center. we have representatives here as well. i'm not sure where in the room. right over there. we'll hear from kat line hall jamison and the team. we thank them very much for the support. without them we simply could not have made this report happen. thank you very much to the annanberg policy center. i'm going to take my bpc hat off just for a second. as many of you know, my mother was killed on september 11th, 2001. so 10 years ago today was a bit of a different day for me and the other 9/11 members many of whom are in the room. my mother was lost. janice's mother is here. abraham scott who lost his wife is here. for us the 9/11 commission report was a bit of the end of a journey, not just the beginning.

for the members the journey started in '93 but for others sooner. i have a thing for dates so january 30th, 1992, i was returning home from boston to d.c. we had been fighting or i should say fighting -- i should say nicely advocating on behalf of other family members with lawmakers about issues related to the victim compensation fund. i was reading an article in the newspaper on the flight home. the article said president bush wanted to only have investigation into the intelligence failures that surrounded 9/11 and not anything else. i thought -- i was just an average, ordinary citizen who suddenly got caught up in a terrible tragedy like like so many others on september 11th. i couldn't imagine why the government wouldn't want to investigate to see it never happened again.

we fought the 9/11 family members for many, many months. we have a lot of stories about that fight. remember our rally in june, we didn't know d.c. very well. having a rally in june didn't send offend warning bells that it would be warm. we had lawmakers there, suffering in the heat. they were troopers. it was clear they knew what we were doing. they were there to support our call for independent investigation into the attacks. we all remember many meetings with members of congress, some very well, others not well. >> we were told no. disipgtly asked why not. i had a conversation with a member of congress. i understand i can't understand why you won't investigate my mom's murder because if i pulled out a gun right now and shot you, the police would do an

investigation. that was a mistake. i said, no, i'm not saying i would, i'm just saying what the difference is. i never did that one again. we had meetings in the white house with senior level officials who i don't think are used to being asked why not. they had to get used to that with us. one of my favorite meetings, 9/11 family members will laugh about that, a member hid in his office because he didn't want to talk to out. we told him we could hear him breathing behind the door so he had to come out. of that the process of creating the 9/11 commission. you can imagine when we did create it, when it was signed into law by president bush the day before thanksgiving in 2002, for us that was the beginning again. this time we had to meet the commissioners. who are these people? there's a few bumps in the road along the way. but we got introduced to governor cain and congressman

hamilton we knew we were in good hands. we met the rest, fred feeling, gorton, tim romer, jim thompson. enfortunately some can't be with us but stand behind the report we're releasing today. we knew we had a great team of people. quite frankly at the beginning of 911 commission i never could imagine standing here today and be so honored to introduce the remarkable americans, these individuals to not only came together 12 years ago to start their investigation into 9/11, 10 years to stand behind a unanimous report but still here today. they still know the citizens will do whatever we can to make our nation stronger and more secure. i'm honored to introduce them all as they release their new report. so with that i'm going to invite governor cain and congressman hamilton up to the stage. they are going to give a few

remarks and we will open it up for all commissioners for q&a. thank you very much. >> thank you for everything you've done. good morning and thank all of y you. we're here to mark the anniversary of the 9/11 report, a document that led to major reforms in the way we do intelligence in this country. we come together to present, entitled, today's rising terrorism and dangers to the united states, reflections on the tenth anniversary of the

9/11 report. first i want to thank my co-chairman and all the commissioners. the most remarkable people i've had the chance to work with. they agree with every word in the report we're presenting this morning. special thanks to the bipartisan policy center. they are the home of our homeland security project. now almost six years and grateful for their key roles in making this whole report possible. we're grateful from the annanberg policy center. they generously supported this project and made important and substantive contributions along the way. michael hurley and adam klein

helped us immensely in the drafting of the document. also grateful to many other former 9/11 commission staffers who voluntarily pitched in along the way to make this report possible. >> we also recognize and carrie talked about it a lot, the contribution of the leaders of the family of 9/11. we're humbled by everything you've done, the fact here you are once again here today. we used to refer to you as the wind in our sales. ten years later you're here with us again. we're very, very grateful. last fall, tenth anniversary, first getting ourselves together and then the idea if we got ourselves together, maybe we could do something useful. so we all wanted to look back at our own work ten years ago. there may be lessons. washington is poisoned we all

know by partisanship which enables us to do almost nothing in this town these days. might be a lesson somehow in how five republicans and five democrats got together to do something that was useful for the country ten years ago. >> we also believe strongly in the area of protecting this country. we have to have bipartisan in that area. eight months of thinking, study and spirited conversation. to better inform ourselves, we reached out to many of our countries, senior security officials with responsibility for counter-terrorism. everybody reached out was cooperative, helpful, frank, honest in the discussions of the problems affecting this country and problems of protecting us from the threat of terrorist abroad.

>> we came away from the experience with renewed dedication. separate conversations with each of these leaders. yet as you've seen our report, we were struck there was a brought agreement among these leaders about what the problem is outside the country and solutions to attacking those proble problems. we hope we succeeded doing our paper to amplify to the public what the common threads were and consensus of the committee and the problems. at this point i'd like to ask not just my co-chairman in all the efforts but my friend lee hamill instrumental in every one of these efforts to summarize, key points of the paper and then invite our fellow commissioners to answer questions. lee. [ applause ]

>> good morning to all of you. i've always threatened to set up a hall of fame for public serves. we have hall of fame for guitar players, we ought to for public servants as well. when that is set up i'm going to recommend these other nine commissioners go in on the first ballot. they are an extraordinary group of americans led by tom kean and i'm proud to be part of it. the report brakes down two parts. first part, the evolving threat. the second part talks about the policy challenges. the third part talks about the recommendations. a lot going into great detail. i'll hit the highlights in each of these areas. we begin by saying the government has done a good job, not a perfect job over the last

ten years protecting us over terrorist attacks. we've experienced tragedies like ft. hood and the boston marathon bombings but not suffered anything at all like 9/11 and the magnitude of that attack. our military and intelligence forces have done great damage to the afghanistan and the core that attacked us, killing osama bin laden three years ago. these really are significant achievements. we are concerned, however, that attention is drifting to other matters, that the country may be suffering from a waning sense of urgency with respect to the terrorists attacks. it's imperative we guard against that. ge spite our achievements, al

qaeda exists today. al qaeda spinoffs that share its extreme ideology and hatred of the united states have proliferated and are now operational in more than 16 countries. of great concern fanatical state of iraq and syria which conquered much of iraq slaughtering thousands along the way. territory expands sanctuary for terrorists and increases the threat to the united states and the west. while that group is a growing threat over the last months and years, it's accelerated advances suggests the world has become an even more dangerous place in the last few days and weeks dozens of americans and those of

syrians traveled to join in the conflict of the danger is very real they may redirect their battlefield skills they have acquired and return to our shores to attack us. al qaeda in arabian peninsula possesses advanced bomb making stills which have now been passed to extremists in syria and iraq. that poses a serious threat to us in particular commercial aviation. homeland terrorism, lone wolves radicalized over the internet is another danger. while 9/11 recommendations centered on how to protect the country from terrorism, recent conversations with a large number of security leaders have

highlighted another major threat to the country. that is, of course relentless cyber attacks from foreign countries and criminal elements. the vast stealing of intellectual property over the internet pose a huge national security challenge. our cyber defenses and strategy lag bin the threat we face. in the cyber realm. in the last 10 years scale of government data collection has boomed. data collection and analysis are violation tools preventing terrorist attacks. but effective counter-terrorism must be balanced against civil liberties. vigorous oversight of collection activity by congress and the courts is urgently needed.

it is the government's burden to explain to the public what is being done by the government and to persuade the public that the tools being utilized are absolutely necessary and that a balance is being struck between security and privacy. congress's committee structure for overseeing homeland security continues to be dysfunctional. we use that word in the report. it was not originally our word. it came to us from members of congress in key positions. the splintered jurisdiction is episodic, inadequate and threatens our national security. this dysfunction lasted far too long. our friends at the public policy

center and justice society of the aspen program have run in recent days this add in the newspaper giving you the flow chart, if you would, of oversight. some 90 committees roughly had oversight over homeland security. that, of course, is completely unacceptable. on the positive side director of national intelligence and national counter-intelligence center are ensuring various intelligence agencies work together. there has been improvement there. that's progress. as tom noted, the report reflects on how we did our work a decade ago. calls for bipartisanship often go unheeded. we hope that our reflections point in the direction of how our political leaders might come to agreement on the difficult terrorism challenge we face today and in the future.

