dash up of subject of make up blood with copyright infringement. . . i hope we can continue building these types of cases. they are complex and require a lot of resources, but as shown by this study and others, they have a real payoff, which means a lot to my constituents who

work in a copyright and content industries. i hope you can work to make sure that the agents that are dedicated at the enforcement with the support of the subcommittee, in fact, continue to focus and work on ip-related cases and not other matters. >> and i can commit to that. i agree with bob miller that this work is very, very important. the engine of america is our creativity, and you can make it different in protecting the fruits of that creativity through blocking some of these people up. that work is going to continue. >> thank you to. >> of the gentleman would yield for one second. part of my colleague -- he admitted that he had some difficulty. we are talking about united states citizens, no matter what the circumstances. they have certain rights that attend to how they can be questioned and under what circumstances. the public safety is perception. they're is a differential. an american citizen has to be --

what rights they have. and so, you know, different. you mentioned on the battlefield, you know, people who were not american cities to the citizens is a different circumstance, but all of us have a responsibility to uphold the constitution and the rosarian. i know that you did not mean to infer that we should loosen any of that in any way. i just wanted to make clear for the record on a point. >> the capture and the battlefield. >> absolutely. absolutely. i'm saying, the boston bombing suspect, okay. so i just want the record to be clear, at least from my own statement on this matter. right? of want to get all the bad guys, but as the director said a moment before this, we need to not give up any of our liberties in the process of doing that. >> i just want to say quickly. and thank my colleague for his comments. the issue is one for the

american citizens and foreigners that may be brought into u.s. custody on criminal charges. so it extends -- it is a challenge for both. the difference for the issue bummer suspect, not an american citizen and someone who is. these issues. >> on the constitutional questions there is the statutory requirement presented within a certain number of hours, and then the supreme court has so there is a constitutional dimension that there be, you know, some a lack creative before the magistrate. but i don't think that the statutory six hours or wherever it may be is the constitutional standard. i would never suggest that we should do anything contrary to the constitution. it is ambiguous with the constitution requires in terms of how best to have to present someone to magistrate. i, you know, favre is moving more to use of the criminal-justice system which has proven its capacity to

prosecute people and terrorism crimes. to the degree that this presents an obstacle to doing that, i think within our constitutional limits we ought to examine how we can make this feasible. thank you. i yield back. >> i would add a statement. i have a series that will go fast. summonses want to get on the record. we will submit others to answer. not to cover some of these would just be in a gleeful. so one, on the internet is beyer, the magazine's, i think i heard you say four of the five came out. thirteen people killed. i think inspired a kid from upton, upton, virginia. if you lived in upton -- >> i have. >> half of them go to my church. he was inspired to my think. at think some of the bureau has

to address the comment. has to address this thing. sometimes the talk and say we don't want to shut down is mired because, you know, we want to get this information. we want to track, followed, watch. maybe, not certainly, but maybe had it been shut down the people from of the boston marathon would not have been killed. those people who lost legs would not have lost legs. so it is a balancing there. at think sometimes you have to shut the system down when it is coming out side. he is still radicalizing people from the grave. and we have the ability to ship those things down. so it is a trade-off. what do you say to a mom? we did not shut it down. we wanted to get the information to track x and y. but have we shut it down? your sine, your daughter. it is a tough issue.

but i think in spire from my own speaking for myself, radicalizing people like that coming at us from outside the system would be shut down because i don't know how you can look at somebody, the boston marathon. so you don't have to comment really. i think we have got to start making decisions and not always say, well, you know, we have an fbi agent working a case in following this thing. if we shut it down or not going to know, but if we could have shut it down what some of these damage from yemen or places, we may have saved some lives. can you just confirmed you and i talked about the ig investigation of the care? can you confirm that the policy remains in place? >> yes. >> yes.

>> a secure work environment, submit that for the record. the new headquarters, i understand the initial solicitation process has ended. gsa has received 37 proposals and established a board to review the offers and come up with a short list. who is on the board, do we know? >> i don't know. i know i think it is five people , three from gsa, two from fbi. >> i think there names not to be made public because i think this ought to be honest, ethical. so when history looks back at it wherever it goes people say, hey, clearly these were five people, nobody had any influence on them. this was not a political, you know -- so i think if you could to submit for the record the five names they will go down in history and we can watch and see. i don't, you know, obviously i favor virginia for a lot of different reasons. i think it has to be done in a way, so much integrity to it. if we can get the five names in

the record. >> it would be helpful. the central records complex. understand your status meeting with gsa and the icrc, and that is perspective for the site is up for approval by the of the risers. could you update us on their plans of the central records center out in the war chester's area? >> probably not beyond saying it is on track thanks to this committee and congress. has been funded. it is vital, another thing that seems kind of boring to people, vital to our work. but i don't -- i can't say more beyond that. i know it's on track. i'm sure we can give you the details. >> okay. if you would. do you have any comment you want to make about the quantico facility? >> no, we need a new one.

it is one of the world's most important colleges and its 42 years old. it's the 1970's at its best, but it needs to be -- we need a new college there. >> what can the committee do? >> until the folks we need at some point to go back to congress. and at times are tight, but this is the kind of infrastructure we have to invest in. this is a national university, international. it will be coming back to you talking about that. we are refurbishing, rearranging deck chairs on analysts ship. we needed some point to build a new ship. >> okay. if you can give something to us we will be marking up your release soon. there may be some language that we can carry that would push this thing, you know, forward. the espionage on china, i think, you know, i think mr. colbert and others covered it.

i think it is a board that people realize, i am seeing all these trips the people are taking to china, seeing some business community just like china. every time you hear about this thing you have to understand some things. this committee has pretty tough language on china if you are catholic there are 25 catholic bishops that are under house arrest being tracked in prison. that number was up at christmas, the community, never to be seen again. this is in the chinese government. president china, he is the guy that put together the policy down into bed. i snuck into tibet and number of years zero. a hundred 19 tibetan monks set themselves a flame because of the skies policies. this guy that -- business

communities went over there and just went guy got to be with the guy. the chinese people are wonderful people. more chinese come to my office, i think, than any other office appear in california. a chinese, they want freedom. and so they will forget. they're having a heck of a tie in china. at a northern virginia. i mean, the chinese public security police went up to northern virginia. your people tracking down, followed her and was photographed in her in fairfax county. the chinese government, and so they checked everything off of my computer. and you know, until there is some sort of retaliation whereby they say guys from here on a you do this and this is will happen.

but there are evangelical pastors, there are -- so when -- and i understand, and i am not contest to comment, but they have spine efforts to make the kgb look like it was an elementary class. i mean, they are doing things. when people think in terms of china, catholic priests and zero, catholic bishops in jail. they're executing people. i can show you the found, shooting them and taking their corneas out and kidneys out and selling them for 50, $60,000. so it is -- you have to have a clear thought what you think in terms of china, but we will get -- the boston marathon, you can maybe for the record, what lessons have we learned from this experience that is change the way the fbi and his partners might prevent or respond to such an attack. if you can do that for the

record also. the terrorists explosive device analytical center is being established in redstone. your budget calls for 15 million increases which will if appropriate become part of the base, that facility for to fund. >> yes. to be open next year. the request is the operation and maintenance of the facility because it will be up and running. very important. >> taken the dna samples. submit that question. it's a little bit different. we will submit the unmanned aircraft, the drones. one on the terrorist screening center, the zero ig report. can then one on mutual legal

assistance treaty. and then the last one on benghazi, it has now been a year-and-a-half since a terrorist attack and the u.s. consulate and the cia and action benghazi. today not a single terrorist has been apprehended are killed by the u.s. in limited cases when foreign countries detain suspects the fbi was the night people like karzai into tunisia. why has it been so difficult for the u.s. to bring any of the scores of terrace of vaulted justice? >> i think the answer is most the because it is a very difficult environment in which both to investigate and to apprehend people responsible.

