reviewed. >> how often do those meetings lead to policy changes for you make a decision in the fed goes out and does something our treasury does something or getting involved in the markets, how often does that happen? >> the council is still an early stage of implementing the authority. congress gave it to test with authorities. when a specific responsibility for things like designating financial market utilities a systemic implications. that is a specific responsibility to fsoc has. it gave it a broader coordinating responsibilities and service something and if you've spoken to us to make sure you're not leaving large gaps in the system and the agencies have similar responsibilities for together, not against each other. >> you conceal a treasury secretary traitorous testimony today in our overnight programming on c-span and c-span.org. the treasury secretary is back on capitol hill tomorrow

morning. he testifies before the senate banking committee. you can see it live on our companion network, c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. up next on c-span 2, the two presidential campaigns talk about their foreign-policy priorities.

>> president obama and mitt romney campaign now says discuss foreign policy stances. michele flournoy and richard williamson with mr. romney's camp talk about the violence in the area, iran's nuclear program and national security leaks. the brookings institution hosted this 90 minute discussion. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the brookings institution. a special welcome to the crowd and the other rooms. we are very glad to have the opportunity this afternoon to host a special conversation about the foreign-policy approach is a president obama and governor romney, his

presidential challenger. i am martin indyk, director of the foreign-policy program here at routines. we have for a long time wanted to host both president obama and governor romney to give their foreign-policy speech is your routines, for reasons that will probably be clear to you. they both gave their foreign-policy speeches at another venue. there veterans for foreign wars. i'm not sure why they preferred that i need to brooking, but they did. and the last two days, they both outlined parts of their foreign policies. and of course, as you probably all know, governor romney is embarking on a foreign trip friday, which was taken to london and then to jerusalem.

and so, we thought it was a particularly appropriate time to have a conversation of debate between representatives of obama and romney campaigns. and it is in that spirit that we are delighted to welcome both michele flournoy and rich williamson. michelle is probably known to you because she served from the beginning of the obama administration through february of this year as the undersecretary of defense for policy, where she was principal adviser to the secretary of defense and formulation of national secury and defense policy. and in that capacity led to the development of the defense department needs strategic

guidance. michelle is well known to us here at routines and many times both when she was an administration senior defense department official and also in her previous capacity as the cofounder of the center for a new american security, a new think tank that is doing excellent work with developing national security defense policy. she served in previous administrations as principal deputy secretary of defense for strategy and threat reduction and is now chair of the advisory group of the obama hype reelection campaign. bridge williams then, ambassador is a nonresident senior fellow at the parkinson's to touché now

on leave to the campaign to governor romney. he recently found strategies group in chicago, previously he had a number of distinguished responsibilities in both the reagan, george h.w. bush and george w. bush administrations. first the special assistance to the president and deputy to the chief of staff and in the white house for intergovernmental affairs. as many diplomatic posts have included ambassador to the united nations in geneva, assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs and most recently as president george w. bush's

national envoy to sudan. he is also a longtime member and i think now vice chairman of the tours at the international republican institute. so, we are very glad to welcome both rich and michelle to this podium. proteins prides itself as a nonpartisan think tank and in that context we are hosting this event today. our moderator is a guest scholar of brookings and chief quarters make respondent for cbs and nbc news, former anchor of the nbc "meet the press" program and also most recent lame as the hunting legacy, marvin powell.

it's my pleasure to hand podium to you. >> thank you very much. i assume all of you are foreign policies and in you all realize this is our moment in the sun for this story told presidential campaign. i haven't a clue as to how long it's going to last, but let's take full advantage of it. like all of you, i'm sure that both of the speeches, governor speech, president's speech and what i'm going to do is just sort of run down major highlights a nasty question. starting with iran, every now and then when i think under fire and to listen to the governor president, i ask myself, what is the real difference between the two? because they both want iran to not have nuclear weapons. they are both impatient that the process has gone on for this long. bush just assume for a second,

rich, that governor -- governor obama, get that? [laughter] that governor romney is the did in november and president rana hunter romney takes office next year. what he and his impatience to get this process moving cut off the negotiations and begin more seriously to consider military options? >> it ran as an important issue and i've got to respond with a little context. it was four years ago this month that in israel, senator obama gave an important speech about the middle east and identified iran as perhaps the most growing threat in international security in the middle east. we are more than three and a half years into the obama administration and irrefutably, air and is much closer today than they were three and a half years ago. so whatever the strategy zaire,

they failed. governor romney has been cleared at a nuclear ban is an enormous threat to u.s. security, to our friends in the region and needs to be addressed. >> essentially an excerpt to vote. >> you wholeheartedly -- and yesterday reiterated the view, consistent with the u.n. council is zero enrichment. a suspension of enrichment. >> that has not been up to this point. >> you know what in our opinion, as bismarck said, diplomacy without the threat of force is music without instruments. there is no credible threat of force. no one in tehran or in the region for the obama administration will use force. for example, they legitimately wanted to pursue a policy of

engagement. which contributed to a muted response to the screen resolution brand innocent iranians which are beaten arbitrarily arrested. it meant that he was going to work and to define what sanctions will be in place. and the current engagement in the discussions are going nowhere and they are buying time for iran to contribute. as you know for the press reports, on the people here and now, there are banks in nonsense suggestions of the acceptance of the 3.5 or 5% enrichment. that message to tehran is okay,

we can wait until they move. they keep moving the red lines. >> that would be unacceptable to romney. >> to be unacceptable. >> would be also be impatient to get the process that made, it will bring to the military option. >> you would create a credible threat. he is not taken it off the table. >> the mixed messages we've had, the president gave the firm's speech at aipac. i've got israel's back. use of force on the table. the nextday republicans including governor romney made a reply at work if their position. the day after that president obama said those republicans are causing a war. we undercut what they said was a history with the administration on iran. >> we've got the message.

>> hopefully tehran well. >> from the obama demonstration point of view, what it is beveridge said about a perception out there in the middle east. number one, do you agree there is that perception of the president not choosing to act militarily? >> in spite of what rich said, what is it that she think the obama administration reelected what to do. >> so, i don't share britches characterization yet i'm sure that's very surprising to all of you. you know, the truth is that this is the president who is very careful about what he says and then does what he thinks. you can track that on his iraq policy, afghanistan policy, al qaeda policy. he was very careful when he chose the words he uses with regards to iran, that we must prevent iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, the nuclear armed iran is unacceptable.

>> he also said he does not bluff. >> that is the policy. i think the policy has -- is strongly disagree reject the notion that the policy has failed. the truth is they went through. first you have to give it a chance, international unity behind any sort of effort to pressure. so we went through a period of engagement with a very disappointing response from iran and that is that of the possibility of un-sponsored sanctions against iran. for the u.n. to six abs. including sanctioning the

central banks and so forth. some of those effects are still to be felt because some of the most recent attacks have been felt in july comes to that is still to be fully felt in tehran. at the same time you've had enough for debt negotiations and everyone is felt. the president has been very clear that the military option remains on the table greatest ever taken it off the table. having come from the pentagon. the pentagon planning for this is incredibly robust. it is ready and there is an option. you look at force posture in the present. you know, it is very well-positioned. the president's judgment. >> and how much longer does the president administration feel it

can wait and give the negotiations a chance? >> the key is we have to ensure that iran is not able to enrichment shows that they get a weapon. i think that is what the intelligence community is watching very closely. the judgment as to testify publicly on the hill or more at a minimum. >> let's jump ahead. we've got to do a lot. >> battle. i have no doubt. >> at the assad regime used chemical weapons, and anyway, it's its own people against international for us moving in, >> i can't speak for the president on that issue.

that is going to be his decision and we are now getting into hypotheticals. the president has been very clear under repeated case is that the use of chemical weapons either inside syria or the transfer of weapons to an album it's like al qaeda would be unacceptable and the syrians involved will be held accountable for that. this has been a topic for neighbors as syria will say what will be the end for you prepared for it. i have every confidence the president has taken that very seriously. we'll take a serious substrates to enact that includes syria. the serious in those discussions. >> in what way -- is he talking

about providing american weapons to the ribose? does he know many things they don't know about who the rebels are as a possibility that these weapons could end up in the hands of al qaeda? >> governor romney has been clear and different approach than the president unserious. >> now when the 17 months -- 17,000 people have been killed. the rhetoric to justify to libya action looks pretty hollow when you look at what is happening theory at. over a year ago, governor romney said we should be using our resources to work with the opposition to try to identify moderates, hot and organize for some of the things we had done in other spies. the administration recently has been telling reporters and have it sure is that how five weeks ago we began to work with the

opposition, which is great yet but it's 15 minutes late in the year after governor romney said we should be leaving. fatcat, he said we should be went to arm the moderate opposition. well, we don't even know who they are because there's a vacuum of al qaeda and others who come in. >> to be no year ago who they were? >> you don't know if you don't talk to them. they sent resources into a dialogue flicked it to another parts of the world. so yeah, we didn't. the plain misleading means engaging an issue like syria, one that is according to the centcom commander, the biggest strategic but we can give to a man it says aside a strategically important to the soviet union to say nothing of the humanitarian crisis. the rhetoric used in libya is shown to be hollow in the context of syria and two neighbors and turkey, where we

have interests and alliances. >> at being the case, the idea of the u.s. under president romney, if your president now providing american weapons is correct. he would be provided. >> he uld be willing and support our main moderate factions within the opposition. >> what about moving american forces on the ground to look after the arming of the rebels? >> you know, senator mccain and senator lindsey graham and others have called the safe havens no-fly zones. governor romney has not done that, but he has -- >> he's been asked and he says no. he says that's not his position, but he feels we should have been and should be arming the opposition. but importantly, we shouldn't have been waiting from behind. we should have a year ago been trying to identify and working with the opposition.

>> the administration has been working with the opposition for many, many months, not just the past five weeks, but it's been working with the opposition, first and foremost providing humanitarian assistance and medical supplies. and most importantly in my view, helping them to gain some greater confusion, working with the political opposition to develop a common platform to develop a syria and iraq transition plan. and this is really crucial because you have to have a series because how will change happening theory of? may change will happen in area is if you can gephardt said the inner circle around aside to begin its effect. we start to see that. to do that we need assurance that they will be part of syria and can be part of a new syrian government. and it's very important for them to hear that from the political organization and for them to

really feel that the minority race will be protected and so forth. so i think working the political dimensions of this are the most important piece and that is that this administration has been focused on from the get-go. >> okay, move on to israel for a second. i want to ask you: the president went to cairo in june of 09 and delivered a very important speech to the arab world, is there any thought now that he made a mistake and not at that time going on to jerusalem, which after all is a 40 minute flight from cairo. >> you know, when you judge a president's commitment to israel, you have to look beyond the itinerary comments travel itinerary. the truth is as anyone criticize ronald reagan and his commitment to israel? he never went to israel. is anyone criticize george w. bush? he didn't go to a second term. so what is this administration done to the state of israel? we have increased -- they have

increased security assessment levels to historic levels. it's never been higher. we've added funding to protect israeli citizens coming from gaza. we have stood by them and the u.n. detailing that were trying to condemn israel. >> why is it that there is still the move, the feeling and stories they are so tense. >> it's a good question because there's a lot of playing politics that had bipartisan consensus. but i just wanted predated bricklin carter quotes because it's important to hear from israelis. what is really think about the obama administration. this is from prime minister. he said there's one thing that stands out clearly in the middle east today is that israel and

america stand together. then ehud barak the the president of him as an ally and friend of israel and the obama administration is backing his wrist. he and wide all-encompassing manner. then they went on to say, never have security remains a security been better that than today under president obama. those are israelis talking about the relationship. >> understood. they recuse president obama treating israel and a shabby way and adding his voice to a u.n. chorus of what he called the accusations, threats and insults against israel. now, what was specifically a president romney do to advance the israeli-palestinian negotiation? >> first, let me respond to some main michelle covered because

