there were usefulness for those tools, but we need to use them in different ways. >> the technology will continue to change on both sides. they found a new kind of plastic that was undetectable as an explosive. they use it to try to assassinate the head of the intelligence of the saudi arabian government, the prince. he told us all about it. we did not react. the next thing was the so-called underpants' bomber who tried to bring down an airplane. so we will keep working on the technology side. we will try to come up with new things and try to counter their things. our best defense will still be the flying public response things on an airplane, who brings things to people's attention. we have to keep people aware because, in the end, they are our best defense. >> the word "dangerous" has not

been used yet. we have said that these attacks are more diverse, but i am not sure that we have used the word "dangers." we consider the threat -- "dangerous." we consider the threat still dangers. the american people should not become complacent. a paragraph or two in the report on page four, in there we state that in this past year, it was a watershed in terrorist attacks and plots on the united states. 10 jihad attacks, two actual attacks, three serious-but-

disrupted plot, five incidents involving groups of americans conspiring to travel abroad to receive training -- by our count, 2009, 43 american citizens or residents were charged with terrorism. that really brought me up when i read that paragraph. the idea to the extent that the american people have it that this is fading into the past, that is just flat wrong. take a look at page 4.

>> making sure that you do not create the kind of fear that undermines resiliency and reads the sort of reaction that might fuel terrorist propaganda it is a very delicate one. i wonder if you had an opportunity to assess the scale of the threat. bruce talked about the adversaries wishing to flood the united states with a series of smaller tax. but in terms of the actual scale, in terms of numbers, are you suggesting that american people should be afraid now, should be nervous, that they're nervous -- there are thousands of thousands of sleeper cells or terrorists in this country -- and they should be with nervous about their neighbors or have you had the attendee to assess the scale of the threat in the united states? >> i think your question is very good and sets up the dilemma that you confront.

did you do not want to scare people and throw them into a panic. we do not mean to do that by this report. it is my perception -- could be wrong about this -- that the american people have kind of lost their focus on the threat. i think that one of the values of this report is that it brings the threat more into perspective, still serious and still dangerous. the american people just have to get a more realistic sense of what they are confronted with. steve said a moment ago, did you not, steve, that you anticipate one of these attacks sunday will succeed and the american people have to be prepared for that and resilient to it. so the balance that you striking your question is very hard to hit, hard for the american leaders to hit it right.

we are trying to do the best we can to say, "do not forget about this, do not be complacent, do not panic." but there are a lot of things we still need to do to make our country safer. >> yes. >> with regards to that homegrown terrorism, can anyone speak to why it is occurring, why we see an increase as you mentioned on page four of the report? >> why is it increasing? bruce, you can take it. >> these people can recruit on the internet. some of them are very charismatic. they can speak to young and impressionable people who happen to be muslims. that is certainly one factor.

second, i think it is a change of strategy. of that it is trying to do this because i have been but -- al qaeda is trying to do this because they have been unsuccessful. >> one of the things stated in the report is important. we have been talking about change and how this has evolved. that is all correct. one thing has not changed -- in tent. we know the intent of those who wish to do less harm. what may have changed or has changed is capability of them to attack us. but they are still after us. they still want to do us harm. and they still want to get at as any way they can, in our view. intent is the driving force here behind the terrorist activity and it remains the same.

>> i think governor kaine and mr. carlson is absolutely right. we have seen terrorist organizations becoming much more comfortable in their communications. someone in the united states, they can communicate and has theological credentials as a credentials scholars -- and has to lodge a credentials and academic scholars but is from new mexico. the threat is radiated outwards from al qaeda central itself. it used to be that if you wanted to be a terrorist or if you wanted terrorist training, you went to one point, either afghanistan or, more recently, pakistan.

one of the problems that is part of al qaeda's strategy to enlist, to encourage, to motivate light-minded jihadi groups to spread their wings has meant that individuals looking to receive terrorist training, unfortunately, today have more destinations to select from to go. they tend to go to somalia rather than pakistan. there have been other incidents, not just those emanating from yemen, but when u.s. military recruiter was murdered and another was seriously injured in little rock, ark. and left the country. the threat has diversified, not only in terms of profile of

adversaries in the united states itself, but also in terms of the number of groups in addition to al qaeda who are independent, but, in many cases, may have a common cause with al qaeda who also threaten us. >> i am surprised about the why and motivation in this discussion does not have u.s. policy. the basis that have -- the basis that the u.s. has all over the world, -- the bases that the u.s. has a love of the world and the recent religious threats, can you talk we need a very conscious

decision on this report. i think we thought we would present to the report very much as you have seen at and then add to it a number of policy recommendations. we rejected that because we thought the important thing was to focus on the assessment of the threat as stated in the report, and we wanted more time, frankly, to formulate policy recommendations. your question clearly predicts what we have to do now. we have got the assessment of the threat. now we have to figure out what kind of policy recommendations. there are sentences, paragraphs in the report that suggest some of our future recommendations. you can clearly see by reading a report we will put more emphasis

on state and local police forces. we did not articulate that, but i am sure we will in the future. we backed away from policy here. we were not quite ready to address that. >> one of the key issues was that the u.s. wanted to engage in a struggle of ideas. that has come almost to a complete standstill at this point. there's debate in this country taking place about the ground zero islamic center and the situation in florida. i am wondering how you see that , and your perspectives and recommendations that you made over five years ago at this time, and what more can be done. >> chapter 12, he says. you are right.

we're looking at all our recommendations. we know that most of them have been implemented, at least in part. some of them have been implemented in greater than that. some of them we want to see more action on. we would like to see the position strengthened. we want better communications. we are not there yet. the recommendation involving congressional oversight has not been implemented at all. we think that is a glaring failure. the recommendations involving foreign policy, and the war on ideas -- we are not there yet. it does not mean we will not continue to work on it. high stylemean actions among american citizens, particularly ideas interpreted by many to be anti muslim.

they are harmful. these kinds of issues, these kinds of debates do not help when we are trying to prevent people from being recruited. they do not help in the war and on my -- war on ideas. >> i simply say i think the american relationship with the islamic world is one of the really great foreign policy challenges of the next decade. we are not going to solve it in a year or two, or even 10 years. the kind of debate we're having in new york city today reflect that. how do we get right, how do we line up this relationship better than we have been able to do? i don't know whether we will get into that. i jokingly said in response to your question, look at one of the chapters in the now-ancient

9/11 commission report. it addresses this question of how you should approach the islamic world. incidentally, that chapter has had considerable impact in the foreign policy community in the sense that it has stimulated an enormous amount of work and thought about how to go at it. i must say, i don't think it has been implemented very effectively at this point. i am encouraged by the fact that we are beginning to address this key relationship. one point -- 1.4 billion muslims from london to jakarta, an enormously important force in the world. we have to understand it much, much better than we do, and how to address it. >> if i might add, i think one of the clear implications of the

finding that we're more likely to have increasingly domestic- related terrorism attacks and that these are extremely difficult to prevent, and almost certainly be will have one be successful, there is a lot of domestic policy issues that need to be fleshed out that we largely postponed in the aftermath of 9/11 because we treated it as a foreign policy issue. to draw a silver lining out of the debate, it is that we are engaging around these are questions. political leadership cannot exploit this in near terms, but use it as an opportunity to get americans engaged around the challenge, and how we safeguard our values going forward. there should not be a sense of trade-off. you want more security, you give up more liberty. resilience is about being able to safeguard those liberties in

the context of a threat. we have to engage around how we do that. the challenges will be different from those the commission six years ago looked at. >> one more question? >> you said before the melting pot theory no longer works. why has that changed? you mentioned there is no single profile for potential terrorists. aren't they all muslim radicals? >> well, i think, first of all, the melting pot was more wishful thinking, that we could be insulated from the heavy currents of radicalization that we have seen affecting communities in other parts of the world, united kingdom, spain, belgium, germany, and so on. we were not different. that comes back to the question about policies.