surely our political leaders can forego their political polarization to better protect the united nations and all americans. in many ways we are safer today than we were a decade ago, but the threat continues and is urgent. the generational struggle, which we referred to in our original report against terrorism has entered a new phase and the world is a -- remains a very dangerous place. we cannot let our guard down. now i would like to turn to other members of the commission for any comments they would like to make, and i will call them as they are ready to proceed. governor thompson at the end. >> lee, thank you.

chairman kean, thank you. first i'd like to say that participating in the work of this commission has been one of the greatest honors of my public life. not only the challenge we undertook but men and women who went to work on it as lee said in an extraordinary bipartisan fashion, which leads me sometimes to a sad place. it's appropriate we're in washington today. as i think everyone on the stage would acknowledge, it's almost embarrassing to contemplate that the congress of the united states that protected this nation since its birth cannot seem today to protect the

american people to come together to enact those laws which everyone must conclude bear no partisan label. i accept that our nation is divided perhaps by party, perhaps by philosophy on issues like abortion and gay rights and taxation and highway programs and all of the other things which the congress deals but surely, surely there is no republican or democratic position making sure people who come to the united states with terrorist ambitions don't stay here and plot a biometric program who is here and harbors

animus toward our nation. i don't understand that. i don't understand why the congress of the united states has not come together on the issue of cyber security as mentioned. every american has either had an experience where they have been hacked or the people whom they deal have been hacked. we all had to change passwords or get a new credit card. if we haven't experienced it personally, we've certainly read about it. is there any reason in the world why the congress cannot enact comprehensive cyber security law to protect us not only from the criminal hackers but from the terrorist hackers. and from nations who give

comfort. i'd like to see the congress of the united states put aside the nonsense, appeals to the base, preening around and come together to protect this nation. that is the first obligation of government. the first obligation. nothing else can be done for this country if we are not secure. and to this point the congress of the united states is failing us and failing us badly. >> thank you, jim. other commissioners? >> tim romer? >> i'd like to say briefly three things. first of all i'd like to recognize the extraordinary leadership of tom kean and lee

hamilton. from the very first meeting that we had on the 9/11 commission when they pledged to do virtually everything together, never appear on a tv show without the other one. there are lessons to the rest of us to the eight other commissioners were extraordinarily profound. that we had been attacked, that we had lost almost 3,000 of our citizens and we were going to get to the boechl it and work across partisan lines and produce a report that would make america safer. all the way through lee and tom showed this great leadership for the commission and for our country. i also want to say to my fellow commissioner, i've been blessed with a lot of different opportunities to be serve our

country. whether it's been in congress or overseas, i can't think of anything that has touched my heart, my soul, my brain, and learned more than from the people that i've worked with over the past 10 years. i salute you all. thank you for your leadership for our country. also i just want to recognize the 9/11 family members. the people who helped us create the 9/11 commission and look into what happened and why. and if mary and carol and abe and carrie and all of you hadn't been there to hold people account able, us accountable, our congress accountable, the white house accountable, we wouldn't be sitting here today. and we wouldn't be safer. who knows if we would have been attacked again if it hadn't been for all of you getting on planes

and trains and literally in the middle of the night and coming down to washington, d.c. from your home in new york and connecticut and all over the country to help make our country safer by breaking down these barriers of partisanship and politics and campaigning rather than putting national security front and center. i want to again thank 9/11 family members that have made extraordinary contributions to our country. second, i just want to say that the challenges that the united states of america faces today. want to be smart about changes taking place in the world. before we are attacked again is one of the most important lessons in our report.

we have isis taking over large swaths of territory in the middle east. syria is an incubator for terrorist training and hatred around the world. people started to come back from training grounds into the united states. al qaeda now, pre9/11 they were in a few countries, now they are in 16 countries around the world. this is a new, dangerous phase that the united states of america is entering into. and so our congress, our white house, our policymakers must work together to understand these very significant challenges to the safety of the united states. jim mentioned cyber security and how important that is. we have a litany of different areas that our policymakers must pay greater attention to.

and last, as a former member of congress, someone who served in the great midwest for six terms and someone who believes that as our founding fathers called it the first branch of government. sadly today it's the last branch the people in our country are looking for to solve our problems. that cannot be the case as we see these challenges. cyber, isis, al qaeda, poised and ready to attack our country again and possibly create another 9/11 type of attack. so we encourage congress, and we'll have panel on this, to take this seriously, to reorganize the massive beaurocracy that they have on the department of home security that is bigger oversight today of what we have for oversight, i

believe, for department of defense p $500 billion defense program with a smaller. we have 92 different committees and subcommittees. fragmented, dysfunctional and potentially destructive to our national security. with that, look forward to question and answer and appreciate opportunity to speak to everybody. any other commissioners. any other commissioners? fred fielding. >> let me say one thing. again, i hope you get a sense of the pride this group has.

everyone always asks how did you reach unanimity on your report when you looked at a commission that was basically designed to fail, splitting it evenly through an election year, how did that happen. i think you can get a sense of how it happened listening to the eloquence and warmth that comes from the members of this commission. this was universally wonderful experience for all of us and certainly one that gave us a lot of pride and also was very, very rewarding. i want to mention one thing, because this happened before and it will happen again if i don't say this. that is the list that we have of recommendations as the list we gave before, is not a list to pick from. these are things that each has its own individual importance

and each cries out for study. as you look at our report, as you did before, look at the recommendations. we didn't do this just to fill the space. every one of those is important. again, to my fellow commissioners, co-chair, thank you for a wonderful experience. >> thank you, fred. other commissioners? if not, we will proceed with the program. thank you very much. did you want to say a word, jamie? what? questions from the audience, okay. i thought you wanted to make a statement. lets open it up for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in covering this issue for the

last 10 years and watching. j.j. green, wpt, national security correspondent. in covering this issue the last 10 years and watching how the world has changed since then, it occurs to me in the last three years things are happening faster. more things are happening faster. so the question i have is based on a conversation i have with general flynn from dia about a year ago when he told me the law doesn't applying anymore, the law of technology that things change every few years. it seems as though it changes every few months. how does that affect the challenge facing the nation's leaders in terms of protecting the u.s. against these rapidly evolving threats like isis and others. i'll take the answer from

anybody. >> we're going to proceed under rules that allow me to answer the easy questions and put the tough questions out here. we'll start with the commissioners here. that's a tough question. >> the answer is more nimble than before. beaurocracies, any government beaurocracy is by the nature of that beaurocracy slow in action. that's why it's called a beaurocracy. you can't afford that anymore in homeland security. you've really got to be nimble. the idea that when we wrote a 911 report 10 years ago, we didn't mention cyber security. nobody even mentioned cyber security in our deliberation, as i remember. it was not a big problem. now it's a problem every single

person we interviewed said right up front. not only right up front but dealing with it properly. the world is changing as we speak. we said in our report, if iraq became a failed state, it moved right to the top of the problems. well, in the last three or four months, we've seen iraq become a failed state, basically. so it goes right to the top of the areas we've got to be worried about. that is constantly changing. in our intelligence areas, in our congressional oversight, we've got to be probably more nimble here than we are in any other area because it's going to change all the time. there are new terrorist groups now that didn't even exist 10 years ago this we've got to be concerned about. there are new weapons we've got to be concerned about. there are new explosives we've got to be concerned about. so the answer to your question is we've got to have the best, most nimble thinkers in the area

of homeland security and have to be willing to use what we call enour report imagination. no more failures of imagination. we've got to be ahead of these guys, not behind them. >> jamie. >> i would just add two points to tom's very good answer. as fred said, we didn't present a menu of things we think need to be done. we think all of them need to be done. right up there is reorganization of our homeland security process. when i was general council at dod, chairman of joint chiefs was in a regular dialogue with oversight committees in the house and senate. two of them. and the chairs and ranking members knew what he was thinking and he knew what they were thinking. we don't have that with regard to homeland security. you couldn't do that if you wanted to. we'll have an opportunity to talk to chairman mike mccall on

