>> when we started the investigation, we also came to that kind of conclusion. there is no way in the world this was not some type of corruption. there has to be something happening. this many people could not have missed this much. we followed up on numerous leads in that area. we retraced every examination and investigation, reading all the males, 3.7 email. we found out there was not evidence of improper influence. we looked into the allegations about eric swanson. there was no evidence that that relationship had any impact. we did find that madoff was able to use his stature to impress the jr. examiners. in that way, he was able to use his influence, but there's nothing we found that was direct. we looked very hard, followed up on a lot of leads in that area. there was just no evidence that it happen. if you talk to the examiners and

go through the documents, you can see exactly how happen. there was no point time were something switched, or they were about to get something and somebody pull them all. there was just no evidence of anything from the top or improper influence. >> i do not know if i should be reassured by that or not. what you have just described is massive, complete, total bureaucratic incompetence. they were not even doing it because they were on the take or being bought off. they just simply were incompetent. >> in fact, many of the examiners and investigators worked very hard on these examinations. they spent a lot of time. they were not lazy. they spent a lot of time working on it, but they were not doing the right things. they spent a lot of time

spinning their wheels, when it they had just gone to an independent third party, it would have come out. >> let me lay a little ground work for this. $50 billion plus got out the back door before this thing collapsed. the reality is, i do not know if we caught up with it so much as it just collapsed. you have statements being published every month or on whatever periodic basis. you have investigators in their turning things inside out, trying to figure out this and that. you have an organization that apparently is claiming it is doing trades and is not doing trades. you have customers that are calling in and saying what is going on here? for all intents and purposes, is acting like it is doing something when what it really is doing is getting the money out

the back door. i appreciate the importance of this question, but it needs to be asked. do you believe that bernie madoff, with all that going on, acted alone? >> i am really not in a position to be able to know. we really did not look into that aspect of the operations. we focused on the sec. i do not know that i could give uneducated answer on that question -- that i could give an educated answer. >> why don't you give an uneducated answer? it seems to me it was a pretty large enterprise. it would be difficult even for bernie madoff to pull off by himself, but that is not based on the intermission i found during the investigation. it is just based on some understanding of how this worked. >> what i am driving at is this. you probably have people in the

hearing room who were victims. you have people who are watching this on tv who were victims. their lawyers and probably themselves are trying to figure out where does this tangled web lead to, and if we follow in this direction, there may be assets out there that we have not yet tapped into. although people may only get pennies on the dollar by pursuing that, it is still something. that is why i think that question is enormously important. if we have any role here, it is to protect the public. i think you are saying beyond any shadow of doubt, the federal government, with this agency that is supposed to protect the public, failed miserably. so that we try to figure out how this committee embraces this very difficult issue and picks

up the mantle for these poor people and helps them do what we should have done years ago, which is protect them. >> one thing i can say, in the course of our investigation, we had communications with federal prosecutors who were working on the prosecution of folks related to the madoff ponzi scheme. i can tell you that they are working earnestly to ensure that if there are people out there who worked with bernie madoff, that they come to justice. i can assure you that a lot of actions are being taken in that respect. there is obviously questions about how true refund the investors the money, but we are not specifically involved with that. i heard her wrenching stories myself about people whose lives were destroyed -- heart wrenching stories. i talked to people about were

they surprised about getting solid returns while everyone else was losing money in the market? one man said that he was concerned, but when he got his statement, it showed that the money was still there. he did not have any reason to think it was not. he was concerned about it, but he saw that he had a statement. why would he believe that it was all made up? >> let me ask one last question. in another life, i worked with an inspector general. i was secretary of the departure of agriculture. i grew to really respect the work of our inspector general. i did not always celebrate the briefings i would get, but i grew to respect their work. do you find it shocking,

flabbergasting that you have a whistle-blower, you have a road map that pretty well lays out a ponzi scheme, that you folks were not brought into this earlier? if i would have gotten a letter like that, i would have faded, and once revive, i would have called my inspector general, my general counsel, my deputy, and the white house and everybody else under the sun to say we have to do something about this. >> one of the things we found in investigation is that it was kept at low levels. it was relatively the junior and midlevel folks who made the decisions to look into it and close the case. really, the commission was never informed about the complaint. our office -- it was dealt with

at more of a junior level. >> those are great questions. all of us share those questions as well, and this committee will take a look at the victims and the compensation issue, to some degree. i am not encouraged by some of the answer i have received already, but certainly pursuing -- this could never have been a one-man operation, in my estimation. you do not steal $50 billion and engage in phony transactions for this long and do it by yourself. that defies logic, in my view. i welcome the fact that there is a serious thought -- serious investigation being pursued. there may be other means as well, and we need to examine that possibility.

it is a flabbergasting case, so we are very interested in other recommendations you would make. let me just inform my colleagues, there is a boat that is going to occur in about 45 minutes. -- 8 vote. those of us who are going to vote will come back in a few minutes, and then we will get to the second panel. >> let me just make a comment. i was listening to our commen colleague. i have the same dismay he has about how the sec worked in this regard. you raise the question as to whether we cannot have a successful agency do this, how do we have a successful agency do something else?

i come to a different point of view on that as to how we correct this. it is similar to the consequences before you were the secretary of agriculture. the discrimination that black and hispanic farmers based in the department of agriculture that has been recognized most recently in a $1 billion settlement. the question is, do we have less of a department of agriculture, or do we correct what was wrong? in this case, do we correct what is wrong with the sec? i clearly believe the sec staff was grossly and trained, uncoordinated, and lazy in their investigations. 1 sec team consisted only of lawyers without any traders in

it, thus lacking the expertise to do a lot of the critical analysis and questions that were necessary to do the job. you mentioned at the lack of coordination between york and washington post offices, independently -- washington's offices. repeatedly not sending documents for a third party verification of transactions that madoff made, or supposedly made, because they believed that the volumes of documents they would get back would be too voluminous for them to review. it does not take a fraud investigator or a rocket scientist to figure out that verifying information with third parties is necessary to find out of someone's veracity is legitimate or not. it is pretty amazing to me.

it does not even take a lawyer to understand that third-party veracity is important. so my question is, who is held accountable for these grossly incompetent performance is? >> i think the entire sec should be held accountable for what happened. clearly, there are systemic problems, and for that reason, we are having reports with recommendations to deal with the systemic issues. i also recommended that my report be shared, to the extent their current sec employees who are still here, to supervisors of those employees to make a determination about what to do about specific situations. >> how many people made mistakes in the course of these five severely botched investigations? >> i would say over 20. >> of those 20, how many have been fired because of this gross

incompetence? >> i do not believe anybody has been fired specifically related to this investigation or report. >> i have to tell you, it seems to me that you could not run a company, and you cannot conduct a government service in which you have gross incompetence, and those people are allowed to stay at their jobs. i will look for to see what the sec is going to do here, because the first thing you have to do is clean house. if there is a culture of incompetence, you have to change that culture at the end of the day. when the 2005 investigation revealed that madoff misled the sec about withholding information about the counts of violating sec rules, why didn't

the sec use its subpoena power to collect information from both madoff and independent third- party is, rather than just rely on madoff's word? >> the information we received from the investigators who handled the matter was that madoff responded to their document requests. they would ask for documents and he would produce documents. they did not feel subpoena power was necessary. the truth is, they could have gone to the independent third parties without subpoenas. the sec has the ability to get records from finra. when we did our investigation, we went to dtc. we asked them for records, and they provided it. there's no problem. they could have received the information even without a subpoena. >> it was not a denial of information, it was their gross incompetence in pursuing it.

>> they never asked for it in the first place or did not follow through on their request. >> i understand you were not the inspector general during this period time, so let me preface my question. who at the sec is responsible for overseeing that investigations are done properly and that leads are followed up on? >> i would say the heads of the enforcement division are responsible for ensuring that investigations are conducted appropriately. >> i agree with you, but didn't have inspector general's of the department during this time? where were they? >> there was one who came in prior to me. >> we had a 16 year period -- where was the inspector general?

>> no one ever brought any complaint to the inspector general. the inspector general's office was not aware of any issue, and in fact, an office of inspector general cannot go out and do a ponzi scheme investigation. >> in the 16 years, there was not one complaint at the inspector general's office about what madoff was doing? >> that is correct. >> that is critically important. let me ask you one last question. isn't it something to consider that an effective and objective audit of madoff would have quickly revealed his scheme? he was not required to have an audit. doesn't this scandal show the

need to more closely monitor favre -- private firms as well as public companies? >> that would have assisted in this process. you would have had another avenue to catch it. >> in your opinion, based upon what you have found in terms of this incompetence and negligence, and those are my words and not yours, should other sec investigations be reopened based on the incompetence in this case? >> if there is intermission leading them to believe that the same circumstances occurred, b.g.e. if there is information leading them to believe that the same circumstances occurred, i would agree. >> thank you very much. >> we stand in recess until the call of the chair.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> the hearing will come to order. senator dodd had another pressing engagement, so he asked me to chair the second part of this hearing. since i am the last questioner of the inspector general, i will give a brief opening statement, ask the inspector general a few questions, and then we will get right along to the second panel. there will be one other person coming back to ask questions when i am finished. first i want to thank you for testifying and conducting this investigation of the sec's failure to ferret out burning madoff fraud. with everything we know about the scope and scale of his broad, i was still stunned by the details of your report. -- the scope and scale of his fraud. i am starting to believe the only thing more amazing than the size of his ponzi scheme was the failure of the sec to catch it.

like the old saying goes, the sec apparently could not hit the broad side of a barn if you gave them a shotgun and directions. we will see later from mr. markopolous. it was almost like color by numbers. all they had to do was color in the lines, and they would have found the whole thing. it is just utterly amazing. as you absolutely made clear, there were so many warnings and inconsistencies, you think the madoff file would have been one giant red flag, and yet time and time again, tips or ignore, enquiries were waylaid, he was able to bully the agency into submission before full investigations were even started. just breathtaking. i worry not only about the sec's ability to catch the next swing were, but also about its ability to do its most basic job, which

is to oversee the capital markets. one thing that has become clear is that as our markets have evolved, the sec is simply not be the sec has simply not kept pace. while the financial world has got more sophisticated, that agency has at best stood still, if not gone backward in terms of staffing, resources, and sophistication. i have great confidence in the work of chairman shapiro and the changes she is trying to bring to the agency, but frankly, the sec is outgunned. the staff of 3650 overseas 35,000 entities. the share of wall street is trying to police a town full powers with a six shooter. the sec clearly needs more resources, but it is one of to an end to regulators that must go begging to congress every year for resources.

this leaves the sec without a stable source of funding that would allow them to invest in the personnel and technology they need to keep pace with the markets they are supposed to police. that is why i plan to introduce legislation allowing sec to keep all of the transaction and registration fees it collects from public companies so it can attract and retain the kind of expertise required to catch sophisticated thieves and invest in the technology required to monitor today's rapidly expanding and increasingly complex markets. the bottom line is while the sec may need new laws and tools, they had all the laws necessary on the books to catch madoff. they did not have the personnel, the expertise, the sophistication, and the organization. they need better people, more of them, better pay, and people that are paid enough that they stay on long time. they do not just come for three years and then leave and go to a

hedge fund. a lot of this is simple experience, and sec people did not have it. i have a few quick questions for you. i know my colleague has been waiting patiently. let me ask these questions. first, if you had to sign a letter grade to the sec for its performance in the 6 madoff investigations, what would it be? >> f. >> if you could go lower, would you go lower than that? >> perhaps. >> your report highlights the inexperience and lack of resources as important causes of the failure in this case. would you support the concept of the bill i plan to introduce that would result in millions more dollars in funding for the sec by allowing fees to go

directly to finding the sec as the used to be, and allow them to invest in better and more qualified personnel? >> certainly resources was something we saw that had an impact in the different investigations that were conducted. in one of the examinations, there was no branch chief, so the jr. examiners were left to their own devices and did not get enough support. they did not have an available person. another examination was moving forward, making progress, and they decided to put it on the back burner in favor of another matter. that was an issue also that relates to resources. the limited focus decisions perhaps also relate to resources in that they decided they had the manpower to look at a discrete issue rather than a larger issue. they were concerned with attaining mounds of documents, which they did not feel they had

resources to look at. there are assets -- aspects that relate to a lack of resources. >> thank you for your testimony. earlier this year we had the chance to look at this, and it is nice to revisit it now with your report. your report emphasizes very starkly the number of investigations over a span of 16 years, six investigations, and the fact that there road sophisticated and straightforward measures that should have -- there were both sophisticated and straightforward measures that should have been taken. there were 29 red flags. i read this earlier this year, and i ask the question, how often do you get such a

sophisticated critique as opposed to just a simple tip that maybe there's something wrong somewhere? i want to ask the same question. is this quite an unusual document for someone to lay out such a sophisticated analysis of a firm with 29 red flags? >> we ask that question to many people, and the answer was uniform. it was very unusual. there were people who dealt with complaints directly who had never seen such a detailed complaint. >> so on one hand we have this very sophisticated point, and we have many people with similar observations. it does not match the experience of many hedge fund anywhere under the sun that there was not evidence of corresponding trades, etc. i look at this and think even a

novice investigator, seeing such a sophisticated report on one hand, or seeing just a simple caugha lot, should be able to se that there was something here. i cannot accept that is simply a case of inexperience or a case of resources. was there a general culture of lack of curiosity, lack of wanting to inconvenience big players, a lack of reward to investigators who had a hard hitting investigations that have damaged their career paths? what are the managerial issues? any kind of real sign of the culture that generated such failure? >> there was certainly a concern about the bogus been on

finishing the investigation -- about the focus being on moving on to the next matter. for that reason, they did not want to look at the larger issues. they would stick to the more limited issues which were easier to deal with, which were resolved quickly. we were surprised as well that the enforcement investigators simply did not understand how unusual madoff's investments were. they ask madoff in the testimony b.g.e. said he had an amazing gut feel for the market. he said he could feel when the market would move. madoff had perfect timing. he was able to get in and out every day at nearly the exact right point. we asked them, how did you believe his explanation? they simply did not understand that it was so unusual to have such consistent returns over a

long period time, that no one else wasjv able to duplicate. else wasjv able to duplicate. no carrierringconnect 1200 person, but you could not be trained in that type of investigation. one of our recommendations that we are considering is to require at least a certain number of individuals on every investigation that had done a ponzi scheme investigation before. none of them really knew how to do a ponzi scheme. you cannot do a ponzi scheme

investigation without understanding how to do it. just being a smart pace and who it -- a smart person who is a generalist is not enough. >> how could the investigative team not include an experienced investigator who would have knowledge of ponzi schemes? >> that is a very good question. at no point in time was there anybody on the case who had done a ponzi scheme investigation before. . .

we did not find that they were concerned, that they would attack bernie madoff for make allegations and arab careers would be affected. there are some enforcement lawyers who would like to break case against someone like bernie madoff. they did not have the skills to be able to match up with him. >> did the sec routinely bring in consultants, folks who might have a career knowledge sophisticated knowledge to come in for two hours and review, case and provide advice or direction or any type of assistance? >> we were not aware of that happening in the course of these examinations and when we spoke to focus on the outside they said they would be willing to do it if asked. that is one of the areas we're looking at to encourage private-

sector folks to explain to the sec individuals how to go about conducting due diligence. >> the investigations that occurred over the 16-month period, that was with many folks involved and so i'd direct this towards anyone -- do not direct this toward any one individual. we had christopher cox who had this philosophy of light touch regulation. was there any equivalent of being light touch in investigators for fear of inappropriately interfering with firms? >> i did not find that was happening. at least in connection with the madoff investigations and examinations. >> i appreciate your report very much and the series of recommendations. i am not completely satisfied.

there has to be a fact of a culture -- a factor of a culture, whether you press folks to get to the bottom morass' common sense questions about what seems out of sync, their mentors in the department you can consult with and so on. i feel like if we're going to have a very successful team in the future, that management philosophy is going to be critical to putting us back on track. >> i agree. absolutely. >> thank you, senator. we're going to call the next panel forward. please come forward.

