out for the taxpayer. i have always believed that money was a close proxy for freedom. freedom, at the end of the day,i is what the american political system was designed to perpetuate. it is economic freedom thatxd unleashes the very initiative that drives our economy. it is freedom that empowersñi us to strive toward a respective dream that defines what the pursuit of happiness means for each of us. when you spend half of your day working just to pay taxes, you are indentured to government for that time. we always thought to get to the heart of what drives taxes. that is what we spend in government. this conviction is the core. at times, i was not as diplomatic as i shouldñrñiñi hae been, but the good news is as a result of all of that fosse and fight, the taxpayer was recognized at the table of our government in ways it would not

have been the case. . . eggs and rolling their own corn for grits and commerce selling jets, millions has been saved and will continue to be saved. could i ask the entire cabinet to stand up and be recognized for all those little things

that you have done over the last seven years in saving the taxpayer money and making a difference on behalf of the taxpayer? would you will stand and be recognized? [applause] of the you know that $110 million has been saved with the proviso that to put into the budget for the preferred drug list, or that we saved $1.8 billion of the last six years in our community long-term care program? i could go doll -- go down a long list of di-you-knows, but i will simply thank each one of you for those little steps that he took over these last seven years to save the taxpayer money. i have always believed that a deal to measure, if you will, of government is what it spends.

it all too often spends at a rate that is unsustainable and far surpasses the taxpayers' ability to keep up. with all those conversations and consternations, what we have seen is a worthwhile end and they have forced many in government to follow the lead of those paying for government in looking for ways to do more with less. this leads to the conclusion that i will ask for legislative changes beyond that which i have already outlined. i will call it quits. let me leave you with two parting thoughts. the first is from our family minister. in the prayer service before my second inaugural, he encouraged me to live like 6-8, live homily and -- live humbly.

i will be trying. i would pass his charge on to reach one of you who bear both the pressures and responsibilities of elected leadership. under the category of life beyond politics, i would ask that you focus on the things that matter most. many of you, if not all of you, are so far ahead of me on this are returning. i heard a story that has helped me in refocusing in the hopes that it might help you to. in early december, i was at the grand opening of a business in lancaster, war i ended up in an amazing conversation with the ceo, who found himself in himself1a of the plane that went down in the hudson river. it lifted off from accordion and a short time after, the captain came on and said they would be

headed back to the airport to land. it was interesting because he sat adjacent to the stewardess and saw no fear in her eyes as he said what he said. another couple minutes go by in the captain comes on, announcing just three words. prepare for impact. he could see the absolute sheer horror in the stewardess' eyes because she knew what it meant. you are fully loaded with fuel and you do not put that plane down on the street. you would be dying in about 45 seconds. in that moment, the whole of his life. flashing by. he said he before had the natural fear of death. in that moment, he was not afraid because he was so near. he talked about the time he had wasted, the time you spent arguing about petty things,

about things that did not matter with people who did. the times he let little things get to him. he said it was the most amazing process of letting go of all of those things in those 45 seconds. in essence, he died to himself those aggravations in the short time he left honor. but he did not die. he likened life to playing in a video game on bonus time, he should not beecher but he was, and therefore he would fully live each way in profoundly positive ways. he would try to make a difference in the lives of those around him and the world large. he would invest in the things that really matter, those things you cannot see, cannot feel, cannot touch, but the things of lasting value. i do not know if i will ever see rick again.

i do now i look -- i do know i will be trying to follow his lead. as we work together hero these next 11 months and as we go our different ways after that, i hope you will, too. if we strive in this direction, it will make a difference in bringing all of us, republicans and democrats, the midlands and the upstate, south carolinian is together to better the lives of people here in our state. that is my hope. that is my prayer. thank you and good night. [applause] >> it was a long time to get there. >> wonderful. >> thank you. [applause] >> governor, i understand what

rick was going through. i have been there. thank you for allowing me to be here. we thank you. we appreciate you being here. i hereby declare this adjourned. [applause]

>> terrific, terrific. >> coming up next, another state of the state address with jay nixon. but following that, campaign finance case. and later, fbi director testify on the attempted bombing on an >> congress returns to session this week. the house returns on tuesday.

the house plans to be out of session on thursday and friday so that members can attend a retreat in baltimore. like it -- lighthouse coverages on c-span. the senate convenes again on monday. final passage is expected before the end of the week. see the senate, like, on c-span- 2. wednesday, sent -- president obama plays out the future of the country and plans to do with issues such as unemployment, help care in the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the state of the union address, wednesday night. our coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can also listen to the address live on your iphone with the c-span ready application. >> and now, another state of the state address with gov. jay

nixon. he took office last year. >> thank you. thank you. thank you, speaker richard, president pro-tem shields, judges of the supreme court, lt. governor kinder, state officials, members of the general assembly, and members of my cabinet. welcome, honored guests and my fellow missourians. it is a pleasure to be here and i am blessed to have with me my wife, georgia ann. [applause]

and our two sons, and jeremiah and will. [applause] one year ago, as we gathered in this very room, and massive ice storm struck southern missouri. miles of power lines went down, plunging tens of thousands of people into bitter cold and darkness. i will never forget what i saw in the days and weeks following. everywhere i went, people of every color and creed were joining hands to help their neighbors. they brought blankets and home cooked meals. they came with chain saws and pickup trucks.

they turned school gyms and church basements into havens of warmth and safety. they did not ask how anybody vote it. they did not care who was rich or poor. they came together in a crisis because, my friends, that is what the people of missouri do. [applause] that is a powerful lesson for us here tonight. the worst of times brings out the best in us. when the people of missouri join hands and work together, we can accomplish anything. [applause] that makes me proud of our

state, proud to be a missourian, and proud to be your governor. my hearts and prayers go out to the people of haiti. there are many ways we can help. i encourage you to go to our website at mo.gov and learn about what you can do. from the moment i took the oath of office, iacocca's my energy on one thing -- i have focused my energy on one thing, turning this economy around. we must keep the jobs we have and create thousands more. we must build a granite foundation for future growth and we must balance the budget without raising taxes. [applause] not sure we will need a second on that motion.

i will review some of the hard- one accomplishments of the year behind this. i will address the challenges ahead of us, highlight the opportunities we must take now to spur job growth, and layout my long-term strategy to create a vibrant future for our state. before i get to the heart of my economic message, i would like to recognize the brave residents and all -- in all branches of our military who have left their families in our care to fight or run the world. with us tonight is specialist michael thomas, a citizen soldier with the missouri national guard. he was serving with the national guard's agribusiness

development team in afghanistan when his convoy was hit by a suicide bomber in march of 2009. as a gunner on his vehicle, specialist thomas sustained a direct hit from the blast. for the sacrifice, he was awarded the purple heart. as commander in chief of the missouri national guard, i commend you. you represent every man and woman who has ever fought for our freedom and liberty in every time and on every field of battle. a specialist thomas, on their behalf, please stand and except the gratitude of your state. and accept -- and accept the gratitude of your state. [applause]

thank you. america's finest right in the heartland. every action we took in 2009 and every action we will take in 2010 is set against a backdrop of global forces that constrain our nation's economy. that is the nature of the complex world we live in. it will not determine missouri's destiny. we will. [applause] our most pressing economic challenges creating jobs, taking opportunities for growth, and balancing the budget. they are too important to be sidetracked by partisan bickering. that betrayed the trust of the

people. we need to take a long view and be wise stewards of the blessings that make missouri so special. our families, our communities, and our god-given natural resources. in everything we do this year, we must put our differences aside and put missouri first. [applause] i am an optimist by nature and nothing i have seen this year has diminished my optimism. my vision of the future is colored by abiding faith in the people of missouri. i want the little girl who cracked the code of cancer to be a product of a missouri school. i want the boy who invents a clean fuel to heat our homes and power cars to be a native son. i want thousands of missourians

using technology we can only dream of today. that is the future i see for missouri. [applause] to reach it, i want missouri to be first in job creation, first in education, first in innovation, first in quality of life, and first in leading this nation to recovery. [applause] everywhere i have travelled in the last 12 months, i have heard the same refrain from businesses large and small. give us the tools. help us trained workers.

we will do the rest. last year, are bipartisan jobs bill help put more of these job tools in place. we ramp up financial incentives for businesses that offer good jobs and health insurance. we focused state resources on targeted, fast track training programs to prepare workforce ready to step into those jobs. let me give you just a few examples of our success. there was expansion here rather than conducting a. there is a huge facility being created to fill prescriptions. the jobs will pay an average of $40,000 per year. a grocery distribution company owned by warren buffett is building a large facility that will create 250 full-time jobs with good wages. if warren buffett is bullish on missouri, that is good for all of us. [applause] smith electric vehicles is building a new plant in kansas city using our quality jobs incentives, creating 200 jobs and pump millions of dollars

into the local economy. the list goes on. while we were helping large employers, we did not forget about small businesses that are in mainstay of the economy. we eliminate the franchise tax for 16,000 small businesses like kelly furniture so they can expand and add jobs. we also start a small business loan program. one of those loans went to a company in eureka to make educational gains. she was worried she could not fill the holiday orders. she used her loan to build up inventory and hire another employee. please welcome one of the show me state's budding entrepreneurs, beth daniels from eureka.

[applause] job creation incentives only succeed if there are trained workers ready to step into those jobs. we upped our investments in training people. last fall, we began implementing are caring for missourians initiative to prepare people for feels like optometry and dentistry. over the next two years, we will be enrolling at least 1300 additional students in these programs at our colleges and preparing the students to meet our state's critical health care needs. we also put more money into programs at community colleges to help dislocated workers get

back into the job market fast. it is clear our key business incentives and work force investments are bearing forward, but much more needs to be done. that is why my top legislative priority this year is my 2010 jobs plan. it contains three key components. first, we must leverage every tool in tactic to help loyal businesses thrive. second, we must outrun and outfox are rivals to recruit new, high-tech companies to missouri. third, we must train a workforce that is ready to roll and second to none. the first initiative is my loyalty program for businesses already here. they will go to the head of the line for financial incentives to expand payrolls. we will give a bump to businesses that have been

yearlong for than five years. after all, these are the companies who have given generations of missourians steady paychecks. they pay the taxes that built our roads, our schools, and our parks. given the need to create jobs quickly, helping businesses accelerate their growth just might be the smartest investment we can make with the fastest return. [applause] as your governor, i will continue to push hard to recruit new businesses to missouri. make no mistake, i have a competitive streak. that brings me to the second part of my jobs plan. the missouri science and innovation reinvestment act. missouri is already home to 1000 biological science companies. this is an area where we can add muscle to existing strength. we will reinvest a small part of

the taxes paid by existing firms in missouri to recruit new ones. it will create a stable pool of funds to create access to capital and it will help turn scientific breakthroughs into commercial successes. we want our biotech company to grow because that creates more jobs. just as important are the corollaries of that growth. a culture of excellence and collaboration, a forum where brilliant minds find kindred spirits, a hotbed of ideas that sparked an ovation and a nexus of risk and reward where start- ups thrive. symbiotic is a perfect example of how this synergy works to our advantage. it is a global leader in animal health care. a couple of years ago, its president paul hayes decided to move the corporate headquarters from san diego to kansas city. he says there are five reasons why he brought his business to missouri. i am not guessing the first is the weather. his first is the opportunities for synergy in collaboration with other companies in the booming animal health clinic.

second, the proximity to its customers. third, financial incentives from missouri. fourth, missouri's outstanding work ethics. last but not least, a graduate from the class of 1983. all i can say is welcome back and go tigers. [applause] he will help recruit more companies like semiotics to missouri. that is exactly what we want to do. that brings me to the third part of our plan. it is a focus on missouri's greatest asset, its people. training for tomorrow is a new initiative to train residents for growing fields, like lab techs, nursing aides, surveyors, and mechanics. it gives community colleges the flexibility to have training programs where there is high demand an insurer's there are

enough workers to meet that demand. i have proposed a 20% increase in funding for customized training programs tailored to the needs of specific high-tech industries right now. [applause] by matching industry's needs with training programs, more missourians will be able to train more quickly. there is no place where the link between education and employment is stronger. [applause] i was at the college not long ago when the president there told me if someone wanted work, they should go to the dean's office today. they can sign up for a career training program in alternative

energy, health care, or draft and design. if they are willing to give it their all, he will help find them a job. so tonight, i call on you to show that same spirit. let's roll up our sleeves and pass this 2010 jobs plan. [applause] there is another group of people eager for work who have real world experience and first rate training from uncle sam. i'm talking about our veterans. when i was in iraq and afghanistan last summer, the troops asked me to questions, first, how is pujols doing?