we have devoted, as you know, a tremendous amount of work to this. we are still devoting a tremendous amount of work. we have made great progress. laying hands of people outside the united states, especially in a challenging environment is very difficult. >> the fbi did a great job. the people went out, eventually tracked them down. maybe joyce was involved. >> eventually. >> to pick up a couple and bring them back and do -- it is ben, what, 18 months? >> when i went to egypt to give a letter to the egyptian government. it is a guy named mohammad jamal is he still in egyptian custody

and as the fbi had access? we have until the as information with regard to the attacks. >> my understanding is he is still in custody in egypt. as a ballad of the prevent access. we requested it. in general we have good corporations from the egyptians. think that's where that stands right now. >> could i ask you to please -- we will be voting on who billion dollar plus aid to the egyptian government. north come not surprised that more see did not give us access to him. but the current government could you all -- you have a legal and attache there. i met with them. it has been months since i was there. could you tell us the -- could you have their state department or your legal attache ask the current government and say the question came from the committee that it is going to be, i think,

mr. shephard on the foreign operations. it has to be voting on whether we should give it to egypt with. what the fbi to get in their entirety. and the stand he had information now are you aware of the problem he was -- the two nations picked him up to be added team got the fertility five days, 25 days. tony's it would not allow us. they are in millennium challenged country. we give the millions because they are so wonderful and it would not let the fbi talked to them. finally the fbi team came back three hours later and let that guy loose. i saw him on television celebrating that he was -- i would have a hard time, frankly, voting for aid to egypt. can you ask the state department

, secretary carry? we want to get to the bottom of what took place. this guy has a information and if they want aid from us, you know, if you could just talk to them and make that request. >> i will. >> okay. and then i think that is the secure work environment. i think that's it. mr. shephard your good. >> mr. chairman, follow-up on that. i hope the egyptians, the chinese, the ukrainians are paying attention. i want to reiterate complete support for what the chairman just mentioned. on the foreign operations committee, the package is put together, your number one the subcommittee very successfully persuaded nasa to finally build a heavy lift rocket with a man capsule. there were ignoring a such a tour language the authorization

said that nasa had to build a heavy lift rocket to go beyond low orbit. i think we should pursue and i would support your efforts on the -- with chairman ranger to make the second part of set aside. think you did that, mr. mr. chairman. you don't get the second half of your money for commercial until you comply with the statute. you ought to think about putting contingencies on the aid to ukraine and the aid to egypt until they, the egyptians, give you access. >> with the gentleman yield. i think -- i agree with you. not so much on this particular part of it. egypt is decided the other day, the new regime, to sentence to death a hundred 28 people who supported the previous president they're time ran out. though situation is dissolving in the wrong direction. let alone whether or not we can get some basic level cooperation

on the benghazi thing. the director's point in response to the chairman is that the issue here for our country is that eventually we're going to get these people. just like we got a lot. thousands of people were killed. took a time for justice to be, to find -- on the work its way. but if we are a great nation, patient and when that point have innocent people which -- the people it did this. so in terms of egypt there plenty of reasons, especially at this stage to take 500 people and sentenced them to death because there were on the wrong side of a political question about who should be president. >> their bigger problems. >> not something that we should be supporting. exactly right, but quite correctly you put your finger on an earlier with ukraine. it's about the money. if you could please tell the

chairman of the subcommittee, for example, a teenager, who is not cooperating? what countries are denying you access to a who is critical as far as witnesses and individuals that have been involved. what is ukraine blocking? how is ukraine being uncooperative? he is exactly right. i hope mr. shephard will work with german grandeur find ways to make some of that foreign aid contingent on the ability to on their cooperation with the fbi and the human rights violations are appalling to read your exactly right. i could also follow, it as quickly as possible. >> who is not cooperating? >> i need to think about but what i know and what i can say and in what formica say it. >> let me communicate that to the chairman. you're exactly right. i'm always astonished.

i just think the world of this man. tell me the first day was an fbi agents -- you can confirm the story, it's one of my favorites. the first day at the fbi academy the first words out of the first professors not the students at the same welcome to the fbi is just remember, if the defendants that is not about the money it's about the money. dollars about the money because it's only about the money. as long as your number it's about the money of the again fbi agent. is that fundamentally correct? >> i can't confirm because we haven't trained anybody yet. >> were about to start. all find out june 3rd with the first words are. >> that's what they did. >> we really want to help you guys. make sure you're getting access to these individuals. i would also like to, if i could , ask is there anything the chairman will said in his characterization of the wars that has been the chinese -- communist chinese government, not the people.

looking human rights violations, anything he said about their human rights violations, they're aggressive intentions against the united states and cyber warfare. the characterization of the nation accurate? >> well, he said a lot of things most of which i'm not expert enough to be able to confirm, although i've read the same things. what i know about a cyber. especially with regard to cyber i stand by what i said earlier. there are a significant player in a significant challenge for us there. >> to the extent that you consider cyber attacks as a modern form of warfare, it seems to me that the chinese, to communist chinese government is in a way of war with the united states, the level of attacks, that, aggressive intent. attacking is in the cyber environment. >> i will leave the characterization to others. the facts are what we talked

about earlier. they are very aggressive and a significant presence in cyber attacks of all kinds. >> one are two other quick things to mr. chairman. you have been gracious. these terrible website that not only the web sites to incite people commit these horrible human trafficking websites, though we have the ability to essentially in fact shows such? if we can't shut them down one not just infect them with no or so that any party that touches them, their computers robert. >> something i really wouldn't want to talk about in an open forum. >> to read out there. it serves him right. you literally out to test up and it was computer that would even touch one of those what science. finally i have to have that ability and please do it. don't, when the other. >> i'm not.

>> they deserve whenever they get. they're computers ought to burn, as they should. finally rick crawford, congressman from arkansas, wonderful, good man who served in the united states army as a demolitions expert, actually, i think, mr. chairman, some of the talk to us on the floor about the work he did disarming bonds. he told us the he was aware that there were other bombs in boston , other backpack bonds that did not go off because everybody put down their cell phones and started making phone calls. all of those self was going off at the effective jamming the of the backpacks. is that correct? >> no. we have -- you might imagine the resources we devoted to the investigation, and there is no relevance of that. >> no evidence of other bombs? >> no. >> you also mentioned us that the fbi has a number jammers that could jam remotely detonated, you know, bob's that

were intended to be detonated with siltstones and that local law enforcement is having difficulty getting access to those spirited man not be something you're familiar with, but want to bring it to your attention and ask if you could please follow-up with mr. mr. crawford of the subcommittee and do whatever you can to help the local law enforcement or is needed like in boston if they had jammers available at the fbi , they knew was coming. the local law enforcement or the fbi could simply have had jammers out there that might have prevented this to backpacks from going off to be it's worth pursuing this. thank you for the extra time. >> mr. director, thank you very much for your testimony. i want to, again, thank the men and women of the fbi and thank you for your service and also if you would give my best to director mollen. >> this house appropriations subcommittee also consists of