>> let's get started. i know senator dodd has introduced the witnesses so we're not going to do that again. each of you has a limit, so we have some time for questions. try to keep your statements within those limits. there is a clock of there. your entire statement will be read into the record so it will

be read into the record. -- it will be part of the record. >> thank you. i was approximately one-third of the inspector general's 477 page report either directly or indirectly. so i can speak to that one-third of the report. i did submit three different complaints in 2001 and the pfautz -- the fall of 2005. if the inspector general's report was falsified, inaccurate, or whitewash, i would be denouncing it before you today but i find this report to be extremely accurate, exceptionally well-written, phenomenally well researched. it is very comprehensive. it is hard hitting. it gets to the fact of the matter. in a nutshell, the sec staff was

not capable of finding ice cream in a dairy queen. i never at any point saw any criminal activity by any member of the securities and exchange commission. i did not believe that any activity occurred. i know the inspector general was comprehensive in his investigation. he went down all avenues. he was looking -- asking pointed questions, asking if there was any inappropriate behavior by sec staff at the highest levels of the organization, at the lowest levels, mainly at the tea men branch levels and all levels in between. he never determined such activity occurred. i suspect he would have found it. he was digging hard as he could. it would have been far less damaging to the reputation of the sec of criminal activity had been found and they could blame one or two bad apples and say it was their fault and they are going to prison. there were trying hard to make that criminal case. i do not believe such a case existed. they certainly never found one.

i doubt there was any criminal activity. the report was so well done the inspector general went down every avenue. when you do an investigation, you have to go down every avenue and most of those will be dead ends. that was the typical investigation. except that it was exceptionally well performed and i commend it to you. it is grading for the victims out there. i know you're watching. you definitely want to watch all four murdered 77 pages. it is hard hitting, like watching a train wreck in slow- motion. with 477 different angles that it has the same tragic ending on each page. it is unbelievable. it is true. is a true report. keep in mind that the mad -- the madoff case was the twilight zone of all fraud cases. there was nothing about this case that was believable. the scope, he was in 40 different countries and had three and a 39 funds feeding him

new victims. over 59 different management companies were involved with mr. madoff and 40 nations. he had a lot of help. this is perhaps the biggest international conspiracy of modern times. it is a record breaker of cases. it shows that the sec is currently not functional. but they are on the right track. the sec prior to december 11 was not on a fight against fraud stairs -- fraudsters. none of the regulators did their jobs. financial regulators still there paychecks from the taxpayers. white-collar fraud is a cancer on this nation's soul. it is the white-collar fraudsters that causes the damage. it is not the armed robbers or drug dealers. it is the white collar fraudsters and have the best resumes and yet they caused the

most damage. they are the one that -- ones that bankrupt companies and destroy the lives of victims. let me tell you how this affected me personally. i have lost faith in all government prior to september 11 and it was not until i meant -- met mr. kotz and they affirmed my faith in government. this is a grim report. i have three young sons all age 6 or under at home watching today. when they grow i hope they will turn out to be like david dotz. it is -- david kotz. i want to thank mary shapiro for her moral courage and leadership in allowing this report to be written and released. knowing how damaging it would be to the reputation of the sec.

before you can recover you have to hit bottom and this report takes the sec to run -- rock bottom. i have seen those improvements and i am impressed. the pace of reform is certainly not taking place at the speed of government. mary schapiro likes to tell her staff she wants them to act like her hair is on fire. she -- the pace of reform as rapid but it needs to keep the same pace going for. you have to crawl before you walk and you have to walk before you can run. the sec is learning how to crawl all over again. there in the right direction. there have been out of the fraud fight for two decades in the need to get back in. thank you. >> thank you. not just for your testimony but where persistence and courage and i think when the chapters are written on how this happened

and how it is corrected, you deservedly will play a large role. mr. walsh? >> members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee today to testify on behalf of the securities and exchange commission. my name is john walsh and i am the acting director of the office of compliance, inspections, and examinations at the sec. let me say it without qualification that we all sincerely regret that we did not detect the madoff fraud. as i believe i speak care for everyone in the examination program, we view the madoff case as a terribly unfortunate example of what happens when we fail in our mission. the type of fraud perpetrated by mr. madoff is the type of misconduct we spend our day trying to uncover. that is why we feel we do.

that is why we're working so diligently to address the problem that contributed to this failure. let me assure you we have not been sitting idly by awaiting the inspector general's of report -- inspector general's report. the time when we learned about the fraud, we have been working hard to revamp the way we operate. since being appointed acting director last month, my most important goal has been to continue to reshape the examination program. for example, we are actively recruiting staff with specialized industry experience. we are enhancing our training programs including widespread participation in outside courses such as the certified fraud examiners program. we are requiring examiners to routinely reach out to counterparties, custodians, and customers to verify that assets actually exist.

we are integrating broker dealer and invest -- investor adviser examinations to make sure the right expertise is being deployed in every examination. we're considering new risk assessment techniques to more proactively identify areas of risk to investors. we are insuring that examiners know that to the have management support as they follow the facts wherever the facts lead. we know more can be done. so like others in the agency, we are carefully studying the inspector general's report and will continue to do so. the report shows that some examiners asked the right questions. but it also shows we did not proceed -- pursue the answers. some examiners were moving forward on the right path but we did not take all necessary steps. to put it bluntly, the report shows that we simply did not do

what we needed to do and investors have suffered. going forward, you have our commitment that we will continue to learn from our mistakes and we will continue to assess how we can improve our examinations. thank you. >> thank you. >> members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. having read the inspector general's report and its livni of missed opportunities, it is clear that no one can or should defend, excuse, or deflect responsibility for the sec handling of the madoff matter. the simply stated, in this case, we failed in our fundamental mission to protect investors. we must continue to reform the way we operate. we have read the letters from harmed investors that were filed

with the court in connection with the sentencing. it is a sobering and humbling experience. i'm here to commit to you in to investors across the country that we will carefully study the findings of the inspector general's report and any forthcoming audits and we will implement the changes necessary to strengthen our enforcement and examinations program. i am also here to personally pledged my unwavering commitment and unconditional efforts toward revitalizing the enforcement division and firmly reestablishing the trust and respect of investors with whom we are charged to protect. i know that my colleagues from the office of compliance, inspections, and the exams share this commitment. even before the report was issued, this agency had begun to institute extensive reforms. these include hiring additional staff with expertise, streamlining its management, expanding training, restructuring our processes, to better share information, leveraging the knowledge of

their parties, eliminating unnecessary process and procedure, and revamping the way we handle the hundreds and thousands of tips and complaints and referrals we receive each year. despite these changes, we recognize that more needs to be done. we intend to learn every lesson we can to build upon the reforms we have put into place. with respect to the division of enforcement, almost immediately after beginning my tenure as director on march 30 of this year, i, together with other enforcement staff, commenced a self assessment of our operations. the marching orders were think creatively and there are no sacred cows. that self assessment resulted in numerous changes we're implementing. collectively, they have been described as the biggest reorganization in at least three decades of the division of enforcement. these changes which will begin to address some of the issues raised by the inspector general include creating five specialized investigative units

national in scope where we will combine expertise, training, and industry and investigative know how to conduct smarter and more proactive investigations. to reduce management levels by almost 40% and deploy those experienced investigators back full-time to the critical work of conducting front-line investigations. at establishing an office of market intelligence, a single unit within the enforcement division armed with enhanced technology where we will collect, analyze, prioritize, and monitor the more than 700,000 tips and complaints the agency receives annually. over the past year, the criticism surrounding the sec and the fraud has been sharp and steady. we have taken the lessons to heart. we're in the process of implementing a far-reaching program of change and improvement. there has been no complacency. it is not business as usual. there is an institutional commitment to heightened levels

of tenacity and professionalism. criticism of the sec arising from the fraud should not obscure the 75 year tradition of vigorous enforcement resulting from the dedicated efforts of thousands of public servants. who work tirelessly every day with impressive results to protect the investing public. the staff members continued to in vigorously investigate wide ranges of activities, cases relating to the credit crisis, market abuse, accounting and financial fraud, structured products, and fraud involving hedge funds and investment advisers. to take one example, since german shapiro took leadership, the sec has filed 45 separate actions involving ponzi scheme substantially more than the same perio i ad 2008. our mission is investor protection. the madoff case serves as a terrible reminder to each of us of the consequences of not getting the job done properly. it is a lesson we will not and should not forget. our job is to protect investors from wrongdoers and to hold them

accountable for their actions. we recognize that as we hold others accountable, we must be ready to except responsibility for our failures. we stand ready to do so and on behalf of the commission, we pledge our commitment to everything in our power to regain your confidence and the confidence of the investment public. thank you for your time. >> thank you. i have a bunch of questions here but the first, i want to ask mr. walsh. he was there at the time. when you read the report, when you see the complaint, it is astounding. this was not just a mistake. this was not just saying we regret it. even this will not mar the tradition of the agency. the sec in 1980 was one of the premier civil service organizations in government. but the justice department. wow, has gone downhill.

of course it will market. the first question, you can speak from -- how did this happen? he could not find any fraud and kotz could not find any fraud. it was sheer incompetence. but when you read the report, he did not have to have any training -- you did not have to have any training as an investigator to do the kinds of follow-up that my reveal this to happen. all you have to do is have an iq of 100 and even a semi-desire to find out what happened. you did not have to have a burning desire. it did not have to turn over every stone. please share with us because i am still befuddled and you have had to think about this a lot. we have the articles and things

like that. share with us how this happened. most people if they just read what happened they say they have to -- it has to be fraud. someone has to deliberately do some of these things to let madoff risqué. we have no evidence of that and it is unfair to lead to that conclusion. i am totally befuddled. in other words, if you send a 15-year-old, a sophomore in high school and said here is what is going on. figure out, just follow it through as a homework assignment. they would know to do some of these things. tell me what was going on here? was there an attitude that we should not look, this soft touch whatever it is called investigating? i do not cast any shadow on your integrity at all, mr. walsh. i need to know. we need to know. america needs to know.

it is to confounding to accept an answer, it was just a mistake, a very bad mistake, we're sorry. this will be my next question to all of you. it makes you think there must be 30 more of these. maybe not of the scope of madoff but there has to be more of them. we were in the co-dote 2000's. i read about some brooklyn ponzi scheme uncovered yesterday. there must be scores of these if the investigating ability was so rudimentary and flawed. go ahead. >> i attributed it to two primary colors -- causes. these were highlighted by the inspector general. one was the failure to obtain third party verification of the information that madoff was giving them. this was very unfortunate. >> did the sec failed to get third party verification routinely on everything? >> at the time these

examinations were done, third party verification was used as the examiners believed the program. we have changed that. we require a third party verification as a routine part of our examinations. we provide detailed training to examiners to make sure they understand -- >> i am asking because you got to know -- there wa-- never thee was a third-party verification? you have been there 20 years. with the sec -- with the sec when you first came in do more verification than in your 18th year? >> it is difficult for me to say, to quantify and i am not sure. probably we do so much more in 2009 that we have ever done before. it is hard to say. i have been an examiner for some

years and in the in-house lawyer. >> you are trying to catch someone who might be fraudulent and to have allegations, pretty serious ones. you do not have to be albert einstein to figure out you want to get some third party verification and not except the potential defogger at their word. -- defrauder at this word. what do you think? >> trained fraud examiners know that you never go to the person that you expect -- suspect of the fraud first grade you go their last three to go to the people in the organization and you build a chain of documents and verify everything. here the examiners found and caught mr. madoff in numerous lies. >> why do you think? it is befuddling. >> they had no formal fraud examination training. they took the lives and they did not dig deeper.

they did not increase the scope of their examination. they did not request resources. it was a failure of fraud examination 101. >> it almost seems they had an attitude they did not want to find things. is that fair to say? >> they lack any kind of regulatory zeal. they were not compensated or measured on the quality of the exams or the amount of fraud caught. they were measured and rewarded with promotions on the number of exams conducted which is a meaningless statistic. we should care about the number of frauds caught and the number deterred and the amount of damages weaver -- recovered for investors so they were measuring the wrong things and promoting based on the wrong measures. >> the basic system of incentives probably was not neutral. but push people away from doing that through investigation. >> that is correct. >> do you agree with that?

