energy and affairs. the former chief operations admiral. thank you for your service, i look forward to the hearing. secretary west is no stranger to this type of initial review. he could share the independent review group. there is the disclosure of deficiencies following walter reed in 2007. this will be the adequacy of our force protection and in response to our policies. we can't look at these and there are some with a violent tendencies. there is concern about the system of officer if politicians in the services. the army calls at the wee hours. . . . it, must accurately reflect the strengths and

weaknesses of officers. problems must not be passed from one assignment to another. this hearing continues the committee's oversight of these issues that began this several briefings at the end of last year. we will continue this oversight in the coming weeks and months. i have said from the outset that we must take great care that our inquiries into the shooting did inquiries into the shooting did not compromise our i prosecution of the gunman in any way. we will continue our increase in the thoughtful and deliver a manner that will not undermine the legal case against an alleged shooter. i would also remind the members of the conditions ensuring the associate report and we will not discuss its contents publicly and ask members respect of those conditions. the primary concern of this committee is the safety of all of those who served in or support our armed forces. we owe this to our service members and the department of defense civilians and of course

the family members. at this time i turned to my friend some of the ranking member, mr. mckeon the gentleman from california. >> thank you mr. chairman. secretary west aunt admiral clark i join chairman skelton in welcoming you and thinking you-- thanking you for answering the call to duty to serve your country. you had a short time to develop their findings and recommendations and i complement both of you with regard to the breadth and scope. lynch rto documented and highlighted the lack of prepared as by the department of defense and by this nation to first recognized and then deal effectively and comprehensively with the existing internal domestic terrorist threat. this threat is not a department defense problem alone. lisio your point points out an integrated synchronize nationwide effort will be necessary to ensure national

preparedness to prevent and respond to future domestic acts of terror. major hasan have been an individual actor in the ft. hood shootings but the radicalization of an officer took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution should send shockwaves through all americans as to the power and reach of an enemy like al qaeda in yemen to generate such radicalism among other u.s. citizens. al qaeda and yemen declared war on the united states with the attack on the uss cole in 2000. while the u.s. has taken actions to curb their power and influence as an external threat, this nation and its allies seemingly have also taken action to assist in the organization. for example, in 2006, the escape

of 23 members of the al qaeda from a maximum-security yemeni prison including several who attacked the coal lead to the formation of al qaeda on the arabian peninsula. the 2007 release from guantanamo bay of said al-zawahiri one of the first 18 at that prison allowed him to join the al qaeda in yemen and to help plan the christmas day attack on northwest flights to 53. moreover the nation has not learned a lesson from september 11th. that organization that has information about potential or actual terrorist mushier that information with all who might act to prevent terrorist activities. as is becoming apparent such was not the case in idid the november attack by major hasan to had internet contact with al qaeda and yemen or the attempted christmas day bombing of

northwest flight 253 by a terrorist acting under orders of the al qaeda and yemen. with regard to the ft. hood gittings cure reporters clip major hasan's supervisors were aware of his shortcomings as an officer and medical professional and fail to act appropriately. the report is strangely silent on whether not major his son gave any clear evidence of his radicalization or whether there were any substantial clues about that radicalization that his supervisors should have acted upon. i hope that your testimony will address these issues. the report also points out numerous personnel policy shortfalls that contribute to the departments and preparedness to deal with internal threats. among the many findings there was criticism of current policies, practices and procedures related to identifying potentially violent behaviors, information sharing, the combination of religious

practices come counterintelligence activities in cyberspace and definitions are responses to prohibited activities. although u no specific recommendations as to how to resolve these issues, you are clearly suggesting that these policies, practices and procedures need to be refocused. tightened and implemented with renewed vigor. such a course of action suggest the possibility for closer government scrutiny by dod and other agencies. for example various electronic social media such as facebook, twitter and webpages and e-mails of u.s. citizens. the report is silent on how much should be balanced against the first amendment and privacy concerns. i would be interested in your views on this issue. finally you made six recommendations for immediate action. i would hope in your testimony and the follow-on questions you can address three of them in detail and why do you single out

those three from among all the other recommendations for immediate action. number when the need to synchronize continental united states dod emergency management systems with the national emergency framework. two the dod enhancement of joint terrorism task force and three, the creation of a dod entity to concentrate in one place the d.o.t. effort to gather, analyze and interpret data useful for identifying indicators of potential violence action. al-tikriti copperheads of inducible catalog of those indicators that can be updated continuously and made available throughout the d.o.t. in the military services. in closing i want to thank you again for your past and continuing service to this nation. your report is a significant first up in identifying the areas that need to be improved from internal domestic terrorist activities.

thank you very much and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman from california. now the witnesses, the honorable togo west, secretary west. make sure-- >> there we go. i have it now. thank you sir. i wonder if you have our written statement. i wonder if we can submit it to you for inclusion in the record? >> of course, both written statements will be submitted into the record without objection. >> we will take just a few minutes and admiral chloridize to hit some highlights of we would like to call to your attention. i would go first and with your permission he will pick up. >> very good, we look forward to it. >> mr. chairman and distinguished members of the committee on armed services, as pointed out, more than two

months ago on november 5th, 13 people died, 12 members of the uniformed military, one civilian and 43 were wounded when a lone gunman walked into the soldier readiness center at fort hood and began firing. that was a day of tragedy and it will be remembered as such. shortly after that event secretary gates and paneled this review and asked admiral clark and me to chair it ken ssr debinigno did we did so. the report has been submitted to him and it is now before you. secretary gates asked us to take a careful look at personnel policies, atsa procedures for force protection, emergency response measures in support of those to provide medical care to

those who serve. .. what we saw and found and concluded with respect to the last

we did not, because there was already way the intelligence aspects. that is assigned to a different read you. we do not look into the criminal aspects of this matter. we were instructed not to interfere with that. the criminal aspects of this matter. again, we were instructed not to interfere with that, and similarly, the fbi has had a separate review going forward to look into the sharing of information portions that had to do with them. nonetheless our mandate was widespread. it was directed towards having us look to find gaps and deficiencies as the secretary mentioned in policies,

procedures, practices by the department of defense and the services across the board. with respect to the alleged perpetrator, you will note that the -- we state openly in chapter 1 of several military officers did not apply policies to the alleged perpetrator. we also recommended that finding in similar findings reflected in the genex be referred to the secretary of the army for review as to responsibility, accountability and such other action as he shall deem appropriate. he has done so. the referral has been made. the army has to review under way now.

before i turn this over to admiral clark to fill in some details with respect to the review and the report that you have, three observations i think are important to point out. first, what we learned is that this is never enough preparation. there is never too much preparation. authorities at fort hood had already anticipated a possible mass casualties sent as reflected in their emergency response plans and their response on that day showed that preparation. two minutes and 40 seconds after the 9/11 call was received, first responders were on the scene of the shooting and by first responders i refer specifically to members of the fort hood security team.

a minute and a half after their arrival, the assailant was incapacitated. two minutes and 50 seconds later, two ambulances and an incident command vehicle from the post hospital alive and began to provide life-saving health care. with that response, lives were saved. and yet, 13 people died, scores more were wounded. we can prepare better. we must plan with greater attention, and we must make the efforts and look around the corners of our future and anticipate the next potential defense in order to deflect it. secondly, we need to pay attention to today's hazards. the fact is that we need to

understand the forces that cause an individual to@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ there is much in this report that was about violence. the violence by a service member against the colleagues. the effort is to detect the indicators that one might commit to catalog them, to make them available for the person who needs in of the indicators. where have the indicators in the kit? and to prepare ourselves to act when that evidence is before us. to make it available to a commanders that they can act and to be clear about their authority. as as them pointed out, we were

asked to do this review within 35 days. pointed out. we were asked to do this review within 45 days. the secretary clearly had in mind that there would be follow-on review of what we would come up with. for that reason, although we have cast our net widely, there were also boundaries, simply in terms of what the 129 or so souls committed to our leadership could accomplish. and this you will find there is space left for the follow-on refused often our recommendations in terms of the need to pay closer attention and closer review that. mr. chairman and mr. ranking member and members of the committee, this is how we structure it ourselves and now if i may turn to admiral clark

for how we structure the board report. >> we welcome you at the hearing. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman mr. mckeon, it is a privilege to be here again today to take this opportunity to talk up the review that secretary western and myself have for co-led. i know you have questions. let me talk about the first, the principal message is this: there are many policies -- dozens of policies about force protection. we've built lots of barriers since 9/11. that said, existing policies are not optimized for the internal threat, and the threat that we saw and we missed to fort hood incident was evolving and slide the barriers. second, let's talk about iding

employees. it is a difficult challenge the reality is that there is insufficient knowledge and guidance to identify individuals. guidance concerning the work place violence and the potential for self radicalization or radicalization in general while secretary west indicated its insufficient. and the key here is we focus on violent of any kind. what we found was a lack of clarity for comprehensive indicators, which then limit the commanders for the supervisors ability to recognize these potential threats. and so it doesn't matter if we are looking at somebody who might be inclined to hurt themselves, and by the way the secretary defense had that specifically in our terms of reference, incidence of suicide

or criminal and gang behavior or somebody at the king suppressed activity in doctrine or family violence or the evolving threats like radicalization, identifying the key indicators is critical to focusing the force on threat. so our focus was on violence that comes from any kind of behavior. but that's what we found especially was that policies on internal threat or an adequate. prohibited be fierce and actions need to be addressed in our report says specifically such guidance exists but it's incomplete for the day in which we live. let me talk briefly give out information sharing. the secretary defense indicated friday in his reaction to our review that we saw a requirement

to create the ability to adapt rapidly in the changing security environment which exists today, anticipating the new threats, bringing a wide and continuously evolving range of tools, techniques and programs and to play. robust information sharing is absolutely critical. along with that the command and control system to convert information into real decisions and real actions that require active information gathering, and we must remove the barriers, all of the barriers, information sharing is a key element allowing decision makers to connect the dots. we've got to get the information, the syndicators to the appropriate levels of command. and let me speak briefly about the response that we saw at fort hood because the secretary asked us to address an emergency

response. as secretary west has indicated, we were impressed with what we saw at fort hood. ladies and gentlemen, i served for 37 years. secretary west and i went down on the second day after the formation of our team. what i saw was the best after-action report i have ever seen in my life, with the kind of candor that was impressive. lots of good news. the base personnel were prepared. they were trained. they took appropriate action. their action was prompted. as the secretary indicated, the response to the active shooter was impressive. there were courageous acts. the first responders, local law enforcement personnel, the dod civilians, health care providers, all of their actions prevented greater loss.

that said, we still believe it can be done better. we've got to focus on better tools for commanders, focus on violence prevention. in whatever form it exists, we must adapt in the gulf to the rapid change. we must understand that this is not -- there is no single point solution here. change is going to continue at a rapid pace. we have to share information so the right people can connect the dots and exercise against the most stressing and pressing scenarios to make sure the we have a right. so we were impressed with what we saw at fort hood both military and civilians on base as well as those in the community who were key players in the outcome of november 5th. and all those reminds the greatness of our people. the strength of the nation and

resilience and character of our people on this point, and the rest of the team, our hearts go out to the families of those that were lost and those that were wounded in this incident. and the thrust of our activity, of our effort has been to do everything we know how to do, to help the secretary of defense put the spotlight on those immediate areas that need to be addressed in phase two of his organized effort. thank you, mr. chairman. look forward to your questions. >> admiral, thank you. adel clark, at oral west, we thank you for your telling testimony. it appears to me that there were to disconnects that lead to a major question. disconnect number one is the

actual performance of the alleged shooter on the one hand and who we are in academic evaluation. second disconnect would be one of intelligence type, whether that reached the right superiors or not. which leads to the bottom line question was a great deal overlooked because this will say medical person in a specialty which there is a shortage. mr. secretary?