second, will there be a job for me when i get home? tonight, i am proud to announce the creation of show me heroes, our new jobs initiative that is just for our veterans. the leader of this effort is of the missouri national guard. he will be calling on employers over the state, telling them about our discipline, dedicated, hard-working veterans. when a job is open, i want a veteran's resume on top of the stack so they get first crack at an interview. [applause] i am asking every employer in the state to step up and show that missouri hires specialists. [applause] four veterans who are ready to retire, missouri is the first place to book because we are going to continue to phase out the state income tax on military pensions until they are simply $0. [cheers and applause] veterans are not the only ones

who can get tax relief this year. we are also helping home buyers, putting $15 million into an effort to give the industry a boost and help more missourians before the american dream. if you want to buy a house in 2010, your state will pick up your property taxes for the first year, up to 1000 to under $50. we are offering 5000 is in tax relief if you make that house more energy-efficient. this will help put thousands of families in new homes, a jump- start the market come and give our tradesmen the green jobs

they so dire lead -- direly need. [applause] in this tough economy, we have to protect missourians from payday loan companies. [applause] hard times are like fertilizer for pay lenders. they pop up overnight like mushrooms. for people caught in a bad situation, maybe they're lost their jobs or their car broke down, palin ears might seem like a good option. the average pay loan was $290 in missouri at 430% interest. even at those exorbitant rates, you know how many loans were reported? close to 3 million. missouri laws are not tough enough to help people caught in this downward spiral of debt. we need to pass meaningful

payday loan reform this year. [applause] by any measure, 2009 was a rough year. in one way or another, the downturn hurt everybody's pocketbook. the unemployment rate was under the national average but still too high. a lot of friends and neighbors were out of work. to many lost their homes, farms, and businesses. many saw their benefits whittle away. the impact knocked the wind out of state government. revenue fell is staggering $778 million short of projections. the biggest one-year drop in

missouri history. the state government did what every family had to do. we tighten our belts, which stretched every dollar, and we reined in spending. we did not bellyache about it. we just did it. [applause] . we reduced our utility bill by 6%. i had to cut $600 million out of the state budget, but i did so. in terms of efficiency, we're not done yet. state government has been creating boards and commissions for this centennial or that special interest.

some do good work, while others do not do much of anything. they just kept growing and growing, until they turned into bureaucratic subsidies. in an effort to root out waste and inefficiency, i have already eliminated 13 of these boards and 2700 positions and i call on the legislature to get rid of -- and to order 70 positions. and i call on the government to cut more. [applause] working together, we have been able to avoid meltdowns we are

seeing in other states. massachusetts and nevada jacked up their sales tax. arizona is on the verge of closing their state parks and selling their senate house building. nevada's governor has proposed cutting k through 12 funding by $700 million. this is not going to happen in missouri. our early action and sound action have kept the aaa credit rating. we have saved the taxpayers millions in tax payers. it signaled that it is where smart money goes to grow. we're one of the nation's premier financial ratings firms, making us one of the top states

to lead the nation's recovery. by balancing the budget without raising taxes, making hard choices, and managing debt, missouri is in a strong position to accelerate out of this downturn, but we never could accomplish that without the stead fast bipartisanship last year. i want to thank all of you in this room for standing together with us. thank you very much. [applause] we must summon that same bipartisan spirit for the hard work that lies ahead. this year, although we are in

better shape than other states, we still face so bring financial challenges. revenue projections for fiscal 2011 are austere. we will have less revenue than we did it in 2009. we need the patience and good faith of every person in this general assembly, all 163 members of the house and all the members of the senate working as a team to manage our limited resources to move missouri forward on a path to prosperity. we must move off board once again. [applause] while we were taking steps to get immediate economic returns, we also need to be banking strategic investments to secure our long-term economic growth. investments in children's education, health care, communities that are safe and that vibrant and the beauty of our state. in our rapidly changing world,

the education of our children is a high-stakes enterprise. [applause] where students excel, we have a dedicated teachers to thank. [applause] all across our state, our public schools are stronger for the commendable work teachers do, and i in my just talking about the work in the classrooms. from the first bill on monday morning to the last bell on friday afternoon. i am talking about the extra hours, giving students extra help with math or english, and the weekends that teachers devote to 8 p. and band competitions. teaching is not just a job, it is a calling. criticizing public education is easy and cheap. educating children it is hard and takes a serious investment.

[applause] it is not enough to tell our teachers how much we value them. we must show them. that is why my budget this year has continued funding for our career ladder. our teachers have earned it. [applause] last year we provided record funding for classrooms even in the face of severe economic challenges. other states like kansas and georgia are restricting education funds already appropriated.

let me be clear, every penny appropriate by the legislature last year will go to our class terms this year. -- will go into our classrooms this year. our budget challenges next year are no less daunting. until the revenue picture changes, most folks in government understand getting the job done with fewer resources is necessary, but budgets are about protecting priorities. as we discussed my budget, and where and how much to cut, i took one thing off the table -- k through 12 classrooms. [applause] our children are precious. their education is too important. even in these difficult times, i recommend increased funding at a record level for our classrooms.

[applause] our commitment to education must extend beyond high school. for too long, steep tuition hikes have put college average for many missouri families. one family had three kids in college at the same time, still do. that is a big price tag. but they understood the value a college degree had it and were milling -- and were willing to make a sacrifice. they wondered how they would manage to pay all three tuition bills. i sure, we froze tuition at all two- and four year public colleges and our state. for thousands of families, that was a godsend. please welcome these outstanding parents, tom and sandy. [applause] we are not done. i call on you to join me and

lead the nation by example. in supporting another tuition freeze this year. that would mean missouri students and their families will not have to pay any more in tuition and fees two years in a row. [applause] i want to bring college within reach for even more missouri students by addressing a blatant inequity in the eight- plus scholarship program. it pays for high-school kids to keep up their grades, give back, and stay out of trouble. today, one-third of the kids in our public high schools cannot

even apply for the scholarships because their schools are not officially designated as a-plus schools. that is not fair. the scholarships should be open to every hardworking public high school student and missouri, and i count on your support to make that happen this very year. [applause] our children are growing up in a high-speed digital world. just watch them texting their friends. access to the fast lane on the information superhighway, without it, we will be on a dusty de corps. this year we are competing to bring high-speed internet to every part of our state, from the urban core to the last mile of the road. for small businesses like

strawberries bar-b-que, that means instant access to customers from jamaica to japan. a college student could take courses on her laptop, a cancer specialist could read it medical records from the doctor. we will compete for every possible dollar to turn this project into reality to help missouri stay competitive. you bet we will. [applause] there is an undeniable correlation between a state's competitiveness and the cost of health care. last year we were poised to make good progress on health care. the senate voted overwhelmingly to provide health care to missouri at no additional cost

for taxes. [applause] unfortunately, the proposal failed on the last day of the session. this year, having noticed there has been a little talk about health care, from halls of congress to town hall meetings across our country -- [applause] congress is debating significant health care legislation, but if that passes, if that legislation passes, it is our job to show steady bipartisan leadership, to maximize the benefits for the people of our state. [applause] there is another important health care issue that demands our immediate attention, autism.

[applause] this spectrum of disorders is diagnosed in one out of 110 children, and the sooner it is treated, the better their lives will be. miles and laura have a child with autism, and they have been an outstanding advocates not just for their son but for all children with autism. please welcome here -- please welcome them here this evening. [applause] blake's father tells and moving story about hearing his son speak his first words at the age of three.

reaching that milestone took months of intensive therapy. it was an enormous victory for blake, summed up rather nicely in his first word -- "mine." when their insurance company refused to pay for his therapy, they willingly took a hit because they know there is a critical period of time to turn on the light in the developing mild -- in the developing mind of a job with autism. if that critical time passes, the light goes out. children with autism should not have to wait for their parents to come up with the cash or insurance companies to grow a conscience. they need our help now. [applause] for months, i have stood with democratic and republican legislatures -- legislators on this and laid out a key bill that we will make a difference in these children's lives. this is the year we stand up to insurance companies.

this is the year we make them cover all to some. this is the year we turn on the light for thousands of children, this very year. -- this is the year we make them cover autism. this is the return on the light for thousands of children, this very year. [applause] there is another young man here tonight i would like to tell you about. his name is travis, and he is up in the balcony tonight with his family. both of his legs were crushed in a car accident caused by a drunk driver. his mother almost died of her injuries. they told me they feel lucky to be alive. travis is 11 now. he has had five operations on his legs so far and he will need three more. but he is making steady

progress. please welcome this brave young man. travis. [applause] a man behind the wheel of the car that struck him and his family was convicted of drunk driving previously, but there he was again, not drunk again, coming at them the wrong way on an exit ramp. -- he was drunk again. that is what i have proposed legislation to effectively prosecute and punish drunk drivers and remove their licenses and get them off the roads before they shatter more lives.

i urge you to send that bill to that my desk -- i urge you to send that bill to my desk this year. [applause] and the long term strategy for improving missouri's economy and enhancing our quality of life must take full advantage of natural heritage. hunting, fishing, hiking, camping are part of our way of life. you bet they are. [applause] when i was a kid, i did a lot of fishing with my dad. we will get up early, toss our gear in the back of our station wagon, and head down to the springs. i would be hip deep in cold water before the mist had rolled off the river. i learned many hours on how to

read the river, time flies, and fish for trout. i hope they will pass that along to their children. we need to get more kids off the couch, away from video games, back at a worse. -- back outdoors. [applause] because there are some lessons only nature can teach. tonight, i am pleased to announce the creation of a missouri state parks district. we will put more than 1000 young people to work this summer and are 85 state parks and historic sites. you bet we will. our parks system is a legacy passed onto us by people of an extraordinary vision and generosity. even in these lean times, we have a responsibility to be good stewards of these treasures

and preserve them for future generations. the youth corps will learn to be good stewards of the land from the ground up, picking up trash, cutting brush, building trails. they will also be an outdoor ambassadors in my effort to reduce a 10-year decline in our beautiful state parks. you bet. [applause] more visitors will also pump more money into our tourism industry for families that love the outdoors. there is just no better deal around. now we just have to spread the word. if you like to kayak or fish, bird watch or a mountain bike, come to missouri first. [applause]

our land has always been the foundation of our economy. our farmers have fed the nation and could feed a ton in greek -- they can feed a hungry world. we're trying to expand exponentially. we have to sell globally and buy locally. this year we will sell a record amount of corn -- corn and soybeans to taiwan. that is good for our farmers. [applause] here at home, every family should be able to share the bounty of the land, including fresh, healthy produce. that is why we will promote missouri's locals farmers' markets and encourage more people to start community

gardens all across the state. [applause] i have focused this evening on our shared obligations. creating jobs, managing the budget, holding down taxes. i have talked about working together to make our communities safer, stronger, and healthier. i have talked about making strategic long-term investments in our future. but we have one more piece of unfinished business -- ethics. it is time we gave the people of missouri a state government is as honest and straight-shooting as they are. [applause] last year, we demolished the patronage system long used for awarding licenses. we created a more efficient system with transparent processes, and it will produce revenue that we can put to good

use. yeah. [applause] two years ago, the legislature passed a bill to pay for college of families of veterans killed or seriously injured in combat. just one problem -- no funding. last year the legislature passed a bill to pay survivors' benefit to the families of firefighters, police officers, state troopers, and deputies killed in the line of duty. same problem -- no funding. with the $800,000 the new office will produce, we can finally do right by these heroes and families and found both of these programs this year. -- and fund both of these programs this year. [applause] good government really does paid dividends. but we can do more. we can pass meaningful ethics reforms this year. there are a number of good proposals out there.

to my mind, meaningful reform must do iour basic things -- four basic things. one, stopped seeking back door donations to committees. no. 2, ban someone from working for a political consultant for another office holder. 3, shut the revolving door between the legislature and the lobbyists for good. and most importantly, set strict limits on campaign contributions. [applause] missouri voters overwhelmingly mandated them. as attorney general, i fought for them. the u.s. supreme court upheld them. it is just the right thing to do. [applause] in the last year, i have logged thousands of miles traveling our great state. i have had coffee with small business owners on main street and chewed the fat with cattlemen.

