it remains a high priority. another major concern is proliferation and weapons of mass destruction. the proliferation threats environment is a fluid the arena that reflects the broader global reality and increasingly it free movement of goods and information. this environment is critical, it also allows the know-how related to chemical and biological nuclear weapons as well as missile delivery systems to be shared with ease. iran is a key challenge. we saw a popular movement challenging the authority of its government. we saw the iranian government cracked down on a parts of authoritarian control. we look forward to discussing iran more with you in closed session. we see a disturbing confluence of events.

iran continues to advance its uranium enrichment capabilities. north korea's nuclear weapons also pose a serious threat to both regionally and beyond. there is a willingness to be engaged in dialogue and cray's international recognition and. it has shown a troubling willingness. i want to highlight a major asset to the community, the reality that we live in an interconnected world where instability can rise and. quickly beyond the borders. examples of this include the seven fault of the regime indonesia -- in the '20s jazz --

tunesia. questions have been raised. the answer, i believe, is yes. for many years, the intelligence committee has been aware of the instability in north africa and has reported on those tensions and their implications. specific triggers cannot always be known or predicted. intelligence can reduce the uncertainty for decision makers, but not eliminated. whether those decision makers are in the white house or the congress. but we are not clear volume. the intelligence committee has provided critical intelligence to allow this crisis and has been reporting on demographic changes, political expression

for decades. in our interdependent world, economic challenges have become paramount and cannot be underestimated. we are also extremely focused on cyber threats and their impact on national security and economic prosperity. this threat is increasing and scope and scale and its impact is difficult to overstate. industry estimates that production of malicious software has reached its highest level yet, with an average of 60,000 programs each day. some of these are what we define as advanced persistent threats, which are difficult to detect and counter. we are seeing a rise in intellectual property and theft.

it cost businesses approximately $1 trillion. we believe this trend has only gotten worse. about much of 2009, said they had been the targets of systematic efforts to penetrate their networks. the entries and attempted to gain access -- drug trafficking, emerging diseases, water availability, humanitarian disasters, and other global issues. in the face of these challenges, we must remain attentive to all developments in all parts of the world. that is why we must sustain a robust balance our rate of intelligence capability to cope

with this wide variety of potential threats. i would also like to take a moment to emphasize that counter intelligence concerns will continue to worry me. these disclosures has been very damaging. i have dedicated my career to protecting information and i want to assure the committee that we are working to better protect our information networks, increasing our ability to detect insider threats and

expanding awareness of foreign intelligence threats across the u.s. government. i believe we can and will respond to the problems of intrusions and we must do without -- our intelligence capabilities are as well. intelligence committee is better able to understand the vast array of interlocking concerns and trends. i began a thorough review of the organization. other statutes and executive

orders and the activities that they direct. upon review, i decided to reduce pensions not required by law or executive orders that are not coronations. identified elements that should transfer out of -- into another agency that on behalf. we do not need to do everything. based on this, it is being reduced in size. discussed these plans with you and ask for your support and i look forward to presenting this in greater detail. i believe the office can provide true value.

we thank you and the distinguished members of the committee for your support and your dedication to the nation. my colleagues and i look forward to your questions and discussion. thank you very much. >> one of the 800-pound gorillas in the room is this finger- pointing happening in the town about the lead of intelligence on egypt. one of the things that struck me is that the morning, he still believed he would be president. by afternoon, he was on a helicopter on his way out. i want to give a direct assessment on the intelligence leading up to and real-time intelligence. cnn and fox are currently reporting that mr. mubarak may

step aside today. i wanted to give you the opportunity to talk to the american people about real-time intelligence and where we think we are. let me offer -- as i indicated, the intelligence committee has long identified the conditions that exist in the middle east this is a characteristic of many of these countries. when things began to heat up in tunisia and the demonstrations in the streets were run by an

autocrat to a been there for 23 years, it appeared to have things under control. it is hard to foretell the impact of a fruit vendor who had fruit stolen and self immolated himself. that served as a catalyst for more widespread outbreak. as you alluded, he made a very snap decision, he was not thinking about that. he made a sudden decision to leave. that, in turn, was galvanized by 1,300 miles to the east at what has now become a full-blown uprising in egypt. i read that occasion to go back and review the thousands of reports that were done, and

extensive reporting on social media, for my part, we have done the work on reporting this very dynamic fast changing situation. as i said before, i think it is important to distinguish between mysteries and secrets. secrets are -- it is harder for us to discern and predict. it is our place to lay out the conditions, what the potential options are, and if we can make some educated -- that is about all we can do. he had a great metaphor about this.