members of an independent commission reviewing fbi procedures since the 9/11 attacks. this is a little more than an hour. >> i would like to welcome the distinguished bipartisan panel that is reviewing the fbi's progress in terms of reviewing recommendations of the 9/11 commission, former attorney general and chief of staff and the reagan administration and also the attorney general, also a former congressman and ambassador and 9/11 commissioner , congressman roomer and professor bruce hoffman, director of the center for security studies at georgetown university and a widely recognized expert on terrorism. legislation to create this commission was first proposed in 2011 at the time of the 10-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and was signed into law last year as part of the f white 2013. it will conduct an independent

and external review of the fbi implementation of a recommendation from the 9/11 commission as well as consider how the bureau is addressing the involvement. i believe this review is necessary and timely, especially as the market decade since the release of the 9/11 commission recommendations this year. it's important to continue to keep our eye on the end of -- involving terrorist threat especially given trends in domestic radicalization. i believe this commission will also be a great asset, as the director acknowledged, as he starts his term as the fbi director. the men and women of the fbi have done an outstanding job preventing terrorist attacks of the last 13 years. the committee in the american people are grateful to them. i believe this review will insure we are able to focus resources and continue to hell do this important work. recognize that the panel is just beginning its efforts, expects

the session to be one of playing our road map brother and a presentation of findings. we look forward to hearing a plans. we will take members first. i would like to recognize mr. atoll for any comments. >> are want to thank the chairman for holding this hearing. i think it's appropriate for us to take a minute and the paws and to hear from you about where we are in this process. oftentimes we are just focused on the, you know, numbers. this is, i think the commission did such an extraordinary public service that the least we can do is to follow up and make sure that the recommendations are appropriately being acted on. welcome. in the ford your testimony. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, we have a joint statement, formal statement

which has been provided to my belief, to the committee. secondly, we each have a brief summary of the statement which if it will be agreeable to the committee would give in and be open to your questions. we appreciate this opportunity to appear with my fellow commissioners, ambassador tim roemer, bruce hoffman to inform you of our progress and plans to carry at the commission's work as you have given it to us and to speak about specifically the response to the 9/11 commission, what they have done and then other things related to that. i think we, as you had mentioned earlier, have a very high regard for the fbi. my own case, i worked with them on a number of things over 50 years. unlike any law enforcement are intelligence agency, the fbi lavers every day to counter or mitigate the complicated array

of threats. this is a dangerous world. the same time as the director mentioned this morning, it is, in fact, work in progress. a great deal is happening in terms of the transformation from investigative to intelligence lead agency. that is one of the principal areas in which we also will be conducting a work. as you know, this subcommittee was instrumental and establishing the commission on the review of the fbi in relation to counter-terrorism with four specific missions as stated. the objectives are first and assessment of the progress made in the challenges that were mentioned in implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission that they're related to the fbi. secondly, an analysis of the fbi's response to the trends of domestic terror attacks since the 11th of september and 2,001. third, an assessment now known to the fbi was not considered by

the 9/11 commission related to in the factors that contributed in any manner to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. finally, any additional recommendations with regard to the fbi intelligence sharing and counter-terrorism policy and come to light, it is since that time or may come to light in the course of our investigations. the congressional barons constitutes, we believe, broad mandate to provide a balanced assessment of the fbi's presence in this transformation of implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations. but unlike the 9/11 commission and it which was much broader, hours is to invest catastrophic counter-terrorism attacks on major intelligence failures. our work will involve an intensive examination of the burro structure, organization, programs, policies related to counter-terrorism, intelligence, and several securities since

9/11. we will render findings know what is working and find out where improvement is indicated. you will make every effort to recommend practical steps to improve performance. we're in the process of building a competent staff. while relatively few in number we will be particularly rich in counter-terrorism and intelligence experience, including people who worked with the 9/11 commission. be developing a base line of findings and recommendations from the number multiple investigations studies, assessments, and reports on the fbi progress. some of them having been referred to earlier but the webster commission and other groups. we don't want to reinvent the wheel. we want to build on what is already been done. you assess the performance of the new programs since 9/11, including those related to homegrown violent terrorist, online radicalization and and

the need to counter violence and extremism. it will also be going to the fbi training facilities to visit selective joint terrorism task forces around the country of various sizes because there is considerable difference in terms of the programs and the available resources at the large, metal, and small counter-terrorism locations. we specifically will be working through a study of several terrorism cases. again some of which were referred to earlier. questions today as giving us an opportunity to look at whether the fbi was, what happened in those cases, will was successful and where improvement is needed. we will also take a particular look at how closely and effectively the fbi is collaborating with other intelligence agencies and with strategic partners at the state and local level and a broad

platform to be revealed the topic of information sharing will be a consistent theme as we process these case studies and a mention. i think, mr. chairman, that is my summary. i will turn to my colleagues, ambassador robert. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member for the opportunity to appear before you with my fellow commissioners. it is a pleasure to serve and then on to work with the fbi on the important tasks that the subcommittee as leonel for commission. as you know, have dedicated my academic career which now spans nearly 40 years to the study of

terrorism and more recently to the dynamics of radicalization, foreign and domestic much that can lead to violent extremism. this is a high priority national security issue that is of interest to you. the fbi is working hard to say on programs related town grow violent extremism, online radicalization while and extremism. let me share with you briefly some observations from my own academic study of requisition. the variety of terrorists who have surfaced over the years evidence is that there is no one path to requisition. the reason why someone picks up a gun or blows themselves of is interruptible personal. one various reason, frustration, religious piety or the desire for systemic socio-economic change. irritant is convicted of conviction and commitment to revolution. and yet though there is no universal terrorist personality nor as a single broadly

applicable profile of a been produced there are things we do know. terrorists are generally not a vin by a profound sense of, i'll be a misguided, of tourism. the feelings of self dissent. there are religiously observant or about and a biting, even unswerving commitment to the fate and the conviction that there violence is not a with theological justified divinely commanded. the logical arguments in this context are in vogue with by the organizations responsible for the attack and by the communities from which these terrorist organizations. in the case of muslims, although the car ron forbids suicide and the conviction of 110 violence pronouncements have been made by radical muslim clerics and then some instances have been promulgated as profit -- profit is. the legitimacy of violence and to resist the invasion muslim land. radical islamic terrorist movements have been created in

recruitment and support mechanism of compelling theological incentives that sustain their violence campaigns and six engines despite america's withdrawal and impending departure from afghanistan. individuals will always be attracted to violence in different ways. just look at the people that have gravitated toward terrorism in the united states in recent years. we have seen terrorists from south asia and north as well as east african descent as well as those dealing from them at least in the caribbean. we have seen lifelong devout muslims as well as recent converts including one philadelphia suburban housewife who touted her petit structure and blond hair and blue eyes that had been so it typical of a stereotypical terrorists as to defy any efforts to profiling. radicalized of the internet she sought to users of describe ability to avoid detection to assassinate an artist to draw offensive cartoon of the profit.