they think it's important to put some context to your question. i think the very fact that michelle pulled up close and israeli shows the defensiveness of the abundant kesterson on the relationship. secondly, they say this is just a gimmick going, or we can do a second term. >> well, you treat your friends not only with military support in which the obama administration has done quite a bit, as has his previous administrations, but she try to get a condominium of political cooperation. and that has not existed. there have been harsh differences, whether it's dealing with post in an issue, dealing with iran. it symbolized to me by the fact

that the vice president of the united states got the head of state of israel but in 90 minutes for dinner because he is having a temper tantrum. you don't treat any heads of state that way, let alone your friend. >> i would like us not to go through the political language you're excessively. we do read the papers. we do understand that. my question has to do with romney as president. what specifically would he do, propose, danced amid the palestinian israeli negotiations forward. >> first point is the point you made us to cover the middle east for decades, sent an ambassador in indyk has done. the united states can't want this worst of the parties. and you have to have a respectful dialogue, which is why governor romney also beating with palestinian leaders. you don't go public on the negotiating position before you talk to one of the parties who

say is a friend, but it's a difficult problem. anyone who does is not even spending the time you and others in the middle east has or has a different agenda. it's very difficult. you have to continue to try to work for her. you have to manage the tense situation, so there's less friction, violence. >> quote governor romney, while he is in israel this week, to the best of your knowledge come to be discussing prime minister netanyahu, the idea of a joint american israeli operation in syria or against iran? >> is a good reporter's question on the response to someone who's been a government. i'll decide what they want to go public with. >> i'd like to talk about pakistan. i'm sure we've all read widely

from personal experience that president obama is described as being an extremely disturbed concerned about the possible disintegration, quote, unquote of the state of pakistan. and the question comes up, which you do at these nuclear weapons? am wondering first about keeping the description is accurate? and i've got follow-up. >> yes, i think the united states is and should be concerned with the fragility of the governing situation in the state of pakistan. you only have to look at what happened on the civilians died in some of the dynamics between the civilian side and military to be concerned about the long-term future of pakistan and its democracy. >> is that the reason why the president about what he thinks about the future of afghanistan would like to retain a force of

some 20,000 american troops in afghanistan, just in case something dreadful what happened in pakistan with the weapons? >> when the president talks about a follow-on force, a much smaller force in afghanistan post-transition, post 2014, that force is really focused on continuing to train and work with the afghan military so they terrorism in the region.ursuint it is not a force directed at any of aghnista neighbors. ..

but there have been efforts, called for efforts to improve the situation. the thing that worries a lot of people with some of the rhetoric coming out of pakistan and other future nuclear plants in growing their arsenal, diversifying their arsenal and so forth and there would be worrisome development. >> governor romney now seems to accept the president's 2014 deadline which during the primary season he did not. but according to the speech tha.y heo seems open so why the change?

>> the position of 2014 was last fall. so it was there but he's been critical of the president in his view being guided more by political considerations facts on the ground and he's been concerned that the military leadership has not been in support as general petraeus's testimony cia director but i think meshaal is right. pakistan is the enormously difficult between the intelligence committee army, the civilians, the religious factions is a barely functioning state and they've got nuclear weapons that are extremely dangerous and there's no simple answer and the governor understands that. he has said with respect to their tolerance in the western region not taliban force is we should look in conditionality but that's pretty much with the position has been on pakistan so

i just want to acknowledge that the description has a lot of merit him to it and it's one that governor romney understands. >> what is the conditionality? >> if you are going to continue to give the aid to pakistan which is well over a million dollars a year but tolerance of them calling the taliban and other factions to work in the western mountains but believe over and kill americans at this time etc., you begin to pull that back. >> isn't that something that you think about in the administration? >> i think there is -- i wouldn't use the word conditionality per say that i think that the discussion with pakistan after they took some steps to, you know, close the ground lines of communication for the supply and so forth as

we have worked our way back towards a more i think the united states and the said minister sinn fein if his unclear about the areas of cooperation we need to see to be able to continue to move forward with assistance and support beta starting first and foremost with counterterrorism and things related to the safety of the troops in afghanistan. >> moving on to russia and relations with russia. governor romney seems excited with president obama's reset policy towards russia. the governor has described russia i believe as the number one global foe of the united states. first would you think of the governor's criticism? >> i think it is unfair and it misses the tremendous benefits we've gotten from the recent policy. president obama has been clear that we have to have a cooperative relationship with russia where our strategic interests of line.

where we have differences we welcome to to negotiate and press and work through those, but we will not in any way sellout of our allies or allow russia to have spheres of influence and none of that. but what you get from the reset is very tangible progress and some important in areas. the new s.t.a.r.t. agreement, another step in arms control that makes the world a safer that keeps the verification provisions in place that is a very positive development that had broad bipartisan support in the congress. cooperation to transmit forces and supply or supplies through russian territory to get into afghanistan very important. very important political cooperation on sanctions against iran. russia agreed to stop supplying its most sophisticated weaponry on the air defense and so forth, so these things matter and these kinds of cooperation my worry if you took this approach this is

now our new geopolitical foe once again that he would lose a lot of that cooperation that's important to american interests. >> i would like to ask a question of both of you starting with rich. do you think it is possible that we will see in russia under president putin the rise of the arab spurring popular a proxy? >> well, there's been an authoritarian drift in russia during the last three and a half years. i ron ackley if you look at ambassador mccaul's writings when he was at stanford near the end of the bush administration saying bush was too soft and didn't get enough, it has to be magnified if you apply the same standard today. not only the of the authoritarian drift with a european or unwilling to say it was a free and fair election you have an ngo law that passed the last ten days that for the squeezes civil society.

you have had a law that tries to out all independent political parties and provinces. you've got russia with all due respect who has been a lifeline in both syria and in iran. when i was the president's special envoy yesterday, there were things we couldn't get through the u.n. security council on sanctions because china got 6% of its oil. we the together collision of the europeans and others over 20 some countries that put sanctions on their bank and other things so they had to cause trouble. you don't have to wait for russia to say you may do this and you've got russia against the missile defense deployment, you've got russia using their oil to intimidate -- first, to be honest you talk about it, you know, for better or worse i've got less than pleasant guys and

sam, you are not doing good things never surprises them. they know they are not. putin knows what he is doing so we have a fall of politeness we don't want to offend his feathers or whatever. one more thing i have to say because i want to just agree with the earlier comment. president obama says what he means and means what he says and he did that with an open microphone and that should concern us with respect to russia and other places. >> we don't have the conversations with our russian colleagues. they are hard hitting. we have raised human rights and concerns about democracy and the reversals. we've been pounding them both privately and publicly on syria. you know, so there is no holding back. we've been very clear on georgia and so forth, so i think to be fair we should characterize the record accurately.

now the question i have is what exactly what to do differently? what what do sacrifice in the current? what would you be willing to put on the table to take a different approach? beyond the rhetoric what would you do? >> i was of a senior staff on ronald reagan went in the press room and referred the soviet union as an evelyn tire. people in this town and the administration say my god, we've spoken the truth but you can't do that and lo and behold we got the first nuclear reduction in history with the imf treaty under ronald reagan. first to speak the truth. the russian people that are trying to get more space for the civil rights deserve it. the american people deserve to stand up for that. we don't in power them by saying

russia has control over this with iran or syria and i think he would see changed behavior. what you've done is allow them to constantly test the limits and felt they could go further. >> let's move on. the governor says that the white house is leaking classified information for political gain. there was no one more upset and disturbed about the weeks then president obama. he didn't authorize them. they were not authorized. he is appointed to prosecutors to pursue them and the instructions have been very clear that to pursue the fact base wherever it leads you to get to the bottom of this and she's also said that he will hold accountable and pursue the

investigations to the logical conclusions and he will hold accountable and prosecute anybody that is found to have leaked. there's no in the administration that has been more aggressive about pursuing the weeks than this one and i think you can move back to some of the things that happened in the bush administration in terms of how difficult these things are to deal with and yet what you need is a clear presidential direction that this will not stand. it's intolerable, it's unacceptable, and to go after the people that might have been responsible. >> door hands are up. i have to ask you this question before you let loose. do you think that mitt romney was equally disturbed when the bush white house leaked

classified information to bob woodward when he was writing his four books about the iraq and afghanistan war including interviews with the president to respect a don't know if the relationship with bob woodward in these books would come up and i've been reading this ever since i was in school in the watergate days. i've never had a discussion with governor romney, but i find that extremely disturbing. but the leaks that we have seen now are unprecedented. look what happened to israel that was a part of the cyber engagement with iran. do they want this made? >> i've worked in israel. the week's not happening in the government, that's routine. it happens every day. >> let me parcel this.

so you are saying that the israelis like the fact -- >> they don't like it but they live with it. >> they didn't come from israel and you know it, and the president was first and very careful when he said i'm so offended. well, maybe he declassified some of the things of the last minute. the fact is the president picking targets which was highly classified the fact that we engaged in these cyberattack, even the meetings with senior pakistan officials in abu dhabi hurt american security. the president should do a special counsel and should publicly say i've instructed everyone in the white house to respond to every question that is asked to say they should weigh whatever prez confidentiality agreement they did during the leaks and he

should be leading towards the efforts to get to the bottom of it. dianne feinstein made a statement and backed off and identified the white house as a source i believe every reporter knows at least one of the source -- >> one of the things to bear in mind that will save the government a lot of money if you took a look at david sinner's latest book in the back, he lists all the people he spoke to the white house. so, there is no need to go through this entire thing. it's all there. it's all open and public. >> i think it's very important. there's nobody owns outrage about national security leaks tauter dangerous for the country. this president feels that outrage i'm sure governor mitt romney feels that outrage. the president is going after this aggressively.

is that a while ago i was at a forum with the ambassador at large living in syria during the q&a there was a question about what it help the atrocity prevention board if it is better intelligence sharing come and steve mehdi for a thoughtful response and i just said i think the obama administration has figured out how to do it and have the national security adviser. >> let's move on to defense spending. michelle, question for you. >> the president an effort to sidestep the sequestration requirements coming in play at the end of this year has proposed a 500 billion-dollar defense cut over a tenure period of time and the question that i ask is based on a congressional budget office study which says if the president got his way it

would almost be impossible to get everything he wants in his own defense policy because he wouldn't have the money so where do you get the difference and reconcile them? >> i'm glad you asked that question because there was a lot of confusion on this issue including in governor mitt romney's characterization. so, first of all, the president is not advocating $1 trillion of defense cuts. number one. number two, there are two separate issues. the first is there is a budget control act that was passed this past year by a bipartisan majority of congress. all of the congressional republicans who worry about defense issues the german etc they all signed on. $487 billion of cuts over the next ten years the was the planning assignment for the budget the administration did developed for fy 13. secretary leon panetta was very clear this is hard but after so

many years of growth, we think it's possible. and just to be clear that leaves the fy 13 defense budget at 525.4 billion. in fy 17 it envisions budget will grow to 567 billion change. so it is not cutting the base line of defense. yes it is cutting more funding as the war end stand transition happens but it's not cutting the base budget. it is slowing the growth in the budget. just for a fact it's always nice to introduce facts in the discussion. compare the bush other ministration 08 defense spending base budget 479 billion. so this isn't a devastating radical cut in defense spending. this is a reduction in the pace of planned growth so that is the budget control act. that's what the administration said yes we are going to live with a lot of the congress past.