in some cases, you have countries that either do not -- did not participate in the invasion of iraq, who do not have forces in afghanistan, and still are under threat. i'm not sure it all boils to foreign policy. i think it is more complex than that. 1998, the u.s. did not have troops in iraq or afghanistan. the superintendent, perhaps the greatest offense meant he had in the peace process. that is when bin laden was blowing up our embassies in tanzania. they have no shortage of issues to gravitate towards to bang the drum to summon people. we are talking about people from one particular demographic group who have somehow been in fews, been responsive to, in some cases theological

justification, in some cases, men pumped up with testosterone , and i think the fundamental issue is that people from a wide variety of walks of life have become much more susceptible to these calls, in part because of the war on terror has lasted nine years, longer than world war ii. they have found more fertile ground, more recruitment. i think their messages and their means of recruiting people, using a diverse array of lures, have become more effective. the u.s. has caught up with europe. this is a problem especially since the suicide attacks on the london underground. britain also thought they could remain immune to this before that occurred.

they were surprised on july 7, 2005. the point is not to sound the alarm bell. we are talking about small numbers, 10 or 11 plots, 43 persons is disturbingly large only because it was zeroth few years ago. the u.s. department of justice indited more than two dozen persons on charges last year. if we don't recognize this is an emerging problem and a growing threat coming in a few years, it will because for alarm. now was a time to look at the threat, to understand it is one that is dynamic, and except that what worked yesterday are even today is no longer says it shipped -- no longer sufficient. we need to be flexible, as our adversaries are. >> thank you very much. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] caller: [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> officials talk about their experience on 9/11 per. it is tomorrow and sees them. president obama attends the remembrance ceremony at the pentagon with secretary gate. we will straighten out live on c-span and -- on c-span.org. >> ray lahood outlines possible new regulations concerning pilot fatigue. then jim webb talks about legislation designed to help veterans.

>> this weekend commemorating 9/11. on the offensive 112 9/11 in the details about the twin towers, their collapse, and the cleanup. on afterwards, america is losing its position as an economic leader and she puts the blame on corporations. for all of this weekend's programs, go to booktv.org. >> and now ray lahood announces new rules aimed at preventing pilot teak predict fatigue. -- fatigue. he is joined by randy babbitt. this is about 35 minutes.

i am delighted to be joined by randy babbitt. i will say a few things and then drained you will say a few things and then we will answer questions. >> i think the worst day i've had on this job in the 18 months i have been here was the morning that i was watching television and saw the terrible crash that occurred in buffalo. 49 people were killed. for a long time. since that time, we have spent a lot of time with the families. they have become strong advocate for airline safety. families. we have learned a lot from them.

they have become strong advocate for airline safety. we are thankful for them. i want to say that. they have been very strong advocate for what we are proposing in this proposed rule today. we are grateful to them no one has had greater pain in the family embers. what they have done is they have given us w a lot givenin behindd our sales to do well we are doing here today. we owe them a special debt of gratitude. this afternoon, we are announcing a proposed rule making that will help protect 700 million passengers who fly

every year. this rule will have a 60 day comment period. we want to hear about what we are proposing. we know we will hear from the industry. we want to hear from the public. we know we will hear from the families. i want to pay a special word of the cedit to two -- to randy babbit lady came to us after being a pilot for more than 25 years at eastern airlines. he knows the indutry. he knows the culture of the industry. he brought an enormous amount of experience to this proposed rule. after last year's accident, we in president obama's @ evisceration about to improved safety.

we take a backseat to nobody when itomes to airline safety. safety is our number one priority. randy traveled the country with his team and held 12 safety forums across the country. we thank them for the leadership. we are announcing poposed changes thatill go even further, increasing the amount of time the pilots are able to rest between flights if adopted, the role with the pilots the opportunity to a nine hours of rest before a flight, place new

limits on the number of hours a pilot can fly weekly and monthly and insure that pilots have a greater number of hours of duty every week. it is a big airnes greater flexibility to address scheduling. they wi have the option to tailor their scheduling in accordance with the typesof flights they fly. american skies are the safest the ever have been. flying is safe, but they must be safer. we are proposing a rule that will help ensure that flying is safer than it is today i am pleased to turn over the podium to our diminish trader randy babbitt.

>> thank you of. i'm going to hit a couple of the highlights. many follow his comments. this issue has been around for a long time. i personally testified on this issue myself in 1992 the in some ways, this i want to thing secretary ray loven. when we had a call to action, i invited the cemetery to speak to the group. he listened to the dialogue.

he said we need to get this done. here are. i appreciate his commitment to where we are today. and also like to think a lot of experts. if this is a complicated role. we will talk about some of a particular spin the. i want to thank the folks that the faa that were involved. we have active participation

what this role is based on is hard science. that is what has been lacking in the past. this gives us the opportunity to acknowledge what science knows about circadian rhythms. it also says that if you are a pilot and to understand your own body and you say you are too fatigued to fly, then you do t. that is a big step. what we aredoing today is not as good policy. it is about duty. it is abear responsibility for their it is about safety for everybody involved. it proposes to strengthen the requirement for their.

it is the responsibility with equal weight upon the carrier. care's ned to consider the commuting times that are required. they will need to understand and their pilots are can meeting. they need to be a sure that they are given the opportunity when they get to their home base to get the amount of regulatory rest required. we've acted as if all flights are treated equally. they are not as if fatigue are universa if your fifties, you should not fly. -- if you are tired, you should not fly.

it factors in time zones. if factors in if the pilot will be able to get the required sleep. tere is a big difference between flying one long leg between detroit and flyng 10 takeoffs and landings in never leaving the state of michigan. both of those exist today. we are also talking about a 9 hour minimum rest. that is rest. this means behnd the door rest. the rules today provide the duty but there is no assurance that the pilots will get the rest. we have a new method of measuring that under the proposed rule. we will have new rules that address the calendar year.

it provides a better environment to be ved. it puts the joit responsibility on them to be rested. it gives the passenger the reassurance they should have produced. this is a longime coming. i am happy this day arrived. thank you pe >> it is universal. it will aly equally to every carrier. they are not be any imbalancthe

this. >> you want the aggregate cost, right? >> it will require airlines. >> with modern scheduling, they should be able to mitigate much of this. there will be increase record and recording requirements. we believe a lot of this can be mitigated with better scheduling techniques. >> there is some concern about the total work day. analogous 16 hours. under the new schedule, it would slide to a maximum of 13.

that depends on a whole bunch of variables. i get the impression that some parties would have liked to see harder rule. >> bringing science into this was very important. we recognize the difference of circadian rhythm changes. in an optimum environment, yes. if a pilot normally works days series, can we xpect they will be just as alert at 2:00 the next afternoon? what increase with the amount of flight time. >> how are you going to assure the pilots get eight hours back? they can get off the clock.

they do not have an opportunity. how that injured there are eight hours of record time? if it takes 45 minutes to get to the hotel and get back, that is part -- considered part of the rest. when you get to the hote you are insured nine hours for the opportunity of rest at the hotel. you are in the hotel behind the door. if it takes two hours to get the hotel, you still get nine hours. >> are some airles plan to have to hire additional pilots to meet this? >> they will certainly be looking at how they schedule it.

they have an opportunity to participate. most of it was agreed to continually. i believe they can find ways to live with this. it is certainly possible that it to be required. >> i'm going to take a call. whoever is on the line, if you want to ask your question, go ahead th ifyou are on the line, please, identify yourself. >> how're you doing? i want to go on to this issue of industry impacts. you are talking about if the airlines are able to adjust their schedules for this. if you are talking about all of

these extensions, for example, if the have someone doing a lot short flights,f there will be more energy. they will get it ready, landing, turning around. can the industry actually pulled this off without more pilots or with all simply cutting plight? >-- flights? >> we are here to try to release safety. but that will not be done without some impact. we have to acknowledge that. right now we have too many situatis where pilots were flying fatigued. that is what we are trying to eliminate. i imagine you run the risk of increasing costs.

that is what he paid to eliminate the fatigue and save the environment. >> what are you doing about the issue of commuting? >> this is not part of the press. we put some responsibility on the pilot of a bear the but irresponsibility on the corporation to understand when can meeting is taking place. we asked the industry for comment. this is a complicated area for us to undetad. this is what we are proposing. what do they think we can doto help eliminate this problem?