the house side in a little while, but i think if you look at the chart that lee hamilton held up, it would be impossible to have a sense on the executive branch side of what would be acceptable in congress in a short period of time with the structure that we have. so the agility tom talked about is critical. you need organization but a fully armed partner on the congressional side and i don't think we have that. >> governor. >> as to the rapidly evolving technology, we all understand that. what is useful today might not be useful tomorrow. things we can't even imagine now

may be coming along. i'm sure they will. but what we're looking at is a framework within which government and the private sector can accommodate each other's interests in preventing cyber attacks. does the military of the united states or nsa possess knowledge, experience that can be useful to the private sector, to our banks, to our utilities, all of whom can expect some kind of cyber attack because it's happened before? well, the answer to that is yes. do we have a framework in the united states where the military, the nsa, other branches of government can sit

down with the private sector whose interests are vital to the welfare of the united states and work together so that everybody is protected to the extent that current technology will allow. and the answer to that is no, we don't have that. why don't we have that. i don't understand. there can't be a republican or democratic position on this. i can't imagine that. is something the congress is doing today more important than that? well, please tell me what it is. so i think that's one of the answers. >> excuse me. tim romer? >> real quickly, your question is important. i think the speed of change today is comparable not to a bullet train but to a speeding bullet, almost literally. and we're seeing now terrorists

that -- 10 years ago terrorists used to go to training camps in northwest territory of pakistan and radicalized and potentially go to their targets. today they are radicalized in months or weeks over the internet. the speed of change, the speed of radicalization, cyber technology to attack our banks, our c-17 programs, steal information, security, is incredibly rapid and quick. so as tom said, we cannot afford to have beaurocracies put in washington, d.c. to fight these nimble networks. we need networks to fight networks. not beaurocracies to fight networks. >> okay. go to the audience for questions. go back here. please identify yourself.

>> prior to the attack on 9/11, the group supposedly responsible had received aid from us back when the soviets were occupying afghanistan. today we are associated with groups of an extremist nature who took over libya after we bombed the hell out of it. probably we have facilitated the rise of isil through our training of the sort of insurgents we hoped would take over in syria. are you all concerned that we are facilitating the growth of groups that will in the end prove to be our enemy?

>> i think -- >> the sensational commissioners are being reluctant on that one. >> i think if we had been a little more nimble in our facilities in dealing with the issue in syria, we might have prevented some of the more radical anti-administration in syria forces from gaining what we had. we chose not to moderate, if you can apply that to a military force fueled by ideology. we didn't give them the weapons that our military think they thought they should have, and so

while there may be some truth in what you're saying, i don't think it's appropriate to go back to the aid we gave in afghanistan in countering the soviet threat. it's too far away and does not have relevance to the challenges we're facing down. >> senator? >> ten years ago this group decided it could be a value only if it looked forward rather than backward. in our report we did not criticizes individuals or administrations for what had happened in the past by the use of 2020 hindsight.

i think if you look at what we're doing, we've adopted the same philosophy. we give credit and i think the credit is deserved to the responses of our country and our administration to 9/11. we emphasized the challenge has changed very, very substantially. there's already many answers on the threat of cyber security. but our recommendations look forward saying how we can be safer in the future, how we can deal with these challenges in the future. and it's only by looking forward rather than backward with criticism that we can be of value. we hope that congress takes our recommendations seriously and

acts on them seriously. but it will do that best by looking forward rather than backward. >> did you want to -- >> one thing to have in mind in the question that raises some very nuanced areas is that we looking forward need to learn from history. i suppose the question of support for the mujahadin in opposing our then rival and enemy the soviets is instructive in that once aid is given, once weapons are transferred, there's no guarantee about how they would be used. so i think that has proved

instructive in the current situation so that letting go and arming various factions does not guarantee how those arms and training will ultimately be used in an area that is so intensely nuanced and difficult to predict. >> your question points out to me that the complexity of the middle east, there are so many different groups out there. there are so many cross currents taking place, so man shifting alliances that it's a very difficult thing to keep up with it. there's no one in the united states government that wants to facilitate an enemy, but you're caught in an exceedingly complex world. every day i pick up the paper and read about support the

opposition to syria. there are 1500 opposition groups in syria. you sort through those for a while to see who is going to help you and who is not going to help you, which we've been trying to do for several years, of course. so it's a complex issue. i'm told we have time for one more question and i'll have to go over here. okay. >> good morning, business executives for national security. the changing nature of the threat that you identify highlights the importance of information and intelligence collected domestically and disseminated domestically. who is charge of domestic intelligence and how does state and local law enforcement fit into your findings? >> well, you raise a very good question. it's something this we have talked about. there's far more sharing 10

years after our report than there had been. that's very good news from all quarters that we've talked to we hear good marks given to the integration of material and the sharing information. the state and local authorities are the greatest area for enhancement of force protection. so while there have begun to be greater efforts made to share information, more needs to be done done, as we say in our report, to bring state and local authorities into an integrated national approach. so it is something we've talked about. we're headed in the right direction. there's more to be done. >> you'll be hearing shortly

from the director of national intelligence. there has been, as richard says, a lot of progress here. the intelligence community, as you all know, is a very vast community. billions and billions of dollars, many, many leaders. and the extent of integration in the last 10 years has really been quite remarkable. so there's much more cohesion than in previous times. but it's a work in progress and we have to keep working at it. who is in charge of the intelligence community is a question that invites all kinds of answers. the director of national intelligence we believe has performed his function very well, has done a lot towards integrating the community, coordinating the community, and he will be speaking to us very shortly. i think that's our time up for questions, carrie, we'll turn it over to you to get moving along.

thank you. [ applause ] >> so at this point we'll transfer to our first panel. i'll invite all the commissioners to come off the stage, please, except for jamie since she's going to be leading our discussion. we're very pleased today to be joined by chairman mccall. i'm going to leave it to jamie to do a proper introduction of the chairman. i did want to say a few words as we make the transition that this panel is about the state and evolution of the current threat. as many of you in the room know, the homeland security project at the bpc has started an annual series of reports assessing the report called the threat assessment. last year we released the first one authored by several. we're planning to release a new one with peter bergen this september. so we obviously based on the

report released today and the report we've been doing throughout the last few years realize the threat is evolving. and we know that our nation needs to make sure it's evolving its counter-terrorism measures accordingly. no group is doing that more thoroughly than the house homeland security committee. not only are we joined by the chairman, chairman mccall but also members of his staff in the audience, who want to thank them for keeping our nation safe and secure. they often do it without being recognized, so we're glad they are here with us today. i also want to take a quick opportunity to thank the members of the 9/11 commission staff who are here with us today. there's a large number of them, many have gone on to continue serving their country in a wide range of positions. we're just so glad they could take time out to be here to honor the report they work so hard on 10 years ago. with that i'm going to turn it over to commissioner to

introduce chairman mccall and begin the discussion on the state and evolution of the threat. thank you. >> thank you, carie. we're honored to have chairman mccall with us. there's no one better suited to discussing issues we raised in our tenth anniversary report. the chairman is a ten-year veteran of congress representing a really robust and interesting district in texas. he has a background that is really quite perfect for the role, at least in my view, since i'm a lawyer and a former justice department official and he served in that department with distinction and is quite familiar with some of the mechanisms by which we keep our country safe. so thank you, mike, for being here and for helping us think through some of these issues today. i think i'd like to start where

the conversation just left off and put on the table this question of who is responsible for protecting us in a very our of observations. as lee hamilton just said, we talked about the success, as we see it, of the director of national intelligence structure, finally getting to a place where this is cohesion between the agencies. we talk about the collection of information in a world in which intelligence and intelligence analysis is really our best tool to dealing with a threat. we talk about the national counterterrorism center which brings together that information and which is quite successful. i think we also talk about the modeling that the president does for his intelligence agencies by personally calling them together

on a regular basis to share information with him and with each other. so those are the observations in very brief, in our report. i wonder if you could comment on the state of our integration and the robustness of our ability to protect ourselves. >> thanks for having me here today, jamie. let me thank the bipartisan policy center for holding this. members of the commission, i read their report. the report after 9/11 that the commission gave ten years ago was for the most part implemented. we'll talk about some pieces that were not. and i want to thank the members of the commission for this report here today that i think members of congress will take back to the hill. want to thank them for them resounding endorsement for the current united states congress, as well.