these come from every walk of life, marginalized people working at menial job, some with strong criminal records restaurant you're not delinquency to persons from inland upper-middle-class backgrounds with university and perhaps even graduate degrees. prior passions for cause, sports, rock music and other completely secular and material interest. relationships formed at work and school on sports teams and other recreational and religious activities as well as over the internet and can prey upon the already susceptible. in some instances first generation sons and daughters of immigrants embrace and interpretation of their religion and heritage that is more political, more extreme, and more austere and therefore demands greater personal sacrifices than that practiced by the parents. indeed, the common element and the requisition process reflects these individuals deep commitment to the faith, often newly rediscovered, their admiration of terrorist

movements were the leading terrorist figures to they see as having struck a cathartic love for their creeds enemies wherever they are and tune of them might be. hatred of they're adopted home, especially if in the united states and the west and the profoundly shared sense of alienation from their host country. at the start of the war on terrorism the enemy was clear and planning and site. it was a large terrorist organization situated mostly in one geographic location and led by an identifiable leader degrees today when the borders between domestic and international terrorism or blurred when our adversaries are not only identifiable organizations but enigmatic individuals, a complete rethinking of our counterterrorism policies and architecture is needed. we build an effective defense against a previous threat. our challenge today is to develop new defenses against this new more a amorphous, diffuse, and individual restaurant and at the same time

continue to destroy and up and al qaeda, its affiliates and associates and most especially the etiology. thank you, mr. chairman, members of the subcommittee. and happy to take any questions or comments might have on radicalization of subject : to terrorism and the commission's mandate following the presentation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. but just like to begin by saluting and thanking my colleagues here. you can see why it is an honor to meet with and work with dr. hoffman and learning from them every day. we have great chemistry and i think hopefully through the course of this commission we will produce a product your prana. i am delighted to be back up in congress, mr. chairman all friends of mine from before. it's great to see you doing your oversight work appear.

hopefully we will be the recipient of from the questions today. we look forward to issuing a report when we're finished with this. i would want to start, mr. chairman, by following mr. mr. schiff and saluting you. and you made a decision to retire from politics, something out voluntarily did a few years ago. you have made a significant difference, not just in fairfax county in the united states but around the globe in carving out hard work and effective efforts on trafficking issues, religious freedom and human rights and, i think, your constituents in the country are proud of those efforts. we all thank you for that hard work. are would ask, mr. chairman, that my formal statement be entered into the record. i would just make some informal statements and comments. first of all my colleagues

comments and then may be, to about mr. cummins very good presentation and then talk from and are to about what makes commissions successful. as you have seen from the front page of the new york times this morning our intelligence community is talking about their concern about the extremists carving out new territory in syria and potentially learning skills and tradecraft and training there and coming back to the united states. this is oxygen for al qaeda. safe havens in possession of and access to territory in safe havens make them more effective and dangerous and deadly in the future. as he said and i think this is an area where this commission can work with as the new director of the fbi and look at what this thread might be for the world and for the united states and make recommendations

according to be the second in our testimony, mr. chairman, as you read through it carefully we talk about three revolutions that have taken place over a series of the last several decades. one of them as a technological revolution. while some funds are opening up of liberty and freedom and economic opportunity in elevating people out of poverty and developing countries we also see what they're doing to potentially radical eyes on the internet through chat rooms and magazines what they can do to shorten the fuse of radicalization for would-be terrorists. that's a challenge for the fbi. is the fbi hiring the right people? of the fast and innovative enough to keep pace in counter this threat around the world? a they going to be it will to compete with this plot, dynamic and decentralized network?

that is something that i think our commission will be looking and making recommendations on. mr. chairman, you and your career has probably created many commissions. i have served on for commissions since i left congress. i highly recommend for you than to leave congress and some point. i served on the 9/11 commission, served on a commission on radicalization, served on a commission on national parks and down the fbi. these commissions are created for many, many different reasons . they're commissions created for civil rights, education, assassinations, tragedies like the 9/11 attacks, some created by the executive branch, some by congress, some much more effective than others in terms of their outcome and then getting recommendations from congress. a few things that probably made the 9/11 commission particularly effective, one was the unity of

purpose and unity of the effort that we worked on together. we saw 29,707 human beings killed in a matter of hours. that motivation, that attack by 9/11, that devastation of death really motivated the ten members of the commission to work toward bipartisan solutions. secondly, the american people were intimately involved in the public hearings, and testing as an encouraging as to get to the bottom of things, to try to find out factually what went wrong, not to point fingers are the blind game and play politics but to try to come up with sophisticated recommendations to reorganize our government and reform things of that we would make the same mistakes again public better share intelligence across agencies that we would find new technology efforts like cyber security. thirdly i can't give enough

credit to the 9/11 families who participated in the birth of the 9/11 commission and how it got through congress. it was a bill that john mccain and i worked on in the senate and house. in a root of got it through congress fit and bin for the tenacity in a loyalty and hard work and the love of those 9/11 families for the lost ones. children, family members. they worked tirelessly to try to make sure that something was done constructively about the losses. another reason that the 9/11 commission and other commission succeed is about the clarity of the mission, the statutory mandate the staff has given us a very clear mandate. its broad. its aggressive, but i think it's clear to us will we need to do over the next several months and hopefully with your help and the fbi's cooperation were going to be about to get to the bottom of the faxing give you and the american people a good report.

another important issue is. , both on the commission. we had from tom king, republican and the hamilton, democrat where they would to a press conference apart from one another. there was no democratic republican pride in. they appeared together every time they did in the kind of press so that there would be a buses together. that was a message of the five democrats and five republicans that politics should be put aside and faction recommendations and success should be our ultimate mission and will. another area of future cooperation for getting to your end mission is the cooperation of the agencies involved. the 9/11 commission ultimately we had pretty good cooperation across the agencies to get access to documents and kept to

a get there support for briefings and followed and the helpless within thomas to succeed at the end of the day. finally we have a talented staff of experts and a host of different areas that helped us on the 9/11 commission. john gannon, we hired him as our executive director. thirty years of experience in into a community. when the process of trying to hire more staff. that will be a key issue, i think, in terms of our long-term success. with that i remember the lesson of my fifth great catholic school teacher. she taught us that we have two years and one of. we should use the two years more than we use the one of, just generically there's a lot more for us to learn and cost them to speak. as ed and bruce and i can appear we want to get your collective

wisdom as to what your concerns are about the fbi, where human like us to go within the mandate specifically and meaner honored and privileged to work with you in this effort to make america safer. with that i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman , and look forward to your questions. >> thank you. i appreciate the testimony. i supported the 9/11 commission. there were a number people from my district to die in your attack and the pentagon. i think that the fact that the three of you again bipartisan is really important. one, the committee, subcommittee will do whatever you must to. i was appreciative of director coming of yesterday in a conversation i had with them and begin today on the record. i think he is open and enthusiastic about telling this. i think that is very important. i don't have a lot of questions because i know your in an early,

early stage. can you just a loss -- i mean, where is the staff and how far along are you in getting set up? >> the most important part initially was getting john gannon to be our executive director. as been a major step. he's working very hard with the fbi. there are a number of bureaucratic and you might say procedural steps in hiring federal employees. so we had some in addition in getting the staff members rapidly on board. that's one thing working on quickly, to get that accomplished. i think that that -- we trust that is being remedied over at the present time. as the only inhibition of the events of four.