>> a yo seen what they just mentioned? where are you seeing this? >> where are we seeing 50 show up? it requires some fatigue management training some people recognize when they are getting tired. with or about training, people do not recognize they are not performing at 100%. right now, we have one size fits all. we have a 16 hour on duty. it does not matter.

i use this in testimon if i went to work it is o'clock in the morning, would you be comfortable driving it would meet in a plot that night? how about going door to the clock and night -- how about going to work at 10:00 at night and then driving with me at 12:00? it is the same 14 hours, but it is not. >> [inaudible] >> what is the meeting? is driving a car an hour to working eeting -- is driving a car an hour to work commuting? what is commuting?

by air? by us? what do we mean by it? how do you track it? we have done the best we could to try to define what we expect from people. >> did you discuss this with the department or the charter airline industry? they were concerned the exceptions in current rules might disappear. had you discussed the other side effects? >> we had opportunity for input. the park itself made it pretty straight for the acknowledgement that we are trying to deal with 5fatigue.

we also have a crew. why should a crew the exposed to less opportunities to sleep, a longer on duty, just because they are not behind the cockpit door? >>does it change the way they are doing things now? >> the airlines do it today by augmenting crews. supplemental carriers often do not have to. >> this proposal would become a row. they would have to comply with the same standards that all the other operators comply with. >> another question from somebody who phoned in. >> my question comes from tom davis d >> they have en nine hours

between flights. what about -- is this thing worked out? ifyou fly to australia it could be different then flying to buffalo. how are you going to sort that out? >> not necessarily nine hours between flights. an pportunity and nine hours of rest behind the door. if that is the same no matter how far you flu. -- flew. you have to have the opportunity for nine hours of rest. that is universal. before the distinction, it to a shorter on the domestic side. now it is the same. >> anybody else? >> if you fly to australia and many have nine hours of rest and

then a flight to california as opposed to navy flying to washington and resting. >> out simply answering the opportunity r rest. there are other limits. visit there is a requirement that has been increased. fe are insured of one 24-hour free of duty. now it is 30. when you put all these in place, it makes it come into a better perspective. the pilot will be assured of rest. >> can you give us an update on the california situation? >> first of all, we are very concerned about the people and their families of those who lost

their lives. w are still getting reports about that. this is a terrible tragedy. we havegreements that they have jurisdiction we have someone eiher on their way or on site as we speak to make sure that things are being done correctly the investigation will be conducted correctly. we will take 24/7 oversight to make sure everything is done correctly. the responsibility for this falls under the state of california. >> they mentioned of infrastructure will continue. d you think the pipeline should be included in that? >> in areas where there is

faulty pipeline, i guarantee you we will be putting some taxpayer dollars. it is an important consideration. we have a whole team of people here at d.o.t. that work 24/7 on reiewing pipeline safety, reviewing pipelines. they spend a fair amount of dollars on that. >> [inauble] >> i'm not going to bring the problem today. if iad a chance to talk to some of our staff, i might drink the problem. stay tuned. check back later. >> about the new rule that led the pilots call in fatigued, but pilot had the right.

[inaudible] how is it different under the current rules to strengthen that? >> we determine it on to things good, safe, and problem management. secondly, often there is a contractual relationship. never before has a been regulatory. i appeal to people to use their judgment and knowledge that someone knows themselves. someone could half of a wonderful opportunity to have sleep and something happened, they had an emergency at their home. they had the opprtunity to rest but they did not get it. we want and not to be punitive. the one people to be able to say i did not get a good not sleep

-- a good night's sleep and i cannot fly. >> you say you may extend part 135. is there some sort of timetable? can they take a look at it? >> we have put the 135 operation, we have provided them with some heads of the guidance the we will be providing them information as to what this proposed rule could look like. at the same time, we are also telling the operations to take a village at it. congress has taken a look. we are putting them on notice. this could well be coming to your neighborhood simpered. >> hings have moved very

rapidly on a number of fronts. you dramatically went after the regional airlines. congress immediately increased the amount of hours required of new commercial pilot. now the faa is acting s quickly on issues. the speed with which these reforms -- will go down as when the most pivota moment in aviation safety? >> i want to give credit for us moving quickly. we knew there is a sense of urgency.

i know you have talked to these folks. every tory is a sad story when you lose a loved one. when you see the results of a npsb report and to see what happened, it could have been prevented. we took our sense of rgency from the family spreaies. we are pleased that this rule addresses a lot of the things that needed to be addressed. if i go back to what i said before. when it comes to safety, we will not take a back seat to anybody. in no more cash -- you know my passion on distracted driving. you know what we have done when people who work for the department of transportation or airlines is provided. when they have bad behavior,

perhaps there will be punishment. we will people tknow the when they get in a car or bus or airplane for whatever form of transportation that the people that are driving these vehicles or flying the planes are well trained, that the vehicles are safe. all of us like a lot. we get on buses. the only thing we ask is that the people are well trained and that the equipment is safe. that is not too much to ask. we feel a realsense of responsibility here to take of the issue of safety for the public to believe when they get on these public utilities that they will be safe. >> it is taken a little more than a year when the ffa said they could do it and when you put out the proposal. there were some deadlines that he missed a th -- he missed.

> we are not going to do a post-mortem. we are here with the proposed rule that we think makes sense that addresses a lot of the issues. there is no value in early trend to go through all the imaginations of this. this is a very big propose row. we will find out how good it is. people have 60 days to cment on we are going to hear from families. berglund a year from stakeholders for the -- we are going to hear from stakeholders. we are here today because a lot of people worked very hard.

>> isn't this about transparency? >> i doubt if anyone in this room wanted to o through the whole litany. if you want this, you can talk to our public affairs people and still with them through the next five or 10 days. i will be happy to make them accessible to you. there has been nobody that has been more transparent on transportation issues than this administration. that will not fly around here, excuse the pun. >> the criticism directed at the

ffa and department of transportation from the family'ies been the speed in whh things have been done. i know the severity 60 day comment time. when can this become a role? -- ule? the -- rule? can you explain why these things take so long? >> they take so long because there is a lot of people involved. here is a lot of different stakeholders. there are a lot of different issues that have to be addressed. nobody agrees with that statement more than we do. this has taken too long. given the fact that the time from the air crash in where we are today, we are a lot uicker than any other administration in the history of the department of transportation for the -- transrtation. when we face safety issues, we get on them. we do not mess around.

we think this took too long, but it did not take as as long as a lot of other administrations. >> sorry, i'm trying to write down "didn't do a dang thing." >> it is nice way without using swear words. >> did this will meet the cost benefit analysis? in it not, what kind of leverage to do have to use. >> yes, it does. we have not in meeting about. anybody else? >> i want to back up a little

bit. hours trying to as the questions earlier. -- i was trying to ask questions are there. are there any exceptions to the rules? does more rest required if you fly more during the day, if you read the eight hour limit, do you get more rest? >> one of the thingsthat this rule does is eliminate the exceptions. there is flexibility so carriers have the option to schedule different ways that are nique -- that are not unique to everybody. nine hours of rest has not changed. the old world did not have it. what you have is an opportunity for respite.