>> i would start slightly differently. on the enforcement side, what we know is that to the enforcement division recently and during the time of these events has brought numerous cases based on vague complaints, but based on press articles, the i.t. testified they did not find any evidence that the investigative books were lazy. or not committed. we know that the investigators knew how to do the jobs and there is history to underscore that. this appeared to be a perfect storm. a confluence of events including lack of experience, going to sources of confidence to get advice, perhaps some personality conflicts, a lack of rigorous supervision and a

number of other factors and maybe mr. madoff himself. while there was a finding that was not undue influence, it takes all -- awhile for your mind to get around the fact that someone like mr. madoff may be running a $50 billion ponzi scheme. there is a lot of legitimacy he had from the nature of his institutional investors to his stature to other factors. unfortunately, and this was the terrible result, all these factors came together to lead the conclusion that we missed this. it was not for reasons that i think you can draw significant great lessons across the division. >> i used to watch "dragnet". i am not an investigator. especially if someone brings up a complaint, you go check with someone else. >> that is correct.

there was consultation that was made. >> you look -- you go out and they would have caught him cold, right? >> absolutely right. we do that across all categories of our investigations. third-party investigation not just in investment context. >> you are a starting policemen in the investigators unit. you know to do third party verification. >> i agree. with examinations as well. we are emphasizing that very strongly and making sure people do that. >> it seems to me almost a certainty, given how bad things were with madoff that there were probably other ponzi schemes, i do not know how large, but they have not been uncovered yet. >what you have to say about that? >> there is always from present and they are very smart. this past year helped collapse a lot of the ponzi schemes because

you always need money coming in. investors are gun shy and light -- rightly so and we are seeing a lot of them collapsed. there are more to be caught. >> would you agree that there are probably more? >> we're actively looking for more. we have gone out very vigorously and conducted examinations of entities that have -- >> i take it there is third party verification now. >> absolutely. >> do you think there more? >> we have encountered problems. we have referred some to the division of enforcement. >> is there a likelihood there more? >> we are looking for them. >> there is always more. >> could any of them be in a billion or tens of billions? i know that stanford was eight to 10 billion. could they be in the billion dollar range or could this be uncovered already? >> there is no guarantee there

is not. the economic cycle has shaken out a lot of the schemes that would otherwise exist and that is why we have been able to bring along with concerted effort 45 this year alone. >> the other thing that worries me is with new technology, and increasingly dark markets, it is hard to uncover some of these things and it makes it more difficult. do you agree with that? to you agree it would be more difficult given we have less transparency in the markets rather than more? >> there is a greater possibility of fraud and wrongdoing. >> one of the arguments from the front point of view is we got to lighten up these markets. before we shine some light into the. >> that is correct. >> do you agree? >> absolutely. >> the cockroach's always go for the dark rooms. >> my father was an exterminator. i may not be an investigator but

i know that much. ok. let me ask you this. markopolis has mentioned the skills and investigator needs. do the personnel have those skills? >> they either have the skills or the capacity to develop them and together with some of the reforms we have undertaken, we will get to the place we need to be in order to be ready to -- >> are you able to fire people who are not up to the job? >> there is various restrictions on what we're able to do in that regard. we can get to where we need to be through a variety of methods. we are creating specialized units which will through repeated investigations of the same nature, additional training and hiring specialists who are focused in these areas, a goal

long way toward creating the expertise that we need. >> one example, sec has a lot of lawyers. sort of lawyer-heavy. i think in the division of enforcement, most of the people were general litigators -- that does not necessarily make you good with numbers and that is what you need to figure these things out. my question is, who in the enforcement and inspection divisions has the ability to do the necessary analysis and forensic accounting investigations in this world of complex structured products, quantitative trading, and a lot of it hidden, not hidden for nefarious reasons, what percentage have real experience working in the markets, trading these products, making quantitative models, developing trading technology systems

versus the percentage of people who are lawyers? >> we are clearly not where we need to be in terms of the acquisition of individuals with some of those skills. that is why the additional hiring will help very much. we're not getting to a point in the future where large numbers of our staff have the kind of skills you are talking about. that does not mean we will be handicapped because what you need is centers of confidence, places people know they can go to get the advice and expertise they need and that can exist within the division and in the sister divisions of the agency and that can exist through training programs. while my hiring goals may not allow me to have the kind of -- >> how many new people have you hired? >> we have received every appropriation that allowed us to hire 25 in 2009. >> i helped get you that

appropriation. >> you did, and we are grateful. >> it is not close to enough. >> we have additional requests for 2010 and 11. >> what do you think of the proposal that i made which is that the sec should be able to use the fees that gets, registration, fines, and other things. right now it is $1.50 billion and they get $800 million of it. >> it is a very good idea. not only for the amount of the funding but for the predictability of it. we cannot even budget long-term for certain kinds of projects. we cannot go into the out years because we do not know if things will be there. i.t. and other projects 7. >> personnel knows there will be a growing revenue stream and it

will get salary increases, they will stay longer. it isn't one of your problems lack of experience? >> also being able to react quickly. some of the regulators can hire when they are facing an imminent crisis. they can bring large number of people in. we cannot do that. >> they are funded away. we would not get to this appropriation for a smaller number of people. what do have to say about that kind of funding? >> high-def nunnelee concur. it would increase the number in the industry. the money was diverted to general treasury. >> you would support the proposal. >> i support it 100%. >> what about you? >> we are seeking to attract greater expertise to the program, hiring more senior staff who can come in from the industry and bring their knowledge with them. i believe the proposal you are suggesting would help us do that. >> on tapes that were revealed by the media today, here is

what madoff said when he coached his employees who were coming in. it came out today. he said to those who were going to be interviewed by the sec, you do not have to be too brilliant with these guys. because you know they work for five years at the commission and the become a compliance manager at a hedge fund now. they are their a short time and they go away. madoff's analysis, as credit as he was, was correct in this area. >> we would like to retain our best talent for as long as we can. turnover is not always a bad thing. as you may know. >> it depends on who turns over. >> i worked in an office where turnover was in the five to seven year range but it did not stop it from being one of the premier law enforcement areas. >> you came and worked for me. mr. walsh. >this turnover greater than it

was when you started? >> turnover has got up and down. usually what has happened with the marketplace. we have had a time when it has been relatively low. >> since the market crash. >> it was much higher. we have the same problem. hanging on to the people want to keep is always a challenge. >> -- we want to keep is always a challenge. >> i have a few more questions. i will reserve a second round for me. and turn it over to the senator. >> thank you. i want to start, you said your three sons are watching at home. i want them to know what a courageous thing you did in reporting your belief that there

was fraud of this firm. when i first read your red flags report, you began by asking for confidentiality, a circulation of who you were because of concerns for your safety in the safety of your family. when you take on a multibillion- dollar enterprise, those concerns are very legitimate. you put the interests of our nation and finances first. it took some personal risk and i applaud you for it. >> thank you. >> i keep coming back to understand the cultural factor. i simply cannot believe that the capable folks coming out of even if they came relatively freshly of college, were not able to see the basic simple elements involved. and sometimes, one gives the benefit of the doubt.

in some cases, one gives a massive benefit and there are cultural factors as to why that occurs. i want to get some sense, is there any kind of regular socializing that goes on between the sec team and the financial world, where people know each other and know each other individually, are invited to parties, are invited to see shows together, to invitations come from the financial community to investigators? is there any kind of mixing that makes people more friends than adversaries? >> we are very concerned about excess of fraternization because we feel it could create a conflict of interest and dull people's judgment and the vigor of their work. we have ethical rules where if someone wants to socialize, it must be a widely attended

gatherings. they should come in for approval in advance. we take that very seriously. i would hope that if there is that level of fraternization, that a conflict of interest has arisen, someone who is engaging in that will be recused from any future work relating to that firm. >> the industry does not invite people to conferences in why? >> they do invite people to conferences and it could be valuable for gathering intelligence and just the chatter in the background in the industry. that goes through a reproval -- and approval process. >> anyone else want to comment? >> it is less of our problem in enforcement because we have by definition have a adversarial or potentially adversarial relationship with the institutions and individuals regulate. there is some value in the account of -- in that kind of

outrage. -- outreach. and as long as you maintain a proper distance, those kinds of arrangements could be beneficial. >> i do not think the sec staff is out there enough at the conferences. they do not allow time off for staff members to attend meetings, to attend cpa society meetings. they need to get out there and the ankle and they need to have something simple that i carry with me, a business card. the sec does not provide their staff with business cards. how are you going to get a fraud referral if you go to an industry event which they typically do not go anyway. how are you going to find out what is going on if you are not out there and how are you going to be educated on the products that are coming out every day and every month if you are not attending events and they

typically do not fund those or allow the time off. they need to get out there more. you do not need to fraternize. you need to at least show up and they do not show up. >> is that something you are taking a look at in terms of staying up with understanding these exotic financial vehicles? >> in terms of training and education, absolutely right. through our specialization efforts and enhanced training we are moving in the direction of acquiring greater knowledge and exposure in those areas. >> i would agree. >> another challenge and i think it was referred to by senator schumer that folks might come to your organization looking down the road and seeing the possibility of much higher paying jobs in private industry, the same industry they are regulating. is there revolving door and they potential for better

remuneration down the road a problem and folks do not want to be too hard hitting? >> this is an issue that came up when i was with the department of justice. if you want to attract good talent and there is always that risk, there is no getting away from it, particularly for individuals who work in cities with high cost of living. that is just a risk. the alternative which is to except people who find themselves less marketable is not palatable either. at the same time, my view is that the way that an individual makes themselves potentially marketable for future employment is by no means to pull your punches or not conduct vigorous investigations. if anything, it is the opposite. enforcement attorneys and prosecutors are interested in significant cases and through

investigations, cutting areas of the law and even sometimes high- profile cases in order to later embellish their employment opportunities. those are all good things and employers are not interested in hiring in my experience people who are willing to not conduct those kinds of investigations are not respected by their colleagues and peers and not have influence within the community. i recognize the problem in the abstract. it is not as big a problem in reality. >> we have a procedure when someone is leaving, we take a look over their work over time before they left and if there is conflict between where they are going and the work they have done we take it out and make sure that they were not pulling punches and they were not doing things they should not have done. >> could i ask one more question? what are the issues that came up in the madoff situation -- one of the issues that came out was about the firm's auditor.

does the sec review information about who the auditor is so the firms capability reflects confidence and a track record elsewhere? is there a change of practice in this area and am i right in thinking that had the inadequacy of the auditing function been looked into, this might have been a clue to this situation? >> certainly we are looking at it more actively today. in fact, that is one of the high risk elements that we are now considering as we sift through the community to see if there are other problems lurking out there. absolutely, it is getting a lot more attention today. >> i will close by noting that the sec's incompetent examinations greatly served mr. madoff. because it suggested to fox rumors that the investigations

said to people this firm is credible and gave him greater -- gave them greater confidence in aninvesting. i understand you are doing everything in your power to put the sec back on course and i thank you for. -- for it. >> you made 14 recommendations to the sec based on your experience. tell me the two reconsider most important. >> the best tool they could use in my opinion is the pink slip. it is a piece of paper that every employee can understand. there need to be a number of them. i suspect half the staff or perhaps more. >> explained to everyone what that is. >> when you get called into account and get fired for not

doing a good job. many of the examiners and enforcement attorneys lack confidence at the basic skill levels. there needs to be a skill inventory conducted. they need to take exams and those who do not cut the mustard, let them go. everyone's performance needs to be reviewed and they need to weed out staff. >> there are limitations on the ability to weed out staff. would you comment on those and do we need to -- does the sec need to change the rules? do they get in the way? could you generally comment on the suggestion of pink slipping people? >> i cannot let the comment pass without responding to the substance that in my experience in the five months i have been with the decision i would not agree by any stretch of the imagination of the numbers of people that he suggests are deserving of pink slips. i have seen the performance of

these people, they're committed, they're hardworking, they are excellent at what they do. and if there is something we need to do, it is to train them better and to provide them opportunities for greater expertise. >> the question leaps out, if that is the case, how did they miss madoff? if they are so confident. >> as i said, there are a number of variables that came together to cause this terrible consequence. my only point is it is not emblematic of the entire division. >> how about the ability to get rid of people who are not good? we can disagree as to how many there oughmight be. are your hands too tied in that regard? >> we are adopting in 2010 and enhanced performance management system which will allow us to better evaluate set objectives and evaluate the performance of individual attorneys.

the ability to impose discipline or to terminate lawyers has not in my view is not an impediment to achieving where it is we need to get. >> mr. walsh? >> i would agree. certainly we have a very skilled staff. to me as i read the inspector general's report, one of the heartbreaking elements is that there was expertise on the staff. there were people who could have played the proper role in solving the problem and they were not brought to bear on the particular problem on the particular issue. >> this is so confounding. you are saying your staff is confident. they had the tools and they had this and it did not happen. it is not going to add up to people. do you want to comment? >> it is hard to soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by turkey's. there are a lot of turkeys that need to be let go. >> there are many more eagles than turkeys that happened to miss this. >> most of the attorneys,

honestly? they could not find steak in an outback. >> make believe there is a wall between you. they seem like a the artists and people -- they seem like decent people. are they doing this because that is the job of someone to defend their employees and maybe down inside them, they realize there needs to be more confidence? >> i think so. it is the institution talking, not the man. at least i hope not. the needs to be a different model of compensation. the need to be better salaries. if you pay peanuts you should wonder why you end up with monkeys. you need to give these people the bonuses they deserve and make them a success and revenue base. >> that relates to a second basiquestion. there are salary limits. do you think that they interfere with the ability to

get the best people and retain the best people, would be better if the compensation levels were changed so you could pay more at least to some of the top people? i do not just mean the senior advisers but maybe you need 10 really crackerjack investigators who get paid more than others and you cannot do that given the present rules. is it possible to pay scales, a way of promoting seniority, does that need to be changed? >> i think that greater flexibility in the ability and the amount that we could pay people would be very helpful, particularly as we recruit market specialists, structure rs, traders, they may find themselves in demand and making many multiples of that. >> we need more flexibility. to the top salaries need to be

raised -- to do the top salarieto the top salaries havee raised? >> we are constantly competing with wall street to draw in people with the skills we need to regulate wall street. >> give me the second. >> almost as important would be to minimize if not eliminate the influence and the over lowering of this agency. the attorneys are running the show and they failed. it is time to give people with capital markets experience the chance. we understand the frogs of the 21st century. we know the math and derivatives and we know how they are put together. there is too many lawyers and the law is too low of a bar for behavior. the behavior we need to assures

-- to shoot for is high. the lawyers look at the low bar. >> one is lawyers versus administrators. do think the standard of criminality has to be changed? >> you need to increase the bar and make it more expensive and give these guys more tools. >> do you agree with that? you need statutory or regulatory changes in defining what fraud is? >> i do not think it is so much -- we generally do not lack for statutory vehicles to charge individuals. there are issues with respect to our ability to have jurisdiction

over security based swaps agreements and hedge funds which would greatly aid our investigations as with the requirements that have funds and others have standard audit trail information so we can more quickly analyze their trading patterns. >> do you have anything to add? >> i agree with my colleague. >> what about the second comment? the second was too many lawyers, not enough market experienced people. i sort of ask you that before. -- asked you that before. >> we are about increasing specialization. i will say that to there are a stunning examples of work in complicated capital markets areas that staff is done. in the new york office, one of our flagship offices, many of the same groups that were involved in this case did the

cases involving aig and others. norris was being transferred, transactions done to augment balance sheets and earnings. we did those cases and did that well. $800 million worth of disgorgement. 24 enforcement actions and criminal convictions. we can do more with specialized expertise. >> the examination program actually has relatively few lawyers. i am a lawyer for the program but there are 13% less. most examiners are accounts. many of them are fine forensic accountants. i believe where we need to grow and i believe i agree with you on this is to have more financial analysts, to have more trading specialists, people will understand difficult valuation issues. >> that is logical. if you do not have the resources -- you do not have the resources to do the right now.