and now we have fans some excellent briefings already from fbi staff. we talk to people in the inside. so i think room along provided we can get over that particular. >> mr. chairman, if i could to support my colleague and his answer. but anytime you work with the big government organization that cooperation is a work in progress. the up to a exhilarated and gain more flexibility in terms of our hiring procedures. we help government across the board can be more flexible with us in the future, especially in the into a community. when you're fighting a fellow like al qaeda that can be flat and dynamic and entrepreneurial we need to be quick in terms of how we are proactive and those efforts. we're hopeful. >> the 9/11 commission distinguished with the recommendation between those that could implement through in the minister of action and those requiring statutory steps to implement. will you be looking a bill to

set up efforts? >> yes, we certainly will. professor hoffman here is an expert already and a steady this as a part of his work a georgetown. so we have a pretty good fix on what has happened already and some of the work. we will be working both with the your administrative and the things that might require an legislation which roughly the you have any idea of how many recommendations were made? how many recommendations were made by 9/11, and a percentage that were implemented and how many recommendations were made that one never. >> ambassador and warmer probably is the best source as to how many were made. >> mr. chairman, we take great pride in working with congress and the white house on precisely the answer to your question. forty-one recommendations were made by the 9/11 commission about 39 of those recommendations were enacted

into law. it's not just acting on legislation but executing and implementing them was the past. so there have been varying degrees of success on that implementation and execution, both by congress and by the agency's. of course, mr. chairman, i would be remiss if i did not bring it up a mile body of congress. one of the remaining recommendations has to do with congress. the reorganization of the jurisdiction from insecurity which is varied and spread out to about 100 different committees and subcommittees. we recommend that then narrowed the still not acted on. reopener some point that can be. >> from your standpoint. >> and a half nine.

>> some estimates include staffing, travel, and facility costs associated. and me, is this enough? if for going to be marking is relatively soon we want to know if there are additional things now the here on, working ninth in new we did not think that we should be doing. you don't have to have an answer, but within that next couple of weeks we could make sure that we address it. >> thank you. let me welcome you, again. the thing that interests me is that big decision. the big decision after 9/11 was, you know, there was this tension about -- by kind of think about and what we're doing with nasa.

in this commercialization. some people wanted a fan nasa and others like myself to believe in the commercial competition of having different companies involved in space exploration. the decision about whether or not we will have, given 9/11 the whole fbi, you know, chasing the bank robber away and the fbi was going to be -- have to transform itself and to be the premier agency focused on preventing terrorist attacks, which was about catching bad guys after they did things of really about preventing, you know, these types of. change the entire mind-set of how the fbi had been constructed as an institution. some now and sooner from the director, you know, we still have some of this tension

between very important issues of human trafficking to you know, white collar crimes and so forth but at the front of the leader board for the agency in terms of what it's supposed to be doing is terrorism. and so you've got this big decisions, still kind of in my mind hanging out there about whether or not, you know, you cancer as many ministers are have as many and be effective. so on the airplane side, all new agency. the only job is to make sure people don't get on a plane and have an ability to take them over. i mean, that's really -- no matter what the inconvenience to people, take their shoes off, belts, they can't take a bottle war. one of the processes, that that.

but in this bigger space the question of whether or not the first decision about whether and up the agency itself, the institution of the fbi needed to be full throttle with one party or whether this multi focused but terrorism at the front will work for the country is something i would love to hear your comment on. >> i think maybe each of us in my view, our own views and what i would call summary fashion because again, we're starting off. >> well, the most import criterium, i think, has the fbi kept a safe in the united states in a dozen plus years since 9/11 i think the proof is in the pudding. i don't think in the dark days following september 11th, 2001, the anyone imagine who

would go this long without a major terrorist attack mexican take that logic and said that prior to the 9/11 we've done the same. a root question is because many of my colleagues, the ford could incident certainly my row questions about whether or not -- there's no way to know which is the right way, but this question about the agency itself the will be looking in and whether or not multiple parties that span a range of items or just this principal issue, whether that first decision was something that we should look at again. >> right. i understand. in the race very good points. my response was only to say that i think that the fbi has changed enormously. has adopted a much more intelligence driven approach. think the problem is that that type of threats that we face are

constantly changing and evolving. soviet pianist unit preventing the very big terrorist attacks from the 9/11 stature from a terrorist organization, we can see of the threat has evolved into an individual or the boston marathon bombing. you've got to 80 teenagers, to put it frankly, who were on their radar, and is the older brother. for some reason he fell from the rear. one of the things we want to look in his study the successes and lessons learned from the successes bust and work in progress for some of the problems of occurred and identify them and help the opinion remedy them. i was involved in this debate as well a decade ago with what we needed an american mi security service. a think we're going in the right direction by preserving the fbi is a structure and taking him at his word.

director mullen did do a lot to transform the agency. it's an incomplete transformation. the threat is constantly changing. i think one of the challenges is to make sure. we heard from the director that the fbi is well-positioned to respond to those trends and taken manage of new technologies and new approaches to stay ahead of the bad guys. i think one of the fbi's strength has always been its investigative power. now the intelligence to the abilities of being built up. hopefully eventually it will be at the same level. >> this is the great big question the u.s. we had weeks, if not months of debate on this. we had three choices. to you recommend that the fbi can fiddle around the edges and fix itself from the errors and mistakes or challenges pre 9/11 and post it one? secondly, would we go outside

the box and recommend the creation of an mi which would remove that capacity directly out of the fbi and put it someplace else? thirdly, what we make a recommendation that was somewhere in the middle and recommended to the fbi that they create a national security bureau with a path for analysts and intel-driven expectations within the bureau? ..

>> we had the civil rights and civil liberties. that history for the united states of america is very important. that nation is key. white collar crime. they have to be able to help protect our cities. and so some of this is mutually beneficial. and some of it is going to be a big challenge for the fbi to get to. >> thank you. i agree it is an excellent question and one in which we are considering as a commission, not that the decision has been made in right frankly i personally agree with a. but also how that is implemented is one of our major concerns and

areas of inquiry. let me say that i think that we recognize in terms of this that the fbi has the resources and the field operation structure and they have a long history of excellent investigation and the kind of resources that you really need for something like that. also they have an ongoing relationship with state and local law enforcement, which is a valuable asset for them that no other agency could really approach. and already these joint terrorist task forces have shown this provides the best way to bring together to get the iv information within the united states. patients around the country as

well. there's another thing about the fbi and they have alone existed in these particularly with an allegiance to the constitutional rights of people in this is part of the important aspect. we transform this tournament intelligence lead investigative agency which we will be talking about closely. >> a lot of this goes to the director as well. >> absolutely. director mueller was absolutely terrific. i want to thank each and everyone of you force serving this vitally important commission. thank you for putting this in the bill. and what a privilege to have you with us today. we're time as attorney general

and you have seen the fbi evolve, i wanted to ask you to take a minutecommon to have each one of you talk about that. the critical change in the fundamental culture of the fbi as law-enforcement officers to protect those constitutional rights with this intelligence aspect and the change in culture they we have. i just want to explore that a little bit more and talk to us what you have seen so far in the initial inquiries. the fbi has been able to adapt and integrate the intelligence gathering capability with their traditional mission starkly as a law enforcement agency looking to preserve evidence of that succeed in the prosecution and court. there are different missions and how do you see them overlapping

and adapting so far? >> i think that each of us will present our own views and in my own case they made a very good start in transformation as you have pointed out from giving evidence in court to having investigations and having an investigative sense of going beyond what the evidence in court is going to want the significances of what they are learning and to have the imagination and the broader picture which is necessary for intelligence work. and i think we have started this. one evidence of that is a fact that they have already started and i say that advisedly in raising the importance of analysts that are not fbi agents. it's a long way to go in changing the culture or the agents to the hard work and