>> that is its unless someone who did not ask a questi has a burning question. i really appreciate your interest in this. this is a big deal for us. you on getting the word out for us is very important. thank you very much. hos

>> former cia deputy bruce kinger and what it could mean for their political finances. "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> he is considered the father of modern committee organizing. in his book, he uses a blueprint for bringing about social change. >> about what a rebel rouser is supposed to be. >> he spent 10 years working. it is "radical." >> james webb was the keynote speaker of the naval institute

defense forum in washington, d.c. it talks about the consequences of military deployment to iraq and afghanistan. after the remarks, military personnel talk about the health and welfare of veterans. this is about an hour and 50 imminent them -- 50 minutes. price good morning. what a terrific turnout.

. about 45 minutes.

we are at the bipartisan community center that was produced to produce a bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems. i would like to introduced mr. kaine. >> thank you, michael, and good morning. we are here again, preparing for another anniversary of 9/11, preparing to mourn with the families, to look at what happened in the past, to remember, but also to look forward. part of that looking forward is to reassess what the threat is today, how we are doing. are we doing any better than we were before? has the threat changed in any way? at is what we want to talk about today. this is a very important time to reassess, to reexamine, to look

at what this threat is. we have met now with all leaders of national security in this administration. we have heard from people who led the national security efforts in the past. we're trying to formulate what the country should do, what we should be aware of, and what we should -- and where we should go. in that context, this is a very important day. the report we will present today is looking for, is looking at where the threat has changed, and at the kinds of things we may have to do and the ways that women have to change as a nation in order to meet that threat. at this point, i would like to introduce my partner, my friend , washington's other national monument, lee hamilton, who has been so instrumental in national secuty and in some any of the ways in this town. lee, if you'll take it from her

-- >> gd morning to all of you. thank you very much for coming. it is good to be with governor kaine again. we have conducted a good many of these over time of several years. i step forward simply because i want to recognizehe members of the national security prepared this group. we will turn to bruce hoffman -- national security preparedness group. we will turn to bruce hoffm. they put together this report. i know you want to hear from verse. i think bruce intends to summarize the report briefly and then he, john, and steve will take your questions. tom and i will kick in if we can. -- will chip in if we can. we have assembled and remarkable group of people with regard to their backgrounds in national security and homeland security.

ey are a real group of experts. john dannon is one of the experts here. he has had a very long and distinguished career in the intelligence community. he now works at bae systems as one of their trusted advisers. our group includ fred townsend, who worked in the white house on homeland security matters. that includes the former secretary of dhs, governor of pennsylvania, tom ridge. it also includes former energy secretary, spencer abraham. we have two former attorney general and the group. dick former guard and ed meese. we have former members jim turner, david kirby, and dave beckmann. put all these people together

and you have a pretty good group to assess where our government stands with regard to national security preparedness. we believe that this assessment that is being released today -- and burress will describe it to you in just a few minutes -- is a very important document. i do not tnk i he seen anything quite like it. i have not seen all of th things that come out of government, but i have seen a good many of them. you'll see that it gives a very fresh perspective on the threat that we confront from al qaeda. our focus today is on this paper and the evolving threat from qaeda. in the future, we will explore other aspects of homeland security and national security preparedness. but today, the focus will be on the report.

so, burress, to get this into this report, we ask -- , bruce, to gives into this report, we ask you to step forward. all right. before i begin, i want to first thank very warmly and appreciatively the bipartisan center, especially the executive director michael allen, whose support throughout this entire project was absolutely critical and essential. i would also like to thank the other members of the group, the chair and the co-chair, who were selected ably. unfortunately, my co-author peter bergman is not here. this report clearly benefited from peter, who is not only the leading expert on al qaeda and has not only written a book, but two books on osama bin laden. he is also a magnificent editor who greatly improved this

product. to any of you who are familiar with either peters or my work, we came at it from two perspectives and complemented one another with the expertise of the group. we produce something that is rather important. it would have been impossible without the assistance of katherine tutor men who took what peter and i had written, --know that it together, melded it together, and came up with this document that you have before you. instead of summarizing, let me 0 win briefly on the key or most -- let me 0 in -- let me zero in briefly on the key or most

important elements. we thought it was appropriate to do a complete threat assement, an assessment of the threat. also significant is the three long years since the last publicly disseminated u.s. government threat assessment. this was the national intelligence assessment produced by the national intelligence council in july 2007. it was important to establish a foundation or baseline assessment of the threat as it exists today. more importantly, how it has evolved and changed since both the 9/11 commission report and the assessment from three years ago. fortunately, we have had wide access to an array of single policy makers across the united states government to were open and frank with us and gerously

offered their thoughts and their opinions. this, of course, was supplemented by the ongoing research that peter bergman and i have conducted on this phenomenon. the fundamental conclusion is that the threat is both a diversified and has become much more complex than it has been at anytime since the attacks of september 11, 2001. equally of concern is the fact that there is no single profile of the terrorist threat in the united states today. what we see as an adversary that is drawn from all sectors of society and all walks of life. we -- this includes persons born in afghanistan, pakistan, somalia, residents and naturalized american citizens. in the past few years, also, we have seen american citizens themselves, people born in the united states also gravitating and being summoned to the call of terrorism, in this case, g

hyde. we have discovered perpetrators are the people -- in this case, and jihad. we have discored perpetrators are the people that have been men and women, young and old, high school dropouts or petiteds, and bemba's, blue-eyed blonde who can easily in as well as hardened terrorist operatives. subsequently, we have continued to carry out reconnaissance for

future terrorist attacks on behalf of al qaeda, other pakistani jihadist groups, and others. the leadership of the terrorist movements that are in the united states are becoming increasingly americanized. key operatives, whether it is someone in al qaeda central, someone in the al qaeda arabian peninsula, or in what we see is increasingly americans all three of them born in the united states turning on their country, going abroad, making common cause with terrorist groups. and that's something we found fundamentally disquieting. finally, we concluded that the attacks and plots of the past year or so are not and should not be regarded as off as we

are often told. rather we see them as a broader strategy embraced by our adversaries to flood us with multiple threats from a diverse array of adversaries. we found, too, that the united states has failed to adequately understand and prepare for these threats. there was a prevailing conviction that existed long past itself that it couldn't happen here. that the communities in the united states from which terrorists we thought would draw their recruits, we regarded as more affluent, better educated, and more diverse than similar communities elsewhere, particularly in the united kingdom and europe and, therefore, the american melting pot would prevent something of a fire wall to prevent radicalization and recruitment in this country. yet, this hasn't proven to be the case and now we are

confronted with an alarming trend. the threat we concluded is more complex, more diverse than what we have encountered at any time since september 11, 2001. an important challenge is that there is no single government agency responsible for identifying radicalization and interdicting recruitment. the problem is, if it's everyone's responsibility, in the end it's no one's. moreover, we found, hithes not even clear which agency amongsted the vast array of agencies, which should have the lead spobblet for counterering radical sablet and recruitment. thus, terrorists may have found our achilles heel. we have no strategy to deal with this growing problem. the diversety of this array of recent terrorist recruits thus presents new and even greater challenges to the intelligence

community and law enforcement agencies across the country who are already overstressed and inundated with information and leads and now have to run down these new threats. in sum, and let me conclude here, we found that the threat facing the united states is different than it was anyone years ago. has also changed profoundly since the anyone 11 commission presented its report. today, america face as dynamic threat that is diversified to a broad potential array of attacks, from shootings to car bombs, to simultaneous suicide attacks, to attempted in-flight bombings. and that this is a tate of affairs that, as we approach the nintsdz anniversary, is cause for concern. thank you very much. >> thank you.