>> we do not. >> the kind of legislation i introduced is bring much-needed if you are going to stop these future schemes as the markets get more complicated. do you agree? >> that may be the single best thing you could do. >> last question. the inspector general's report states on a conference call about a two madoff exams, a single examiner reminded the jr examiners that madoff was a very well-connected powerful person which one of the new york examiner's interpreted to raise a concern and for them pushing madoff to heart. -- too hard. did you feel his stature was it an impediment to them uncovering the scheme? >> i do. there is a protected species on wall street where the best or

powerful firms are given a free pass card. >> could that have been true? >> it is difficult. the inspector general and concluded that while there was no direct interference in the examination by supervisors, he did conclude that there could have been a secondary effect in what happened. we're taking this very seriously. we have established an internal hot line so sec examiners as soon as they believe they are being intimidated or firm is acting unreasonably, they can call the hot line, and it will bring on my desk and the desk of a number of senior people who work with me, we're moving quickly to make sure this type of intimidation -- >> if you would not call a hot line, what the inspector general was saying is because he was a powerful person, they sort of instinctively might not have been as tough as if he was a

less powerful, zero less well- connected person. there is not a hot line that will change that. what are you doing to deal with the issue that the inspector general and mr. markopolos pointed out, getting to the psychological barriers? >> the way to deal with that is tone at the top and communication and involved supervision. managers who recognize situations where a more junior person may be susceptible to that kind of influence and that supervisor intervenes and monitors to make sure that is not happening. >> good. anyone want to add anything? if not, we will close the hearing and thank you for your time. any more metaphors or comments? >> no, sir. >> any comments? you're not big on the metaphors. >> i like metaphors, as people

know. i think all of you for coming. the hearing is closed. -- i thank all of you for coming. the hearing is closed.

>> this is c-span. next, a look at some of the 9/11 remember in ceremonies including the moment of silence, the pentagon memorial ceremony, and the congressional remembrances on capitol hill. . .

[playing "taps"]

>> following that moment silence, the president traveled to the pentagon were defense secretary robert gates hosted a ceremony marking the attack on the pentagon. 184 people died when american airlines flight 77 crashed into the pentagon. this is about 20 minutes. >> please direct your attention to the pentagon memorial flagpole in honor of pastry day and in remembrance of the 180 four lives lost the pentagon. the flag is flying at half staff. ladies and gentlemen, the national anthem of the united states.

♪ tbs ♪ ♪

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, admiral michael mullen. >> mr. president, madam first lady, secretary gates, distinguished visitors, good morning and welcome. i offer a special welcome to the loved ones of those who died or were injured in the attack on the pentagon september 11, 2001. we are here to reflect and remember. but who among us could ever forget? where we were, what we saw, how we felt, as citizens and as a nation. i myself remember the shutter and the smoke, the shipmates i

lost, and how the whole world changed that day. as americans, we share a common sorrow for the 180 four lives that ended here, and for all those who perished in new york and somerset county, pennsylvania. some young, some not so young, all of them taken from us, stolen from us right before our eyes, and well before their time. our grief is real, and it is warranted. but if i may, let me ask, and let me urge that we look upon this day, not only with sorrow, but also with hope for the future that those we honor wanted us to have, and gratitude for the like they wanted us to live. let us face the future with the same resolve our women and men in uniform exhibit, the same

courage with which they serve and struggle to ensure another day like that day never happens again. america has sent her armed forces forward with that task, in harm's way, you haven't -- deployed them, and in harm's way they stand for you and for each other. many of them, more than 1 million, have been listed after 9/11. because of 9/11, they volunteered to fight for their country, to fight for something bigger than themselves. from afghanistan to iraq and in a thousand other places they are doing just that, and doing a magnificent leap. they are supported by extraordinary families to work and worry and wait, and usurp every bit as much. all of them know the stakes.

all of them know that the people behind the 9/11 attacks are planning and plotting others, that al qaeda and its extremist allies would like nothing better than to strike us again. eight years of war has changed our troops and their families, but it has not bested them. indeed, it is difficult to describe the selflessness i see when i visit them in the field and in the fleet, and hospitals and here at home. so rather than reach for words i do not possess, i will turn to those of the public william ernest henley, which i believe speak best for what they believe about the meaning of this date. "in the fell clutch of circumstance, i have not winced nor cried allowed. under the blujonings of chance, my head is bloody but unboued. beyond this place of wraj r wraj

and cheers loose by the horror of shade and yet the menace of the years finds and shall find me unafraid." mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, the men and women of your military stand before you mournful of our lost, respectful of ourduty but una fraftd task of menace of these years. join me now in a moment of silence and reflection.

>> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, the secretary of defense, the honorable robert gates. >> mr. president, madam first lady, distinguished visitors, among all, family and friends, thank you for being here today. on september 11, 2001, the pentagon, world trade center and a field in pennsylvania absorbed the worst attack since the war of 1912. speaking during the openings months of world war i said the stern hand of fate has centered us to an elevation that leads us to see the every lasting things of a nation.

the key things we have forgotten, honor, duty and patriotism and the ar row of sacrifice pointing to the heavens. we honor the dead today and speak to the survivors whose lives were changed on that day eight years ago. words are inadequate to remove the pain of that loss. we can find some solace because they lived and because of the great sacrifice and thousands more since that day. we remain a strong and free nation. they are represented by the men and woman they see around you. the program that begins today is being run by lisa dolan who lost her husband on 9/11. she and other 9/11 family

members have added something to this program. we are grateful and honored on this day that the president and first lady who has made the welfare of military families her personal pry or theed is here to remember this anniversary. it's here i am proud to introduce the president of the united states. >> secretary gates, admiral mullin, family and friends of those we lost this day, michelle and i are deeply humbled to be with you. eight septembers have come and gone. nearly 3,000 days have come and

past. almost one for each of those taken from us. no turning of the seasons can diminish the pain and loss of that day. no passage of time and no dark skies could ever dull the meaning of that moment. on this day at this hour, once more we pause and prays a nation and an a people in city streets where our two towers were turned to ashes and dust, in a quiet field why a plane fell from the sky and here where a single stone fell from the building and is black ned by the fires. we remember the names of those we have lost. we read their names and press

on this day that marks their death, we recall the beauty and maening of their lives. men and women and children of every color and creed from across our nation and even others. they were innocent going about their daily lives. they now dwell in the house of the lord forever. >> we honor all those that gave their lives so that others might live. men and women who gave life to the simple statement i am my brother's keeper. i am my sister's keeper. we pay tribu we pay tribute to the service of a new generation.

we saw the nation in its hour of need and said i choose to serve. i will do my part. once more we grieve, for you and your families. no words can ease the ache of your heart. no deeds can fill the empty places in your homes. but on this day and all that follow, you may find solace in the memory of those you loved, and know that you have the unending support of the american people. scripture teaches us a hard truth. the mountains may fall and the earth may give way. the flesh and the heart may fail, but after all are suffering, god and grace will restore you and make a strong, firm, and steadfast. fast. so it is, so it has been for these families. so it has been for the nation.

let us renew our resolve against those who plot against us still. in defense of our nation, we will never waiver. in pursuit of al qaeda, we will never faulter. let us renew the commitment in defense. all those who protect us here at home. mindful that the work is never finished. we will do anything in our power to keep america safe. not the human capacity for evil but good. not the desire to destroy but the impulse to save and build. this first national day of service and remembrance, we can summon once more that the ordinary goodness of america to

serve our communities and strengthen our country and better our world. most of all, on a&pá di when th sought to sap our confidence. let us remember how we came together as one nation, one people as americans united not only in our grief but in our resolve to stand with one another, stand up for the country we all love. this may be the greatest lesson of our day. the strongest rebook to those who attacked us. with such sense of purpose need not be a fleeting moment. it can be a lasting virtue. through you, the men and women

leave a legacy that still shines broitly in the darkness and calls on all of us to be strong, firm, united. that is our calling today and in all the septembers still to come. may god bless you and comfort you. may god bless the united states of america. [applause] >> at this time, president obama will pay special tribute to the 184 lives lost at the pentagon by playing a wreath at the zero

age line of the memorial. ♪ ♪

♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, this concludes our ceremony. thank you for your attendance.

♪ >> the senate observed a moment of silence to honor those killed in the september 11 attacks. then several senators offered remarks. the deadliest attacks on american soil since pearl harbor. it was on that horrifying september morning in 2001 that america's worst fears were realized. no longer was terrorism something that only happened on the other side of the globe. instead, those terrorist killers struck the very heart of

america, here at home. long before 9/11, there were deadly warnings, warnings that for most part went unheeded. for over two decades al qaeda and other terrorists attacked our nation, from the marine barracks bombing in beirut in 1983 to the pan am 103 bombing in 1988, from the first world trade center bombing in 1993, the embassy bombings in 1998, to the u.s.s. cole attack in 2000. while al qaeda declared war against the united states a long time ago, it took the tragedy of september 11 and the loss of thousands of lives before america decided to fight back. today, as we reflect on the anniversary of 9/11 and the lives lost that day, we can honor the victims and their families by finishing the job in afghanistan and defeating the terrorists who are bent on death

and destruction. i agree with the comments from my colleague, the senator from michigan, who said that we need to build the afghan army to 240,000. we need to build and strengthen the afghan police. but we also must support president obama's chosen general, general stanley mcchrystal and his request for needed troops and resources. president obama has called afghanistan an international challenge, security challenge of the highest order. i agree. when the president stressed -- quote -- "the safety of people around the world is at stake" he did not overstate the importance of succeeding in afghanistan. president obama used even starker terms when he spoke to our veterans at this year's v.f.w. convention and said -- quote -- "those who attacked america on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. if left unchecked, the taliban

insurgency will mean an even larnger safe haven -- larger safe haven where al qaeda will plot to kill americans. so this is not only a war worth fighting, this is fundamental to the defense of our people." close quote. i could not agree more. while the president used this week to pitch health care reform, i hope after reflecting on the anniversary of the september 11th attacks, that he will focus his attention on achieving victory in afghanistan. to repeat, terrorism is the remere challenge of our time. -- premier challenge of our time. if we fail to conquer this challenge, nothing will matter much, not even health care reform. i can tell you that al qaeda and other radical islamist terrorists have not tried to stop striking americans here at home and our allies around the world. it is critical that in my own

party that republicans support president obama in the fight against terrorists. we republicans must demonstrate that politics ends at the water's edge and strongly support the strategy the president has laid out with his generals for a victory in afghanistan. let us avoid the politics we too often saw in iraq. declaring defeat where our troops and -- in theater were fighting for their lives and our freedom, undercutting our president while he tried to help alleys to join us in the battle. for my democratic colleagues, i hope that the follow the stirring words of their leader of their party at the v.f.w. don't give into the pundits, don't give into the left wing that has declared defeat in afghanistan as they did so vocally in iraq. much, i might add to the grave concerns of the troops in harm's way, which i heard firsthand by

e-mail from my son in fallujah. many of the naysayers are saying that victory in afghanistan isn't possible. we hear the refrain over and over, it's been eight years, why haven't we left? unfortunately our country has a history of abandoning afghanistan. earlier this week in an interview, defense secretary robert gates acknowledged what a serious strategic mistake our nation made turning our backs on afghanistan after soviet forces were defeated there two decades ago. sadly, under administrations of both parties, america has repeatedly ignored the lessons of history, repeatedly turned our backs on afghanistan. it is no wonder the people of afghanistan doubt our commitment to their defense. the problems we face in afghanistan today are in many ways more complex than those we faced on september 12, 2001. we know that al qaeda has found

sanctuary in pakistan's federally administered tribal area. the taliban government is gone, but the taliban insurgency has risen and grown in strength. it has prevented the true afghan government to establish itself throughout afghanistan an threatens afghanistan's long-term ability. if it is not stopped, this insurgency could allow a safe haven for al qaeda and other terrorist groups to flourish in afghanistan. we cannot let that happen. president obama's new strategy implemented by general mcchrystal is our best chance at success. while we're on the right path to long-term victory in afghanistan, the road won't be easy. in fact, it will get worse before it gets better. we've seen evidence of this already. the fighting has been tough in afghanistan the last few months and too many of our brave troops have been wounded or killed in action.

these recent casualties should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following events in afghanistan. u.s. marines recently began clearing rural areas in southern afghanistan that served as taliban safe havens for years. before the operations began, our military commanders very clearedly -- clearly warned congress and the american people that taking southern afghanistan back from the taliban would be costly. as the father of a marine who served two tours in iraq, i didn't take this news lightly. many of my colleagues in the senate and i agree then and agree now that defeating the militants is a job that must be done. our brave marines will no doubt succeed in clearing these areas in southern afghanistan of terrorists. the same terrorists who throw acid in the face of young girls on their way to school and kill mullas who have the audacity to disagree. much needs to be done in a

country recovering from decades of war. key to our success is general mcchrystal's recognition of the importance of building sustain able security in afghanistan through the use of smart power, combining military power with economic, development, education, and diplomatic strategies. while we need military forces to build security in the short term, sustaining long-term security requires smart power. before afghans can choose peace in the democratic process, they need enough food to eat and a stable community in which to live. that's exactly what smart power seeks to do. this same strategy is proving successful in afghanistan's province. during a visit to afghanistan in 2006, with general ikee eikenbei heard the need to rebuild the cultal section in afghanistan. i tried to do so through a university consortium that would set up a service through usaid,

unfortunately, usaid lacked the vision to enact this vision. i told the airmen whose civilian lives were farmers an possessed other expertise to empower the afghans. for over a year the agricultural development teams, a.d.t., helped afghans value high -- have high-value. decades of war in afghanistan have left most of the country mired in 18th century practices. these a.d.t. teams provide agricultural specialists to help the afghans rebuild their agricultural no how and sow the seeds of peace in afghanistan. thanks to the a.d.t.'s hard work poppy production has been virtually eliminated where it was the second most prolific producer of poppies before. the first of these teams started to work in february of 2008.