>> [inaudible] mr. chairman, i paused just for a minute because i am trying to reflect on how much my answer takes me into a discussion of an area we've covered in the anned rather than their report. >> do your best. >> thanks for the encouragement. but i think we can say in general as to the way officers are evaluated especially medical officers and the way that is reported, that we have concluded and have said to the secretary of defense is this, first the disconnect you know it is correct. that is what we mean when we say the policies were not applied, that things witnessed or not always reported where they needed to be reported and that in fact the contradictory indications. and that with respect to the

second, and we recommend to the secretary defense that he take some public steps about this that we had to say to the force or he had to say to the forced, the department has to say to the force evaluations make a difference, and we can't do the job of leading were protecting against threats if honest evaluations are not done by those who have the duty, the information and the authority to do so. >> at -- admiral? >> a major piece of this is what is part of the record. and our report we don't tell the secretary defense what parts to make, what should go into the record. we say when he asks us for gaps and weaknesses and so we said

look, if an individual's track history doesn't stay with them, that leaves you open to potential weakness in gas. so there are certain things that are required by regulation that cannot move from station to station with an individual. that is something that needs to be looked at. with regard to the issue of performance appraisal, we all know the performance appraisal is a challenge. in any environment. that said, we use specific terms to say things we want to come vote. we didn't just use the term leadership. we use the term officer ship. if you look on page six and seven of our report we say specifically what we think happened here. we believe that some of the signs were clearly messed or they were ignored. i can't tell you which, and i can't go further than that because of the nature of the

restrictions that -- the information that is in the restricted annex. but there is no doubt in my mind or secretary west's mind that there are issues here and if there were not so we would not have said that to the secretary defense. with regard to the intelligence matters -- we did not do the intelligence review. the president had already outlined and authorized a review and we were giving specific guidance do not interfere. with that said, mr. chairman, since the review team began this action there's been a number of things in the public domain that tell us there is agreement that the dissemination of information process needs to be improved and there was a release on friday by the fbi that talked about the improvements that are clean to be made and are being made in

cooperation with the department of defense. our encouragement was this: we didn't tell the mix ackley how to do this. by the way we don't do policy. we were reviewing policy. you want people that are going to do policy to be confirmed by the congress and not people that were called on to do this in a matter of a few weeks i believe, in fact ensure of that having been there. so, what give them a chance to connect the dots. >> thank you 3 much. i ask unanimous consent that the and the man from texas be about to participate in today's hearing. they've had an opportunity as the question. >> without objection.

>> thank you. the concern i think all of us feel most keenly in this are there other potential threats out there. do we have other potential people that are in the system panetta -- system as well? the report was changed the silent on whether not major his son even cleared evidence of the radicalization. are there clues that the supervisors should have acted upon? clues about that radicalization that is supervisors should have acted upon. we know from the media reports of at least three instances he

acted in a matter in hindsight negative have raised concerns about his allegiance to the united states and possibly prompted action by his supervisors. his statement that the sharia law a trumped the constitution, his religious discussions with patients and his presentation to his colleagues that equated suicide bombers to service membered who died for this nation. what substantive evidence to your review turn up regarding major hassan's actions or statements the gate or should have given his supervisors any indication of his radicalization to what degree did the three instances i cited in my opening to this question i arouse concern by major hassan's supervisors about the appropriateness of such statements or actions and what was done with regard to those concerns? and what policies, practices, and procedures limited or blocked the ability of major hassan's supervisors to

appropriately assess his developing radicalization? and then i am concerned if political correctness was involved here and if the need for psychiatrists maybe beat us overlook some things. those are kind of my major concerns. >> mr. mckeon, let me try and answer that and i will try to insert remembering that there is a military and justice investigation under way and i need to be careful not to deal in evidence that will be used. first of all, let me say that overall i believe in their restricted annex you will find a discussion of the items you mentioned. but on the question of whether the signals were missed, whether there were indications let me say this, we have said in the

open report in our chapter we devoted and also in our executive summary and vacca just heard admiral clark referred to that again, some signs were messed, others appeared to have been ignored. the fact is that there was evidence and that is why we are referring to four or science for senior officials to note and react to. we explained those in specifics in flat annex, and our concern is yes there are policies in place that should have made the reaction to them possible. we should make it reaction possible throughout the force. and yet we have indications they were not acted upon, the need for the proper recording in

either ssaer or the oer, and the ssaer are used all the military schools, that is how we evaluate them both academically and as officers, to have those accurately reflect what is happening is an important tool for telling future commanders what has happened but also for making judgments on those officers as they progress. second i would add this -- again as perhaps important as anything once recorded the information needs to get to the people who will have to make decisions. i think admiral clark pointed out the fact we have several policies that say and we mentioned this in the report, practices that keep us from

keeping certain kinds of information beyond the period in the person's life and service members's life at which that is recorded. if there has been alcohol, drug use, rehabilitation program, the information is not for worded in the final. it is no longer in there after that is done and there is other kind of information which we have policies that specifically exclude keeping them and making them available in the files that go forward. we recommended that be looked at. there are times when it is important for us to be aware of changed circumstances and the circumstances we face today and i thought were going to ask about this when you first mentioned it, could this happen again. could an incident happen again. as long as there are humans serving in the armed forces of the united states or anywhere else in government and throughout society, self radicalization, becoming onset

because you believe you have been inappropriately treated in your workplace, prejudice of one sort or another can lead to violent acts. we need to equip the force and commanders with ability to detect by giving them the information you referred to and by equipping them to act on it. >> if i may, the things you addressed, alcohol or other prior things are things that affect the work place don't address the radicalization and that seems to be the real crux of this and we need to be mindful as we move forward. admiral? >> may i just say you're right and i should have mentioned the fact those are also indicators. that is what gets said, how one

speaks to one's colleagues and professes a view that suggests a willingness to act on that. >> i concur with your assessment also. i align myself with secretary west's, and i won't repeat all of those. i could answer your question in a very fulsome way if we were in a closed session but we are not and would welcome the opportunity to do that because there are real answers to your questions and those will be spoken to in the right time when there is authorization to release that information. let me make one comment about your question are there others help their to become -- are there others out there. i want to make sure why it is clear don't have an answer to that.

that the answer to that would not be evident by researching the clarity and the viability of the policies. which is fundamentally what we have done. the secretary asks us to find these weaknesses on the court and structure and architecture and so i don't know how to express the birth of that over the course of this whole discussion. it sometimes doesn't come through with just the way the written word comes out. but that answer specifically has to come from the collection of intel sources. we did not pursue in tell at all by direction and we were not seeking to, our task was sent -- he sent us a different direction. he sent us there specifically to help equip the rest of the department so they wouldn't go off on a broad sam hunt the good but the crosshairs on the areas they had to go after first.

and so as a follow-on to the things secretary west addressed, it is clear your question about what is the nature and breadth of this look like, that question has to be answered and we didn't go there because we are not interested, we went there because there was our task and i really do not have an answer for you. that said, the things secretary west commented on we do believe that there are indicators and those indicators need to be examined because the issue of self radicalization is one that is new to us in many ways and i listed that a series of kinds of behaviors that could lead to violence that are well documented in policy and directives and programs. such is not the case when we

talk about self radicalization. that needs to be addressed with speed. -- before, mr. chairman. >> we are now into the five minute rule. mr. ortiz. -- before, mr. sherman. secretary west, thank you for joining and for your service. maybe we can go back and look and you can inform the committee as to how he got this promotion, this evaluation and the performance now. was he promoted by a board? how do you promote him from the captain to a officer major? were there several members sitting on this board who recommend that he be promoted? beebee you can give an insight into how was done.

>> congressman ortiz, again, trying to be mindful on our part that we have explored this in some detail in the restricted annex which i believe is available to you and we want to be careful not to delve and talk in this session things the way of an effect on the military justice investigation, the standard practice for consideration for military medical officers and the army is yes they are promoted and considered by the promotion board. the board considers the officer evaluation reports, and also the record from the academic training, ssaer as i mentioned, so they make their judgments based on that and that happens in the case of every medical officer and so it would have happened in the case of this officer. >> there are several members sitting on this board. were they allowed to come up

with a dissenting view that maybe they were not all in agreement that this individual should have been promoted? >> these boards are controlled by statutory directive. in my time as the chief this was one of the very important things that the secretary of the surface and myself considered including specifics about the guidance that went to the board and the board than functions in accordance with guidance it gets from the service secretary. the statutory process precludes, controls is a better way to say, controls in very exact terms the kind of information that can come before the board. and this is to insure everybody has an equal opportunity to promotion and, you know, all the things that goes with that and has been developed over the

years. if you take our comment on page six and seven of the report, when we comment on the effect it is our view some things were missed or overlooked, that can give you a glimpse inside with our opinion is and again, i would love -- i don't like the idea i'm inhibited in what i'm allowed to talk about in an open hearing about this. i wish it was otherwise. but i would just say to you this: you can take comfort in the process if that communicates to you. you can take comfort in the process. what they are allowed to review is what is specifically in the oer or any material the member chooses to put in front of the board and there's a very exact process that has to occur if there's other information going to be placed in front of the board. and that is all i can say in an open hearing with the restricted nature.