i'm the president of the center for national policy and delighted to have been able to bh a part of this very distinguished panel and work with bruce and peter who i think provided us with such a superb report. a o couple things i'd like to highlight particularly from a homeland security perspective about what we should enure from their key findings. they've given us a very uncomfortable finding for our national security and intelligence community that al qaeda and its affiliates and increasingly others who are drawn to this cause have essentially made a significant strategic shift away from the spectacular attacks like we saw on september 11, and a consensus that many of us had in the immediate aftermath, which is to equal or bet thear attack, to one where basically less is more. less sophisticated attacks

conducted more frequently can have as big of a bang for less buck than a real spectacular attack. what that means in very straightforward terms is that the bar for carrying out these attacks is much lower. you don't need as highly capable people to put together a very highly sophisticated conconspiracyy. the attacks have an upside is that it trips wires off that allows us to intercept them. much smaller attacks, particularly drawn from domestic recruits, are almost impossible for our national security intelligence community to detect and intercept. as a practical matter it means that we will almost certainly have successful terrorist attacks on u.s. soil, and we need to start coming to grips with that. and the important finding here as well is they're not as likely to be a 9/11 scale. we're going to see the kinds of things we saw in new york and

times square an american naturalized citizen who, drawn to the cause, gets training overseas and comes back, leaves connecticut and drives into new york city. i think one of the most important things about the times square event was that times square is arguably the most visibly place in the united states, with perhaps ttcapeps of the white house. the detection of his scheme was done by a t shirt vendor on the corner. literally one of the folks we did speak with on this panel was with commissioner ray kelly of the nypd. literally across the street on broadway and 42nd was the squad car. that wasn't the detection point it was an everyday citizen who detect it had problem. fundamentally, our national security apparatus and our intelligence committee have been operating on we will focus

all our energy and efforts on dealing with an adversary away from our shores so essentially we can go about our daily lives confident that this threat is not going to be on our shores. a central finding is that is not how the threat is today. it's evolved much more with a domestic component. it still has the overseas pieces but it also speaks that our committees are not as adapting as much as they need to. minimally we are talking about engagements up to 50,000 public agencies who are going to be the front lines but more importantly pratches is the everyday citizens. the christmas day bomber's act was not stopped by the marshals. it was stotched by the passengers on board that plane. the bottom line here is the

threat is much different today than it was anyone years ago. -- nine years ago. our national security needs to adapt to that but we the american people must as well. so i want to commend the work and the opportunity i've had to be a part of this panel to bring this very important finding i think to the american people and hope that we take some action soon. thank you. >> thank you. i want to join in the applause for this paper and compliment peter and bruce on what i think is a very thoughtful and insightful and provocative piece of work that i hope will stimulate a larger public debate on the important issues that it raises. as someone who spent most of my adult life in the intelligence community and in the anlitic world i focused on the issue of radicalization and just point out that in my experience radicalization is really a function of globalization and

we all know that our adversaries have a much easier time in the area of globalization in moving people and moving finance and mufingse capabilities and destructive no how across borders. well, i think this paper makes it clear that they also move cultural information across borders, and cultural information from just from the places we'd expect it but into western societies and into our own. i think the imperative that comes from this is to recognize that we need to have analysis that integrates foreign and domestic intelligence and analysis more than at any time in our history. and this is an absolute impertive for us if we're going to deal with the issue of radicalization. i think the paper also makes clear that intelligence analysis is not just a matter of taking human intelligence and imagery analysis and pulling it together but it's

much more important today if we're to understand the nature of terrorism to pull cultural information and to put cultural information in that context into the analysis that we do. and that means understanding the cultures from which the terrorists come but also our own culture and how it is being -- coming susceptible to radicalization. we're going to have, i'm delighted to tell you, on the 6th of october, we're going to be sponsoring a conference on domestic intelligence at the willard hotel and the new dni will be there along with the f.b.i. director and other leaders of the intelligence community, and we're going to follow on some of the discussion that this paper raised. and i look forward to that and i hope i have a number of you join us for that conference. thank you. >> at this point we'd be glad to answer any and all of your questions.

>> you mentioned there's no one organization responsible for looking at the domestic threat and handling it. some might think that would be the role of d.h.s. where does the responsibility lie? what would you recommend in terms of how this should be conducted? >> that is a subject of the next report. to put it simply, that we thought that this report stood on its own, and this report turned out to be far more weighty than we imagined it would be and decide that had the group really needs to focus its attention on those recommendations. it does not mean to duck the answer, but it's not something we at this juncture consider. >> i'd like to ask two questions about commercial aviation. the report is the number one threat.

question one, why is that still the case? especially given that the attacks on mass transit in madrid, london, moscow, and secondly. how effective has the efforts been since anyone 11 and more recently with advanced imaging technology to stop the kind of threats that you write about? >> the problem i think is that our adversaries, despite all the advances we've made, all the technological sophistication, the reorganization of part of our government to address the threat, they're not deterred from attacking it. they see this as fundamentally a high-value target, that they believe not only can generate a mother lode of publicity and teafpks but also one that stokes worldwide fear, that radiates beyond just the target of the attack or the target nation of the attack. it has a profound impact on

globalized economy, on international travel. and one of the things we talk about in the report is that al qaeda in particular but also we see in many of its allies and affiliates, focus on economic targets because they believe that's fundamentally how they win. they don't claim they're going to defeat us in the battle field and they understand the fundamental asymmetry of terrorism, that they can't hope to defeat the united states militarily. instead they seek to bankrupt us and our allies and one way to do so is targeting averation because of the aveation -- aviation throttle commerce as well and cause the paralysis, or they hope it will cause the paralysis that we saw in the weeks after anyone 11. -- 9/11. i think this is the main challenge, is the threat doesn't come from one adversary in one place with one set or one toolbox of capabilities.

what we see is a variety of adversaries with different capabilities that pose unique and separate threats. so we have to, unfortunately as we go into the second decade, cover the waterfront. we have to be as flexible and adaptive and responding to threats on metros, subways, buses, that we know are vulnerable, as well as to an adversary that still persists on going back to the same target set because of the value they see of having catastrophic impact. >> if i can follow up. i think the key here is that the data tells us that commercial aviation continues to be a target and continues to be planning there. but reinforcing, a core finding is nine years later the adversary has adapted significantly. so these other areas, other parts of our critical

infrastructure remains very much not just the current terrorists but future terrorists. by targeting these they can get a big bang from their buck. so a core issue that remains is if we have an attack on something like a mass transit system and our current efforts are shown as wanting, then we get a political reaction often with very expensive kinds of and not often very well thought out cures that continue to motivate. i think that's another finding in here, is that to some extent the strategy has adapted because they are motivated by how we react to acts of terrorism. so it's basically do very expensive things or very destructive things to our economy or to our civil liberties, that's a motivator. so another key thing that i think we're going to be looking at is how, given that we cannot prevent every act of terror as they go to this less is more approach, how do we better as a

country managing terrorist attacks if they take on these various other modes of transportation. >> is this just security theater, or is this actually helping? >> we do not, as far as the panel, look at that. i've looked at these issues for a long time. there is no question that the impulse after the underwear bomber was to put things out there that would reassure the thrying public. i think there's more studies that need to be done about whether those tools will work effectively or that the threat isn't going to more of in another direction that we need other tools for. so this was not entirely well thought out and that's part of the problem, we often react in ways that need more -- there are clearly advantages, but they have their limitations. >> i might say one more thing. the technology is going to continue to change on both sides.