second, sequestration, the sort of hanging over our heads if the congress fails to come up with $1.2 trillion debt deal. the administration has proposed a very balanced approach to putting both revenues and very deep spending cuts on the table to avoid sequestration. if congress fails to act, and right now the republicans in congress are saying we are not going to touch this issue until after the election and we may not allow the revenue to be part of that equation so how will we solve it without being part of the equation that it sequestration goes into effect, then you would see another half a trillion cut in defense and everybody, the president, the secretary to everybody agrees that would be very devastating for the u.s. national security and we want to avoid that at all cost. >> that is helpful. governor romney has said many times that he would like not to

cut the defense budget but rather to add to the defense budget at the same time being consistent with of the general republican pitch for lower taxes. within the framework of the problems that the country has today, with respect to the national debt deficits etc., i don't know anybody who says you can raise defense spending, cut taxes, and accomplish anything with respect to the national debt. so, how do you do that? search? >> introduce you to more people. >> please. i heard -- i heard the same thing in 1979 and 1980, and the economy was crippled with double-digit inflation >> you think it is the same -- >> it's worse because the last three and a half years.

but it can be done. he thinks the of to rebuild our navy. he's called for 14 more ships a year, and he thinks obviously where there's a philosophical difference between president obama and governor ronald reagan on the economy , excuse me governor and president obama the people have been interested in coming governor mitt romney wants to keep discussing that issue and allow the american people to make a decision on the two alternatives. that creates whether you create growth by more revenue and i don't want to spend on a stimulus and other things he would argue are a waste of money versus trying to support the private sector for growth i

would suggest that the president would like to have that debate just about taxes versus no taxes that's why they are trying to posture this. there are reasonable proposals to deal with the defense proportion by mccain and gramm and others the administration refuses to engage them because they want to talk only about taxes. we are willing to have the debate in the context of a larger economic discussion we don't think the current path which allows a diminishing of our defense capabilities allows what's necessary in the century for american leadership for a u.s. interest and the interest of others. >> you think it is possible short of an agreement on the economy and the fiscal cliff that is described for the end of this year you think it's possible short of an agreement

to increase the navy and the army and put more money into defense do you really believe that? >> i believe we can, should and need adequate defense. >> where would you get the money from? >> i would provide one for economic advisers to go through the details. >> i don't think that's appropriate. >> please, give me your answer. >> we can go back. there is a difference of view the president's view is we are going to tax more and provide more stimulus and that's going to have results. the president doesn't want that discussion with the american people. he wants a discussion on taxes. >> to small facts. again, just to put the president's current defense plan in context the army is coming down somewhat in size for

example if the end of the war and i reckon the transition afghanistan. it will still be larger than it was, you know, at the point of 9/11. before the war began. we grew the army to prosecute the war. it can resettle at a size slightly larger than a started. this isn't harming the u.s. national security. you have a free service chief, everett combatant commander in full support behind the president on the budget proposal. so i think that's a very important. the other thing is history should inform the debate we are having about the economy. at the end of the clinton administration, you had a surplus and a very robust economy. you then had the bush administration put in place many of the same policies governor tommy is now advocating economically and at the end of eight years, you had a profound deficit and debt problem. we've tried this before and it

doesn't work. >> i understand the desire to run against george was a second time. >> running against ronald reagan. let's move on. [laughter] >> i think i need a break. >> this part is over now. this part here. but we would love to have your questions and not only your questions here but questions and the spillover crowd next door. please, when you ask your question, identify yourself, please be brief. if you make a speech line going to cut you off and appealed to the panelists that try to be brief and answers so we can get as many people was possible. right here starting in the microphone here please. thank you very much. >> thanks, foreign policy magazine. thanks for taking the time to speak with us and for your service. i wanted to ask about the fact that a lot of the criticism about governor romney's's foreign policy recently has come from republicans themselves and

today bill kristol published a piece on "the weekly standard" criticizing governor romney for saying that he wouldn't hold a national security meeting during the first 100 days of his presidency. there's a feeling among many that he has deep a revised national security in favor of the economic message and failed to offer specifics and details. i wonder if you could react to that and tell us what is the policy of the campaign? >> good question. i think governor romney if you read his book no apologies started on foreign policy in the first three chapters. he laid out his vision of an american sentry and what was required to be able to satisfy it. he amplified and refreshed that in the speech yesterday. he has answered questions about it. there is an understandable desire to have more and more details. and we try to provide those in response to questions about

journalists like yourself and others. he needs to present a world vision and it's dramatically different than president obama and the thrust of how he would approach it whether it is dealing with china or russia or with iran and he's done that. i think my friend will not be supplied there's not enough details. we feel we are laying out a vision for america and it is detailed in the same way other challengers have and we are comfortable and the governors comfortable. >> right over here, please. >> television correspondent from d.c.. >> speak treacly into the microphone, please. >> television correspondent for

d.c.. your registration will be the name issue that from nato for so long now. >> i'm sorry but i did not -- >> the policy of macedonia specifically with regard to nato? is that -- >> we are not hearing you without a microphone what would be your policy towards macedonia keeping in mind we are in iraq and afghanistan for so long and the bees and also members stayed at nikko we haven't been -- >> thank you very much. i think for the obama administration it's been a very important pillar of the policy in europe that the door to nato remains open and that is the countries to follow much of the democracy as sustainable and contributing to the security of

europe but the door should be open and i think first and in practice is very robust engagement exercises and so forth as a part of the partnership for peace and so forth. i think i would expect in the second term that policy to be continued. >> thank you very much. yes, third row right there. hang on. one question at a time. >> jonathan from congressional quarterly. this is a question for mr. williamson. i would like you to answer a question that was presented earlier and that is where the money is going to come from to rebuild the navy and to raise the defense budget. where would that money come from? >> has the governor said yesterday they are coming.

>> in order to have the sort of american sentry he envisions come and to have america in the position internationally the first stop is to renew and rejuvenate the economy. he believes that will come through allowing incentives in the private sector. a different approach on regulation, even at uncertainties including obamacare that will all contribute to a stronger economic growth in the united states and we have many important issues to deal with at home. if we are unable to protect our security interests, the u.s. government is failing its first responsibility to the american

people. >> just to follow that up. until all that happens, that doesn't happen in one day as soon as the government becomes present let's say. in that period of time with their it takes three years or six years or ten years, where are you going to get the money in order to deal with what it is that he says is so vital. that is my problem in understanding this. >> you are entitled to your view. you are entitled to the view of your problem. [laughter] in the last three and a half years whether it's a billion dollars stimulus bill or overregulation, with its dodd-frank or obamacare, etc. come deutsch stifled the growth, and the fact is you've had the

slowest economic recovery since world war ii to read it had the highest of the longest rate of unemployment over eight per cent since the great depression. and so, the policies that you seem to feel are the only ones are not the only ones as a different approach. >> i was asking a question. yes, please. right there. >> thank you. i am a washington correspondent for south korea. i have a question for the ambassador. what is your strategy on north korea was your approach was north korea and that of the obama administration? what do you think about the six-party talks on north korea's program and for pyongyang.

thanks. >> north korea is a tremendously difficult problem and on a bipartisan basis to has been support for the six-party talks. as you know, north korea is sustained by beijing's support to the north and other support to the regime. the approach now for six or seven years bipartisan has through the talks and discussions with beijing to get them to put more pressure on north korea to abandon their nuclear program. clearly it hasn't worked. governor mitt romney has not outlined in detail the policy. we recognize as president bush and as president obama does that china is the leverage point to try to get change coming and we have to continue to work to try to help that. >> i will like to put on a question for a columnist from

india what would be the policy on china, and how would it be any different from what it is that president obama is pursuing in this question? >> one of the strengths of governor mitt romney is a long and very successful business career including in the international business activities, and in the first foreign policy debate in the spartanburg last october for example he said we have to be tough on the ways in which china is tilting the field. he called for us to go to the wto. at that time as was dismissed and elsewhere since then the obama administration has taken china to the wto but i think that is indicative that he would like to -- he looks at china as someone who isn't playing by the rules financially, whether it is the support of their currency, the support of the state controlled businesses, whether

it is in the various trade aspects, and he said he will use the wto and other leverage points on china, and then on human rights, he has taken a further position and i am pleased the obama administration has moved as we all remember when secretary clinton first went to china she said she wouldn't raise human rights and now what is part of the dialogue. the president has made good progress there in my opinion and the governor's opinion. but from day one he is going to raise human-rights issues and has also said we have to be more forward leaning in dealing with the difficulties in the south china sea, which after a think it was the 14 incidents with vietnam or vice versa beginning last summer. secretary clinton did take some initiative and has tried to get some talks going. the had a disappointment at the

recent meeting. governor mitt romney said that is a start, but we have to be firm on the freedom of the sea. so there are differences in the approach and i think especially on the economic issues you can expect -- to express a more forward leaning confrontational approach on china and achieving its holding cost of the american jobs. spec thank you. may i just follow up on that and ask you how do you judge the seriousness of the rising set of problems concerning the south china sea? >> i think we have to take them very seriously. there are a number of countries that have resource claims, territorial claims in the area, and there are these disputes that have the potential to erupt in conflict if mismanaged. we have seen the very aggressive posture of some chinese fishing vessels and so forth, and so, i think secretary clinton has gone

and the president has also talked about this and has made it very clear that we cannot see the use of force to resolve these disputes and i think the fact that the u.s. has shown up the u.s. consistently has naval presence in the region exercising freedom of navigation across the board it has given some confidence to our partners in southeast asia that they can sort of stand up for themselves and for the rules call and for, you know, resulting these disputes peacefully. i do think more needs to be done. but i think this is an area of the world to watch. it's one of the areas that we thought a lot about in making the decision and the president made the decision to rebalanced words asia and pacific given how much that area controls trade flows and contributes to the economy.

>> way in the back on the left. the one behind you. yes. >> ms. flournoy, can you explain to us what are the primary factors behind the administration rejection of farming of the syrian opposition come and do you see any circumstances under which that might change? mr. williamson, the romney campaign has said governor romney if he is elected wouldn't grant exemptions to the sanctions to countries like china if they fail to cut their imports from iran. does that mean governor romney if he were elected wouldn't exercise the national-security waiver to spare the effect of the sanctions? >> i didn't know that you were asking two questions. >> in terms of of indy orman the opposition i think early on their earliest concern was lack of clear information and

reliable information on exactly who the opposition was, where the arms would go, how would you control that and the rest that given that there are some al qaeda elements and other extremists that some of the american arms supplies could fall into the hands of the terrorist organizations and that would pose a very serious downside risk down the line. i think beyond that, but focus of the administration as i said before is on trying to create the basis for transition and so the focus working with the opposition has been to give them communications, logistics, humanitarian, all kinds of assistance to be more coherent and effective, but to keep open the path to step down and for the transition to happen. the last element is that we have had some significant success in

preventing russia from resupplying and rearming the syrian military. i think if he were to launch a major american weapons supply program to the opposition we would lose a lot of leverage with russia and you can basically open the floodgates to be resupplying the military in full and the would-be pouring fuel on the flame of what is looking like an increasingly deadly conflict. >> just to be clear, there are no russian arms currently going to the regime. >> there are lots of things on the books but we have been able to stop the last few shipments from going in to save a turn for example they've prepared a bunch of helicopters and are sending them and we were able to get the russians to turn them around. >> but other equipment is still coming is that right?