the second rotation is under way, and i just joined friends and family back in missouri to celebrate the sendoff of the third rotation of the a.d.t. by showing a consistent commitment to the people, these citizen soldiers have built relationships and trust at the local level, influencing the hearts and minds to reject radical extremists. like the show me state motto, missourians have shown the way forward. thanks to their leadership, 10 other states are sending agricultural specialist teams to provinces in afghanistan. this makes it clear that we need to increase the investment in smart power strategies. 10 other state national guards are committed to the vital mission of building sustainable economies, protecting them with military force province by province. we need appropriate military protection in every province in afghanistan of the guard is

uniquely suited to this mission, but we also need federal military and economic efforts. in addition to smart power, general mcchrystal understands that counterinsurgency strategy is key to success in afghanistan. i've been disappointed to listen to the talking heads here in washington advocating for an alternative approach, emir counterterrorism strategy. it's easy, of course, to play armchair general from thousands of miles, but these talking heads seem to have forgotten that the counterterrorism strategy failed in iraq and, not surprisingly, it's failed so far in afghanistan. counterterrorism by remote control doesn't cut it. the so-called surgical strikes whether by air or ground increased civilian casualties and only allowed insurgents from the taliban to al qaeda to filter back in once the attacks are over. this approach leaves the people in the country subject to retaliation if they don't

cooperate with terrorists. the counterinsurgency strategy will ensure the violent insurgents are defeated and don't come back. i agree with the administration that part of this strategy must allow some of the day fighters, those who are not taliban idealogues to lay down their reference and return to peaceful lives. if we're getting the job done right, we will lure desperate young men away from the false promises of extremism. a viable and appropriately resourced counterinsurgency is not only successful for success in afghanistan, it is pivotal in the future of pakistan. driving terrorist safe havens out of eastern and southern gas is crucial, but not in taliban militants continue to find sanctuary in the remote borders of pakistan. the threat these transplanted terrorists pose has become more real in the recent months as the world watched the taliban creep

closer to military fits. we -- facilities, we muss support the -- we must support afghanistan. the horrors of nuclear armed terrorists would be put at risk and put at risk freedom-loving people everywhere, not a risk that we or the world can take. the stakes of turning our back on this conflict could not be higher. america ignored the fact that afghanistan became one giant training camp for terrorists in the 1990's. thousands of americans died on 9/11 as a result. and thousands of our brave troops have died in defense of our nation since then. we face a similar threat today eight years after 9/11. al qaeda shifted their terrorist sanctuaries from afghanistan to the fatah of pakistan. the taliban, people who sheltered osama bin laden now fight efforts by the international community to bring

stability to afghanistan. a u.s. withdrawal in whole or in part from afghanistan now would be unambiguous approval for the return of taliban control over afghanistan. in turn, this would lead to the establishment of safe havens for many of the world's most violent and feared terrorists. americans abandonment of afghanistan now could possibly hand over the keys to a nuclear armed kingdom of violence-loving terrorists. mr. president, i conclude by saying i just returned this past august from denmark and greece, two relatively small countries, but steadfast allie allies in tr resolve to support the mission and stablize afghanistan. declaring defeat in afghanistan today would signal to our allies that americans no longer have the resolve to defeat terrorists. declaring defeat in afghanistan would signal to our enemies by waiting us out, violent extremists can triumph over

economic might in the international community. declaring defeat in afghanistan today would signal to the families of those who died on september 11, and the troops that have fought since then in the years since -- the service to their country, that their loved ones died in vain. these are not signals our great nation should ever send. instead we must declare our courage, resolve and patience to provide current resources and more troops to allow the smart power strategy of general mcchrystal to succeed. this alone is the signal america should send. mr. president, i thank the chair and my colleagues and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, before i make some comments about our departed colleague, senator kennedy, i must comment

on the gravity of the remembrance of this day in history several years ago. there's not a person living who was old enough at the time on that fateful day in 2001, that does not remember exactly where they were when the tragedy occurred that this nation was struck by terrorists. struck from within. our nation has grown-up in its history of always having been protected in the homeland, protected by geography by two big oceans that kept us insulated from attack from without. and then suddenly we were

shocked into the realization that we could be attacked on our own homeland. and, of course, what america has done in reaction to that in perfecting our defenses, in increasing our intelligence apparatus so that we get the information before the terrorists can carry out their adeed. that has been significant in the protection of this nation and its people. of course, we remember exactly that fateful day, every one of us. this senator was only a few yards from this chamber on the west front of this u.s. capitol building in a meeting with the leadership. we were aware that the twin

towers had been struck with the first plane and the second. and somehow we wanted to continue our meeting, even though our minds really couldn't stay on the subject matter of the day, when someone burst in the room on that front presume right over there -- i think it's senate 219 -- and said the pentagon's been hit. we leapt to the window overlooking the mall in the direction of the pentagon and could see the black smoke rising. it's interesting, the reactions that you have at a time like that. my wife and i had just a few days before moved in to an apartment overlooking the southwest corner of the pentagon.

it's called pentagon row. and, of course, i leapt to a telephone to try to get a message to her to get out of the apartment and get into the basement garage. being unsuccessful to reach her, i came back out into the room, and everyone had deserted out into the hallway, and seeing the hallway crowded with people going down the stairs and hearing the capitol policemen at the bottom of the stairs saying "get out of the building. run! run! get out of the building! " of course the report had come in that the fourth airplane was inbound for washington. it was a day that brought senator rockefeller and me together, as he beckoned to me to get into his car. and as we drove away from the

capitol complex, scrambling with our cell phones trying to get our office staff to tell them to get out of the buildings and get to a location that they could inform us away from the capitol complex. and senator rockefeller and me winding through streets in washington until we got to a winding through streets in washington until we got to a location where we could wait try to get additional information. since then, of course, our capitol police force, the department of homeland security has come through with procedures and instructions that are much more definitive than we had on that day. i'll never forget on that day, mr. president, then when senator rockefeller and i decided that we needed to move away from the location that we were, we wanted

to get to a place that we could get news, we went to his home. and hearing not a sound in the sky since all air traffic had been ceased on order of the secretary of transportation. but then hearing that silent sky being pierced by the sound of f-15's overflying the capitol. it was a day that we not only can remember, but that we can take great lessons and instruction from to prepare not to let it happen again. and one that we remember today, and those people who sacrificed, those people who were the dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, september 11 is a day of the year that has special resonance for all americans, and always should. earlier this week i was honored to stand with some of the family members of those who died eight years ago this morning on flight 93. they were here to mark the establishment of a memorial to those brave men and women who gave their lives that day over a field in pennsylvania and who in the process may very well have saved the lives of many of us here. their role in history will now be forever memorialized here in the capitol, ensuring that we never forget their sacrifice nor the sacrifice of the thousands of other innocent men and women who were taken from us on that terrible day. and this is just as it should be, because as i said during the ceremony earlier this week, there are some moments in the life of a nation that are worth

remembering. there are others that are impossible to forget. september 11, 2001, is both. all of us who lived through that day know this to be true. we know that with each passing year, the day itself may become more distant in time, but the memories do not. and, yet, it's important that we mark that day each year with sadness for those that we lost. with solemn pride in the heroes of 9/11, and with renewed determination to confront terrorism wherever it is found. the memory of the fallen impels us. mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, like all american, i will never

forget where i was on septembe september 11, 2001. and i will never forget the way that our country responded. in the face of great teadged americans came -- tragedy americans came together with courage and unity. eight years later, we continue to face great cal eption. as a -- great challenges. as a government and nation, we look to tackle of challenges that we face today. safety remains number one. we have troops working hard to protect and defend our nation. at the same time we continue to recognize that our diversity is also america's greatest strength. despite our many differences in times of need, we are always one nation united. this year, for the first time, 9/11 has been designated a national day of service and remembrance. it's with a heavy heart that i stand on the floor of the senate today marking this day with a cloak and white roses on the desk of our departed colleague,

senator ted kennedy. ted worked to designate this day as one of service and in april the president signed the edward m. kennedy serve america act making that goal a reality. ted would be proud of each and every american who took up that call. the mission of this new designation is to honor the victims of 9/11 and those who rose to service in response to the attacks by encouraging all americans and others throughout the world to pledge to voluntarily perform at least one good deed or another service activity on 9/11 each year. in this way we hope to create a lasting and forward-looking legacy. annually rekindling the spirit of service, tolerance and compassion that unified america and the world in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. i can't think of a better way to honor the memory of those who were lost than by taking a

moment today to remember and then performing a good deed or act of service. september 11th isn't just a day of national loss, but of personal loss. my thoughts an prayers go out to -- and prayers go out to everyone who lost a friend or loved one. your loss is our loss and you are forever in our hearts. thank you, mr. president.nent, . all americans take occasion today to commemorate the terrible attacks of 2001. each of us has the cause to reflect on some of the lessons our nation has learned in the wake of 9/11. it is often hard to think clearly about the days before those attacks when the world seemed at once a safer and more distant place and our country, a superpower in a secure neighborhood. we saw before 9/11 that america had interests across the globe and we believed that our actions

must be motivated by the ideals that have made us great. yet we also often assumed wrongly that the volatility that spilled across distant shores would never wash over ours. that instability and repression in remote and obscure places was cause for tragedy but not for alarm. we've learned a lot since that day. we've learned that history is often made in the very remote and obscure places that draw so little of our attention. we have learned that the degree of freedom and stability in other countries is connected to the security that we enjoy at home. and we have learned that we must remain the authors of history, or face becoming its victims. today i'd like to spend a few moments discussing recent events in one of those places which i bet seems like a peripheral concern to most concerns. few of us wake up in the morning scouring the papers for the latest news from lebanon or

follow the ins and outs of politics in beirut. yet in recent days, we've seen the pour tense of a new political crisis in lebanon and while all of us must hope that it will be resolved easily and peacefully, we know from the history of that country that it very well may not be. yesterday prime minister designate assad hariri stepped down unable to form a national unity government some two and a half months after his election in june. after his mod pratt and relatively pro-western party won the largest number of seats in the lebanese parliament, mr. hariri posed the formation of a broad-based government that would even award a share of the cabinet post to hezbollah. yet hezbollah has been intent on thwarting these efforts to form a cabinet. despite the fact that the lebanese constitution confers on the prime minister and president the power to make cabinets

appointments and irrespective of attempts to form a government, talks have broken down over the demand by hezbollah allied party that it retain the telecommunications ministry. this may appear to be a small and insignificant point of contention and surely not one that would prompt any incoming prime minister to abandon his post until we consider that hezbollah badly wants to retain control over telecommunications and surveillance in lebanon. hezbollah, of course, not only possesses a surveillance capacity and an independent communications and broadcasting system but also retains vast weaponry befitting its status as an independent maliciousia. along with its syrian and iranian sponsors, hezbollah continues to both exert influence outside the constitutional process and invite foreign medalin meddling.

i urge parties in lebanon to form a government in a manner that respects the constitutional process. over the longer term, it's abundantly clear there can be no durable peace in lebanon or long-term stability in the political process there as long as hezbollah continues to act freely as an armed independent militia. according to some reports, hezbollah remains today the best amended force in the country, better armed, indeed, than even the lebanese armed forces which invites further fighting at some point between hezbollah and israel and suggests that hezbollah will continue to use its military power to induce cooperation with its demands at home. sooner or later, one way or another, and as the united

nations security council has demanded, hezbollah must be disarmed. we should also make perfectly clear to syria that better ties with the united states will require no interference in neighbor's affairs. the administration made a major unfortunate to reach out to syria sending a number of delegations to damascus and making clear that better ties with the united states are possible if syria changes its ways yet we should recall it has been just four years since there was an emerging on the political stage after there was a suicide bomber that crossed the syrian border into iraq and syria maintains its hostility to israel and its close ties to the government of iran. it must be clear there must be real change on these issues in

order for syria to enjoy significantly warmer relations with the united states. some americans might reasonably ask, why? why should we care about freedom in the democratic a as operatios oaspiration ofthe lebanese peop? don't we have enough problems at home without spending time and attention on the affairs of a small country far from our shores? answering this, i'd like to return to the theme with which i set out these brief remarks. we have learned since the attacks of 9/11 the instability in such places is not often confined to its borders. in lands where repression and despair are rife and intolerance grows in the hearts of some and violence in the minds of a few. in lebanon, as in so many other places around the world, the population aspires to something

better than to be pulled from side to side by a thug-ish and cruel malicious. the vast majority of the lebanese people want only that which we here in america desire: freedom and secure to build through their talents and industry a better life for themselves and their children. a americans, we must demonstrate that we stand boulevard them ine stand beside them in this home. as we cox memorial rate th we rl >> on wednesday, members of congress held a ceremony.

we will hear first from house speaker nancy pelosi. this is about 20 minutes. thank -- >> thank you all for coming today. ♪ [singing national anthem]

♪ >> let us pray.

lord god almighty, in the drama of every human life, as well as the life of a nation, there are certain days that will never be forgotten. may remember its of september 11, 2001, always awake in in the heart of this nation a prayer of praise and petition, and lead everyone to create a service of self giving and community building. it seems that when we are most vulnerable, you touch human hearts with the blessing of your spirit that leads us with a light from above. certain moments grass us personally, hold us together, and change us for ever. the immediate effect of heroic deeds or children's tears, as

well as a whole nation in mourning, has a way of melting down the human heart to a new debt of self perception -- a new depths of self perception, but europe lovell never leave the vulnerable alone. you use the powerful moment to move a person from pride and ambition to find a new level of understanding and compassion for one's neighbors, with all their troubling imperfections. once your gift of newfound freedom is revealed within us, we become fit instruments to serve others and build the glory of a nation reflecting your own goodness and justice for another generation and for years to come.

amen. >> ladies and gentlemen, the republican leader of the united states house of representative, the hon. john boehner. >> to the victims, to their families, and to the first responders to there that day, we will never forget. and to those who perpetrated this heinous act, we will never forget. >> today we mark the instance travel between fear and memory. eight years ago we saw fear come out of the clear blue sky. we saw monuments of our power and our pride turned to dust in

an instant. we felt, in one day, fanaticism's terrible cruelty and the terrible beauty of selfless sacrifice. now the wounds of grief and shock are scarred over. now we can say grief and shock as if they are only words, perhaps, but on that day, they were more real than words can now express. . .

