committee here, perhaps you want to answer that question. i fear the terrorists more than our government, but i know it's more 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. at that time i didn't envision all the phone numbers in the nsa. so it kind of spooked a lot of americans. with our fisa reform bill, we

sort of returned back to how we used to do things, going through the private phone carriers where that data exists. and i think that will give a little more ease to people's privacy, you know, concerns out there. so i think those reforms are good. i mean, i think nsa will tell you it may impact them a 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 classified document in the capitol that i've read, and it hits us on almost every level that i'm not allowed to go into, but causing billions of dollars of damage to us, compromising our national security, particularly with respect to russia and china. and so he's not a hero in my book, he's a traitor, and i think the nsa has done great work over the years protecting americans. it's one reason we haven't had a major attack since 9/11.

and finally on oversight, i did introduce a bill with adam schiff. the intelligence committee is one area where the government bui accountability cannot really go and do an oversight investigation. if i want to do an investigation on gis, i can say, imt y want yo look at x, y and z. i can see them wanting to be reviewed by an independent oversight, but i think 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 10 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 of lower probability, but it's 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. i think 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 into the united states, how can we stop it. our reports are pretty secure with our radiation portal monitors. one think i can tell you about the southeast border is if all these kids are coming in and not being hopped, it really

demonstrates how wide open it is, and we don't know what's coming through. 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 hussein, the ft. hood killer, we had the rf brothers in t-- tsarnaev brothes in the boston marathon bombing. how worried are you about these individuals who take it upon themselves to do harm to the united states? how well equipped are we to find such people and to stop them? >> well, boston was a -- i think will be a textbook case for counterterrorism students and experts for a decade when you

look at the failures in that case. and 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 he's going to dogistan and radicalize. i talked to ed davis, the chief of the boston police. they had four boston police officers on that task force. the 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 him under investigation, he said no. did you know the russians warned us about him? he said no. do you know he actually left as a warrant and went to dogistan and went over there and met with the chechen radicals? no, he didn't know that. when he came back, it was clear hamas had kicked him out. there's a lot that the state can

help us. i work for the fbi, i have a lot of respect for them. but they know the streets, they're the eyes and ears, and they could have played a big role in that case to help stop, potentially stop what happened. and when i heard the response, it wouldn't have made any difference, chairman, because that case was closed. that infuriated me because when he traveled overseas and met with chechen, that case should have been reopened, and it wasn't. so all the work you did in connecting the dots, i still think there's work to be done between the fbi and the state and locals and dhs. >> so let me follow up on that, because our report does indeed say the one place among all the others where we think there has not been that much progress is the vertical sharing between the federal government and state and locals. the connection of the dots

across federal agencies deed the flow of information from locals to the federal law enforcement authorities has been excellent. it's 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 days. you now chair at least a committee that has oversight over this. what can be done? >> i think, again, the boston experience stressed to utilize statements in these suggestions and help monitor people like

tsarnaev. jtfs can vary. the one i worked for, the locals were very integrated. i think some things can be done through technology so that when, gee, the flag went up to travel overseas and automatically ensured between the task force of the network and cbi. all these flags, everything that went in the wrong direction to make it happen, did in that particular case. for the most part, jtfs work pretty well. that's why we stopped a lot of things from happening, but i would say in the larger cities like -- they have to be enhanced in, i think, new york, boston -- the main target cities -- washingt washingto washington and even houston. i think they're saying you have to be full partners with your locals. >>. >> one of the observations we made in our report was there was a failure of imagination on the

part of our government at 9/11. that doesn't mean there was no creative or people in the go government, there wasn't imagining what al qaeda might do as well as there was manuimagin what the soviet union might do. this might be an odd question, but i'd like you to try it. how well have we done at institutionalizing information in a department as sprawling as the department of homeland security? >> well, i think there is no department of imagination. 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, and i do think in

their own way try to incorporate thinking about, okay, what could be the next threat? how could they apply this threat and get it into the united states? it's 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 the unwillingness to fund terrorism operations. and i think that would be a huge mistake. i was on, again, a sunday show, and i think it was ted koppell that we spend too much money, it's a big monster and it n's n worth it. i think it is worth it, but when