i also want to thank jamie for having me. she, as you know, was depp. ty attorney general for the united states. i was just a lowly line federal prosecutor at the time at main justice but i remember she was very much a force within the department and did a great job and it is an honor to be with you here today. now i guess on an even level. back then she was way up here and i was down at the bottom in the public integrity section. if i can just start by saying that everything that i have attempted to do in my committee -- in fact, everything we have done legislatively have passed unanimously. i think that's important. i think governor thompson made the great point that this is an area that should not be a partisan issue when it really comes to protecting the american people and saving lives. so whether it was our cyber security bill that passed

unanimously that hopefully will be on the floor in the next month, or whether it was our border security bill which, if you read the papers lately, there's a bit of a crisis ongoing down there. hopefully that will be part of our supplemental coming out. that also passed unanimously. i believe that's a very important factor because i think as many have said, al qaeda doesn't have any partisan affiliation. they have one thing in common. that's they want to -- they have a deep-seeded hatred for the west and the united states an they still, unfortunately, want to kill us. the threat has evolved. when i first got elected chairman, i landed if washington, they said, chairman, there's been a bombing in boston. think the boston example sort of illustrates the new sort of evolving threat that we are seeing in terms of radicalization over the internet, in terms of smaller scale operations. the good work the 9/11

commission did i think stopped by connecting the dots and using imagination, as you alluded to, stopped a lot of these larger scale attacks like a 9/11-style attack. that would be very difficult to pull off in today's world the way the intelligence committee is set up and the homeland security department is. i think the smaller scale attacks are very difficult to detect, deter and disrupt and probably more likely the more evolving threat you'll see. then with isis which has been talked about extensively, this marriage, if you will, between aqap, premier al qaeda bombmaker, and the manpower force that we're seeing now in iraq and syria with isis, is a huge threat that secretary will tell you the biggest threat to the homeland and to the aviation sector. so i think that's going to be very important for us to focus on.

the safe havens -- i'll just end with this because i know you want to do live q&a. people ask me, are we safe. in some respects we've safer, thanks to the good work of the 9/11 commission. we have implemented the majority of those recommendations. but it's an evolving threat that in some respects we are not safer because al qaeda owns more territory now today than it ever has. in 16 different countries. as you heard, all these different affiliates. al shabab, al sharia, aqap, and al qaeda saying isis is too extreme? that is a tremendous threat of establishing a caliphate, they call it, in that region. i think in my judgment far surpassing what we saw in iraq and afghanistan, pakistan in

terms of training grounds and safe havens. it is much easier to access and i think the key point with these foreign fighters is that they have clean legal travel documents. we have 100 americans. we have thousands of europeans. we have australians in there and they're pouring in every day for the fight. and some people will tell you we know who they all are. i will tell that you we don't with a high degree of certainty. and with that is the threat, not only to western europe but also i think to the united states. so there are so many threats. i can talk about cyber for probably 30 minutes but cyber, one of those things that keeps you up at night because you know we have tremendous capability to shut things down. that capability in the wrong hands like iran, which has already tried to shut down our financial institutions, that they're out there. the chinese are esteeming through espionage. we've had the largest transfer of wealth ever, according to the

nsa director. and the criminal ip theft. we just pick up a russian who was indicted in seattle, washington. billions of dollars of intellectual property theft, credit card theft in the united states. this is a real threat. i hope this bill that we got out of committee will pass in the next month because it is something the country really needs right now. >> let me go back for a moment to the situation in iraq and syria where you have observed that there are probably thousands of european fighters and in the neighborhood of 100 or so american fighters there. if an individual bearing a u.s. passport or a european passport where they gain entry to the united states via the visa waiver program, can travel here with impunity, what are our resources for, a, identifying

those people, and, b, stopping them, and do we have both the legal authorities that we need and the capacities that we need. >> that's an excellent question. i think one reason you haven't seen a large-scale 9/11-style attack is we've gotten pretty good at stopping the enemy from coming in to the united states. travel. most people think of tsa as the guy that checks your bag at the airport but tsa does a great job in the intelligence commute overall stopping threats from coming in to the united states. this is going to be key. number one, how can we identify these threats in syria and iraq, either tied to aqap or isis which has intentions to harm the west. you have to start first with intelligence. i'll be the first to tell you our team in intelligence on the ground in syria is not where it needs to be. now we're getting better reconnaissance as to where these

actors are, but in terms of identifying them on a personal case by case basis, i don't think we're where we need to be. you saw recently the restrictions on travel in terms of the screening that's been ramped up in certain foreign airports. the ones most likely with the terrorist profiles with respect to screening and certain devices. that's about as far as i can go into that subject matter. i believe that's going to be very effective but remember we can't sustain that vigilance for more than several months. then we have to ramp things down. what i'm concerned about is when we do ramp things down again is when they decide to make their move. they're very good at backing off and waiting, and then making a move. and so the visa waiver. you mentioned that. i think that's something we need to be looking at because they can travel freely and easily get into the united states.

these bombs that -- this is -- these briefings are very eerie when you get briefed on the really level of expertise they have in bomb making. and that they really haven't given up. they have not given up on blowing up airplanes. it's amazing to me. they have this tremendous exper to that can build types of bombs that can get through our screening, the non-metallic ieds, they call them, like the underwear bomber. so stopping them is very, very difficult. i think precautioned are in place now at foreign airports but we can't keep that height of vigilance forever. >> let me return to the question of organization. tom and lee showed this chart which is a bewildering chart reflect being the congressional

structure of oversight of the department of homeland security. lee was, i thought, even nicer than he needed to be on this subject because he didn't note, as our report does, that we complained about the department of homeland security having 88 committees and subcommittees to oversee it, and now it has 92. this is directionally wrong. presumably you would be the recipient of a consolidated jurisdiction. so maybe this is an awkward question to ask you, but is it achie achievable, is it possible, that we could have the same sort of structure for homeland security that we do fo, for example, for defense? >> i'll be speaking at the aspen institute on saturday on this very topic. i appreciate the commission's leadership on this and calling attention to an issue that i honestly have to deal with every day.

and it's very, very frustrating as the chairman of a major full committ committee, but at the same time to be so handicapped many times. you showed the chart. policy wise we all know it is the right thing to do. politically is the problem. jurisdiction is a holy grail. other committees don't want to give up their jurisdiction. the ripest opportunity to have gotten this done was at the very beginning. and unfortunately, it wasn't. we complain about the executive branch siloing information and not working together. and i think congress is just as, it not more, guilty of that. i'll give you just two examples. my secyber security bill has multiple referrals to other jurisdictions which requires mow to have to negotiate with other committee chairmen. which is fine, that's part of the deal. but one chairman withhold up that cyber bell. one chairman did hold up the cyber bill until recently. the u.s. exit program governor thompson referred to, because

the judiciary also has reefl, has stopped that legislation from moving to the floor. i think that's counterproductive. ps d dysfunctional. i think quite honestly that hurts the american people because we can't pass legislation that can protect then, and in addition, the oversight issue reporting to almost 100 xhir hu00 committees subcommittees, how in the world account secretary, jay johnson who i have great respect and admiration for, how can he do his job when he's constantly preparing for testimony? he's got an important job. and this whole legislative shop has this do that. judiciary has the entire department of justice. you look at hask, they've got the entire department of defense. why on earth doesn't the committee on homeland security have jurisdiction over the entire department of homeland security and not have to deal with all these off-shoots? we are passing authorization bills, this congress, to demonstrate to leadership how

many other committees these bills will go to. and it is a spider web, kind of like that chart. so an authorization for even cbp or an authorization for i.c.e., and dem stronstrate this is wha happens to this legislation. i want to conclude with this, because this is a very important point. if you can imagine, the department's been around for about ten years. this department has never been authorized by the united states congress. has never been authorized by the united states congress. every other department, t of th federal government has been authorized by congress, except for this one. i think that is shameful and that is embarrassing, and shame on members of congress. i intend and plan to offer for the first time a full authorization bill in this next congress. we will see how that plays out. but i hope that will demonstrate the problems. i hope that mr. hamilton, you

and your colleagues on the commission can help us with our leadership to demonstrate why this is important. this is not about me trying to have some power grab of jurisdiction. it is trying to make things more eeffective and efficient to protect the american people. >> i would make a couple of comments myself, then move on to the next question. first comment is that, nearly every recommendation that we made was implemented by congress imposing a set of changes on the executive branch. and we were very appreciative of that. the only ones that were not implemented had to -- would have required congress to impose similar changes on itself, and that is just not right. and this has real consequences. when i was deputy attorney general at justice, i knew what the chairman and ranking member in the house and the senate of