>> i think there is some but it's been stopped and turned around and that's important. >> question in the back behind the camera. >> we have a microphone there? >> i am from al jazeera with american interests the last three administrations. what is governor romney's thinking about southeast of europe, what is the big problem? thank you. >> bosnia, kosovo, the of significant problems, tremendous governing problems, tremendous economic problems, kosovo continues to have contributed co ethnic tensions and the u.s. has to be engaged both through the

osce and the european union in those areas and try to find them with a greater capacity so i think in macedonia they continue to be a very precarious situation but for kosovo to be sustainable, it's going to have to have some economic viability which it doesn't have now and hopefully once you have economic growth and there and progress and good governance some of the attention will diminish and begin to have a more sustainable and stable state. >> thank you very much. right up there, standing. the gentleman standing. >> the question for which williamson you mentioned nuclear arms control and one of the things president obama did is continue ronald reagan's start framework with the s.t.a.r.t. framework.

governor romney made quite an impression posing that and criticized by many republican national security leaders who noted that the treaty continues the intersected exception for missile defense continues the on-site verification. >> you have to ask a question, please. >> what governor romney adhere to his criticism of july 2010, and if elected, what he withdraw from the treaty and continue it? >> governor romney's stated his position which he wouldn't have supported the treaty when it was being deliberated in the senate. it is now in force like every new president he will do the review of our existing arms control agreements and other major policies but he said he isn't going to withdraw and i won't speculate. >> a question from the overflow crowd i would like to ask about

this. the person asks what are the approaches to the european relations and the euro crisis specifically. can you help us with that? >> president obama spend a lot but his time and energy revitalizing our alliances and partnerships across europe to read circling gura pass -- we've gone to afghanistan together, libya, done a tremendous amount of work. it's hard to find a policy area we are not lockstep the u.k. and with our nato allies more broadly. i think because of the interconnection between the economy there is a great concern in the and i did states about the crisis and that the administration has been engaged working with other leaders trying to help them take the steps necessary to solve the problem. i don't think anybody envisions

any kind of a bailout or thinks that's necessary but one of the things curious to me and governor romney's's white paper there wasn't a single mention of europe for nato as far as i can find. so the sort of -- i'm very interested in understanding sort of how and maybe we will learn more on this trip, but how does the governor in view europe as a priority in our foreign policy, given that it is the foundation of our most important alliance relationships. >> what about that? >> i think in both response to questions in various speeches over the last year and in the theme of the importance of us to renew and keep our friends and allies close, he's talked about europe. it's obviously that's where he's going on this trip both with respect to the u.k. and in poland. he has expressed concern that in the libya incursion, the largest

economy in europe, germany basically sat on the sidelines there were only a few players that came in and i think with all due respect that shows a certain tension within the nato alliance and the need to work at it, but he feels that europe has been and remains our most important alliance. he's going to reiterate that message when he is in london meeting with the primm minister kim and others and will also be reiterating it when he goes to poland and gives a major speech. >> does he have any specific ideas about the year ago -- euro? >> jim baker said it's hard to have a single monetary system when you have 17 fiscal systems and they are now bearing fruit. the europeans have to sort this out, and there's a tremendous tension obviously on the germans being asked disproportionately

to try to help the mediterranean states. he hasn't felt it was appropriate for him to prescribe solutions but we recognize how difficult it is. he's talked about that and the importance to try to keep europe economically strong. >> question right here. thank you. >> space carroll of the corporation. i would like to ask ms. flournoy and mr. rogers and if you could focus on the geostrategic important countries economically that's of japan and india. japan we've not yet heard i think a position from governor romney on whether or not he would support tpp for japan and india is a country we've been looking at as is possible security partner and i wonder if you can comment on how you see that going forward. >> i think this is an area where we have had a lot of frankly continuity and bipartisan

support. india is an important security partner today to read our military relationship has never been closer. that is growing i think the exercise more with the united states than any other country. we are growing our efforts on piracy and the other things and it is a rising democracy. it's a very, very powerful partner for us in the asian region and we have so many common interests and values and i think this administration has invested a lot in that relationship the first state dinner was for the prime minister. japan is also a critical ally. i think that we have not only continued to invest in that relationship but i think that after the tsunami and the nuclear accident the way we were there for japan was, you know, it was something that our

military forces that were there were so proud and happy to be able to help and be able to be there in a moment of need, and i think that is only solidified the relationship further. we are having very productive discussions about future of the posture and how to adapt that in the security environment and those are going very well so both of those relationships are very vibrant and very strong and continue to be so in the last three years. >> i would just reiterate what was said. one of the successes in the bush administration was to strengthen and we knew the relationship and it's been carried out and that is a good thing for the united states. the governor has been clear that he recognizes the importance of japan and the republic of korea to our security interests but also economically and has expressed those desires to strengthen and work on that relationship.

>> in the back right there in the middle. yes, yes, you. >> no, you, right there, standing up with your hand up. yes. thank you. >> thank you. i'm from the i.t. coast. so i've been here since the beginning. we didn't hear anything about africa, and you heard recently that the ivory coast the forces of the current president have attacked this placed people came and hundreds of people were killed, and i just wanted to know how the current president or the future president of america makes sure that the justice stops and how. thank you very much. >> that is the same person to answer the question. [laughter] >> but no, i think this

administration and this president has spent a lot of time and energy on africa. actually the president visited the continents in the first six months in office. he's been laid out a set of policies that deal not only with very important issues like food security and development assistance and so forth also continued democracy development rule of law and i don't want to get into the particulars of the situation ivory coast today because i think the white house is actively engaged on that and i don't want to sort of insert myself as and administration officials when i'm not one any more but what i can say is any kind there is violence like this, it is on the radar screen and raises serious concern and i am sure there will be appropriate action taken. >> a question also from the overflow crowd and it concerns turkey, another key country.

what kind of thinking has governor romney been involved in looking towards turkey how what he improve the relationship? what does he think about its importance etc? >> turkey obviously has growing importance in six and a half percent of gdp growth in the recent years, something of course we for lac deily, a fraction of that, and china plays a larger role. it's come up in the context of discussions about syria and the need to work closely on both our strategy and support with turkey's efforts to protect its border as we know they've allowed some of the opposition to have offices in turkey. governor romney recognizes turkey's role as both a nato country and in the broad middle east region it's obviously a country that the united states

as a great interest in developing and strengthening the personal relationship with, even though we've seen on some items we are not always going to be an agreement. but i think most of our discussion has been in the context of the crisis in syria, and he clearly has an appreciation of the critical role that turkey plays. >> do ucc obama have fenestration strengthening even beyond where it is today, the relationship with turkey in general but also specifically with respect to syria? >> i think turkey's very close partner right now and syria and those engagements are daily and intensive, and we've been working very well together. i think the administration has recognized the new and growing role that turkey is playing particularly looking east they've been very important on syria and iran but we have also

taken pains to continue to make sure they stay anchored in europe and nato and i think the missile defense program that has now been adopted and then endorsed at the nato summits having turkey a critical part of that agreeing to host on the radar is key as continuing to have the cooperation with poletti of romania and spain all of whom will be hosting elements of a system that will provide more capability come over cost and be deployed sooner than the predecessor system. >> we are honored to have a question from martin if we can get a microphone to him. >> i wonder if i can step up and brought in the lens a little bit and ask you a more general strategic question about the strategy to the candidates.

president obama placed a lot of emphasis on shaping an emerging global order which china, india, brazil, other powers will have a seat at the table and he's worked quite hard this multilateral approach. i wonder first fall whether the governor has a different approach to the rise of these powers, and whether president obama and his second term if he has won will still make this a priority. >> why don't you start? >> sure. first it's important to make the comment that governor mitt romney believes it is important to engage. it's important to seek multilateral cooperation, kallur de shom and recognize the powers

are shifting with the powers in china, india, brazil, and that means shifting some of the way you do business. having said that, i think there is a fundamental difference in how they viewed the world. i think the president has a very legitimate -- as one person wrote, one commentator wrote the president went to china thinking his ideas and eloquence would have been their behavior and the chinese found that curious and looked at their interests. i think governor romney believes all countries to get their interest and they should and that that means sometimes you have a different way you work with them.

so there is a difference in what we would argue or suggest that the governor romney is more in the tradition of kennedy and ronald reagan and that. >> i have to say something. hours watching the president make decisions in the national security council meetings and so forth, he is first and foremost a patriot and a pragmatist. he starts with american interest. but he also believes that we have to be -- it benefits us when we are also true to our values. when we say respect for international law, it's not something somebody else created. we created the international system that came out of world war ii. it's based on our volume and notion of the law so when we respect that, we are advancing our own interest in keeping that

system. it has to adapt to accommodate new players and we need to fight -- ivies integrated it's not an idealistic notion. this is the essential to we are. and you don't have to choose between pursuing interests and being true to your values. you can do them both at the same time and that is exactly what he's been doing remarkably i think over the last four years. >> would you like to comment on that? >> we have been very clear on the differences on syria. this is a president who was one of the first if not the first to call to recognize the horrors of what was happening to press millions of dollars of humanitarian assistance on the table and to read the effort to help both the opposition get

them to be cohesive so that they have a viable chance of transition. i think we have been consistent in our values in the way that we have approached syria. >> what i would like to say as we wrap up and i am terribly sorry to those raising your hands but our time is up and we have to fold. this has been a wonderful discussion and we ought to take it on the road. [laughter] >> thank you both very much for coming. [applause] may i just ask that you all remain seated while the panelists have an opportunity to leave? it will just be a minute or so. thank you damage.

>> it is the traditional common law judges not to apply. we get clobbered by the press all the time. i can't tell you how many wonderful letters i've written to "the washington post" just for my own satisfaction and then wrapped up and thrown away. >> you don't send them? >> that is the tradition you do not respond to criticism. as the mexican courtesy of justice reflects homeland security secretary janet napolitano testified on capitol hill about terrorist threats ..

mr. reid: mr. president, republicans' tax hike on the middle class has just been defeated. their plan would have raised taxes by about a thousand dollars for 25 million middle-class families. while giving millionaires an

average of $160,000 pay benefits, tax benefits, a tax break. let's look at that. what their bill would do is raise taxes for 25 million middle-class families by about a thousand dollars a year, and it would give millionaires $160,000 tax break. those numbers are staggering. their bill would have raised taxes on parents trying to pay for college, on families, especially large families with children, so it's no wonder a majority of the united states senate opposed that legislation. in just a short time, there will be a bill that will pass to cut taxes for 98% of americans, including every middle-class taxpayer and more than 97% of

small businesses. this plan, proposed by president obama, would cut taxes for 114 million american families. theirs raises taxes for 25 million middle-class families. this is the only bill that has a chance of becoming law, so it's the only plan that would actually give a middle-class family the security of avoiding their fiscal cliff. the house should take this legislation up and pass it. president obama believes we must keep taxes low for 98% of americans. democrats agree, so does a majority of americans. mr. president, the majority of americans, including the majority of republicans around this country, believe taxes should remain low for the middle class, but the top 2% should pay their fair share to reduce the debt. the bill the senate is about to pass respects the will of the american people, including a

majority of republicans in america outside the halls of this congress. members of congress, the republicans, disagree with the majority of republicans. the president, of course, has said he will sign the bill immediately. now republicans are threatening to hide behind yet another arcane procedural maneuver to stall this crucial legislation. they are threat toning do something. this will get the attention of the american people. they will say oh, no. mr. president, they are threatening to do something called we're going to blue slip this because revenue was originated in the house of representatives. mr. president, my colleagues have very short memories. senate republicans are all too happy to bypass the procedural hoop when it suits their purposes. they're willing -- they're willing to go around it when