i get the threat briefings, and it's clear that threat is not going away. as that threat grows overseas, so it grows in the homeland because they have the capability of bringing them inside. we've done a great job 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 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 in this one, is to say let's

pause on this for a moment and look at where the threat is and where we need to be vigilant. 10 commissioners are going to go back to our day jobs and 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? >> fortunately, this will not be the end today, i hope. i know you're testifying for our committee tomorrow on the 9/11 report, and i thank you for that along with governor kean. but my responsibility, as i see

it, as chairman of the national security committee, is to first and foremost be responsible. there are a lot of congressmen who go on television and they say crazy things to get attention. they may not be on tv that much, so they say 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 like to go on, i think, newsworthy shows that are responsible in their reporting -- >> have you found any? no offense here to the press here today. >> it is becoming more difficult. i do think the sunday shows are probably the lastabastion

reporting of the issues. they don't say i think the sky is falling all the time, but let them know the threat is real, because i think galvanizing that support from the american people, we are doing what is important still. i wish this threat was gone, but it's not. i don't think it will end in my generation. i hope it ends in my children's generation, but what we're dealing with is an idealogy that hasn't gone away. it's a war of idealogy at the end of the day. and while drone strikes have been very effective, i think, at killing high value tarkgets, an we did take down bin laden, drone strikes alone cannot kill an idealogy. this is an idealogy struggle that i think we'll be in again, for my lifetime. in the end i'm realistic because our idealogy prevails.

it's the right idealogy. it's not one of hatred and strapping bombs to your kids' chest and blowing them up. it's like golda meir's comment that at the end of the day, will this end? i think that's why your work is important, because i don't see this going away, and maybe 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. >> well, mike mccaul, you are a terrific leader, and i don't say this just because your thinking is 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's 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. >> hi, i'm don wilkinsburg at the wilson center. i enjoyed the comments and thank you for being here today. getting back to the turf question from the other committees and whether it's possible to consolidate jurisdiction under your committee, i tend to agree that other committees don't want to give it up, i think it's unlikely that they will. so my two-part question is, a, do you think there is benefit to the competition? we've seen this on fisa and the phone records issue, but 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 problems 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 harmon my best. she's a real leader and a sparkplug. i think that was mentioned earlier. to answer your question, i think the reason i want to do this organization bill, which has never been done, is to test this. and it's -- i have no illusions that the jurisdiction is going to change in the next congress fundamentally. maybe we can make some tweaks -- >> wait, that was before our report. >> well, you know -- >> you mean everything is not going to change tomorrow? 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's going to fundamentally rely on me working with the other chairmen to get it done. and that's where i'm handicapped.

and if i can achieve that, it will demonstrate why we need to correct in jurisdictional problem. and the burden of oversight placed on 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 a le legislation bill that got hung up on a jurisdiction fight. that's the case when you talk to my leadership, jamie, and those have already happened in the congress, that these two illustrations of very important bills that because of jurisdiction, and no other reason because of jurisdiction -- it's not because of policy hangups, it's purely on jurisdictional grounds. that has prevented thus far those bills from coming to the fore. i think we 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. >> i'm from the center of national policy, and i want to thank all the 9/11 commission members as well as chairman mccaul for your great dynamic leadership. i know we are kind of a little bit obsessed with the isis threat and the isil threat in iraq and syria. considering that we'll 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. >> it's a great question. i think this commission warned about iraq becoming a safe haven 10 years ago. and you were spot on in your recommendations. i'm concerned about the same scenario that played out in iraq playing out in afghanistan.

i talked to a gold star mother and she said, i just wanted my son's death in fallujah to count for something, and now it's falling apart. i think there is a combination of factors, one which was the failure to negotiate a four-star agreement, and there's plenty of blame to go around on that one. but we can't allow that to happen in afghanistan. if we don't have an original force in afghanistan, the network will move in, the taliban will move in. it will be utter chaos just like 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. both candidates, now that you have a contested election with potential fraud, but both candidates do support that notion. the president says 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, malaki utterly failed to

reach out and include the sunnis and the sunni tribal leaders. and now he's 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 sad ddest things. i talked to ryan crocker, the ambassador, and they are so upset with the situation. we worked with the shia to kick out al qaeda. they don't like al qaeda but malaki has been so arrogant that they'll take right now temporarily anything over malaki. and 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.

