all we did not need his confession or a statement because we have plenty of witnesses in terms of prosecuting him, and we had an opportunity to get more actionable information and intelligence by not mirandize in him. >> the decision was made on the scene, the interrogation was done and the decision was made on the scene again that evidence ought to be taken for trial after consultation, which was not complete. yes, basically, that is what happened. there said in a wider process -- there should have been a wider process than they made on those narrow grounds. .

and to discuss this process of the decisionmaking at the point of apprehension. we are going to go down a path of immediate military custody, which we have not done before, then we need to flesh that out. even though there are a lot of

things cannot share with the american public, it will hinder our ability to catch the bad guy, there is their profits we can share with the american public so they can understand that we all want the same thing. we want to connect the five and put them away where they can never met anyone -- where they can never hurt anyone. since some cases they need the death penalty. we all should have the same goal. it should unite our country, not divide it. and we need enough information to do this. >> we will do a quick second round. very briefly, the statements that he made and?

>> thank you. one of my cardinal principles was that a focus on accidents and everything we did. i used to say that it does about perfect, make it better. once we left here, we had a

chance to save hundreds of thousands of people going through security, checking their bag, having their id is checked again and again. i thought to myself, what a challenge to try to know who all these people are and make sure they are who they say are. what a challenge. we have been lucky, but we haven't smart. we are not perfect. we need to be as close to perfect as we need to be. you know that, and i know that. our job here is to collect

oversight, and help you point out what you have not done well, and to find out what needs to be done differently to reduce the likelihood of where someone is intending to do harm. what do we need to do differently to enable you to do more? we have spent many days with the 9/11 commission years ago given us a whole bunch of it right -- recommendations. it seems to me that among the mistakes that have occurred, when a distraught father given to our embassy in algeria to report something -- whoever took the information down as i understand it may have misspelled the name of a son.

that created some problems in the intelligence community and make it more difficult for a two check it. bridgett more difficult for us to check it. -- more difficult for us to check it. [unintelligible] we have a good idea of how to

stop guys trying to blow up a plan over detroit. the technology is there. we need to make sure that the people who need to use the technology can use it properly. and we do to help? >> thanks for your comments. i think there will be budget implications. my view is, and i want to go back to a point that the senator asked me, the privacy vs. security issues that kids raised in connection with a whole body scanners. we do look at privacy issues from the get go.

ultimately, the question is, what do we need to do to protect the security of the flying public even at the take to deal with privacy. security is the number one concern. one thing that this committee and the congress can't do in addition to that is setting public expectation. we are doing and will continue to do everything we can do to prevent this kind of yvette from ever happening again. from whatever source anywhere around the world, there is no one silver bullet. yes we can push some more state department material out to nine airports around the world, and we have. even if we had, that is just a tool for additional screening. it is not prevent someone from getting on a plane. a secondary screening does not

fully resolve the problems. helping the public understand that everyone is working on this. there are multiple layers involved. no single one will be the sole answer. if there were, it would already be deployed. >> as a former naval flight officer myself, i understand a bad day may be your last day. many feel this way. in terms of specific actions, for standards and inclusion on the watch list of determining what the balance should be between security is incredibly

important. this is playing a key role to help us strike that balance. second, i think screen remains critical. it is a critical tool. i am not going to find all of the bad guys. i do not want us to overlearn all of the lessons from this case. there'll be other incentives where different names, passports may not identify this. we need a multilayer levels of defense. going back to issues of domestic radicalization, we have to play an enormous important role that the american population understands we need a partnership between the government and communities to identify individuals before they actually pick up a weapon or an explosive and strike. that is not a lesson directly

out of 1225. if we see a threat, we needed the agility that you show in jumping into the chair. we need to get a partnership with these communities. >> closing words. >> at the request that you continue to keep pressure on us, i think the pressure was going the other way in the last couple of years. there were many people on the no-fly list. these guys are broken up. we are really learning from this incident with scantily nobody was killed. -- which thankfully nobody was killed.

we felt we are doing things that are making a great deal of difference. the trick is how to keep the pressure on when the crisis is happening. it should not take a tragedy for us to make the improvement. >> thank you. >> i agree with you. i appreciate the statement that was made. there may not have been a mission accomplished feeling among washington, but a feeling that the war had reached a different level of intensity. we had a greater number of attempts to attack our homeland last year that the year before. it is a painful way to be awakened.

we appreciate the forthrightness of the witnesses today. a lot of other people raised with parental wisdom that everybody either false or slips. the question is how do you get up. the only way to deal with a mistake is to a knowledge there is a problem. that is what your testimony has been today. i want to come back to the watch list. i think this has gone too much in the other direction. there ought to be a pretty simple way without leaving of or prescreening people about whom somebody has information that may suggest that they are a terrorist.

we are not one to arrest or convict them but do a secondary screening to make sure they do not blow up a plane or come to the u.s. with evil intentions. what is the process now for which the administration is reviewing the watchless we are looking at individuals and looking at their records. in the longer-term this week, i

expect that we will obtain interagency guidance within 30 days to more formally revise the standards so that we have people at higher levels in the watch list. it is simple for everyone to understand we have to make sure that we are getting the right balance >> i want to suggest that it seems to me the watch list system is too complicated. having four levels it may be more complicated than we need. there ought to be a category where there is a higher category

where you want to stop someone from getting on a plane. >> i have heard that a lot. i can tell you that we have eliminated one of those levels that are not within the watch list. that step does not exist fundamentally. >> i will say that one of the good things about the watchless is that we had not had someone at the right level. but we did have is something that did not occur before 9 + 11 which is a seamless collection of information flowing. we had a different problem here which is someone at the wrong level on the watch list. the information did flow so that the basic structure was not one of the flaws.

ok maybe i should ask this question. these questions of grandma getting screened for this young boy, michael hicks, -- it is not a terrible price to pay to protect the country, but we need to order certain things if we can. >> that case is classified. what we are going to have this as we make the actual what each list and notify list more robust is a greater ability to redress and remove people who are improperly on the list from the

list in a non bureaucratic process. that is something we are looking at. >> let me ask you a question. in the current system, this is a question of prescreening international air travel passengers in the united states. passenger name records 72 hours before a flight is to depart, -- customs and border protection currently does not receive important identifying information about passengers on a u.s. bound flight said they

began the check in process in some cases not until 30 minutes before the airplane door closes. also, although we are checking the no-fly and selectee list in real time, we are not running b seven relocations in real time. once the airplanes door closes and they receive that a batch of passenger information, officials from what we call the national target system beginning more in-depth analysis of the people on the flight to determine who may acquire -- require additional attention once land -- once they land. that analysis led them to uncover the father's concern about the man on the detroit flight. its secondary inspection once he landed in detroit.

i wanted to ask you whether waiting until the airplanes doors close is too late and whether we need to thoroughly screened each flight passenger manifest list against all of our databases at least 24 hours if not longer before the plane is set to the part to the u.s.? >> some of that should be held to our classified briefings. what we where we want to get to is if we have the rocket carried information if someone is a threat, and never get on a plane. the problem is that when they put the documents together, that information was not enough to advise a carrier not to put him on a plane. that was the problem here.

with the millions of passengers that live every day, i would like to talk to you about that more in depth and a classified setting. >> you understand my point that prior to boarding a plane is that we have a passenger identifying information but not that is his name or her name. we want to effective the match them on that basis. we will continue this conversation. >> the yankee. before i ask a couple of final questions. i want to clarify an issue raised by the senator from missouri i told her as she was leaving i was going to do this. there is precedence for

detaining someone on american soil as an enemy combatants in the military. as a pad deal was first arrested in 2002 and he was subsequently detained by the military for 3.5 years before he was charged in civilian courts. whether that was the right way to handle the case or not, it is in the a precedent. so it would not have been unprecedented to detainee the man on the detroit flight crew was not an american citizen. that could have been done and would not have been unprecedented. the second point of my friend raised had to do with the amount of information that was given.

that was classified but it is evident to remain that you will get more information over a lengthier period of time. that is than over just a few days. it is not a coincidence. debt he stopped cooperating once he had his miranda rights read to him. and once he had advisers to get him to seize answering questions. i have a different view from my friend from missouri, but i wanted to establish this on this man being a precedent. this is to clarify the record.

he talked about a significant number of individuals and able to travel to our country because they are on the no fly lists as i understand it very few of those 400,000 would have been valid, kermit, visas. is that correct? >> that is correct but approximately 2% are in u.s. positions. there are a significant number that can come into the united states without a visa. >> that is an excellent point

and it is of great concern to us for some time particularly when we are looking at individuals in great britain who may have dual citizenship in pakistan and england and maybe using one passport to travel to pakistan and their british passport to travel to our country. i realize it is an issue for another day but if it's of great concern. we have to -- >> we have to learn the lessons of this case but not over learn the lessons. using this data is very much integrated in the equation. let me ask a question in when dhs was established in 2002,

they wanted to assign personnel today's issue in diplomatic posts overseas to review -- eight years later. dhs personnel as i understand it are in about 15 out of the 220 state department posts around the world. that small number is even more disturbing when you consider that dhs and the state the province have identified 57 posts as being high risk. i also understand that request to expand to three more of these

high risk posts for more than a year and that you signed them recently. why the delay? you have a need in a high risk area with the dhs personnel. why let it languished for a year? >> we are not languishing. that's me talk about this. it was a being evaluated in light of all of the work being done about where our assets are. people need to have their highest use around the world. let me talk about the visa security program at both

levels, there is a difficulty. they make the department's in a way where we run visas or we do not. either we do the relocations or we do not. we live in a half cast world right now. the base's security program is a screening/investigative program where in the embassies where we have it, they go out and do further research.

as you have mentioned, it is limited and does not cover all of the embassy's nor can it, by itself be more than or should it be more than the winning -- many layers that should be constructed here. i would suggest to the committee that this is one of the things we need to look at. areas of the department where we kind of have authority and the kind of do not. we kind of have personnel, and we kind of do not. , but you did have the authority to deploy people to these high risk posts. -- >> but you did have the authority to deport people to these high risk post. if they did not languished for a year, are you saying that it took a year to evaluate the request? why the delay -- why the delay?