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 people are worried about their jobs. about how they're going to pay the mortgage or their medical bills. they are anxious about retirement.

what if anything will be left for their kids and grandkids? but not once, not one single time did i hear anyone say, "por mi." -- "poor me." not once did anyone tell me, governor, i give up. times may be tough, but people from missouri are tougher. remember the lesson of the ice storm. our greatest strength lies in one another. if we can hang tough a little longer, work together, stay on the path, we will 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. health-care and technology are starting to hire again. at the home sales and industrial

production are picking up. consumers are cautiously starting to spend. these first warm rays are a sign that our hard work and discipline 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 is competitive and prosperous. a state where hard-working people can find a decent job, buy a house, and raise a family. a state brimming with opportunities, where our children can sink roots and raise families of the run. or health care and funding is affordable. where every child gets a first- rate education. a state whose beauty beckons us to haunt, bite, and fish.

a state where neighbors helped neighbors. -- a state whose beady beckons us to hunt, bike, and fish. will we make progress this year? yes, we will. can we work faster, if we work together? absolutely. [applause] so tonight, let's swear an oath to the people of state we so dearly love, and to each other, that nothing will stand in the way of rebuilding our economy and imagining our future. let's work together to make 2010 the year that we put politics second and put missouri first. thank you, and god bless missouri. [applause]

vice president for the center of competitive politics. jamin raskin is the constitutional law professor at american university. they are here to talk about this court ruling from yes today. let me begin with you, mr. hoersting. let me show you this opinion piece by russ feingold. "usa today" referring to corporate money coming into campaigns in the future. here is the "new york times" editorial --

your reaction? guest: i think if you would check the "wall street journal" you would see that it is a victory for free speech. getting into the car -- corporate governance issue, it is true municipalities and cities want to change the way corporations are governed. that is possible and they can certainly provide more remedies for minority shareholders who thinks that candidates should not be supported. but at the end of the day, the supreme court ended that rationale as a basis for banning speech, which is the issue we are dealing with. guest: i am pleased to hear you

say that the state's should go ahead and legislate in ways to require corporations to get the approval of shareholders. that would be one way to repair the damage. we have had some bad supreme court decisions intervening in political life. for example, halting the counting of ballots. this one takes the cake. the supreme court has toppled decades of precedent to say a corporation is essentially a person and citizen armed with political rights. that does open the floodgates, as he said. billions of dollars being spent by corporations to elect candidates that conflict or agree with the corporate agenda.

that is really the only way they can spend their money because they are legally bound to spend the money in a way that will enhance the value of the shareholders. host: you refer to the editorial in "the wall street journal" -- let me also show you an article written from one of your colleagues. he says -- guest: that is a decent argument for those who think there is not enough corporate money in our

politics now, but let's look at the reality. take a look at exxon and mobil. in 2008, they had profits of $85 billion. but it decided to spend in -10% of that money to get the energy policy they wanted, that would be more than the obama campaign, mccain campaign, and every candidate in the house and senate. that is just one company. we are talking about a fundamental transformation of the character of the american political democracy. i think we need a constitutional amendment to declare the corporation, as the supreme court declared it bus, a preacher of the state legislators. corporations are set up by the public for our economic purposes, to accumulate and generate wealth, but as the chief justice said, they have

always understood there are dangers to allowing the state to be allowed -- allowing them to be involved in politics. guest: the supreme court essentially said the matter what organizational form, as an organization, you or a person, have the ability to participate independently in political campaigns, and you do not need to buy a newspaper to do so or own a broadcast station, like fox news, the talk about campaigns and politics. this opinion stores flourished amendment footings, even for stations like c-span. few people understand that the government's position in this case was the ban corporate funded speech. the only thing that prevented them from reaching the corporations was one exemption by congress that it could have removed at any time. with this opinion, media

corporations have restored their first amendment rights to talk about campaigns and politics, and the court said a media corporation can do so, all corporations and labor unions may do so. guest: but the constitution guarantees the freedom of the press. congress has never attempted to look at that. it is one thing to say fox news has engaged in political propaganda. klein, everyone agrees with that. but to take $15 billion in profit and put it into political campaigns? putting into black water, goldman sachs, bank of america? one thing congress needs to say is if you get federal bailout money, you are not permitted to engage in political expenditures. essentially that is taking the money the taxpayers can, giving it to all corporations, and then

turning around and then telling us how to vote. guest: so do have moved from right of the press to rights of corporations to bans on federal contracts. of course, there is the right of the press to the gate on the first amendment. in politics, in a speech. but the press, it is an activity. it is not a class of individuals. it is an activity. if the first amendment were written today, it would have the freedom of the internet, there was no such people back then. the press is an activity. we can get to the persons nurses individuals issue. i know you like that. the@@

country. when corporations have been given the same civil rights as citizenry -- this is not what

the founding fathers had in mind. guest: i would respectfully disagree. full participation is but the court recognizes. the idea that participation by organizations who are really the association of people -- that is put corporations are. c-span is a corporation. handgun control inc. is in inc. -- inc. but in the end, it is just people participating in politics. the idea that you can allow organizations regulated by, government and taxed under our law, for them to participate is somehow a brand of fascism is completely misinformed and an invalid commentary on the

opinion yesterday. guest: but you echo the chief justice's opinion. this is a fallacy that has been rejected numerous times. the court has always said in a corporation is not an association of people, a membership organization that people join. it corporation is an artificial entities chartered for economic prosper. the money that comes into the mcdonald's corp. war halliburton corp., goldman sachs -- guest: that is ultimately controlled by shareholders -- guest: the money that comes and

does not come in for political purposes. you cannot go to mcdonald's to contribute to their political action efforts. all the more so the money you paid to utilities, for example. the lever, what the court decided in you could take money from the treasury and help to get someone elected or not. they do not need to spend hundreds of billions. they just a few billion to incentivize the people on capitol hill. this represents a change in and were politics. host: i will let you respond, but let me show you a headline from this morning in the " financial times" -- before i read that, let me also show you "the new york times" --

your response? guest: the idea that money is power will increase under this provision is fundamentally flawed. right now you have a large corporation that avail themselves of lobbying. it is the middle corporation to run being left out in the cold, prior to yesterday's opinion. here is why. everyone talks about bailouts for a.i.g., bank of america, other financial firms, but the treasury department is not thinking about what a.i.g. thinks of its policies. i am sure bank of america has

lobbyists on capitol hill daily. they will always have their connections. it is the bid list corporations and the smaller nonprofit corporations, that under political committee restrictions under the law that you favor, cannot afford the administrative cost, and if they could, they do not have enough people in the organization to adequately fund the pact to make it viable. guest: few people realize the chamber of commerce, 96% of commerce members are entities that have 100 employees or fewer. that is not an organization. political continue organizations could get money together to speak to its citizens about who should be elected and who should not be. host: back and rouge, louisiana.

-- baton rouge, the louisiana. caller: this is pretty complicated from the first amendment issue. this is about the ability to spend money -- free speech. how can both of you give us your opinion on that particular point? secondly, if you compare the ability of large corporations to spend compared to the individual, how do you see the judge's decision, in terms of putting it into context? guest: thank you. the supreme court said money is essential to speech and cannot be limited in the political

process. i have questions about that, but this decision is far more devastating to the hopes of real political democracy, one-person, one-vote. this says we can put in our $500, but the big corporations can spend millions, billions of dollars in the elections. in fact, the logic is they should be able to directly give to campaigns. if they could be treated like citizens and would move from we the people, to be the corporations, why shouldn't they be able to give money to politicians? corporations are money and people, and we are fundamentally changing the face of democracy. host: i will let you respond. guest: that is ok, i would like

to speak to the caller. this idea that he keeps on bringing up, one person, one vote, it was never the idea the government would limit how much we could speak. the idea that the government can put its thumb on the scale and decide when we have spoken enough, that is completely foreign to the first amendment. second of all, corporations are associations of people. they put out information that voters are to take into account when they go into the election. it is true, corporations are not citizens, they do not vote, but they are associations of people, and they speak all the time as associations of people. let me pose a hypothetical.

let us say a candidate ran on plumbing a concealed handgun law -- on allowing a concealed handgun law. is this a bad candidate for us? the employees of handgun to think have to say it is illegal to say anything about this candidate? it is incorporated. but i happen to work there, so this is what i think. of course, that makes no sense. this would be enormously valuable in determining who our leadership should be host. host: we are going to come back to this. let's go to some phone calls. caller: i had a problem with these gentlemen. i think it is disingenuous. under no circumstances is a

corporation a person. to claim otherwise -- how can you look at yourself in the mirror? this is simply another step toward the right. you have people being disenfranchised by big money, big pharma, and look at the result. the middle-class has been destroyed this will exacerbate the issue and it needs to be addressed. to claim otherwise the funds logic and you are insulting our intelligence. host: we are going to allow to take this one -- jamin raskin to take this one. guest: citizens united have to

look at the case and three argue because the court itself said that on its own volition, decided to raise whether or not the top positions could be held your point is right. there are things that can be done. in the past, when corporations have gone under control, we have amended constitution. the 17th amendment gave us direct election of senators because as the populist said, we were getting corporations who were driving legislation to get their people elected. we need to amend the constitution to say that political free-speech is for people, not corporations. you can go tofreespeechforpeople.org for that. also, if you get federal bailout money, you cannot put that money into federal elections.

consumers should start a movement to demand corporations adopt policies that he did they do not get involved in political races, and if they do, they need a full vote by the shareholders first. if you are opposed to that, you are not standing up for the right of corporations, but corporate executives. what about the shareholders? are we going to end up with democratic corporations, republican corporations? this is a dangerous polarizing decision in that way. guest: i find a lot of hyperbole in what he is saying. i cannot believe he is looking to amend the first amendment. that has been a bedrock of our republic. i find another thing interesting that you keep on bringing up. a federal contract then. if you get any tax money whatsoever, the idea that you can put that back into campaigns

is preposterous and should be cured right now. but let's look beyond your assumptions. you are not saying is the corporation that is the problem. you are saying the problem is the government putting its upon on the scale. you do not want tax money taken by force to determine who wins or loses at the about box. and yes, the laws that you advocate are the result of congress pushing into a bomb on the scale. the millionaires and was passed to protect incumbent politicians against wealthy sell fine actors who could give them a run for their money congressman raise their own contribution limits. they'll licht raised limits for their own party committees. then they beg the sec to tamp down on independent groups in the last few cycles. what i find is your distaste for

federal contractors have to be based on the government put in its time on the scale, but that is precisely what you're advocating with all these laws. host: lakehurst, new jersey. democrat line. democrat line. caller: i have a question for

i am sure some shareholders would disagree with. the idea that the government, because a few shareholders may have a problem with what corporation is doing, can ban the corporation from speaking entirely, is misplaced. the supreme court dealt with this issue. they said if congress is

concerned that the mccain-time gold bill -- they would have made it full-time. the corporation may do whatever it months. host: terry on the republican line. sebring, florida. what are your thoughts? caller: i have a comment. i just want to say, if all americans would take the time to read the decision, they would see how it benefits all americans and it is purer in hell it should be understood. this administration is attacking corporate america.

corporate america needs a voice. . host: what on your thoughts on labor unions being able to do the same?

guest: labor unions are membership organizations. if the courts as people have to join a union and they disagree with the way they spend the money, they get the rebate and get the money back. unions had the right before this decision to create political action committees, and that was sufficient. we did not need to go ahead and said that they could take money away from the treasury fund. host: debbie on the independents' line, you are next. caller: good morning. they seem to be evading direct questions from the caller is in regard to individual rights. the corporation is not an individual. if i work for our corporation and they take funds out of the corporate money and sway public opinion on a senator or the mayor or whoever, they are not representing me. i am part of that corporation.

stop evading the questions that the callers call in. quit talking about all of the semantics and get to what the people are afraid of. they have every right -- it is justified you are just giving more power to the corporations. as far as the caller who called in about "if you read it," well, people out here have read it. i have read it myself. it is a horrible decision. it threatens all of our individual rights as voters. host: if you have not read it, you can go to our website, c- span.org. we have the oral argument from the website as well as the ruling and the reaction from various people. mr. hoersting. host first of a -- guest: first of all, i agree with the earlier caller to what is the fantastic decision. the facts of this case were not brought corp., citizens united, wanted to run a movie -- a non-

profit corporation, citizens united, wanted to run a movie, "hillary: the movie." they said, "let's put it on cable for video on demand." this is where they ran into mccain-feingold. it says that any communications over broadcast, satellite, or cable within 30 days of our primary election can be banned if it is run by a corporation or union. now, this documentary by citizens united was actually banned and not permitted. the supreme court, when it finally got the case, asked the government, "we understand your position that you mate dan movies -- may ban movies, is it also your position that you may ban books?" he said yes.

if a book says vote for or against a candidate and is paid for by our corporation, which all of them are, it is okay to ban that corpo -- it is okay to ban that book. the second round of oral argument is very rare for the court to do. guest: there was a very easy to solve the case from citizens united, which was to set up pay- per-view tv movie, or i have to pay -- where i have to pay, is not covered by the mccain- feingold provision. that was applied to tv commercials paid for by corporations that is all of the plaintiffs were asking for. but in this extraordinary outburst of judicial activism, almost unprecedented, the five conservatives on the court, all recalled -- all appointed by

republican presidents, it reached out to strike down decades of law to say that a corporation is essentially a persian -- a person for the purposes of political expression. we should start a movement for a constitutional amendment tuesday that a corporation is not a person for the purposes of political -- to say that a corporation is not a person for the purposes of political expression. host: steve on the republican line. caller: what a great, great day for america. god bless you, steve, and people like mark levin. you keep banging -- keep bringing up c-span2 to want you to touch on that did it george soros is a communist. he funnels money through acorn. there is something going on in this country, and you people who do not see what is taking place

in new jersey, virginia, and now massachusetts, i feel sorry for you. guest: you mentioned this is an example. i have bought up a couple -- of couple -- you mentioned that c- span example. i have brought that up a couple of times. c-span is not a citizen, it is true c-span does not vote in our elections, it is true. but c-span is a person under the law of the united states and constitutional holding. here is why -- if the fcc and fbi were to blow through these doors right now and turn off all the cameras and a subpoena your files, it would be c-span -- it cannot vote, it is not a citizen, and yet everyone would recognize that that is a fundamental violation of the rights of c-span. why? because at the end of the day, c-span, just like any other association of individuals, it is an association of the people that make up the entity.