>> we feel their presence. we come here again and say these words not because fear or pain compel us, but because we choose to. we imagine our dome destroyed, but for the men and women who gave their lives and saved us, we send our thoughts to the dead in new york, arlington, and in pennsylvania. to those who lost their lives under our flag and each year since, and to those who loved them and love them still. this is an hour for reopening wounds and however much it stings, we will do so again and again as long as the memory of last spring that a writer once

reflected on the soldiers who sought death. -- who saw death. "they cannot forget that they do not forget, that they never allow themselves to heal completely, is their way of expressing their love for friends who have perished, and they will not change because they have become what they have become to keep the fallen alive." as the minority leader said, we will never forget. >> ladies and gentlemen, the republican leader of the united states senate. >> it is an honor to be here today with family members of the brave here is of a united flight 93 whose place in history

will be forever memorialized here in the capital. we will never forget the sacrifices nor the sacrifices of so many others on that sad day. some moments are worth remembering in the life of a nation. others are impossible to forget. september 11, 2001, is both. whit -- with each passing year, the day becomes more distant but the memories do not. some remember a warm smile, a last goodbye, a wave from the departure gate, the color of address or a tie. other shrimper hearing about a friend or the friend of a friend -- others remember hearing about a friend or the friend of the frea friend.

many of us remember what we did on that day eight years ago. for many of us here, we did the same thing we are doing now. we came together here at the capitol to show our solidarity with one another, with the victims, and with the rest of the nation's stunned but not silenced by the face of evil. our hearts were broken but our spirits were not. united in purpose, we resolve to confront those who have done these things even as we confronted -- comforted the families and friends of those to whom they were done. eight years later, that confrontation continues. in far places, brave americans are inspired by the sacrifices of the victims of 9/11.

today, we also honor them. we will never forget those who died on september 11, 2001, those whose lives ended in a flash or those who gave their lives that day so others might live. all of these people hold a permanent place in our hearts and in the story of our nation. that story is still unfolding. we know the team. it is the same today as it always was. ordinary men and women pursuing their dreams. coming together in moments of crisis with the kind of heroism and sacrifice that people will speak of four centuries. today, we remember the men and women of 9/11, knowing that they will never be forgotten. >> ladies and gentlemen,

majority leader of the united states senate, harry reid. >> this solemn anniversary this week has no parallel in our lifetime. we lost more loved ones on that one morning than any other morning that dawned that day. we still hard but we still hope and stand tall, we still marvel at the incomparable heroism that we witnessed on that day. ours is an asian started, settled, and strengthened by heroes. those who answer the call of duty and those who are called without notice. some way up every morning and know they may have to run into a burning building while everyone runs out of that burning building. some might up and know they may

have to sacrifice their own life so a fellow soldier can wake of the next morning and know the same. some like those on flight 93 wake up as passengers and travelers, sons and daughters, and choose to become heroes only in their last moments. while we grieve, we are also great fall. they leave us with a legacy of bravery that we cannot fully fathom, one for which we cannot fully thank them. we remember them so others may learn from their courage. we reviewed those who died so many others may live. we stand in a building that might not be here for those heroes and we know what it means to be thankful. >> ladies and gentlemen, at the speaker of the united states house of representatives, nancy pelosi. >> just a few moments ago, week

unveiled a plaque in the heart of the u.s. capitol to commemorate some of the heroes of 9/11, the men and women of flight 93. their families are standing by our side today and i ask all of my colleagues to take a moment to recognize these mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters for keeping the memory of those heroes alive. [applause] >> it was a humbling experience as it always is when we tread on

the sacred ground of 9/11. for those of us who were engaged in a profession that is based on words in speaking, we find our inadequacies because words are not adequate to suppress -- to express the gratitude, the respect, the debt that we have to all of these families. now we gather to honor all the heroes of that fateful day eight years ago -- the firefighters, rescue workers, and all who perished trying to save others. we remember those who refused to leave their co-workers behind whose lives were cut short that morning. we recall our men and women in uniform abroad fighting for our values, protecting our nation, making enormous sacrifices so that our children can no safety and security, and of course, we

honor those who lost their lives on september 11. it is in their names that we mark this day. it is in their memory that we pledged to never forget this unspeakable tragedy. it is in their silenced the voices that guide us, inspired us, echo in our hearts each time we stand on the steps of the capital and sang the words of "god bless america." bound by clear memories of destruction and despair, americans forget about our differences and embrace our shared heritage. in the tragedy, we found unity. in the ashes, we rallied around a common cause. in the fall and towers, we located the strength to carry on. in the darkness of that day, we saw the light of a brighter future. we express our deepest sympathy to the families of the victims who remained conscious of our

efforts to keep the memories of the fallen alive. so today we do this gathered inside with the threat of rain, but as we did many years ago, in september of 2001, we will close by singing "god bless america" because of god truly did bless america. we recommit ourselves to help our courageous first responders and provide them with resources that they need to respond to future emergencies. it may god bless the memories of all of the heroes of 9/11. may god continue to bless the united states of america. now let us have a moment of silence in memory of all who were lost on 9/11.

>> ladies and gentlemen, rev. larry black will deliver the benediction. >> let us pray. lord, god, almighty, creator and sustainer of the universe, as we again approach another anniversary of a tragedy that united this nation, accept our thanksgiving for your sustaining providence. may our gratitude motivate us to the stride for unity and to develop a greater awareness of

the fragile nature of our lives. lord, continue to comfort those for whom the date september 11 rekindles a sense of sadness and loss. consoled those whose lives are imprinted with the shocking images of that season of distress. lord, it inspire our citizens to incline their hearts to you in prayer, that your continuing mercies may always sustain us. may we recommit ourselves to the noble principles of on which our nation was founded.

in the days to come, do for us and this land we love, exceedingly, abundantly, above all that we can ask or imagined, according to your power, working in and threw us, we pray in your sovereign name. amen. >> please join the united states marine band in the singing of " god bless america." ♪ stand beside her, and guide her,

through the late from above. on the mountains, through the prairies through the oceans white with foam god, bless america, my home, sweet home god bless america my home sweet home ♪ [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, this concludes our ceremony. thank you for joining us today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> house speaker nancy pelosi spoke at a congressional plaque dedication ceremony. we will also hear from the president of families of flight 93. this is 20 minutes. >> is a privilege for me to welcome all of you to the capital. i know you have waited a few moments for us to get here but at the moment we are having a

vote on the house floor for a resolution in memory of those who made that sacrifice on 9/11. and to the families as well. it will take us another moment and tell -- here we are. he is the author of the resolution. thank you. today we gather to unveil a marker of bravery, to recall the men and women of the flight 93, some of whom are the true heroes of september 11, 2001. all of whom we are deeply indebted to. with this plaque, the memories of those individuals will forever remain etched into the walls of the u.s. capitol. everyone who visit here from around the world or from the neighborhoods of america will see those names forever more, at

etched on the walls of the capital. the names are etched forever, i know, in the hearts of the friends and especially the families and the loved ones, and now here in the capital. i hope you will visit frequently and that it will be a comfort for you. their deeds are truly their memorial. their willingness to put their lives on the line to protect victims on known to them and families on scene, these will be there each kernel monument and their enduring contribution. for those of us who work here in the capital, this might have been the target of flight 93. we will remain equally grateful for the heroes of that flight for their courage and character. not because they saved our lives, but they prevented

democracy to be violated by these terrorist acts. may god bless their memory, may god bless all of you and all of us with the strength to accept that, and may god continue to bless the united states of america. i now want to introduce representative shuster of pennsylvania who was one of the authors of the legislation. mr. shuster was here on the floor as we gather for our resolution about 9/11. [applause] >> thank you, madam speaker. eight years ago, we watched on our tvs, i watched from an

office across the street. i was in the first year of my first term in congress. i watched the reports of the first plane crashing into the world trade center. i watched live on the second plane crashed. we heard reports of the third plane in to the pentagon. 40 passengers and crew members of flight 93, ordinary people by all accounts, did an extraordinary thing in the face of extraordinary circumstances. the men and women of that flight came together. they were from different backgrounds, creed, and ethnicities, but were unified as americans and sacrifice their lives to save lives of their fellow citizens. flight 93 is believed to be heading right here to this capital. many of us would have been in mortal danger if it were not for the brave passengers aboard the flight.

it is fitting that we honor their sacrifice with a permanent memorial here in the nation's capital. a building that is a symbol of freedom and liberty around the world. i thank the heroes of flight 93 and their families for their sacrifice. those 40 passengers were the first line of defense against terrorism, and they demonstrated to the world our courage as americans. they launched the first counter attacked in the fight against terrorism, and their courage will never be forgotten. remarked it forever today by unveiling this plaque in the nation's capital. i want to thank for the leadership in getting this memorial to the capital and would like to thank all of our men and women who are serving in the u.s. military and in law enforcement around the country. we will never forget of their

sacrifices. may god bless all of you and may god continue to bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, united states senator from north dakota. >> [applause] thank you for this opportunity, a special thanks to the families of the people who were on flight 93. we honor very much your relationship to those that we honor here today. i remember 9/11 so well. i came into the capitol complex. security people evacuate us because the pentagon had been struck. we went back to our offices and there we saw the horror of the world trade center being hit.

then, security people rushed into my office and told us we were to evacuate our offices because there was a plain 15 minutes out and they thought the capitol complex might be the target. that was flight 93. i think we all then learned of the extraordinary bravery of the passengers and crew on that flight. i introduced this resolution in 2004 because i felt that those brave men and women should be remembered forever here in the symbol of our freedom in our democracy. when visitors come to our great capital, they will see this plaque. they will be reminded of the tragedy and triumph of the flight 93, the loss of life, but

more than that, of the extraordinary acts of courage by the men and women on board. more than two dozen years ago, the grade -- the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them. glory endanger allied, and yet notwithstanding go to meet it. that is what the passengers and crew of flight 93 did. they saw the danger and they rose up to meet it. we honor their courage here today. we also honor the families. we recognize their sacrifice and we do it in this very building,

the capital of carnation. i am humbled to be here with you. we thank you for your service and sacrifice as well. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the families of flight 93. [applause] >> thank you. if not for the courage of 40 brave souls, our course of human events may have the word off in a far more radical path. madam speaker, house and senate leadership, families, friends, and the guests, it is an honor to stand before you today, representing the 40 crew and passengers of united flight 93. to be able to speak for those brave souls and held

collectively by our nation and freedom-loving people of the world, it is a humbling experience. it could have been at any one of us that morning in the air or on the ground here. as i think back to those days following 9/11, i am immediately reminded of the moment in time when the magnitude of the actions of our family members became painfully tangible. when exiting the white house, our families were literally embraced by the outpouring of gratitude from the staffers who were here in washington during the events of 9/11. individual citizens who fully understand the political devastation of flight 93 had reached its intended target. it was at that moment that i sent the broad implications of the courageous efforts taken by our loved ones. it is with great pride that i stand before you knowing that if not for the actions of this

brave passengers and crew played out over the skies of southwestern pennsylvania, many lives on the ground here in washington as well as this great symbol of our democracy could have been lost, furthering the trauma of the day. it is only appropriate that i think our leaders in washington for their continuing commitment to forever memorialize the 40 here is of united flight 93. the tragedy of their loss is east by the knowledge that they had an opportunity to fight in copper the immediate evil threatening them that fateful morning. this plaque will ensure that their actions are for ever held with similar esteem to that of so many citizen soldiers from our history, and afraid to challenge tyranny and to fight for life and liberty. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you. before we unveil the statue, i want to acknowledge how honored we are to have with us the leadership of the united states senate, senate majority leader harry reid. [applause] republican leader, senator mitch mcconnell. [applause] the deputy leader of the senate, majority leader of the senate richard durbin of illinois. [applause] senator john kyl of arizona. [applause] senator bob casey of pennsylvania. [applause] the senator frank lautenberg of new jersey. [applause] senator roland burris from illinois. [applause]

representing the administration and here in his own right, a great patriot, secretary of the interior salazar. [applause] senator barbara boxer of california. [applause] are there any other members? majority leader of the house, stanley foyer. [applause] the minority leader, john boehner. [applause] the senator of georgia. [applause] senator gramm of south carolina. [applause] the senator from new hampshire.

senator franken of minnesota, the newest member of the senate. [applause] senator feingold who is with us from wisconsin. [applause] center of voyage of ohio. [applause] the center of oregon. perhaps you should be announcing -- [unintelligible] center of wyoming. -- cemetery of wyoming. -- senator of wyoming. senator reed of rhode island. [applause] we have never had this many

senators bentsen over to the side of this house. we are actually on their side. [laughter] any other members? [inaudible] mr. murphy. congressman charlie dent of pennsylvania. congressman murphy of pennsylvania. [applause] i think we have them all. i think you should take that as a sign of the enormous gratitude that we have, how incapable words are to thank you, but i hope that the presence of so many members in this space. first, as has been said by all of our speakers, for you to see as long as this capital exists

for anyone to visit here and honor his or her memory. [applause] [applause]

[inaudible] [reading names] [reading names]

[applause]

>> braves sacrifice on september 11, 2001, who may have saved countless lives in the u.s. capital from destruction. [applause] [inaudible] >> up next, senator carl levin from michigan talks about u.s.

involvement in afghanistan. at 10:30, a conversation about al-qaeda in spain. >> this week during a special session, the supreme court heard oral argument on campaign finance, the first session for judge sonia sotomayor. >> wouldn't we be doing more harm than good by broad ruling in a case that does not involve four-business corporations and is not involve additional non- profit corporations. >> hear the argument in its entirety on c-span. starting october 4, an extensive look at the role, traditions, and history of the court from its justices during supreme court week. is there more than one definition of conservative?

saturday, a book review editor and a biographer on the death of conservatism. look for the complete schedule online. >> armed services committee chair carl levin was among senators who recently traveled to afghanistan. he talks about his trip. this is about 35 minutes. >> it is always appropriate to remember the shock of that day, the innocent lives lost and the efforts that our nation has made

to ensure that afghanistan cannot again become a safe haven for terrorists seeking to attack us. i believe that the best way to succeed in afghanistan is to take major steps to strengthen and support the afghan army and police said they can take principal responsibility for their own national security and progress. we need a surge of afghan forces. the obama administration's new strategy focuses on securing the afghan population safely and partnering with the security forces in that effort. it is an important step in improving the situation in

afghanistan. the change in strategy has led our forces to "live, eat, and train together with the afghan security forces, to depend on one another, and to hold each other accountable and to treat the afghans as equal partners in success." the success of the afghan security forces is our goal. the best way to achieve their goal, in my judgment, is that we increase and accelerate dramatically our efforts to support the afghan security forces in their efforts to become self-sufficient. in delivering security to their own nation before we consider whether to increase u.s. combat forces above the levels already

planned for the next few months. the most effective way to retake the initiative in afghanistan is with a series of steps to ensure that afghans army and police, that the afghan army and police have the manpower, the equipment, and the support to secure their own nation. for a long time, many of us have urged the establishment of a goal of 240,000 afghan troops and 160,000 afghan police by 2013. i believe it is both possible and the central to advance those goals by a year to the year 2012. to do that, we are going to need more trainers including greater contributions from our nato allies. larger afghan security forces

will require additional equipment. there must be a major effort to transfer a significant amount of the equipment that is coming out of iraq to the afghan army and police. finally, we should make a concerted effort to separate the local taliban from their leaders. in iraq, large numbers of young iraqis who have been attacking us switched over to our side and became the sons of iraq. that same prospect exists for afghanistan. here is what the general had to say about that. he said that most of the fighters we see in afghanistan are afghans, but most that we don't see are deeply politically motivated. most are operating for pay. some are frustrated with local leaders.

"i believe that there is significant potential to go after mid and low level taliban fighters and leaders and to offer them re-integration into afghanistan under the constitution. this game-changing possibility was not apparently factored into the general's assessment. there is no plan yet to put in place a sons of iraq approach in afghanistan. there should be. when we visited a village, one elder told us -- when we asked him how long american forces should stay here, he said the following. "until the moment that you make

our security forces self- sufficient, then you will be welcome to visit us not as soldiers, but as the guests." we need a surge of afghan security forces. we have not been nearly enough to put that in motion. to do that, we will need many more trainers, hopefully including a much larger number of nato trainers. we will need a surge of equipment coming out of iraq. it should be coming -- it should be going to afghanistan in stead. and we need a plan to reintegrate these low taliban fighters back into the afghan society. our support of this surge of the afghan security forces will show our commitment to the success of

a mission that is clearly in our national security interest, but we would do so without creating a bigger u.s. military footprint. and, we should implement these steps on an urgent basis before we consider an increase in u.s. ground combat forces beyond what is already planned by the end of this year yes? >> [inaudible] if you are talking about not adding any more troops, -- are you calling on nato to increase their troop strength? how many more trainers do you think will be needed?