>> it was an ongoing process within the department led by leadership in the department to look at this in conjunction with everything else we were doing internationally. >> was not the request made a year ago? >> i do not know when the actual date of the request was? >> it is my understanding that the request had been in your office for a year. i will follow up. >> i do not think that is accurate. we would be happy to correspond that to you and get the information. >> yankee. >> do you have any further questions? >> there is a vote, but if you would like to start, go ahead. >> thank you. this is becoming so obvious now with what it's been going on

with this administration and with different agencies as well as different departments working together. there is a director of strategic planning to support effective planning. which is essential to preventing attacks. congress also directed the state department's coordinator for, but terrorism to collect all supervision for international counter-terrorism activities they appear to overlap. my question is of the state department cooperating for and how are you doing this?

>> i think we are cooperating. i want to go back to something that the director said earlier. there are summoning people involved here and i do not think the legislation they created here -- i do not think it gave clear authority. it did not give us clear authority to direct action. we have become a mediator of sorts rather than a direction -- a director of action. it was directed to design a process -- whereby there would be primarily threat screenings -- priority threat screenings. we wanted to empower us to demand accountability at a more tactical level at a broader range than threats have been

seen. it will acquire unilateral cooperation from the state department, who led security, the fbi, the military. it would it please give us the impetus to do that. >> thank you for that. the public has been very concerned about what has been happening. we tried to put different things in place. in it your testimony, you state that as an interim measure, you will deploy law-enforcement officers from across dhs to service federal air marshal's to increase security aboard some international flights. when will these officers be deployed and what training do they receive to ensure they are fully prepared? and to provide security inside

of an aircraft? >> if i might reserve the details of the to plummet as a classified briefing. with respect to training, there is a specialized training. we have and a large group that started training this week that will be during work on february 1. it involves on how to take down a passenger on a plane and keep others say it while doing it, because you are in a closed environment. have to take down a passenger on a plane without causing damage to the structure of the plane. there are other things in different things from a law enforcement perspective that happen in that airplane setting that are different than a normal

setting. >> this came to me when you were talking about working with other countries. ehud testify that tsa security requires -- it passes through several countries to undergo additional screenings i am concerned of the requiring additional screening of all passengers from certain countries. it could divert attention from other possible threats. my quick question is have you heard concerned about this directed from other nations and

what is being done to address those concerns? >> that list was developed from the state department's state sponsors of terrorist list. plus at bonds in conjunction with the state department. it is of concern to several of the countries that had been put on a list, recognizing that the enhanced screening is happening for over half of the passengers from all other countries who are embarking to the united states. it is very aggressive and all- inclusive. we are talking with members of some of those countries and talking about things they can do that with a alleviate concerns and allow them to be removed from the 100% less.

>> thanks for your responses. >> thanks and there is a vote on the floor. you have been really generous with your time. we will try to reschedule this in the spirit of cooperation as soon as possible. we may sit in with another commission a closer session. i know it is controversial and i have heard pressure back from a couple of countries. this is so critical which is the life and death of americans. you are talking about some more screening before you get onto a plane.

it is done to achieve a public good. he started out with the right position. friends have complained about it, but it is the world we live in. >> in the. -- indeed. we want to make sure the environment is as safe as it can be. do not worry about that. >> i appreciate it. i thank you. we are in a war. we are in a world war with the islamist extremist that have attacked us since 9/11. they have been attacking us from various ways. you hold people accountable in close the gaps. you go on with the aim of

securing the country that we are all here to defend and the freedom we are here to the fed. it is in that spirit that i appreciate your testimony. we applaud and laugh. we want to fix what did not work in these cases. we will continue to go on with these oversight hearings. we will go on a separate subject matter after that. we will keep the record of the hearing opened for 15 days for additional questions and statements. i thank you again. the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> in a few moments, house debate on a bill that would increase charitable donations were earth quickly in haiti. in half an hour, and news conference with republican senator a let scott brown of massachusetts. after that, senate gop leaders talk to reporters about the effect of his elections on the health-care debate. you hear from other leaders in a little bit later. on washington journal tomorrow morning, an update on relief efforts in haiti.

a representative, paul ryan will take your questions about the republican agenda. it is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> next week, president obama delivers his first state of the union address to congress laying out his vision for the country and his plan to deal with issues such as unemployment, health care, and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. >> part of the earthquake relief in haiti includes delivery of food.

[unintelligible] hamas >> a lot of the people here do not have anything to eat or houses. and we distribute food. we tried to give things like blankets and clothing. [unintelligible]

[unintelligible] >> as relief efforts continue in haiti, the house unanimously approved a bill that will allow charitable contributions to hate to leave by march 1 be deductible on 2009 taxes. this is half an hour. >> all of us have witnessed this

horrendous events that in our continent and i know whether republican or democrat that we all want to be able to do whatever we can to ease the pain on these poor people. that is why i am glad that we are representing the republicans on the committee that did not hesitate to meet and decide what we could do as a committee to make it easier to encourage cable to make contributions. i know that people are collecting clothes and food and things of that nature. the bottom line is they need cash and checks and this is what we have decided to do. we have a non-partisan bill here that deals with the technicality on the joint committee website.

it is listed under a document number-to-10. i ask that it be made part of the record. >> without objection. >> this will allow them to make generous contributions to the charity of choice and at the same time not have to wait until next year to be able to deduct this as a charitable contribution. it accelerates the time that this can be done between now and march so that any contribution that is made can be deducted on the 2000 -- 2009 tax return that

is being returned -- prepared for april 15. in addition to that, there has been some question as to how you can document the actual payment if it was made on the cellphone or if it was made with that -- without actually having proof of a charitable deduction. the only prove that could be made would be using the telephone bell. there was a question as to whether or not that could be considered. myself the remainder of the time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. herger: madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. herger: madam speaker, we have all been moved by the reports and images of last week's horrendous earthquake in haiti. and we were reminded just this morning of the dire situation that country is facing as reports have surfaced of a major aftershock. throughout our history americans have been eager to help others recover from the devastation of wars and natural disasters in far away places. once again we have seen the compassion and generosity of the american people displayed front and center in the haiti relief effort. including an outpouring of realtime donations through cell phones and the internet, with

many of our own u.s. citizens struggling to find work and make ends meet it is only fitting that we should provide immediate tax relief for these charitable contributions. this bill, which is sponsored by the bipartisan leadership of ways and means committee, as well as the whips of both parties, and more than 150 members from both sides of the aisle, would permit itemizers to treat haiti-related charitable contributions made through the end of february as if they were made in 2009 rather than 2010. this would allow itemizers the opportunity to claim the charitable deduction under 2009 returns which most taxpayers are required to file by april 15 of this year instead of waiting until they file their 2010

returns. it would also permit taxpayers to use cell phone text messages to contribute to the relief effort, to use their phone bill as a record of their donation. this is a commonsense bipartisan idea and it deserves the support of every member. i urge an aye vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to kendrick meeks, he's a member of the ways and means committee but more importantly, he's closely identified in bring the bringing back of haiti -- in the bringing back of haiti before this tragedy. he's been there and we admire and respect the contributions he's making to rebuild this great nation. i yield two minutes to mr. meeks from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. meeks: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank all of the members that are here in this

bipartisan support that we have for this great piece of legislation to not only incentivize americans to continue to do what they've already done to be able to help the people of haiti, through being able to take off their contribution or get the tax benefit in their 2009 taxes. i think it's important that we have a strong vote on this piece of legislation. the haitian people, i was just there, i spent two days on the ground there, humanitarian workers have working so hard and most -- a majority of these nongovernmental organizations that people can contribute to are doing the best work on the ground as it relates to the feeding and providing comfort for the haitians that are in desperate need of international support at this time. madam speaker, i would go even fourth say that hats off to our emergency response and urban rescue people that are really saving lives every day and with the contributions that americans

give to organizations that are doing great work on the ground, coupled with the congress and the house's action today -- the congress' and the house's action today to help individuals with their contribution will feed into a better response and a better recovery not only for haiti but to also continue to fulfill our humanitarian commitment to the poorest country in the western hemisphere. so i commend the chairman, the rest of the leadership that signed onto this bill, republican whip cantor and a number of others that are on the ways and means committee on this bipartisan effort. thank you so very much, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: i have no further

speakers on my side at this time. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. herger: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my good friend from california for the time. and i rise today as an original co-sponsor of this bill. as my colleagues have explained, this important measure would accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions to our relief efforts in haiti. this means that those who are able to contribute now may receive the tax deduction for the 2009 filing period. with over $40 million in private and corporate donations already made, this will be a great incentive for the american people to reach even deeper into

our pockets and help our friends in haiti. this in turn will augment u.s. government efforts demonstrating the clear benefits of public-private partnerships. and it's an important step at a time when we must do more with less in the face of rapidly rising deficits here at home. there is no doubt that the united states as a government and as a people stand side by side with the people of haiti during this most tragic time. our assistance efforts so far are unparalleled. lastly president obama pledged $100 million in u.s. funding toward the relief effort. it is my hope that after this expeditious surveys of the damage a significant portion of this funding will come from the $845 million in international disaster assistance that this congress has already

appropriated for fiscal year 2010. by pulling from these funds, we will be able to quickly address the humanitarian needs in haiti right now. in addition, i urge president obama to immediately begin efforts to convene an international donors conference to bring together other responsible nations and international organizations that can join the united states in committing efforts to help the haitian people recover from this horrible disaster. keeping in mind the urgent nature of this much needed assistance, it remains incumbent upon the u.s. to work to ensure that international donations are pooled and integrated. that pledges are tracked. and that transparency measures are put in place to help ensure that aid reaches those who need it. further, we should encourage joint ventures and public-private partnerships as we consider the many ways that we may help promote not only the