this is very important. we cannot skip past the idea that associations of individuals have their rights and keep it short shrift. have to be respected in a democratic republic. with regard to george sorus, campaign finance law requires them to spend independently all he wants, but the sec investigated import i believe two years for a book -- the fcc investigated him out for i believe two years for a book he wrote about george bush. if we are deciding if a book should be banned or if books are illegal or if books are not part of our debate, whether by george soros or any other individual, we have a real problem. guest: let me first correct the caller. george sorus is not a communist he fled totalitarianism in europe and stands up for freedom iand an open society. we need to distinguish the

different types of associations. you are completing them. you sit at hand and control, inc. -- shouldn't they have the right to be involved in politics? massachusetts citizens for life. corporations that are set up for political and ideological purposes have the right to be involved in politics. what what the's ruling was about -- guest: 51% -- host: hold on. guest: okay, a for-profit corporations have never been treated same way. there is an unbroken line of precedent through the rehnquist court -- it has been a magnificent vehicle for wealth production and a commission, but as greg was says, there are extraordinary -- as william rehnquist says, there are expert

in very dangerous when you cross over from a the commercial to a political entity. we want business corporations to be out there in fair competition. you have to read adam smith to note that there is nothing more dangerous than when corporations get together and say is we're not going to get it through competition but try to go through the state. host: in chicago, janet on the democratic line. caller: this is a question for mr. raskin. upc touch on what i would consider -- you briefly touched on what i would consider the conservative judicial activism, as far as overturning the laws. in question has to do with -- my main question has to do with what about multinational corporations, how does this

affect where a company is incorporated? i believe halliburton has moved to i believe the united arab emirates. guest: fantastic question. if you want to see democratic populism, watch the populism unleashed by this decision. a supreme court judge determined that corporations, with a domestically owned or foreign- owned -- the supreme court just determine that corporations, whether domestically owned or for eign owned -- they make no distinction at all -- perhaps some can come back later and passed a law. when you reach the line between real life citizens and corporations, you are allowing many from all about the world -- we have a ban on foreigners giving direct contributions to campaigns. have created a huge -- they have

created a huge loophole. guest: any spending of money of any kind at any level is prohibited. the other thing about for nationals is that the supreme court, the kennedy opinion specifically reserved for the day the question of whether this opinion could apply to foreign nationals. nothing in this applies to foreign participation. what it does apply to persons, not profit organizations, labor organizations, corporations that are regulated and taxed as persons within the united states. they get to participate in our democracy. that is the essential point of this growing and why it is so fundamentally important for democracy. -- of this ruling and why it is so fundamentally important for democracy. jamin keeps talking about this idea that you will have large corporations and they will not

speak in opposition to each other but collude and get together. here is the thing -- this opinion allows entities to speak to the citizens about who should and who should not be elected. there is an intervening factor that everybody is forgetting, which is the voters. you can spend train loads of money promoting a candidate. at the end of the day, people ought to decide will they vote for her or not. let's take the jon corzine example from new jersey. he spent $21 million on the gubernatorial race, largely his own cash. his opponent spent $8 million. jon corzine lost that race decidedly, and heat outspent his opponent 3-1. so this idea that money spent determines who wins is wrong, because there is an intervening action, and that is the voters. do i agree with that speech i heard, which was loud an, or to disagree with that?

host: california, howard on the republican line. caller: i am reading from "the wall street journal" at tora, justice kennedy emphasized that law designed to control money in politics often bleed into censorship, and that the various core first amendment principles. i am amazed at the liberal side that seems that they come in at an election that is controlled by exxon mobil, cannot come to the fact that their interests are not being served by the major corporations. the people in their -- you people out there in liberal and, if you are not idiots. you have to think for yourself. guest: first of all, i never said that money determines elections. but if you don't think that money affects elections and is an important ingredient, you or

to innocent to be let out of the house by yourself. the reason why politicians spent hours every day raising money is because the vehicle for speech. used up a wall of separation between corporate money and public elections. -- we used to have a wall of separation between corporate and public collections. the supreme court just before the wall down. we need to restore democratic sovereignty, we the people. we are drifting to something like we the corporations now. it is the development of a corporate face that is dangerous in terms of the ability of people to govern ourselves, when you have corporations that are able to drown out the speech of ordinary people. host: i will try to give one last phone call. let me give a websites outpost steve hoe.

brookside just came out yesterday? -- your website just came out yesterday? guest: to pass a constitutional amendment. host: last phone call. caller: this is a boon to telecommunications company who have been failing to inform the american people. if these corporations are responsible for capital crimes, why is there not a death penalty for these "illegal persons close what? we have seen the creative accounting of corporate america in the last few years. it's not that hard for a few slime bags in a national corporation to shift things around and allow chinese bankers to influence politicians who, say, support human rights in china and influence the u.s. treasury -- host: if i could have you both give a brief final comments.

guest: with regard to the foreign and national problem that you keep running out, if congress wants to pass a laws to make it more difficult for creative accounting, and nothing prevents it from doing so. jamin talks about the wall of separation. the wall of separation is between government and free speech. that is what the american system is about. government does not decide who speaks when and how frequently. let me give a couple of examples. the supreme court noted that if it did not rule the way did whatyesterday, the aclu. the website telling the public to vote for president of candidate because the candidate event free-speech. the nra publishes a book or urging the public to vote for a challenger because the incumbent senator supports a handgun ban.

these would be felonies had the supreme court not ruled the way it did yesterday morning. guest: the american people are not dumb to read this in justices who are usually skeptical of -- are not dumb. at the same justices who are usually skeptical of first amendment rights now want to describe themselves as heroes of the first amendment because the defend fortune 500 company is spending hundreds of millions of dollars telling us who to vote for could we need to past anti-paid to play legislation saying that if you get involved in federal contracts, you do not have any right to be involved in our elections. we need state legislatures saying that no corporation should be spending money without a vote of shareholders at first but we need a mass of americans demanding a constitutional amendment defending political expression for people and asking

ggggggooooo minutes.

>> would before we start on this hearing everyone of us has to be moved by what we have seen on television or people we have talked with during the past couple weeks in haiti who and if i could with the indulgence of my colleagues wearing another hat that i have as chair of the operations subcommittee have been particularly interested in what has been happening and i have had talks with people on the ground in haiti and others who have gone down there and i want to begin by thanking president obama, secretary of state hillary clinton, usaid administrator shah, general

frazier of u.s. southern command of a hard-working people here and on the ground and in haiti for their efforts to save lives in the aftermath of this devastating earthquake. and number of states, i know california sent search and rescue, virginia and others. my own state of vermont is said sending down a medical team today recovering from this disaster as a daunting challenge for the people of haiti, vermont and all are open their hearts and sharing generously. we will continue to do so. anyone of us as human beings have to be moved by what we have been seeing. now the subject of this important hearing, a terrorists intent on a detonating explosive was able to board a plane with hundreds of passengers headed for detroit michigan on christmas day. after congress passed major

legislation in 2004 to implement the nine of the commission's recommendations and after the country invested billions of dollars to increase security systems and reorganize our intelligence agencies the near tragedy of christmas day compels us to ask what went wrong and what additional reforms are needed to. the administration responded quickly and it's connected a preliminary review. the president identified problems. he spoke darkly of the american people about the incident, threat and actions necessary to prevent the future of the tax it does not offer excuses and is said to conduct responsible action to provide additional security measures. and i know there will be hard questions in this hearing. we want to know why and how we failed to successfully detect

and prevent this attempted attack. how did someone who paid for an airline ticket with cash, boarded without luggage for a winter trip to teach royte whose father, week before to warn his son had become radicalized, how was he able to board a flight to the united states with a valid visa? just as we now know the horrific deadly attacks of 9/11 could have been prevented, should have been prevented, the recent white house review found the government has sufficient information to have uncovered and potentially disrupt the december 25th attack. our intelligence agencies declared adequately integrate and analyze information that could have prevented this attempt to read the president called this a systemic failure and he's right that it's on a softball. just as we fail on 9/11, we

failed here. now, i would hope all senators here ask whatever questions they feel they should put i hope we proceed with a shared purpose of making america a safer. no one has been angrier or more determined than the president. did not respond to the denial that has come forward to identify failures and corrected, so let's -- we are looking for partisan advantage. we are all americans, we are all in this together. every one of us, virtually everybody in this room fly often. passions in politics should not secure distractions so we'll do our part. the president recently announced immediate actions he ordered instead of giving in to cynicism and a division for the confidence and unity that define us as a people. for now is not a time for

partisanship is a time for citizenship. the time to come together and work together with seriousness the national security demands. i was here after 9/11, republicans and democrats working together with the president to find out what went wrong and make sure it didn't happen again. that is what we need to do today. our witnesses today our public officials, not adversaries. each share a common purpose. as the president said to prevail this fight to protect the country and pass it safer and stronger to the next generation. the aftermath of the christmas day plot as well as fort hood tragedy can be tempting to forget it's always easier to connect the dots in hindsight. it is not aware intelligence agency's first raised the alarm about the suspect who to blow up the northwest airlines flight it

was a suspect's father in nigeria who turned him in. our response for the incident has to be swift also thoughtful. it may be tempted to take for flux of options but to do so will only result in unnecessary denial visas in the flooding of the watch list since they've become an effective tools in identifying those who do us harm. we need to stop real people who may do less harm not a hero children. a one-size-fits-all mentality will ensure we miss threats in the future. we canton guard down and hide behind walls of fear and mistrust. we shouldn't but our response by another recruiting tool for terrorism we have to be smarter than that. and finally this morning the inspector general released a report a few minutes ago telling miss use of so-called exigent letters by the fbi to obtain information about u.s. persons.

a report describes how the fbi uses x's and letters without prior reauthorization to collect thousands of phone records and instances where no oxygen conditions existed. it also details how the fbi then compounded the misconduct trying to issue national security letters after the fact. this wasn't a matter technical violation. if one of dustin something like this we would have to answer to it. this was authorized high levels within the fbi continued for years. i am dustin the director mueller the fbi work to correct these abuses. but this report is a sobering reminder of the significant abuse on this broad authority. no one is above the law. no senator and no member of the fbi and there has to be accountability for what happened here. senator sessions?

>> thank you. i will join with you and your comments about the tragedy in haiti and hope that we and a unified effort in congress can do all possible to assist in that tragedy. it was on christmas day that america was reminded the war on terror is still being raised and our enemies will stop at nothing in their efforts to destroy the country. but for the bravery of passengers and crew aboard northwest flight 253 and defect in the bomb close to 300 innocent people could have been murdered. make no mistake, this was another act of terrorism, another act of war and now it appears clear our intelligence officials had gathered enough information to stop mr. abdul from boarding the plane. in reality it was our enemies poor bomb wreckings skills in the courage of passengers and crew that save the flight.

