>> how do we change guidelines with respect to how far they continue to hold investigations, and do we go back and revisit whether or not people have visited these kinds of jihadist websites once we have had some kind of, you know, a predisposition with a report as you said? ..

for investigations by the fbi, and most important to determine whether those guidelines constrain the fbi to stop prematurely as we look back now on tsarnaev after they were notified by the russians. did they send a message to the fbi agents they shouldn't share this information with a vocal law enforcement until they have a greater level of proof a crime was about to be committed. it was a high standard. before the crime in this case the terrorist attack occurs. >> i hope that is an issue that we can use as a stepping up

point. being a former u.s. attorney and prosecutor i think these guidelines need to be looked at. >> thank you mr. chairman. commissioner davis i also want to thank you and the first responders who responded so heroically and capably after the attack. really appreciate that. i appreciate the comments with greater scrutiny to be successful and in an international community in el paso texas on the relationship with mexico and ability to welcome immigrants, and i think that our chief of police and sheriff in el paso we have routinely safest cities over the

last ten years not despite an, german's remarks about terrorists who would seek to change the way of life in el paso was the way has been changed following the attack now students who are coming across the international bridges to attend the school university are undergoing secondary inspections. we have received calls yesterday some of them up to eight hours for data between that shown on their visas and in the computer systems the cbp is using. why is someone who has this responsibility what advice do you have for cities like ours to enable positive relations with the large immigrant communities so that immigrants and their

families feel comfortable coming to you with information that will help you enforcing a law and keeping the communities same and balancing the need for greater scrutiny and vigilance and ensuring something like this doesn't happen again. >> that is a great question and a complex answer to it. its thoughts are with developing relationships in the immigrant communities something we've paid particular attention to in the last ten years, 20, 15 years since the community policing has been put into place. we do outreach in minority communities waitering community policing training and spanish and to the latino community so

there's been an influx in some of our neighborhoods. i have an opportunity to talk to people who have immigrated to the united states and they are incredibly thankful for the work that we are doing in help reach for them and we have developed information, not for infiltration, but through appealing to this sense of the nation and i think that is the answer to this in large part. you can develop a relationship with someone in a crisis. it has to be developed before the crisis and so there has to be real attention paid to who is in our community and what are we doing to talk to them. we do that through outreach class's but we also have great luck in the social media recently. and so the whole use of social media as a dialogue, not just a

loud speaker but a dialogue between the police and the community that plays an important role in our ability to do outreach with people and as it relates to stop the border, it's really important that the bureaucracy doesn't guide the whole interaction, that there is some human interaction and logic to the communications that had been at the border. and i think that is the key to it. the hardest story is that we hear are usually the result of some one following a script that has rules and regulations that no logic, and i think it is a combination of both that needs to happen but again we are shooting for perfection and it is difficult to achieve. >> as you said earlier i am on concern that we not overreact and as the professor said that we not try to fit something before all of the facts are in or in fact we run the risk of

changing the way of life and inadvertently compromising our ability to gain intelligence and to gain the cooperation of the immigrant communities to it i want to make sure as someone who represents the largest immigrant communities in the united states that that is not what we do going forward because again we will endeavor to the compromise the ability to make the community safer. so i appreciate your answers and comments and the work that you and the people that you represent have done to make this country safer. >> i want to advise the members the votes have been called and we have about six and a half minutes and i'm going to allow mr. duncan to ask his line of questioning and then as i understand recess. they are willing to remain available. we will be back after a 11:35. with that mr. duncan is recognized. >> peter king needs an apology

from mainstream media. he was vilified and dni sterling radicalization hearings and we saw just radicalization of muslim viewers happen with regard to boston. and so, that is just -- i want to throw that out there. i appreciate the chairman's leadership as well as yours on this issue. multiple conflicting reports indicate that tamerlan may have been listed on one or more federal terrorist bases. we know the fbi's tawes cade database but he had believed to have a terrorist watch list database, and possibly a treasury enforcement communication system or text file. for the multiple different hits and databases that may have alerted someone in the law enforcement that he was a danger and the federal government is known about information sharing challenges for years. we talked about this in the last congress and kind of pursuing some of that in this congress

about i.t. systems and communications and information sharing and cross referencing and i can do a google surge on senator lieberman and find out a lot. because the search engines are able to on the private sector people to interact and share and cross reference that type of information. since 2005 the gao has found terrorist related information sharing placing it on the high risk list and the federal government has made no substantial progress in developing a system to strengthen the sharing of intelligence and terrorism, law enforcement and other information among all of the stickers including federal, state, local, tribal, international and private sector partners and we just heard that the local and of the state law enforcement as a part were not notified of the information that they may have so we are struggling to connect the dots with a cross referencing of information sharing. as if they had formed a picture of the intelligence that had

been shared more effectively, commissioner, do you believe that we could have prevented the attack. someone looked at this initial information and closed the case. so there was an assessment that there wasn't enough there to do anything more than the initial interview. i haven't seen that information. there's another information coming in now with further the databases that were that we have had wrong information on them all of that has to be looked at very closely. if we will be able to connect all of the dots on that first, during the first interview that would have been an open case and

what to do with that information to did you have to look at the time line as to who know what and when to look at the determination as to whether or not mistakes were made. and i don't have the answer to that right now. if we knew all of these things that have come out since then we hard to become a part of these individuals but at this point in time i can't say that when we knew things we would have done anything differently. >> i'm just amazed files are actually closed on someone that was ratified by the foreign country that it may have ties to terrorism and the actually close the file. that his name wasn't put into the system and as we realize that this gentleman may be -- let me back up and say that i am

amazed the american people and general public in boston identified and that somebody in the fbi didn't go and we met he didn't investigate him a couple weeks ago and he had to rely on the folks in the boston community with. they have a system and if you want to research information about certain individuals you have to go into one with a password and go into another system you have to come out and maybe go to a different location and interim for the new password and a different system and do this over and over to make sure that you have got the redundancy necessary to find out what the information whether it is the visa screening and an act of terror and senator lieberman this was partly why the dhs was set up so that would be the hub and the wheel to share that information.

leading up to boston we were starting to discover now and this hearing is very timely to raise the awareness within the eyes of the american people that the dhs is the wheel that we spent hundreds of billions of dollars to do this and i don't believe that has been effective as things by boston. thank you for your service, commissioner, god bless you and the first responders. we stand in recess subject to the call of the chair and we will reconvene ten minutes after the conclusion of the votes. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

the committee will resume and i want to think the witnesses for their patience and sticking around during the votes. i know we was long but i want to proceed with a hearing so that we can let you go. mr. tran anh, i just want to say that now i know what all of those witnesses were going through for all those years. [laughter] it's tempting on the other side, isn't it? with that, let me get started. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. and i want to thank you and the ranking member and want to join with your remarks earlier in the thinking the commissioner davis for the hard work of the first

responders and how we need the first responders to react and to the entire city of boston and the boston police department as the chairman and the ranking members have already said thank you for your service. without a doubt, the rapid response by the boston first responders really made a significant difference. i want to point out something in your testimony. you stated that the federal government provided invaluable assistance but in helping us prepare for and respond to this tragic event. preparedness training brought in other federal funding have a framework for multiple jurisdictions to work seamlessly with one another in a highly effective manner. in studies of the terrorist target, the rand corporation stated loss vegas, the district

i represent, stands out in having a high proportion of high likelihood target's compared to the nation as a whole. the same study also reports that the unique composition of the casinos and skyscrapers increases the overall attack in las vegas for relative to other cities in the same likelihood. yet in my home state of nevada, our urban areas security initiative faces reduced funding because of the flaws in their relative risk profile model that has inexplicably dropped their ranking as a likely terrorist target. so, my question is have you seen the same reduced level of funding in boston over the last couple of years and if so what has that been and are you gravelling with it. >> thank you, congressman.