my oversight committees thought, what their reaction would be to actions that we were taking or contemplating, and that helps with the agility that we were talking about as so necessary to protect ourselves. it is not possible, i don't think, for the secretary of homeland security to test the waters with only the committees on homeland security in the house and senate. and as hard as you might -- may try, it is difficult for you to get each of the other 91 committees to see the whole and the importance of the whole and the trade-offs that occur at the very top so that the department directionally move in a cohesive way. so that would be my comment on that. i want to turn to data

collection. we've had had a period of debate following the snowden revelations in which the debate has principally been about how much should we fear the government and what it is doing. and to be sure, our report says that there must be robust oversight. but it seems to me -- and this is just a personal comment, though it is also reflected in our report -- that what is sometimes missing in that debate is an appreciation for how much robust intelligence keeps us safe. i'm wondering if you could comment on that, on this occasion of the 10th anniversary of our report. >> yeah. and thanks for your contribution on that. i think with the former chairman of the house intelligence committee here, perhaps you want to answer that question? i fear the terrorists more than our government, but i know it's

very in vogue to say you fear the government the most. i think, as you know, we have stopped many terrorist plots through getting good intelligence by listening to foreign terrorists in foreign countries. there's been a lot of misinformation about the data collection program. but when i was on the sunday talk shows and i was asked about all this, i actually applied for fisas for the fbi. at that time i didn't envision all being warehoused. you put all the numbers in a federal warehouse. it kind of spook a lot of americans. with our fisa reform bill we sort of returned back to how we used to do things, going back through the private phone carriers where that data exists.

i think that would give a little more ease to people's privacy concerns out there. so i think those reforms are good. i think nfsa may tell you it wil impact them a lilt little bit. overall with respect to mr. snowden, i can't tell you how much damage he has done to the national security of the united states. there is a crassfied dolassifie in the capitol that i've read. it hits us on almost every level that i'm not allowed to go into, causing billions of dollars of collateral damage and our relations with respect to russia and china. he's not a hero in my book, he think he's a traitor. the nsa has done some great work over the years protecting americans. that's one of the reasons we haven't had major attack since

introduce a bill. government accountability office cannot really go in and do an independent oversight investigation. so if i want to do an investigation into dhs, i can sit down with gao and say i want you to look at x, y and z. but i think -- i can see resistance and reluctance of them wanting to be reviewed by an independent oversight, but i think that that could be another step forward that could restore the american people's trust. >> i know you're having a hearing on this subject, but we said ten years ago that we were deeply worried about the nuclear threat and that the highest priority had to be keeping the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the hands of terrorists. can you give us a brief assessment of where you think we are in that effort? >> i think nuclear is a

high-damage, lower probability but it is still a risk. i think what we saw in boston is probably the threat you're going to see play out more. you look at these foreign fighters in syria, trained in bomb making capability. that's what you're going to see. you look at the internet. "inspire "magazine. aqap out of yemen radicalizing people in the united states to blow up things. i think that's what you're going to see. but we are still always concerned about a weapon of mass destruction. coming in to the united states, how can we stop it? our reports are pretty secure with our radiation portal monitors. one thing i can tell you about the southwest border is, if all these kids were coming in not being stopped, 60,000 of them, it really illustrates how wide open it is and we don't know what's really coming through. now we haven't -- we can't give you a case specific about a

terrorist trying to get in, but the fact remains that that is a vulnerability for the united states until we get it secure. >> let's return then to the question of the lone wolves. we had major hassan, the ft. hood killer. the brothers in the boston marathon bombing. how well equipped are we to find such individuals and to stop them? >> well, boston was -- i think will be a textbook case for counterterrorism students and experts for a decade. when you look at the failures in that case. not to point fingers -- because 20-20 is hindsight. but here we saw an individual

where, albeit it was the russians, but a russian letter warns us that he's going to go radicalize. i talked to the chief of the boston police. they had four boston police officers on that task force fbi opened up what they call a guardian lead investigation, yet none of the boston police officers knew about this open investigation so when i asked ed davis did you know the fbi had them under investigation, he said no. did you know the russians warned us about him. no. did you know they actually warned as they left and went and met with the chechen rebels and radicalized. no, i did not know that. when he came back the signs were clear on his internet postings. his mosque had kicked him out. there is a lot that the state and locales can do to help us. i worked with the fbi, you did, for years. have a lot of respect for them. but the state and locals are the

forced multiplier. they are the eyes and ears on the street and they could have played a big role in that case to help stop potentially stop what happened. and when i heard the response, well, wouldn't have made any difference, chairman, because that case was closed. that infuriated me. because you know what? when he traveled overseas and met with chechen rebels and came back, that case should have been re-opened. and it wasn't. so all the work that you did in connecting the dots, i still think there is work to be done between the fbi and the state and locals and dhs. >> let me follow up on that. because our report does indeed say the one place among all of the others where we think there has not been as much progress is that vertical sharing between the federal government and state and locals. the connection of the dots across federal agencies, indeed the flow of information from

locales to federal law enforcement authorities is excellent. it is the other way around that the inspector general of the justice department and others have said has been a failing. you worked on a joint terrorism task force in your prosecutorial does. you now chair a committee that has oversight over this. what can be done? >> well again, i think the boston example stressed -- and i've talked to james comey, the need for fbi who do have expertise in counterterrorism to utilize state and locals and a force multiplier in some of these investigations. and to help monitor people like

tsarnayev. i think some things can be done through technology so that when the flag went up that he traveled overseas, it was automatically shared with the task force and the fbi. that didn't happen. all these flags went in the wrong direction to make that happen, that case. in the larger cities, they have to be enhanced in i think new york, boston, the main target cities -- washington, l.a., and even in houston. i think comey is ushering in a new attitude of you have to be full partners with your locals. >> one of the observations that we made in our report was that there was a failure of imagination on the part of our government prior to 9/11. that didn't mean there weren't creative and imaginative people within the government.

it meant there was no institutionalized process for imagining what al qaeda might do in the same way that there had been an institutionalized process for imagining what the soviet union might do. this may sound like a very odd question but i'd like you to try it, which is how well have we done at institutionalizing imagination in a department as sprawling as the department of homeland security? >> well, i think there is no department of imagination or agency. i do think that the intelligence service, the homeland security folks, the fbi, in their own way, they do a very good job day in and day out, difficult circumstances. i do think in their own way try to incorporate thinking about, okay, what can be the next

threat, how can they apply this threat and get it in to the united states. it is ratcheted up tremendously since 9/11. but it's not institutionalized. it's more of a culture and a way of thinking that needs to go forward. i think one thing in the report that got my attention was the american public's fatigue and waning interest in this topic. and unwillingness to fund counterterrorism operations. and i think that would be a huge mistake. i think i was on, again, a sunday show where i think it was ted koppel threw out that we spend too much money and it is this big monster an it is not worth it. i would argue that it is still worth it. i don't want to be the fear monger kind of guy. but when i do get the threat briefings, it's very clear that that threat hasn't gone away, and in some respects, in the evolving way, that is become a greater threat. as that threat grows overseas,

as it has, so, too, does a threat to the homeland because they have more capability to bring it inside. we've done a great job of keeping them out but it only takes 19 hijackers to do what they did. >> if you had to point to one critical observation in our report this time, it would be the danger of complacency. and that perhaps we have been the victims of our own success in preventing another 9/11, which could lead people to believe that there really isn't a threat. one of the things that we've tried to do, both in writing this report and having an event like this one is to say let's pause over this for a moment and look at what the threat is and where we need to be vigilant. but let me put this back -- we

ten commissioners are going to go back to our day jobs and our other lives having been exhumed for this day. but you live with this every day. what is the responsibility of a national leader to fight that complacency, and what are the tools at your disposal or at the disposal of the president and others to do so? >> well, first of all, this will not be the end today. i hope. i know you are testifying before my committee tomorrow on the 9/11 commission's report. i thank you for that. along with governor kea nc achk. my responsibility as chairman of