immediate but also the long-term recovery of haiti as well. the united states will do its share, but the rest of the world must do its best also. other nations must not forget about haiti once the attention on the crisis has subsided and leave the u.s., as has been often the case, to bear most of the responsibility for the recovery of haiti. i would like an additional minute. mr. herger: i yield an additional minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. madam speaker, we have all been deeply moved by the outpouring of support that we have seen from communities across the united states. unsurprisingly the haitian american community has shown invaluable leadership in the aftermath of last week's tragic earthquake. now more than ever the u.s. must focus our efforts on engaging these communities to make sure that they are involved in the rebuilding of their native

homeland. the haitian diaspora is a valuable resource that must be tapped to ensure that stability, freedom, success, and prosperity that the haitian people deserve finally come to true. i would like to thank chairman rangel and ranking member camp for introducing this important measure. i strongly urge my colleagues to support its passage. i thank the gentleman again for the time. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: madam speaker, i recognize mr. blumenauer, a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the courtesy of the chair of the ways and means committee in permitting me to speak on this and the rapid action that the committee has taken. as we are overcome with grief and sympathy for the haitian tragedy, i am reminded of the

devastation i saw in indonesia in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami. where over 160,000 people were killed. that disaster inspired cooperation that was truly incredible even in the troubled island of ache that had been torn by war for years. that rebuilding effort sparked a terrific renaissance there. this must signal a new day for the troubled but promising country of haiti. obviously our immediate priority must be saving lives with food and water and shelter and medical supplies. i am pleased that groups in my community like the acclaimed mercy corps, the northwest medical team, have leaped into action with resources from the pacific northwest to make a difference under these dire circumstances. we must recognize the decades of crushing poverty in haiti have

left ordinary people far too vulnerable to disaster. we have an obligation as a country as we work with comprehensive aid efforts in the months and years ahead after the cam rons are gone to help the haitians re-- camerons are gone to help the haitians rebuild. the world has not always, indeed has seldom been a good neighbor to that troubled country. i am pleased that this legislation will make it easier for americans who face tough times themselves to help give gifts of hive and hope to our neighbors in that near island. the bill allows those who have donated to haiti a chance to claim the donation in the tax reform that they are preparing this spring rather than waiting a full year to claim the deduction. it's a simple gesture but it will encourage giving in this challenging economy and helping do what is right for haiti.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. herger: madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: it is my honor to yield to the majority whip, jim clyburn, two minutes. there is no question that he has provided the leadership on this issue and inspired the ways and means committee and so many other members in the congress and haiti as a true friend in the heart of jim clyburn, our democratic whip. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. speaker. thanks for bringing this legislation forward. thanks for making this a bipartisan effort. i also want to sank the 162 co-

sponsors, the original co- sponsors of this legislation. i believe that all of us who are familiar with the various areas of our great country know that it all depends upon where you live. as to what kind of catastrophic events you can expect. for many of us it may be a dust storm. for others, like my area of the country, a hurricane. for others, it could be an earthquake. all of us are the sum total of our experiences. i believe that it is this vast

amounts of level of experiences that the people of these united states of america of going to call upon in order to respond to the people of haiti. . us to offer all americans the opportunity to conduct on their 2009 taxes in a contribution they make to this effort by the 28th of february, will go a long way toward innocenting the kind of behavior -- incenting the kind of behavior we think is very, very important. i want to thank the sponsors of this legislation. thank the -- all of those who will be voting for it today. it is one way that we can say to

the people of this nation that americans are not just sympathize with them, but we empathize as well. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. herger: madam speaker, i yield whatever time he may consume, our whip, member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. cantor: thank you, the speak. -- the speaker. i am pleased to rise this afternoon in strong support of this important relief legislation for the people of latey. on january 12, 2010, haiti was shaken by an earthquake unparalleled in its history. as horrendous as they are, the pictures in our newspapers and on tv can only begin to tell the story of the suffering of the haitian people. just this morning the people of that country had another scare, experiencing another shock that was magnitude of 6.1.

madam speaker, when crisis calls, american citizens are at their finest. the people of the u.s. have always been and continue to be a generous and giving people. and whether it is offering shelter to orphanned children, making cash donations, or volunteering time, when tragedy strikes the american people take action. charitable donations have already begun pouring into organizations assisting in the relief efforts. this legislation allows generous americans who make a cash donation to the haitian relief effort to treat those donations as if they were made in the tax year 2009. similar policy has been used in past tragedies and studies show that it actually increases the total amount of charitable contributions. i want to thank my colleague, majority whip, clyburn, for his assistance in bringing this legislation to the floor. i would also like to thank the gentleman from new york and the

gentleman from michigan and their leadership in bringing forward this important bill. while it is often the differences between the parties in congress that makes the news, this legislation demonstrates that we can come together on commonsense proposeals to ease the suffering of our fellow man when our offices discussed last week how we could help encourage charitable donations for the relief effort and in particular this proposal, it was clear that partisanship had been setaside. i think the american people and those in haiti are all the better for it. i ask the support of this legislation and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. rangel: i would like to yield two minutes to mr. davis of illinois, a member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, very much, madam speaker. i want to first of all commend chairman rangel and ranking

member camp for their quick action and leadership on this legislation. i rise today in strong support of this bill to accelerate the income tax benefits for those who make cash contributions to people affected by the earthquake in haiti. americans are deeply saddened at the level of devastation caused by earthquake that struck haiti on january 12 resulting in tremendous damage and loss of life. there are enormous needs in haiti and it is important to have the federal government, our government, demonstrate the leadership in providing relief. i also wish to acknowledge and recognize all of the organizations and groups not-for-profits, churches. over the weekend i visited several churches and i was tremendously impressed at the level of giving that people out of the goodness of their hearts were pouring out.

especially do i congratulate and commend bishop blake and the church of god and christ churches for the enormous contribution that they are making, but baptist churches, methodist churches, all churches, people have demonstrated what it means to give of themselves and to help others. i thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. herger: madam speaker, i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, my good friend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. . >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of this. on january 12 haiti was struck by a magnitude 7 earthquake which devastated the country and the people of haiti. i have lived for approximately a dozen years in earthquake country and i know how serious an earthquake of this magnitude

is. i wish to extend my deepest sympathy to the families who have lost loved ones in this horrible tragedy. even in the face of this disaster, the people of the world have united in response through prayer, monetary donations and critical humanitarian aid. in fact, the "chronicle" reported yesterday that over $275 million has already been generously donated worldwide. i'm again humbled by the efforts of humanitarian aid groups based in west michigan which has a long history of charitable giving in times of need. the response to this natural disaster has proved no different. i am grateful to my constituents for the compassion and generosity which has existed for many years. humanitarian aid groups in grand rapids that are contributing to the relief effort include rays of hope for haiti, the christian reform relief committee, the red

cross and countless others. even a global corporation located in my district is en route with several flights this week to haiti transporting medical supplies and a medical team. the extraordinary efforts by all of these groups are to be commeppeded. while our country and the world response to emergency needs in haiti, i have heard from many in my community who echo my fervent requests to provide additional assistance to the orphans in haiti. i ask for your continued prayers for the children of haiti who will soon be united with their adoptive families here in the united states and especially for those who have been orphaned in those who have been orphaned in the wake of last tuesday's tragedy. i also urge the department of homeland security and department of state to greatly speed up the adoption process and visa procedures, for not only the orphans already in process but also for all the children who became orphans due to the death

of their parents in the horrible earthquake. i urge my constituents and all americans to donate to a charity organization for earthquake relief in haiti. i am very pleased that former presidents bush and clinton are leading the efforts through the clinton-bush haiti fund. this bill, h.r. 4462, will allow taxpayers to deduct their donations from their 2009 taxes and it is my hope that all people who are able will offer their support to the people of haiti. may god bless and comfort the people of haiti. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: madam speaker, i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. herger: yes, madam speaker, i have no further speakers so i'll close. i yield myself such time as i may consume. in closing i'd simply say that

this is a good bill. it reflects the generosity of the american people in responding to a horrific disaster and i urge all >> as the house was working in washington, the was looting and the haitian capital, port-au- prince. [horn honking]

[unintelligible] >> stop this! stop this!

[gunfire]

>> you are watching public affairs programming on c-span, created by america's cable tv companies, offered as a public service. over the next 45 minutes, political news, beginning with

the news conference with senator-elect scott brown in boston. and about 20 minutes, senate gop leaders speak with reporters about how mr. brown's win in yesterday's special election will affect the health-care debate. and after that, and democratic senate leaders also meet with reporters. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network, c-span3. the senate armed services committee looks into the fort hood shootings at 9:30 p.m. eastern. at 3:00 p.m. eastern, the sarin -- senate foreign relations committee hears about afghanistan from special envoy richard holbrooke. abigail adams had to remind john adams to remember the ladies when creating a new government.

dolley madison had to encourage her once-shy husband, james. "the intimate lives of the founding fathers." the women who played a central part in the creating our country. the newly elected republican senator from massachusetts, scott brown, spoke with reporters in boston this morning for about 20 minutes. >> i am proud about the campaign we had. we work very hard and travel throughout the state talking with people and asking about the issues that concern them and we could not have done it without an extraordinary effort by everybody, from the top to the bottom, a true grass-roots

effort, and for that i am very thankful. i look for to getting to work right away and trying to deal with all the very important challenges we have before us. as you know this morning, mike campaigns legal counsel delivered a request to the secretary of state for an official vote count, and with an -- within that the number of outstanding absentee ballots, and i am confident that the margin will be greater. i am hopeful that the senate will see me on the basis of those unofficial returns, and just as they did for ted kennedy in 1962, and more recently in 2007. with that, i am very happy to take some questions.