but as before the problem arose from a lack of action on the table intelligence. was a hesitation to interfere and one person travel plans, policies are arising from that or failure to connect the dots and individual failure somewhere or systemic failure. perhaps all. it's clear eight years after 9/11 there's still holds in the counterterrorism system. al qaeda has openly declared war on our country. they have attacked us and are still attacking us. this administration cannot wish that reality away and i don't think they intend to. the threat cannot be negotiated away. but we must do is acknowledge this reality and work to vote and interrupt the attacks and destroys the organizations that are at war with us. it is a different kind of war but real nonetheless. and this hearing can help us get insight into the failure that

occurred and what we need to do in the future but until the administration and congress fully acknowledge the reality of the enemy i don't think we will be fully effective. the work of the 9/11 commission unified our nation behind the idea that preventing act of war by traditional law enforcement techniques would not be effective. they declared we should treat this danger with a new understanding of how war. the truth is that the administration intends to view this conflict wrongly as a law enforcement act matter now. retreating from that national decision i thought we have reached. now we have a policy that prevents captured terrorists here and abroad will receive a trial in our civilian courts the they will be given miranda warnings, giving courts appointed attorneys long subject to interrogations' but have rights to repeated court appearances and speech files matter they may possess critical

information concerning further deadly attacks that might be planned. this is what civilian trials mean. this is how they are conducted. as attorney general holder testified civilian trials are not required in these cases by the law or the constitution. and i would note that in hammill war to my knowledge no nation has ever allowed the enemy to use our own courts to further the enemy efforts to destroy that nation. this is not a case about whether they were red flags, the terrorists father personally went to the u.s. embassy to raise a red flag. there would be a tax on the bodies plan to get cash, he checked luggage, reportedly was known to have communicated with terrorists in yemen, our intelligence agencies reportedly intercepted messages referring to the nigerian, referring to him, in the press. so this case is one where our

own good intelligence gatherers got information, people that rest on the four corners of the globe got valuable information. so, we have preliminary information that suggests the authorities were aware of this terrorist and had caused to stop and question him and denied him the right to board the plane. so we cannot defeat al qaeda through half steps, miranda warnings, minimization procedures and inspector general reports. this is not the time for the government to direct new barriers between the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. we understood that was the mistake before. nor is it time to add more bureaucratic red tape, new reporting requirements are on necessary safeguards which do nothing more than hinder the ability to thwart the next shooting, the next bombing, the next 9/11. we should use every unlawful power and toole to protect this

nation. this war was declared by al qaeda and its terrorist allies long before september 11th before guantanamo bay but guantanamo bay did not cause this terrorist attacks. long before we invaded afghanistan, before the drone at tax and the fall of saddam hussein this is a war that began to take shape in the early 1990's when al qaeda attacked various u.s. facilities here and abroad. unfortunately it is a war which will continue i have to say for some time for some years and it's imperative that our intelligence and counterterrorism professionals have what they need on the front lines to disrupt the next plot and thwart an enemy at every turn. rather than putting more bureaucratic hurdles on our intelligence agencies through the weakening of the patriot act we should be looking to cut the

red tape, strengthen the ability to stop the next airline bomber promptly before he gets a visa or is allowed to board a plane. we need to get this right and appreciate the willingness of all of the administrative witnesses. i appreciate the witnesses to the administrative witnesses to testify. i especially appreciate the presence of a director mueller who took a hard look eight years ago at some of the warning signs that were missed before september 11th and makes aggressive good reforms and the -- and the fbi. three's dustin and experience the testimony of mr. kennedy i hope we will be able to come to a consensus that we must give our investigators the tolls and flexibility is the need to prevent further attacks on our country. thank you, mr. chairman and i'm glad we are having the hearing. i know the homeland security committee is also having one and i believe it will help the american people feel we are

responding to the concerns i know they are feeling. >> thank you. ai thank the american people also expect us to work together on responding to these issues. i'm going to ask each witness i know you have long statements. the whole statement will be placed in the record. i'm going to ask you to limit your time to time you've been suggested to you because as you can see we have a lot of senators and i want to get every senator the opportunity to ask questions they want. we will begin with robert mueller, the sixth director of the federal bureau of investigation. prior to that he had a long and distinguished record of the burr justice including serving u.s. attorney for the northern district of california. please go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator sessions in particular, please to be here today. before i began as did you i would like to commit on behalf of the men and women of the fbi to extend our condolences and support to the people pt and all of those who've lost family from

the devastating earthquake last week. the fbi is providing assistance to the rescue effort but we are to the rescue effort but we are also@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @r terrorist threats. we haven't in project intelligence did what is accretive administrative and technological structure needed to meet our national security mission. we are now full partner in the intelligence community and we too must consistently collect, analyze and disseminate intelligence to those who needed

as has often been said today we share information by rule and hold by exception. meeting these threats however continues vigilance an improvement on the fbi part in on the part of every intelligence community. but to dumoulin to address the falcon threat we have seen over the past several years. when nalubaale faced traditional threat from al qaeda but also from self directed groups, not part of al qaeda as former structure. we face threats from home grown extremists, those who live in the communities they intend to attack and are often self radicalized and self trained. we also face threats from individuals who travel abroad to terrorist training camps in order to commit acts of terrorism overseas or to return home to attack america. and these continue to change the default as extremists are now operating in using juries around the world as al qaeda and its offshoots are rebuilding in pakistan, yemen and the horn of

africa. while the threat has not been diminished together with intelligence community partners we've disrupted a number of plots for the past year. we've learned a great deal from these cases with about the new emerging threats and how to stop them. let me offer several examples. in may for individuals in new york some of whom met and were radicalized in prison and were arrested for plotting to blow up jewish synagogues and to shoot down military planes. in july a group of heavily armed extremists in north carolina forests for making plans to wage jihad overseas after traveling to the terrorist training camps. in the timber on the eve of september 11th a colorado resident was a arrested in new york for planning to set off a bomb after having received detailed bomb making instructions from pakistan. the same month to sell from a plus loaners one in springfield illinois and one in dallas texas were arrested for attempting to bomb a federal courthouse and a

downtown office tower in those respective cities. and weeks later a chicago resident was arrested for his role in planning a terrorist attack in denmark and assisting in the deadly 2008 mumbai attacks. and of course of the killing of a young army recruiter in arkansas in may and the tragic shootings at fort hood in november orie storch six middleware loan extremists have struck a military hearing held last year's cases demonstrate the diversity of threats we face, some involve self radicalized service influenced by the internet where the time in prison and others received training or guidance from known terrorist organizations abroad either in person or over the internet. and the targets of these attacks range from civilians to government facilities to transportation infrastructure and to the military both in the united states and overseas. on christmas day the attempted

bombing of northwest flight 253 has made it clear the threat of attack from al qaeda and its affiliates continues to this day and we can and must do more in response to these threats. as directed by the president, the fbi has joined with our partners in the intelligence and law enforcement community is to review our information sharing practices and procedures to make sure such an event never happens again. the president has directed a review of the visa status of suspected terrorists on data bases of the terrorist screening center and as for recommendations for improvement to the protocols for watch testing procedures at the tsc. together with a law enforcement partners we will learn from and improve our intelligence systems in response to the christmas day at hawk. mr. chairman, you mentioned the exigent latter issue and let me address that as well. let me start off by saying that

we take the issues raised by the inspector general exceptionally seriously and we have since he first undertook a review a number of years ago. at the outset it is important to understand that their records obtained work telephone toll records and not the content of conversations and secondly exigent letters have not been used since 2006. as i stated in 2007 when the inspector general first reported on the fbi use affects such letters the fbi had substantial weaknesses, substantial management performance failures in our internal control structure as it applied to obtaining telephone records. and since that time we first became aware of this we have reformed of internal controls and developed automated programs that together would change policy and training substantially minimize this any errors. on this issue i would like to

insert one quote from the report that summarizes what we've done since 2006. in the states it is important to recognize that when we uncover the improper practices and reported them to the fbi in the first nsl report the fbi terminated those improper practices and issued guidance to all fpi personnel about the proper means to request and obtain telephone records under the ecpa. it goes on to say that does not excuse, and i agree, does not excuse and produce of oxygen letters and in effect of the idea ill-conceived attempt to cover them with other nsl. >> the statement will be placed in the record going back to this issue during the hearing the next witness is patrick kennedy undersecretary of state for management and korean minister

in the foreign service undersecretary committee oversees the bureau consular affairs as a secretaries press adviser mr. kennedy please go ahead, sir. >> thank you, chairman leahy, ranking member session [inaudible] -- chairman leahy, ranking member sessions and distinguished members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. as secretary clinton stated following the attempted bombing of flight 253 we are all looking hard at what did happen in order to improve our procedures to avoid human errors and mistakes oversights of any kind and are going to be working hard with the rest of the administration to improve every aspect of our efforts. we acknowledge errors remain and that process easy to be improved. here are the steps we have already taken. the proenneke state misspelled his name in the visa fight the report. as a result we did not add the

information about his current visa in that report. to prevent this we've instituted new procedures that will ensure a comprehensive information is included in all of these recordings that will call attention to the visa application and issuance material that is already in the databases we share with our national security partners. >> with the forbearance of my colleagues why can't you -- if you go on a global search, yahoo! search and tight and a name, the computer will automatically ask did you mean and but three or four other ways of spelling. why wouldn't that be a relatively simple thing to do? >> that is correct, senator. when an applicant appears before us we already have that software installed on our application screening process. if we put in the name kennedy and spell it, misspell it will come back k-e-n-e-d-y.

we had unloaded that software in the database to check on already issued visas because we are looking for a specific known commodity. we are in the process of changing that. we have also evaluated the procedures and criteria used to revoke. the state department has brought and up flexible authority to revoke visa and we regularly use that power since 2001 we have revoked 51,000 visas for a variety of reasons including over 1700 for suspected links to terrorism. in an ongoing effort with our partner agency's new watch listing information is continually checked against the database of previously issued visas we can and will revoke visas without prior where the media does recognize. we can invoke to the point of people seeking to board an aircraft preventing their boarding. an accord nation with the national targeting center we revoke visas under the

circumstances almost daily. we are standardizing procedures for triggering from the field and are adding revocation recommendations to the visa report. we struck the databases and reviewed information coordination with our partner agencies and our scrub since december 25th we have reviewed the names and all prior visa fiber submissions and reexamined information in the consular will look out database on individuals with potential connections to terrorist activities or support for such activities in these reviews we've identified cases for a vacation and have also confirmed substantial numbers of these individuals hold no visa and you ever did. and for the few who did many will revoke prior to the current review. we recognize the gravity of the threat and are working intensely with colleagues from other agencies to ensure with the u.s. the right contains information person may pose a threat to our security that person does not

hold the visa. the same time expeditious coordination with our national security partners is not be underestimated. there's been numerous cases where our unilateral and uncoordinated revocation would have disrupted important investigations that were under way by one of our national security partners. the had the individual under investigation and our revocation action would have disclosed u.s. government interest in the individual and ended our colleagues ability such as the fbi to pursue the case quietly and to identify terrorist plans and co-conspirators. we will continue to closely coordinate our revocation process these with our intelligence and law enforcement partners information sharing and coordinated action foundations and border security systems put in place over the past eight years. we believe that u.s. interest in legitimate travel and trade promotion as the chairman

mentioned in educational exchange are not an opposition to our border security agenda and in fact further that agenda in the long term we will continuously to make enhancements to the security and integrity of the visa process as we continue to take this work would take a comprehensive review. the department as was the product of relationships with iran interagency partners and particularly department of homeland security which has authority for the visa policy. the state department brings unique assets and capabilities to this partnership our global presence, international expertise and highly trained personnel bring a similar advantage and supporting the visa function throughout the world. we've developed and implemented extensive screening process requiring personal interviews and supported by sophisticated global information network. this front line border security has visa offices in every country virtually staffed buy highly trained multilingual

culturally aware personnel of the state department. we've embraced a multilayer approach to border security which gives multiple agencies an opportunity to review information and require separate reviews at both the visa and admission stages camano visa is issued without being run through security checks against our partner databases and we also screen applicants fingerprints against u.s. databases as well. we take our partners consideration and to every effort we make. we fully support the security and work closely with them in a dozen countries. this to which each agency brings its particular strengths results in a more robust and secure process with safeguards and checks and balances and it is based on broadly shared information and is a solid foundation which to build our border security future. we are past the error of stovepiping data but there is clearly more work to be done.

we are doing that work now and planning future improvements as we continue the review. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for a much, secretary kennedy. the assistant secretary of the department of homeland security previously served as the director of the homeland security programs at the center for strategic and international studies also served as a senior advisor to the secretary of energy, the white house office science technology policy as secretary, thank you for being here. please go ahead, sir. >> thank you, chairman lee. let me start by echoing the sentiments regarding the tragedy in haiti, this is of a fixed proportions in the men and women at the department of homeland sequoia coast guard, fema and across the department working

across the court to support the international average for the people of. us president obama has made clear we are all determined to clear we are all determined to find and fix the vulnerabilitie checkpoint screening to ensure he isn't conceiving it with another dangerous material on his personal our baggage.

and the person must be cleared through a screening process that seeks to determine if the individual poses a threat and thus could be denied permission to fly. within that travel process let me briefly describe the dhs role. first, to accomplish preflight screening the department of homeland security is one of the principal consumers of the terrorist watch list which includes the no-fly list. we checked against it and use it to keep potential terrorists from boarding flights and to identify travelers should undergo additional screening. second, within the united states to prevent smuggling of weapons and other dangerous materials on planes, the dhs performs the physical screening and airport checkpoints and provides further secure measures in flight. outside the united states, dhs works with foreign governments and airlines to advise required measures for flights bound to the u.s. as well as which passengers pose a threat. tsa does not screen people are baggage of international airports. i submit to the lager to a statement describing the various

gauges prevents the work to keep people, terrorist from boarding planes. but regarding the attack on december 25th, umar should never have been able to board the plane with explosives. the inner agency process to fix the full abilities highlighted by this attack is well under way. as a consumer of the watch list information dhs welcomes the opportunity offered by this process to contribute to improving the federal offense ability to connect and some late intelligence and we are working with the fbi and the ctc on that. we are also focused on improving aviation screening and expanded and trash all partnerships to guard against a similar to attack. i am personally returned from it all day trip of consultations with key partners abroad. in terms of the dhs role, the bottom line is that he was not on the no-fly list which would have flagged him to be prevented from boarding or was he on the select list which would have liked him for secondary

screening. furthermore the physical screenings that were performed by foreign authorities at airports in nigeria and in the netherlands failed to detect the explosives on his body. immediately after the attack you just took steps to secure incoming and future flights to include directing faa to alert when hundred 28 incoming flights of the situation increasing security measures of domestic airports, implementing enhanced screening for all the international flights coming to the u.s. and working with state and local air carriers to provide appropriate information. in the reports to the president for guarding this attempted attack the department has outlined five key areas of action we are now addressing. first as the incidence and underscores aviation security is increasingly international responsibility the solicitor napolitano dispatched deputy secretary and myself and other officials to meet international counterparts on these issues. today secretary the public, the struggling to spain to meet with

european counterparts for the discussion took to strengthen international secure aviation security measures. second, and teaches creative partnership with timmerman of energy and its national laboratories to use their scientific expertise to improve screening technology at airports. third, dhs will move forward in in deploying enhanced screening technologies like advanced imaging technologies and explosive trees detection machines to improve the ability to detect the kind of explosives we saw the 25th. fourth, strengthen the capacity of aviation law enforcement including the air marshal service and finally as mentioned earlier we will work with our inner agency partners to we evaluate and modified of a terrorist watch lists are created in quitting how names are added to the no-fly list. as the president said, there is of course no foolproof solutions with there are many steps we can and are taken to strengthen international aviation security. we face and adaptive adversary as we develop new screening

technologies and procedures our adversaries will also seek new ways to evade them as shown on christmas day. we must always be thinking ahead to innovate, and prove and adapt to the new emerging security environment. and i look for to the questions to discuss this further. thank you. >> thank you. i still remain concerned, and secretary kennedy, the state department didn't realize the suspect on the christmas day bombing possessed a visa until after it initiated its action on the flight. the consular office said the first notice was given to the national counterterrorism center initially misspelled the name as we talked about. but within days and amended notice was sent with the corrected spelling. why didn't the office not checked the visa status of the nigerian national at the time it was sent?