the sheriff and i have met frequently on this challenge and we traveled in the least this past july and visited the police officials in jordan the palestinian authority and we had a direct conversations about the threats that they are dealing with and how we respond to them. and that is just in my mind, and i'm sure in the share of's mind, the need for us to be prepared. it is simply the best vehicle that we have the local level to make that happen and we haven't received significant cutbacks. there's been some cutbacks we were facing the several threats but overcame it. i can tell you that i am convinced now after responding to this incident that if we hadn't trained in the u.s. process defunded the joint

terrorism corporation and something called urban shield and in the preparations there would be more people that died in these attacks. it is critical that we maintain that funding to the urban areas. this is not a frivolous expenditure. it's something that i have seen work and it also gives us -- the people on the ground we know what we need to get and the less bureaucracy that would better for us. i was meeting with him and the system share affect our counterterrorism center just last week where they shared with me the fact that in the case we went from the peak of $9 million funding to under $2 million recently.

that is a 70% reduction in five years. it's a huge impact at the time when the threat appears to be increasing, and so what are your recommendations to us as policy makers at the federal level with any of the witnesses on how we need to prioritize these funds in order to support your work as first responders or other leaders in this regard. >> i will just add to my comments saying the priorities that he funded work very well for us and we should continue that that that added component of giving us the ability to meet with foreign police and military leaders who are dealing with this threat and understand what they are going through in their countries as i said in the international city. that knowledge in the executive research that threat and the conversation i had with people in london about the way that

they responded drove this investigation. i can't tell you how invaluable it is. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. hudson. >> thank you it was a long day for you but i appreciate you being here. i would like to the house that recognize there were some victims of the boston bombing from charlotte north carolina and i just want to reiterate what the committee said before, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and the families and there are many on the way to recovery and we are going to keep them in our thoughts and prayers throughout this process. i guess i will start with commissioner davis. one of my lines of questions has to do with the type of information sharing when it comes to top-secret information. i assume that you and the undersecretary of clearance.

>> do they have top-secret clearance and able to do the same information at the dhs and other agencies is that correct? >> that is correct, sir, yes. >> do you feel like you have adequate access to that information through the folks with you and your staff? >> i have been assured by the special agent in charge that whatever information comes to their attention that affects my community that i will get the information myself as well the mayor is briefed on any threats that manifest itself and that has worked over the years we got information from the things that were evolving. from your perspective do you feel like they are in place to get top-secret information through the state agencies the dissemination of information do

we have a proper mechanism in place? to get the information you need on threats? >> the mechanisms, are there. we have top-secret and secret computer systems that we have access to in our boston regional intelligence center. we have rooms that allow that to happen. we frequently talk about issues that talk up and so the mechanisms in place, yes. the other lawyer from the federal agency to the department but then you've got your patrol officers out there and want them looking in the eyes open taking the information from the top-secret level to the low level of secrecy that could be disseminated on the patrol

level. is that something that you are equipped to handle, does that become an issue? how have you dealt with that in the past? >> each case is different, congressman and we have debates what goes out and when it comes out. so, from my perspective on a year on the side of pushing information quickly. there are always deliberations about that. there are always conversations on what is appropriate to get all to a wide audience but the protection of my officers is my driving motivation to get as much information as much as possible. >> owls a part of the evidence of the situation while the world was watching you and your department did an exemplary job of really i appreciate on behalf of the american people what you've done.

does the department of homeland security need to do more to help you sort of develop the information than to get from a top-secret level to the information that can be disseminated a level do we need to look at ways to do a better job on the federal level to help you process or package that information so that it can be in the officers is there a need for that type of assistance? >> my believe is in the ten years since 9/11 the mechanisms have been put in place and they work well. however, i think that in this area like we do in a lot of other areas should be a constant process of improvement. we should be examining what we are doing and moving it to the next level. we have incredible tools that just to let in the last few years with computers and communications equipment that haven't been factored in appropriately and so let me just say briefly on the radio and the

communications side of it when we talk about street level communication what i can get out to my office who is talking to whom we haven't moved forward as quickly as we should in that particular area and that must be looked at but when you stop there and move up the chain as to who talks to whom when and what is available it all has to be examined all the time. this incident is going to be a good case study. >> thank you for the answers. this approach should be and is to look at the lessons learned and moving forward how we can improve and again tried to be right is the goal. thank you. >> i yield back. i have to step back for a minute so let me turn the gavel over to an experienced individual. six years, correct? but before i do not let me say

senator tom thank you for your advice council, undersecretary, professor, commissioner davis, your presence here today is -- really means a lot to us and your testimony and the people of boston we support you in your efforts and let me also say thank you to the mayor for allowing you to come here today to appear before the committee. thank you very much. >> the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair and welcome to the witnesses and i welcome this opportunity to highlight the great heroes, the

citizens who ran to the zone to help the victims by the blast but also to highlight the brave men and women as law enforcement and emergency responders who hunted, captured and killed the two individuals responsible for this. serving on this committee for me is also special because i was a former prosecutor but also in a congressional intern in washington, d.c. when september 11th happened and what happened in boston reminded me of the threats facing the country are still very real and while there is information to be learned from the intelligence committee community as far as what they knew before the blast went off it is clear now that we face new emerging threats from tel radicalized who can use the readily accessible materials you can get off the internet to recap the and do damage in mass groups and that is what we are

here to seek to protect and talk about today. but there are a lot of answers to come from the community but i want to talk about what happened once the blast went off and what the emergency responders did and examine to what degree you and other agencies are more prepared i also know that because the sequester, homeland security funding could be threatened in the future and we have talked a lot about the urban areas of the security initiative. i come from the county where i was a prosecutor and was the sheriff's office the developed urban shield and they've been doing that for a number of years under the leadership of the share if, and i and a stand that former assistant share of jim baker went back in december and led part of the efforts from boston urban shield, so i was hoping you could tell me just a little bit about what lessons were learned in boston from your

urban shield program and would be threatened if you did not have that funding in the future. >> certainly come thank you commodores man. the other individuals that developed urban shield did give an incredible service. we sent teams out to the county twice and after the second time we talk about them moving the training to the east coast so that we can incorporate people in england and that is what happened. two of the exercises have allowed us to examine what we would do in the case of a mass casualty event like we saw in boston, and we included everyone in this training. then we brought in hazardous

materials teams and they were incredibly helpful in bringing everybody into the fold on this whole exercise. one of the things that pop up in the first exercise is our communications with the fire department wasn't sufficient and so we were able to change our radio system to correct that and after the blast happened, but was helpful to us and the interoperable the big difference to respond. >> and reduced funding for that program threaten your ability to respond if an attack were to occur again? >> without a doubt, without question of the funds are cut to these programs, we are not going to know what we don't know. it's only when you exercise these defense that you find out then you have a gap in your systems, and if you find that out after the incident occurs lives are at stake.