the committee is to first and foremost be responsible in the rhetoric. there are a lot of members that go on television and they crazy stuff to get attention. they may not be on tv as much so they say even crazier things to get more attention. there is an entertainment value to some of the news these days. one need only turn on the tv at nighttime to see some of the craziness. i try not to put myself in that situation. i'd like to go on i think newsworthy shows that are responsible in their reporting. >> have you found any? no offense to the press here today. >> it's getting more difficult. i do think the sunday shows are still probably the last bastion of sort of substantive on the issues reporting. so i think to your question, highlighting the threat in a responsible way that's not scaring people so they don't

think i'm saying the sky is falling all the time. but let them know that the threat is real. because i think galvanizing that support from the american people that what we are doing is important still. i wish this threat was gone. but it's not and i don't think it is going to end in my generation. i hope it ends in my children's generation, but what we're dealing with is an ideology that hasn't gone away. it is a war of ideology at the end of the day. and while drone strikes have been very effective, i think, at killing high-value targets -- and we did take down bin laden, drone strikes alone can't kill an ideology. this, if my judgment, is a long-term ideological struggle that we're going to be in, again, for my lifetime. think today we're optimistic because our ideology prevails, it is the right ideology. it is not one of hatred and strapping bombs to your kid's chest and blowing them up. it is like golda meir's comment,

until they love their own children more than they hate us will this end. i think at the end of the day that's are where we are with this. that's why your work's so important. that's why i've been vigilant i think as charirman, because i don't see this going away. and perhaps in some small way i can make a difference on the national stage to educate the american people in a responsible way as to what needs to be done. >> mike mccaul, you are a terrific leader and i say this not just because your think something so well aligned with that of the former commission members, but because you are at it every day in a way that is hard. you have to operate in an environment of secrecy so it is very difficult for you to make the case in the way that it is made to you and that you see it and appreciate it. we have a couple of minutes, i think, for a question or two.

and let me try to go across the room. yes. please get the mike and identify yourself. >> i'm don wolfensberg with the bpc and wolfsen center. thank you for your comments and coming today. getting back to the turf question with other committees and whether or not it is possible to consolidate jurisdiction under your committee, i tend to agree with you that other committees don't want to give it up. i think it is unlikely that they will. so my two-part question is, a, do you think there is some benefit to the competition. we've seen this on fisa and the phone records issue. but also do you think it is possible for you to convince the leadership when you bring up your authorization in the next congress to put deadlines for reporting on other committees so that you don't have the problem that you've had on some legislation with other committees holding up important legislation. is the leadership committed to doing what you want to do next year? >> please give jane harman my

best. she is a real leader. talk about a spark plug. i think that was mentioned earlier. to answer your question, i think the reason i want to do this authorization bill -- which has never been done -- is to test this. it's going to -- i have no illusions that jurisdiction is going to change in the next congress fundamentally. maybe we can make some tweaks. >> that was before our report. you mean everything is not going to change tomorrow? >> i think -- >> we do not accept this. the 9/11 families do not accept this. >> i want to work with you to talk to our leadership. but i think this authorization will be a test, because it is going to fundamentally rely on me working with the other chairmen to get it done. and that's where i'm handicapped. if i can't achieve that, it will demonstrate why we need to correct this jurisdictional problem. the other piece, in addition to the oversight and the burden it places on the secretary and the

department, the other piece is just being able to legislate. i gave you two examples of important bills, a cyber bill that got hung up on a jurisdictional fight, and the u.s. exit bill that got hung up on a jurisdictional fight. that's the case we need to take to my leadership, jamie. and those have already happened in this congress. these are just two illustrations of very important bills that, because of jurisdiction and no other reason than jurisdictio jurisdiction -- it's not because of policy hang-ups. it's purely on jurisdictional grounds. that's prevented thus are far those bills from coming to the floor. i think i've worked out the cyber piece but that remains to be seen. so i do want to galvanize the efforts of the commission and everyone in this room to help me on that. thank you. >> yes. all the way in the back. identify yourself, please.

>> amit kumar. i would like to thank all the 9/11 commission members and chairman mccaul for your dynamic leadership. i know we are a little bit threatened by the isis threat in syria. considering we will be leaving afghanistan in a year or two almost in total, what do you see about the threat of al qaeda and taliban elements both to the homeland and otherwise to our allies in afghanistan and pakistan? thanks. >> that's a great question. i think this commission warned about iraq becoming a safe haven ten years ago. and you're spot-on in your recommendations. i'm concerned about the same scenario that we saw in iraq playing out in afghanistan. what happened in iraq to get to where we are, i talked to a gold star mother. she said i just wanted my son's death in fallujah to count for something. and now it is falling apart. and i think there is a

combination of factors, one of which was a failure to negotiate a status portions agreement. to have enough residual forces left behind. there's plenty of blame to go around on that one. if we don't have a residual force in afghanistan -- the haqqani network will move in, the taliban will move in, it will be utter chaos just like what we're seeing in iraq and it will revert back to a safe haven for terrorists. that's precisely what we don't want to see. now both candidates, now that have you a contested election with potential fraud, but both candidates do support that notion. now the president said he supports it, too, but on a timetable which i'm not sure i agree with that. but having said that, i think that's vitally important and the leadership. now maliki utterly failed to reach out and include the sunnis and the sunni tribal leaders and

now he is paying the price for that. i mean for five years he purged his own administration. he couldn't work it out with the sunnis. and now what do we have? we have a safe haven for isis. and it is one of the saddest things. i talked to ryan crocker, the ambassador. i talked to petraeus and general keene and general austin and they are so angry with the situation because we did the awakening which got the sunni tribal leaders behind working with the shia to kick out al qaeda. they don't like al qaeda, but maliki has been so arrogant that they'll take right now temporarily anything over maliki. that's essentially what they're doing. i don't think at the end of the day they're going to stick with isis because they're so brutal, but for now, they are. so it is a political reconciliation, diplomatic, that has to happen. i think targeted air strikes if

we can hit isis without collateral damage to the sunnis, that provided stability and eliminates a threat to the homeland at the same time. but you're absolutely right on point with afghanistan. we've put too many lives -- too much, as they say, blood and treasure in there to watch that one fall apart as well. i think the iraq experience is very instructive as to how we should be dealing now with -- >> watch this event in its entirety at c-span.org. we leave you now to take you live to capitol hill for a hearing by the senate commerce an transportation committee looking at ways to enhance consumer protections on cruise ships. we anticipate the committee will mark up one or two pieces of legislation before taking up cruise ship safety. live coverage. >> -- will be don't agree with what we're doing so i want to give them a chance to say why. so you're on. >> thanks. mr. chairman, thanks for your leadership and also minority mem

bell, as well as majority. there is a bill s209 for vessel discharge act that i strongly oppose letting it go today and i want to read my statement because it is so important to my state. i do appreciate the senator's leadership at expressing his concerns in his state, but i also represent a coastal state. california's economy depends on clean and healthy coastal waters. i believe the bill goes too far but i hope to work with senator begich to address the issues of concern for my state and many other states, frankly, around the nation. let me tell you why that bill goes too far. it would repeal existing clean water protections which epa has spent years developing disrupting carely crafted safeguards to trap pollution and limit the spread of invasive spees seize that threaten our

coastal xh aal economies. according to noaa, every year more than 21 billion gallons, or 40,000 gallons a minute of balast water are discharged into u.s. waters and they're known to carry harmful invasive species. for example, ballast water response for muscles in the great lakes -- that's why the great lakes states oppose this bill -- billions of dollars have been spent to remove these harmfully invasive muscles from underwater structures and pipes. noaa estimates that the economic impact of zoe bra muscles to the great lakes region is $5 billion between 2000 and 2010. so s2094 would weaken even the existing safeguards by exempting large ships from the clean water act. a law with a proven track record of protecting our nation's waters. for the life of me, i don't know why we'd want to do that. one thing i know when i go home, no one comes up to me and says the water's too clean.

