted to the joint select committee on

defici reduction, reflection of the broad respt that comman on i ars araiinll business family senator poman has been fighting for pro-growth , ro jobs policies to help get ohio and the natio back on track. please help me in ecomng tobeor. la >> thanks very much. good morning everybody. 's good to have you wed aweou.. ths oup that understands that hard work and risk-taking and investment is what it's gog to take to get this economy back on track and get your business is back on tack, lpwri-class fili n ar t rytotngs moving again. i appreciate the introduction he

mentioned the small business background. we dealt with some construction equipment over theyears, and 40rs ae as out le fbieom had he left his job and the security of a job that health care and at retirement plan and he started s own business and that is the story of many of you because i know mucho ou fom i btyoaato h. a i wld have asked him not to do it because it was a big risk. yoknow the story. mortgage the house, borrowed money, cldn't get moneysound fai broht the moeo y ri gwhis us mas bookkeeper, and five employees lost money the first two years. and, you know, again, there was a kind of risk with your uncle

niasyo oven t. your business is over the years and by the time my brother took t reins of the company, there were a lot 300 employees so a huge company hat that 300 famies greater ccinni in th ar hadpoit a prime example of the kind of american dream new every person has the opportunity to achieve and work hard and take a risk, make the nvestment. unfounaty that is heis ivet h fotsetean i continue to wrk hard to change the direction washington is going. i'm very worried if we don't change the direction the oppounities won't be there for kidsndradsdor htomkendtaecnsn' we? it's good you are here because you are here to talk about why the free enterprise does work

and how we need to get back to the time-honored principles that made the country the envy of the beco oecfetth h etmidlcl on the face of the year that we've become a beacon of hope and opptunity for the rest of the world because of our free enterpse system and because of rewarding hard work, because of the kind of businesses thereyu will created and hoe to bable ecyig again.hs i appreciatehe fact that you were involved in this critical battle and you were we to be talking to people about it and the group standfirm and stands tall. i am a little bias on this because about three yearsa wh rninr edesenate election was in 2010 and this was in 2010 and the first to endorse the in ohe state of ohio was abc

ppe] i appreciate the fact some of those folks are hee today. i haven't had a chance to find them yet but i know brian williams is here is a good friendf mine fromohio and several members ofttactor wohe touhete on behalf of free-market and free enterprise and promoting those interests we now have a republican legislature and republican governor and in ohio we are doing some good things. we are begiing to get the atck otrack areoingt, okn us'sigto or ufr the n generation rather the next election will and some of these decisions are tough politically but they have to be made. ohio is a good model f what washington needs to do, balance the budget without raisingtx brng a jobs not by not just raising taxes but also by reducing some taxes and some

regulations to focus on how to attract binessewhat we need to din ts cny in wain iinyet o ntht i country. if this is unfortunately a difficult time in our economy. some of you saw the job numbers on friday. the fact is, and i don't have to tell you all of this because you have been experiencing it for a few r oe'lin uge ekecom co sce grea depression. it's really sad. when you look at the numbers on friday, we have on employment numbers come ut tht show we only creat bout 80,000 jobs inthicontr. act cmiio wkfce. in other words we are losing ground. when you add up the next three months together it is the next quarter of employment numbers that we have had for two years. we also heard banewsast week outud nc ou ive g gsthdual s

and working with manufacturers. manufacturinactually dropped last week for the first time macng private sector isy ea fine private stor is and find he needs to talk to theeople inhis room and go to the shop flr hinasiest stli medeet and th economy that's not doing fine she did have a solution to it as you know which is that we send more money to washington, higher taxes ony f borrowing 40 cents, some of it from the chinese and others borrowing 40 cents and then take that money and send it backto the states

gomeko'ktates can hire more m much sense. everything will be all right and folks this is the fundamental difference in the philosophy at t vsof mica re ing finti lcio bogrg private sector and doing things in washington not to create jobs the government doesn't create jobs but to create the environment which you are talking about today or are we ing to rae moreee bs istusw bu hewyg remr he stimulus the president said if we put more money in the government we are going to create more jobs he said the unemployment numbers are going to continue to go down the plant today based on the analysisof unoypl 6ident' eomiteam e e unemployment number today is