>> understand, and the reason i ask this, i just wonder whether in this board met and maybe if they were dissenting views if they were able to filter all the way to the chain of command. >> i can only repeat what i said. i wish i we would be worried about our soldiers. we sell the killings it is on the cia in afghanistan. we are wondering if we could also, and maybe this is not in your line, but i worry about our service people. we were hoping we did not get those that people to be able to infiltrate our soldiers to with the lead to something like this. thank you so much for your time.

>> thank you. >> thank you both very much for your service. i have a button with a message which i cherish. it was giving to me by a principal architect of the system for the missile. i knew him primarily as an unapologetic offender of the second amendment rights. i never saw him without his hat and this button that said "politically incorrect and proud of it." that button was such a part of it that i attended his funeral and was pleased to see that it is there on him. i probably should not be wearing a button today. maybe i'm going to be

politically incorrect. i probably should be wearing that today because maybe i'm going to be politically incorrect. i suspect that these officers might have felt they were following policy because they had to policies which were in conflict. one of them was to be politically correct and not appear to profile. the other was to offer an honest and confident evaluation of the performance of the officer. now one cannot get inside their head but i would suspect they may have given more weight to the politically correct policy you don't profile. by the way we do profile and people understand that. if you are looking for a rapist you are probably not looking too hard preadolescent males and women. i suspect if the ethnicity had been different here that the policies might have been applied

differently. how do we get a proper balance between political correctness and the obligation to honestly and fairly evaluate? >> do you care who you get your answer from come? may i take that? were you are addressing that to me or to the admiral? >> both of you. >> okay. i will take it on. i hear the term politically correct all the time. and i know that people think they know what it means, but i am also sure. i think what we are talking about quite frankly is how do we do what we have to do to get the information to spot a people who are likely to harm our service members on the one hand versus how are we careful that in so doing we are not taking steps that lump people went to a group

and keep us not from favoring the them but from attributing characteristics to the entire group and thus convicting one person before we've actually learned what is happening with that person. and so i don't think there is a real tension here but we can't deal with if we realize this, in a work force we are already handicapped in trying to identify potential violators by the fact is a member of the military family, he or she is a member of the family who wears a uniform they have access to the installations. they don't get searched. they have their cards and they put them in and they get in and so the way that we stop them is to identify them ahead of time. and i think if we had made these recommendations and our report that we can look for objective indicators. if you have objective

indicators, a few catalog them and that is why we recommended an ongoing organization to do just like that, but the indicators a person might commit violence, make them available and make our decisions on the basis we will be able to get the job done and we won't have to worry about any other short-term expression that suggests we are not looking at the group because they are in a group. >> that the average american would like us to be a little more politically incorrect in circumstances like this if it is coming to result in better security. would you agree, admiral? >> i absolutely believe that the people of the united states expect and should expect that we will pursue the best security posture then we know how to possess. and certainly, our people

deserve nothing less. mauney take on this is that this and especially challenging, and this is why i refer to the secretary defense again commenting on the nature, the rapidly changing environment in the last decade, you know, the fourth generation worker scheme is our enemy in tends to go after persons in the seams and then the inside internal threat is an area our review suggests very clearly that we have done an inadequate job by identifying and fees' indicators. our focus is on identifying the the behavior so weak he quit and enable the commanders. i love one of the things the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said the day our panel review was set up one of the reporters said admiral, how do you look at this and he came out

clear and cold and sick i expect commanders and organizations to understand what is going on and for the chain of command to be functioning in a vibrant way, and that's the answer to these kind of problems and challenges. the reality is that the guidance on what kind of behavior to look for for the self radicalized and to which will are inadequate. i will tell you already some of the have been published. i saw a review of a message to win out in the united states army yesterday. we have to move fast and it is is the requirement. >> thank the gentleman. dr. snyder. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary west and admiral gouarec it's great to see you again. you've been great public servants through the many years. i want to ask this issue that has come up in the discussions about the fact we have an annex

which i did go and look at in this discussion. i think this is going to be a frustrating experience trying to figure out where to go for the american people and policy makers if we have this dichotomy between the discussion here, kind of generalities' versus talking about a specific case, and i need to understand by the way that is not a classified document it is official use only. it is one thing if we had in that room the criminal case filed, the interrogation, whatever is there. but in fact what you are conducting is an administrative proceeding based on the records in the military in order to problem solve and it's not clear to me why the american people are not entitled to see because it's part of the problem solving process these on redacted refuse

or academic report or college transcripts or whatever is in the record as part of an administrative proceeding. you're not putting those out there. he did this performance in college and we concluded then based on that that he's a criminal. help me with that. here's the problem we are going to have, you said it's not the right time to have this discussion. when is the right time going to be? will it be after i assume there will be a criminal trial, that may not be. there can still be at adjudication of, i am not talking about this case but there's always going to be a potential question of somebody mentally fit to go to trial where will this go. i don't know what this time is going to be for the american people and people in texas and military to have the kind of public discussion of the specific case. if i was a family member i would not be satisfied with go to the annex and we will discuss it.

i would want to know what happened with this specific case so when is the right time, where is the advice coming from that you cannot in an administrative proceeding with the documents out there, things that occurred before the criminal investigation, so where does your edify scum from and what was your specific advice for the annex for the specific documents? >> congressman, there are several aspects but i think i can do them quickly. first the specific question where is that advice coming from it is coming from the dod lawyers. second, would it be based on? it is based on a couple of things. first, i guess, the annex is fouo. much of it is from officer efficiency reports and the like. those are specifically protected. second, the overall concern what is contained will have an affect

on the military justice proceedings and on that score we have already been warned not to discuss that openly. it is available to you. third, i would point out even the annex as you pointed out as redacted is only redacted as to names. everything else we wrote is there to disclose what happens, what we found out, what we recommended, what's in the record, disclosed in the annex and then the question when is the time to discuss it? is, you've given the answer. it's after the conclusion of a military justice which may be a trial. i assume that is what everyone is preparing for but i don't know. i would make one other observation. we were not asked to find out what happened. we were asked to shore of the secretary defense there were not gaps or deficiencies in the policies, practices or procedures the would help us

either identify such a person and deal with them or protect the forests or be prepared for mass casualties coming forward or support military care givers and also to look specifically at how the army applied its policies -- >> that is where the gap here is today because we can go back there and try to sort this out in the annex but it will be a frustrating thing for the american people i think to sort out where these policies apply to the policies it would be different. i think lawyers for the most part will always say this may upset the criminal trial but we have to be sure we are offering of nsl brought the of protection that it's going to keep us from making america a safer, our military seaver and avoiding these kinds of tragedies and i'm not clear we are at that point today with the publication of this amex. >> may i make one very quick observation? in order for the american people

to understand this part of the process we had five teams and one of the team still with the issues as prescribed in the terms of reference and secretary west indicated three the look up the gaps, the weaknesses, the application here. so that it is clear we thought through the longer term process the person that headed the effort to was a four-star general from the united states army, and it is not just coincidence that he has already been given the task by the secretary of the army. we recommended the secretary of defense refer the findings we have in hand to the secretary of the army and the secretary of the armenian to the same officer to proceed with the case in order to speed the process and a rapidly come to a judgment of accountability. >> thank the gentleman. mr. jones. >> thank you very much, and to the admiral and the gentleman,

thank you ferre much. i had the privilege of being with you in previous years when you were in uniform and it is a pleasure to see you today in this important work that you have done to try to get to the bottom of this tragedy that happened at fort hood. i saw today in the express' and it's not earthshaking news but hassan sanitize history to really want to take my question in a little different direction. i know those who evaluated his performances are probably hurting very badly because maybe they did not see what they should have seen were reported with the d.c. and his actions. but i am very -- i want to know the environment where these psychiatrists in the military were working and let me explain that. there is no excuse for what

happened. and you have already pointed that out and have made recommendations that i know the secretary defense and secretary of the army will follow many of these recommendations. is there an environment where we have more and more of our troops with tci? -- and other mental problems from going to plummet after deployment. is in an environment that we need to have the psychiatrists. we need to have these psychiatrists to help the families of military.

maybe that is no excuse. maybe what should have been a red flag was not a red flag. i'll ask you both did you will respond to that. >> i will give you my answer rather briefly. i think you well articulated that it could tip of a possibility. you identified one of the things i'm not sure a lot of people did not understand. the united states military has had people in the combat zone for 20 years. we all need to understand this pressure on the force. i agree with you that these are realities. the things -- i agree with you that these are

realities and these people -- we can to the conclusion and by the way the secretary gave specific instructions to go look at the care of the health care givers and we have and -- haven't addressed that yet, the conviction they largely have been treated as a separate group. we believe the need to be treated just like the combatants. the need the same kinds of programs and support and all that goes with it. and so we did not look at tbi, ptsd. the secretary had the view he didn't need our view -- that he must've looked at that and had but one where he needed it. and so, we came to the conclusion these people are a critical part of the readiness posture that the united states

military and so great care is required and programs to support them are required. >> mr. chairman i want to thank both gentlemen for being here today for their response to each member's question and thank you for your answers to my question. i hope that my colleagues did here as i think i heard your response very clearly. thank you. with that i will yield back my time. >> i thank the gentleman. ms. sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman and gentlemen once again for your continued service to the country. i want to ask you from a different angle something that i may be wrong on the and it may be something to think and and don't know whether you had a chance to look at this incident. i think it's important for us to understand how we protect our forces internally as you said but i'm looking more at this as

another ministry official and certainly one section was what my colleague just talked about our need for psychologists and people in the military and how difficult it is to get them in their. but i'm looking more at a sense of a supervisor to somebody who works in this particular case, the alleged attacker because on the day that this happen as i was driving in the car i heard a radio station where one of the direct supervisors for the last year and a half he had now retired, a colonel who had retired had been out of the military about six months was on radio talk show talking about this alleged attacker and i don't know if you all got that interview, but he went on and on for about half an hour about all

the science he had seen with respect to this alleged attacker and how he never reported it. sorry think it comes down to two things. one, it is always difficult as a manager and if you go and ask for a look at the surveys where people are asked what is the toughest part of being a manager is the firing of people or the demoting people were turning in people. it doesn't make anyone feel good so there's that human reaction of, you know, i've got somebody here was crazy, and we tend to move them on versus todd wi-fi durham and then there's the legal issues how to fire someone and how difficult is it to do that. my question is did you take a look at that especially with this whole issue of how much you can damage the career of somebody who is -- has made the