you know? it's just so clean. they want us to work to keep it so or make it so. the bill would also eliminate requirements for vessel owners to monitor discharges to ensure that they're meeting pollution limits, including, as i said, living organisms in ballast water, pathogens such as e. coli. i don't think there's anyone among us that hasn't heard about the problems with e. coli which are known to make beachgoers sick and responsible for numerous beach closings. creme cal agents toxic to fish and wildlife that can pollute recreational and drinking water sources. the bill would also severely limit the state's act to protect their own waters from ship pollution. we've received many letters from coastal states that oppose the bill state preemption provisions of the clean water act. those are california, oregon, washington, the great lakes states of illinois, michigan, minnesota, new york, ohio, and

wisconsin. i ask unanimous consent to enter those letters from those states into the record. >> it is so ordered. >> so i just have about another minute. let me share with you their own words. these are the states writing to us against this bill that you're having marked up today. "we strongly oppose provisions that would preempt a state's authority to address vessel discharges, including ballast waters. if adopted, s2094 would eliminate the long-standing ability of states to protect u neat state waters from shipping mediated pollution. the introduction of non-native species, their associated deleterious economic health and ecological impacts. they say please preserve the rights of states to regulate state waters. i thought we liked to help states here. so they oppose moving s2094 in its present form. finally, i want to note that the clean water act is within the jurisdiction of the environment of public works committee, which i happen to chair. the committee of jurisdiction should decide whether changes to

the nation's environmental laws are needed. i don't think it's right that we're doing it here. clearly the spill has significant issues that need to be resolved before it moves forward. so i will be opposing this bill. but i'm certainly going to work with senator begich and members of this committee on both sides, and in particular, i think it is important to note that i want to work to extend the existing permitting moratorium for fishing boats and -- permitting moratorium for fishing boats an other small vessels. that i can go for. the smaller vessels are one thing. these large ships are another. so i would work with you, mr. chairman, and with senator thune, members certainly -- any other senator that's interested. but i don't want to weaken the clean water act for the good of the health of the people we represent and fight for. so i put that in the record and that's my statement. i'll be voting no and would like to be reflected if i might.

>> it will be reflected. >> thank you. >> and any thoughts that you have during the course of the day or the week or the month we'll also put in the record. >> thank you. i think i said my part. >> and also when maria cantwell comes, i want to make sure she has a chance to say something because she opposes it. i call on my distinguished friend from south dakota. >> mr. chairman, thank you for convening this executive session and thank you to our colleagues for helping us achieve a quorum. guess not quite. before we move the agenda, i want to say a few words about the measures before us today. first i want to acknowledge the work that senatothe senators ha done. their bill and the substitute they prepared make a number of changes to improve the transparency and accountability of the brand usa program bill mirror is the legislation that passed the house yesterday.

they estimate this will reduce the deficit by approximately $230 million over ten years. want to thank senator shats and wicker on senate bill 2030. i'm pleased with the agreement that was reached on the sea grant fellows program. think these simple reforms ensure a fair and equitable distribution of fellows to key committees and members in the house and senate regularly engaged in oceans and marine policy. today we're also marking up as the senator from california ♪ed the vessel incident discharge act. this bill provides science based an ample uniform standards for vessels that are so important to the commerce of our country. as an original co-sponsor and 11 other members of this committee as well as 18 other senators i'm happy to see it bill move through committee and i'm hopeful it will be considered but the full senate soon. i would also note while we weren't considering the coast guard reauthorization, i look

forward to working with you on this important issue. i am hopeful we can work through the remaining outstanding issues and see this important measure on our september mark-up. we're also considering two tsa sponsored bills. the bill has a house companion that passed on suspension by 416-0. so hopefully this measure will soon be on the president's desk. with that, mr. chairman, i would suggest you have other -- >> we have two people -- we have one person more coming, on his way. and a very distinguished fellow from missouri has just appeared. >> mr. chairman -- mr. chairman,ky say a quick comment while we wait? again i want to thank the committee and the work. i know i apologize for being a little late but i know on senate bill 2094 the vessel discharge

act, i'm looked forward -- i know senator boxer made some comments earlier. i look forward are to continuing the work on that piece of legislation with senator boxer and i just appreciate it being on the mark-up today. again, i recognize some of the concerns that senator boxer has and we'll continue to work with her and see where we can get it before we get to the floor. just want to make sure to put that on the record. thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing several of these bills to come forward and to the ranking member, i, too, look forward to bringing forward and getting the coast guard bill worked out over the next month or so. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> we now have a quorum. and so all in favor of what senator -- you've got to trust senator thune. >> mr. chairman, i would move that we consider the agenda, consideration of the agenda. and that being said, we have

13 -- okay. >> 13. >> i move that the substitute amendment as modified to agenda eye them number 1, senator bill, the substitute amen ga to senate bill 1893, the substitute amendment to agenda item three, senate bill 2030, the national c grant college program amendments act, item four, senate bill 2094, the vessel incidental discharge act as amended by wicker amendments one, two and three and substitute amendment to agenda five, the travel promotion enhancement modernization act, be adopted and reported as modified with amendments in the nature of substitute as previously noted. >> superbly and exquisitely done. therefore, all in favor will say aye. all those opposes will say nay. >> i want to make sure that i'm

voted no on s-094. >> it -- s-2094. >> it is going to be a nay. >> nay or no. it is your choice. >> okay. >> so that's it. we -- the executive session is adjourned and i thank all of you. i want to say something to our next panel because they have to be saying, wait a second, this hearing is about us. and it is. but there will be some members who -- >> mr. chairman? >> oh, yes. senator rubio. >> i don't want to hold anybody up. i wanted to say something on the record about a portion of this. i don't want to interrupt what you were doing. >> no. >> i just wanted to thank, first of all, both senators for their work on the legislation and allow me to make a quick point about the entry process in our country and the impact it has on travel and tour itchism. we've heard about this problem from foreign travelers facing

long custom wait times. senator nelson have worked on this issue both at miami and orlando airports. i brought up the need for more cvp agents and updated kriosks o foreign travelers can use them. now that the house has acted, i still hope we can work together to address had this in the future and in particular the need not just for more agents but software we need to update those automated kiosks. the travel industry of course has promoted the three-legged stool to promote inbound travel, visa reform to reduce processing time, increased marketing on the global stage and entry process. i believe more needs to be done on that final leg. more travelers are great for the industry and our country, but if our understaffed pofrts rts of are overwhelmed by more travelers, it holds us back. nothing says welcome to the united states than a two-hour wait in line at customs. i am hopeful we can improve this

problem and look forward to working with the bill sponsors as well as the tourism industry to address it. >> thank you, senator. >> mr. chairman, we've talked with senator rubio and his staff about this. we're more than happy to wok with him with a letter to the agencies that have the ability to impact some of the concerns that we all have about people getting into the country, how they get into the country. we were certainly glad yesterday to see a huge house vote to extend this program and our managers package today included the same reforms that the house package includes and i want to see what senator klobuchar has to add to that. >> mr. chairman, we are so pleased with how this has gone done. we have 30 additional bipartisan sponsors since we started, it is now half democrats, half

republicans. we are now opening it up to any party to get on. but we want to thank you so much for your leadership and getting this on the agenda. we know how many jobs this has generated in our country. it is incredible where we finally stopped tying our hands behind our back so we weren't unfairly treated to other countries who are basically charging our own citizens to advertise their countries in our country. we are finally advertising our country and visiting america at no taxpayer expense in other places. can you see the numbers have just zoomed up and it is great for jobs in america. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. senator cantwell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> just so i can set the stage, also objects to something that we're doing and i want her to have all the time she wants. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know we voted enbloc but i would like to submit a statement for the record. >> that's so order. i thank you. all right. now for those who came here for

a different purpose, again i want to apologize. this was a chance to get out five bills. if you've been watching the united states senate or the congress, for that matter, getting a bill out of a committee is a triumphant moment. so we had to take advantage to get five out. but the point of this hearing is all of you. so i'm going to make my opening statement, then -- >> mr. chairman, may i be recorded in favor of these five? >> of course. >> thank you. >> so ordered. all right. i'd like to begin this hearing in the same way i started the hearing i held on the cruise industry last year, by saying that most people who take cruise ship sha vacativacations have a experience. i'd like silence, please. millions of americans go on cruises every year. most of the time they have a nice trip and they return home safely just like the cruise companies promise in their advertisements. but once in a while, things can go terribly wrong. ships catch fire.