>> and you are ready to work with the law enforcement agencies were you able to work with israel and departments from israel? >> sending people to train us as a matter of fact the cut and had a tactic was taught to us why the israelis. >> the chair having been here when september 11th evan bayh remember how dark of a place washington became, but i know under your leadership and also senator lieberman under your leadership we were able to invest in a department and homeland security and i think what we saw after the bombs went off in the coordinated effort among the local state and federal law enforcement is what was envisioned as far as how we respond to an attack so i want

to thank you, senator and also for your work in this area. >> the gentleman's time is expired. from utah for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair. we are appreciative that a quick comment or two before i get in. you mentioned in your opening comments about the need for bipartisanship as we approach this. you have been a great example of that through your career and many of us are grateful for that. commissioner, if i were a hollywood casting director and i needed a strong persona of a leader i think i would look to someone like you. in considering this case i think many of us want to break it down chronologically. mabey phase one or phase to being what happened up until that fateful morning of april 15th. what is it that took place prior to the bombing and then the second phase is what happened

subsequent to that? investigation apprehension, the pursuit of the individuals and what we are being now is what could have been done better. this seems to me there were a lot of things in phase one and phase two that were done right. there were many things the were done right but there were clearly some meaningful failures or we wouldn't be here today having this conversation. when you look at some of the considerations, how were these individuals radicalized? who assisted them in the radicalization and did anyone assist them in the bombing itself in the preparations? with a receiving logistical or other kinds of support and did we miss any warning signs? some of those questions have been discussed this morning and much more conversations as we go forward. but that's what i read like to direct now and that is i think that we can agree that somewhere

in our nation right now we would like to do the same thing again and in fact they are probably preparing to do that again. would that be outrageous to make that claim or would you agree there is someone out there doing that? knowing their must be individuals that are in some phase of planning a similar event may be several months away or maybe longer have we done anything now? have we looked at the lessons learned and said we need to continue the investigation would have we done our change to any now to make it more difficult or stop those efforts from going forward? >> actually, i think this committee is doing that now by raising the questions that have been raised today and to go back to the beginning i am encouraged by the totally non-partisan

average of the committee finding out what went wrong here that is the first thing that we can do because you are absolutely right there is at least one of our group of people and probably more who are beginning to think about tearing out a terrorist attack against the country with 11 or 12 years since 9/11. >> even if i could i got me to disagree but if i could take that a little further we all want to continue investigation but we don't want to continue until it is over because we can continue to do things now and that is my point we must do something because there is an immediacy to this. we can't wait for the hearings to conclude. this is what we changed in the last three weeks that have made this less likely to happen. >> i can offer a couple observations. you are absolutely right starting at local level, the

regional, state, monday evening, april 15th, just hours after the bombing a number of us already were talking about what does this mean going forward, what does this mean in terms of the very large event jul fourth where we have some 800,000 people in the boston area. so we are already looking forward even as we are looking back. i commend this committee and the media for all the attention. we can certainly hope that one of the lessons the communities have learned by watching the best 24/7 and living through this and watching on television is we need the community for dissipation. i hope that message is out there now and others have talked about

here today with the importance of the public began of those morning science see something say something. i know that the local and regional state levels in massachusetts we are already looking to increase our engagement with a number of communities and putting a local muslim communities there already was say good program in place, but we need to do better. we are looking forward as i said, july 4th. we have any collaboration the city and state we have reached out and engaged in number of security experts around the country so that we can take new looks at prevention, protection going forward. a bigger story here is the response from the recovery we need to focus more on prevention and protection and we will.

>> my time is expired. there were many things done right but there were meaningful failures and please let's not wait for an investigation to complete six months ago to do what we can now to implement some changes that would make this more difficult. thank you again to the witnesses and mr. trent and i yield back. >> the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you jester chairman and to the witness says for the exceptional testimony here today. many questions have been raised by my colleagues about what we can do to prevent a reoccurrence and we have to answer those questions and i know we will be having subsequent hearings to examine those issues. what i want to focus on today is what happens the day of the bombing and then the days following because we can learn a lot as the gentleman just asked about what we can do better and

certainly we can expedite those other commissions. i want to commend both of the commissioner davis and undersecretary schwartz for an incredible response and efficient and effective response for this great tragedy and i do know that other communities including my own have faced similar situations not exactly in the case of tucson but in terms of what was required to respond effectively and i also want to thank you commissioner davis for bringing the photographs. when we get into the discussion about a tragedy like this we sometimes actually forget that there is a very personal human tragedy that comes out of this and i know the people in tucson are still grieving loss of their loved ones and many people are still grieving with the change in their lives so i appreciate seeing the faces of the people

the world lost that day and reminds us why our work was so important and you know i remember seeing photographs of the people that died in tucson when you put the photographs of it took me back to that terrible day in the subsequent weeks. i was in boston last weekend for the congressman gifford award and i saw the memorial near the finish line and i saw everywhere i went the signs on the buses and everywhere else boston strong, and what i felt and salles in boston is exactly what i felt and saw in tucson. we will not be defined by these kinds of tragedies. we will be defined by how we will respond and i commend you and all the other good people in boston and in the state for that. i want to ask a couple questions about where we are today and i want to first thank senator

lieberman for coming and ask you, senator in your testimony you pointed out that a holistic approach is the most effective way to solve or deal with the islamic extremism and radicalization process that is going on right now as we have heard in the country and i believe that law enforcement is critical to that effort. we were dealing with the sequestration issue and i would like to ask your opinion about how you believe that sequestration has impacted on our efforts to both prevent as well as to respond to the tragedy like this in the future. and i am particularly interested in what parts of the department of homeland security or in that matter any other budget of the federal agency you would give priority to as we are trying to figure out how to deal with the sequestration. we have given the department of homeland security some

flexibility and they are going to come back in the programming request. would you prioritize in light of what happened in boston and what we have known that may happen again. >> that is the question because a lot of the programs that are now being funded the are of critical importance such as the programs in the local law enforcement but if you look at the record of the 12 years now since 9/11, which was cited briefly at the beginning that only three -- the only attempted attacks that have succeeded were carried out by homegrown terrorists and those are the toughest cases and that is where you require the whole of society and that requires in my opinion not just fbi but particularly the state and local law enforcement of preaching to the community but engaging in the community particularly this case

so, the islamist extremism among the homegrown radicals if they don't want to cut back in the support and the state and local law enforcement because they are where it is. >> they called me in a very private call. i am about to shoot off my mouth, it is a totally private act nobody would have ever known

about. but i can't -- i'm glad to have this opportunity to thank you for that. >> thank you, senator. >> i would like to acknowledge the member of the committee congressman shays a former colleague of senator lieberman. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your service in this regard and your service to the community in the country. with that, my question finally to senator lieberman and the professor. i know some of it has uncovered a little bit by the acting chairman at this point, but i can't help but just reiterate some names to you, the virginia jihad network, but nidal hissan