they found a new kind of plastic that was undetectible as an explosive. they used it to try and assassinate the head of the intelligence for the saudi arabian government, the prince. and he told us all about it. we didn't react. the thesked thing was the so-called underpants bomber who used it to try to bring down a plane. so we're going to keep on jumping on the tech nog side. we'll try to counter the new things. in the meantime, our best deevepb is still going to be the flying public who brings things to people's attention. and we have to keep people absolutely alert because they in the end are probably our best defense. >> i'm not sure we have said yet, but i just want to make sure, the word dangerous has not been used here yet. we have said that this attack, these attacks are more diverse but i'm not sure we have used

the word dangerous. we consider the threat still serious and dangerous. and i think that's important that the american people not get complacent. one of the more interesting praffs or two in the report for me was on page 4 where we state that this year this past year was a water shed in terrorist attacks and plots in the united states. ten jihad attacks, jihad inspired plots or efforts by americans to travel overseas to obtain terrorist training. two actual attacks. three serious but disrupted plots. five incidents involving groups of americans conspiring to travel abroad to receive training. by our count, in 2009, 43

american citizens or residents were charged with terrorism. now, that really brought me up when i read that paragraph. and the idea, to the extent that the american people have it, that this is fading into the past, that's just flat wrong. take a look at page four. >> complacency and making sure that you don't create the kind of fear that undermines resiliencey and breeds the sort

of reaction that might fuel propaganda is a very delicate one. i'm wondering if you had an opportunity to assess the scale of the threats. bruce talked about the adversary's wishing to flood the united states with a series of smaller attacks. but in terms of the actual scale, in terms of numbers, are you suggesting that american people should be afraid now, should be nervous that their neighbors -- there are thousands and thousands of sleeper cells or terrorists in this country, and they should be worried about their neighbors? or have you had an opportunity to assess the threat in the united states? >> i think your question is very, very good and sets out the dilemma that you confront. you don't want to scare people and you don't want to throw them into a panic, and we don't mean to do that by this report. it's my perception, could be wrong about this, that the

american people have kind of lost their focus on the threat and i think one of the values of this report is that it brings the threat more into perspective, still serious and still dangerous. the american people just have to get a more realistic sense of what they're confronted with. i think steve said a moment ago, did not not, steve, that you anticipate, i think most of us do, that one of these attacks some day will succeed. and the american people have to be prepared for that and resilient to it. so the balance that you strike in your question is very hard to hit, hard for the american leaders to hit it right. we're trying to do the best we can to say don't forget about this, don't be complacent, don't panic. but there are a lot of things we still need to do to make our country safer.

>> with regards to that home grown terrorism, can anyone speak toward why it is occurring, why we're seeing an increase on that what you mentioned on page 4 if the report? >> why is it increasing? bruce, you can take it. i'd say the internet the idea of the ability, again, the world is flat according to things happening all over the world. these people can recruit over the internet and they seem to be able to speak to young and impressionable people who seem to be muslims. that's certainly one factor. second i think is a change of strategy, as the report points out. al qaeda is trying to do this because they've been unsuccessful in doing the big threat which they'd like to,

they're deciding they can disrupt us this way. so it's a change in strategy. i'm sure there are other reasons. >> one of the things stated in the report is important. we've been talking about change and the way this has evolved. i think that's all correct. one thing is not changed. intent. we know the intent of those who wish to do us harm. what may have changed we think has changed, is the capability of them to attack us. but they're still after us. they still want to do us harm and they still want to get at us any way they can. intent is the driving force here behind the terrorist activity and it remains the same. >> i think governor cane and congressman hamilton is absolutely right. the internet has play add big part. what we've seen is terrorist

organizations becoming much more comfortable in their communications. in many cases, someone who is born in the united states who can communicate with people not in overly theatrical or condike manner but has theel logical credentials but grew up in nume, understands american americans how to reach out to people. i think another important reason is what also the report talks about, is the fact that the threat has radiated outwards from just al qaeda central itself. it used to be if you wanted to be a terrorist or receive training there was in essence one central point that you went to, generally afghanistan and more recently pakistan where of course al qaeda command is located. one of the problems i think as part of al qaeda's strategy is to enlist, to encourage, to motivate, to animate like-minded groups similarly rise up and also spread their

wings, go beyond the previous local agendas they once had but to contemplate operations in europe and the united states has meant that individuals looking to receive terrorist training, unfortunately today have more destinations they can select to go to. we've had incidents just in the past months of individuals attempting to go to somalia rather than pakistan. there being unfortunately several incidents. not just the christmas day plot, but also in june 2008, murdered one recruiter and injured another one in little rock arkansas who had gone to yemen and engaged in violence. the threat is diverse if iing, not only in terms of the profile of adversaries in the united states but also the number of group in addition to al qaeda who are independent but have made common cause with

al qaeda who also threaten us. >> i'm surprised in all this discussion about why and motivation, the u.s. of -- the issue of u.s. policy doesn't come up. isn't it a motivation our policies in iraq, unconditional support for israel, the use of drones that killed so many civilians? the base of the u.s. has all over the world, that was mentioned by bin laden as one of the reasons for the original attack, and now i would say the rise of islam phobia in the united states. can you talk about these motivations and what we can do to stop the threat? >> we made a very conissues -- conscious decision on this report. we thought we would present the report as you have seen it and then add to it a number of

policy recommendations. we rejected that because we thought the important thing was to focus on the assessment of the threat as stated in the report and we wanted more time, frankly, to formulate policy recommendations. but your question clearly kind of predicts in effect what we have to do now. we've got the assessment of the threat and now we have to figure out really what kind of policy recommendations. there are sentences, there are praffs in the report which suggest some of our future recommendation. for example, you can clearly see by reading our report that we're going to put a lot more emphasis on state and local police forces. we didn't articulate that but i'm sure we will in the future. so we backed away from policy here. we were not quite ready to

address that. >> question along similar lines. one of the key recommendations in the 9/11 commission report is that the united states needs to engage and win the struggle of ideas. that has almost come to almost a complete stand still at this point. there's very serious controversies and debate here in this country taking place over both the ground zero islamic center and the situation in florida. i'll just wondering how you see that. in your perspective, and recommendation that is you made over five years ago at this time and what more can be done. >> chapter 12. >> yeah. no. you're absolutely right. we're looking at all our recommendations. we know that most of them have been implemented at least in part. some have been implemented in greater than part.

some of them we want to see more action on. we established a director of national intelligence. we'd like to see that position strengthened, given the full support of the president. we're better on communications. we're not there yet. the recommendation involving congressional oversight has not been implemented at all and we think that's a glaring failure. and the recommendations involving foreign policy and the war on ideas. we're not there yet. it doesn't mean we don't continue to work on it, it doesn't mean huge blowing up issues of hostile actions among american citizens based on ideas, particularly ideas that interpret bid many to be anti-muslim are not helpful and in fact are harmful. these kind of issues and these kind of debates do not help when we're trying to prevent

people from being recruited, and they don't on the war on ideas. >> i agree of course with tom, and i'd simply say that i think the american relationship with the islamic world is one of the really great foreign policy challenges of the next decades. we're not going to solve it in a year or two or fife or even ten years. and the kinds of debates we're having today in new york city and florida and other places reflect that. how do we get right, how do we line up this relationship better than we've been able to do? i don't know whether we'll get into that. i jokingly said in response to your question, look at one of the chapters in the now ancient 9/11 commission report. but it addresses this whole question of how you should approach the islamic world. incidently, that chapter has had considerable impact in the

foreign policy community in the sense that it has stimulated an enormous amount of work and thought about how to go at it. i must say i don't think it's been implemented very effectively at this point but i am encouraged by the fact that we are beginning to address this key relationship. one point three or four whatever it is billion muslims from london to ja carta, an enormously important force in the world, and we have to understand it much, much better than we do and how to address it. >> if i might add that i think one of the clear implications of the finding that we're more likely to have increasingly domestic related terrorism attacks and that these are extremely difficult to prevent and so almost certainly we'll have one be successful, there's