>> could you give us your reaction to that and talk about your plans and win and why you want to get down there so quickly. >> we are going down tomorrow and i have already spoken to the senators and congressmen and a whole host of other people from the delegation. it is important to hit the ground running because there are very important issues facing our country. contrary -- the campaign is over now and now we have to focus on solving problems. i have had a great working relationship with the delegation and i am looking forward to getting down there as quickly as i can. thank you. >> you have said that this is not a referendum on obama. but he character state by 26 points for you ran against his health-care plan and suggested he could be tougher on terrorism. he said there is not -- too much spending and not enough bipartisanship.

if this is not a referendum on the president, what you think the message is to them? >> the message from travelling around the state, and i have had to do some self reflection on why i am standing before you today, but really the number one thing i have heard is that people are tired of business as usual. what does that mean? the behind-the-scenes deals, the nebraska subsidizing of medicaid forever, things like that had just driven people crazy. it won a make sure that the arab officials are doing things in a transparent manner and doing it with the best interest of our state and mind. the things that you just referred to, we have health care here. we have a certain serious economic problems but the first enlisted not work. they have not created one new job. take the expiring tax cuts -- when you talk about the marriage penalty coming back and the child credit being cut in half, they affect everyone from rich

to poor. there are financial issues and a time when people are having a very difficult time paying their bills. people in abundance, i will let them determine what this means in terms of the national race, but it is important to note that the main thing that they want is good government backing to be part of the process. i think they sent a very powerful message to business as usual is not the way we're going to do it. [inaudible] >> i don't want to death characterize what my strategy in the campaign was. while the health-care bill will certainly an issue, the issues just referenced by your fellow journalist were issues that were in people's minds. taxes and spending, terrorism

and how we deal with those issues, the health-care proposal -- those of the more important things. however, we already have 98% of our people insured here. we know what we need to do to fix it. to have a one-size-fits-all plan pushed nationally, it does not work. what i am hoping to suggest, because we have done it -- i even voted for health care here because i care very deeply for it. let the states to help the federal government that this is what we would like to do, can we work with you in a team effort and you could incentivize us to do something better? model it like we had better come up with something better so we can do it. [inaudible] i think first of all we are pass campaign mode and it is important for everyone to get some form of health care. offer a basic plan is important. it is a question of whether

we're going to raise taxes and cut $500 billion from medicare. i think that we can do it better. to be the 41st center and bring it back to the drawing board, there were very good things that you just pointed out in the national plan that is being proposed, but if you look at in a parochial matter, we need to look out for massachusetts first because no one -- i have felt that as a legislature and a citizen that we have not done that very well. we've always thought about maybe washington first or the party first. but the thing i am hearing all throughout the state is, what about us? thank you. nice to see. >> you ran as an independent. you are elected as an independent. what is first in your agenda, your number one priority to show that you are the independent that it wanted to send to washington? >> i have not had much sleep yet. but that being said, i will meet with a delegation tomorrow, all

of which are democrats, and i will check in with the republican leadership, and obviously senator mccain he was helpful from the beginning. people need to see -- give me a chance to transition and see what is on the agenda. then i will make a decision to say, am i going to do this for that. i think it is not appropriate right now and i would appreciate an opportunity to get down there open up an office, get a staff together, and then do my very best to continue with that independence. >> what it by steel have for harry reid on how to proceed with health care -- what advice do you have for harry reid on how to put the -- on how to proceed with health care? >> i did not think i will be giving him advice at all. he is the senate president -- sorry, the senate majority leader. he has his own way of doing things and i do not want to

influence that, but i can certainly offer guidance as to what we have done here and how we could maybe do a better there. yes? >> you talk about independence during the campaign. how will you maintain it down there? people go down all the time say they will be in japan and the caucus every tuesday with the party, voting along party lines. what concrete thing when you do to maintain your independence? >> analysis selectmen, when you go down you're going to change. and then i ran for state senate, when you get in the senate, you are going to change. that is kind of old, to be honest with you. i had been in the government for quite some time now, and yes, we caucus. we have to caucus because we figure out what is in fact happening, see if there are any issues that you want brought forth. there is good information. we a bad could join caucuses with the senate president here

in massachusetts. when you talk about transparency in the ability to do things the right way, one thing i have always admired about the senate president and massachusetts without an and lincoln coming there are five republicans in the senate right now and we have had every opportunity to have full and fair discussion and agreements, we've had joint caucuses in come together on transportation, pension, the ethics reform, we've made some very super moves when it comes to the stem cell bill and dealing with some of the budget issues. so there are times in massachusetts that we can come together and i am hopeful i will go down there just like i always have, and of course i will caucus with the party. that is how you ultimately find out what is going on. but i have already made it very clear that i am not beholden to anybody. i have made that very clear. right here and then we will go here. >> john kerry, he took it shots

if you during this campaign. any indications on how you will be working with them? >> he was one of the second or third party "i actually called. i had great relationship with senator kerrey. my daughter has a picture of the senator and her from one of the challenges. obviously, his bout with cancer, and i have great respect for what he had done. the thing i have been most appreciative of is the fact that the people i'm going to work with there are very gracious and say, came over, get to work. >> congratulations on your wintered a question about your view of the role as the republican poster boy for resurgence. there is a big debate in your party about whether it should adhere to conservative principles and be the arrest or open its arm more and allow people with differing views on

to the platform. my -- some people might be suspicious of the republican from massachusetts. >> i'll let the political pundits determine what is happening in the larger scale. the bottom step line is what kind of republican i would be. i really did not know that answer that so i said i will be a scott brown republican. maybe there is a new breed of republican coming to washington. maybe someone will look at someone not beholden to the special interest of the party and look to just to solve problems. i have always been that way. you remember, i supported clean elections, i'm a self-imposed term limits person, i believe very strongly that we're there to serve the people and to do a job. i and many others throughout the country -- when we're talking about what so-and-so's said in his book and what so-and-so's said here, my response is, who cares? we have terrorist trying to blow up our planes and kill our

families at shopping malls. we have people dying in afghanistan who are trying to -- and our shoulders are trying to make sure that we get -- we finish the job there. we have very serious economic problems, so i like many of you probably say, what is up with that? we need to make sure that we solve the problems, and at that can bring that type of message to washington and create the dialogue that brings us back to debates, i am all for it. alice, did you have a question? dor>> jfk and barack obama stard i and the white house the day that they were elected. >> i know what to be disrespectful but i have had no sleep right now. i am not even been down to washington yet. i do not want to say that that is a silly question, but i am just so thankful for the support that i have received from everybody for it last night when i stated shook everybody's hands who are sweating and

pushing -- those of the people i want to go down there and represent and to think about something higher, i am just happy to be in this position. if you would have told me growing up that a guy whose mom was on welfare and parents had marital troubles, and i had some issues growing up, a guy from rent them would be here standing before you right now and going to washington, d.c., are you kidding that? i know that you have jobs to do. and i have a life and i respect those jobs. but it is not only overwhelming, it is so -- i cannot tell you how proud i am to be here standing before you all, and having an opportunity to maybe send the country in a different and better direction. that is my goal. other made say that he is going to do this are that. i have never listened to them. i am not going to listen to them now. yes, sir. [inaudible] >> today i wear different caps

as the membership of what i believe is the world's largest technical organization. one of the things your predecessor was famous for was constituent services and yet it was difficult for our organization representing more than 50,000 top technical people in the community to get word into his office. i am hoping that you would open your door to some of your people -- some of the people who are responsible for building massachusetts into the leading technological state in the country. and i would hope that that would be part of your commitment and i would just like to say that. >> thank you, first of all, and for your organization. i have always open my door for everybody in the state house, regardless of whether i agree with their position or not. the one thing i have to be honest with you, running through the campaign, even people who said they were not voting for me, the one thing they said was

running -- thank you for running a great campaign on the issues and not making it-. thank you for always being a sensible. i may not agree with you but the information i -- you gave me was accurate so that i can make a better decision. i am from the big tent philosophy, regardless of the flyers and the commercials, i have not changed a bit. i am the same person today. i woke up, i walk the dogs, i gave my daughter a hug and kiss was emotional going back college. i'm a going to miss her very much. of course i am going to allow people to come in and talk to me. i am so excited to have that opportunity because i learn more and more about the wonderful part and type of this country -- i'm sorry, the wonderful parts of the state. >> many see as the person who is going to put the brakes on the obama administration. they said that a lot last night. you see yourself as the senator as the 41st vote and put the

brakes on the obama agenda? >> i had a great conversation with the president, first of all. he called and called right away, which i thank him for. we were talking in he said, i look for to meeting you. an opportunity to work with you. he said, i heard that you are open-minded and you are an independent guy. i said, mr. president, i want to meet you, too. if you a wonderful family and i have respect for your accomplishments. by the way, do you want to bring the truck? i did say that and he laughed. he said, i did not go at you hard. i said, all kidding aside, i have a basketball for your daughter. we will play two-two, and mr. president, regardless of not agreeing on some things, you have a sense of humor. and you have to have a sense of humor about politics. >> [inaudible] >> i'm going down tomorrow as a

courtesy call and i am sure it will all work out. i have great trust and the secretary and i think everybody knows that this is an overwhelming victory and they are looking for to it. thank you very much. >> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell said today that he did not expect any more senate votes on health care until scott brown is sworn in as massachusetts' new republican senator. this is 20 minutes. >> good morning, everyone to read slow in the day -- every one. slow news day? the people of massachusetts had a chance to speak yesterday and i spoke rather loudly that they would like to see the congress: a different direction. the massachusetts special election was unique in many ways but i think we all experienced it all around the country, even though we might not be

massachusetts citizens. in my own case, i was flying back from kentucky last saturday and a number of people on the plane brought up, can you stop that health care bill? but most interesting was a woman that said i am a constituent of yours, but i am married to a man from massachusetts, here he is. he introduced me to him and they said we're going to massachusetts to vote for scott brown. made a special trip to go to massachusetts said that he could vote for scott brown. this was in many ways a national referendum presently on the major issue we are wrestling with in the congress, whether or not the government should take over 1/6 of our economy, slash medicare by $500 billion, raise taxes by $500 billion, and drive up interest rates for the rest of the country. i think we heard a large resounding message yesterday's if not the most liberal state in

america. the people of massachusetts spoke loudly and. one concerned and number of you had about the outcome of this election would be whether the new center would be seated sen. i'm convinced now that no gamesmanship will be played by the other side with regard to future votes in the senate. jim webb of virginia has made it clear he will not participate in any additional health care votes prior to senator brown being sworn in. and i noticed that elected officials in massachusetts who were principally responsible for certifying the election after early innings -- earlier saying it would take up to two weeks have now indicated that it could be as early as today. i did not believe that the kind of thing we have seen on full display with the cornhuskers kick back, the louisiana purchase, the gator aid, drafting the bill behind closed-