and mohammed. senator lieberman, in your opening statement in the subsequent questions i think the american people would agree with you, and i think you get it so to speak, but for the professor in particular i just think those names are probably familiar with you. what would you say they have in common? >> i would say they have in common their religion. and if you will come extremist muslim ideology. >> that's my concern. he said modi enemy and myself and as an officer it served me well and based on research at least 50 publicly known radical islam in spite terrorist plots targeting the united states has been foiled since 9/11. did you know, professor, that if 30 of the most wanted terrorists or radical islamists? >> no, i did not. >> so, my concern among other

hearings is that you are a professor and i've listened to your testimony and it seems like there is a reluctance to acknowledge the face into the enemy is my name. maybe we have a definition problem here, and let me read the president's recent statement. the president stated that the dangers to the homeland now come from self radicalize individuals to because of several boards and twisted ideas they may have had decided to carry out an attack. where do you suppose these ideas come from, professor? >> they could come from a variety of extremist ideology spitting it and the facts are correct there have been a number of individuals indicted since 9/11, specifically 207 individuals have been indicted since 9/11 in the united states and have as you mentioned the ideology. 5% of those people for their roles in violent incidents this

fifth and 135 with just under 50% of those people were engaged in the violent attacks before arrests so my point is in the radicalization that is not monopolized by any particular ideology or religion or race but by and large would you agree that the greatest propensity -- propensity by far is radical islam. not any other one, just that one? >> i would agree based on the fact we have to become absolutely. >> with that, senator lieberman, you have the account under tamerlan and by the way his team is the sort of islam should he viewed mr. padilla to multiple russia and videos on islami and even compiled lists of jihad videos. should we and should the authorities be concerned? the exhibit of branch

investigation has to be why weren't they? >> i'm afraid they didn't know that tamerlan put his on youtube channel and was broadcasting the violent extremists videos. but obviously that is one of the places the system broke down. >> let me ask you this question, senator. why do you think this administration is unwilling to use the term radical islam to describe these acts of terror? and this is important because the investigations in the national mood about how we deal with this i think is expressed here. what is gained by the president's refusal to appropriately described jihadists as expressed by the radical islam extremist as the demoted motivated for attacking the united states and the other nations? >> i don't know. this is a debate that i had over

the years and my time in the senate particularly with this administration. for all the reasons you have to know your enemy and call it what it is particularly now. there is a danger if you think that the enemy is al qaeda and you observe that bin laden is killed in central al qaeda is on the wrong you me be alerted to be leaving the war is over. but this ideology is not over it is fretting. it's keeping people worried here at home. what is happening in yemen and pakistan and afghanistan and chechnya and dagestan and america dare i presume it's because of a sensitivity that if you use the term is mom or muslim at all with relationship to violence or extremism or terrorism it will do offense to

muslims but i am privileged to know a lot of my fellow americans are muslim, they are law abiding, patriotic and have nothing to do with criminals and terrorists. and i don't think that it's fair to them. i don't think it is fair to them to sample these people out. maybe the words we are using are not right but somebody else said this and i will repeat it needed is too short and it is too simple but unfortunately it does bear some truth, which is that obviously most muslims are not terrorists. but the fact is that today most terrorists that we are dealing with an america are inspired by this violent islamist extremist ideology. and you have to recognize that to deal with it. >> thank you come senator, mr. chairman. >> i recognize my friends from new jersey. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> let me first start out with banking commissioner davis and

undersecretary schwartz for the incredible job that was done in boston by your organization along with the federal government. it shows that the system worked and that we have the capability to when when that even occurs and finalize it very quickly. i think it is extraordinary that this whole incident was wrapped up in a week. absolutely incredible in my view. i thought this would be a situation of the drag on for quite some time to the but to have an incident have been at the beginning of the week and to have it completed and the bad guy found in a week i think says a lot about the system that we have in ce.

there were some issues and they have been exhausted here today i think. i would like to ask commissioner davis the administration has proposed to consolidate the homeland security grant program including the state homeland security grant program in 21 funding pool under the proposal it is not clear whether they are required to dedicate 25% of the grand award to the law enforcement terrorism prevention activity. based on the way that you have been able to utilize those resources to you have concerns about the proposal? >> we did away to president obama and psychiatry napolitano. but i did have to say that i think that plan is going to be

detrimental to the further security of our city. i have to say that the program has been extremely helpful and made a difference and it should continue as it is. >> we have had a great experience with that and more they're not jersey where i come from that has a major airport and chemical after it has been instrumental in us being able to do the type of things we need to do in order to make sure that that area is safe so with your concerns i am very concerned as well. the other thing that i have since joining the committee have gotten involved in is the whole question on interoperable the and the response efforts following the bombing and demonstrating the opera devotee between agencies, disciplines and jurisdiction the

commonwealth received as you know, $3.11 million from the interoperable communications grant between fy 08 fy ten. the last year that program received allocated funding how could these funds from the grant help contribute to your interoperable the? >> thank you for the question. as i mentioned in the opening statement, interoperable the has been a huge success story in massachusetts and was a great story on april 15th and in the days that followed. as a, a variety of grant funding some you mentioned, there was the money that came to the commonwealth as well. a number of years ago we created a statewide interoperable the executive committee that took control of the homeland security funds that came in and of that

group which is comprised of people from all over the state developed local, regional and state why interoperable the plans and then invested in those plans. succumb if you fast forward over the last number of years to where we were on april 15th and how before the bombing as we were supporting the boston marathon local state and federal across the cities and towns that we were all communicating tactical units were on their own channels and command level people were on their own channels, voice communications and that remained true through the week but perhaps more importantly, if this were to happen or if similar types of motor no notice events happen, we have the capability across the state by just flipping, you know, pushing buttons and flipping switches to make sure

that that level of interoperability is established, and i think it is fair to say that none of this would have happened without the homeland security grand streams that have been coming into. >> there is one fly in the ornament here which is the end. i know that we are getting in to sort of complicated things that might not be the best person to explain, but if we lose the band as is scheduled to happen as according to the fcc rules, virtually every police department in the metropolitan area of boston from 495 and in will be adversely affected by that. we need to revisit that and talk about these new technologies that are out there that will help us within drop devotee. this is the funding that has worked for us. but because of some of the broadband issues that are being

discussed right now in the band that we are scheduled to use we are going to have problems. estimate thank you. >> mr. speaker -- i'm sorry, mr. chairman, we need to be cognizant of these type of issues moving forward. we see how well it worked in boston and to cut the funding i think would be detrimental to the nation's security moving forward. >> all i agree and northern new jersey and new york are one unit. before i close i have one question for senator lieberman and commissioner davis under the lessons learned and going forward, senator lieberman, when the fbi did its investigation of the tip from the russians to determine whether or not the owner was radicalized, they didn't discuss it with imam or anyone else in the mosque. my understanding as we are

changing guidelines in the last several years that is the goal the have to get approval from the committee on washington i believe to do you think that if the person is to be radicalized as a muslim, you should go through the house of worship to see whether or not the people in that community would have felt that he had been radicalized? >> i do. i don't know exactly what happened here but this is why i raise the question about the department of justice guidelines for the fbi. because again, looking back, and usual to get this kind of tip from russian intelligence, what was the nature of the investigation that the fbi did, and it sounds to me like -- we don't know. cingular last them. they talked to tamerlan tsarnaev and to his mother and they had some sporadic surveillance around his house but as far as i can tell the didn't talk to anybody else and, you know, talk about a whole of society if you really want to check somebody out before you close the file, which is what they did, you have

to talk to friends, neighbors and people in their house of worship and to me that isn't a violation of, you know, the freedom of religion or anything else, it is putting first the safety of the people of boston in this case including everybody there was a member of the mosque. ..