>> [unintelligible] does anyone else have a question? [laughter] of course this came up in our meeting with secretary clinton and secretary gates and admiral mullen. i expressed my view just the way i have expressed it on the floor today on this -- expressed it to date on the floor of the senate. they did not react positively or negatively. they welcomed it. the three of us met. what i am saying is, and i am saying it carefully but i hope clearly, we should complete the

planned number of additional combat forces. what we must do if we are going to succeed in afghanistan is to focus on the strength of the afghan military forces. and do it in a way that we have not yet done it. about six months ago or so, the majority of the armed services committee wrote to the president, urging that there be an increase in the goal of the size of the afghan army to 250,000 soldiers. that was may 19. it was a fairly detailed letter talking about the importance of adopting a much larger goal.

we talked then about 2003. as i said today, which not only i doubt that much larger goal, but we should do it a year earlier if we are going to succeed in afghanistan without ourselves creating a much larger footprint or target that the taliban and both attack and make propaganda use at. senator mccain and i back in march wrote to secretary datega, quoting a general, the former commander of the combined forces committee in afghanistan. "the main problem in getting the equipment to the afghans is what he called a constipated peacetime system of getting the equipment approved." we have been pressing this issue.

more trainers, a larger afghan army, more equipment to afghanistan for about six months, at least. these are the steps, i believe, that we need to take before we consider additional combat forces in afghanistan. i want to state that as clearly as i can. that is the position i take. there is a major consensus about strengthening the afghan army. i don't think that is the question. we have not put in place trainers or has nato put in those trainers to help us reach that goal by 2013, much less 2020. we have not adopted a major effort to get equipment to the afghans. instead of much of it coming here from iraq, i think the american people would support it

and i think most of my colleagues would support getting the central equipment, basic stuff, bullets and vehicles and a few other things, to the afghan army said that they can take major responsibility for their own security. and, we do not have yet in place, but the potential is there, a plan to reintegrate into afghan society, those local taliban fighters. that is what we must do. we must take those steps before we consider additional combat forces. >> are you saying that if the general comes back and needs more combat troops, the president should [unintelligible] >> i am saying this is my recommendation to the president. >> house speaker nancy pelosi said yesterday [unintelligible]

do you think that is a true statement? >> my recommendation is based on how we can best succeed in afghanistan. i believe that the best way to defeat the taliban in afghanistan, and they are incredibly unpopular, is for the afghan army to be enlarged, strengthen, and for us to co-op these local taliban fighters. my judgment is how we can best succeed in afghanistan. there are a number of things we have going for us. the hatred of the people of afghanistan to the taliban. only 5% of the afghans support the taliban by public opinion polls. second, they have an army that is willing to fight, an army that is dedicated, that is motivated, and that army needs to be significantly enlarged and

strengthened, and that should be our focus. >> [unintelligible] >> i think there is a significant number of people in the country that have questions about deepening our military involvement in afghanistan. but i am motivated, as chairman of the armed services committee, as a senator, and as a citizen, in succeeding in afghanistan as what i consider as an important national goal to ensure that afghanistan is not once again dominated by the taliban. that is a major, national media, the best way i believe to achieve it is in the way that i have outlined. >> [inaudible] what is your sense that the president is in already

agreement with to our proposal proo? [inaudible] >> i don't know what general and crystal will be asking for. he did not share with us nor did we expect him to the options that he is laying out before the president for additional combat forces. as of right now, is likely there will be a request from him for additional combat forces. i think that is likely because of all the stores that we read and the body language that we get from him. it is hopefully useful and constructive for those of us who

spend a lot of time not in combat but a lot of time from the policy perspective in looking at the complexity of afghanistan and how we can succeed in afghanistan for us to share our ideas about how best to succeed in afghanistan. >> [inaudible] >> i do not have a sense of what the white house road to what the president is thinking at the moment. let me repeat something that think is important. i think there is a consensus, not among administration leaders, but the american people that it should be a goal to strengthen the afghan security forces. i think even people that would disagree to send additional combat forces to afghanistan and the mentally agree with that point. that is important. this is not a matter that most people in the congress say pullout of the troops and forget it.

i think most people want to say strength in the afghan security forces. we ought to build on that. look at what have we not done to strengthen the afghan security forces. why have we not for six months adopted a much higher goal in the level of those forces? why have we not put in place and equipment strategy for those forces? why have we not yet adopted a plan for the call option of the local taliban fighters? we are told by everybody that the potential is there. there are rumblings in the local providences of people that would like to come back and live in a civil society. they need to be insured that they are not going to be attack, that their families will be protected.

they need jobs. we have to be able to give insurance to these local taliban players that they are going to be able to join the army and get jobs. it is urgent that we take these specific steps if we really believe, as i do, that the afghan security forces have to be the main line of security for the afghan people. >> [inaudible] >> what? >> are you hearing any type of descriptive language [inaudible] >> i don't have any plans for descriptive language at the moment. i am not sure we need any team in order to make this shift in our focus to strengthen the afghan security forces. i don't know yet.

preliminarily, i do not believe it will take a descriptive language to do it. the next that will continue to meet with the administrative leaders. i had a very brief conversation with general jones on the phone. the three of us will be meeting with him next week. we will be talking to colleagues. obviously, this is an issue that everyone of us in this country, much less everyone in the congress, is deeply interested in. >> can you describe how you feel about [inaudible] can you talk specifically about [inaudible] what will lead you to feel that

in need to be reconsidered? >> before we consider additional combat forces, we ought to take the steps that i have outlined to strengthen the afghan security forces. before we consider additional combat troops, we should take these steps to strengthen the afghan army. >> do you support the ones that are already in the pipeline? >> i think they should go with them. in terms of your second question, i am not frustrated. i am determined that i give my best advice based on the experience i have and based on the responsibilities that i have. i simply give my best advice to the president of the united states into the people around him. i am doing that and it is something that i am determined to do so i am not the least bit frustrated. i have had great access to the

secretary of defense and the secretary of the state and the security advisers to the president, to admiral mullen. i could not ask for greater access and that is what i will continue to utilize. >> i remember a moment when the senator warner returned from iraq. i wonder if you could give the assessment if we are at a tipping point. what is the situation on the ground? >> the security situation in afghanistan has deteriorated. it can be turned around. that is my assessment. if we can get in place a larger afghan army that is equipped, i think this thing can turn around. if we can put in place a plan to reincorporate into the society

of afghanistan those lower-level taliban people that are open to that, i think this thing can turn around. that is my feeling about it. it is a very different situation in different parts of afghanistan. i do not want to generalize all about afghanistan but it is clear that in some parts of afghanistan, the security problem has worsened. >> if the shift you are seeking is not made, what happens? >> i think it is less likely -- i think it is less likely to succeed in afghanistan. >> [inaudible] >> as of yesterday morning, there were discussions underway i think between the administration and i know with those members who have blocked a

vote. i don't know what happened with those discussions yesterday afternoon. hopefully the blockages can be removed so we can get to a vote. some senators have had a hold on that nomination. the administration has had to have some kind of conversation. i hope that we can get to this nomination in the next week. it is long overdue. . .

we will get it from our people in afghanistan those numbers as to what else can be done in order to move these schools for word to 2012 and the goals here being the 240,000 for the afghan army. we will get the numbers. i do not have them yet. currently, where short about 12% of the needed trainers based on the current goal for the training of the afghan army. >> [unintelligible] it to speak with them about this

issue? >> we debated this is a major labor of complication. -- we did. this is adding another layer of complication. it complicates it until it is straightened out. i'll come back to you. >> what is your definition of success in afghanistan? >> a stable country, which is not run by the talent then -- taliban and that is democratic as possible and where the people of afghanistan feel that they are secure. obviously, we hope that we will see delivery of services to the people of the afghanistan. we hope that the nation can be built there which will gain the confidence of the people that

day in fact are having their needs met by economic policies, by development policies. that is all very desirable. the ability of the afghan army to provide security. i focused on the security. security is essential for all those other good goals to be accomplished. >> what of the things the way to pullout after -- do you think i should produce a glut after five or 10 years? >> i have not said the. -- that the democratt. >> this summer that also go to pakistan? -- does some of that also goes to pakistan? >> we had a day and pakistan. there is some progress being

made in pakistan. some of the successful attacks on the terrace leaders had had a positive affect in pakistan and have given covenants to the pakistan government and public -- confidence to the pakistan government and public. people they do not like and a longer with us. there is a network in pakistan that is a current major source of people better going back and forth across the border. hopefully, the pakistani government will address the problems caused not only to them but to us by the activities of that network. we are cooperating with the pakistan government and how we can strengthen them and their ever. there are terrorist groups that threaten it. >> you are viewed forcefully

for time travel withdraw from iraq. he said the only way for it to get its act together. now senator feingold as saying that. why not? >> it is different in afghanistan than it was in iraq. there are a whole host of differences, including the difference in the situation in the army. there are divisions in afghanistan. they are not the same. in iraq, the only way that he could force the political leaders in iraq to reach political compromise on key issues of revenue and oil revenues and constitutional changes was to tell them there is an end point to our presence.

that was an action mechanism in iraq that was essential. at this time, i do not see the we need that mechanism in afghanistan. what is needed in afghanistan is to focus on the strength of the afghan military and police. >> i am a little confused. do you envision some military for training? >> there will need to be additional military trainers. hopefully, nato will supply an additional number. i assume we will be supplying additional trainers also if the afghan army is going to get to the current goal of 140,000. much less to the to under 40,000, which i believe is likely to be able that the general will propose.

for the defense minister in afghanistan has recommended that level for a long time. 17 of us on the committee wrote six months ago, urging the adoption of that larger level. to get to their you are going to need of a number of trainers. it did not have that number now. there should be a significant portion of that coming from nato. it is the least they can do. if they can provide the trainers to give the army to the point where everybody believes they should be a. i think you'll find that in the general will adopt the 240,000 goal by 2013. what i am suggesting is that it is so important that we focus on the afghan military strength, that we bring medical up to 2012. that is where we will bit of getting -- where we will be

getting that set on what it will take in terms of trainers and support. what will it take to get us to that goal by 2013? >> another question. there was an exercise today by a coast guard by the pentagon that the president was on tuesday but 9/11. radio traffic concerned about shots being fired and people were concerned by the media event. nobody here in the capital were told about that. no police in washington at all were told about -- that. >> do you mean after the fact that not told about what? >> the planner the event?

>> we not told about the coast guard have any security event on the bataan that -- atomic potam. >> that surprises me. >> they will not allow ground forces in its territory. how can the u.s. military maintain bases in afghanistan [unintelligible] >> that is a reason for our presence in afghanistan, not the major reason. it is certainly a legitimate reason for us to have a presence. the major reason is because the importance of being partners with the afghans.

they wanted to go responsibility for their own security. they feel very passionate about that. we talked about the need for his own country to take response ability for their own security. he is very eloquent about that subject. i think most afghan leaders are. they want to have the ability to take on the taliban. they hate the taliban. they have lived under the taliban. the main reason we are there to is to help them succeed in their efforts whenever want to see and afghanistan under taliban control. they will harbor again the al qaeda who attacked us. i do not not that answers your question. >> [unintelligible] >> it will depend upon the circumstances and the situation in progress. >> are you concerned about the

army's role in afghanistan? >> i am. i am more concerned about the iranian role in iraq. i think they play games against the middle. there have been some situations where they were helpful and afghanistan. i think there was an equipment situation where we had equipment coming in from iran that was needed. it was many months ago. i cannot remember, but there is another circumstance. >> can you go back to your concerns but the political corruption and fraud in the previous election?

>> that made our goals in afghanistan more complicated, because the afghan army right now has great support from the afghan people. they are the number one institution in the eyes of the afghan people. that institution, however, can on the as strong as it needs to be if it is defending a government and is guided by the government and is supervised by a government that has to support of the afghan people. because of the election situation, there is right now clouds above the results. until they are removed, that uncertainty is going to be there. that is not healthy in terms of public support in afghanistan.

the army itself is the number one institution in afghanistan. >[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> on tuesday, on july merkel address the german parliament regarding recent actions in afghanistan. the german commander issued an order for an air strike against two tankers. u.s. planes carried out the attack. reports indicated there were civilians killed or injured in

the explosion. nato has launched an investigation. this is about 15 minutes. >> last friday, the heaviest combat took place in the framework of the mission there were a lot of life. there are conjured do -- contradictory reports about what happened. we will not be able to clear this up this morning. from the outset, i will say that any incident in afghanistan is one too many. -- innocent death in afghanistan is one too many.

we mourn every single one of them, at every innocent wounded is one too many. i deeply regret innocent dead and wounded. i mourn along with their family members. i also mourn the victims caused by german actions. to me is measures that today as chancellor in this great house i can tell this to the afghan people. i think that i can say this also in your name. afghanistan deserves a more peaceful future. this is our hope. ladies and gentlemen, we will

study friday's event as an attempt to show all details. we will add would ask all the fundamental questions such are on the table. it is necessary even to debate this today. let me state the following. first, the complete inquiry about last friday's attack is for me att and goes to the singing -- is a duty and it goes without saying a. i cannot and will not prejudge today its outcome. there will not be any white wash either. i also guarantee that i will not accept any premature judgment.

i have heard many rumors in the last few days. i will not take it from this country or from abroad. i have spoken about just this with the nato secretary. i have been very frank with her. for me, and the defense ministry and the government will have a thorough assessment of the attack. it is absolutely important that it be based on all the facts and told them actionable. second, the mission is necessary. it contributes to the international security, world

peace, and protect the life of german citizens from the eu -- evil of international terrorism. it was the reason for the mission and still is. the government agreed then and still agrees with this. we know how many f kenny citizens have asked us not to let them fight the taliban alone -- afghan citizens have asked us not to let them fight the taliban alone. third, the second presidential election in afghanistan marks the beginning of a new quality stage in its relations with the international community. we must take decisions about the next steps, decisions that would have been taken even when --

with friday's events. with this second presidential election, afghanistan mustered the beginning of a takeover of irresponsibility. with president sarkozy and the prime minister, i think that with the second president say, the time has come now to talk to the new afghan government about a takeover of responsibility that is measurable. therefore we propose that he called a conference before the end of this year in order to take stock of the situation and of the perspectives of are asking policy. i also expect guidance on this. without the -- they will have to determine clearly afghan

responsibility in order to fight crime corruption and the drug trade. the conference will have to draw clear goals for the new afghan government in terms of rule of law and human rights and above all and they shall give numbers and distribute facts for the afghan armed forces. that includes a schedule. the conference will have to tell us what is the best way to adopt local conditions and engagement and how to gain a partnership of the different local leaders.