door -- i think the majority has gotten the message and no more gamesmanship, no more a lack of transparency, let's honor the wishes of the people of massachusetts and move forward with policy. with our policy debate. with that, let me call on our outstanding chairman of the national republican senatorial committee who played a huge role in yesterday's victory, john cornyn. >> thank you. first and foremost i know we all would like to congratulate scott brown on an outstanding campaign he ran and won yesterday. there is no election that can be one without a good candidate, and one that understands the temper of the times, what people are concerned about, and is able to deliver a message that response effectively to their concerns, and scott brown did it to near perfection. and what was the message that

the people of massachusetts were sending? it is that they are fed up and tired of being shut out of the process. what did they get yester day but collecting scott brown? they got a seat at the table. and that is what we have been wanting all year, a seat at the table where we can work together on a bipartisan basis to come up with solutions to the problems that confront our country. nothing more, nothing less. and so i hope that this will usher in a new era of transparency and willingness to work together rather than the sort of special sweetheart deals cut behind closed tears that cause so much concerned in the health-care bill and elsewhere. let me just say that the health care bill is a very important part of what was debated and decided guest today in this election but it is not all that was decided. the american people said a very clear message to the voters of

massive teases about their concern about spending and debt and the government intervention in their lives in ways that limits their freedoms and opportunities and the future of their children and grandchildren. and so i hope that message has been received. i hope that we will be able to work together in the best interest of the american people and again, let me congratulate scott brown on an outstanding victory and a wonderful victory. >> questions? >> sent a comical -- senator mcconnell [inaudible] >> what i think is clear is that there should be no further action in the senate banks to senate -- senator jim webb until scott brown is one in. i cannot speak for the house and there has been discussion on the house side about whether or not

they would simply take up the senate bill and pass it. i don't consider myself an expert on the house. but i am aware of one issue that could be very problematic for them, and that is the issue of whether not that taxpayers would pay for abortions. i know that one republican and the house that voted for the bill initially has indicated he could not support the bill in the absence of the stupak language, and my assumption is that the author of the stupak amendment might have trouble voting with it. i think there are a number of complications but it is an internal democratic matter about which none of us are great experts. >> senator mcconnell, what is the bottom line? is this health care bill as we know it dead? >> i sure hope so.

we've said repeatedly during the month of december -- as you know, we were here every day -- we ought to start over and go step by step to concentrate on fixing our problem which is the rising cost. we laid out a series of things that we thought would address the cost problem without having the government take over once- rigid 1/6 of our economy. -- the government take over 1/6 of our economy. >> there is no way to predict with certainty what the atmosphere will be 10 months from now. we were at that -- elected to do the people's business. what we have been saying repeatedly is that we would like dissipate in the process of crafting solutions to america's problems. that opportunity was denied us on health care. you saw the result. the american people looked at an

effort to jam the majority -- jammed the minority, and the measure ended up lacking credibility with the american people. if they want to accomplish things around here, a better way to go is not attracted jim us because they have a big majority but work on these issues with an open mind and with a genuine bipartisan approach three those kind of measures in the been the kinds of things you can sell to the american people. >> he said that the people of massachusetts spoke loudly last night. nowhere in senator brown campaign did he use the word republican. last night in his victory speech, he said it was a great victory for independents. >> in my state, is 2-1 democrat. i can recall a single time or i put the word republican into an ad.

my mother did not raise any polish children. -- any foolish children. if 12% of massachusetts is republican, it does not strike me as a smart way to campaign. he was in the state in which it is 3-1 -- three times more democrats than republicans, and more independents that all the rest combined. he was there to connect with the independent voters of massachusetts. they wanted to send him to washington to do business differently. i thought it was an inspired campaign. he did something that no republican has been able to accomplish in massachusetts since 1972. >> let me submit to something in response to that review cannot

look at just what happened in massachusetts in isolation but what happened in virginia, what happened in new jersey, and what happened is that independents, the very people to put together a winning coalition for barack obama and democrats, put them in horror -- and power, are fleeing in droves. what they gave scott brown is an opportunity to talk about the things that they were most concerned about, losing their jobs, losing their homes, concerned about health care because they saw it as a misplaced priority, because jobs were the number one priority. what i think it gives us is a chance to continue that conversation with independents without whom no candidate can win, and i think it is a very clear trend. scott brown in his campaign did a masterful job understanding his state, understanding the mood of the electorate, and understanding what their priorities were and he spoke directly to that. that's why i think it was so

successful. >> most of the votes of to the point had been party line. do you think that dynamic is fundamentally change? >> it is up to the majority. they chose to go left. in my view, they misread the electorate in 2008 and decided to pursue a largely dramatically left-of-center agenda. we've said repeatedly throughout this year that we're prepared to meet them in the middle for a truly bipartisan solutions the american people sent us here to grapple with. [inaudible] >> it means that we are open to discussing any of the issues that are before us. i am not going to decide today

what we're going to do in the future. as a general rule, we have said from the very beginning that we want to be a full partner. you may have more votes than we do, but if you do it all by yourself, the public probably is not going to buy it. i think that been amply demonstrated back in 2009. maybe they will take this message and take a different approach. we will have to wait and see. >> david axelrod said that they fully intend to pursue president obama's full agenda. you think that the big spending era has ended? >> a senator-elect brown said last night, it sounded to me like that by 100,000 vote majorities, one of the most liberal states in america, the people said rather in an outspoken fashion by a high turnout, unusually high in a special election in january, for

goodness sake, they would like for us to go on a different direction. goodness, i think that that is about as clear a message i have ever seen delivered in a campaign and election. >> are there some incremental things that you would like to see work on? >> we have said repeatedly what we thought ought to be done on health care. repeatedly. every day in the week in december. and we remain open to trying to doing this right. stop this effort that is the wrong direction to go and sit down together and try to go step by step to fix the problem that we all know exist in american health care, which is cost. [unintelligible] >> let me ask you about reconciliation. they could pass some kind of fix to the bill using reconciliation.

i was wondering your view about whether that is possible and what you would support reconciliation. >> reconciliation would be an extremely difficult left. remember, anything more weighted toward policy bent toward budgetary activity is subject to the byrd rule and has to get 60 votes to stay in the bill. anything as policy-driven as health care could be knocked out under the byrd rule under reconciliation. it would be as swiss cheese event. it would come out looking like swiss cheese because of the byrd rule. i think the president has proposed this. i look at it a very cynical act by the administration. basically they have created -- i suggest that they create a vehicle which an executive order, which is by definition a partisan, and the whole purpose of the committee would be bipartisan.

it does not have statutory structure, no way to require a vote, and the senate has 100 people that might stay in no -- stand in the way. that undermines the purposes of the exercise. and you cannot backtrack because the senate does not fast-track things and let you have a statutory fast-track framework. >> can you explain what you're planning on the epa exemption, and to have you been talking to about a motion of disapproval? >> given the uc we entered into, each side was allowed amendments. i was to be allowed an opportunity to bring up an amendment related to the epa regulation of the missions. this is something that we have been trying to bring to the forefront now for months but

were denied the opportunity back in september to a dance an amendment. we've got several different options, not least of which is an amendment to the debt limit that we would have to introduce today, according to that uc. i've also been pursuing a resolution of disapproval, a different mechanism, but either way, and at this point in time my inclination is to proceed with the resolution of disapproval, but i think that that is a more clear path forward, but either way is important that we demonstrate repeatedly that the preferred alternative when it comes to regulating emissions in this country is to move through a legislative procedure, a legislative route that will allow for a balancing of how we truly reduce our emissions in

this country, while at the same time ensuring that we do not kick the economy in the head -- in the head and further wounded. we need to do this -- when we talk about climate legislation, that climate legislation trip go through the legislative process, not through the epa and regulatory process. >> in light of the election last night, you see that climate debate dead? the the the overall efforts are ended for the year? >> i say that -- i would say that there is minimal enthusiasm to put it mildly for cap-and-trade. but the majority leader will have to decide whether he wants to devote more time in the senate to that. >> the effects of last night's election on obama's nominees, don johns rigid down -- dowawn

johnsen. >> the nomination process can be contentious around here, sometimes based on the nominee. she has been one of far more contentious nominees, and there have been a significant number of them in my conference. and at least some of the other side have not felt she should go forward. as to all that -- as to how that all will be resolved, i cannot tell you. i am sorry? >> what you prepared to work on the -- with the democrats on for some marc >> i think they are on the right track with afghanistan. i think the president is doing the right thing with the deployment of 30,000 additional troops in afghanistan. he is assigned a sharp as people

that we have to that theater, the sharpest military people, the sharpest csa aid, the sharpest aid, the sharp estate, the most talented individuals we had are all in afghanistan. focusing on pakistan as well, and i commend them for the decisions that he has made. i think he is off on the wrong track and a couple of areas related to this, says is suggesting a date certain that we might begin to draw down there, which has created a propaganda tool for the taliban. and there's also widespread confusion in the military about what our policy is with regard to interrogation and detention. very much confusion about that. having said that, i think that the decision to go in there with a counterinsurgency strategy is the right thing to do and i believe virtually every member of our conference supports it. ok, thanks a lot. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] >> democratic senate leaders also spoke with reporters for about 10 lead -- 10 minutes. >> i know senator mack, told you earlier today welcome back. i don't feel as if i have never left. [laughter] a year ago come up with the new congress and the new president came into office, the economy was reeling, there was a catastrophe out there. there was an enduring crisis in our country was on the brink of collapse, even the world economy on the brink of collapse. we knew what we had to do to clean up the mess that we found ourselves had been left. we made a difficult decision, took critical situations to keep

a bad situation from getting worse. we do not pretend for a minute that our work is done. we know people in nevada, illinois, washington, new york, every state in the union is still hurting, rightly concerned about their jobs, their homes, their health care, and basically their future. as we work to relieve a lot of that suffering, republicans have made a political calculation not to participate. and that is evident from what took place last year. their answer to everything, everything, has been in know. hard to comprehend even on funding the troops. but what we're talking about is people not having jobs, the value of their homes declining, some losing their homes -- it is not about politics.