amazingly worked together across the lines. the both chamber of the white house we got most of the recommendations at least in part except one. the one that reformed congress and limited the number of committees having oversight on homeland security. this was congress protecting the own turf. what is the significance of that? it takes time from the department of homeland security they ought to be spending back at the office protecting our homeland security. it also makes the work of congress less effective in combating the threats to our security. so i hope that one of the things that may come out -- this is probably a quick thing, i hope -- come out of the tragedy in boston is that the congress, again, take a look at itself not just the administrative branch of our government and figure out how we can better organize to deal with homeland defense.

>> thank you, senator. a question for commissioner davis, you said a mcmechanism is replaced to fbi to notify you when there is a threat. do you think we should consider lowering the threshold. when they were told by the rush russians to look to the older brother. twont make sense to speak to the police department see whether or not they know anything or ask the police to keep an eye on them? >> that certainly is an area that serves close scrutiny, congressman. i believe that our relationship has improved dramatically in the last ten years, but when you are dealing with intelligence between nations that is still difficult to access. there are reasons for that. i understand them. when information is out in that affects the safety of my community. i need to know that.

>> they wouldn't have to tell you it came from the russians. say it received a tip from someone he's perhaps been radicalized. can you keep an eye on him? >> right. i have received top secret information in the last ten years, but i think where that sort of bar is that everybody gets notified on, that has to be looked at as to whether it's in the right place. >> i think after the attack point made there was no international intelligence coming. and i think that's going to be the way of the future is going to be attack under the radar screen and more important than ever the local police be involved. nobody has a better feel for the community than the local police department. we have 600,000 people in the local police department across the nation. >> thank you. i want to thank all the witnesses. professor, i didn't welcome you back. i know, you testified five years ago. it's great to have you back.

you added a lot. commissioner davis, the whole country is looking at you for the outstand job you did. a real friend and patriot. one of the few people in politics that never lets you down. i want to thank the witnesses for their question, and the members of the committee made additional questions. we ask you respond in writing. the hearing record will be open for ten days. thank you for holding the hearing. the first one in the congress in the vital issue. with that, without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] congress returns next week the senate is back monday at 2 p.m. for mortgage business only. no roll call votes expected. tuesday they continue work on the water infrastructure bill authorizing flood protection, suer, and water way protection

around the country. later until the week president obama's pick to head the center for medicare and medicaid services. you can watch the senate on c-span2. live coverage of the house is on c-span. the house is in for a brief session on monday. legislative business resumes tuesday. among the items legislation for the call repeal of the 2010 health care law. a bill requiring the security and exchange commission to conduct a cost-benefit analysis before implementing new regulations. for more on next week's schedule in the house, remarks from republican kevin brady, and minority from the house floor yesterday. >> on monday in-house will neat a noon for morning hour at 2:00 for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday an thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and in the afternoon for legislative

business. provide -- friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. >> mr. speaker, i can't hear the gentleman. >> not in order. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to the -- may proceed. >> just concluding the week on friday the house will meet at 9:00 for legislative business. last vote of the week expect nod later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions on tuesday and wednesday, and complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, mr. speaker, i expect the house to consider hr45 a bill sponsored by representative michelle backman to fully repeal obamacare. we will consider hr1062. the accountability act. it requires the fcc to conduct cost-benefit analysis on any

rulemaking to ensure that the benefits outweigh the costs. i thank the gentleman. yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for that information, and again, i want to thank you. i know, that the majority leader could not be here, and he's filling in. i appreciate the fact that he's doing so. mr. brady, i noticed that there is not on the notice for the schedule for next week any reference of that motion to go to conference on the budget as you know, senate has now passed a budget which had not done for some years, and your side in particular, but all of us want to pass a budget. we pass a budget, and we would hope on this side of the aisle we would now go to conference. i'm wondering for the gentleman can light of the fact it's regular order two sides pass now

try to comprise the differences that exist between the two houses. can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is plan to go to conference, if so, what the schedule might be? i yield to my friend. >> thank you. as you know, chairman ryan and chairman murray in discussions about the budget. it's, i think, encouraging for the first time in four years this is actually occurring. the senate finally passed a budget. we know both sides are take considerable different view toward the financial budget feature. these talks are aimed at sort of narrowing those differences. we certainly continue want to short circuit. >> i appreciate the fact you are encouraged. frankly, our side has not heard an encouraging word in fact we continue to hear discouraging words, as the song says. but i'm very hopeful we can

bridge the gap which exists which is about 100 billion as the gentleman notes. the senate marked to including that figure for the fiscal year '14 budget. the ryan budget, as you know, reflects a $the 966 billion allocation nap is general discretionary spending level. i'm wondering when you say you're encouraged, do you know whether there's been any progress toward trying to bridge that gap, obviously as a former appropriator, many times you, you know, 50/50 come to the middle which is about $1 trillion or a little more than that. i'm wondering whether or not the gentleman knows whether any progress has been made on that. i yield to my friend.

>> as you know -- thank you for yielding. as you know, there are significant dpirches -- differences that senate budget includes over a $1 trillion on tax hick -- hikes and small business which could be damaging for the economy. adds abouted trillion to the deficit and doesn't take -- we think are critical steps to saving social security and medicare over the long haul. that's why the discussions, i think, are so critical. again, i'm encouraged that both sides are discussing them. trying to find a way to narrow them within and we ought to give them time to be able to continue the discussions. >> i thank the gentleman. let me observe that on our side, we think would be useful in the american public had the opportunity, in effect, see the discussions in a conference. i've been here long enough to remember when we had conferences. we had the conferences they were

open to the public. they were reported on. we had discussions about the differences that existed as one would expect from people elected from different part of the country and different views. we think it would be help ffl the discussions were held. because the differences are pretty profound and pretty significant that it would help the public to have a better understanding of the process. in addition, as the gentleman knows, of course, there was some discussion about the president coming down late with his budget. we should been through the budget process by now. so the appropriations committee could proceed with its allocations to the twelve subcommittee. in that context, i would ask gentleman, does the gentleman have any idea when the appropriations bills might be marked up or brought to the floor? as you know, under regular order, for the most part, we brought appropriations bill to the floor starting in mid may or

last week in may, so we can get through that process in june and july and sent the bills to the senate so we might have conferences and complete our work by october 1st. i yield to my friend. >> thank you for yielding. i agree with you about the importance of moving our proachtions bill. as a majority leader announced, we'll begin the process of funding our government in june. in the open appropriation and through the appropriations seasons we'll work with the appropriations committee to determine which bill will come to the floor in june. ooze we have continued to for last number of years. >> i appreciate that. i look forward to it. in the consideration of the appropriations bill on the floor. i want to say for the most part you have followed open rules, which i -- we did as well in 2007 until we couldn't get the bills done in a timely fashion. hopefully we can do that because i think that can give the public