and so it's 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 provides 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, you know, as they say, blood and treasure in there to watch that one fall apart as well. and i think the iraq experience is very instructive as to how we should be dealing now with afghanistan as we pull our troops out of there. thank you for asking. >> thank you. we have time for a couple more questions. we'll take one right here in the front. >> hi, i am a law student and becoming a patent attorney. i'm also an american. i was 16 when 9/11 happened.

obviously it was a tragic day for all of us. my hearts go out to the 9/11 families and it's really sad they had to wait for a year and a half before we actually started an investigation into what happened. my question was like you mentioned. drone strikes cannot kill an idealogy. why are we not addressing the idealogy? to that point i wanted to mention, suicide is completely forbid d forbidden in islam, in the koran 289 and 482, there are chapters which truly forbid the taking of innocent life and it says you will be condemned to hell, and that's the idealogy. islamics are all about peace. there are a billion-plus muslims all around the world. if it was founded on those harsh values, they would not have survived. so what al qaeda is using in 9/11, on page 47 you talk about

osama bin laden's idealogy and you admit he wasn't a scholar of islam. he misinterpreted to advocate for his grievances. and some people caught on to that in raff began stan. i want to know why are we not addressing the idealogy from islam? how many islamic scholars are working at dhs? how many at d.o.d.? how many at the intelligence? it's growing threat in 16-plus countries because we haven't addressed the idealogy. if we tell them, islam tells you not to kill, they have nothing to fall back on. these are just petty criminals who are illiterate. if you can please comment on that. >> first of all, thank you for your comment. we did say in our report that one of the most effective tools in keeping us safe has been the effort of the muslim american community to emphasize the points that you have been making, that islam is a peaceful

religion, that the behaviors that led to 9/11 were aberrational within the religion and that that sort of violence will not be tolerated within the community. and i continue to believe that is a very important part of our saving our country. >> and i've always said, and i think there is an ignorance, a tendency to cascade all muslims as part of this, when, in fact, it's a very, very small percenta percentage, probably less than 1%. i always thought the moderate muslim, as jamie said, is the most effective tool against this radio radical idealogy. whether it's sunni shia, baghdad now saying he's the kalif, which

is pretty bold and means all muslims have to bow to him. i just came back from the middle east. screeria -- nigeria. - res

a new report on terrorism threats, and the department of homeland security. house budget committee chairman paul ryan at the enterprise institute today. it would consolidate poverty programs and give states flexibility in how those funds are spent. after congressman ryan's remarks, policy analysts discussed his proposal. this is an hour. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i'm going to ask you to take your seats.

but there's standing room only. i'm delighted to see that. i'm arthur brooks. i'm honored to welcome you today, and to welcome the chairman of the house budget committee, congressman paul ryan here to aei. congressman ryan has spoken here many times. he's a friend of aei's, and we're delighted to see his continuing willingness to tackle the important and difficult issues that many others are not willing to confront. today he's here to talk about an issue that's near and dear to my heart. and those of my colleagues here at aei, expanding opportunity in america. he's particularly focused on low income and vulnerable populations in the united states. one of the things that those of you who follow congressman ryan's career and pronouncements, remember and notice consistently is that he knows that great leaders, that patriots fight for everyone, no matter how they vote. when we forget this, we don't represent all the americans. when we remember this, we can truly reunite our country.

we're excited about that. we have a moral vision at aei that congressman ryan shares and we're looking forward to hearing about his new plans today. we're going to be hearing from a distinguished panel after congressman ryan's remarks, and after that, after that panel on which congressman ryan will participate, he will be taking your questions from the audience for the balance of the hour. please join me in welcoming congressman paul ryan. [ applause ] >> good morning, everybody. how are you. first off, i want to start by thanking arthur for his hospital irt for all that he's done, and for just the patience that his team and for opening up this great facility. i look forward to seeing the new place you've got. i look forward to hearing from everybody. this is going to be a