some vote democrat and some folk republican but all want to work as partners, they want to work with us. we need to work with them as partners and not partisans to improve their individual lives. the election in massachusetts changes the math in the senate. easies simple map but it does not change the fact that people are hurting. that alleged it had not changed one thing in that regard. does not change our commitment to help those people who are hurting. we do not believe saying no is the answer. and it does not vote -- change republican responsibility to work with us. to work for the american people. if anything, is now more important than ever for the republicans to be willing to work toward common ground. if they do not, we all risk paralysis. last week we always had a seat at their table reserved for republicans. that was obvious in the finance committee, the gang of six, that

took a long time because we wanted the republicans to be able to participate. it has been that way in everything we have done very most interesting, it was many years during the republican administration that they had no conferences. we have had some very we hope this year that the republicans take the seat that we have reserved for them for it last night the people of the republic -- the people of massachusetts gave a new opportunity to govern. we hope that they take it. questions? the boys we going to do now about the health care bill? >> the problems out there and -- it is certainly more than health care. people all of this country are concerned about, as i have already indicated, their jobs, keeping their jobs, finding a job.

people lost their homes, but people are concerned about the upside down values of their homes. somebody the word for me here, she is now returning to nevada, told me a few days ago, the home that she bought is now worth $200,000 less than when she purchased it. this is all over the country. people concerned about that and concerned about two wars going on. it seems that there is a new movie every week coming out about the war in afghanistan, the war in iraq. health care, as we have travelled around during this recess that we have had, people are concerned about what is happening in and health care but people come up to us all the time. they have children with pre- existing disabilities, they have pre-existing disabilities, a man named steve schmidt, i've known him for a long time in las vegas, he was involved in a

serious car accident and is confined in a wheelchair, always in a wheelchair. he had been hurt for two years in the insurance company said, you are at your limit. you're on your own. five years he has been on his own in it has been a real struggle. people out there are terribly angry at the banks, angry at wall street. can you imagines at this time when people are trying to hang on to their homes in trying to find a job that wall street has decided that they are going to do about $120 billion in bonuses? so health care is a problem but it is certainly more than that. the election shows that american people want us to work together to solve problems. [unintelligible] >> to answer his question? >> first of all, we are not going to rush into anything.

as you have heard, we are going to wait until the new center of arrives before we do anything more on health care. remember, the bill we passed and the senate is good for a year. there are many different things that we can do to move forward on health care but we're not making any of those decisions now. if there was any one message that i got from the leadership meeting i held this morning in the caucus i just had is the fact that we are concerned about everything going on in the country and we're not going to rush to judgment on any one of them. [unintelligible] >> are you committed to finishing that health care bill? are you confident that you can get a bill passed and sent to the president? >> i am confident that health care is an issue in this country and we will do everything we can to alleviate the pain and suffering of people it cannot afford health care. >> can the house of

representatives passed your bill as is? >> i am not telling them what they should do. if that -- if i did, they would not listen anyway. [inaudible] >> i have spoken to the president, to the president's chief of staff, i've spoken to the speaker on all of these issues that we've talked about three of course we have. >> it is all about jobs, should you have brought a jobs bill for it first? do you regret that? >> we have created jobs, lots of things. it is no revelation to -- you that what we did with the first- time home buyers has created tremendous interest in purchasing homes. that was a job-creating factor. the cash for clunkers created jobs. the middle-class tax cuts that we passed when we first came here created jobs. we realize that the credit

market is very difficult out there, especially for small businesses. we have a lot of other things we are going to do relating to jobs. we have been trying -- i am so mindful of the struggle that chairman boxer had done to try to get a highway bill. we cannot get it passed the republican spirit talk about job creation, for every billion dollars that we spend, it creates 50,000 high-paying jobs. as it relates to infrastructure, we cannot get it passed the republicans. [inaudible] >> i said then and i said -- reconciliation was not the time to do it. and reconciliation is one of the things we need to look at with the changing circumstances, but no decisions have been made. thank you.

. >> at 4:15, fbi director robert muller discusses at the intelligence report that says the fbi broke all during its investigation into certain terror suspects.

on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, an update on relief efforts in haiti. rep tender it m -- rep kendrick meek and raymond joseph will speak. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 p.m. -- 7:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on c-span3. the senate armed services committee looked into the fort hood of shooting at 9:30 a.m. eastern. then at 3:00 p.m. eastern, a special envoy with richard holbrooke and david miller band discuss security in afghanistan. >> next week, president obama delivers his first eight of the union address to congress, laying out his vision of the

future for the economy, health care, and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. that is next wednesday, january 27, at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c- span. >> now the first congressional hearing on the christmas day bombing attack of northwest flight 253. witnesses include homeland security secretary janet napolitano, dennis belair, and the head of the national counterterrorism center. this is a little more than at 2 1/2 hours. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> good morning, and welcome to the hearing. as we all know, this past christmas day, 2009, umar farouk abdulmutallab slipped through the multilayered defenses that we have erected since 9/11 to stop attacks against our homeland and boarded a northwest flight 253 from

amsterdam to detroit, over which he attempted a suicide bombing. the faulty detonator and the courageous and quick actions by the passengers and crew prevented the death of 290 people on board that airplane and many more on the ground below. we were very lucky. because it has now been five years since the enactment of the 9/11 commission recommendations on intelligence reform, senator collins and i decided last year to initiate a series of oversight hearings this year to examine how well these reforms have been implemented and whether further changes in the law are needed to protect the country. that is the inquiry that we begin today, but now, of course, we must carry out our oversight responsibilities through the unsettling. some of the christmas day breach

of our homeland -- the unsettling prism of the christmas day breach of our homeland security. the act of 2004, commonly known as the 9/11 commission act, was the most sweeping intelligence reform since the creation of the central intelligence agency more than 50 years earlier. among its early significant improvements, the 9/11 commission act established a director of national intelligence to integrate our 16 intelligence agencies. it also created the national counterterrorism center to ensure there was a single place and the government that would assess terrorism using the full resources and knowledge of the intelligence community. earlier, in 2002, our government's failures on 9/11 also moved congress to act on recommendations to create a department of homeland security.

department of homeland security. that was to that was to better cope with the threats that our country would face in the 21st century. i believe that this post-9/11 reforms have worked very well. . the record shows that after the creation of the department of homeland security in 2002 and the establishment of the national counter-terrorism center in 2004, there was not a terrorist attack by islamic extremists on america's homeland for almost seven years. nobody would have predicted that on september 12, 2001. we have a lot to be grateful for. some of the most successful defenses of our homeland in my opinion have been truly amazing. the details of these remain

largely unknown. two of those occurred in 2009 with regard to to terrorists. arrested less encumbered with plans materials needed for devastating bombing attacks on the york city. but this was the most dangerous terrorist plot on our soil since 9/11. the interest in the sense of the consequences it would have had. it was only stopped by a brilliant, courageous, and cooperative work by our intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security agencies. senator collins and i and other members of the committee had been briefed on the details. everything worked just as we hoped it would when we adopted the post-9/11 the legislation. there was remarkable agility,

brilliant judgment, total cooperation between intelligence, homeland security, law enforcement, both here within the united states and throughout the world. notwithstanding, these remarkable achievements over the seven years after the enactment of the department of homeland security and some of the extraordinary defenses which occurred in 2009, the record also shows that in 2009, three islamic terrorists broke through our defenses, a man who murdered an army recruiter and little rock, ark. simply because he was wearing the uniform of the u.s. army. the doll house on who murdered

13 americans -- nidal hasan who killed 13 people in fort hood and abdulmutallab. there are clearly some things about our homeland defenses that are not working as we need them to. we need to find out together what is to win on and why and fix it. i know it is probably not realistic to promise the american people that we will stop every attempted terrorist attack on our homeland. but i feel very strongly that that must be our goal. it is certainly the standard that will guide our committee during this inquiry and the other we are conducting on the terrorist attack at fort hood and any recommendations for executive or legislative action that we make as a result of our inquiry.

our purpose is to review the current state of the homeland security through these cases and to make recommendations for reform that will get our homeland, america, as close as possible to 100% secure from terrorist attacks. in the christmas day bombing case, there was so much intelligence and information available to our government that appointed to abdulmutallab's violent intentions that it is beyond frustrating, infuriating, that this terrorist was able to get on to that plane to detroit with explosives on his body. he was able to do so because of systemic failures and human errors. our responsibility is clear. we have to find what systemic failures were and fix them.

if the air administration or we and our tool operations find there are personnel of the federal to government who did not perform up to the requirements of their jobs, they should be disciplined or removed. as is clear from the christmas day attack which almost killed hundreds, the fort hood attack which did kill 13, and the 14th of the zazi plot that saved countless american lives, the decisions of public servants who work to protect us from terrorists every day have life- and-death consequences. if we did not hold accountable those who made these human errors, the probability is greater that they will be made again. i have not called this hearing to knock down the new walls of homeland security that we build after 9/87. we have called it to repair and

reinforce them so to better protect the american people from terrorist attacks. it is in that spirit that i think the witnesses, the director of homeland security, the director of national intelligence and others for being with us. i look forward to your testimony and your questions and answers. >> senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> every day, the men and women of our military, homeland security, law-enforcement and intelligence communities work hard to keep our nation safe. they serve on the front line of the war on terrorism and over the last year alone, their efforts have helped fort numerous terrorist attacks. -- helped thwart numerous

terrorist attacks. but as the christmas day attempt shows, this must be strengthened. we dodged a bullet in the skies above the chart on christmas day. a mere fluke, and the state by the terrorist on that plane or a failed detonator prevented that attack from succeeding. the quick action of courageous passengers and crew helped spare the lives of nearly 300 passengers on flight 253. we cannot escape the cold, hard, fax. terrorists have not relented and their fanatical quest to frighten our nation's citizens and to slaughter as many americans as possible. their tactics continue to evolve. their tactics continue to evolve.