46% higher than what the president promised devotee if we passed his almost trillion dollars stimulus plan. don't yu thinit's appropriate toold m actafor at ouw,neotl about this because this is a fundamental difference that affects families and ohio and all over this country. if we don't have the right policies in plce we aren't going to get the economy back on track or p people back to wo areotine ac thegng isktaking and free enterprise investment, hard work that is rewarded. that's how we argoing to get the economy going again. so, we all love this country. i believe e presidt loves thiscoury thritin uty,s hed t gi. d inuas how th private economy works. to say it's doing fine and to see the problem is that public economy needs to have more of a stimulus indicate tha the lessons haven't been learned.

bamenoae hmthbl. a te wh he was inheriting a tough economy. but the honest. but in my view, he fumbled the ball. it's time to give the ball to somebody else. who has game plan? who has a tateg to blet t ad eiean the record and the public policy position to do it and that is why i'm supporting mitt romney. [alause] stij typical recory aer a tough recession. it's not. there's something else going on. and i think it goes again to the policies that have been put in place that haven't worked and the policies that we are nt pursuing that yoare advcati weso aug recession lot of you lived through it and

you remember the unemployment numbers and 81 were highethan they were in the most ecent recession. so in that respt was a deeper trygorcveomnwware thhows the difference. at this point after the 1981 recession under ronald reagan's leadership with an aggressive ga a monosf te agenda, we h afr the recession. 7 million net new jobs. think about that today and the weakest recovery since the great depression, we are still own thsaetg ka ti? remember the jobless recovery of 2001, 2003 after the 2001 recession when new jobs were coming back? at this point after the recession we had gained back over 4,000 nwjb oppod

al 5lion jos. so, something isn't working. it's time to try something else. and again, i think it goes right to the policieshat are makg it difficult. somepeople say the president ist doing ougho rea . inwsin, pest is advong and the president has passed is they're making it more difficult to ceate jobs. [applause] we need tofllow raldags pnd ed t es rth policy to get us out of this mess. that's not more government spending. it's not what president obama and the decrats have pursued which is not just more government snding but more ansihec,er aeo class warfare which again yesterday right across the way here we had the president of the united states telling us the way

to get out of the economic problems we are in is to raise taxes on small business ownrs d so intir. we shouldn't be debating whether to deal with the current code by allowing it to extend or not. should have a president that shows leadership and comes to congre and says you know what? wed e ur tmthi whole omts a shot in the arm by taking the code and getting rid of a lot of the loophol and lowering the rates, the marginal rates not just the tax cuts, but a revenue eutral githona i hax eft m. right, left and center are as antiquated desn't work for the american worker. the corporate tax is a mess. it's the highest corporate rate in the industrialized world and i bdnerosing jobs everyd

e bee rs room some of you look a little groggy this morning actually. [laughter] sam adams,who said tht? raisyour ad it as.er i ve sam adams. was started in cincinnati so i'm very proud of that. the of 1% market share. all the other ones are now foreign companies. why are the foreignt ne tomese mph ar more mpetive han noss read our tax code is driving companies overseas. taken by the companies at a premium because their tx code. camaguey gistel rediker corporation from 16.5t . juor e. rit 3 we you add up the state taxes closer to 40%, the highest industrialized world when ronald

reagan reformed to and a half decades ago he took the rate he tat b p%. waing to gt he corporate rate below the average of the countries we compete with. and at two and a half decades, every single one of our trading partnershat developed untrs ar theorldve ngnefteaor eirpotcdbe mpetitive to attract jobs and capital and investment accept knous. as a presidential leadership is required. never in the history of the country ha we done things like taefo oentilentt prenlap i e ak. we don't have it. so, this is part of why we needed new leadership but we so need new policy. let's talabout tt for a second because you are here talkg abouthat eds o ne it elyowhat th ohld i

think is consistent with what you all are talking now. first is tax reform as we talked about it not just about the corporate rate is about the individual rate having a tax tevof le the tacutis now nine times longer than the bible and not nearly as interesting. [laughter] second is regulations. people say well, yo nowat hta arnd america including you all have to look over your shoulder all the time, have to hire more compliance people and literally can't do things the u.s. to do to make sense business lies. are about to shutown ino inx evf-fean ael meya boo it. now, with a heat wave we are experiencing right now and the potential for blackouts because the nee for air conditioning to we want to lose them in a place

like ohio or pennsylvania west virinia d aribytaa. some have been put off but a lot of them haven't and those are the ons that have been put off till right after the election so watch ut. lookhanl sn. coy c e rmn at aer because one state is right to work andhe other is not. does that make sense to you? does that sound like an american approach to economic policy or something likyou woud find in a country that considers ielf bcit he whthmpscnmove? by twy, they are creating more jobs in washington state at the same time. so, it is unbelievable. sshe-brd, is admistraon ias thby se ao approach t ax reform that