military career and certainly -- i have heard from several soldiers of personal experiences where they are going to seek some help with a psychologist for example within the military. has come back to damage their career so much to the point they had to get out of the military. so, were you given that information about this talk show and this particular gentleman and how he preferred and solve these signs and never did anything about it and the only thing this gentleman's it is acquitted in tweet fast enough to retire because this guy was a walking time bomb and more importantly when you look at administrative proceedings do you have any recommendations of how we get to the basic idea manager but i don't want to hurt this guy but he might be a

crackpot? >> i wish to goodness that i was not constrained about talking about this. you might imagine how i feel about this having served 37 years and making the judgment that we have made here. we set to use the word officers chip. we were not just talking about the alleged perpetrator. they were responsible for developing him and educating him and channing him and developing him in the field of medicine and as an officer in the united states army. our impression and the words and our report are as straightforward as we can save them. it needed work. >> any comment, secretary? >> i would add this with respect

to your question about having heard or known something about that conversation you had come it's not specifically referred to in our report or any of the information furnished to us. i have no doubt the colonel with whom he spoke was interviewed and that the results of that interview are part of what is in the annex so i don't think what the colonel had to say if he was a supervisor had been lost or missed it's now been become part of the record for the military justice review frankly. second, on the broad question how with we are going to -- and i'm rephrasing the house if we are going to pose all of these things designed to get this information and act on it are we sure we are not pushing commanders and supervisors to damage their careers of those to whom they may make a hasty judgment or based on not enough information and that has certainly been there and the discussion especially in the

team did the work this supports the chapter which is on personnel policies and practices and in fact we have a section called barriers to taking action on the information because there is a tension. i had one officer who is in this room who talked quite candid about the tough decisions the commander makes in deciding when to move on information and when not to. what will that do to the career the person is it fair to record it? and this is even part of the policies what we do or do not pass along from command to command, from a section of a person's career to the next station. all of those concerns are in there and yes, you're right we are in this report is pushing for a real look at the very

balance so the danger you mentioned is quite possibly there because we are saying it may be more important under the circumstances we face today to look harder for the information and once we get it to consider what we need to make sure it is passed to the right places and perhaps acted on the danger that you mentioned is there. >> mr. aiken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the hearing may be frustrating for some people, but maybe to the witness is because some of you feel somewhat constrained by you've been told to talk in a particular specific area. fortunately we are not constrained and don't seem to fit in the box very easily any way and the term political correctness has come up in number of times this morning and it seems to be high on my mind. i guess it seems to me standing back looking at the forest from a difference debate could

distance you have a guide that is muzzled but we also know some percentage of these guys are radical and star wars in the middle east and things and blow people up but we've got one of them that works for the military and he got radical and shot a bunch of people. that seems the symbol face. maybe that is not politically correct but it seems to be the fact saw my question is as i read through the report there's nothing that makes reference to theology or religion or one drives this guy and i suppose maybe there's a difference of opinion may be some people think somebody committed a crime like somebody goes crazy in the opposite decides to shoot people and the other prospective is we are dealing with an act of war torturo where somebody because of an ideological motivation decided something tripped him and was time to do wholley war. you have been tasked the, gentlemen, looking a procedure and seems the procedure would

have to take a look at people who are potential time bombs even if it is a time bomb motivated by theology or by some sort of a radical religious view. ..

>> your relocate to say we will look at this more closely. >> i will not opined legally but we recommend we look at all indicators. >> is it an act of terror? >> i will pass on that one. i was not asked to do that. the people who died were terrified and those who were wounded were to. >> thank you. secretary has answered the question right.

my ear the focus in my opening statement about violence and the indicators is all about the subjects you are racing to us. i would notched down different kinds of categories of people. the focus is islands. we don't care where it came from we want recommendations that said go look at this. with self radicalization the indicators are not understood therefore we do not react well. we have not spend the time to talk and the department what they are. just friday the army is publishing the bus that they have got today. the recommendations says you need to put together a group of people and look at this long term. it is not a single point* solution. >> my clock is running

tight. i still think we have this figured out. parts of what concerns me after this event at its fort hood they have this guy speaking who is part of the islamic society in america and according to the justice department is connected with the muslim brotherhood he is a money launderer, radical islamist and speaking to make people feel better at fort hood about islam. we need to build in some how the political correctness is overriding but common-sense there are factors that drive behavior that has to be built into our model and i am out of time. >> may i respond? >> this is a two-way street. we know we have over 3500

islamic leaders surveying faithfully. faithfully. the street runs both ways.@@@@@ over all, they look at the issue of provider the 58. medical provider fatigue. what can tell -- what can you tell us about that instance and reduce, the

questions that were raised. have we made progress? adderall product -- general west said yes. what have we done? >> i was going to answer and tell you said what have we done? [laughter] we need to give you that answer more specifically then i can today. i remember sitting in a hearing two years ago at bethesda medical center. and seeing health care professionals from officers stand up and say it is good you are here and looking at the care that we provide for those who have been served and wounded. keep in mind there is fatigue for the caregivers

because if we dark-- are not hold in body and soul and mind and do not deliver the best of care, it is one of the reasons why i believe secretary included in the terms of reference. whatever is done, the more needs to be done is. >> do have any way of knowing how we monitor that? >> who oversees that to understand the extent of what people are in tough positions? >> as professionals they have periodic surveys but this may happen one of the first that have this must chance to look at it. that is why we devote so much time. but i don't know how the ongoing basis it is monitored other than of the way they are assessed as they develop professionally.

>> i will add one thought. it is a real challenge because each deploy the chain of command do not go with them in the medical sense very often. they go as individuals. we examined the policies. what we see, when the person gets home, who assumes responsibility? that needs to be examined and also look at policies in the way they put in place. in order to care for the combatants there is a policy that in order to provide continuity of care, they go with them to their home. that extends to their deployment and there is a cost to that. i am not saying it is the wrong policy. it might be right but somebody has to examine this. we have not treated the

medical personnel like the combat since in terms of the programs and processes to support them. >> thank you. i know there are some processes of inventing physicians as part of tricare but there may be some downside. the personnel issue has been about the appropriate judgment of the officer shipwreck wrote we know and not necessarily in the military but the school -- medical school generally it is difficult to perhaps inhibit a person's career in some way and it has downsize in terms of the personnel practices that you have to go through.

part of what you're looking at to say how many times have we intervened to suggest people are in the wrong place? is that something as you look at this you have identified yes, we see this is working? or it does not look as if this is happening in many instances adderall? >> i expect phase two examination rate day drill deeper have to look at this. we raise the foundation to look at and our report. what i believe past happen is they need to understand the process that they have. what we found, the educational side, the dark side, there is one review group, then the officer side. the secretary and i were having a discussion talking about the specifics of this

and wondering about the what ifs. there is no way to know, if this counseling have occurred, what was it like? the core of our institution to grow and develop people, we are proud of what happens when the united states of america serves and the mom and dad and aunts and uncles see how they have grown when they get home. that is the essence of what officer ship is about and creating and establishing and enforcing standards. reit suggests that is looked at. >> mr. "forbes"? dume i think you mr. chairman and secretary and admiral. thanks for your service procure both good and decent men who have done a good things for our country. sometimes reseated a the american people oftentimes feel that we don't ask the

questions we wish you -- they wish we would ask. basic questions you want to ask not what is on our minds. they have indicated they will not tolerate that. we try to get our arms around the questions of concern. this is what they seem to say to me. they are concerned about individual acts of violence. but even more concerned to them is when those individual acts of violence have an association or support from a more orchestrated longstanding patterns of violence woven into a tapestry of concern to the american people. it seems to be missing from your report. let me be specific. i'd want to focus on the individual shooter but if he was a republican and nobody would have argued the republican party cause him to do this.

but as mentioned earlier, there are radical muslim extremist groups with the objective indicators because we hear them on our streets interviewed and read the threads and are corroborated in acts of terrorism. my question is, going back to the political correctness issue and want to give you a definition, the failure to save our do something that might offend anyone, even if that statement is true and can be beneficial stated. my question is not to the shooter but why did we ask the question in this report whether that political correctness kept any of the military personnel from applying their policies the way they would have done? that looks like a question that should have been asked and did we ask them if that

kept them were impacted them from applying policies? >> the question that we asked was, did you apply the policies, the question we asked in a review of the facts that we got, was if not, can we tell why not? that is another way of getting to your ears. you will see about three paragraphs that go to that. what kinds of considerations were being taken into account when they failed to act? i think you'll find we cover your concern. >> my response would be along the lines coming in the open, we would stress and focus the indicators for prohibited actions and activities.

here is the instruction. dot instruction and in our view, it needs work. when i asked myself that question, i probably don't use the words they would use maybe i would or wouldn't buy we were focusing on violence. violence that would generate from any source, do we have it covered? do we have guidelines in place so commanders know the reaches of authority and what indicators they can say that crosses the line and in our view and information sharing. this is a puzzle that fits together. if they don't have the information that would allow them to connect the dots, they will not get the

right answer. our conclusion is these areas require immediate focus. >> we want to get that balance but to get that we have to make certain we're not going to four on one side with policies even by implication are keeping us from getting at the answers we need. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you both for being here. talking about political correctness i don't think that is what this is about. i think it is lack of leadership for common sense or awareness. talking about officer ship, i remember when my husband was the army officer. you were responsible for everything around you. not just your own behavior responsible to notice and work with others and report.