attacks inspired by al qaeda's violent ideologies including those by lone wolves or those perpetrated by smaller, on coordinated cells are incredibly difficult to deal with. the threats posed by american enemies continues to grow. our nation's efforts to defeat them must be nimble, determined, and resolute. this committee offers the most sweeping reform for intelligence communities since the second world war. the intelligence reforms and terrorist prevention act of 2004 did much to improve the management and performance of intelligence, homeland security, and law-enforcement agencies. the increase collaboration and information sharing has helped

our nation prevent numerous attacks. it is a work in progress. reform requires constant focus and attention to stay one step ahead of the threat we face. for example, despite the considerable improvements in information sharing, our intelligence community continues to rely on internal systems and processes that are relics from the days before reform. these systems have not effectively surfaced intelligence information so that analysts and officials can effectively identify threats in real-time. the president has asserted, and i agree, that there was ample, credible intelligence on abdulmutallab to warrant his inclusion on the no-flight list.

yet that bone -- yet that did not occur even though his father warned of his extremism. whether this failure was caused by human error, court judgment, outmoded systems, or the sheer volume of data that must be analyzed, we must develop systems and protocols to prevent these failures. ailures. consider what i believe to be the most obvious error in handling abdulmutallab's case. after his connections were reported by his father, the state department should have revoked his visa. at the very least, he should have been required to report to our embassy and explain his activities and answer questions

before he was allowed to retain his be sent. the state department has this authority. in fact, the intelligence reform act protect the department from lawsuit when its officials revoke ab said overseas. the state department failed to act. most disturbing is the state department is also pointing fingers at other agencies to explain this failure. the president is now directed -- has now directed the intelligence community to determine which of the 400,000 suspected terrorists on the watch list have a valid u.s. visas. that response is not sufficient bentham the government should immediately identified and suspend the pieces of all persons listed in the broadest

terrorist database operated known as the tide list until a further investigation is undertaken in each case. these of these up holders with suspected connections to terrorism should shoulder the burden of proving that they do not intend to harm this nation or its citizens. that they cannot meet this burden, we cannot take the risk of permitting them the privilege of travelling to our country. immediately revoking the vises up suspected terrorists -- the visas of suspected terrorists is only the first step. this is done only in some airports now. what happens now is that

confirmation only occurs when passengers have arrived on our land. there is no technological reason why this cannot occur. we did not choose this war. it was thrust upon us by terrorists who are determined to destroy our way of life. our counter-terrorism efforts must be tireless and steadfast. we must continue to build on the intelligence reforms that are already in place to make america more secure. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator collins. >> let us begin testimony with the hon. michael leiter. thank you for being here. >> it is my pleasure.

this is the committee that was most instrumental in creating ntsb. i want to open with a assertion. abdulmutallab should not have stepped onto a plane on christmas day. the counter-terrorism system collectively failed and i, along with director blair and nepal to non-oil and others want to tell you and the -- knowledge, and others, we need to do better. we have been reminded again how unceasing our enemy is and how committed they are to attacking the united states and how committed we need to be in protecting americans. to begin with, but like to take a rigid make a short rundown of the bombing attempt to give you a perspective of what we did mess. i want to start by debunking

what has become conventional wisdom with his this failure was just like 9/11. it was not. that does not make it any less significant and it does mean that the solution may be very different than what we approached post 9/11. it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence we had already collected. although the national counter- terrorism agency has long known about the threat of al qaeda, we did not correlate the specific information that would have identified abdulmutallab and capt. of that flight. more specifically, the growing characteristics of al qaeda and the potential of striking targets not just in yemen but

reaching beyond to the homeland was missed. ui would also note that the intelligence community repeatedly warned about the types of devices -- explosive devices that were used in this attack and how they might prove challenging to screen. despite all of that, and the overall theme, we failed to make the final connections. the last mile that linked the abdulmutallab to the spot. we had the information that came from his father saying that he was concerned that his son had in fact gone to yemen and that he was coming under the influence of on known religious

extremists and he was not planning on returning home. we also had other information coming from other intelligence channels provided different pieces of the story. we had a partial name, umar farouk, but no single piece of intelligence that brought that altogether. nor to our analysts bring that information together. as of assault, as you have noted, although abdulmutallab was identified as a known or suspected terrorists and his name was entered into our database the derogatory information that we associated with him at the time did not meet existing policy standards that were adopted in 2008 and promulgated in 2009 to be watched or placed on the no-fly

list. had all of the information that we had available to us been linked together, his name would have on top of the ban on that list and thus he would have been on a visit screening list and the board of inspection list. whether he would have been placed on the note-fl-fly list d have been based on the analytic judgments at the time. i have already noted one of the lessons we learned is that we need to reexamine the standards before people reach our borders. finally, mr. chairman, senator collins, members, without trying to make any excuses for what we did not do, as i hope i have made clear, we did not do things well and we did not do things right. i do think it is critical in that we note some context in which this failure occurred. i thank you for your kind words

about the successes that we have had but we must have more. each day, we received literally thousands of pieces of intelligence related to terrorism. it is more than 5000 pieces per day flowing into the center. we reviewed literally thousands of things each day, more than 5000 names each day that we review. every day, we place more than 350 people on the watch list. although in hindsight, we can assess with a very high degree of confidence that abdulmutallab was in fact plotting, we cannot do that at the time. although we must and to -- although we must and will do better, we must recognize that there is no single bullet. as the terrorist threat becomes

more nimble and multi dimensional, as illustrated by the threats we have seen over the last year, we have to have a multi dimensional, multi layered set of the fences of international cooperation, technology, military, law enforcement, to keep us safe as possible. with that, i will turn the microphone over to my other panel members. >> thank you. it is encouraging that your cooperation is so profound. >> i am glad to be here to talk about this. the american people and you need to know what we are doing and what we need to do. thank you for inviting me to talk with you this morning. but me echo -- let me echo the words that abdulmutallab shall

not have stepped on that flight bound for the u.s. the counter-terrorism system did not do its job. it is in large part my responsibility. i told the president that i and the other leaders of the intelligence community are determined to do better in the future. you heard from director michael leiter evidence and you would be correct in concluding that the system is capable of stopping this attack but it did not do so in this case for a set of reasons that i think we understand and we are working right now to fix. i should make it clear to this committee that there is a lot of responsibility in this area. the system we have now has been largely created since the legislation in 2004.

we should not underwrite the progress of the past as we move forward. the threat is also evolving. we have a good capability to detect and disrupt the sort of multi purpose teams that takes months of plans -- months to plan, rehearse, provide logistic support for an attack but we are not as capable as we should be of carrying out the much more difficult task of detecting these radicalized citizens of the u.s., europe, other countries like nigeria. for those who plan their own attacks who are inspired by alal

qaeda but not directed by them. we have to improve our intelligence systems further so that we can identify and stop these loan contexne contacts. as secretary, will tell you, we need to not just to improve the intelligence but the way in which we interpreted. the conclusions we're making on this evidence is that they fall into four categories. those are currently under way but we will continue to refine and work on them both in the and work on them both in the short term and certainly the

number one is changing the way we apply these no-fly criteria so that they're more flexible and continue to protect the civil liberties of u.s. persons. the no-fly list had been arrived at by a bureaucratic process that stretches across to the ministrations there was started in the summer of 2008. the ever implemented just before this administration came in and were reaffirmed by this administration and they were frankly rote by process and lacked the flexibility that they needed. we have fixed that and that is very important. i need to assign more clearly defined responsibilities for

analysis and follow-up of the information we now have. we have a situation in which everybody was responsible for working, everybody had the guts to connect, but i have not made it clear exactly who had prime irresponsibility, secondary responsibility, that when crunch time comes, people cannot go home at night until that is carried out. no. 3, we have to have an ability, and we are doing so, to adjust the resources as the threat ships. we had strategic warning of the intent to send operatives outside of yemen and yet i allowed the analytical resources to focus more on the internal yemen problem where we also have active threats to american interests. we did not add more resources to ensure that both parties were covered. we need to do so and are doing

so. we are adding resources immediately. fourth, you have alluded to this, we have to improve both the technical and human abilities to deal with this massive information that the terrorist research turns up. that is a tough task. although we have used a lot of technical tools in recent years, some of them are outdated. we have a priority effort to reexamine those to make sure that we are doing with the best of what is available and are using outside experts as well as those that we have inside. these improvements are not years in the making. we are working on them now. we have already made improvements in the two weeks since that attack.

we heard getting short-term ones done immediately and more importantly, we will work dynamically on them over time rather than waiting for artificial deadlines to take place. i have also convened a panel of outside experts that the book review exactly what happened in the december case and we need to take a more careful look and review the changes we're making to see if we are getting it right or to tell us what we are not doing that we should do. >it is important and i share your cool about the 100% -- share your bowl about the 100% safety issue. we need a system of offense and defense. go after them where they are, pushed our intelligence on all points and used intelligence to

strengthen us but not to only the law on that. -- not only rely on that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> good morning.. thank you for this opportunity to testify on this attempted terrorist attack. i am pleased to be heard to date of my colleagues. as president obama has made clear, this administration is determined to find the vulnerabilities in the system that allowed this attack to occur. our country's efforts against terrorism and those of our

international allies, i would like to take a moment to describe the dhs role in securing air travel. dhs is and can be characterized as a consumer of the united states government consolidated terror watch list which we used to help keep terrorists from boarding flights and to identify travelers who undergo additional screening. within the u.s.,dhs conducts the actual physical screening at checkpoints and provides further inflate security measures. outside of the u.s.,dhs works with foreign governments and airlines to advise them on which passengers may prove a threat and requires security measures on flights bound for the u.s. tsa this not screen people at international airports -- tsa does not screen people at international airports. abdulmutallab should never have

been allowed to board this u.s.- bound plane with explosives. the process to fix these vulnerabilities is well under way. we are all working on it currently. we welcome at the department the opportunity to go over the process to contribute to improving the federal government possibility to connect and assimilate the process and we appreciate the work they have done and the ongoing relationship that we have. we are focused on improving aviation screening and expanding international partnerships to guard against similar type attacks. in a bunker written statement i submitted, it describes various programs rigid and a longer written statement i submitted, i describe various programs we are implementing. the bottom line is this.