makes sense, and that is to force the government to go through a rigorous beneit analysis you are talking about this year, hope you look at our legiation we have bipartisan use tdomionthatdeti. lttihihen' veo do now. an independent agency doesn't have to go fr the cost benefit analysis at all and that is a bigger ad bigger part of the government under this administration. finally, the regulators hould tca hd accountable. so things the can and should do in addition to just taking some of theegulations as we try o do in the congress a couple weeks ago with the new utility regulations andjust stoped them andorcehem to cba coness usny t bepupache administration hasn't been

about 18.3% of t gd paprm he pin use diis h 's at 24% or better. and what happens over the next

ten years it goes up to about 30% and the next ten years about 35% and so on and so on. so the gap here bteenevee agimtaxeform n tax reform is going to raise more revenue by grong the economy. but our problem is not that our taxes are too low. our problem is that our spending is too high and if you look at it stor, 'st s. la the congressionaludget office has asked to make estimates of the 75 year but projection. it's an economic projection that thadth coedatly. tr om and fiscal models, they couldn't do because the spending just gets too high. cbo couldn't even perceive a functioning economy under the federal budget conditions that woulocurnde th en

bee pee htthe int that it just you couldn't have a functioning economy. you can't chase that kind of spending with taxes. you can't catch it so that is the situation that we are in, nojus th hitoc s at in henomy y wthtu neon ango leavyou and that is immoral. it's not just bad economics. it is immoral to do to our country. so, the president isn'tgoing to ad o tesessue hn poitih e e olmmont as fl cosn that he put together, and alan simpson and erskin bowles will tell you that we are not aling with our deficit and ey h a balae - e s there's going to be the end of the day i hope some agreement on this, but it requires

leadership. the president rejected the proposals of his own commission. some mocrats as yo knw a juehtxce on thos that make over enter the $18,000 i think was the number. they don't recognize the that 85% of the small bsinesses and american peter taxes as individuals. theyon'tecogzet mos youtxsnils hony you are? how many of you pay your taxes as individuals? look around you. now this is how america works i'm a allbessown. reiohseen tough. i grew up in a subchapter s company. this is how americ works i know it may be good politics fothe president to play the class warfare car, but it's b an's f h y dl s rssae s

to help. folks, our founding fathers helped us follow democracy unfortunately i believe the proposals we are pursuing today aren't going to help us follow greece into bankruptcy. think that's whe ee muor bn herda inon regulatory relief, tax reform, health care we didn't even get into, but i will just tell you one thing about i heard back in ohio and i assure you all are ing to tk abo itr. etthawde dednsti oo,hether the penalties of tax or not -- and by the way, the supreme court deemed to be tax, by the way that falls disproportionately on the middle-income americans, about 75of he oe f it mak ssn ,0eri a tax? yeah, they said was constitutional because it is a tax. but the problem it is unaffordable. it's unaffordable fr our

families. again, another promise the nocouple thousand down, a couple thousand up. it's unaffordable for you, for businesses, chamber of comerce recently did a survey as small-business owners is is an impedime to job goth to iiopn mpen do you agree with that? that's what i am hearing. and the finally come it is unaffordable for the country. we talked about the debt and deficit and the bankruptcy that awaits us if we don't hn the wntir hs i unsustainable. the health carelaw of course makes it worse because it adds a huge cost. the president said well, its cineutra yhe 0 iolluto canoused to offset the

huge problems we have in medicare but it is an unsustainable program and its current form but used to create this new entitlement of you out of the 500 billion of tax increases otveputg e inse ea t hy2ereax eases and their, you could have made an argument that there was a deficit neutral at one point but now people have looked at the numbers and said in the office isn't even deficit neutral der those circsts e t plaitho mei pld rsnhti doesn't haunt. it just doesn't work to limit and again, there are better ways and that is what is exciting about all of this. there are better ways to get costs under control and we need to deal with the fervoallows lawsuits ande ne tot mtrnlent coie ompete by letting themselves across the state lines through the kind of thing -- [applause] the kind of things that are not donen this legislaon and by

mactre afiol lked ato awsuits and they decided not to deal with it. they looked at providing more competition and transparency and giving us more traces as consumers they decided not to do that. there are lots of things you can thooat xdi alre con idea in my view. they made it less advantageous to get the account. they took away the tax advantages there. unbelievable. so there are things that can and should be done whic would encoure accountability and evenon d essalg agwed esh and policy. energy, another area we have an exciting opportunity to domestic resources here. this administration has aken us the other way. seems li a no-binline, that wod crte tens o ous osruons ht wy t bod t economy, the biggest infrastructure project in america? [applause]