this is a common-sense element that is missing. i would like to focus on at and what will happen to the officers and the people around him? those who saw things? what was the responsibility to each other? country and army? would redoing about them? you can hear training manual after a training manual of the light is not on, it does not matter. i am more concerned, i don't know if it is the unwillingness or an awareness but i am not sure but i worry mostly about that. most of us would say sure i can add more than one. i am not confuse. and the same thing here with all of the different pieces. we talk about connecting the dots but i don't think you

need a whole tapestry to recognize we had a problem. i was upset to hear my colleague talk about somebody to observe that and i am not sure what he did with that but i did not hear the interview but i worry about the rest of us who cannot get to the right answer. can you comment on that? >> and think your comments are very insightful parker of i would be in alignment completely purveyor cannot legislate good behavior. but you do play out by directive standards and guidelines. and leaders takeover. we use the term officership because we want do differentiate just between leaders in the requirements that the officer has that is beyond what leaders are required to do to create the environment for 6s for

people. with regard to suggesting that connection of the dots all had to be done to solve all problems we have not taken that position but said there were indicators that were there. they read their best on page six and seven i spoke to earlier. clearly the essence of the institution is about leadership. i talk about growth and development aspect but then helping people along the road on the growth of development process with the feedback that often chat -- oftentimes changes their life for their future. that is@@@@@@@ h,rn$@ @ @ @ @ @

a stone unturned part of that means give them every two will we know how to give them. >> thank you. >> i think i'm good follow

the admirals' lead on all of that with respect to page seven of our report. there is no clear indication of the fact we share your view of the responsibilities of leadership of supervisors, officers, when they are being responsible for those under their commander supervision. asking about the opening comments, first, the secretary communicates directly to the force to commanders and all, the necessity to a part of what is happening with those around him under the supervision. reaching out and seeing and in knowing what was happening to them. how there developing and secondly, effectively how

important it is honest incomplete and 80 vibrations from those we are tears arise and be responsible. those are directory for taking responsibility for those of whom you are responsible. >> i think the gentlelady. >> thank you, mr. chairman and gentlemen for your service for being here today. looking at your executive summary i did look at the annex which is useful, but i have some sympathy with what my colleague from arkansas said since it is rejected it would be nice if we could see it. looking at page six of your report. as directed in terms of reference to be reviewed the succession training and education supervision and

perversion of the alleged perpetrator of the incident at fort hood. i know that is how we talk we have the alleged perpetrator and incident but i think most americans say we had a brutal mass murder not an incident. as you pointed out mr. secretary, certainly the victims, those killed and wounded and the fish and -- families and those around were terrorized whether or not that is an act of terror of lawyers need to sort that out. i think following up on the "forbes" comment people recognize the 9/11 commission was correct years ago when it said we have an enemy that is the islamic extremist. their words. and the concern is we may not be paying attention that the alleged perpetrator i

think you're on to something there. many years ago and i was a second lieutenant in the marines, we were asked to keep a platoon commanders notebook. in that notebook, we had

every marines name and number and wife's name and dogs name and kept track of things so we knew who those marines were that were in our platoon. we keep track of them. then because that the word came now you cannot do that because those little notebooks with your comments will be taken away and made public. i think from that time it seemed in the next 25 years that i served and admiral, you served so many more, thank you for that by the way come with the ability to keep track of our men and women has gone further and further away from the commanders notebook you cannot keep track of major events of those in

uniform. i cannot quite track it, but have you made a specific recommendation to do something specific? or is that part of the reference he made for action by the secretary of orme? can you address that? >> >> the part referred to the secretary of the army is the specifics of determining the accountability and take a major as required and stepping forward i believe you were here when we talked about an order to speed the process in which we managers who stands structure and organization with conspiracy and continuity not only collected all of our information it also does the next phrase parker your comments about the platoon commanders no book reminds me again of what offers a ship is all about.

in moscow with the chairman of joint chiefs of staff say i a expect them to know what is going on in the group's. >> really have 20 seconds. but the point* is the officership needs tools and the platoon commanders notebook was part of that. is there a recommendation we take some legislative action that would allow for simplicity sake of the notebook to be reinstated? it is not there now. >> you see a reference zero talking about giving them the tools that they need and the gaps that exist so major's that have incurred because of the interpretation is what policy review is all about. if it takes the action it is exciting to know that people are ready to the data efforts. >> thank you gentlemen

mr. taylor. >> please respond. >> in the back of our report there is an appendix that list subjects 2.eight of the recommendations carries a recommendation of the ability to collect the information and carry it forward. that is part of what you have. second, you mentioned the victims in the wounded were terrorized i think my language was terrified but we knowledge they died and were wounded with courage and honor and dignity. >> the gentleman from mississippi. >> a want to thank both of your gentlemen for continued service to the nation. this is the first area have appeared to the committee

out of uniform see you can speak your mind. could this have happened on your watch? regardless of how you answer, why? and what is the message for those still in uniform? >> since we judged today that the policies and the programs and procedures of our guidance on unauthorized and prohibited activities are an adequate today, would suggest they were inadequately when i served. that is the what and so why. >> and enter specific recommendations? >> focus on the fears. -- behaviors', anything talking about protecting our people and workplace. focus on the violins indicators. once you do that, it does it include this or that? of course, it does. anything that will create

harm for our people. the guidance on the indicators and empower and enable the commander so they can take the action they need and connect the dots. >> did anyone or any co-workers or any of his patients raise an alarm flag and say i think he is dangerous? >> wrote this down at the top of my page. i am constrained. >> i do not think you are. >> i am sorry it. i am. my interpretation, i am. this is not report. >> i am asking new. not the admiral, the opportunity to talk to the american public, did anybody in his commander patients raise a red flag in this man is dangerous? >> i am representing the

work of this review. of you want to invite me back on another day to have discussions of the other topics but i am representing this review and this area of the discussion i restricted and i would be happy to talk about in closed session. >> you are invited back. >> >> first of all, think you both for your long service to the country but i want to start saying how offensive the notion this review and the classification is to the american people. this is another incident of a long pattern of the information withheld from the public that his nine 1/3 to evade -- germane to national security interest or impending on any legal

process. i read it. it was a finding of facts to the cause of the event and not to be available to the american public. i think classification of politically embarrassing and that should be top-secret come a secret and politically embarrassing come with a maturity of the information come before this committee that has been classified only because it is politically embarrassing. general casey it said right after the incident after these people were killed it was a great tragedy but it would be a greater tragedy if we overreacted and i think he was referring to the muslim americans who were serving in the military. i served in the cold war and there was a counter intelligence strategy for what we could detect individuals who had

sympathies with those who might be ideologically inclined to our opposition at the time. we had statements we had no organizations that were aligned at that time during the cold war. it would seem to me that we are at war now with the recall of the global war on terror or overseas contingency operations with a version of radical islam that has morphed into a political radiology to declare war on the united states. do you see that we were in fact, able to have a system of counter intelligence that looks at the linkages and objective patterns of behavior to try to decipher

these sympathies with those that are lined as an amazed to this country? >> i think the quick answer is yes. two some extent secretary gates even touched on that idea in his statement the other day when he released the report. we do have to respond and those imperatives include the possibility, that is why we're doing this that an incident can occur again. or worse. several, several different installations and they could be part of a coordinated effort. we need to look at what admiral clark emphasized as the indicators and then collect them and make them available so people can use them as they evaluate what is happening.

>> reinforce my earlier comments. c%rán&@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @r 2005/2006 and served with muslim americans and impressed with their service and dedication to their country and i believe that they would want a counter intelligence operation to

rear their prevented there was no question about there loyalty to this country. i think they are a valuable asset to the armed forces of the united states i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman and gentlemen for being here this morning and for the work you have done. i apologize. i have my own hearing so i got here late. but i do want to cover two areas, and if they have been covered, i apologize. but the first is the sharing of information. in terms, i guess, that kind of intelligence we know that we have and have the capability to evaluate internally, let me start their.

what are your recommendations in terms of how much we have not shared and how much we should? >> good to see you again. in the entire area of information sharing the recommendation in the simplest way is to take down the barriers. get rid of them and do it inside the department but certainly with the interagency process. in front of me is immediate fbi release saying a series of things will be done and did your committee at this will be something you look at. other investigations have occurred, the president chartered the examination of the intelligence process i am sure that is a subject to your other work but my response would be just as to

mr. taylor i am not here to represent that report but this report that our recommendation is made the barriers removed. we need to make sure we will hold the commanders responsible and to do that we need to make sure they have the tools sometimes that is a risk assessment tool, other times it is straightforward raw intelligence. remove the barriers is the us and does -- simplest way. >> two problems were addressed in our report the first is amongst ourselves within the department of defense from one commander to another or one command level to another to get the information that is necessary to make assessments. second biosite alluded to

from fbi statements is sharing between agencies. we saw some breakdowns in made some specific recommendations including increasing the operation of the joint terrorism task force. >> i hope we have the opportunity to have your back with you are not constrained the other issue as you probably know, i represent fort bliss and i get a chance to talk to soldiers and their families. i am curious to hear your thoughts. one of the things they are conflicted about is the fact before they deployed they are expected to be depp and know about the country they are going to. afghanistan and iraq. the incident in fort hood

has sent a chill, if you look at the internet to learn more, they may either be kim susceptible to radicalization come i get the wrong information, somebody may be monitoring it that might reflect negatively. how do we draw a balance on making sure that our troops going overseas in these areas are as knowledgeable as possible but don't have this cloud over them about the work they do on their own through the internet? >> that raises a good question. 1/2 to say i don't think we discuss our and allies that part of the balance if you will to prepare our report. we have now been focusing frankly even in their

research, i have to say or those connections come the indicators that we need to be aware of and evaluate. your point* us to the other there is an inhibitor in leading up to prepare is valid. my answer is coming if we pursue our research on the internet with good intentions, that is a likely to show itself. but if there are repeated efforts that lead to a growing radicalization, remember it is not just that but a whole host of them needed to re-read. we should be billed to separate the people who are a danger of self radicalization and those who are simply preparing to go that may not be the most satisfactory explanation but the best i haven't the

moment mr. conway? thank you admiral. good to see if this afternoon. you mentioned understanding the forces of radicalization for self radicalization and chairman in new indicated key factors of fireman's. it is easier said than done. clarity of pine side allows us in most instances to leave it to chance and connect the dots per car surely had we done that we could have stopped whatever of what was involved. but through the fog of the present clarity the ongoing comment day to day, we ought to always try to get better at what every year doing.

your report is great but i am concerned senator west you may have just called for a constant surveillance of the internet activity by all of us. do we want to live in a country that creates a surveillance program of thoughts and radius in those activities in a quest to be safe? there is a movie out there where this then it anticipates crime and they go and punish folks who they thought would commit a crime in the future before it was committed. i do not want to build an unrealistic expectation that in a free america where the protections under the constitution allowed us to think and say and express we don't sacrifice that in the quest to be safe.

i don't know if you'll never get there and will now be saved enough i delphi want to live in a world i cannot go to the internet for anonymity to look for things. if i am searching for bombs, but to create the expectation of the american people's mind coming we in fact, in the military could have our people watched so closely cover that an incident will never occur or if it does it would be a spectacular failure of command. i don't know if we can do that. >> i am not sure but i acknowledge that i understood the congressman's concern by his people. we do advocate looking for the indicators and recording

them and having an entity that can make a collection of what kinds of indicators should be looking for? use of the problem i would have with the question because we're not calling for the american people. when they are part of the military family, they enter our facilities and sacrifice. >> some things. that is already established. >> the more they sacrifice in terms of our personal freedoms and privacy is, the less attractive the uniforms will be? >> i think you are right. >> i would love to comment on that. i do not want to align myself with a movie. [laughter] that is not where i want to go. you don't either broker i have not seen it.