it's time to reauthorize f.a.a. they're willing to sidestep it when we pass the violence against women. we did that here in the senate. they're willing to dodge it when we pass the transportation bill, which is so important to this country. but now their excuse for stalling a tax cut for 98% of the american people is an old procedural trick that the american public does not understand and rightfully so. if republicans in the house fail to act on this bill, taxes will rise by $2,200 for the typical middle-class family of four. that's $2,200 less to spend on gas, groceries, rent and life in general for these people. this tax hike on ordinary families couldn't come at a worse time, just as our economy is doing its utmost to get back on its feet. republicans should not force middle-class families off their fiscal cliff to protect more wasteful giveaways to

millionaires and billionaires, an average of $160,000 a year per millionaire. democrats believe this country can't afford more budget-busting giveaways for the top 2% of earners. mr. president, again, republicans in america agree with us. it's only here in the senate that the republicans don't agree. but that's a debate we're willing to have. house republicans need not hold tax cuts for the middle class hostage in order to have that debate. they can and should pass our middle-class tax cut immediately. once we give middle-class middle-class families security, we can spend the next five months debating whether wealthy families need more tax breaks. we know how the american people feel -- just like we do. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? first of all, let me welcome the vice president here today, our good friend who served for so many years in the senate. it reminds me of the negotiatio that he and i conducted in

december of 2010. i got a call from the vice president one day and he said the president thought we ought to talk over the possibility of extending the current tack rates for everyone because the economy is not doing very well and the worst thing we could do would be to raise taxes on anyone in the middle of this economic situation. i said mr. vice president, i think that's something we would be interested in. and so the vice president and i negotiated for a period of time and agreed that because the economy was not doing well in december, 2010, we ought to extend the current tax rates for everyone. i can remember the signing ceremony. i was there. the majority leader was not. the speaker of the house was not. the president made a speech in signing an extension of the current tax rates for everyone that i could have made myself. 40 members of the senate on the

democratic side voted for it. now, today my colleagues, the economy is growing slower than it was in december of 2010. so we know this is not about the economy. we know this is about the election. we all know there is an election going on. there is a politician from time to time that practiced here in the senate. i'm not offended by that. but what the american people, i think, would like to hear from us is a response to the economic situation. this proposal guarantees that taxes are going to go up on roughly a million of our most successful small businesses. over 50% of small business income, 25% of the work force will be affected by it. it guarantees the taxes go up on

capital gains, on dividends, which provides the income for a huge number of our senior citizens. this is a uniquely bad idea. it may poll well, as my friend, the majority leader, indicated, but of course the fact that he needed to mention that illustrates the point. this is more about the election than it is about the economy. so i would predict there would probably be bipartisan opposition to this proposal. i'm sure a few arms have been twisted in order to get the result. vice president is at a disadvantage, he can't speak, being an occupant of the chair. but in this particular instance, in this particular instance, he is actually better not to because he would have the dilemma of trying to explain the difference between the economic situation the country confronts

today and the condition the country confronted in december of 2010 when the economy was doing better. so be grateful, i say to my friend, the vice president. this is a debate i don't think you would want to lead. so with that, my colleagues and friends, i urge a no vote on this very, very bad idea for the u.s. economy. mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president? in 2010, the country was staring at what had taken place the prior eight years. eight million jobs lost. what's happened in the years since 2010 that my friend, the republican leader, talks about? this administration has created 4.5 million jobs. we haven't -- we haven't filled the hole all that we lost during the eight years of the prior president, but we've made some

progress. we all acknowledge we need to do more, but don't ever compare, don't ever compare today with 2010. now, mr. president, first of all, everyone understands all you folks who love to give tax cuts to the millionaires, our bill does that also. the first $250,000 that they make is -- they are treated just like a middle-class family. now, i would also point everyone to this. i've talked about the republicans around the country supporting this legislation. of course they do. they know the deficit needs to be handled and they know that about a trillion dollars is what our legislation will do to fill the hole of the debt. but, mr. president, also people who are in this great country of ours, who have done so well, they understand that they are supposed to contribute more. they know that.

my friend doesn't like to hear polls, but let me give him another one. 65% of these really rich people are willing to pay more taxes. again, the people who are unwilling to do this are people who signed a pledge for this person, grover norquist. and remember, there was a little vacillating about a month ago, so he came up here and had somebody renew their vows with him. so, mr. president, we are on the side of the angels. we're on the side of the american people because this legislation that is going to pass is what is good for the american people. i ask that we have a vote now. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, let me briefly add -- let me just briefly add. i listened carefully to what my friend, the majority leader, said. he once again was making it

clear this is about the campaign -- about the campaign and not about the economy. but if you listen carefully to the rhetoric, what essaying here is these million businesses didn't create this success, that we somehow need to take this money because we'll spend it better on their behalf. now, i know my colleague is going to get the last word, and that's fine, i'm happy for him to have it, but the fact of the matter is this -- the economy is in worse shape today than it was in december of 2010, worse shape today. the growth rate is slower. the president signed this bill, advocated its passage back then because the economy didn't need to get hit with a big tax increase. the growth rate is slower today. the economic situation remains largely the same.

the worst thing we could do in the middle of this economic condition is to pass this tax increase. now, my friend, the majority leader, can have the last word and then we'll be happy to go to a vote. mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president? the vice president: the majority leader. mr. reid: they may have different newspapers in kentucky than i read. i get my nevada clips every day. i try to read some papers from back here. we have now 28 months, 28 months of job growth in the private sector, 20 months in a row. that's pretty good. now, mr. president, this legislation is about the debt. it's about the debt. we have to do something about the debt, and we have tried mightily to do that. we have tried mightily. we had the conrad-judd gregg legislation. seven people who were republican senators who cosponsored that

wouldn't vote for it and allow me to get it on the floor because they had adopted the republican leader's philosophy that the most important thing we can do is defeat president obama for re-election. then we went to simpson-bowles, which was a program we put together when we couldn't get that legislation, it was so good, by two of our best financial minds in the senate, judd gregg and kent conrad, and simpson-bowles didn't make it. then we had a series of talks with the president and this speaker. always, we could never quite get it done. why? even though my friend, and i care about him, john boehner, said i want to do big things, not little things. one of the little things he couldn't do is get his caucus to make just a little bit of revenue so we could make a big deal, the grand bargain. then we tried the biden talks. the majority leader of the house of representatives walked out on those talks. th

then we had the super committee. a week before, by statute, patty murray and her troops were supposed to offer legislation, i got a letter signed by virtually every republican senator saying no thanks, grover wins again. no revenues. so, mr. president, this is about our country, about doing something about a debt. it will contribute about a trillion dollars to the debt. that's not bad. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. . mr. reid: here we go again. mr. mcconnell: i heard my good friend the majority leader say this is about the deficit. this would produce about enough revenue to operate the government for about a week. this would produce about enough revenue to operate the government for about a week. this is not about the deficit or the debt. this is about the campaign. we all know there's a campaign

going on, but why don't we do serious legislating here? no budget, no appropriation bills, no d.o.d. authorization bills. when are we going to actually pass things in the senate? this is a uniquely bad idea for the economy. the good news, i can say to to the american people, it isn't going to happen. today. it ought not to happen any time. this is part of the fiscal cliff that we're facing at the end of the year. the chairman of the fed is concerned about it, the congressional budget office, which republicans certainly don't run, is concerned about it. we've heard talk on the other side we should have thelma and louise economics. just drive the country right off the cliff. all get in the car and go right

off the cliff together. and see what it's like. look, the american people know a campaign is going on but why don't we in here try to do something important for the country now? the campaign will take care of itself. this is not a serious piece of legislation because it's not going anywhere, and thank goodness it's not going anywhere because it would be bad for the economy. the single worst thing we could do to the country. mr. reid: mr. president? the vice president: the majority leader. mr. reid: required reading for decades now has been george orwell. college students now read it just like i did when i was in college. george orwell. he came to the conclusion that we would arrive at a time where up was down and down was up. and that's what my friend the republican leader has done.

if there were ever a statement that's orwellian, it's his. we haven't done the appropriation bill. do you think, just stop and think just a minute, do you think 85 filibusters had a thing to do with that? 85. we haven't done a budget. that is poppy cock. we have one. we did it, and my republican friends, i appreciate it, voted with us. we have our numbers right now and we could have done every appropriation bill, senator inouye marked them up, chairman inouye but we can't do them because we have to overcome 85 filibusters. and for my friend to talk about let's do something important, please. is this bill we're going to pass important? you bet it is. and he said it wouldn't pay for the government for a week or whatever the number was. mr. president, over ten years it's a trillion bucks. one year, a hundred billion.

that's even in las vegas not chump change. chump change. 51 to 48. after the vote, minnesota senator al franken came to the senate floor to talk about his i friend and former "saturday: wit night live" writing partner, tom davis who died last week. >> i rise today to talk about lost. i know i keep fromans when minn. when i talk about out to the families and friends of those who died and for those who were wounded in that massacre. anyone who has lost before can only feel outrage, horror and profound sadness. so many of those who died were

so young. a number died heroically shielding a loved one from the mad man's bullet. so much grief, so much suffering is just unspeakable. the one hopeful lesson we can draw from this tragedy comes from the stories of courage and selflessness we've heard about those who were in the theater and the first responders and the outpouring from the community of aurora and the rest of the nation. minnesota unfortunately has also seen its share of senseless violence, something no state is immune to. hopefully out of this tragedy we can draw lessons that will make this, these kinds of tragedies far less common. but today i've come to the floor to talk about a personal loss to me and to so many of his friends and family and fans, a minnesotan who brought so much

laughter, so much joy to his fellow minnesotans and to millions and millions of americans. my friend, tom davis, died last thursday after he was diagnosed three years ago with cancer. i had the privilege to be tom's comedy partner and best friend for over 20 years. we started working together in high school in minnesota and did standup together for years and were among two of the original writers for "sat night live." -- for saturday night live. i spoke with tom's mom jean last thursday not long after tom died. she told me how fondly she remembered the laughter that came from the basement when tom and i started writing together in high school over 40 years ago. that's what i remember about tom: his laughter. i last saw tom about two weeks ago at his home in hudson, new york. dan akroyd who collaborated so

often with tom, was there too with his wife donna and tom's wife mimi. we laughed and laughed. tom's humor was always sardonic. as you might expect, it was a little more sardonic that day than usual. but his humor also had a sweetness about it. we laughed, but tom told us that he was ready to go. he faced death with great humor and courage. tom created laughter. the obituary cited tom's body of work, some of it. he and dan akroyd created the cone heads, nick the lounge singer and on and on and on. this started an outpouring of blogging on the internet, people writing about the tom and the laughs he brought them. i was happy to see him get his

due. people called him an original. he was. they called him a brilliant comedian. he was. since last thursday i've been hearing from our friends and colleagues, how tom's voice was unique, how so often his stuff came seemingly from out of nowhere. how tom had come up with the biggest laugh of the season in the rewrite of this sketch or that one. or how tom had been the first to nail ed mcmahon's attitude when he and i did khomeini the magnificent and how tom was suft suft -- such a loyal and generous friend. people would always ask me and tom what our favorite moment was on "saturday night live." we worked on so many sketches that it was just impossible to single anything out. both of us would always say that our favorite memory was rolling

on the floor, the 17th floor at 30 rock. rolling on the floor laughing at 2:00 in the morning or 3:00 in the morning at something that someone wrote or at a character someone had just invented. this was that moment of creation. there was the laugh at whatever it was that one of us had come up with combined with the joy that you knew you had something. this is your job. woody allen once said that writing comedy is either easy or it's impossible. when it's impossible, it can be agony, let me tell you. when it's easy, when you're laughing, when you're rolling on the floor literally, when danny or billy or bulushi or steve