>> he did not do that, mr. sherman. >> i know but why not? >> the second message was launched from another source. >> it may have been lost to another source but why wasn't he checked? >> because we did not have access at the embassy to the other come to the other reporting, mr. chairman, and we had entered his name in the correct spelling into the database that is our watch list database which was disseminated to all the appropriate agencies. we slipped up. i have no statement other than that, sir. >> thank you. before i go into the christmas

they attacked us to go back at some of the things you talked about, the justice department specter general report on the national security letters the fbi essentially told those companies that got these letters that there was an emergency so that the company did the records voluntarily as we would expect them to do and in the letters they were given said a subpoena would follow for instance a subpoena didn't follow often there was no emergency and this goes beyond being a technical violation. these are americans being obtained improperly, the 2,000 telephone records. as has or will any fbi official be sanctioned or punished for these violations in the law?

>> let me start by saying -- let me start by saying yes, as the process started back in i think it was in 2006 and initial reports were issued by the inspector general as a result of those reports they were reviewed for discipline and individuals have been disciplined for their participation and the series of issues. in this particular case the report will go to the process and look at the conduct and a sly and discipline as warranted. let me also say on a share with you the concern that this is information on american citizens we had without following the appropriate prada calls. in some cases there was not an emergency and we have put in place a process to go through every one of those numbers and determine what we had a valid legal basis to retain that number and where we did not it

was from our system. >> please let this committee know what action is taken. for the record you nodded yes. >> yes. >> what i worry about is the over inclusion of names on the no-fly list. he won the right names on their but if you put every single possible name in effect you have no names, you have such things as we saw last week in "new york times" and 8-year-old boy who was on this list from the time he was an infant he's been subjected to physical searches putdown so much as the family doesn't want to fly as his mother said he may be interested, but certainly not on an airplane, and it is -- would be humorous except for when it

causes to the family but also what is this to the whole system when after a complaint after a complaint the name stays on their the same mass the late senator kennedy who was stopped numerous times because he was on list and given the president of the united states, president bush called to apologize and said it's not the president's fault he is wanted to know how to get off the list and he still didn't for some time. i'm going to be looking first and foremost at a hour analysis and say what put somebody on how do we go about number one making sure we have the right person on their and secondly that we now don't over inflate the list that legitimate travelers come business people, students, just the average

american flies on the list and is unable to travel. estimate is on the one hand a delicate balance as we have seen in the christmas day plot. the name can be misspelled with one letter and you will miss them. on the other hand there are basically two, the precautions that were taken to assure we have the rent person and for almost all of these lists particularly if the ones that result in the stopping of an airport or no-fly list requires not just a name identifier accommodative birth, something that identifies it as opposed to just the name. second, the other aspect is there is a redress process. if a person is no-fly there is a redress process dhs maintains -- >> let me interrupt that you read the date of birth, this a-year-old, somebody would look at the list and say he is on their, he was born last year and

he's now on the terrorist watch list, somebody -- >> i cannot explain what happened today to allow any more than what senator kennedy on how he had gotten stopped. >> about, i told this because he's irish and we don't know him. but you heard what secretary kennedy said. you have a list over year and a list over here. who determines which agency carries a primary responsibility that is several agencies like input from state and in ctc, dhs and other agencies. who? >> when it comes to international terrorism, the contributions nominations on international terrorism go to the counterterrorism center. it can be a case developed by the cia, ntia or nsa or even ourselves, it goes national terrorism center and the

national counterterrorism center makes the determination as to which lists the individual be nominated to whether the no-fly, the selector the terrorist screen database. for domestic terrorists it is the fbi that makes the recommendation to the screening center as to who should go on that list. it is screened by both the contributing agency to the national counterterrorism center screens of the national counterterrorism center screens it themselves and finally the terrorist screening center does a followed screening, follow-up to assure there is sufficient identifying data and that the information supporting the person on that list supports the criterion for being placed on that list. >> i've gone over my time and i obviously have a lot more questions but i don't want to interrupt others. we will go through these questions and you and i may want

to spend some time later in the week -- and by showing a list i will submit for the record, a long list and there will be submitted for the record. senator sessions, it's over to you. >> thank you prieta read briefly i guess i will ask you in national nctc center and maintains the list, do you think we can do better by getting people off the list? i heard somebody on a talk show the other day said he keeps getting stopped. >> in some sense, yes people should have been gotten off the list for a variety of reasons. it interferes with their right. who would be responsible to that? is the nctc? >> in terms of international terrorism?

yes. but also dhs in terms of the redress process when somebody files a complaint that they should not be on the list is then handled by principally by dhs. but generally you want to have on this lists person to meet that criterion should be on that list because it is protection against terrorist attacks -- >> i couldn't agree more and people in this world, a lot of people have the same name and it's difficult to know and one of the reasons we are here can planning is because somebody didn't get on the list. but mr. heyman, someone who can prove that the same man as a dangerous person can somehow be not given as much burden of the airport has otherwise would be the case. >> senator, there's a one-stop shop web site that was developed, www.dhs-trip, and

anyone concerned they are inappropriately on the watch list should go there. there is a process that is at adjudicated 56,000 people at this point. >> i just would say i don't think we need to have a prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is a terrorist before they go on the list. what is the burden normally we would have? that shouldn't be too high. >> it is reasonable suspicion the person is either assisting, participating or supporting terrorists. >> are you satisfied that is the standard? >> we are looking at the standards and seeing their application across the various potential threats but has worked well in the past and at this point without further discussion i'm satisfied with that. i believe it is slowing of -- >> noss putting them in a jail just confronting them to get on an airplane.

mr. mueller, after being dispatched by an al qaeda if we get in yemen to blow up hundreds of civilians in an airline bombing, umar abdulmutallab was within hours of the landing of a northwest flight. he was reportedly given mardy and the warnings, shown after being arrested including being a feisty have the right to remain silent and was entitled to a lawyer. so first, who made the decision mutallab was going to be treated as an criminal rather than as a belligerent? >> i think i can talk generally about what happened and not interfere with ongoing litigation. abdulmutallab was arrested on the plan after these incidents, there was no prior discussion. he was handed over i believe by

the personnel on the plan to the cbp, who are originally had custody of him and he was taken to a hospital in which the fbi took custody of him and happened so fast that there was no time at that point where the transfer was made very quickly given the moving circumstances to determine whether alternative arrests could or should be made. >> who made the decision he would be treated as if he were a criminal to be tried in civilian courts and be provided miranda warnings? who? >> to was to arrest him and put him in criminal courts. the ones who took him from the plan and then followed up on the arrest -- >> this is a very big issue. so the decision was made by agents on the ground based on some protocol or policy they

understood. >> based on a very fluid situation we are trying to gather the facts to determine what this individual had as important as determining the call but what if this individual what are the threats out there that need to be addressed? >> surely you recognize, i assure you do that there are great differences between chongging a person under the military commissions in fact i was able to work on legislation to get language in that said anyone, quote, a part of al qaeda at time of the alleged defense where an underprivileged colonel combatant, enemy combatants subject to military commissions and indefinite detention as long as we have a conflict with al qaeda. and so, this was a big decision immediately i assume the lawyer advised his client not to talk.

>> without getting too much into the details in this particular case the agent interviewed him in a period of time for any information relating to ongoing and other threats -- >> before or after the miranda warnings? >> before the warnings were given. >> anything he said during that time is not admissible in the civilian court, is it? >> that's correct. i take that back. as i assure you are aware there is a loaded exception for emergency situations in the case called quarrels -- >> when you are setting a policy for your agents it seems to me you have a policy these kind of individuals will be treated through civilian courts rather than military commissions which he is entitled which he could rightfully be tried as confident, and that has

ramifications because it is going to reduce and i think you agree the intelligence being gathered. and one of the things we learned from the 9/11 commission is intelligence is what saves lives. intelligence. and we need to gather intelligence. that is the motive of criminal justice systems generally in america. it is to prosecute criminals. and so i think this is a serious matter. are you satisfied that you have a clear understanding, national policy about how these people should be treated once they are apprehended? >> i do believe -- >> it sounds like the guys on the ground made the decision -- on the fly. >> there are decisions made whether or not to arrest somebody -- >> a listing powers isn't a problem. were you contacted about whether or not this individual should be

treated as an unlawful enemy combatant aarsele internals? so the decision was made below your level? >> that does not mean a decision can -- the does not mean the decision cannot or should not be taken later if one wants to go otherwise but in this particular case a fast-moving events decisions were made appropriately i believe very appropriately given the situation. >> i don't think you can say appropriately. we don't know what that individual learned while he was working with al qaeda and we may never know because he has now got a lawyer and is being told to be quiet. >> senator sessions, let him finish answering the questions. the fact is of course if you're talking about going to a military commission he would have been given a lawyer and a military commission. military commissions have i think freakin' sections. the courts have had hundreds of convictions of terrorists. sprick i don't think they are given military lawyers will tell them to remain silent and

nationally. if they are going to be tried in a trial by military commission they are given a lawyer. i think it is a matter of serious import. i don't think we have clarity of rules and we've got to get this straight. these people would be better try the military, one of which is for gaining of intelligence. my time is of, esters chairman. >> i might say to the distinguished senator of alabama, he, like, was a prosecutor. do you think any prosecutor is going to have to worry about what was said by somebody who tried to ignite a bomb and was stopped by several lionesses? rafah i have to rely too much on -- >> in response to your question to me -- >> being serious for a moment. >> -- in response to your

question is not just the ability to prosecute this individual but whether you were properly interrogated over a period of time we may find out there are other plans, other mutallab's boarding planes were going to blow up american citizens. >> senator kohl. >> director mueller, how many people were on the flight approximately? is it being expanded now? >> generally we are hesitant to give the full members. i would say several thousand. >> and are you anticipating -- >> hesitant to give it an open -- stat are you anticipating the list is going to be expanded? >> there are discussions and have been some expansions, yes. >> and part again that can be as to what activities of taken place particularly since september -- or since christmas day. >> all right. a director mueller, clearly there are flights into the

united states from hundreds of reports all of the world, and these airports are under the direction, supervision of other governments. i assume some of them do a better job, some of them don't do as good a job according to what we hear. in israel date of a terrific job of screening people before they board flights. what kind of a problem is that dealing with other countries to be sure their security measures at their airports originating flights into the u.s. are sufficient? >> i would be happy to try to answer but i think that my colleague, mr. heyman, from dhs would be more familiar -- >> thank you, senator. the standards by which international airports are security government is the international body for developing security regimes for aviation across the globe.

countries are required to meet the standards for the last point of departure to the united states. tsa does all that those countries to ensure security standards are met but you're absolutely right. the ability to meet those standards from country to country, and i think as we look forward and one of the things we are looking at in terms of discussions with international partners is the ability to help build the capacity of around the globe for the record level of security. >> it seems to me that is a crucial element of this whole discussion that we are having. how good do they do their jobs and other countries and other airports. i wouldn't be surprised if there may be airports around the world that should not be allowed to originate flights into the united states because of their lack of proper security implementation.

wouldn't you imagine that might be true? >> in order for a carrier to travel from a country abroad from a final point of less point of departure of brought to the united states on a direct link to the united states they have to meet the standards and they have to meet tsa of audit requirements and the department of its last point of departure, about 245 of them to the united states every year. and if an airport or carrier does not meet the standards, they are given an opportunity to address those concerns or the flights are discontinued. .. i would suggest there must be

some serious issues relating to airports that are not doing the proper job of screening prior to originating flights into this country. my common sense tells me that that is very possibly true. what do you think? >> i can tell use of the 245 last points of departure to the united states that the t.s.a. has audited them on a -- do audit them on a regular basis to en insure the safety and security of flights emanating from those points of departure. other cities that may be interested in direct flights to the united states would have to go through the standards and the t.s.a. review. and if they were not able to meet them, they would not be permitted flights. >> i'd like to hear about body scanners, their use, their effectiveness, plans to expand them. what are some of the issues that we're dealing with, director mueller?