but i do believe we could have done better on this one. we want to do as well as we know how to do. the key word is balance. mrs. why we took great care not to define the exact hour comes put to say mr. secretary, as you look at this you need to put the spotlight on. we believe there is first to be harvested. then people in responsible positions make the decision about what the balance will be and we believe that will require everybody to challenge the assumptions and move forward and certainly the congress has a role to play. >> understanding the radicalization process, if you look at all of the advantages he had, -- , growing up

here, how did he decide to do what he did allegedly? i am a cpa, not a lawyer, and i can speak clearly. thank you for your comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think i am the last member so the end of the totem poll. hopefully, i just think that if we are ending here, we need to get back to the beginning and that is what the chairman said and you have seen consistency on both sides of the i/o, the same questions that were raised. on the other side and i think the chairman said it best what we have is a two issues at the american people in my district are concerned with that deals with the breakdown between

communication of the federal agencies, the department of defense, department of army, the fbi, cia or whoever should have known about these or communicating. after 9/11 that is why we have a homeland security so we don't have breakdowns of federal agencies. that is not acceptable. those solutions as we move forward and and stand you are under restriction and i served in fort hood as a former judge advocate and my son was born at the hospital majored hasan worked at. it is emotional for me to sit here. evander standing restrictions. with the army i say to people cahal -- you are quick to react to mmi

initial push back is give the army the benefit of the doubt we're doing things the right way and not purposely doing things to expose people to risk or danger that we can do better. with this review hopefully, that is true and whether or not you can address that specifically we will get better. ask an admiral it if we have the adequate policies those stocks will be connected and we will address them in the future. the one question i do have with that, admiral i don't know if you specifically say you alluded to the fact commanders will be held responsible. i don't know that means retrospectively because things from this but i don't understand what you mean when if the policy is inadequate and hold commanders responsible how can you hold them

responsible if the policy was what it was?ã not have been best with major hasan and how we connect those dots with what is adequate and what we can

expect from the commanders moving forward. those are what the people want to know. if i could clean up a few things because i have one minute left. mr. west, absolutely a terrorist act. could happen one of the charges referred whether it is or is not i don't know. premeditated murder and attempted murder charges but within the scope of the law it is centered. i will not question why it was our was not charged. >> we're not there yet. it maybe. >> i want to close with the idea that has been raised a few times with political correctness first is good order and discipline i disagree with what is said to record all these guys wearing the uniform behind you understand their sacrificing a lot of constitutional rights, that is part of the sacrifice and

service. we know that when we signed our name on the dotted line and getting into formation. fact is parts of the deal. it needs to be remembered the supreme court has upheld time and again for the sake of good order and discipline come sacrificing their rates civilians have including political correctness for the sake it might not be all politically correct in the military. it gets to do that to keep us safe. with that i will thank you for your service and testimony. >> very briefly, our report points out that there are differences between uniformed members and civilians and the department. i've been referred back to the comments early on this is not just an issue in the

department of defense. if you look at the kind of threat we're describing we are talking about a challenge as a people. we did not say go change those rules, but we did point* out that is different. if we examine the whole force protection in firing we have to understand and make statements and those are made on balance and the policies have to be defined in the enabling wake going back to the point* to enable the commanders and institutions so they can be the command with the context of good order and discipline and what goes with that. >> final comments? >> thank you for being here to answer some questions i don't know if we all understand all of that, but it is what it is.

i said in my opening statement to the officer takes an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and it also said in my questioning that the media reports we have been given a, one of them is major hasan it made us statement from sure we a lot of the constitution. can you answer that? did he say that? yes or no? >> >> it is in the restricted index in a reference to anything he said it we decided to cite. >> okay. is somebody is an officer in the armed services and they make a statement such as i

quoted that would indicate opposition to the oath they took as an officer, why would they then have a right to be promoted to higher rank? or why are they left as an officer in the service? >> it is fair to say statements like that are indicators that ought not the best and taken into account to make decisions on precisely what you say. >> thank you very much. >> may as a clarify i did not say whether that was in their restricted and exploit and the comments that we did include are in that section and i personally would enjoy the discussion on that particular subject. >> let me ask, but in summary, if you agree with

my comments. that we have all been frustrated by our inability to discuss all aspects of the shooting at fort hood some things are not clear. more days to be done to identify and document behavior that suggested individual may present a danger and carefully examined the new tools were authorities need to address this. do you agree? >> hi all line completely with your word. >> think zero. >> we also heard there is a failure and what the independent review described as officers ship that the least in the case of major his son, the military officers failed to document his performance and abilities and his military the aviation. do you agree?

>> that is greater detail and then we said. we said they failed to apply army policies to the perpetrator. and there were inconsistencies with what they wrote to. >> admiral? >> secretary west is correct. >> let me ask a last question. i think it is very important. your term, officership, i think across the board, those in uniform should fully understand that term. what each of you have given it a definition of that term one more time? >> i will let the admiral clark go first. he goes most often. >> we talked about it at

length inside our review. [laughter] just a couple of days ago staff member provided me with the instruction that has in it that happens to be from the new rotor -- uniformed services university of health science and we can provide it to you. >> would you like that to be part of the record? >> that is fine. without objection. i a agree with everything that is in here and it talks about all the elements that talks about the commissioner in talks about upholding the constitution and that both and the standards and all of the things we would expect that go with leadership and a person who decides to live a lifestyle of service supporting the goals and objectives and principles and values of the united states of america. >> thank you. all members of the committee thank you for your service

on this panel, your leadership and of course, but the fact you have been such outstanding american and the jurors in the past. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations]

.

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] >> last year the legislature

paid a benefit to firefighters, police officers killed in the line of duty. same problem -- no funding. with the $800,000 our new fee system will produce, we can finally do right by these heroes and their families, and fund both of these programs this year. [applause] good government really does pay dividends, and we can do more. we can pass meaningful ethics reform this year. to my mind meaningful ethics reform must do four basic things. one, stop the sneaky back-door donations from committee-to-committee transfers. [applause]

two, ban one office holder from working and committing to another office holder. three, shut the door to the lobbyists for good. [applause] and most importantly, set strict limits on campaign contributions. [applause] missouri voters overwhelmingly mandated them. as attorney general i fought for them. the supreme court upheld them. it is just the right thing to do. [applause] in the last year, i have walked thousands of miles traveling our

fwreat state. i have had coffee with small-business owners on main street, and chewed the fat with cattle. i have visited with combat veterans and college kids, school teachers and scientists. i have met hard-working families struggling to pay their bills and laid off factory workers with no health insurance. a lot of folks were worried about their jobs, about how they were going to pay the mortgage and the medical bills. they are anxious about retirement, what, if anything, will be left for their kids and grand kids. but not once, not one single time did i hear anyone say, poor me. not once did anyone tell me, governor, i give up. times may be missouriians are

tougher. [applause] remember the lesson of the ice storm. our greatest strength lies in one another. if we can hang tough a little longer, work together and stay on the path, we're going to keep climbing and climbing and climbing. until we see the bright horizon. because missouri's future is bright. even now there are glimmers of recovery. some parts of our economy, like health care and technology, are starting to hire again. home sales are beginning to pick up where consumers are cautiously starting to spend. these first warm rays of recovery are a sign that our discipline and hard work of the past year are paying off for our people of missouri. and at the end of the day, whether we vote red, blue, or purple, most of us want the same

things -- a state that's competitive and prosperous. a state working where hardworking people can find a decent job, buy a house, and raise a family. a state brimming with opportunities so our children can sink roots and raise families of their own. a state where health care is abundant and affordable. a state where every child gets a first-rate education. a state whose natural beaut beckons us to hike and bike, hunt and fish. a state where neighbors help neighbors. do we have hard work ahead of us? yes, we do. but -- will we make progress this year? yes, we will. can we move faster if we work together? absolutely. [applause]

so tonight let's swear an oath to the people of the state we so dearly love and to each other that nothing will stand in the way of rebuilding our economy and reimagining our future. let's work together to make 2010 the year we put politics second and put missouri first. thank you, and god bless missouri! [applause] >> governor daniels was elected to a second four-year term in 2008. at this speech at the state capitol in indianapolis he discusses elementary school education, redistricting, and the state's budget. this is half an hour.

[applause]

>> mr. speaker, members of the assembly, good evening. we gather tonight to take stock of our state selves and assess the performance of our public duties. the sense of privilege one feels on this podium never diminishes, nor the sense of duty to report honestly and accurately on the health of our public institutions. it is our way in this state to speak plainly and to face reality squarely. the plain truth is, that life is difficult tonight for far too many hoofers -- hoo sism -- hoo sism ers. 1-11 workers is unemployed. 1-6 people on medicate. the average income in missouri fell last year by almost 1%.

we are distressed, disappointed, and dissatisfied at all of this. i know we are united in this chamber in seeking to do what government can work through and out of the national resession in which we are enmeshed. [applause] but hoosiers are also known for resistance and for keeping a sense of perspective. we know we have battled through tougher times before. we that even the shrunken incomes in our homes today are vastly different than anything we knew just one generation ago. we know our jobless rate is below the national average and well below that of neighboring states. we also know that this is not the only such meeting taking place this month.