martin or any of the many just hilarious people that we had the privilege to work with would come up with something that just made you explode with laughter and roll on the floor there on the 17th floor, that was just pure joy. tom was an improvisational genius, the first public stage we performed at was dudley's. it was the minneapolis of second city based on the same improvisational techniques. tom and i when we were in high school did stand-up there. but while i went off to college, tom joined the company at dudley's and when i came back, i saw that he had mastered improv and mastered it hilariously. now, as a writing team, tom and i brought different strengths to

our craft. sometimes we'd get stuck and tom would find an object. the third year of s.n.l., tom and i were watching tv and we saw yulia child cut herself while doing a cooking segment on i think it was the "today" show. so we wrote a sketch that danny performed brilliantly that is now known as "julia child bleeding to death." the sketch worked so well that when they installed the julia child exhibit at the national museum of american history, in addition to her tv kitchen set -- i think this was at her insistence because she loved it so much -- they included a monitor with the sketch of her bleeding to death on saturday night live. now, when tom and i were writing the sketch, we could not find an

ending, and tom found an object, the phone -- the phone hanging on the wall of julia child's cooking set. and i don't actually think there was one. tom just found it. that's something improv artists do when they are on the stage. they find objects to work with. so danny, as julia child in the sketch, is spurting blood and julia is trying everything, explaining how to make a tourniquet out of a chicken bone and a dish towel, only that doesn't work, and how to use the chicken liver as a natural co[^agulant. nothing is working. she's losing blood. so in desperation, she sees the phone on the wall and turn to it she says "always have the emergency number written down on the phone. oh, it isn't. well, i know what it is. it is 911. she punches 911 and she realizes it is a prop phone and throws it down, sort of in disgust and

then she's gettings would subsidy and then starts rambling on about eating chicken chopped liver on a ritz cracker as a child and finally she colt lapsed and as she's about to die, she says one more "save the liver." it was a tour de force by donny. when i was with danny and tom a couple weeks ago, we started talking about this somehow, and danny said that he remembers me there under the counter pumping the blood. only i wasn't the one pumping the blood. it was tom. and i remember that that was something of a union issue because that's a special effect, pumping blood. pumping the blood to get exactly the right pressure so that danny could release the spurts at precisely the right time. now, every once in a while, the special effects guy or the sound

effects guy would let a writer do the effect because it was all about the timing, come immediateic timing. and also they liked tom. everybody liked tom. and the special effects guy knew that tom knew exactly what to do and it was all about teamwork with danny, who was also controlling the spurting while tom was controlling the pressure. and, man, it was hilarious. soy now, this is live tv -- now, this is live tv. we did hundreds and hundreds of sketches together, a lost stuff that was just so -- a lot of stuff that was just so tombed that it was funny, and we just had so much fun. and tom and i toured together all over the country. i told senator johanns, my friend and colleague from nebraska, that tom and i played

shovron state twice, twice. and yesterday we had a session in which senator sessions introduced someplace in alabama where tom and i played. we did a gig in south dakota to six students because they booked us by mistake during spring break. there were five members of the basketball team who couldn't afford to go back east for the break and a sixth guy who had been grounded because he had gotten caught smoking pot freshman year and they wouldn't let him leave campus except during the summer, for summer vacation. i think this was his junior year. i think tom and i played 45 states. when we flew, we always booked ourselves in aisle seats across from each other, the c and d seats so we could talk to each other. and tom would always get on

first and find our row and if there was a pretty girl in the middle seat of one side, he'd sit next to her. and i'd sit next to the fat, sweaty guy in the mesh shirt, which by the way, i think should not be allowed on the one hand planes. i plan to introduce legislation on that. now, this went on for years. tom would board first and get to our row and take the aisle seat next to an attractive woman or quiet-looking, slender man, and i'd sit next to the large, loud guy who looked like he wanted to talk through the entire flight. and i thought, what a coincidence. tom's aisle seat is always next to the more desirable seatmate. and then one day finally i checked my ticket stub and i saw that tom had taken my seat. and that's when i realized he'd been doing this for years. i said, tom, you've been -- and he said, well, yeah, i was just

waiting for you to figure it out. now, i really to blame myself. tom had played me and it was actually my fault for being kind of a trusting idiot. but tom saved my butt on occasion. we used to go fishing up in the boundary waters, the wilderness area between northern minnesota and canada. tom was expert with a canoe, and i wasn't -- i really wasn't. once we went up there in october. it was kind of cold, but we were catching a lot of walleye and having a great time, and there were three of us, me and tom and our friend jeff. we had put in just one canoe. oned third evening i decided to fish from this point on this island and i cast out and got my

line caught on something. so i decided to go out alone by myself with the canoe and untangle the line. so i'm halfway out and i get caught in this current and start getting carried away from the island that we're camped on, and i start calling for help, and -- now you have to understand we're in the qui quiddico in opennessn october in canada and we have not seen another human being in the three days that we've been there. so tom and jeff come running and yelling and cursing at me because, if i didn't make it back with the canoe, they were pretty much stuck on this island for the winter. and i'm probably dead because i have no gear, nothing. just the paddle which isn't doing my any good at this point.

and this is where tom's improvisational skills came in really handy because he talked me back. he was screaming and cursing, but he talked me out of the current that was carrying me away to my certain death, and i was able to circle back and get to the point, exhausted but so relieved, and maybe that's why i cut him some slack when he played me on the aisle seats years later. now, speaking of cold, tom and i were huge vikings fans. we'd go to the old metropolitan stadium during the bud grant years when grant would not allow heaters on the sideline even when it was below zero. now, i once asked bud grant why he did that, and he said, there are certain things people can do when they're cold. tom and i were there on a very

cold winter afternoon at the vikings-cowboys playoff game, the one where roger staubach threw the hail mary drew peerson pushed off on and he did push off. senator hutchison, senator cornyn go back to the videotape when peerson pushed off, it was offensive pass interference and the vikings should have won that and gone do the super bowl. that's how i and tom saw it, and that's how the fan who threw the whiskey bottle from the bleachers and knocked the ref out saw it. tom and i both saw the bottle blinking in the cold winter sun, as it arced from the bleachers and we were stunned when it hit the ref right in the forehead. that was not minnesota-nice. tom and i suffered through four super bowls losses and through

last season, as sick as he was, tom watched our vikings and complained bitterly to me on the phone later on sunday. tom and i went to a lot of grateful dead shows together, more than even senator leahy. tom and i went to a lot of new year's eve dead shows. this year i went to new york to celebrate new year's with tom and mimi at their home, celebrate what we knew was probably going to be his last. and at midnight we turned on the dead and we danced. now, unlike me, tom became an accomplished guitarist. he could sit in with any rock or blues band. tom was a terrible, terrible student in high school. but the fact is, he was a renaissance man. he loved to read history and philosophy and fiction. he devoted a lot of his last

years to his art, sculpting solely from found objects from the creek that ran by his house in upstate new york. yes, tom was an coverag an orig. some time ago tom and i talked about writing something for this occasion. but about a year or so ago he wrote a piece for a literary magazine that said what needed to be said. it was tom and his take on what he was facing. it is called "the dark side of death." so, i decided to read from it with a few edits for the senate floor, and i ask that the piece in its entirety, with some other edits, be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, it will be included in the record. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president.

"the dark side of death" by tom davis. the good news, my chemotherapy is working and i'm still buying green bananas. i've lost about 50 pounds. i needed to lose 49. false hope is my enemy, also self-pity, which went out the window when i saw children with cancer. i try to embrace the inevitable with whatever grace i can muster and find the joy in each day, and i'm -- i've always been good at that. but now i'm getting really good at that. i wake up in the morning delighted to be waking up, read and write and feed the birds, watch sports on tv, accepting the fact that in the foreseeable future i will be a dead person. i want to remind that you dead people are people, too. there are good dead people and bad dead people. some of my best trends are dead

people. dead people have fought in every war. we're all going to try it sometime. fortunately for me, i've always enjoyed mystery and solitude. many people in my situation say it's been my worst and best year. if that's sounds like cliche, you don't have cancer. i am grateful to have gained not just intellectual empathy. i have gone through life without suffering. i had to turn inward. people from all o -- from all over my life are reconnecting to me and i tried to take responsibility for my deeds, good and bad. i think i've finally grown up. it is odd to have so much time orchestrate the process of my own death. i'm improvising. i've never done this before so far as i know. ironically, i'll probably outlive one or two people to whom i've already said goodbye.

my life has been rife with irony. why stop now? as an old malthusean liberal, i've always believed that the source of all mankind's problems is overpopulation. i'm finally going to do something about it. tom faced death with humor and courage. rest in peace. rest in peace. >> now, homeland security secretary, janet napolitano takes questions about national

security threats in recent political developments across the middle east. secretary napolitano testified before the homeland security committee chaired by then your congressman, peter king. this is about two and a half hours. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. the security committee on homeland security will come to order. before it began proceedings are they to acknowledge that the rest of new member, congressman ron barber from arizona. he succeeds our former colleague, gabby differs for him served as district director in his long distinguished record in arizona. i'm sure secretary napolitano is familiar. getting ganged up by people from arizona. anyway, we look forward to working with you and we appreciate the interest you have shown. >> i'd like to welcome mr. barber from the democratic

reputation for being a hard worker, procedure. we look forward to it. we look forward. thank you very much for being here. >> before we -- we'll with the committee today to this testimony from homeland security, secretary janet napolitano national counterterrorism director, matt you you now recognize myself for an opening statement appeared before he began the opening statement i will defer secretary napolitano to now recognize myself for an opening statement appeared before he began the opening statement i will defer secretary napolitano to read comments and big knowledge that we're just learning the secretary napolitano during yesterday the former homeland security employees were killed in afghanistan this week. thoughts and prayers as former u.s. border patrol agent and retired cbp direct or joseph

perez and they were in afghanistan with contractors supporting the afghan border police in their training efforts and also individual wounded in the senseless attacks. thoughts and prayers go to them and their families. if the secretary wants to comment, i yield to her. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> thank you for your service. i know recognize myself for an opening statement. secretary napolitano's first appearance before a committee in the past 18 months. she's also held a number of unofficial meetings and briefings with members of the committee. under this occurs on both sides of the eleanor to thank for cooperation on that. not all seditious finishing first year as director of

national counterterrorism center. it's a long distinguished record in government prior to that and in his personal capacity of a separate meetings with the men received several briefings from him and whenever there has been an incidence to reach her by phone he was there and provided essential information and again has been more than willing to cooperate with us in any way any thank you for your service and look forward to working with you. when secretary napolitano society in january 2012, she stated the radicalization of u.s. citizens to al qaeda's violent and extremist ideology with it won't come a game. to examine a threat i could be hearings to examine the scope and severity of the threat. that that's really what we're faced with today is little scope and severity of the threat both from homegrown terrorists, terrorist groups around the world and for al qaeda. in the past year, past

achievements have been outstanding achievements from the killing of bin laden, killing of our lucky, and other top al qaeda leaders. yet there's still a in this 112 congress alone there've been 10 al qaeda plots in the north against the united states. in addition to that now replies from iran and the attempted assassinations here in washington to treat his last december. also with iran and israel with the u.s. and iran, iran and neighbors we are concerned about threats to homeland from hezbollah family also have hearings and i look forward to the testimony you have on that, especially seeing that happen in bulgaria to the extent hezbollah was involved in the killing of the israeli children in bulgaria. also, there has been any merchants in the subcommittee we have asked how local rum as a

foreign terrorist organization. i believe that is essential. the justice department is going to have the powers of enforcement that it needs it again this is a growing threat and i look forward to any testimony you have on the issuable carron. on the question of weeks we have a direct impact on security of homeland. it began last year after the killing of bin laden, which was the president deserves tremendous credit. but in the days and weeks following that come in the agreement and after that we have, just two months ago the al qaeda arabian peninsula plot, which details leaked to the media and "the associated press" before the work was completed on that. i believe compromising the effort in there, not just the u.s., but also several other key