>> that's a little bit out of my ballywick as well. again, i defer. >> i'd be happy to answer the question. >> go ahead. >> there are a number of different ways in which we provide security at check points here in the united states and that are considered abroad for her passengers that may try to conceal weapons and materials. the standard permits a use of metal detector, the predominant security feature around the world. we have a number of layers of security in the united states to include behavioral observation, canines, explosive detection devices, as well as other technologies. we are in the process of deploying whole body imaging, enhanced image technology.

that technology has the advantage of detecting nonmetallic substances, such as powders or liquids, such as was found on abdulmutallab on christmas day. so we are moving rapidly to deploy additional scanners around the united states on that. >> i think you get back to my question about different airports in different countries. what is it about the israeli airport security system that has attracted as much praise as it has over the years? >> senator, that is one of the countries i just crift, and in fact, did take a tour of their airport, and had briefings from security officials there. they have addressed their

security concerns through a number of layers, including things that we do in the united states, such as behavioral observation, the way that they interview -- the interview is critically important to passengers, and the number of layers of screening targeting potential terrorists, as well as screening of baggage that may be on board. l as screening baggage that may be on board. they also live in a very different environment. and i would not compare their targeting necessarily to the united states. i think they are the different environments that they live in and does not necessarily transferable. but there there is a defense is something that was also adopted in the united states. and that's what a lot of people talk about. >> finally, i just make the observation again that this is a worldwide issue, clearly. and i'm troubled by the thought

that reading security airport security in different countries have said they would then very critically would probably disclose wide variances between the security effect of ms. implemented in different countries. and until we do a better job of trying to coordinate of the world, the security systems in different countries, we will continue to be at great risk. would you agree with that? >> senator, i do agree. i think one of the key things we learned from this is that access to any airport in the world gives you access to the entire international system. this individual bought a ticket in one country, traveled to the second country, transited to a third country to target a fourth country. there is somewhere near two dozen individuals, two dozen nationalities represented on that plane that traveled across a number of different countries. this is an international problem and that is why secretary napolitano is heading to europe tonight to meet with european

counterparts for discussion on enhancing national security. there will be meeting additional has tasked that apartment to expanding international cooperation in this round. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. grassley. >> i'll start with secretary kennedy. the state department has indicated that it could not provide this judiciary committee with a copy of the christmas day bombers these application prior to this hearing because it was part of quote, unquote, an interagency doj review process. however, the justice department indicated to my staff yesterday, just yesterday that the state department had not even provided me a copy of the application to the justice department yet. i don't understand why the state department would tell us that it was being reviewed by the justice department if the

justice department says they don't have it. so, since i don't want to trust just executive branch opinion about what is on this and what process about to go through, i want to know for myself what information did this bomber put on his visa application? why shouldn't we conclude that state department is simply trying to hide behind the justice department criminal process in order to avoid a delay a full accounting of how this terrorist act into this country under her watch. but my big question is, secondly, when will we get a copy of this application? >> senator, we are by no means attempting to hide behind this whatsoever. i promise you that i will return to my office and i will have our staff contact the department of justice immediately.

and we will proceed from there, sir. we're not attempting to hide behind the department of justice. we carefully coordinate our activities with the department of justice and we will get back to you, sir. >> but they've got to have it in order to review it. you told me as being reviewed here and i do want to say you did, but some people in the agency said is being reviewed. >> we will check with the department of justice this afternoon, sir. >> i think the first thing to do would be to walk it over so they can have it. i'd like to go on to another issue with the fbi dirt. on january the seventh, there president obama to backdated them to conduct a thorough review of database holding the assets and current visa status of all known and suspected terrorists beginning with end of quote. this direct that implies that

there is a concern that the state department may have issued besides to individuals who are known or suspect a terrorist. however, the christmas day bomber was not labeled a known or select suspected terrorists. he was given a lesser classification by the state department does what they referred to as a piii be on the meaning he was possible and probable terrorists. has the fbi reviewed our records in the state department class department for individuals designated pb3, meaning possible, probable known or suspected terrorists to determine if any of these issues or individuals were issued a visa? >> my understanding, senator, is that we have taken the no-fly list to ensure that the person there do not have visas.

we have taken a select a list to determine what% do not have access to the defense. and then, with regard to the much larger terrorist screening database, we are going through that and making certain -- at that time we're going to that database in assuring that those persons do not have the says. it is from the terrorist screening database that the system is populated with information on particular individuals. so we feel that this way we are looking at a database which are handled by a terrorist screening center and what we're doing will be redundant to what is being done by the state department as well as by the end ctc. >> senator, but i? >> just a second. just encase you answered my question, but i don't know for sure if you answered it. have you reviewed p3b's.

if you haven't, do you intend to be so? >> i'm not familiar with p3b's. >> possible or probable terrorists. >> is that a definition? is a definition for populating a particular list? >> it's my understanding it is. but maybe i had to let secretary kennedy speak. maybe you could have solved this for me, but go ahead. >> yes, sir, senator. if i could get one second that context. every visa applicant who comes into the united states embassy in the fight for a united states visa, his or her name is run against a complete database that includes entries from the fbi, entries from homeland security, entries from the terrorist screening center, entries for dea. we take entries from all these agencies daily and load them into our database and so no one

who applies for a visa, no one was issued a visa without a complete scrub against the full interagency database and additionally, there also scrubbed against the complete dhs and fbi fingerprint science of individuals who are concerned with those agencies. so we ran this complete screen. then, anytime someone is moved up so to speak on the screen list for either of our partners within the national security, that information is immediately transferred to us. we then run that new information against our list of issued visas to see if those agencies have obtained new information that they have not been made available to us earlier. and then we found that. and if that phone has moved up on that list, we then moved to revoke those he says immediately. lastly, your questions are about the p3b's. it is a category of when someone comes to our attention with

concerns about them, but is not conclusive. we then immediately send that information to our partners in the intelligence and law enforcement community, but we put this p3b code and so that no state department officer at that poster anywhere else in the world will issue a visa without doing a double check with our partner agencies. after december 25, we have a rescript that with our partners in the intelligence community and have canceled 70 the says. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much come mr. chairman. i like to just make a couple of comments about some questions. i think it's become pretty clear now that the airplane remains a major explosive device. i think it would be very clear that they're going to to be more attempts. this attack took place over united states soil.

i think the handling by the fbi is entirely appropriate and i'd like to bring to this committee's attention the fact that the fbi has done excellent interrogation in the past. a subcommittee of which senator kyl and i have participated have had former fbi agent testified, going back to the 1993 new york city bombings, where the interrogation done by the fbi really brought about convictions of a number of people, including a blind shake him of people who are serving time in prison in the united states who were part of trails here in the united states. so i believe the handling of mr. abdullah tolle of is entirely appropriate. and i think people should understand that. i'm concerned about the no-fly

list. i believe the definition of who would go on the no-fly list is highly convoluted, takes a philadelphia lawyer to interpret and i've been told by direct or player that it is being reassessed and hopefully will be redone. pet and is becoming the explosive of choice. were going to have more attempts using this explosive and hopefully it will not be perfect but soon. so let's go for a moment to the visas. and mr. kennedy, let me ask you, were you saying in your testimony that there will be an automatic revocation of the says four subjects of a visa viper cable or a terrorist identities mark environments the tried and

true? answer is yes or no. >> answer is no for the reasons outlined in my testimony, senator. we receive information that causes us great concern as the first line of national security. we send them information to our partners in the fbi, our partners and other law in force in agencies and their partners in the intelligence community. we have been requested on numerous occasions by those agencies not to revoke the visa because there is not of investigation -- the >> let me stop you there because i know all about that and ask them questions about that. but that's for another committee and will be taken not up on thursday. but those are not many and they know the number of people on the no-fly list. it seems to me that we ought to have a process which assures revocation of a visa. and what i have learned that

essentially is very difficult to revoke a visa. >> senator, it is not very difficult to revoke a visa if the fbi, homeland security, any other member of the law enforcement intelligence community comes to wes and we get information from the everyday which are run against our records. if they come in and say that this individual is a dangerto national security, we revoke the visa immediately. >> so that is automatic? and where does it have to come from lax >> d. ntc, and ctc from the department of homeland security. we received information from all of our partners and that they provide us with information that says that this individual is a danger to national security, we revoke that to be set immediately. >> i'm happy to hear that. as you know, mr. outdo mattel up

was offered a multi-your visit in june of 08. do you believe it's in the united states purity and just to issue visas that allow entries over several years or more than one visit to the united states? >> senator, because we receive information every day from our law@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ãr if new information comes to our attention that says that an individual who was not a threat when we ran his or her application against our partners' databases, if those circumstances change and we are notified by the intelligence community or law enforcement that this individual circumstance have changed, we then immediately revoke his visa. >> all right, it just seems to me we still have a lot of learning to do. this committee at the counselor

officers before it who gave visas to certain of the 9/11 hijackers, and those visas should not have been issued in my view. and i think we've really got to batten doubt hatches of who we give visas too. i'm about to go into the visa program, because in my view, that's the soft underbelly of this country. country, mr. heyman. >> senator, if i could add one thing with your permission. >> ahead. >> you're entirely correct. for 2001, we were not, we the state department, were not receiving sufficient information from our intelligence community and law enforcement colleagues. since 2001, the number of data elements given to us from our partners is up 400%. we now have a 27 million name

list for the entire community at large from the line for ms. community and from our own sources that every single visa applicant's name is run against the database as well as the run against fingerprint databases and the fbi and homeland security. so there has been an absolute change from the point that you spoke of in 2001, where we were not getting sufficient information ordered to have a data set to run against. we now have that. as i said, it's a 400% since 2001. >> i appreciate that and i thank you for it. mr. heyman, as you probably will know i am not a fan of the visa waiver program. we now have 16 billion people from 35 different countries come in without a visa. and we don't know if and when they leave. i believe it's the soft

underbelly of this country. i believe that if he went to school in great britain in the u.k. became a naturalized citizen of the u.k. he could've had a visa waiver and come into this country without one. and i think that's a real, real problem. so, let me ask you, what checks do we have that someone who was denied a visa, but is not put on a terrorist watch list can come into this country at a later date through the visa waiver program? >> just to clarify, in the visa waiver per game, you do not need a visa, but there is a travel authorization that is required and enhanced travel authorization that runs the same

checks basically that he visa check would do. it is also done the same kind of recursive view of the watch list of things like that to revoke or refuse authorization is done. and i understand your concern about it. but let me just say the visa waiver program includes a number of additional enhanced opportunities for cooperation and information sharing to include reporting of lost and stolen passports, standardize passports, sharing of terror screening information, sharing of criminal data information. and recurring auditing our review that we have with these countries to a value weight overall security, which we don't have without the visa waiver countries. so they're a number of enhanced security that supplement security and the dwp programs

and so i'm not sure i'd agree with the characterization but i understand your concern. >> i'm not sure i could agree with what you said that we can debate this or discuss it separately. thank you. >> we're going to do senator feingold is going to be next. and then senator cardin is going to chair the hearing. i have to go on the floor or on a judicial nomination. making notes here, think all of you probably will be giving for the next few days or an awful lot of follow-up. >> thank you all for being here. i join all members of the committee and my horror at what happened on christmas day and the northwest fly from amsterdam wanted time tonight and in the tragedy we must understand how and why the bomber was able to board that flight and what steps we can take to stop the next attempt through masato attempt

it calmly and not users to discuss political points. not just lay blame or take actions that are politically expedient, but ultimately an effect. by all accounts, the president was right to characterize this as a systemic failure and i agree with him that some tough questions must be a two repair and improve the counterterrorism systems that are now in place. this is not the time for excuses, nor as a potential pointing fingers. it's time to fix the problem. that's exactly what omega spacer. if you're german, i just ask that full statement be placed in the record. first, i'm concerned that the policy of enhanced screening for all nationals from 14 countries potentially harm our relations with governments and populations that can be allies. in defeating al qaeda and its affiliates, it may not be an

effective use of limited resources. can any of you tell me whether a formal intelligence analysis has been conduct did, assessing the value of blanket screening of all people traveling from or through or nationals of particular countries either generally or specifically, with respect to the recently designated 14 countries? somebody. >> sure. the designation of the countries with the determination in consultation with the department of state and the department of homeland security as well as an assessment of new and emerging threat information. their recommendation includes not just the enhanced screening of a number of foreign nationals, but in fact the majority of any individual traveling to the united states to include u.s. citizens. so it is not in fact a blanket

across specific nations per se. but enhanced screening for all individuals coming to the united states. >> mr. chairman, my question was if there was a formal intelligence analysis that i've been conducted as a part of this? >> the threat information was included in the analysis for determining the enhanced screening procedures. >> i'm not certain that the same. did you provide that analysis to congress? >> the formal intelligence analysis that led to these determination. so i'll have to get back with you. i was not part of the discussion, but i will be able to follow up with you after. >> okay. mr. kennedy, what role did the state department play in helping to determine which countries should be on the list and how did the state department handle the response is received from those countries once they were notified? >> thank you, senator.