so, there is hope. there is hope. we c get back on our feet. we have beenoualtin onry weehe little guy. were the david and they were the goliath. the civil war tht turned the country apart but brought it together stronger than ever. the great depression. it seemed like it wasever ing nd. cu orld. rath ne were world war i and world war ii veterans, and that kind of spirit that came out of the conflict, the horrible conflict, again, at the end brought the country stronger ogether. we can do that gai pe a eaeat ctnda vare spirit. i will tell you we lost my dad about a year-and-a-half ago, and before he died, all of this was going on with the health care bill and the stimulus and dodd-frank and all the regulions and stuff and i did ask him i said would u doi

n? h ta oal t rie when he was 40-years-old and told you it was a big risk that he almost didn't make it, but he believed in himlf and hebelieved in america, and he beeved in the fact that ifh othsc ullpr o t eaoonr mi acr swe ohio in our case. ..

now we have to give the ball to somebody else and go back to something great which is free enterprise principles so applied to our modern proems. we nd to need regulatory lief woee he csy. dee t swe using energy resources in ways that we never have. we do need to deal with this debt and deficit and create innovative new ways that we n do all of that. because we still are that shining city on the hill that ta a.ore anu thle are playing in washington. god speed. [auslause]

>> i wou now like tontce nex speaker teaof hojo ber ren berves as the 61st speaker of the united states house of representatives where he represents the eighth district in ohio. the son of a tavernowner, spker nerorked hway ugllbe eki sm businessman. he was a member of the gang of seven bets restage the republican revolution, the key author of the original contract with america, chairn of the worcdtilyaon educati a erthou leadership. he has long foughto reform washington d.c.. today, he is focused on removing

government barriers to private-sectorob creationand gomepeg, rmiti rendbung bonds of trust between the american people and their representatives in washington. please help me in welcoming ngressman john boehner. [alaus [applause] [ausood morning everybody. thank you to all of you for what you do the communitiesn which he lived in what he do to help get the american economy going again. you are not going to ar this much in washington because most peop in washington have never had realob d n'alerd hao y life

savings, risk pital, take out loans at the start of business to hire emoyees and buy equipment and hoping you will find a customer and hing that you willfind some bines rith is involved in what you do to help grow the american economy. but i took the same kind of reset all of you did and i wt to say thanks for it what you do li, ouw came herewt d as a small business guide. i came here to fight for a more countable government. but you know many in washington just haven't quite seen the ght as. legeon st fine but we have got some really different views about how our economy works. as a product of the free enterprise system, i am a big

believer in the free enterprise henhin.a lited gnm preninct to metal, micromanage and bin it be late. just look at t stilus bill. what we are seeing with obamacare again is driving up th cost of health care and it's sotoowouncgaer for small is going to vote to repeal all of obamaca. [applause] some in the media k, y h re and his mental obamacare, and after the supreme court's ruling, we announced that we were going to vote again. the media says wide, wide, wide. you ow t. aur] eaboow ne le word, resolve.

we are resolved to get rid of a law that will rend the best health care delivery system the world has ever seen. it will bankrupt our country and it will make it iossieo oco. iy reoit [applause] later this month we will take another round of bills to the floor to reign in e regulatory nightme th is ingn he itottbareh his 149 boards commissions and mandates. is the epa that is driving many businesses out of america. it's the dodd-frank financial anr maesate-regulati that bill, rules regulations. we are going to bring in other rounds of bills to the floor in addition to the over 30 bills that are sitting in the united ates senate, all o which

would reigingury it eerusseak ertoanei businesses and to hire more workers. and then all of this is our plan for america's job creators. the president has got a different pl. he srted talki abt yedain ben this crusade to make those who make $250,000 or more pay higher taxes. he talked about it in 2008 when he ran and talkedbout it in 2009, lkedboutt i0. rd o10 gn b extend all the current tax rates for two years. so here we are back at it again. now let's look at what the president wants to do. by raising tax on those make moran250, h e le aoi b taxed or small-business people.