allies overseas. then we saw a series of leaks in late may, early june, involving drones, and again these are the most sensitive information that has been given out and appears to me and to senator feinstein and others for people high up in the administration and the white house. this is senator feinstein said unprecedented leaks. i have demanded investigations of all of these. i know on the arrangements between the administration and the cia investigation as a result of that has made several significant structural changes in the cia and the department of defense come inspector general is still carrying out investigations as to all the details of the arrangements between the military and sony pictures and preparation of the film. the inspector general began an investigation after a four-month preliminary investigation as to

whether was oriented. the fbi is carrying out right now investigations of the leaks -- without going into detail, to significant investigations regarding aspects of the leaks. also, a recent matter was hani nour eldin had access to the white house in the united states congress and all discussed this at the secretary. i don't believe the spirit of the law was complied involving visa waiver is and what procedures have to be followed when we are dealing with the designated terrorist organization. i positive note i commend the secretary for the work that's being done is ours to grant system, which will become more and more risk-based. i have particular -- particularly support continuation of the cities

program, which i believe is focused and effective but attacks against urban areas from areas out in the suburbs. similar to what happened in london for three fours the planning attack outside the cities then bringing the devices come in this case nuclear devices in two large urban areas. that program has been going ahead and i like to think the secretary for the continued support we've gotten on that. again, i look forward to the hearings today. i think the issue, while obviously a third difference is on the committee, to some extent perhaps between and among us, the fact is all of us shared a common desire to defeat terrorism, to win this war into do what we can to make sure the counterterrorist forces have all of the weapons and powers they need and support of the congress. so with that, i yield to the

distinguished ranking member, mr. thompson. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman for holding today's hearing. understanding the homeland threat landscape. i want to thank secretary napolitano and direct dirt olsen for appearing this morning. as a meet to consider the homeland that landscape of a we must be mindful that yesterday the leader of al qaeda in iraq issued a videotape message indicating his intentions to carry out attacks within the united states. those new threats required an assessment of our ability to meet our known challenges and address are known vulnerabilities. according to recent reports come in this nation has spent about $360 billion on homeland security is since september 1, 2001, but despite the amount of spending, we have not filled all the gaps. i think most people would agree

that we've made some gains. aviation security, border security, fast response and information sharing activities have been improved. for the most part, these improvements in security have not required us to surrender the constitutional rights and protections that are the cornerstone of this nation's freedom. this nation cannot sacrifice security or freedom in the state of any threat, foreign or domestic. as we look back at the last 11 years, we greatly decrease the nation's vulnerability to attacks. i'd be remiss if i did not mention that this administration's actions abroad from eliminating the threat posed by bin laden to stiffening our military presence has also contributed to decreasing our vulnerabilities at home. however, we must be candid. some vulnerabilities remain the nature of the threat continues to evolve.

as we continue the evolution process, we must focus on the nature of the terrorist access. the most recent incident in this country is have involved lone wolf at jerry hsu ideologically motivated to commit violent acts. we must accept that we will not be able to find every lone wolf terror. but we cannot accept that we are powerless to close opportunities and remove the instrumentalities of destruction. as i stated at a hearing last week, we should not forget that the united states, the last person to crash a plane into a federal building in the field by an antigovernment ideology was a pilot u.s. citizen in texas. gao has reported that the department has testified that we do not check americans seek and play terrorist against the terrorist watch list until they apply for a pilot's license.

the lesson of 9/11 is that we need to keep people who seek to do us harm from being trained as pilots. we must remove the opportunities and instrumentalities of destruction. i've introduced a bill that would require everyone who seeking to be trained as a pilot, make sure that they have vetted against a terrorist watch lists. i hope my colleagues will join me in that effort. as we consider vulnerabilities that remain, i'm disappointed that we've not yet managed to achieve the screening of 100% merry tan cargo, before it reaches our shores. adam secretary, it's my understanding that you have recently signed a blanket to hear waiver of the 100% screening requirement. i do not understand how the department can ignore a statutory man date designed to close a loan vulnerability. search in the cargo before it reaches this country provides us

with the best opportunity to remove instrumentalities of destruction before they reach this country. finally, as we consider threats and vulnerabilities, we must also think about likely targets. gao has introduced several reports highlighting the state to federal building security. and while promises have been made, little change has been. i hope we have not forgotten that a lone wolf terrorist blew up a federal building in oklahoma several years before the events of september 11. timothy mcveigh used this opportunity and create a distraction. we do not need to see this happen again before we take action. in closing, as we begin today's discussion about the homeland threat landscape, i look forward to hearing about how we can move away from merely identifying the problem and move towards finding and implementing solutions. with that, mr. chairman, i yield

back. >> i think the ranking member. i asked if we can recessed a few moments. the problem with the microphone should be fixed in a few moments. the committee stands in recess for hopefully just a few minutes. >> today, nearly 11 years after the 9/11 attacks, america is stronger and more secure thanks to the work of the men and women at dhs and our federal, state, local, tribal and international members across the enterprise. yet while the united states has made significant progress, threats of terror persists and continually evolve. we faced direct threats from al qaeda. we face growing threats from other foreign-based terrorist groups, which are inspired by icon at ideology, but appears to

have few operational connections to the poor al qaeda groups such as the arabian peninsula al-shabaab. perhaps most crucially we face a threat environment were violent extremism is not defined or contained the international borders. today we must address threats that are home-grown as well as those that originate abroad. these threats are not limited to any one individual group or ideology and as we have seen, the attack ex-employee bay terrace can be as simple as a homemade almond or as sophisticated as a biological threat or court needed cyberattack. while we deal with a number of threats and threat at yours at any given time, three areas merit special sustained attention. the first is aviation. with respect to our aviation sector, the christmas day all night plot, the october 2010 air cargo threat and more recent, h. uap plot that would have targeted a u.s. bound airliner with explosives made clear that

commercial aviation target. terrorists, especially aqa pc fleecy circum- bad security measures. their message of tactics are sometimes ingenious and increasingly sophisticated. the second area is fiber. cyberthreats and incidents have increased the affiliate of the past decade. our nation continues to confront a dangerous combination of known and unknown vulnerabilities in cyberspace who is strong and rapidly expanding adversary capabilities and limited threat and vulnerability awareness. we remain hopeful that congress can pass strong cybersecurity legislation this year. and the third area of growing concern is homegrown violent extremism. within the context of u.s.-based violent extremism, we know that foreign terrorist groups affiliated with al qaeda and

individual extremists are actively seeking to recruit or inspire westerners to carry out attacks against western and u.s. targets. recruitment within the united states spans a variety that david is using social media, personal interaction publication of magazines among other things. today the department operates with the understanding that a significant terrorist risk to the homeland is posed by violent extremists inspired by al qaeda. the threat is real as evidenced by the multiple recent thwarted attacks of domestic violent extremists inspired by al qaeda, including the awareness of jason abdo and four to july 11 and the arrest of a need calliope and february 2012 in washington d.c. importantly however, we also know that extremism can be inspired by various religious, political or other ideological beliefs. as the recent terrorist attack

overseas and bulgaria as was featured in last week in aurora, colorado demonstrates, we must remain vigilant and prepared at all times. we mitigate threats in several ways. we worked to build a homeland security enterprise and allow dhs and our partners to share information, minimize risk and maximize our ability to respond and recover from attacks and disasters of all kinds. with respect to the aviation sector, we implement a layer detection system focusing on risk-based screening, enhanced targeting and information sharing while simultaneously facilitating travel for nearly 2 million passengers per day. following the december 9th right, we launched an historic global global initiative to strength in international aviation, which has improved cooperation on passenger and air cargo screening, technology development and deployment information collection and sharing in the development of security standards.

we strengthen information sharing with international partners. for example, new and historic pnr agreement with the e.u. allows us to continue sharing passenger information so they can better identify travelers to merit our attention before they depart the united states. at home, we continued deployment of advanced technology at airports come including aip machines, let the same time implementing new programs to make the screening process more efficient for trusted travelers who program such as tsa pre-check and global entry. ..

and finally, we have even proved our domestic capabilities to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against our citizens, our communities and our critical infrastructure. we have increased our ability analyze and distribute threat information at all levels. specifically, we have worked to build greater an lettic capability through 77 designated fusion centers resulted in unprecedented level of information sharing at the state and local level. we have invested in training for local law enforcement and first responders of all types to increase expertise and capacity at the local level. for example, i have transformed how we train frontline officers regarding suspicious activity

thru's the nation-wide suspicious activity reporting initiative in partnership with dodge. we're in the final stages implementing of counter violent extremism curriculum for federal, state, local, and correctional facility law enforcement officers. it's focused on community oriented policing which will help frontline personnel identical activities that are potential indicators of potential terrorist activity and violence. through the nation-wide expansion of the if you see something, say something campaign, we are encouraging all americans to alert local law enforcement if they see something that is potentially dangerous. in conclusion, dhs has come a long way since 9/11 to enhance the protection of the united states and engage our partners in the shared responsibility. together, we have made significant progress to strengthen the hole land security and enterprise. the many challenges remain. threats against our national

whether by terrorism or otherwise continued to exist and evolve. dhs must continue to evolve as well. we continue to be ever vigilant to protect against threats while promoting travel, trade, and safe guarding our essential rights and liberties. thank the committee for your attention as we work together to keep our nation safe. >> thank you mrs. janet napolitano. thank you for working through the technical problem with us. alissa says -- okay. next witness is matthew olson who serves at director of national counterterrorism prior to joining you had served as general counsel for the social security agency where he served as chief officer for ns ark. he also has served government with the fbi and the department of justice. and it's a pleasure to have him

testify for the first time. director olson? >> thank you very much. i appreciate the opportunity to be here with the committee today to discuss the terrorist threat facing our country and our efforts to combat it and. i'm particularly pleased to be here with secretary janet napolitano and the department of homeland security and nctc are strong partners. i served as direct are for almost a year. and during that year, we're have continued to make steady progress in the fight against terrorism. and at the same time, acts of terror and acts of violence threaten us here and abroad. as you know last week in bulgaria seven people were killed on a bus filled with israeli tourist. there was no suggestion that the shooting in colorado last week was connected to intrcial terrorism. the attack is a loan calculating

shooter can inflict great damage. over the past year, with the guidance and support of congress and this committee, we have placed relentless pressure on the core of al qaeda. we have denied that group safe haven and the ability to plan and train following the death of osama bin laden last year several of the top lieutenants have been eliminated. the leaders that remain lack experience in their under siege. they have an limited ability to recruit and communicate with other operatives. intelligence picture shows that al qaeda core is a shadow of the former self. overall threat is degrading. while the gains are significant -- as well as other terrorist organizations continue to pose a significant threat to the country. al qaeda's core leadership struggles to remain relevant. it has turned to other groups to carry out attacks and advance

the aids ideology. these groups are from array of countries including yemen, smollial, iraq and iran. the men and women are confronting the threat and working to prevent a terrorist attack. i would like to frurt discuss the role of nt first beginning with al qaeda and pakistan, as i mentioned over the past years, sustained pressure has degraded pakistan-based al qaeda's leadership about operational capabilities. leaving out the core of al qaeda at the weakest point in over a decade. the death of bin laden the subsequent losses of other top lieutenants and senior planners have eroded the group's bench of potential leaders and have shake the group's sense of security in pakistan's triable areas. al qaeda is placing a greater emphasis on smaller simpler floods are easier to carry out and more difficult to detect.