earthquakes in california, you know the conditions, or the tectonic plates are, where the fault lines are, but predicting the onset of the earth, that is more difficult. i will turn to leon and see if he has additional comments. >> my congratulations to you, mr. chairman. thank you for your leadership. thank you for your support. i look forward to a partnership with all of you. we cannot do this job alone. we have to rely on the congress and your leadership to try to protect americans. i thank you for that. >> the purpose of intelligence is to provide the most accurate, most timely intelligence we can to policy makers so that those decisions can be made. with regards to this region of the world, we have long provided

a serious of reports that indicate the nature of the problems in that region, and aggressive regimes, economic and political instability, stagnation, a lack of freedoms, the need for political reforms. all of that has been provided in a numerous amount of intelligence reports. almost 400 reports were provided that basically describes the concerns that we saw in this region and the potential for disruption. i think the area where we need to do better collection is when it comes to the triggers that ignite these conditions. and cause the events that we have seen take place. there are a number of triggers

out there. it was large unmet expectations of the people that are there in these countries. to are the large numbers of youth that are there. many of them are better educated and many of them are unemployed. the whole role of the internet. the ability to put a demonstration together in quick time. that is something that we need to pay a lot more attention to in today's world. lastly, the role of the military. there has always spent a feeling that the military ultimately could control any demonstration in any regime. but the loyalty of the military is now something that we have to pay attention to because it is not always one that will respond to what a dictator may or may not want. as a result of these kinds of

triggers, i think is important for us to do a lot more collection in those areas. what we have done at the cia has established a 35-member task force to focus up specifically on these elements. what i have asked for from all of my chiefs of stations is better collection on issues like popular sentiments, the strength of the opposition, what is the role of the internet in that particular country, so that we can get better collection and better information to be able to provide to our leaders. i have used the earthquake analogy because people can tell you were the tremors are.

our biggest problem is how we get into the had a somebody. we're trying to get into the head of a camp in north korea, the supreme leader in the iran trade everybody assumed that the dictator in place that he was going to crush any type of demonstration. i do not think he was going to -- he knew he was going to get out of town. we were in a much better place to look at egypt. we provided a number of reports about what was taking place there. as you can see, i got the same information that you did. there is a strong likelihood

that mubarak may step down this evening. that would be significant in terms of where the orderly transition -- >> if you had to give a grade, how would you give a real-time intelligence? intelligence provided to policymakers. >> i would give it at least a b +. i am prepared to discuss why in closed session. >> if you could address all qaeda's intentions to secure radiological and other weapons that we might consider mass destruction. >> chairman, al qaeda senior leadership has been committed to obtaining advanced weapons of mass destruction for some time. we assess that they're senior leadership in pakistan remains committed to obtaining all types

of weapons of mass destruction, but thanks to some outstanding and effective offensive action, we also assess their ability to do so is greatly diminished since 9/11. with respect to the affiliate's, we believe that the arabian peninsula remain committed to obtaining weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons. we also remain focused on the availability of precursor elements within the homeland to include chemical and biological materials. >> you would break their intention as high? >> yes. >> that is the current threat that is ongoing. >> the threat remains high in pakistan and in yemen. >> the pace of modern communications technology is

clearly evolving. i am concerned about the gap in the ability for the fbi and other agencies to intercept communications with court approval. can you talk about that going dark problem that we have and discuss what risk that might mean for stopping a potential attack? >> mr. chairman, back in 1994, a statute was passed that required communications carriers to be in a position to provide communications to law enforcement or the intelligence community with a court order. since that time, communications have changed dramatically. no longer is it a telephone company that carries the communications. it can be google, facebook, microsoft chad, a number of

ways for communicating. our challenge is to assure that this an appropriate court order issued by a court, with that in hand, we go to one of those carriers, they have the solution in place to be responsive. we would be working with the congress in terms of trying to -- were we not to do that, we will do is a great deal of insight into the planning and preparation of individuals that are contemplating terrorist attacks. this will be an issue that will be working to resolve. >> this is done to the court system. there is due process here. the starting premise is that we have a court order and believe

that an individual is committing some kind of crime. the key medication is being utilized to for that crime. there has been a process in place. >> at the end of this month, up surveillance -- can you talk about what threats that is? give some examples of why that is so and pour into the defense? >> these are the patriot act provisions that are up for reauthorization. there are three elements of that. the first is called the business records provision. with a court order, it allows us to get certain business records related to ongoing national security and investigation. this provision has been used over 380 times. were that to expire without --

it would be a substantial detriment to our capabilities. the second elements is approval for roving wiretaps. you designate an individual who was a subject and is communicating and is using a cell phone, ipad, itunes, sum game consoles, we do not have to go get a separate order for each of these communications. we did a wiretap approved by a judge. that has been used more than 190 times since its inception back in 2001. to liz that would be -- to lives that would undercut our ability. >> the last provision is called the lone wolf provision. it would allow us to identify an

individual and understand that that person is a national security risk. this was an issue in the 9/11 report in terms of the inability to show that one of the individuals there was part of a group. it precluded us -- this was passed to ensure that all we have this evidence, we bring it to a court, we can utilize our tools to -- the threats increasingly is low levels. these tools are essential for our ability to identify terrorist in general, criminals in general. >> in each of those cases, you talked about the requirements to get a court order.