support people give a lesser magnitude of work. realizing that intelligence analysts in many ways are as important as agents and getting the big picture of intelligence. but the fact is that structurally they are changing the role of intelligence analyst and they are certainly changing the number. there's a much higher percentage of the force than ever before. and i think that that is something in which the director is very interested in following personally the structural changes of the national security bureau at the highest level, the attention given to the counterterrorism division to the director of intelligence. these are all signs that there is a commitment at the level of the director and below that as

well. but any change in culture is always going to take time. >> we have only started briefing these past few weeks but i have to say that personally i have been extremely impressed by the intelligence analysts who have participated in those briefings who are outstanding individuals in the intelligence community. whether there are issues that you described are culturally vision and integration i cannot say. but thus far some of the people are being extraordinarily impressive. to go to your question about the intelligence versus security and not all the surveillance that they do is necessarily admissible in court. investigations leads to prosecutions. which is a vague advantage. and the other thing in the united kingdom as their 18,000

jurisdictions here and so it's a little apples and oranges i think of the real key is many of them have a special intelligence division and that is why that nypd as we heard earlier with the director's discussion hasn't excellent intelligence unit in los angeles, for instance. but not every police department is an intelligence unit and that is often part of this. you can see why the transition probably wouldn't have even suited the united states if it was desirable. and not respect we are looking very hard at the integration and the people who aren't special agents and what better place is in the director has made a very important commitment to make sure that they have had an

active role. >> i would like to say to your point a few follow-ups. now that the fbi has been asked to rate this national security bureau and we have already been briefed. we have already had a half dozen to a dozen different briefings by exceptional people and are they the exception to the rule or is this national security bureau being pushed down from these with the career paths, successful career paths on the analytical simonetta something that we will look at very carefully. secondly one of the metrics that we will probably be analyzing and evaluating is that we often hear from the fbi special agents. they're going to look at clues in cases and try to determine as their prosecution in this case

and can we put someone in jail as a result of this case. the analysts are asking entirely different questions than they should be asking questions, is this in the process of radicalizing and are they trying to radicalize through the internet and how do we follow them and what intelligent do we gather for broader strategic strategy to understand what is going on together with more people to understand the threat abroad in the united states. so i think that that is going to be very important. there do have mentioned a couple of cases this morning and i think that adam and i will be looking at these cases. they generally work well together and share information, do they work well in all of these cases.

but not worked as closely together in the fort hood case. why is that? how do we try to ensure better consistent efforts? so these are some of the things that we will be looking at and will probably be looking at on a case-by-case methodology. >> are you going to meet with the director? >> yes, we will. >> one of the key elements the threat of domestic radicalization according to congressional research service and there have been 74 home-grown jihad as plots since

9/11. fifty-three have occurred in the last five years including times square boston marathon bombing. so do you have any initial thoughts or comments on this trend and that is the first question. >> this shows us how rapidly evolving and we are changing. in the comments on statistic, that could be the tip of the iceberg and we are focusing attention on american and this has become an enormous issue and it's a much bigger rallying cry than it was before. geographically it's not as distanced as afghanistan. and we actually can fly into nato allies across europe to get

there. syria is in the heart of it. sacred islamic territory in what i think is so consequential as we are seeing is transition from top-down driven propaganda to be now matched a social media and twitter accounts and facebook and something that i have never heard of the my kids use. this is being used to radicalize and recruit and i think it has an enormously worrisome potential because now you have known him. he was so effective because he could be okay with people in his own vernacular. he lived here, he could communicate effectively in english using slang and that is what we are seeing from those who have gone off to syria, follow them on twitter.

some of them probably follow me as well. the ec on a daily basis guys with thousands of followers. there's one guy with 24,000 followers. typical to have anywhere between one and 4000 followers. they post photographs of eating together, praying together, and a direct message to others in the western world saying, come on, here's how we got here, this is what you can find, here's what our lives are like. we are making the sacrifice you are staying behind and not participating in on an individual level we went we explosive radicalization of recruitment and that is one of the things that we're looking at with the fbi. and it's something that we hope to believe to assist with.

>> this is an excellent question as well. and i think it was covered in the testimony how interesting things like this are. and here is someone who was somehow meeting with the terrorists back in 9/11. and we're not sure exactly what role he played in whether he was a co-conspirator or just meeting on the margins. he then ends up getting involved in ciardi practices and he comes back and goes back to yemen then. and he dies by its own attack

and he still inspires attacks on the grave. the interesting question is not only understanding how he is able to radicalize people but what is the fbi doing to understand that threat. and are they getting access to the best and the brightest to bring in people who can anticipate where al qaeda and terrorist groups go with this kind of technologies. as the gentleman said in his testimony couple of hours ago, are they able to have the resources from congress to train and educate people to the threat. are they bringing in people from mit. i think that the chairman talked about darpa. tom clancy had written a novel

about an airplane that was going to crash and the united states capitol. we need to make sure that our folks at the cia and the fbi are thinking 10 years ahead of the terrace and hiring them organizations that are not anything that entrepreneurial that if they had a best area. >> there was a feeling particularly one that maupin was killed but somehow terrorism is no longer as great of a threat. but it does continue to be a very serious threat to us. the insider onset of home-grown

radicalization has continued to grow in this country. you cannot allow your guard to be let down and you have to be very cognizant of what a real threat this is and continues to be. and it's a lot easier to fight a decentralized enemy. and we have a terrorist threat within our own country. so if anything, the type of work that the fbi is doing is more important today as certainly as important as it was before 9/11. >> i have a whole series of questions. and i think you really kind of covered it on the internet and

the radicalization i'm really glad that we are looking at this. all the bureau tells us is that many of them have been killed in somalia and they were all small and returned to his amalia and when i asked some of the people on those who are going to syria and there may be an exception. almost none of them are serious. they are all from other places. so i think that the fbi is so busy doing these things that they have the three of you reflecting on these. if there are any like this, we are offering a relatively soon. the just pick up the phone and say we think that the luminary at this time, if we were to do this, let us notice the same way we were. just something that we honestly won't break the budget.

but if we can shift around and do this because the guy is looking at it and thinking we can take some of this and they are, we have the ideas between there, calls on the mound and tell us that. and i'm very grateful that the three of you were willing to do this. and we are kind of looking at this from an experienced point of view. >> i always come and take with fresh eyes. and i appreciate the fact that the director has been very open to say that okay, we want this done. so i want to thank him and with

that i will just been that, mr. chairman. and again, personally i want to thank you all for the extraordinary service and we have a little bit of time here, but it if i could, i would hope that you will keep in the forefront of your mind as you go forward to remember ben franklin's admonition. sometimes those that try too hard end up with neither. i know it's a source of concern for you enough for all of us as americans the importance of identifying who our enemy is, we have to be careful we are protecting the privacy of the individual americans. and so when you said we are facing a decentralized enemy in

an area like this, we can take the battery out of this thing and turn it off. and it's ubiquitous. i'm delighted and i hope he will keep that in the forefront of your mind. the efforts to gather intelligence on who the enemy is. but at the same time, you have to work with us and guide us as policymakers and keep in the forefront of your mind. when we have this whole new era of incredible access to information. and we know that the fbi has told us that the chinese are able to actually turn on cameras remotely so in some cases we

have to see what he is up to, does the fbi have the right to come in and invade your privacy? does he have the right to come in -- they broke into your computer. the communist chinese government broke into this man's official computer and sucked it dry as he was helping chinese dissidents. and i think he actually put a virus or something on there. so does the government have that right? and i'm not too worried about you but what does that do to you and your privacy right? >> as long as no laws are being broken, which they haven't been.