a lot of domestic policy issues that need to be threshed out that we largely postponed in the aftermath of 9/11 because we treated this as a foreign policy national security issue. so i guess if i can draw any silver lining out of the current heated debate, it's that we're engaging civil society around these hard questions. i think the key is for political leadership to not exploit this in near terms but use this as an opportunity to get the american people engaged, but fundamentally how we safe guard our core liberties and values. there should not be any sense of trade-off. if you want more security you give up more liberty. now, the resilience is about being able to safe guard those liberties in the context of a threat and we as a society have to engage how dwow that. that's a set of policy challenges that the commission

looked at. >> one more question. >> you said before that the melting pot theory no longer works. why has that changed? and also, you mentioned that there's no single profile for potential terrorists. but aren't they all muslim radicals? >> well, i think first afall the melting pot i think was more wishful thinking that somehow we could be insulated from the heady currents of radicalization that we've seen affecting communities and other parts of the world, particularly in the united kingdom and spain and belgium. in the end we found out we weren't different. that then comes back to the question about policies. in some cases you have countries that either did not participate in the invasion of iraq, that may not have forces in afghanistan that have removed their forces from both

countries and still face attacks. so i'm not sure it necessarily boils down to foreign policy. i think it's more complex than that. don't forget, too, 1998, the united states did not have troops in either iraq or afghanistan. in fact, was superattending the greatest advances we ever had in the pal stan-israeli peace process. and that was when al qaeda was blowing up our embassies. so they -- but yet, one respect or another, we are talking about people for one particular demographic group that, for a variety of reasons, again have somehow been infected, infused, have been responsive to in some cases theel logical justifications, in some cases just the conceit of young men pumped up. in other cases feeling its their duty to defend their breath ren elsewhere.

and i think the fundamental issue is that a people from a wide va right have been called, because this has lasted anyone years, long -- nine years. and i think their messages and their means of recruiting people, using a diverse array of lures, have also become much more effective, unfortunately. in point, we say the united states is caught up with europe. this is a problem that especially since the july 7,ie suicides attacks on the london underground britain has grappled with. britain also thought they could remain immune to this. they thought it existed on a continent where communities were less well integrated and they were surprised in july 7, 2005. our point isn't to sound an alarm bell. we're still talking about small

numbers, 10 or 11 plots, 43 persons i think is disturbingly large only because it was zero a few years ago. the united states department of justice indicted more than two dozen persons last year. that's our point, is that if we fail to take action and recognize this is a growing threat, then in a few years it will be cause for alarm. but right now is the time to look at the threat as it is unfolding, that it's exceptionally dynamic, and to acspt that what worked yesterday or e even today is no longer sufficient and we have to be just as dynamic as we're finding our adversaries are. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> next, president obama talks with the national news media about a wide range of issues.

then, live at 7:00, your calls and comments on washington journal. >> it was part of the whole crux of his opening statement was on the economy and how he's defending his policies that got democrats in a lot of trouble.

his message is we're doing all we can but we're just not there yet. we're making progress but not yet where we want to be. that's the message we're going to hear from the president every day between now and election day. >> congress returns next week. was there anything that might get members to move ahead on his economic program? >> it certainly looks like he's going to see some movement on the small business tax cuts and loans package after senator george voinvitch of ohio yesterday said he was ending that blockade. that's something the president applauded. as far as the rest of his economic plans, some of the stimulus proposals the president has come up almost appear to be a nonstarter. there doesn't seem to be a lot of democratic support. there's certainly not the republican support. so it remains to be seen just what the president's leach strategy for that is. >> as the president's health care plan continues to roll out, did he talk about how it's

being received around the nation? >> re acknowledged that it's still controversial. he acknowledges that it isn't doing anything to stop the cost curve right now. but he said you've got to give it time. it's a very complex policy and still being implemented. and, in time, it will provide the results he's hoping for. >> it was a wide-ranging interview and news conference today. a new series of middle east peace talks got underway last week. any remarks by the president there? >> he continues to be hopeful. the thing i thought interesting was if these fail, we'll keep trying. he didn't overly confident that this next round of talks in egypt are going to go just swimmingly. but he did commit to continuing to try. >> your story in the hill talks about the president's defense

of religious plurelism. did he tie this into the florida pastor who plans to burn a corian this weekend? >> he did. and that became one of the hotter topics for the president today. he repeated his belief that there's not, it doesn't reflect america's values to burn the sake red text of one religion or another. he referenced his own christian faith and saying he understands how religion can inspire passion in folks. but the president was in fact really at his most passionate today talking about muslim-americans, especially in the u.s. armed forces who of course he sees oversees as the commander in chief. he was very passionate, his defense of not making it a case of us versus them. it's just us, he said. >> you can read sam youngman in the hill newspaper.

we thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> president obama suggests there may be enough republican support to pass a small business bill when congress returns next week. he also confirmed that austin gools by will be the next chairman of the council of economic advisers. other topics include the florida pastor who has threatened to burn the corne saturday, the middle east peace process and the mid-term elections. this is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning. before i take your questions, i just want to talk a little bit about our continuing efforts to dig ourselves out of this recession and to grow our economy. as i said in cleveland on wednesday, i ran for president because i believed the policies of the previous decade had left our economy weaker and our middle class struggling. there were policies that cut

taxes especially for millionaires and billionaires and cut regulations for corporations and special interests and left everyone else pretty much fending for themselves. there were policies that ultimately culminated in a financial crisis and a terrible recession that we're still digging out of today. we came into office with a different view about how our economy should work. instead of tax cuts for millionaires, we believe in cutting taxes for middle class families and small business owners. we've done that. instead of letting corporations play by their own rules, we believe in making sure that businesses treat workers well and consumers friendly, and play by the same rules as everyone else. so we have put in place common sense rules that accomplish that. instead of tax breaks that encourage corporations to create jobs overseas, we

believe in tax breaks for companies that create jobs right here in the united states of america. and so we have begun to do that. we believe in investments that will make america more competitive in the global economy. investments in education and clean energy. in research and technology. and we're making those investments. these are the principles that have guided us over the last 19 months. and these are the principles that form the basis of the additional economic proposals that i offered this week. because even though the economy is growing again and we've added more than 750,000 private sector jobs this year, the hole the recession left was huge and progress has been painfully slow. millions of americans are still looking for work. millions of families are struggling to pay their bills or the mortgage. and so these proposals are meant to both accelerate job

growth in the short term and strengthen the economy in the long run. these proposals include a more generous permanent extension of the tax credit that goes to companies for all the research and innovation that they do here in america. and i propose that all american businesses should be allowed to write off all the investments they do in 2011. this will help small businesses upgrade their plants and equipment, and will encourage large corporations to get off the sidelines and start putting their profits to work in our economy. we also announced a six 46 year plan to rebuild -- six-year plan to rebuild america's roads and runways. already, our investments in infrastructure are putting folks in the construction industry back to work. this plan would put thousands more back to work and would help us remain competitive with countries in europe and asia that have already invested heavily in projects like high

speed rail roads. but one thing we can do next week is end a month-long standoff on a small business jobs bill that's been held up in the senate by a partisan minority. i realize there are plenty of issues in washington where people of good faith simply disagree on principle. this should not and is not one of those issues. this is a bill that does two main things. it gives small business owners tax cuts and helps them get loans. it will eliminate capital taxes for key investments in one million small businesses it will provide incentives to invest and create jobs for 4 million small businesses, it will more than double the amount some small businesses can borrow to grow their companies. it's a bill that's paid for. a bill that won't add to the deficit. it has been written by democrats and republicans.