in other words, france, great britain, and germany expects to create conditions in this conference that will allow irresponsible takeover strategy -- a responsible take over strategy. our top priority is and remains an afghanistan that can take care of its own security. and afghanistan that is able to prevent its soul for becoming the nest of international terrorism once again. -- so will from becoming the nest of international terrorism once again. within the next five years, the life of our new afghan, we messy progress -- we must see progress. this will allow a withdrawal

step by step up international troops. that is what i mean when i talk about a responsible takeover strategy. these two words are linked, one with the other. responsible takeover strategy. then we will have reached our goal. fourth, from the outset, our commitment in afghanistan has been a mix of economic development and security. we are convinced that we cannot have one without the other. both are intrinsically linked. that is why the federal government has set up a comprehensive program of reconstruction and development. from infrastructure to police trading. we owe it largely to the german government that all our nato partners now share this conviction.

at the beginning, they were made fun of very often fretted they called us the water boys. our policy has reached a consensus among our allies. it is a long-lasting success of our german afghan policy. >> for this, i thank all those who contributed to the government, and the interior minister and the developmental minister. this of course is in collaboration with the international community. the people of afghanistan were able to vote. a. they showed great courage. they demonstrated their commitment to peace, unity, and

a democracy. they deserve our respect. we have not close our eyes either on the circumstances surrounding the election. they thought it led by the commission is very vital. the mere fact that it exists, which is not the case and other countries, is proof already of the progress accomplished by afghanistan. from the outset, we have insisted with our partners that the entire region to be involved in the process. the german foreign minister has met with the afghan and pakistani governments. he has become part of the international strategy. the road to our goal is and has always been mutual trust.

trust between the afghan and coalition trust. trust between the afghan government and friendly countries. and an increasing trust among afghanis in their own capacity to handle their own affairs equally important for me, i expect german citizens to trust that the government and parliament are doing all that is in their power to ensure the security of the country. this was with great care and assurance that it is the right one. ladies and gentlemen, i said from the outset, the circumstances of the air attacks will be studied as if it were.

there will be full visibility. we will answer all the questions link to our presence in afghanistan. i will go further. the three basic principles of our foreign policy will be put to the test. the principals have existed since the foundation of the public. germany is committed to preserve peace. germany is a real democracy in the protect our citizens come alive, and goods. germany has close alliances and partnerships in this world. going acted alone is no option in our farm policy.

the task of any leadership is to turn these three principles into reality. this is one of our heaviest times. in the end, it has to do it the protection of life. when we commit it, make no mistake about it, doing nothing would cost us just as much as acting. anyone who entertained the thought of a withdrawal of germany from the fight against international terrorism should

think about it. let us not warrant ever forget the circumstances that led my predecessor to afghanistan is because a taliban controlled afghanistan has become the cradle that gave birth to 9/11. friday it will be the eighth anniversary. other attacks including europe and madrid and london. germany, too, is a target. the consequences of the project would have had for consequences. let us not confuse the causes. our mission in afghanistan is their response to terror not the opposite.

if >the mission is in the most pressing interest of the security of our country. it rests on decisions of the security council of the united nations. since 2002, this mission has been abetted by all citizens. the year the reduction has been fasting supported by parliament. it is extraordinarily important for our troops. let me thank all of you about this decision, including in the minority. our boys and girls in uniform are risking their lives in this mission. we must thank them as well.

also, our police officers were training the counterparts. -- who are training the counterpart. >> germany's action on the basis of the three principles open for us the possibility to make afghanistan a more stable and in the pan a partner in the fight against international terrorism, who will no longer wait upon as partners. it is one of the toughest international challenges of our times. to face it is my goal and the goal of the federal government. that is the current task of the government. i am asking all of you for supporting them and in the future. -- for support now and in the

future. up next, a conversation on al qaeda in spain. then advocates of the 9/11 remembrance ceremonies this week including today's white house moment of silence, the pentagon ceremony, and the senate and house remembrances on capitol hill. tomorrow night, and a moral service for journalists walter cronkite who died earlier this year at the age of 92. among the speaker is president obama and former president of bill clinton.

that is tomorrow night at 835 eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, the role of conspiracy theories in american history and politics with the author of real enemies. >> in discussion now on al qaeda in spain and their impact on u.s. security from today's "washington journal." will be bringing that to you live. in the meantime, james kitfield, who has been on this program for the past eight years talking about al qaeda and the war and afghanistan and 9/11, he is with us with this new article from the "national journal." one of the quotes from his article is --

what does that mean? guest: it means is still out there, still plodding, still training, still trying to attack the west. what i try to address in the article and what has interested me and a lot of other counter- terrorism experts is that we would have thought there would have been a lot more successful attacks on the west. and there were a rash of successful attacks -- the london bombings, the madrid bauman from the bombings in istanbul. but they have tapered off. attacks on the west have not been successful since 2005, and they are limited attacks. the question in a lot of people's minds is why. maybe we are doing something right. maybe we have been lucky. the idea behind the story is to put one of these failed plot under the microscope and to see what it taught us about what we're doing right. host: we will get to that in just a moment, but on the maur

macro level you write this- that said, what has that done for the war on terror? guest: that was the original move -- mujahedin, a lot of them trace their experiences back to the experience is against the soviet union. there were very experienced, hardened people. they have had to recruit to replace those guys, and they have been able to, but you cannot replace experience. they're having a quality control problem. as you bring in less experienced people, the era of less good at operational security, less fluid at moving in the west, for instance. we still see these al qaeda facilitators the train in these

camps and then go to europe and other places and try to initiate local cells, but these guys are not as good as the originals, apparently. the fact that a credit is in pakistan trouble areas means that intelligence is focused like a laser on communications and cummings and goings in the pakistani trouble areas. theseç guys, more often, before they even get to their place where they want to initiate a plot, are being followed. host: why did you go to spain to report on al qaeda? guest: i wanted to put a failed plot under the microscope to see what we could learn from that. in the barcelona a plot that they exported from last year, i'd have striking similarities between daud and his successful madrid plot of the -- of 2004 where they killed almost 200 people and injured 1700 more. the similarities were striking and in both cases, bin laden initiated it. both spots were for the same

motivation, trying to peel off spain from the military coalition in iraq of 2004 and afghanistan in 2008. they both involve one of these facilitators who came directly from an al qaeda training camp to spain to initiate a local cell by radical preacher or a local mom. they both involve the suicide bombings. they both involved communications through cyberspace. yet one was successful and one was not. i thought it made a good case study to see what we did in the second case that we were not able to do in the first.

guest: absolutely, i mean, these guys study each plot, the ones that are successful, the ones that are not successful. they go through their own little dissertations and case studies to see what worked and what did not. madrid was considered a spectacularly successful terrorist plot. the accomplished peeling off of our military alliance coalition -- the peeling off of spain from our military alliance coalition. and 9/11, that to them was a very successful operation but they have been unsuccessful in trying to repeat either instance. host: international efforts? guest: the intelligence sharing is obviously far better than it used to be. our allies in the west and in the east have set up these counter-terrorism centers that are now talking to each other. we have passed laws and

bilateral agreements for intelligence sharing. in this case, it was clear that one of the plotters was actually an informant for french intelligence. in the past, the french by not have been chairing that in real time with the spaniards. in this case, they did. -- might havenot have been sharing that in real time with the spaniards. in this case, they did. host: so many of the terrorists in the field barcelona applauded were from pakistan. guest: right, and you saw this also in madrid. in that case, a lot of them were from algeria and morocco. before long time, we have said that a lot of the great old abilities that we have are the 15 million muslim immigrants -- one of the great and vulnerabilities that we have are the 50 million moslem immigrants in europe. that has long been seen as a vulnerability. in this case, there were some 15,000 pakistani immigrants that live in barcelona. host: 15,000?

guest: yes, and they are able to move pretty freely within that sea. what was interesting, though, is that someone fingered them. in talking with the spanish top counter-terrorism people, they say they are getting a lot more tips from the muslim community and that gets to my final point in that article, which is a al qaeda is suffering a crisis of legitimacy amongst a lot of muslims now. there's a lot of dissatisfaction with al qaeda. for a couple of reasons. the primary reason is the wanton slaughter of muslims. that strategy was first adopted by al qaeda in iraq to kill shi'ite moslems as a way to start a war with sunni muslims. but they have carried it on and had bombing parvin -- bombing parties in jordan and in saudi arabia, the most holy land in the region -- religion. a lot of the imams have come

out against the spirit of -- against that. every time bin laden or al- zawahiri have issued these threats and cannot follow through, they are seeing as an -- they are seen as not successful. we will put our allegiance as elsewhere. host: is it important to send more troops to afghanistan? guest: it is a related, but different subjects. let's put it this way, the success you have had in keeping out on the defensive in the smaller region of the pakistani trouble areas, if afghanistan fails and the taliban retake afghanistan, there is no reason to assume that al qaeda will not have a larger, more successful century in afghanistan than they did before 9/11. i think failing in afghanistan -- a larger more successful sanctuary in afghanistan than they did before 9/11. i think failing in afghanistan

is something to focus on. host: capturing bin laden? guest: it would certainly be nice, wouldn't it? i would love for them to catch him. but i think the movement would go on. he has created a movement and movements do not normally die with a single person. but having said that, he is the figurehead. it would be a substantial blow against al qaeda if he were captured or killed. host: i want to go back to your comment and a statement from your article about muslims in europe. "officials do not discount a cut is unmistakable focus on young muslim men in europe and the u.s. guest: and that makes the point that i was referring to. we are torching a lot of these

plots, but we are also seen -- we retorting a lot of these plots, but we're also seeing not just instantaneous action from local cells. a lot of these cells have local immigrants involved in them. two intelligence services, the british and the dutch, both revealed, as with the barcelona and madrid plots, that all of these plots have facilitators with direct ties to al qaeda and have trained in terrorist camps in either afghanistan or pakistan. so, they are still trying there is a lot of smoke up there with these failed plot. without much smoke and i were there was going to be fired. -- with that much smoke i worry there is going to be fire. there was a plot to bomb jewish centers in your, iraq -- a plot

to bomb fort dix and other plots of thwarted in the u.s. host: were those homegrown plots? and how sophisticated were they? guest: you have to put each one under a microscope. those were seemingly homegrown plots. you have to really wait until those things -- the really nice thing about the spanish system is that they try these things in open court. you can learn a lot more. some people say it is better if you do not learn those things because intelligence secrets come out. the other argument that is that you can actually understand what happened. i am not sure if there was a facilitator in from outside in those american plot. there certainly were in almost all of the european plots in recent years. host: james kitfield has been running about national security intelligence and the wars for many years. and has written a book about it.

"prodigal soldiers" is another book he has written. he has been awarded for his coverage of the iraq war. how many times have you been to afghanistan and pakistan? afghanistan and pakistan? guest: my focus was i congratulations. it is a predator to me either. ellis lending if this would have -- i was wondering if this would have taken place earlier if bill clinton had not have been in ball and whether donald rahm spelled was still grinning from ear to ear. is it going to take another 9/11 to cause an uproar in afghanistan? thank you.

hostguest: hopefully we can look back and remember 9/11 and not be shaken from our complacency. the one thing you cannot have in this fight you did you cannot have yourself on the back and say you have one. you cannot let down your guard. they are still trying. the lesson have to draw as they cannot be complacent again. >caller: is a pleasure to talk o you. i have a couple of questions about al qaeda and iran. i would like to point out that i does have noticed with the recent wars that we have encircled a rahm. -- circled iran.

i was letting a few had any thoughts and al qaeda would be tied into that? that seems to be the big focus. involved if that. is iran going to be involved? why have we military encircled them. also, i think it's pretty interesting russia has tie was iran. guest: an interesting question. on al qaeda's relationship with iran, it's not a natural alliance. iran is shia, al qaeda is suni.

this is included. bin laden's son stayed there and went back to afghanistan and was killed by one of our predator strikes. iran uses hezbollah for it's terrorist operations. it is in bed with hezbollah but not a natural friend. >> we have taken away in terms of the tail taliban to the east which is why iran is feeling strapy right now. all of its regional competors we have taken out.

caller: i wanted to express my deepest sympathy. i have friends who lost their daughter on one of the flights into the twin towers. they were on the anti-war march. they were well aware that the strike on that day had nothing to do with iraq. mr. kitfield, i wanted to ask you, the core excuses. but al qaeda, their core issues. when are their objections? our military basis on land in that part of the world to protect our access to oil. what are their core objections

to the west? >> guest: sure. that's a very good question. they want to establish an islamic surrounding by strict sharia law. they want us to withdraw all support from israel, saudi arabia and egypt so that they can take over those countries. very much like the taliban had in afghanistan before 9/11. they see us and our money and support for these regimes as thwarting that. >> christopher called well will

be on c-span q&a, sunday at 8:00 p.m. is the muslim population in europe a threat to you? guest: it is a potential threat. when you have people who are s dispoe sesed and angry and some iman can say it's these western culture. . they will listen. i think our own muslim population is pretty well inter

he greated in the united states. we have to keep our eyes on and make sure there's not a d dispossesed muslim population that feels like they are discriminated against. guest: spain has decide the the best way to try these is in open court. there may be military ways to do

that. there is something good that comes of the public being able to see in open court just what really evil people these are. host: democrat, you are on the air. caller: the only true way to measure whether we are any safer is to try to find out how to measure the intensity and determination of the people who want to attack us. is it any less today than eight years ago? are they as determined today as they were eight years ago?

more americans have died under the bush-cheney regime than all other presidents combined. guest: you get to the debate of what should have been the response? >> what was his first point? guest: the level of intensity.

that's a good question. the ultimate level of intensity. the core still fighting are still as devoted as ever. the question is are they swimming in a see of discontent they have having a harder time recruiting. people that can recruit aren't as good, there aren't as many. the suicide bombings we are eeg everyday show that. host: when is the role of a social imam pushing a terrorist

forward? guest: they've been forced to rely more and more on the local cells. they are young, dissatisfied muslim men who go to acsz radicalized mosque and it is preached that the west is its enemy. they decide, you know, we are going to do something about this. host: if al qaeda was dismantled -- guest: if it went away, we would be much safer.

that means they were a direct threat. i imagine there was some hope that these conflicts were localized. if they have now identified pakistan as a weak link. we have to worry about anything that might suggest it would fall into the hands of radical islamists because they have the atomic bomb. host: do you think we are safer?

guest: absolutely. host: but why? guest: we have put them on the offensive. we have focussed now. we understand the problem. we understand you have to make out reach to muslim population in europe. we have to watch who comes and goes from tribal areas of that area. host: have we made mistakes? guest: of course. host: where? guest: i'm in the camp that thinks iraq was a huge mistake for starters. the original strategy was to defeat the west and to withdraw support from all these regimes.

the fight was afghanistan. iraq was a huge i do version of resources. caller: my heart goes out to all the fooinl victims. i'm wondering do you think we are safer now than we were. also bush and chepy have been criticized so much for the war.

why, why has the vietnam war -- they have not been ridiculed for this. my husband was in vietnam. we lost all our friends in the vietnam war. what's going on here? wh george bush is not present any more, ok? i think he is to social. host: anything you like to respond to? guest: i think the bush administration can rightly be criticized for a number of things but also put in place in love the things that have made it. it is a mixed bag. i think the obama administration i hope will keep some of the things that are working.