we remain concern that individuals like the allegationsed fort hood shooter an the mohamed. may inspire other like-minded individuals to conduct attacks in the name of al qaeda. beyond of core of al qaeda we face the diverse set of affiliated groups in areas such as yemen and somalia. these groups accord not their activities and follow the distribution of al qaeda leadership in pakistan. the single most capable affiliate today is the aqat. based in yemen. they remain the affiliate most likely to attempt and carry out a transnational attack including against the united states. the death of temperature rarely slowed aqap external plotting effort. they maintain the intent and

capability to conduct u.s. attacks with little or no warning. aqap demonstrated this intent last may when it plotted to bring down an airliner bound for the united states. we monitor other key al qaeda a lot al-qaeda-affiliates and groups in the middle east, south asia and africa. hay remain focused on local and regional. al qaeda and the lands of islamic or aqiam are active in countries like nigeria and are focused on targeting we were u.s. in that region. al-shabaab which formally merged with al qaeda this past february is concerned with combat ken began into somalia which are erode group safe haven in somalia. it remains intent on conducting attacks against region nap and western targets in east africa. having carried out a number of recent low level attacks in

kenya. pakistani and of afghan militant groups including the ttp continue to pose a district threat to u.s. interest and allies in south asia. and we continue to watch for signs for any of these groups or networking or individuals pursuing operation outside of that region as a strategy to achieve their objectives. al qaeda and iraq continues to carry out high-profile coordinated attacks against government and civilian targets in iraq. this past weekends more than 100 people were killed in terrorist attacks. in a video a couple of days ago, aqi the leader forecast a new offense against individuals in iraq and threatened to carry out attacks in the united states. mt. past two years, american and can nad -- highlights the probably threats.

i'd like to take a moment to discuss the threats. lebanese hezbollah has intensified the attacks. it engaged in terrorist campaign seeking to carry out attacks in places like egypt, vale and thailand and israel has blamed hezbollah for the attack last week on israeli tourist bus taking the lives of seven people. iran remains the foremost sponsor of state terrorism. since 9/11 the regime expanded the involvement with terrorist and groups primarily in iraq and in afghanistan. that target u.s. and israeli interest. they have been linked to plots elsewhere as well. they to asass gnat the ambassador. demonstrated that iran is willing to conduct the terrorist attacks inside the united states. finally, with regard to hve.

the extremist were inspired by the aid yotlez continues to pose a threat to the united states as secretary janet napolitano discussed. aqap members created propaganda specifically for american audience and after their death that propaganda remains assessable online. loan actors are small insulate groups supposed the most threat to the homeland they are difficult to detect. they make carry out their attacks without travel and consulting others. now, briefly, if i can turn to the role that the national counterterrorism center is playing. our analyst review all terrorism intelligence. collecting both inside and outside of the united states. we have access to the full catalog of reporting foreign and domestic on terrorism issues and it including work force from everything where. they have reflect a wide range of viewpoints. today we face a huge threat and seeking to adepartment a --

adapt to threat. i'd like to focus on a key initiatives focus on the threat to the u.s. home land. in 2010, they created the pursuit group. it is designed to develop tactical leads and pursue terrorist threats. the pursuit group analyst ensure that terrorism cases are examined they author -- relevant information. these analyst provides leads to operational organizations like dhs and fbi and cia. we continue to implement important reformsforms in the listing process. we have improved the processing in information sharing in support of that mission. as the threat continues to evolve our exparts on watch listing were closely with the rest of the ct community to expedited the dishairing of information and build more terrorist identifieds. we implemented many

technologies. later this week mr. chairman, the london olympics begin. for the past two years in accords with the intelligence community and british partners has been leading the effort to make sure we are collecting and analyzes and sharing all potential threat information relating to out limericks. we are in a position to respond quickly to prevent any possible plotting fied to the games. family if i say that all of these activities must be consistent with the protection of civil liberty and direct committed to making sure we main tin the trust of our citizens. ilgd like to close the opening remarks by identifying the single most important resource. that's our people. as we both are efforts to meet the challenged posed by the threat. our progress is dependent enon maintaining and developmenting a i diverse work force.

and i'm proud to lead the group. mr. chairman, and ranking members and members of the committee thank you for the opportunity. thank you for your continued support of the mission and the men and women of the national counterterrorism center. i'm happy to answer your questions. >> thank you. you're aexearned by the main advicers nate. i want to welcome your son. >> thank you. >> secretary janet napolitano. i'd like to discuss the whole issue of how do you know the who is the egyptian -- my understanding of the immigration nationallalty act anyone who belongs to a designate the foreign terrorist organization before receiving a visa must apply and receive a waiver from secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security. i know, we have seen a number of

them with secretary clinton signed one for a iraq member of congress. it has been the proceed since 1996, 1997. if you're on the -- if designated -- if you whrong to it you can't come into the country without getting one. an e e elected official in egypt went to the national security congress and meant with congress. he is a member of one of his own facebook page of the islamic group which ask a designated foreign trorgs otion. yet he was given a visa never applied for waiver. no waiver was given. when he arrived kennedy airport he did not go through a secondary inspection and at the white house. released -- met with members of congress. never was told that he was a member of terrorist organization. it appears as if law was not

followed. my understanding also and i can't go into all the information provided by your department. but it was no reason that said no waiver was required is because there was no doing story information found. yet on the facebook page said he belonged to terrorist organization. the concern i have is, this individual case is one thing. but as we see the result of the arab spring whether it's egypt, libya, hopefully syria and other countries we are going to have people coming to the country attempting to come to the country who may have had involvement in the past with various terrorist organization. and the administration and other administration may feel that some of these people can be dealt with. can be worked with. if that's to be done, to me it

would have to be an open process in transparent process where congress and the people would know who was being let into the country what were the facts going in into giving this person a waiver. we went through a situation in the 50 cast to you can have people making bad decisions my question to you is, who in the state department, who in homeland security would initiate allowing someone from one of these organization into the country, for instance, even if they're not designated as fto as foreign terrorist organization. you could have the muslim brotherhood without going into details considered one way in egypt and another in syria. members may have different types of relation with the organization. who is making the decision and giving the waiver is congress to going to be informed?

and why a waiver is being issued and again, i say in this case, with all respect it does not appear that in the letter of the spirit of the law was complied with with this guy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think a couple of things. i think you are right pointing that as we move forward we are going to continue to have visitors to the country that the state department and others feel are useful to bring to the country to have discussions moving forward, who in the past or who say they are members of political party that in the past has been so designated. and in the particular case you refer to, this was a state department selected group. it originated there, he was vetted before he got a visa, against all known terrorist and other data bases or descrog story information none was found

as he entered the united states, we too vetted him against all of our holdings including terrorists and information from a variety of sources no derogatory was found. before he entered the white house he was vetted a third time for the secret service. we can have confidence that this was not a security breech in that sense. with respect to notification to congress about this, that's something i will have to look into. i don't know what the status of that was. within our organization, when we get a visitor like that, we have had some in the past it's usually a combination of our counter terrorism group, and csi that reviews the information and then oftentimes not oftentimes but occasionally they'll come up to the secretary.

>> but all of this vetting the fact is on his facebook page he said he was a member of the islamist group. how did that escape the entire vet progress excess? >> again, i think we have to add more nuance to that. we have to know what the group was. is it now a political party? we're going that is running the government of a country? that has strong ties with the united states, and if that is so, what the actual derogatory information what was the content, the sub tense of the information when the particular instance you raise everyone who looked at individual felt confidence that he was not a security risk to the white house or to the united states. >> but i think you proved my point. that was policy decision. it may not have been right. i'm not quibbling with the policy decision. under the law if he belonged to

foreigner terrorist organization reason why it was going to be granted. that's concern i have. if he was able even though it had on the facebook page he belonged to foreign terrorist organization. we can have hundred of people in the situation coming in who may not brag on the page they're a member. it raises serious questions to me how effective the vetting process is or if a policy decision was made, and it was made without congress intending or it notified because under again if he applied for a waiver and granted you would have to notify congress. congress was left out of it. and he was allowed in without a waiver. director olson? >> well, let me -- mr. chairman, if i might, give you separated into substance and process on the substance. there was no derogatory information. he was vetted multiple times by multiple -- but on the process that's a fair point to make. >> okay. and i would say that it's a

significant point because i made it. because again, if a person belongs to an organization allowed in without applying for the waiver, it's bad enough this this instance. we could be faced many times overthe next several years especially involving libya, syria, hopefully. sometime, egypt is going to be a work in progress. i would really ask looked into a i hope the decision is not being made on policy keeping congress exclusioned in closing with the letter i sent to the department, i understand that at the white house asked if the blank sheet was could be released i was told the answer is no. but when i asked what is the position of the dhs regarding any potential transfer of release of architect of the first world trade center attack, quite frankly the department

didn't answer. he's in custody of the justice department. homeland security has a role to play in that if he is released. and again, it appears not answering the question but whether or not there is any intention at any time to release the chic. >> i know of no such intention. >>. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary in the hearing with, on the subcommittees last week, we were told that american citizens can be trained to fly planes, and not be vetted against a no-fly list. we were told that foreigners are

vetted to a robust process that would only start once they are clear. the question was whether or not the process could be put by anyone before they admitted to a flight school would be vetted. , and testimony from the department, at that time, was it couldn't be done. have you looked at that since that testimony was put forward to the committee if. >> i have. >> who is your position on it? >> well, the answer is yes, there is distinction between u.s. citizens and foreign persons who are seeking to get flight training. with respect to u.s. citizens who may be on one of our watch lists, there are a variety of ways that we can and do keep

abreast of their activities. i don't want to go into those in an open setting. but the law is somewhat unclear as to whether we can vet a u.s. citizens prior to the application for certification if are the faa. so the department historically taking the position that we cannot formally vet them any u.s. citizens before that application. >> well, then that -- i would say that we introduced a bill last week to close that gap. do you support the legislation? >> i haven't had an opportunity to see the exact language. i don't want to say support the idea behind the bill is something we support, yes. >> right now you also admit that's a problem? >> it can be a gap, but again, let me just say, it's a gap that would be easily filled a number of ways.

and those for whom we have watch-list information there's a variety of ways to receive information about possible flight school training. but it would be nice to tidy up the law a little bit. >> thank you. taking along the chairman's questions about bent of congress, congress passed a law mandateing one of the screening for inbound containers. you indicated that it can't be done, but that some other things are being done to do that. i think the question for some of us is that this was an act congress said the department should do, and i'd like to hear

where we are on a percentage of screening of containers based on whatever system you are using at this point. are we 20 percent? 30%? where are we in order to 1000. >> we have looked at containers from different angles as we have discussed before ab, as you know, high-risk versus low risk. we have done quite a bit to form and strengthen the international pops and partnerships to know and secure containers and freight as it leaves foreign ports to the extent we can't. terrorist there's a lot of foreign ports that is not available to do that. with respect to inbound, we have

an we evaluate high-risk car go and do a random selection of a small percentage of other containers. i would say, representative thompson. this is an area that department and some of the congress are odds about. there are a lot of ways to protect the ports in the united states and the entire your of the united states from dangerous car go, and as we keep in mind 100%-law which we understand is the law, sometimes those laws are very difficult standards to obtain and we have had to move in other directions in the near term to make sure we're doing everything we can with respect to car cargo. >> what percentage screening are you at right now? >> i will get you the exact numbers, but i would

differentuate between high-risk and low-risk cargo. we high percentage on high-risk. low risk is small. >> you can't give us a number. >> no, i can. i can't give it to you at the precise time. it is available. >> madam secretary, congress said you shall do it. they didn't say look at it and come back to us. you what i'm saying to you is you instituted the waiver you should come back to us and say you act 100% with 20%, but i think it's not a good omen that we can't get the numbers. can you provide us with any task orderer that