they have pastor entities just like manyf you and just like i have. i have a subchapter s corp. and the earnings i pay in my business i had to pay wh w wt t pe wxpto create jobs in this country makes no economic sense. maybe he is going to do it because it will have impact on the deficit. the congressional buet office would do thisndhempon euddet ig. u can't hardly even counted so why is the president once again out there beating on this mantra collects the president can't run on his record because his policies, his economic polics aseshetu tthand made tngs li. what this is about, nothing but pure politics. the american people -- this will be a referdum on the president's economic policies. the house will vote again this monthenl he

rrtax tecait h us give more certainty to small businesses in our country and help createore jobs here in america which is what the american people want. so we are going to -- you will see us rise and do o ree seter t tae on listen, we can't raise taxes on the very people we expect to create jobs. listen i'm a small businessman at heart. you know that. i don't feel one bit differently than the first day i t hre toomh. i h 'sboei iheize of government here in washington so that we can allow the free enterprise system to grow. allow the free enterprise system to create opportunities they gave everyone of us in this room it chanc a chance at the geovenn washington under control, the future for my kids and your kids, my grandkids, if i ever have any,

and your grandkids is not going toff ttre because we are going i wor with a glass half full. i'm an optimist and i truly would not have come to washington and surely would not have stayed this long becau you have to be an optimist to fight this fight every day and evhie toseri those freedoms that we are all entitled to and frankly all accustomed to. god bless you and god i lest our country. [applause] [applause]

>> when you think about cyberactors let's put themnt ve gup u nn-es ayo ccral anharris.v not all of those are nationstates. so when you think about the deterrence theory, you are not talking about just nation on nation deterrents very. you have other non-nation-state actors thatou h t an of e cku nnoo oi it. who is attacking your systems? either way, the outcome could be e same.

you lose the finanal sector or cali f pd ysys time. it doesn't matter who did it, you still lose that. so you have got to come up with a defensive rategy that solves that. governors from across the country meeting in williamsburg virginia for the annual meeting of the national governors association.

>> it's been a decade since the department of homeland security was created in the aftermath of a september 11 attacks. the senate homeland security committee recently held a hearing on the departmen imem.tions and potential welarrorm ngwojama erel sit inspector general and the former commandant of the coast guard. naleveio [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, andt t

hearg have thank you all for being here and thank you to the witnesses who we will introduce in a few moments. this is a second inmate's series of hearings the committee is holding on the past, fure o coyoienthnt anniversary of the adoption of the homeland security act in november of 2002, obviously after 9/11. al, setor collins has been good enough to suppor mir i mrvin senate, to take a look back at where we have been in homeland security over the last 10 years but really more important, to look forward and to try to die heindsome of the- si ao aip h can meet the evolving threats. we had a very, and i hope

thereby to create a record which will be of help to this committee and its leadership next year. we h vergood in er wa l w describing the evolving homeland security threat picture. today, we are going to focusn on the department itself, how it is done over the 10 yea, alst 1ar,att lddoin y ahead. the department of homeland security doesn't include all of the federal government's major homeland security agencies. obviously the department of ste, defense, stice, health thy llcencofes ai gome a play very important roles in protecting our homeland security and of course state and local partners as well as the private sector ther pe teliscussed ster

haigca onli. but really the center of homeland security was intended to be the departmentf homeland security. it was intended toe the not only the center int but th therout wn it and also to make sure that we were interacting with a lot of other agencies of the federal, state and local governments thad both theesibynde hond defense. as i look back, i would say the department has come an awful long way in its first decade, but you know this is a mission that tinse h fin destination. it has to continue getting better and there are ways to meet the evolving threat.

and there are ways in which there were some things that ppened that weren't asgood as but, ibao ea ago, the division that congress had for the department of homeland security when we created it was to have a department that would be more than the sum of its parts. inaty laecythatul ti such as border preparedness and infrastructure protection and a department that would helpnsure as we said over and over again after 9/11, that we wouldevergainail tonehe sat ul prevent the next 9/11 from haening. as i have said, think the department has made tremendous stdes forward in the nearly 10 years since the passage of the homeland security act gothe td a.me ofhero

the n mind 10 years ago. al qaeda, which we were focused on of cour, because it claimed credit for 9/11, the attacks against americans and its affiliat heriut noe heeaey catastrophic events of 9/11, since 9/11, which i think is a credit not only to our offense of forces led by the u.s. miliry and intelligence mmunies,ut a te emuskha t me sitpant done. and let me talk about some of the areas where i think there has been significant progress. we have got a screening system now at the points of entry into the west iegd inig cnind rst has become very effective at detecting bad actors trying to enter our country.