thank you, senator. the department of homeland security presented the state department right after the events of christmas day, with a list of countries that they said that they believe that these areas needed enhanced screening. we review that list. there were a couple of countries. we have questions about the list was then approved by the state department because homeland security felt that on the basis of the information as mr. heyman said was sufficient as an interim step that needed to be taken in order to safeguard not only nationals of other countries parting of aircraft as well. and so, i know from discussion but i've been taking place at the department of homeland security is continually reviewing that list to determine the best way to provide safe and secure aviation movement because

of the boarding -- let's call it the boarding process if i could senator. >> out of the state department handle that once they were notified they were in this group. we have shared that information with department of homeland security and we are in discussions with them. our office of counterterrorism at the state department works very, very closely with the department of homeland security as does the aviation division of our economic and business bureau. those discussions are ongoing, but the primary responsibility as mr. heyman said in his earlier testimony for serving airport and determine whether or not that airport is safe to launch aircraft to the united states is the last. >> but i would like to be able to have access to the information about what happened when these countries were notified and what their responses.

this is very relevant to the value and wisdom of doing this. >> yes, sir. we will be in contact with your staff this afternoon to set something up for you. >> we've heard decisions to try umar farouk abdulmutallab and federal mystified by this reaction, given the similarity of this was prosecuted in federal court by the part ministration now serving a life sentence prison of argued the of compromised our ability to obtain useful intelligence. but as i understand anis senator feinstein touched on their people in charge of federal related crimes cooperated with the u.s. government. do you see any reason to treat this case different. has that been your case that these cases cooperate with the government and provide useful intelligence? >> in direct answer to the question, we've had eight number of cases which through the process the criminal justice

process committee has its individual i decided to cooperate in a provided tremendous intelligence and that is not to say that there may not be other ways of obtaining that intelligence. but, yes, to answer to your question criminal justice system has been a found of intelligence in the years since september 11th. >> thank you for that matter. director, i can't finish without telling you how concerned i am about the new inspector general report that came up this morning, which he talked about medea killing fbi with regard to obtaining phone records. i know you've taken a number of sets premiums and to address those issues. but the ig recommends much more him in the doj and the fbi need to provide congress today with the new oil opinion that states that the authorities the fbi has to obtain phone records. will you make sure that happens? >> i am trying to understand exactly what you want. >> the new policy opinion that states the legal authorities the fbi has to obtain phone records.

>> if it is no aussie opinion is up to the attorney general. as you know, there is no reason why you should not have it, but it is not my area. >> let me thank all of our witnesses for the work you do for national security. in my role as chairman of the subcommittee on terrorism of homeland security, we held a hearing last year in which we went over whether we are sharing information among the u.s. intelligence agencies as effectively as we do in order to protect homeland security. in hearing that his party and former senator gordon testified and they have submitted testimony for the record in regards to this hearing, in regards to the concerns they have about the culture of sharing information within our federal agencies. without objection, i'm going to ask that their testimony be made part of this record.

i guess my first question is, there's been concern as to the operational roles and responsibilities in regards to making the decisions concerning who is to be stopped at our airports, who is to be -- how we share the appropriate information. and the president has asked for review. is there currently, in the works, any recommendations for change as to the sharing of information and the respective roles of the different agencies that making these decisions? >> why don't i try to address that. the president has directed a to look at the criteria and utilize what person that various levels of the terrorists watchlist. that's one aspect of it. the president has also asked us to look and blair is looking at other mechanisms using

information technology, which will enhance our ability to better connect pieces of information from various -- various databases. that has been an ongoing process since september 11th and it is an ongoing process as new technology becomes available and we have new data setã it's a new world in terms of our desire to share with every other agency. not a one of us sitting at this table or otherwise does not understand that we have an obligation to share that information to prevent the next terrorist attack, so the motivation is there, the will is there, a lot has been done. there's still work to be done, particular when will it comes to utilizing information technology to make our jobs easier. >> and also, how we connect the dots. let me get to mr. abdulmutallab for one moment. information became available last year to the state

department from his father. and as i understand, that information was reviewed as to whether there was a visa outstanding in regards to that individual, and because of a misspelling of the name, it didn't pop up on your data search. is that correct? >> that is correct, senator. correct? >> that is correct, senator. as i said earlier, if i could add two points quickly. we did put the name correctly into a lookout system and the lookout system went to all the agencies in washington and a longer classified message describing more in-depth conversations with his father went in with the correct spelling in the two were married up in a single file in washington. and so, the misspelling, our error, was obviated by the second message that appeared up

with it, sir. >> but it never jumped -- it never gave you the information of the time that ibiza was outstanding. if it would have shown that he had been issued a visa in 2008, was there sufficient information available for you to take action in regard to the visa? >> no, sir. there was not sufficient information from his father nor do we take preemptive action because, as i mentioned earlier, we always consult with our law enforcement intelligence community and partners before we revoke a visa to make sure the individual is not a subject of investigation and we would compromise their investigation. >> to make sure, are you saying that even if it would have popped up at the ibiza outstanding, >> it was insufficient to immediately revoke the visa and also following the protocols that have been in place since

2001, we checked with our partners in the intelligence and law enforcement communities to make sure that our revoke in a visa does not tip them off that he is under surveillance by one of our partners in the national security community and us our action would've compromised their ability on the hypothetical to roll up a larger terrorism ring. >> so in this particular case, we don't know what would've happened if you made that inquiry? >> we did notify -- we did put is incorrectly spelled into our database that was available to law enforcement and intelligence community personnel. >> and no dots were connected from that that we are aware of prior to christmas? >> .-- it didn't go on any watch list? >> know, if the intelligence or law-enforcement came back to the state department and said, we

have other information on this individual in addition to the information you the state department has provided us, we are putting him on one of the list. we would have potentially be would've revoked the visa of coordination of law enforcement and intelligence. >> dhs have the information prior to christmas day, but did not have any reliable information to act? >> he was neither on the watchlist nor a no-fly list nor a select list. so there was no check against those lists would have come up with anything. >> whose responsibility was it to look into that information and determine us to whether he was actively involved in al qaeda and yemen? there is information that he was there. it seems to me that there was significantly -- significant information linking into potential terrorist act to believe that was put into our data bank. whose responsibility was it to

follow up to see whether actions should be taken to at least alert agencies of a risk factor, but also to investigate whether there is further reason to suspect that active terrorism might be taking place? no one seems to want to answer it. >> senator, that is a subject outside the jurisdiction. i can describe our process. any information that comes to the tension in the state department that says there's a potential terrorist, we send it in -- the >> you typed it in and send ten. you would knows acted without the further information from other agencies. at this point, i guess director mueller was referring to the responsibility, whose responsibility was it to take that information and try to connect the dots? >> i think the presidents report identified by the president

would say that the information goes into the national counterterrorism center where the lists are maintained from which you then put a person on no-fly or the -- and so, the information has developed by nsa, cia, developed by the state department goes into the nctc for determination as to where that person should we and on which watchlist. and to the extent there is follow-up, it is generally there when it comes to international terrorism. >> i just like to make the observation that there was information that was put into the databank and it appears like before christmas day no one acted on that. >> well, there is some information that did get to nctc and other information that did not get to nctc. and so it was a question and i think it's fair to say that some

person should have passed information into nctc and did not end up there. and the database where you have the information that leads to putting a person on either a select or no-fly list for international terrorism is generally goes through that process. >> i guess my concern is that it's not clear as to whose responsibility it was to take that information and to develop it, whether it is a serious enough link a monopoly to protect america against that individual, but to use that information to try to determine whether there is active terrorist plots against america. and i hope that is being corrected because there was information there that was just sitting there. and obviously, it could've been a very serious situation against this country. senator schumer. >> thank you come on mr. chairman. let me thank the witnesses for

being here. my first question is for mr. kennedy from the state department. it's about multi-and should be says. one of the main criticisms that's been leveled in this matter was that abdulmutallab visa issued to him by our embassy in london of june 2008 was not revoked once his father warned our nigerian embassy about his extremist act to the the. this criticism is valid, but does not take into account the complex process that state department must typically follow in order to revoke a visa. you know that. so instead of focusing on the visa revocation, which is more complex than people realize, i think we should look at the fact that abdulmutallab and seven of the 9/11 hijackers came to america on unlimited multiple entry visas that gave them a revolving door to come and go into america as they please. once you get it, you can go back and forth without anybody checking on you as many times as

you want. in the new information that came in from al qaeda and the yemen as well as from mr. abdulmutallab's father, came in after he was issued that foldable entry visa. but the problem. so i propose that the citizens of the 14 countries identified as potential security threats by the obama administration should be required to apply for permission each time they visit the united states. rather than enter at will by virtue of the so-called revolving door visas that they valid for years at a time. this way we can have a calmer examination of all the facts that we know about antigo each time they enter. so no information comes in, that will be part of the file. in the burden of proof will be on the entrant rather than on the state department to revoke. had this policy been in place before the abdulmutallab incident, he would've been denied a visa because his name

was entered into the database in the entry stated he would be presumed ineligible if he had applied for a new visa. so my question for you mr. kennedy is this, do you agree that abdulmutallab would've been unable to enter the united states had been required to a new visa prior to his flight to detroit? do you agree? >> possibly, senator, for this reason. i fully agree we have to examine all the shoes and that's part of the ongoing process we are engaging. two points if i might, senator. >> let me ask my second. if you were just going to say yes. will you work with me to implement the suggestion that either administratively or through legislation that we implement this plan? okay, now those are the two questions. go right ahead to >> we are examining all of our process is right now as you rightly suggest this calls for fully complete review. >> what do you think of this

idea? >> if i could with one preliminary statement, once an individual receives a visa, it is not that that is continually reviewed. it is continually reviewed. if the national terrorism center or any of our other partners in the law enforcement or intelligence community say that they have new information on an individual, they passed that information to us on a daily basis. we run all that information against the list. >> i understand that. i'm not asking that, sir. if the information is missed, which it was here, if the burden of proof around the entrance who had to get a new visa, it's much more likely that it would be caught than if you had to go revoke the visa as you have no way of revoking it because that new information was missed. >> senator, i agree we have to look at this very strongly and i totally agree with you. the point i think that our

difference is is that we do every day review every issued visa to see that new information has come into us or not. and so, we do continue reviews and if we discover the terrorist screening center at the fbi or homeland security has elevated this person, we been revoked a visa immediately. >> yeah. so again, why wouldn't it be better to do it the way i'm suggesting? >> because senator, if the information is not -- if the doctor and i cannot read, than the individual is going to get the visa because there is no -- when they apply for the new visa and we ran against the database, if the dots not connected in the individual has not been put on the list by one of the intelligence or law enforcement communities, -- the >> but he was on the list.

>> no, sir. he was not a no-fly or the new issuance lists. >> right, but he was on the larger list. what i'm saying is if the visa had to be applied for from one of these 14 countries, then you wouldn't -- he wouldn't have gotten, if they would've seen them them on the walls list, the bigger list, they would have reviewed it more carefully. if and they did it, something is profoundly wrong. we don't have access to the type database? >> yes, sir. we have access. we're the people who caused his name to be put into the tight database when we filed the visa paper reports. we caused his name -- >> as i understand that you have access to what you put in to the tide database. >> that is correct. >> yes or no?

>> yes. >> that is my point. >> if someone is in the database and that comes up, we then send a message to the intelligence and law-enforcement communities and say, should we issue this visa or not? >> okay, i am -- i was told that the state department was seriously interested in making this change instead of saying well, we're going to study at which means nothing. argue or earn two? >> were interested in finding any means -- >> are you interested in this proposal? do you think it's a good idea off the top of your head? >> i think it's a good idea to find out -- >> would be tighter than the present process? >> is has its pluses and minuses. we are very seriously reviewing it. >> okay, my second question, i don't have much timo