the opportunity to see the priority of not only each member but both sides moving forward. i think it's a appropriate in a democracy. i appreciate the fact that majority leader intends to bring the bill to the floor starting in june and i'm not sure whether we can finish all twelve in june. perhaps finish them in july. we didn't bring the labor health bill to the full committee in the last sickle much less to the floor. the bill will be tough. chairman rogers, i know the gentleman is on a committee he believes is more important to -- i may differ in that. he's a member of the ways ways & means committee. i was a member of the former appropriations committee. notwithstanding, he made the observation in terms of the dollars allocated in the ryan budget for discretionary spending for the defense and nondefense side. he said, quote, i suspect there will be some who will be

shocked. i don't think people yet understand how severe the numbers will be. those numbers referring to the $966 billion discretionary funding which will require deep cuts in almost every program on the national defense side and on the discretionary side so the cuber we get to that, i think it's going to be a difficult process, the better. i appreciate your information with the majorly leaders. thank you. intend to bring them to the floor. >> i also did not see on the schedule, mr. brady, anything that deals with the sequester. i do see the affordable care act deal on the floor next week, which has been, of course, on this floor some thirty five four, five times before. we are having another repeal vote coming up. i think honestly, you believe, as i believe, that bill is not going to go anywhere other than

perhaps through the house of representatives. but beyond that it won't go anywhere. however, the sequester continues to be an ongoing challenge to our country, to our government, and people. we dealt with it in a sort of surgical fashion dealing with the faa. we have not deal with any of the other concerns as the gentleman knows. i have concerns about the fact that sequester may result in a 70,000 children not being on head start. they are only three or four years of age once. social security administration may have to furlough people which will slow down payment of social security. four million fewer meals on wheels for seniors, 600,000 people dropped off at women, infant, and children program. less dental assistance vouchers.

unemployment insurance has been cut 11% for 2 million out-of-work americans we now have no safety net for them. the fda will have 2100 fewer food safety inspector. obviously putting at risk our food safety. we'll furlough and equivalent to 1,000 fewer federal agents. fbi, we know the boston marathon bombs, border security one-third of impaint air units have been grounded. i mention all of those simply to say that in the context of the those consequences of the sequester, does the gentleman have any -- i see it's not on next week. we have a week after that will be in session. does the gentleman have any information with with reference to whether or not we will deal with trying to familiar identity

the adverse consequences of sequester before we leave for the memorial daybreak. i yield to my friend. >> thank you for imreelding. as you remember the president proposed the sequester originally in discussions about the budget and the threat to veto any legislative effort to turn off the scwes per. programs -- sequester. perhaps that's why -- locks in the lower spending levels for remain of the budget year in congress provided the administration the flexibility to cut funding from a nonpriority provisions and areas of the budget so we can prioritize those important areas that you discussed. as we all remember, what sequester did was take in effect, 500-pound government and inn cysted if -- insisted it lose ten pounds. that's what the sequester does.

a minor amount. important because the nation is running such dangerously high-def sit. and so clearly there's bipartisan agreement on the spending budget with the rest of the year. i think that's the regular appropriations process the chairman rogers is bringing forward. we have a chance republicans, democrats to amend it to get our idea to the floor. i think that adds extra importance to that process. >> thank gentleman for the comments. i want to observe that the president of the united states is offered a budget which eliminates the sequester and gets to budget deaf citer reduction in fiscal sustain inability an alternative way, which we think is more positive. also remind the gentleman that chris van hole less than, the ranking member of the budget committee offered an alternative which gets rid of the sequester, which all sides agree is an irrational process and cuts

highest priority and lowest priority the same. the sequester, as the gentleman snows, was put in a bill to force action with the specific belief and premise that the sequester was so bad, so irrational, so lack inning common sense and so negative in the impact that it would never be adopted. sadly, it was adopted. i want to say, also, the gentleman and a lot of his colleagues like to mention this president's suggestion. with all due respect, if the jack lou brought it up, mr. reid and everybody read about that in mr. wood ward's book. he brought up after; however, after days after sequester has a pots wassed was -- included in the cut, cap, and balance bill

for which 229 republicans voted for as a policy. i want to tell the gentleman, just for his future information, on our side. we proposed the sequester. we want to see the sequester change. and mr. van hole less than not only offered budget but he offered four amendments. each time we consider the cr and other legislation four times he offered an amendment to substitute the same sievings to get budget deficit reduction which the gentleman spoke but would not do so in the irrational across the board fashion that sequester requires. so that i want to make it clear if there was any confusion on your side of the aisle, we're not for the sequester. i vote forked the cr to keep government open, but i voted against the cr when it left the house which had sequester in there. i frankly, shutting down government was worse than sequester. i think the sequester is having

a heart felt effect on economy and harmful effect on the economy. it wasn't overnight. it's a drip, drip, drip that is harming our economy. so i understand what the gentleman told us, but i would hope that question would seriously consider trying to see if we can reach agreement either outside the context of the budget conference, or inside the context budget conference that would give us an agentive which would be more positive, and helpful to our economy. the next subject simply the debt ceiling, we just passed a bill on the prioritization. we anonymously oppose that on our side. we think it's not a good policy. obviously there's a disagreement on that. can the gentleman tell me, may 19th is the day the debt ceiling

extension expires. can the gentleman tell me whether there's any proposal to act in the near future other than debt prioritization which will have no chance in the senate, and opposed by many republican economists as the gentleman knows, and by the bush former economic adviser to the bush administration said it wouldn't work, shouldn't work. can the gentleman tell me are whether there's any alternative plan before we leave here for memorial daybreak to give confidence to the economy and creditors and the american people that we will deal responsibly with a debt limit extension? i yield to my friend. >> thank you for yielding. i was disappointed in today's action. since that i think is dangerous to flirt with default. america ought to pay its debt. we ensure investors here at home, our local retirement

funds, who have bought u.s. treasury in the social security and trust fund itself that gets paid back interest as well as other investors that america will not default. i was dispoibted it was made a partisan issue. in fact, i think flirting with it and getting to the brink is damaging to our economy and, i think choosing for default was a mistake by your colleagues. i'm hope informal the senate they are will take it up and be a more bipartisan effort to assure that we are going actually pay our bills, and focus on the real problem, which is dangerously high-def sit. the fact we're not acting now to save social security medicare such critical programs. in the house, we have begun the discussions to identify what those priorities are to move us back toward a balance budget without raising taxes on local families and businesses. we have begun the process, of

identifying good positive ideas that would restore confidence in america's financial future and we think it is important to move along on a deliberate timely manner so that we don't end up in 11th hour issue, and i think this is a reasonable appropriate way to deal with not just a huge dramaticically larger debt borrowing amount than america has ever seen so many trillions piled up in the last few years in more piling up for the future. we don't think the answer is taking more of what people earn. it is congress coming together republicans and democrats and finding a way to get our financial house in order moved back toward a balance budget and act to save social security and medicare.