abdulmutallab was not on the no- fly list nor was he flagged for secondary screening. the classical screening performed by foreign authorities at airports in nigeria and the netherlands did not detect explosives on his body. immediately after the attack, dhs responded. we direct f dathe faa to alert l flights. we enhanced screening for all flights coming to the u.s. reached out to international partners, air carriers and other agencies to provide them information they needed on the ground. in our report to the president's on fixing what went wrong with it the president's report on fixing what went wrong, we have led five other areas of action.

first, as this incident underscores, aviation security is increasingly an international responsibility. that is why we have a multi continent tour to meet with international counterparts about airline and airport safety. this evening, i will travel to spain to meet with the eu colleagues to discuss standards and we will include in that information sharing, technology, and other related issues. second, dhs has created a partnership with the department of energy to use their scientific expertise to improve screening technology at domestic airports. third dhs will move forward with advanced screening techniques to approve -- to improve our ability to detect the types of

the closest -- the types of explosives used in the christmas day attack. there are currently 40 of those machines deployed now and we will deploy at least 450 more this year. fourth, we will and have strengthened the capacity of aviation law enforcement including the federal air marshal service. finally, dhs will work with and her agency partners to reevaluate and modified the way that the terror watch list is created, including how names are added to list its. i am glad to be working with leaders about this. in addition to this committee, who have done so much to improve our homeland security apparatus. i am also grateful to the men and women of the department of homeland security who do so much every day to guard our country against attack. lastly, i wish i could tell you

with all of this ongoing work and upcoming actions, that they will never again be another abdulmutallab. i cannot do so. what i can tell you is that this administration and the men and women of the dhs are working 110% every day to minimize the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack against the homeland and i am proud to be a part of that work. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for the substantive and spirited opening statements. i would like to indicate to my colleagues that the panel members have made themselves available for a private session immediately following this public session if there are questions that cannot be discussed in public session. we will have seven minute rounds

of questions. let me go back to the post-9/11 period and the common belief now witches that our response at that time was that there was not information sharing going on. there was enough information in the federal system that we should have found and been able to stop the attacks of 9/11. it was not being together on the same board so those connections were not seen. one of the great goals of the 9/11 commission was to make sure that metaphorically speaking that all of the information came together on the same board so it could be seen. i think what we have learned painfully is that there is so much information that it is being collected by the intelligence and other agencies of our government that it is not enough to put it on the same

board. we have to create a system to find out how to connect the information that we have, either technological or human. as you mentioned, part of what emerges from the christmas day bombing case is there was intelligence information about al qaeda being involved with somebody named umar farouk, his father comes into the embassy in nigeria and says he is worried about his son, there were conversations pent-up from al qaeda about a nigerian -- conversations picked up from of canada aboal qaeda about a niged

in an attack. children now, go on to google and search an enormous array of information immediately. nctc, you have a series of separate databases from different parts of the intelligence community. in that sense, you have access to all of them. there is not a program, a search engine by which you can buy act or automatic software programming that there would have been a hit and an alarm on all abdulmutallab, nigeria, december 25. am i correct >?

>> we do >> we do not have that exact capacity. i would note that over the past several years, we have worked with people from across the government and private sector companies that you would expect to have that technology. the answer has uniformly been that it is not as easy a problem as people would expect. i think we have some potential technological solutions on a very near-term horizon we are attempting to implement within weeks. frankly, we were surprised, i was surprised, at the extent to which other agency searches were not hitting against very critical datasets that might have uncovered this and then highlighted that for us and others. >> do you want to add anything to that? >> i would only amplify on what director michael leiter said.

the search tools that we now have depend upon certain characteristics. i do not want to describe them here. they also have blind spots that do not allow this sort of google-like idea that we have on our own computers. several of those shortcomings came up in this case, which we can fix. i think that the other thing i have learned from this is that almost all of our energy was focused on building systems and search engines. we do not have enough of a testing regime so that we do the what ifs before we have one of these incidences and fix them for ourselves. continued self testing is going

to be a great part going forward so we can make some of these mistakes for practice before we make them for real. there is a sense of real urgency to bring out after improving the search capacity across the databases you have to come up with linkages. >> correct. this is not a new problem from our perspective. we have not gotten to the point we need to get and we are trying to accelerate that now. >> the other way to deal with this is to assign cases, suspected cases, so people can call them. that is a difficult thing to do. i would like you to talk about this a little bit. presumably, that requires somebody being concerned enough

about a particular matter out of the thousands of cases that you have every day out of your concerns. let us take this case. if somebody had said based on the father coming into an embassy, we have to follow this or based on the intelligence stream that the arabian peninsula as working with a nigerian and something is going to happen on december, 25. somebody has to make that base my decision. do you have the human capacity to assign people to chase these down and have a responsibility almost as if this was a police department and you were assigning a detective to pursue a case? it is not to find the murderer in this case but to prevent a murder from happening. what is our capacity to deal with this with battered usage

of personnel? >> i think your question maris exactly right. the more difficult thing is deciding what the threat is in the first place. there are two things that we're doing to improve this. i have not had the capacity to do this and way that it needs to be done. we were going to expand the scale of that. we have been very good at chasing down threats that come out of afghanistan and pakistan. we are going to be better at kissing down the small bits of data that come out of east africa or north africa. we are establishing with new resources teams that have no responsibilities other than to win that. we are calling them pursued teams for the very reason you identified. find the small bits and hunt them down until we either figure out what is the one on board there is simply no where else to go and there is no other data

out there to be applied to the problem. >> just for context, i would cite to things. not by way of excuses but by the way of understanding. the only conversation on resources i had with director michael leiter leading up to christmas was a conversation the week before about how we would allocate a $30 million cut and the office of the dni, part of which funds the nctc. the general fiscal climate we were dealing with was one that was producing resources -- that was reducing resources. as you read through the guidance given to analysts that the were expected to cast a fishy eye on

the inclusion of a lot more names. the pressure was on the other direction. shame on us for giving in to that pressure. we have not greatly expanded the list from what it was on december 24. what is prudent is the put names on it just in case and then take them off if not needed. the question was quite an the other direction. -- the pressure quite in the other direction. i should not have given in to that pressure and we have changed that attitude and we will maintain that over a course of time until this campaign finally ends. >> i cannot thank you enough for what you just said. it seems to me that in the process of deciding what to watch list people being put on,

we were using a standard that was as you said legalistic. the very words, reasonable suspicion, come from supreme court cases that to govern warrantless searches by police in the u.s. we are war with these people. if somebody brings information to the u.s. government that suggests in any way that a person is involved in terrorism, he at least is justified in putting them on a list that will subject them to secondary screening before they board a plane to come to the u.s. that is not being used as a basis for arrest or conviction. this is a classic in the ongoing tension between security and liberty. i appreciate your admission and your commitment to change this. i think we were hearing to much

on the side of legalistic visions of privacy or even convenience and that ultimately jeopardize his security of the maturity. that is carried could news and i thank you for that. >> good intelligence is clearly critical to our ability to stop terrorist plots. that is why i am free concerned about the decision to quickly charge of abdulmutallab in civilian court. i believe that by to win so, we have lost an opportunity to secure additional intelligence from him not only about his own training but intelligence that could possibly allow us to uncover other plots that are emanating from yemen.

we know that those interrogations' can provide critical intelligence but the protections in our civil justice system as opposed to the military tribunal system can encourage terrorists to lawyer up and stop answering questions. i am told that abdulmutallab, once he was mirandized, that is exactly what he did. he stopped answering questions. my question for each of you is where you consulted regarding the decision to file criminal charges against abdulmutallab and civilian court? >> i was not. >> i have been a part of the deliberations for this high

volume interrogations unit which we started as part of the executive order. that unit was created exactly for this purpose. to make a decision on whether a certain person being detained should be treated as a case for federal prosecution or for some of the other means. we did not invoke in this case. we were thinking more of overseas people. we did not do with them but that is what we will do now. we need to make those decisions more carefully. i was not consulted. the decision was made on the scene and it seemed logical to the people there. it should >> i was not.

>> i think that is very troubling. it appears to me that we lost an opportunity to secure some valuable intelligence information that director blair described should have been implemented in this case. i think it is very troubling that it was not. three key intelligence officials were not involved. i would like to move to another issue. the facts surrounding the failure to retract abdulmutallab's of the separately troubles me. it appears that ultimately, no agency considered itself responsible for this decision point. the state department spokesman said that they did not revoke

the visa because it is not their responsibility. it would be up to the national counter-terrorism center to make the determination on whether to revoke a person's of the south. -- revoke a person's a visa. visa. dhs had been given the ability to revoke the says. visas. the secretary should have the ability to review and refuse the visa. i want to get at the issue of why abdulmutallab was allowed to keep it be sahis visa and who hs

the authority to look at the individuals listed on the broadest list, identified those with visas and take action to sesuspend them. whose job is that? >> i will admit that when i was told of that authority that i do not have, i was surprised that the state department said that i did have that. it is clear that legal authority resides with the state department. we do not have any authority to do so. the initial look for the screening center, for that number we have already reviewed anybody who already has a visa.

we have also been quite aggressive in applying the no- fly criteria for those that do have a visa. we have been using a less legalistic approach in applying those standards. beginning in the late summer of 2008, we began fully in conjunction with the state department, reviewing these applications in a way that i believe is far more advanced that was previously used with the state department. we now provide more advanced technology to screen these visas more completely and i am happy more completely and i am happy to address that in clo >> i think you are putting your finger on a characteristic of

this terrorist combating effort that we need to tighten down with the strong enthusiasm for counter-terrorism, the sense that we all have to be working on it. i think we did not try out some of the responsibilities as far as we should have. everybody is helping but who is it at the end? you identified one more where we want to and are going to tighten responsibilities and make them more clear. there is a tendency to say we have this capability and you do not. we should not let that interfere with the ability of anybody to do that. >> you have some broad