>> but you knocked on the guy's blog. >> von listed as the follower. so there is no secret. does the guy come in searcher computers and see what you're doing? >> i don't know if they search my computer, but i hope that they monitor the fact that i'm monitoring them as we try to figure out more about this. >> i think that we count on this and this is why i think having an agent we is not strictly an intelligence agency that is very cautious of privacy rights and constitutional rights is extremely important. >> not just that the agency is conscious but i hope that you'll see this as part of your work is largely due to ensure that americans are keenly aware of when they communicate by e-mail if somebody like that. i'm thinking of it in terms of

consent. whenever you download a new program or access updates you get that information. i hereby agree to the terms and conditions or did they might just be to make sure that we have been communicating and accessing. and there is some notice that i just want you to know that your access, you're talking to someone who's being monitored by the federal government and is there a way? >> think the u.s. gove% >> think the u.s. government is constantly finding and striving to strike a balance in this case that we talked about earlier. because the fbi has been very reluctant because they thought that initially he was only solidity soliciting these views

on it. >> i knew this is why these things -- my personal view is that i think we have to look to those to protect and defend and hopefully they are watching and monitoring these things and making a determination if there is a genuine and also a legal that. there is a general discussion and this is the 21st century and something we've never seen before. in my mind, isn't it correct that there are certain individual liberties and rights that we would never surrender to any level of government? i think of the example that we gave earlier. is it accurate to say that the revolutionary war era, the constitution to provide for the general welfare and the federal government was created to protect our liberty and my

reading is that they never surrendered the right of self-defense. any level of government. >> that's true. it's reflected in our laws. and the constitution itself was designed to be a protection against the people's liberties. that is one of the major concerns of the founders in 1787 and the anti-federalist were concerned about the fact might be giving up our liberties to the central government and that is why they were concerned about the central government. if you would with the let the government is doing today in terms of intrusion in people's lives, it's not coming from the law enforcement. >> is a part of your thought process, i hope as you go forward you will about this and

recommend what we can do to help and sure our fundamental liberties. >> i think about will be a concern of all of us on this commission will be certainly have. >> have been eloquent in one of my favorite quotations is from abraham lincoln. paraphrasing him, we will never be destroyed from us on the outside. the only way we will destroy them as removing freedoms and liberties from ourselves and we must protect those constitutional rights and freedoms. and how does the fbi continue to stay on the right side of the constitution also be aggressive in going after this and we have mentioned this to you several times. there is an intelligence bureau

but the nypd that has augotiated, according to the but the nypd that has negotiated, according to the book enemies within. different rules or they can be a little bit more aggressive in going after suspects and working on the cases and the fbi assures us that they stay within the constitution and within the first amendment and we will keep asking those questions congress has the opportunity with your oversight look at the nsa issue in the mega data collection issues in the film policy and is dropping. and hopefully in a bipartisan way and get it right rather than waiting for the next terrorist

attack. and we are stampeding towards this with laws that may not balance the constitution. >> when it comes to our decentralized and make him our greatest thing as a nation is not only is our individual right fives we decentralized but frankly this is the trusted judgment of individual americans and we never gave up the right of self-defense. and there are so many of these fundamental freedoms and frankly the one in kentucky, the fbi certainly have spotted people on the internet and many individual americans have stopped this.

>> and as a report as you put it together, talking and writing a somewhat we can do as policymakers to make sure to not only make the fbi dude there job at protect and reinforce and reform our faith in the individual good judgment of average americans and that is the one that the enemy will never crack that as long as we have faith and the judgment of individual americans to protect themselves and their freedoms. they will never compress. >> that would certainly be an important consideration that we would give. also the most important thing is to make sure that the public gets the truth about what is going on. >> absolutely. this is the transparency and that sort of thing and i have been very much impressed with

the director and we will certainly be very cognizant of that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the terrorist is a lot less likely to protect texas and its other places because he won't last long. >> i would just be able to thank you for creating this commission, i have four children. one of them is 13 years old. and she goes to school in your district. she was born right before 9/11. and you all passionately talk about 9/11. you talk about it like it happened yesterday. but we have a lot of constituents throughout the country but don't remember it quite so well and we heard a comment from a congressman the other day saying that 9/11 is a little bit like getting hurt area it happened a long time ago and some people are tragically forgetting about it. i think this committee's hard work to put this commission to work is very important to try

and make sure that the american people never forget about the 77 people who died on 9/11. and we are very grateful to you for putting us to work and we will need your help. >> i would like to thank you for the commanders leadership as you have taken us under your wing and sought the attention of the public and the attention of this body. all you have done for human rights and civil rights into the country as a whole. we kind of have a champion of this whole issue to make sure that the fbi is doing the best that we can really put your personal energy and position on.

>> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> covering the senate for bloomberg news. the house and senate is set to take up legislation that will provide aid to ukraine before the senate, a what did they finally agree to take out? >> well, what happened yesterday is that they were going to capitulated for republican demands that he dropped us a plan to boost spending for the imf and this is something the democrats have one at the done

for a while. and the democrats included how speaker john boehner said there is no way in mitch mcconnell over here said the same thing. and harry reid said okay, fine. he'll help us out. >> we tweeted about this earlier in the week saying that the majority leader cited secretary kerry as the reason he's okay with dropping the imf language. what is referred to? >> after he came out of the with his leader, we told them that he was dropping the language in a sickly sad that he had spoken with john kerry with the secretary of state and that he basically said that they want the imf language and they want more. >> in addition to this language being out there. what about senate republicans. they had wanted some amendments in their dealings with energy to ukraine and other issues.

>> they had one of those amendments and look like that's not going to happen for them. seems like that is the deal that was struck. and they say let's go do this and move this thing forward. >> what about the house. before they went on their recess they would pass legislation that would provide loan guarantees. so what else do they have to work for? and they're arguing the better it approached because the sanction would consider and they said it's basically more of state if you take into account what he has already done to the executives on his own and goes a

little further in the senate will actually take that when you turn the house. >> will something finally get work up by this weekend or early next week that the president will be on? >> it looks like really the train is leaving the station and the legislation is here on out and it's just a matter of the house and senate approving the same legislation. they have supported both houses for the elements of what will get done at this point. >> thank you for joining us for the update. >> thank you. >> in a few moments from a hearing on the budget request for fema in the next year. and in a little less than two hours, president obama speaks about russian intervention in the ukraine.