across america, 49 other addresses are being given, almost all under conditions far more grim than those we confront. the one national study available says our budget problem is one of the smallest in the nation. our day's most celebrated business sage says, you don't know who's been swimming naked until the tide goes out. well, the tide is out, and now we know. compared to its budget, illinois' fiscal sbedge four times larger than ours. arizona, five times. california, six times. out there the governor recently exclaimed in expiration, how could we let something like that happen? so far at least, no one in this room has to ask that question. a young seaman sought a mariner's advice asking, what do i do when i find myself in a

gailforce wind with a dangerous reeve to leeward, to which the captain supplied, what you do is, you don't get yourself in that position. through point discipline of legislators on this floor and the superb business-like management of my colleagues in those balance coneys -- balconies, indiana stands in a different place than many other states on the reeve. they crashed months ago. indiana has a triple-a credit rating for the first time ever, saving millions in interest costs for our cities, schools, and universities. we will be using our carefully built reserves to get us through this next year and a half. any reserves most other states have long-since disappeared. they have slashed, sometimes virtually halted the construction and repair of state

roads. in michigan, they are grinding as fault roads into -- asfault roads into gravel as though to regress back a century. today all over indiana the dreams of decades are becoming real. the hoosier heartland corridor, i-69, and hundreds of others, all at full speed, under budget, ahead of schedule, taking shape before our very eyes. [applause] after growing education 12 years in a row, we were recently forced to trim it by some 3

cents on the dollar. but all across the country, education spending as been reduced by vastly more, by twice as much in places like washington, nebraska, connecticut. by three times as much in mississippi, utah. four times as much in minnesota and south carolina. six times as much in alabama. around our nation, states have closed parks, stiffed vendors, thrown people off medicaid, stopped plowing snow, and released thousands of dangerous criminals from prison early. overnight last night the citizens of iowa were protected by seven state troopers total. we have done none of those things and don't intend to. sadest of all, our sister state, at least 40 of them, are doing the worst thing possible in times like these -- they are raising taxes. adding to the burden on families already in distress and making their economic climate even less attractive to new jobs than they

were before -- michigan, wisconsin, new jersey, at least 11 more have raised income taxes. ohio, oregon, minnesota and 30 more have raised gas taxes. many constituents have raised multiple taxes at the same time. i hope you will join me in saying tonight for the people for whom we all work, we will make the hard choices. we will stretch the available dollars. we will do whatever is necessary, but we will not take the easy way out, and we will not make this recession worse by adding one tax burden our fellow citizens. [applause]

for us the economy did not begin with this recession together we brought this state to sol conveniencey through stewardship and reform. government spending in indiana is sixth lowest in the nation. an eighth place improvement from three years ago. we have the fewest state employees since 1982. we have heated the mariner's instruction. what we did was, we didn't get ourselves in the position of other states. and yet, the gail of shrunken revenues is still blowing. the reeve of higher taxes is still close ahead. sol conveniencey, like freedom, requires ecertainly individual lance. -- vigilence. we could be illinois in a minute

of irresolution. the budget you passed may have seemed frugal at the time, but almost immediately, we see who spent beyond their means. had we not, it would have obliterated our enfire state reserves in 12 months. so we have acted. i thank this assembly and our fellow citizens for understanding the unwelcome decisions we have made to date. we will need your continued understanding for more hard calls that are probably coming. we will make those for which we already have the authority. but there are savings measures only this assembly can make. my first request is to ask legislation to enable -- manage our two pension funds perth and terf under one administration.

nothing would change in the benefit or the amount of funding, but in the independent system, but what would change is the amount paid out in investment fee when we bid the job as one large bundle. if someone's wall street bonus is smaller next year, i think we can all live with that. [applause] we need the savings this bill would make possible. their equivalent, for example, to 1% of their k-12 payments or 10% of our higher ed spending or 10% of our combined law enforcement budget far better to reduce spen state expenditures than to make tougher respect must-do tasks of educating our young people and protecting the public safety. i make a second request in the

name of some of the bravest of those struggling this evening, the single parents of our state. there is no one more contemptable to me than a person who brings a child into this world and then fails to live up to the duties of parenthood. for those who compound their absence by ru refusing their court-ordered duty to pay child support, i have less respect. after five years of effort we have raised the number of child support collected from 50% to 58%. this is unacceptably low. the best states are upwards of 70%. we need new tools to make further headway. for instance, allow us to see that a delinquent father that wins money in one of our casinos shares some of the take with our children. every percent of child support improvement sends $7 million directly into the pockets of our

needyest households. please give your bipartisan support to the bray-lawson bill and let's provide millions of dollars to some of the homes which need them the very most. [applause] all of us are preoccupied with the hardships, but in time these hardships will pass. what must not pass is an opportunity to continue indiana's steady progress into reforming our public institutions. in 2005 you approved the top-to-bottom overhaul of the executive rules for the executive branch. we tightened the rules, whistle blowers, we created an inspector general and a new battalion of fraud fighters to police this

new era of fraud fighters. the dog that doesn't bite rarely gets noticed, but indiana has seen five years of scandal-free government, and we are determined to keep it that way. [applause] and so all hoosiers should welcome the excellent initiative to bring reform to the senior branch of our government. mr. speaker, mr. president pro tem. i applaud your proposals to raise the standards to which legislators will now be held. it will enhance the quality of your decision and the confidence

of our citizens in those decisions. that thank you for stepping forward so boldly. i look forward to signing this important new law. while you're at it, please respond to the plea of mayors of both parties and all parts of our state and end the egregious conflicts of interest that occur when public employees sit on county salaries. voting on their own salaries and overriding the decisions of their own management. how we ever permitted this to occur in indiana is one of those mysteries of history, but now is a time to strike a blow for good government scompend this abuse forever. -- end this abuse forever. [applause] in an era of reform, from this platform a year ago, i thanked chief justice randy sheppard and

their commission colleagues for a superb set of proposals to modernize indiana's pioneer day of local government. a state committed to helping taxpayers and limiting government to the role of the people's servant has no business than elected politicians twice our state's size. it is wasteful, antiquated, produces poor decisions, and reduces the public's ability to assign credit for success or blame for failure. this assembly has taken the first steps toward cleaning this up. you have dealt with the commission's 27 recommendations, five of them, most notably the number of cooks in the assessment kitchen by about 1,000. having as many as 22 different assessors setting property values in a single county was a formula for unfairness, waste, and all too often, corruption. moving assessment to a single

county official is a matter of common sense. the exact same principle replies to poor relief and fire protection. still handled as they were in 1937. just as you already did for libraries, we can maintain local distribution of relief, local identity and leadership of our fire department, while moving resources and taxing decisions to the county level where they can be made rationly for the benefit of all citizens. in the process, we can save millions and delet 3,000 more political offices for which there is little competition anyway. and we can put an end to the spiedspread nepotism that even when good people are involved doesn't pass the test of good

government. [applause] this may be, as we say, a short session, but we can still take a long stride toward modernization of our top-heavy and expensive local government. in no area is reform more urgent or more critical to indiana's future than in education. and here the news is excellent, and the momentum even stronger. 2009 was a breakthrough year in improving the way we prepare our young people for the lives and the work ahead.

first, this assembly heeded the call of president obama and others and lifted independent ipped's backward looking limits on charter schools and on considering student achievement in evaluating teachers. then a professional standards board led by our superb new superintendent, tony bennett, acted to strengthen standards for new teachers, and to open both classroom and leadership positions to those whose hearts call them to teaching from other walks of life. next, we must address the single greatest cause of student failure, the inability of so much of our children to read proefficiently. if a school discovers nothing else in a child's first year, it must enable him or her to read and comprehend the english language. too often failure is masked by the practice known as social promotion. sending an illiterate child on to higher grades is unfair to

the next teacher, damaging to our state's future, but cruelest of all, disastrous to the lung life being blithed -- blighted by that failure. if the state has failed in this most fundamental duty, it must try again until it gets it right. i ask you to pass our bill to stop social promotion and say to the world that indiana never gives up on its children, not one single kid. [applause] 2010 can be a historic moment for better government in our state. first, let's set the stage for

nonpartisan redistricting in indiana. too many times in american history, legislative dramas have favored haves over have-nots, income benlts over newcomers. the worst examples of gerryman desm ring can be found in the state laws. but they are nothing to be proud of. we praise that indiana's next redistricting be as fair as possible. members of both parties have requested lines that make more common sense than today. let's assure hoosiers that in our state, voters will pick their office holders, and not vice-versa. [applause]

lastly, some heart felt congratulations. just eight days into the session, this assembly has already made history by completing and safeguarding excellent work you made two years ago. 2008 you passed largest tax cut in the nation's history. you lowered the cost anly of owning the average missouri home by $500. the american dream of home one ownership is more affordable in indiana tonight than any other place in our history. but you did more. you provided unique protection and certainty through caps that secure these lower taxes from ever surging out of control again. as we all know, those caps will always be vulnerable to either legislative or judicial repeal

unless protected by our constitution. those who favor more government, more spending, and higher property taxes have every right to present their arguments before the caps become permanent. but they must have the courage to make their case before the final ash ters of our constitution. all the people of our state voting in referendum next fall. at 2:31 p.m. this afternoon, the people's branch of government lived up to its name. you gave the people the chance to decide, as i believe they will, that lower property taxes are here to stay. thank you for this latest bold move to show the world that in indiana we trust our fellow citizens and we truly put the interests of taxpayers first. [applause]

that we gather tonight in difficulty but not crisis, stress but not disaster, is small constellation. no one here will breathe easy or sleep well until we return to the full ememployment ibbed indiana knew just a year and a half ago. but we must recognize that the way we do our duty today is about more than just mud ling through the short term better than the next guy. it's about lengthening our competitive economic edge. every time another state raises the tax, can't pay its bills on time, or sends out i.o.u.'s at tax time, it slips another notch behind indiana as an attractive place for the next new job, the next new dollar of investment.

the better we handle the people's business today, the more business we will have for our people, and the more opportunity for our children tomorrow. even in this hardest year in so long, signs of strength are everywhere. forced by the downturn to eye choice twent between indiana and some other place, at least 50 companies closed up shop elsewhere and relocated jobs to our state. jobs came to michigan to marion, pennsylvania, wisconsin to auburn, mexico to elkhart. [applause] there is a long germ frs -- >> watching the agonies of other states, we make no delight.

if we take no enjoyment, we will take the job from companies who know a state with its act together when they see one. [applause] we will have a higher share of america's auto, steel, industries. when national investment fell by one-fourth the number of new jobs committed to indiana grew over the near record year of 2008. 2009 was the year when several young companies that may lead the electric vehicle industry chose indiana for their plant. our goal is to be the capital of this potentially massive industry of tomorrow. over the last two years, indiana

has been the fastest growing state in wind power. and now businesses seeking to build the equipment for this new industry are coming to cities in missouri. within weeks you will see us explode onto the solar power landscape. perhaps most telling, 2008 brought the welcome word that more people are moving into indiana than moving out. the numbers weren't huge. but they mark a big reversal from an era in which most years saw some of the most promising young people. one industry ranked independent ipped as the best place in america for new college graduates. a tea-bag's strength is redeveloped vealed in hot water. so far we have stood up to this reflection's heat with the stead y strength of hoo sism ers. everyone in the public's employ

has a chance to help and a duty to do so, remembering where jobs come from and who it is that pays for our salaries and every penny we dispense. two years ago tonight, i recalled the toughest question i was asked in my first months as governor when an eaflt coast c.e.o. asked, what makes your state distinctive? what makes you stand out? no need to ask further. look at any states still in the black, states preferred for new jobs, states adding to their public infrastructures. states where their taxes have gone down and not up. a single bold patch of color below lake michigan like a flower in a parking lot is the common feature of all such maps. let's conduct ourselves so that a year from tonight, america sees in its fullness what it now sees in part, that there is a special place in our land where

hard times are met with resolve, where government is the people's servant, not a privileged class. where bucks are not passed, decisions are not ducked, and scarce dollars are allocated, as adults do, to first things first. by then, america will see that same place leading the nation out of its decline, its traditional industries rebounding, and a host of new businesses blossoming. a place supplying the highest conduct in fts public arena. a special place called indiana to which the prite, the enterprising, the young creative are gravitating. it is not enough to stay off the reeve. it is our duty and our golden opportunity to set our sails and man the helm in a way that separates indiana from a leaking fleet and carries her first and fastest into the sunnier seas

ahead. god bless this assembly and this great state. [applause] >> joint session is adjourned.