our aviation screening system is vastly improved from what we had before 9/11 and we also nave cheob tay rmation sharing on potential threats, not only within the federal government but within state and local governments and that is in large measure to the leadership of dhs and i suor f state olocal site afe aspect of the dhs responsibilities, our nation's preparedness and resnse efforts, led by fema, have improved significantly in the seven yea sinceurne inhiviy ed how inadequate fema was at that point and their response to just about every natural disaster that has occurred in ourcountry since that has been iftltt a jn

ryit reviews. these are important achievements, and we shouldn't forget them in the occasional griping from people who don't like to take their shoes off. where aor e rtment still has a ways to go to fully realize what we want it to be. let me just mention a few of the areas where i think that there is much more to be done. interestingly, most ofhese haveodo t mira oe department, with process if you will, but process is important. for example, the deparent's operational components think are still not adequately inteated i huas wiac o. d that causes problems. it causes at least less than

optimal use of the resource deme o -- is reflected in the annual ratings in the federal human capital survey. ease have impved over the years but nowhere near to the extent needed. the department of homeland security also strgles wit yiequimean feelrrheut omoruion and ensuring that these acquisition programs stay on track while they are underway. the department of homeland security and fortunately is not unique among federal agencies in thisprm,uts the department that we helped create and have responsibility for. their performance in this regard has not been adequate. of course in the years ahead the department in a different wa n ttact t evngme security

threats, including, continuing to increase its improving capabilities wh respect to bersury iesnse to beacn country. the greater challenge of course is that the department of homeland security along with every other federal agency will have to find a way tdo this in eighth piod lac o pps in bts age rot tnear today, the natural tendency is to focus on preserving and protecting current capabilities. but the risk of doing only that is that we will be u mevoing d new threats of tomorrow, so why think and its second decade, the deptment of homeland security will have to be, if keg and put it this way,

as agile as ees a wiav cut back in some of its now traditional areas of responsibility as they seem less rent to thehrdndak atey it i i og tet tts that come along. the three witnesses that we have, congresoman harman, admiral allen and mr. skinn are really uniquely prepared by peceapito ri to our discussion and build exactly the kind of record that i hope this committee will build toand over to t leadership in the next session. i can't ta go you enough for being with ushi mng i okor t ti. narollins. >> thank you mr. chairman.

nearly 10 years ago, the creation of the department of homeland securityrought inineeme a2 differenc focus like a laser on protecting ourk?ñ? country and its citizen. inteheerecyas the chairman atr onlio nf in my judgment, the largest threat of that category is cyberattacks. today, we will examine whether dhs is well-positioned to asl a r longer standing threats. the changing threat landscape at home and abroad requires the departmento be nimble and imaginative,ec a

efficient, quality not often associated with large bureaucracies. yet, the men and women of dhs can take pride in the absence of de, and it's the department contributions supporting numerous terrorist plots. there have been successes and failures over the past 10 years. a igres mha 10 years ago, wenvisioned that dhs would be a clearinghouse for intelligence. although incidents like the failed christmas day undwear inatshg is still imperfect. numerous public and classified

unterterrorist successes since 9/11 demonstrate that formation sharg han pr. is also true with respect to information sharing between dhs and the private sector, and essential partner in the intrretion ofur cry,i privately-owned. their growing network of state and local fusion centers also presents opportunities, not only for the improved dissemination ofnformaon,butlor inig oe l level. as we discussed yesterday however, these centers have yet tochieve their full value. eyl y me esagatan

al ll threats, information in too many cases. tsa, the agency within dhs that is most familiar to the public, has strengthened e airline passenger risk asi i ltresyri t see screeners putting the very young and the very elderly through intrusive and in most cases unnecessary pat-downs. imen melncing pgress towa cu risk-based screening through such efforts as pre-checks but many challenges remain for tsa. dhs has also bolstered the idfion documents, yet to iraqi refugees associated with al qaeda in iraq were arrested in kentucky last year, when

bombmaker whose fingerprints we have had foree le emen our country on humanitarian grounds. it is an understatement to say that work remains. rdo vee end re threats, dhs must support its component agencies with stronger management. since 2003, the gao has desiated theart a it donso because of the management of integration challenges inherent in any large undertakg, but what people deat rot jt realize is at being at risk for waste, fraud

and abuse, it is at risk for program failure and thus, the consequences of being on the high-risk list are serious de mule cgeat hn day when the department is no longer inuded on gao's high-risk list. the roles ofhe department's components have evved over time. aitexe ul , adaptability and can-do attitude of the coast guard. i don't believe that there is another agency within dhs tha adngthw cenbetr job and its expanding mission in the post-9/11 world. this is never more clear than after hurricane katrina.