and then the challenges facing the fbi since 9/11. >> ahead of the environmental protection agency will be on capitol hill tomorrow morning to testify about her agency's budget request for the next fiscal year. it includes live coverage on c-span3 9:30 p.m. eastern. >> we have a negative attitude towards the community. and it's part of this. and it's nothing but xenophobia versus one group or any other phobia. but what happened is that the brotherhood lobbying had hijacked that notion and made it

into a weapon. it has nothing to do with religion and there have been several and it's very close to a the individuals were talking about. >> and we will have your calls and comments live in-depth at noon eastern on booktv every weekend on c-span2. >> the fema administrator craig fugate eight testified before a subcommittee on tuesday about

his agency's proposed 10 billion-dollar budget request. he talked about changes to the national preparedness program in the role of social media during emergencies. >> the subcommittee on emergency preparedness and response to medications will come to order. we are meeting today to leave testimony from craig fugate eight on this the year 2015 budget request for the federal emergency management agency. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. the house homeland security committee recently held a hearing on the president's fiscal year 2015 budget request for the department of homeland security $10.3 billion for

programs and operations of fema. this is a 3% increase from fiscal year 2014 in that level and it's important in these difficult fiscal times that he met ken patella commission ought the same time be a good steward of taxpayer money. we need to ensure the nation is prepared and prepare for and respond to ensure that the first responders have the training and tools and resources needed in order to continue to do their important work including what strategic authorities will occur for 2013. the budget proposals will have significant major changes within the state and local programs

account. consolidating a number of homeland security grant programs into a new national preparedness grant program. and i am pleased that fema has finally cemented a legislative proposal with this year's request. another thing is that we do have questions about it. i'm interested in learning more about the proposal and how it will be implemented. i have questions about the two funding parts, sustainment and how these funds will be allocated to state and high-risk urban areas and transit agencies. i also have questions about and concerns about the proposal and the nation of the 25% set aside for terrorism prevention activity. including the sustainment that has played a vital role in the nation's ability to disrupt the terrorist attacks including

responding to acts of terrorism. i hope you can provide us with greater clarity on this proposal and other questions as we have related to this proposal. i look forward to working with my subcommittee members and many stakeholder groups as we continue to review and consider this proposal. regarding be npgp proposals. and without objection, so

ordered. she extended the number of studies eligible for the urban area of security missions after falling off the list in 2013, indianapolis is money country and many top notch events including the indianapolis 500 will have proper training and equipment we are always looking for ways to rebuild faster than i was a bit surprised to see that the president proposes to a

lemonade and the opportunity and growth in security proposal, $400 million would be allocated to a competitive grant program that would be administered through the predisaster mitigation program. so i'd like to hear a lot more about the rational behind the change. and finally the use of social media has been the focus of the subcommittee and becoming a reality for help first responders and survivors communicate before and during and after a her. the recent explosion in the boston marathon bombings which happened about a year ago and superstorm sandy are some examples of how citizens are turning to facebook and twitter for information on providers including the private sector on this new reality along with the chairman and the vice president

i authorize the department's virtual social media working group. i'm interested in learning more about what fema is doing to incorporate social media into their preparedness and response and recovery mission. i welcome administrator craig fugate here today and i refer to your testimony thank you for your service. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for any opening statement that he may have. >> thank you. >> thank you and good morning. i would like to thank you for the federal emergency management association. earlier this month the secretary testified before the budget submissions for the department of homeland security. members of this panel raise a litany of concerns everything from how future budget cap will affect operations to whether

resources are being allocated effectively to enhance security. there is one topic, however, that generated significant bipartisan interest. the proposal to consolidate 18 distinct homeland security grants into one. this is not their first attempt at a widescale consolidation of these programs. but it is the third attempt. in the past when members asked about template changes in how funding would be awarded under the consolidation of proposal, they stressed that it was not focused on a specific of what cities received funding, but instead consign adult building national capabilities. so before we go down that road for the third time i want to be clear about where the members on this panel, at least the democratic side, are coming from. the attacks of september 11, 2001 shook america to its core.

hurricanes earthquakes and porters etc. mother nature can be vicious, but over the years thanks to investments and disaster preparedness and recovery, it is an enemy that we can anticipate. the attack of september 11 in contrast we do not see coming. i'm on mike a natural disaster, we did not know the least initially but it would be over. despite our military strength or intelligence and resources in the first responder technologies america has learned that day that we are portable to terrorism the might of our

military will not stop terrorists from trying to attack our streets. they are telling the full story is the information shared with the right people. they represent one, new jersey. we protect ourselves from terrorist attacks and natural disasters. and we have this other natural disaster. new jersey's first responders are some of the first two tooted aftermath of 9/11 and they again were called to respond following hurricane sandy it is exactly

different as what is going to be caused by an act of terrorism that will be released for booby-traps may have been laid. in recognition and the need to build the core terrorism with responsibilities, congress established the homeland security grant program. as we begin our discussion today, you'll find that the concern expressed about your proposal is fundamental. so what is at stake? it goes far beyond pure o'gill considerations about who gets the money. it is about how we take the lessons learned from 9/11 to

make our communities more secure. in the absence of a dedicated indiscreet prizm preparedness program, which is exactly what would occur under your consolidation program, we would be assured of the funds that we appropriate will be used to achieve an operability and protecting a critical and the structure and address the vulnerabilities that were first identified by the 9/11 commission. and i want to thank the administrator, craig fugate, for being here today. i look forward to his testimony and i yield back the balance of my time. >> other members of the subcommittee are reminded that the record remains open. he will come craig fugate. he was a good buy president obama to service the administrator of the federal emergency management agency. and was confirmed by the united states met on may 13, 2009.

prior to coming here, he served as the director of the florida division of emergency management, a position that he held for eight years rid he began his emergency management for your is a volunteer firefighter and an emergency paramedic and finally as a you lieutenant with the county fire rescue. he and his wife are from gainesville, florida. your entire written statement will appear in the record and we ask that you summarize your testimony and you are now welcomed. >> thank you. members, ranking members. i want to leave as much time for questions as i can. but i want to take on the national preparedness grant. it is not our intention to divert them away from terrorism or exclude any group or not.

if anything, it is following the constitution of the. there's a lot of groups of another congress has the authority to authorize and appropriate the funds. but when disaster strikes, whatever the cost including terrorism, our constitution has divided the powers between federal and state to give the state the primary responsibilities to respond to domestic emergencies including terrorist acts and the consequences of those acts. the governor can call up the national guard and only a governor can request assistance from the federal government. to exclude them from this literally goes around i worked at all levels of government. i can tell you, although they

were from different jurisdictions they all came from the same part of the state. because of the concern of many officials that they felt that the money was not reaching them, congress made a decision to begin funding cities specifically. that probably makes sense in states where cities are the primary capability of response to disaster. in my state, florida, counties are often better. and we have a situation where we have funds go into smaller municipalities that within larger capabilities of the overall situation. and local officials would have the primary overall direction. we have so much going on when

disasters occur. but we also need to make sure that we have prioritizing those areas recently looked at this nationally is that and we are probably looking at the threats we face. and we know that no one jurisdiction will ever have the capability to respond that in

part of us was to address the funding not only hoping that by jurisdiction by jurisdiction and at the national capability and the other has to be competitive. when we are providing this to that capability. and we have that distribution of funds and we have our jurisdiction and my jurisdiction getting what we need. if we can't agree upon our responsibilities and work together and they have multiple

jurisdictions responding to these types of events and we have these stories that we face and we can do it i jurisdiction by jurisdiction. our recommendation is looking at it as a nation and gazing upon the structures of our states. and that is what is driving this request. ..

and obviously we do believe in risk-based funding and so appreciate that the same amount of funding shouldn't be distributed equally across the country but that are high-risk areas. so if authorized would funding under the end pgp set aside with applications application submitted to the states as is the current practice or will it apply to the states in which they are located with the states determining the amount of funding they will receive?