>> the last four years in the clinton administration, now the -- there was a republican-controlled congress. the next four years there was a republican-controlled congress and republican-controlled senate and a republican president. and we went deeply in to debt. we -- by 87%. more than this president has escaladed deficit. nominal terms as observed before the dollars are higher. that's true. we are bigger, spending more money. making mor money as a country. gdp is up. during the regular administration we increase a debt as a national percentage of the gdp by 186%. 55% george bush, 37% under mr. clinton. and some forty plus under this president today. so i think the gentleman and i

agree we need get a handle on the debt and the deficit. but we disagree on how it happened. it happened because we didn't pay our bills. -- in 2003, practical in 2001. not paying for things is what creates debt. not buying. if i buy things and don't pay for them. i don't have a debt. if i buy things and don't pay for them. i have a debt. so it's not a question what i buy, although clearly we need to restrain buying with need coconstrain spending. as i've said, all across the board gentleman heard me. including entitlement and discretionary defense and nondefense spending. but what we ought to do is manage our finances in a way that does not give cause to the

american people or to the economy. i want to just read for you a quote keith hen -- hennesy who disagrees with your proposition that the priortization will in any way stabilize, i don't think the gentleman disagrees that the bill isn't going to pass the senate. but here is what keith hennesy said, "payment prioritization doesn't stop payments. it just delays them. then the agreed party sues the government and probably wins and turns to a bloody mess. tony frato, the spokesmen on economic policy in the bush administration said this: "prioritization is impossible. is the government really going to be in the position of withholding benefits, salaries, rent, contract payments, et. cetera in order to pay off treasury bondholders? "we refer this of course to the

pay china first bill. and china will be paid. we borrowed money from this them. we ought to pay them. here what he concludes of the prioritization bill. that would be a political catastrophe. i suggest economic catastrophe as well to say to our armed service personnel, we're not going it pay you. we are going to pay china for our debts. the fact of the matter is, the united states is mo credit worthy nation on earth. we ought to pay all of our debts not on a priority status. if we owe you as united states of america we're going to pay you. that's our proposition. not priorityization offer service and product and we don't pay them until after we pay the bondholders. we ought to pay everybody. that's what america is about. i would hope that we can revisit

this. we need to get to a responsible way of dealing with a debt limit extension. both party,ly tell my friend have demagogued on this issue. we gem dogged -- gem going -- demagogued on it. both sides demagogued on it when the president was of the other party. not good for our country. ronald reagan said that congress continues to run us up. we ran up so close last time. for the first time in history united states of america was downgraded by one of the rating agencies. i would hope the gentleman who serves on the ways & ways & means committee can work together so it doesn't happen again. that we make sure that the american people and all of our creditors and people around the world know that the united states america can and will handle the finances in a

responsible fashion. i yield back to him. i yield back to him. you can see live coverage of the house when the members gavel in next week. legislative business resumes tuesday. see the how live on c-span. the senate back monday at 12-- 2 p.m. they continue work on the water infrastructure bill. later in the week, vote on president obama's pick to have the senators from medicare and medicate services. live coverage of the house on c-span and senate here on c-span2. this department may be nearing a stage with the frequency of the crime and the perception there's tolerance of it. and very well undermine our ability to effectively carry out the mission and recruit and retain the good people we need.

that's sun openable to me and the leader of the institution. it should be unacceptable to everyone associated with the united states of america mitts. we need culture change where every servicemember is treated with dignity and respect. where all allegations of inappropriate behavior are treated with seriousness. where victims' privacy is protected. bystanders are motivated to intervene. and where offenders know that they will be held accountable by strong and effective systems of justice. this weekend on c-span defense secretary hagel outlines new initiative to fight sexual asample in the armed service. booktv this weekend google eric schmidt and share their

vision of world where everyone is digitally connected. c-span three american history tv. former cia chief soviet analyst on cold war intelligence during the horizon hour administration. sunday at 3:00. nato secretary anders fogh rasmussen that europe needed to back up the diplomacy. to shoulder the burden with the u.s. and other allies. 21 of the 127 european union countries are nato members. the secretary general spoke between a joint european parliament committee. and after the remarks he answered question on syria, nato's relationship with the e.u.

[inaudible conversations] we have -- [inaudible] secretary general of nato. on the future of european defense. i welcome secretary general razz razz i also welcome colleagues from parliament. six countries that are represented, and the it is almost -- [inaudible]

but also in the -- [inaudible] discussion on european defense european counsel. i would underline the two issues challenges forcing -- somalia from -- [inaudible] and the need to include european defense corporation are critical issues especially at the time of economic constraint and political uncertainty. i would remind that the european parliament is consistent in arguing that the e.u. and nato are complimentary organizations for the european, atlanta, and global security interests. the treaty confirms the rule of each organization. i would emphasizic it's

important to -- [inaudible] provisions and the invest in european defense before in our capability undermine our ability to take care of security ease specially in our neighborhood and -- [inaudible] i mention the fact that the december the european counsel provides an important opportunity to work for further and deeper -- national corporation toward the -- [inaudible] for coalition of the willing. for building lasting partnership like the one with nato. let me express concern about

escalation and attack in afghanistan as we enter the season. last week of seven nato soldiers. and that -- [inaudible] security situation will troops are gone. i give you the floor for your presentation. thank you very much. welcome again. thank you very much mr. provera for that kind introduction. it is really a great pleasure for me to once again to meet members of the two committees and chairperson from the foreign relations and defense committees of national parliament. we meet regularly, actually, so i am glad to see many familiar faces, and i am looking forward

to another lively discussion. so let me make a just a few points. i am fully committed to a strong and open europe. i firmly believe that europe must have a strong common security and defense policy. and i am pleased that there will there will be a european council dedicated to common security and defense policy. and i am pleased that there will be a european council dedicated to security and defense next december. it will actually be the first time since the start of the global financial crisis that heads of state and government focus on this vitality mention of our strong and open europe. but let me also be frank. if european nations do not make

a firm commitment to invest in security and defense, then all talk about a strengthened europe defense and security policy will just be hot air. and it won't bring us any closer to the strong and open europe that we all want. so as we look ahead to december, we should all keep three things firmly in mind. first, we europeans must understand that soft power alone is really no power at all. without hard capabilities to back up the dipty, europe will lack credibility and influence. it will risk being a global spectator, rather than the powerful global actor that it

can be -- and should be. our shared experience in the western balkans is a case in point. restoring stability there has required a mix of hard and soft power. we saw this with the conclusion of the recent agreement between belgrade and pristina. the agreement has brokered by european union, and i commend kathy ashton for her excellent work. but both parties wanted assurance that nato and would guarantee the security to implement the agreement. second, a continuing decline in european defense and european defense budgets will inevitably result in a declining role that for our continent on global

stage, and europe will unable to participate in crisis management. the only way to avoid this is by holding the line on on defense spending. to stop the cuts and to start reinivsing in security as soon as our economies recover. meanwhile, we need to make better use of what we have. to do more together as europeans, within the european union, and within nato, to deliver the critical defense capabilities and that are too expensive for any individual country to deliver alone.