passengers fall overboard or get sick. crew members sexually assault passengers, incidents like these are, unfortunately, also a part of the cruise experience. i'm very honored today to welcome four witnesses who will help us understand firsthand the consequences of these incidents. we've talked about them in sort of a larger way, but we have not had the direct testimony of those affected by those who represent some who were affected by it. and so that's what this hearing was before. the fact that some senators have left, don't let that bother you. mark-ups are unusual and that's why they had to come, because they're all 13 and they had to go do something else. but you're the point of all of this and i want that to be very, very clear to you. so as i said, i'm very glad to welcome four witness whose will help us understand firsthand the consequences of these incidents

that they had to go through. i recognize that this is not an easy subject to talk about. let that be said. okay? so that it's painful. and however you reflect that pain, the committee understands it, welcomes it, joins us in the difficulty of coming up here and testifying before a senate committee. although it is really not that difficult, after all. cruise industry, i'm happy to say, is not happy that i'm holding this hearing. they're very unhappy. those companies don't like it when congress or the media talk about the risk of taking a cruise vacation. they have repeatedly told this committee in both pub hearings and private meetings that cruise ships and trips are safe. that's it. no need to do anything. but the facts tell a different story. it doesn't mean that they're -- as i said, the average person will have a good experience, but

you don't judge a steel plant by, you know, 500 workers not being hurt but 30 workers being very badly hurt. i mean it is the problems that you have to address. so the facts tell a different story. last year our committee released a report that found hundreds of cruise crimes were not being publicly reported. very basic negligence. we've had several hearings where expert witnesses testified about ongoing safety and security problems, like wrecks, fires, crimes, on board these vessels, and we continue to see the same issues continuing to continue. and i'm fed up with it. i'm fed up with them trying to stonewall us. yes, they have lots of money and they have lots of lobbyists, and that's -- we're going to win this one. almost exactly one year ago,

carnival's president told this committee that his company's number one priority is "the safety and security of our guests." he explained to us how the cruise lines have every incentive to make sure their customers have a good experience. that sounds nice in a congressional hearing, but it is little comfort to the many people whose vacations, or in a number of cases, lives have been ruined by the cruise line's failure to deliver on their promises. that is, if they got a chance to see what the promises were, which is a problem in and of itself. we'll talk about that. in spite of the evidence that crimes, fires, mechanical failures, drownings and mishandled medical emergencies occur with disturbing regularity on cruise ships, the industry continues to deny that it has a problem. any problem. just denies it has problems. it has circled the wagons and reflexively fought all efforts to provide consumers more information about the risks of cruise ship vacations.

i don't mind if they talk about the joys and pleasures, but people have to talk about the risks, too. it's not fair if they don't. they often refer to,know, new york city doesn't, they have all kinds of problems but they don't advertise their problems. but when you're on a cruise ship, you know, out on the ocean somewhere, there isn't a hospital next door. there isn't a police station to go to. you're just on an island all by yourself. and that's a very different feeling than being a part of a community which can come to help. so that's from my legislation comes in. last year, after the "costa concordia" tragedy and underreporting of crimes on a cruise ship, i introduced the cruise passenger protection act of 2013. in this bill, i've proposed making it easier for consumers to report crimes and make

complaints about problems on cruise ships. everything is about making it easier. if you make it hard, a lot of people will just not do it. and, unfortunately, when you have an encapsulated environment, like a cruise ship trip, you have to be able to report. you just have to be able to do that and do it fairly easily. so we make it easier to report. i've also proposed simplifying contracts and publishing more information about crimes and other problems on cruise ships. you know what i'm talking about when i talk about the ticket problem. tough peel layers of paper away and you're just signing a ticket. but it's underneath that somewhere that says, by the way, you give up your liability. that is not nice. that's a terrible thing to do to passengers. these aren't crazy ideas that

i'm suggesting. they are commonsense protections that consumers already have if they travel, for example, in airplanes or if they travel by rail. but the cruise industry vehemently rejects by bill, even reporting crimes against minors or putting up at website that visitors can consult while they make their vacation plans so they can see what the problems might be, what the advantages might be so they make an informed decision. when the industry opposes the basic disclosure about its conduct, it suggests to me, frankly, that it has something to hide. our witnesses today are going to help us understand why it is so important for consumers to have this information. unlike people vacationing on land, cruise ship passengers, who are victims of crime, do not have immediate access to law enforcement. well, you say, well, sure, they are out at sea. yeah, but they are out at sea and don't have access to law

enforcement. that's pretty basic. and if they suffer a health emergency on a cruise, they could be hundreds of miles away from a health facility that operates at u.s. standards or even below u.s. standards, just something called a hospital. our witnesses are also going to tell us, in spite of the cruise industry talking about and taking responsibility for their passengers, cruise companies sometimes treat their customers with shocking callousness and disregard. my words are harsh because i'm angry about this. four witnesses are appearing before this committee today and i thank them. but there are many, many more people, as you all know, who could have shared their experiences and have with my staff, ken carver, jamie barnett and countless others have fought for years to help others from needless tragedy. i would like to thank everybody who has been willing to step forward and tell us their stories, despite as i indicated,

the painful and sometimes tragic circumstances, not just that they happened but having to recall them verbally and publicly. having accurate statistics about the crime is important and even more important is the security risks that this industry is n notednot acknowledging. this is about accountability. being honest with people. i know that cruise companies think that i am singling them out for scrutiny but i assure them that that is not the case. i have never hesitated to ask the tough questions when i think their business practices are urt haddi hurting their customers. that's my job. to have oversight and try to make things better. this process of asking tough

questions is called, in fact, oversight. it's one of the most important jobs congressional committees have, maybe the most important. when it comes to the cruise industry, we've been doing our job. we have held hearings, we have analyzed the data and we have talked to many different people with experiences in this industry. this oversight has left us to very clearly to the conclusion that we have to act. we need legislation to protect consumers. for anyone in this committee who still hasn't gotten the message, i urge you to listen closely today as these witnesses bravely share their experiences. i thank everybody. one closing statement. and to the cruise industry, instead of fighting this process, i encourage you to listen carely to the testimony today. i understand to you to honestly consider whether there are steps that you can take to better protect the health and safety of your passengers. look, this is the -- the cruise industry is booming.

it's -- people love to travel. people love to go on those ships. and i don't begrudge them for that. my own son has done that. i don't begrudge people that. they have a right to do that. but they also have responsibilities since they are under our jurisdiction to do it safely and properly for everyone. i believe there are steps that they can take and i will continue pushing to make those things happen. i now call upon the distinguished senator from mississippi, mr. roger wicker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think you've made a number of valid points. i thank the witnesses for being here. as you said, mr. chairman, it may be difficult for them to share their experiences but it's important that they do so and i appreciate their courage in coming forward and being able to share with us today on some information we need. the chair has built this hearing as a form to discuss his bill,

the cruise ship passenger protection act, s-1340. we need to protect customers from a crime. we need to ensure access to medical care while on the high seas. these are important and worthy issues. i would say that i think it would be best if we consider the legislation as a standalone bill and not in connection with the coast guard authorization act. i don't know what the chair's approach to this is going to be. but i do not believe the reauthorization act is the appropriate vehicle for a cruise passenger protection bill. in my judgment, we ought to consider cruise ship passenger legislation separately from the coast guard authorization act. congress reserves the opportunity to examine how we can strengthen the transparency of crimes on the high seas and

the public deserves a discussion with full congressional attention to making cruising safer for americans and foreign tourists while visiting u.s. ports. there are many areas in which the cruise ship industry is receiving criticism, including the effectiveness of crime prevention, their response to crime, sexual assault, the report of incidents and tax concerns. i hope that safety standards, like those that could have been efficient in the treatment of butler is in this discussion. there are crews with maximum capacities larger than many of our small towns and cities in america. some cruise ships have more than 6,000 passengers. and some 2,000 staff along with them. and yet they only require two

medical professionals on board. imagine a small town of that size, for example, in rural mississippi. imagine my native home of ponatoc, mississippi, where there's some 6700 people living and what if we only had two medical professionals in the whole town? and as a matter of fact, in my native city, we have 29 health care professionals, 21 members of the police force as well as 24-hour physician care in the emergency room. so that gives me great pause to think that a cruise ship of only -- containing 8,000 souls would have only two medical professionals aboard. so any transparency, we need to promote self-correcting behavior

and we all have a right to hear the stories of the victims. we do not need to paint the entire industry with a broad brush because of a few bad actors. i think the chair acknowledges that. but we should look for ways to partner with the industry to make passenger cruises a safe environment for our american passengers and tourists and i encourage the cruise line industry and association to find a market-driven solution. thank you, mr. chairman. and i look forward now to getting to the testimony of our witnesses. >> thank you, senator wicker, very much. the senator and i come from states with lots of rural places. my sort of hometown has about