a bill that's been praised by the chamber of commerce. yet a number of minority members have prevented it from even getting to a vote. now, i was pleased to see that yesterday republican senator from ohio said he would refuse to support this blockade any longer. senator voinvitch said this country is really hurting and we don't have time any more to play games. i could not agree more. i understand there's an election coming up. but the american people didn't send us here to think about our jobs. they sent us here to think about theirs. and there are small businesses right now who are putting off plans to hire more workers because this bill has stalled. that's not the kind of leadership this country deserves. and i hope we can now move forward to get small business owners the relief they need to start hiring and growing again.

while we're on the subject of comics, i want to make an announcement about my team. this week, christina roamer returned to berkeley after a tireless outstanding tenure as chair of the council of economic advisers. christie is brilliant. she is dedicated. and she was part of the team that helped save this country from a depression. so we're going to miss her dealer. but today i'm happy to announce austin gools by as her replacement. he has been one of my good friends and close economic advisers for many years, one of the finest economists in the country, and has worked as a member of the council of economic advisers since we arrived here in washington. he is not just a brilliant economist. he is someone who has a deep appreciation of how the economy affects everyday people and he talked about it in a way that's easily understood. he already knows and works with the rest of the team very well. i have complete clfidance he is

going to do an outstanding job as cea chair. and, finally, tomorrow we will commemorate not only the heartbreak of september 11th, but also the enduring values and resilient spirit of america. both michelle and i will be joining our fellow citizens in remembering those who were lost on that day and honoring all who exhibited such extraordinary heroism in the midst of tragedy. i will have further remarks tomorrow. but for now, let me just note that tomorrow is a national day of service and remembrance, and i hope each oufs finds a way to serve our fello citizens. not only to reaffirm our deepest value as americans but to rekindle that spirit of unity and common purpose that we felt in the day that is followed that september morning. and now, i would be happy to take some questions and i'm going to start with dar lean.

>> thank you, mr. president. you said this week that democrats wouldn't do well in the november elections if it turns out to be a referendum on the economy. but with millions of people out of work and millions of people losing their homes, how could it not be a referendum on the economy? and your handling of it? and why would you not welcome that? >> well, what i said was that if it was just a referendum on whether we've made the kind of progress that we need to, then people around the country would say we're not there yet. if the election is about the policies that are going to move us forward versus the policies that will get us back into a mess, then i think the democrats will do very well. and here's why. as i jist indicated, middle class families had been

struggling for a decade before i came into office. their wages and incomes had flat-lined. they were seeing the costs of everything from health care to sending their kids to college going up. job growth was the weakest of any economic expansion between 2001 and 2008 since world war ii. the pace was slower than it's been over the last year. so these policies of cutting taxes for the wealthiest americans, of stripping away regulations that protect consumers, running up record surplus to a record deficit, those policies finally culminated in the worst financial crisis we've had since the great depression. and for 19 months what we have done is steadily worked to avoid a depression, to take an

economy that was contracting rapidly and make it grow again, a situation where we were losing 750,000 jobs a month, and now we've had eight consecutive months of private sector job growth and made investments that will strengthen the economy over the long term. but we're not there yet. we lost 4 million jobs in the six months before i was sworn in. and we lost 8 million jobs total during the course of this recession. that is a huge hole to dig ourselves out of. and people who have lost their jobs around the country and can't find one, moms who are sending out resumes and not getting calls back, worried about losing homes, not being able to pay bills, you know, they're not feeling good right now. and i understand that. and i ran precisely because i

did not think middle class families in this country were getting a fair shake and i ran because i felt that we had to have a different economic philosophy in order to grow. that middle class. and grow our economy over the long term. now, for all the progress we've made, we're not there yet. and that means that people are frustrated and that means people are angry. and since i'm the president and democrats have controled the house and the senate, it's understandable that people are saying what have you done? but between now and november what i'm going to remind the american people of is that the policies that we have put in place have moved us in the right direction. and the policies that the republicans are offering right now are the exact policies that got us into this mess. it's not a situation where they went and reflected and said to themselves, you know what? we didn't do some things right.

and so we've got a whole bunch of new ideas out here that we want to present to you that we think are going to help put us on the pads path of strong growth. that's not what happens. the chairman of their committee has said we would do the exact same things as we did before obama took office. well, we know where that led. and a perfect example is the debate we're having on taxes right now. i have said that middle class families need tax relief right now. and i'm prepared to work on a bill and sign a bill this month that would ensure that middle class families get tax relief. 97% of americans make less than $250,000 a year or less. and i'm saying, we can give those families, 97%, permanent

tax relief. and, by the way, for those who make more than $250,000, they'd still get tax relief on the first $250,000. they just woopt get it for income above that. now, that seems like a common sense thing to do. and what i've got is the republicans holding middle class tax relief hostage because they're insisting we've got to give tax relief to millionaires and billionaires to the tune of about $100,000 per millionaire. which would cost over the course of ten years $700 billion. and the economists say it's probably the worst way to stimulate the economy. that doesn't make sense. and that's an example of what this election is all about. if you want the same kinds of skewed policies that led us to this crisis, then the

republicans are ready to offer that. but if you want policies that are moving us up, eevep though you may be frustrated, even though change isn't happening as fast as you'd like, then i think democrats are going to do fine in november. karen. >> thank you, mr. president. you're looking for republican help on the economic proposals that you unveiled this week and you also mentioned the small business bill. but you're at odds with them over tax cuts. is there room for a middle ground where the tax cuts on the wentsdzy could be extended for a period of time and then allowed to expire? >> e well, certainly there's going to be room for discussion. my hope is that on the small business bill that is before the senate right now that we actually make some progress. i still don't understand why we

didn't pass that two months ago. as i said, this was written by democrats and republicans. this is a bill that traditionally you'd probably get 90% or 100% republican support. but we've been playing politics for the last several months and if the republican leadership is prepared to get serious about doing something for families that are hurting out there, i would love to talk to them. now, on the high income tax cuts, my position is let's get done what we all agree on. what they've said is they agree that the middle class tax cuts should be made permanent. let's work on that. let's do it. we can have a further conversation about how they want to spend an additional $700 billion to give an average of $100,000 to millionaires

that i think is a bad idea. if you were going to spend that money, there are a lot better ways of spending it. but more to the point, these are the same folks who say they're concerned about the deficit. why would we borrow money on policies that won't help the economy, and help people who don't need help? but setting that aside, we've got an area of agreement which is, let's help families out there who are having a tough time. as i said, we could this month give every american certainty and tax relief up to $250,000 a year. every single american would benefit from that. now, people who make $250,000 a year or less, they would beb fit on all their income. people who make $1 million would benefit on a quarter of

their income. but the point is, is that that's something that we can all agree to. why hold it up? why hold the middle class hostage? in order to do something that most economists don't think makes sense? >> [inaudible] >> what i'm saying is let's do what we agree to and that the american people overwhelmingly agree to, which is let's give certainty to families out there that are having a tough time. >> thank you, mr. president. on the economic package that you rolled out earlier this week, first on the business tax cuts. why did you wait until this super heated campaign season to roll it out? a lot of your critics and even some democrats say clearly he

is using this for political purposes. he doesn't have any expectation it's going to be past. why did you wait so long to bring that out? and on the stimulus part we can't get people in the white house to say it is a stimulus. $50 billion for roads and other infrastructure but they avoid the word stimulus like the plague. is that because the original stimulus is so deeply unpopular? and why is it so unpopular? >> let me go back to when i first came into office. we had an immediate task which was to rescue an economy that was tipping over a cliff. and we put in place an economic plan that 95% of economists say substantially helped us avoid a depression. a part of those were tax cuts, by the way a third was tax kits for individuals and small