participatory event today. let's start with a subject we can all agree on. hard working taxpayers deserve a break in this country. too many families are working harder and harder, yet they're falling further and further behind. that's just what's happening in america today. the cost of food, housing, and energy and gas, they keep going up. but paychecks have not budged. so whether you are a republican or democrat, let's all agree that america deserves better. what do we want. we want to help the economy. and part of that is having a safety net that is strong. those who both cannot help themselves and those who just need a helping hand to get up and going in life. that's our goal. the problem is, that's not what we're getting. though it's not for lack of trying, we spend $800 billion

each year on 92 programs at the federal level to justify poverty. yet we have the highest poverty rate in a generation. deep poverty is near record highs. we can take a step back and look at all of this, you've got to think, we can do better than this. now, i don't have all the answers. far from it. nobody does. but the way i see it, we have an obligation to expand opportunity in america. to deliver real change, real solutions, real results. and to do that, we need to stop listening to the loudest voices in the room and start listening to the smartest voices in the room. i have spent the last year traveling all over this country, learning from people fighting poverty on the front lines. you know, i've been to a high school in milwaukee, that's eliminated 14 games from their school grounds. i've been to a church in indianapolis, i saw hundreds of

men get off drugs. i've been to a homeless shelter in denver. a rehab center in san antonio. the point is, there is a lot of good that is going on in this country. it's amazing. and since washington can't fight poverty alone, it is time to bring in the reinforcements. so today, i would like to start a conversation. i want to talk about how we can repair the safety net and help families get ahead. the thing i want to talk about, in addition to that, is a few ideas that some of my colleagues in the house and senate have proposed, to put forward to help income support, education, criminal justice, cutting down on red tape. each idea touches on a very different topic. but they all reinforce the same principle. you have more flexibility in exchange for more accountability. my thinking is, listen to the boots on the ground. listen to the local leaders who are actually changing the status quo. who are actually succeeding.

let them try unique and innovative ideas with a proven track record. and then, test the results. that's my guiding principle. and the first place to apply it is the safety net. today federal aid is fragmented and formulaic. washington looks at each person's needs in isolation, like food, housing or energy. it doesn't see how their needs interact. what's worse, washington looks at each person in isolation. it doesn't see how people need to interact. the secret to our country's success is collaboration. people working together, people learning together, people building together of our own free will. what government should do then is encourage collaboration. bring people together. get them into the mix. empower them, don't oversee them. don't force them. what we need to do is to

coordinate assistance to families in need, get the public and private sector working together. that's how we can smooth the transition from assistance to success. the fact is, each person's needs fit into a coherent hole, a career. and a community. if the public and private sector work together, we can have a more personalized, customized form of aid, that focuses on their needs, and their strengths, both the problem and the potential. i would start a pilot program called an opportunity grant. it would consolidate up to 11 federal programs into one stream of funding of participating states. the idea would be, let states try different ways of providing aid and then test the results. in short, more flexibility in exchange for more accountability. my thinking basically is, get rid of these bureaucratic formulas and put the emphasis on

results. participation would be voluntary. no state would be forced to join. and we would not expand the program until all the evidence was in. the point is, you don't just pass a law and hope for the best. if you've got an idea, let's try it, let's test it. see what works. don't make promise after promise. let's let success build on success. each state that wanted to participate would submit a plan to the federal government, that plan would lay out in detail the state's proposed alternative. if everything passed muster, the federal government would give the green light. the state would get more flexibility. it would get to combine into one funding stream up to 11 different programs. things like food stamps, housing assistance, child care, cash welfare. this new simplified stream of funding would become the opportunity grant. and it would be budget neutral. the state would get the same amount of money as they would under current law, not a penny less.

in effect the state would say, give us some space and we can figure this out. the federal government would say, go to it, on four conditions. first, you have to spend this money on people in need. you can't take this money and put it on roads or bridges, no funny business. second, every person who can work, should work. third, you've got to give people basic choices. the state welfare agency can't be the only game in town. people must have at least one other option, whether it's a nonprofit, for-profit, or what have you. fourth, you've got to test the results. the federal government in the state must agree on a neutral third party to keep track of progress. that's the deal. so if approved, a state could use that money to expand state programs and partner with local service providers. in other words, families in need would have a choice. there wouldn't just be a federal agency or state agency, instead they could choose from a list of certified providers. we're talking