>> next, president obama takes part in a town hall meeting. and live at 7:00, your calls and comments on "washington journal." on thursday, the supreme court struck down limits that corporations and unions can spend on political campaigns. this week on america and the courts, a look at supreme court's decision and its impact. we'll have statements from attorney floyd abrams and reaction from democratic campaign committee chair chuck schumer and analysis on the decision with legal scholars.

"america and the courts" today at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on "the communicateors" gordon smith on the fcc plan to expand the broadband speck trum trump and what it might mean for broadcasters today at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> now president obama pledges to push ahead on major parts of his domestic agenda. the president made these remarks at a town hall meeting where the main topic was the committee and jobs. from lorraine county community college, this was about an hour and 20 minutes. [applause]

>> hello, everybody! hello, ohio! thank you very much, everybody. thank you! everybody, please relax. we're going to be here for a little bit. everybody take a seat, if you have a seat. it is great to see you. can everybody please give jodi a big round of applause for the introduction. [applause] everybody is a special everybody is a special guest, but obviously you have one of the finest governors in the country in ted strickland. please give him a round of applause. [applause] my former colleague when he was in the senate, nobody works

harder than sherod brown. give him a big round of applause. you've got a dynamo pair of members of the house of representatives who are so committed to their district and committed to this state. [applause] i have been having a wonderful time, and your mayor has just been a really nice person. he and i shared a burger over at smitty's. [applause]

and somebody whom i'm hugely impressed with, because i'm just so encouraged by his institution, dr. ray church. [applause] it's great to be here in elyria. it's always nice to get out of washington. there are some nice people in washington, but they can drive you crazy. am i wrong, sherod? for two years, i had the privilege of traveling across this country, talking with folks like you about the challenges you face in your own lives, and

the challenges we all face together as a nation. people ask me this all the time. the single hardest thing about being president, is that it's harder for me to do that these days. it is harder to get out of the bubble. don't get me wrong. the white house is a wonderful place to work. you live above the store, which means i have a very short commute. i see my daughters before they go to school, and i see them at night for dinner, even if i have to go back down to the office, and that makes everything so much better. but the truth is, this job is a little confining. and that is frustrating.

i can't just go to the barber shop or visit the diner. so, i appreciate the chance to come out here and spend a day - to visit plants like emc nothing beats a day where i break out. i appreciate the chance to come here and spend the day. before i came here, i visited the e.m.c. precipitation machining plant. i sought the great clean energy job training program here at lorraine county community college. i appreciate the chance to spend a day with all of you. audience member: i love you! >> i love you back! [applause]

now, let's be honest. these are difficult and unsettling times. they are difficult times in elyria, difficult in ohio, and tough across the country. i walked into office a year ago in the middle of a raging economic storm that was wreaking devastation on your town and communities everywhere. we had to take some difficult steps to deal with that mess, to stave off an even greater economic catastrophe. we had to stabilize the financial system, which, given the role of the big banks in creating this mess, was a pretty tough pill to swallow. i knew it would be unpopular, and rightly so. but i also knew that we had to do it because if they went down, your local banks would have gone down, too. if the financial system had gone down, it would have taken the entire economy and millions more families and businesses with

it. we would have b#egs we would have been looking at a second great depression. in my first months in office, we also helped save two of the big three automakers from collapse. some people weren't happy about that, either. they felt that if you make a bad decision, you ought to reap the consequences, just like any business would. but if we had let gm and chrysler simply go under, hundreds of thousands of americans would have been hurt, not just at those companies themselves, but at other auto companies and at their suppliers and dealers, here in ohio, up in michigan, and all across this country. so, we said, if you're willing to take the tough and painful steps to make yourselves more competitive, we're willing to invest in your future. and earlier this week, we heard that the auto industry planned

to make all the three million cars and trucks here in north america in the next three months, up 69% from the first three months of 2009. we also passed a recovery act to pull our economy back from the brink. we cut taxes for 95 percent of working americans, 15 different tax cuts for working families and seven different tax cuts for small businesses, so they can start up and grow and hire. the recovery act was extending and increasing unemployment insurance, and making copra --

cobra available at a cheaper rate so people who lost their jobs could keep their health care. we made the largest investment in infrastructure since the creation of the interstate highway system, putting americans to work rebuilding our roads, bridges and waterways, doing the work america needs done. today, because of the actions we took, the worst of this economic storm has passed. but families like yours and communities like elyria are still reeling from the devastation left in its wake.

folks have seen jobs you thought would last forever disappear. you've seen plants close and businesses shut down. i've heard about how the city government here is bare bones. but it's tough. and how you can't get to work or go buy groceries like you used to because of cuts in the county transit system. and this all comes after one of

the toughest decades our middle class has faced in generations. this has been a decade where some americans made huge amounts of money, while many others pedaled faster and faster, only to find themselves stuck in the same place, or even slipping behind. even as you've found your paychecks shrinking, even as you've found the value of your biggest asset - your home - falling, the cost of everything has gone up. the cost of groceries. the cost of sending your kids to college. the cost of saving for retirement. and another pressure you've faced is the breakneck, unrelenting climb of costs for the health care you need.

here's the message i want you to take away. and we'll have time for questions. but i want to make this absolutely clear, i didn't run for president to turn away from these challenges. i didn't run for president to kick them down the road. i ran for president to confront them once and for all! [applause] i ran for this office to rebuild our economy so it works not just for a fortunate few, but for everybody who is willing to work hard in this country. [applause] to create good jobs that can support a family. to get wages growing and incomes rising. to improve the quality of america's schools and lift up great community colleges like this, which are so important to our future.

to make that higher education affordable for the children of working families. and, yes, to deal with the problem of runaway health insurance costs that are breaking family budgets, breaking business budgets, and breaking our national budget. [applause] now, since this has been in the news a little bit this week, let me say a little something about health care. i had no i illusions -- no luges when i took this on that this would be hard. seven presidents have tried it, seven congresses have tried it. and all of them have failed. i had a whole bunch of political advisers telling me this may not

be the smartest thing to do. you have a lot on your plate. the greatest economic depression, dodging two wars, you may not get a lot of cooperation, you may get pushback from the insurance companies, the drug companies. it's complicated. don't do it. let me tell you why i did it. i knew that insurance premiums had more than doubled in the past decade, that out-of-pocket expenses had skyrocketed, that millions more people had lost their insurance, and that it would only get worse. when people lose jobs, what do you think happens to their health insurance? what happens when their cobra runs out? i took this up because i wanted to ease the burdenens on all the

families and small businesses that can't afford to pay outrageous rates, and i wanted to protect mothers and fathers and children by being tarkted by some of the worst practices of the pins industry that i had heard time and time again as i traveled through this country. [applause] now, we've gotten pretty far -- now, let me disspell this nation. all i think about is how do we get banks lending again. i have been doing that the entire year. so that folks like sherod and -- and so have folks like sherod and martha and betty, but i also know that health care is part of

the drag on our economy. it is part of the eroding health care that our middle class families feel. here's the good news -- we have gotten pretty far down the road, but i have to admit, we have run into a bit of a buzz saw this week. i also know that part of the reason that this process was so long and so drawn out, this is just what happens in congress. it is just an ugly process. you are running headlong into special interests and armies of lobbyists and partisan politics that's aimed at exploiting fears instead of getting things done. and then you have ads that are scaring the bejesus out of everybody. and the longer it takes, the uglier it looks. so i understand why people would say, boy this is -- i'm not so

sure about this, even though they know what they have isn't working. i understand why after the massachusetts election people in washington were in a tizzy trying to figure out what this means for health care reform, republicans and democrats, what does it mean for obama? is he weakened? oh, how is he going to survive this? that's what they do. but i want you to understand, this is not about me. this is not about me! this is about you! [applause]it's about you. i didn't take up this issue to

boost my poll numbers or score political points. the way you boost your poll numbers is to do nothing. all of washington would be saying, what a genius. i didn't take this on to score political points. i know there are some folks who think, well, if obama loses, we win. but you know what? i think that i win when you win. [applause] that's how i think about it. [applause] so if i was trying to take the path of least resistance, i would done something a lot easier. but i'm trying to solve the problems of folks here that

folks in elyria and across this country face every day. and i am not going to walk away just because it's hard. i'm not going to watch more people get crushed by insurance bureaucrats. i'm not going to have the insurance companies click their heels and waub watch their stocks sky rocket because once again there is no control on what they do. so long as i have some breath in me, so long as i have the privilege of serving as your president, i will not stop fighting for you. i will take my lumps, but i won't stop fighting to bring back jobs here!

[applause] i won't stop fighting to make sure there is accountability in our financial system! [applause] i am not going to stop fighting until we have jobs for everybody! that's why i'm calling on congress to pass a jobs bill to put more americans to work rebuilding roads and railways, to provide tax breaks to small businesses for hiring people, and to offer families an incentive to make their homes energy efficient, saving them money while creating jobs. and that's why we enacted initiatives that are beginning to give rise to a clean energy economy. that's part of what's going on at this community college. if we hadn't done anything with a recovery act, talk to the people who are building wind turbines and

solar panels, making windmill blades, making cutting-edge batteries. they would have told you that their industry was about to collapse because they could not get funding. now in ohio, there are new wind turbines and batteries going into energy-nisht cars. -- energy-efficient cars. in fact, almost $25 million of our investment went to a plant right here in elyria that's helping produce the car batteries of the future. that's what we're going to do in 2010, 2011, and 2012 until we have this country back. [applause] force force so long as i'm president, i'll never stop fighting for policies that will help restore home values, to redeem the investment that folks have made.