finally, having the right capabilities is important. but it is not enough. we must also have the political will to use them. to deal with security challenges on europe's doorstep. to help manage crisis further away that might affect us here at home. and to better share the security burden with our north american allies. for this to happen, european nations need to develop a truly global perspective. we must not become ab -- absorbed by our domestic, economic woes. we must look outwards, not inwards. and we need europe and north america to talk more regularly, more openly, and more frankly. within the unique transatlantic forum that is nato. and between nato and the european union.

for this to happen, european nations need to develop a truly global perspective. the european council in december should showcase a europe that is both able to act and willing to act. and it should encourage the european union and nato to do more together. to consult more. coordinate more. and cooperate more.

to get us there will require strong political resolve -- including here in the house, as well as in national parliament. i am confident that we can rise to the challenge. because we owe it to our taxpayers, and voters, to give them the best security that money can buy. and with that as an introduction, i look very much forward to stimulating discussion this afternoon. thank you. [applause] thank you very much. thank you for your speech and --

i want to give my regards to you that you're able to come to us again and have the discussion with us once again. [inaudible] >> thank you. [inaudible] [laughter] thank you. i won't take any questions away from you. i would like to begin by thanking the secretary general for his regular welcome and useful attendance at our committee meetings. thank you for your extremely clear message on that european capabilities, and the joint

security and defense policy. i have taken note of the fact that you would like to see the policy developed in a vigorous fashion. your speech is very much along the lines of what the u.s. secretary of defense robert gates to two years ago when he was in brussels. he called on european to do more, better, particularly when it comes to budgets and capabilities. that indeed a major concern for us all. we are all familiar with the institutional difficulties when it comes to the european union and now tow. we know that these prelim and institutional difficulties cannot be resolved in the short term more easily given that fact what avenue can we explore to further improve coordination

between the two institutions? what do you think are the possible or existing areas where we can work more closely together? and let me finish up with a comment on a recent trip to northwood we visited the hq there, we met with the maritime command, the nato maritime commend, for atlantic and the nato presence in the indian ocean. so i am thinking about the post 2014 post afghanistan period. nato is looking to fresh horizons at any cost at the

reasonable approach? has that been properly coordinated with other international organizations? is there consensus within nato on this approach and in what areas does nato have to become more active? thank you. [speaking in native tongue] >> thank you. i too would like to thank the nato secretary general for his presence. let me begin by saying that we regret that is not -- the number of soldiers deployed to afghanistan our condolences. secretary general, let me say that we fully subscribe to your analysis. the european union should not just be a military power but rather a political and economic force as well. the european union can be

effective and credible in the way it tackles the new threat. so it must be responsible in it the position it takes we do; however, struggle to mobilize four to five thousand soldiers for operations. i have two specific questions. firstly, on syria. in nato, what analysis have you drawn off the israeli operations in syria? how may it affect security in neighboring countries such as turkey? what are the options? what are the lessons that can be drawn from the area exclusion in syria?

and what might the impact be on syria? second question, i would like to become more -- what he said. what is the scenario for afghanistan post 2014? and finally, to what extent is nato working on smart defense? and how is this compatible with the pooling and sharing approach that the european union is with common security and defense policy? thank you. >> translator: now has the floor. he is member of the european parliament, a member of the

polish senate and defense minister. >> chairman is a great pleasure to see you. and there's a gain -- [inaudible] on the contribution to nato and the european union. i have three marks. the first one, is about necessity of -- but also in security of europe. the changes in u.s. may weaken. [inaudible] to security of europe. that's why it's obvious we should, in europe, to dplifer more in the capability and the sphere of operations. the americans after the change itself priority of the --

expressed the beginning as well as the shift of priority to -- [inaudible] to the -- for con fry biewtion from europe. my question is about how do you see right now the performance of -- [inaudible] the crucial -- that we deliver during the last year and it is one of the answer for the key commune -- [inaudible] my second remarking about nato relations. this working dialogue between the u.n. that was established several years ago is working dialogue. working dialogue without special relation center for everybody, i believe, it should be maintained

for the benefit of european union and nay tow -- nato. [inaudible] and my third remarking, about necessary corporation between the both institutions but also for abilities of particular -- [inaudible] especially in the -- [inaudible] and smart defense. to what extent you can say that it -- [inaudible] it should be harmonized in the progress of both. thank you very much. >> translator: thank you for that very interesting speech.

you said nato was a unique transatlantic forum. and there's no doubt about that. what i think is most encouraging is that nato has concentrated on the new challenges of cybersecurity and the like. and yet, there's a general view that nato is -- the u.s.a. turning in on itself has to, some extend downgraded nato. my question to you is, to what extend is the united states now less interested in europe. and my second question --

[inaudible] and the european enthusiasm for that. my question is in nato or in research institutions close to nato has any research been done in to how much taxpayers' money is being used for the upkeep of old buildings, old equipment, deafen infrastructure, which is now obsolete. in this crisis, i think there there might be more enthusiasm for pool and sharing. my question is, can you tell if there's any research to this. is there possible to do research how much money is wasted in this way?

thank you. i would like to thank the nato secretary general for setting out position. can you hear me? i would like to thank the secretary general for his comments. brief comments that were powerful words. he spoke of the need for europe make a greater investment in its own security. it is true that they are two-way street nikdz with nato. it's an age-old question that predates the fall of the berlin wall. many years later, what i note is that despite it all, nothing

major has changed. as things stand the u.s. is clearly setting its sights at strategic sights on the pacific. i have just come back from india i could sum up political sentiment on europe by saying the following india believes in the u.s. believes in major state but not in the european union. i'm summarizing simplifying. that is more or less the message. there are threats facing us surrounding us. they are greater than ever even if public opinion is not aware of this. look at what is happening in syria. of course we do not wish to see a military intervention there. it might be necessary if certain forces lay their hands on chemical weapons.

it would be interesting to hear your assessment of the situation . head of the e.u. summit on security, i would like to hear from you on behalf of nato would you call on europe to develop european defense policy military resources and budgets are dwindling. the u.k. and france have to make serious disastrous choices if we continue to operate on the national -- only. we will not have a credible defense policy in europe. the time has come to pool our resources particularly in the light of this is a discourse we hear in national parliament when discussing economic crisis.

the fact is there is a vital move. will nato; therefor, clearly adopt such a position? that would be a first. nato has always sought more countries to do more within nato. i supported such an attitude. will nato call for integration of the military resources of the states? >> thank you. >> good afternoon. two points. the first we appreciate that. and in impediment to stronger -- union. is always the turkey cypress

problem. do you agree with me because it would be therefore, prudent to to ask the turkish prime minister -- to be at the december meeting of the european council. i think if he is asked, it will be the first chance to speak to his peers since 2004. that's a long time before secondly, following the trip

that to northwood that they spoke of, could you say something about nato's approach to the future of the atlanta program? against the somalian -- seem to ask if we withdrawal from the operation, and the end of next year that they will soon return. and? to you think there are the lessons we can draw from the successful experience in the

somali operation? and to deploy similar maritime forces in the -- -- thank you. thank you very much indeed for very relevant questions. first thank you for your kind words, and you ask me how we could possibly coordinate between nato and the european