in your mind, is due process for any united states citizen for any reason lost in the process in the extension of this lot? >> it is not. we do not have the unilateral capability to issue these orders. it has to go through these -- to a judge. the judge will insert -- will issue the order. >> could an fbi agent go to court and give a roving wire tap on a child pornographer? >> no. they could not. i will deal lot more with you in the closed session. >> mr. ferguson, i would like to echo what the chairman said about the programming. our committee has not been fully informed of the matters on the the program. by law, we are required to oversee that. we need to get this resolved

amicably. it is important for the department of defense to know that we feel strongly about this issue. we but like to get with the wall and resolve this matter. >> yes, sir. i discussed this last night at senior levels. we are very willing and take a serious approach to have an exchange with you. >> that is our role on the intelligence commission. it is very important to us. we have the patriot act. it is an issue that is very controversial. it was defeated just this last week. the bill is coming up again for a vote probably this week or next. if the bill fails again, what will that do to your

capabilities? how will it affect our national security? >> the privacy issues are generally raised in terms of this piece of legislation. it requires a communications carrier to provide us the information. again, it is going through the judicial system. the communications will be turned over responsive to this court order sprayed in terms of the impact on our abilities, others in the intelligence community and law enforcement committee, their ability to do their jobs.

the business records are necessary to pursue the investigation. to assure that there are no gaps in picking up communications we have a roving wiretap order. if we do not have that order, we have to go back and there will be a delay going from the cell phone to another cell phone to an ipad or some other device or a specific court order has to be on each of those devices. that will be exceptionally detrimental. we will have caps and we will lose coverage. we will have to have more persons on surveillance to identify when a person gets a new handsets. on the issue of the lone wolf a provision, it would handcuffed in those situations where somebody is contemplating some

sort of unilateral terrorist act, but we cannot put that person with a particular organization. consequently, it would hold us up again and preclude us from getting the authorization for a wiretap. >> one of the key issues when you are dealing with a person's civil liberties, they are all americans and we have a constitution. the checks and balances work very well. it is important that we make sure that we follow through with those checks and balances. >> there is substantial oversight over this process as

well. we have an inspector general. we have our own procedures internally. of course, we have congress. these procedures that are up for reauthorization are well reviewed. >> i gave examples in my opening statement what about situations where we were able to deter the attacks were planned by those individuals. if you did not have the resources of the issues that we're voting on with the patriot act, do you feel like you could have been successful? >> it is hard to identify and isolate a particular piece of on going investigation. i am comfortable in saying that to the successes that we have had would have been much more difficult to come by absent the tools that we have been operating with in the current legislation. >> thank you. my question relates to the

secretary's statement yesterday that are fraught level is now the highest that it has been since 9/11. we will go a little bit deeper into this issue. i am concerned that the. is due to our homegrown terrorism. it represents a very difficult problem for our intelligence communities. we have to keep our country safe. that is our number one priority. but we also have to pay attention when we're talk about american citizen's constitutional rights. i leave that to directer mueller. really maybe later too, can you talk about the threat from homegrown terrorism, what we're doing about it? and do you agree with secretary napolitano that our country's threat has been the highest? >> i might suggest since mike

was present for that exchange that he speak first and then perhaps director mueller. >> congressman, the full context of these remarks, i think, i completely agree with the secretary, which is we face actually -- jim is so -- but the full range of threats is the most diverse and most complex that we have faced. it is not that we are looking at one specific threat now which brings our threat level to a very elevated level. it is that we face a ideologically diverse set of threats which is the greatest diversity and complexity that we have faced since 911. with respect to your point of homegrown extremists, we have seen last year and the year before a heightened state of radicalization and mobilization against homegrown extremists.

we've seen signs of the beginning of networking of homegrown extremists. the good thing about this is they still lack the sophistication of the threat we've seen from pakistan and yemen but as i noted yesterday,'hood proves quite clearly that you don't need to be sophisticated to be deadly as terrorist. >> do we need to ramp up our resources because of this threat because of this statement that has been a serious threat level since 911? you run the fusion center. director, you collaborate all this. director mueller you can speak for law enforcement. >> i will echo director mueller's point about the patriot act. that is a resource that we need. and as the threat is increased on the homeland and become more diverse, those tools have become more not less relevant

since 911. with respect to resource, anti t.c. launched more attacks and we worked with the f.b.i. to get efficiencies but we continue to look at increasing our watch listing ranks to try to tease out the very minute piece of information that are often required to identify and disrupt homegrown attacks. >> let me just clarify one thing before i answer your question, sir, and this is in response to your question of congressman rogers. if the legislation was not passed would you not get robic title path. if it was a child pornographer we could. >> thank you for clarifying. that's why i asked the question. >> if you're a drug dealer,

you're fine. if you're a terrorist with a radiological bomb we can't get it. cannot, that's the point. >> thank you. >> going back to the question of the -- the threats now. this is from our perspective and this is with what the secretary said yesterday, this is a very bad time. it's gone up and down over the years since september 11. but we're in a period which reflects changes from our perspectives. are the threats coming out of the fata out of yemen or right at the top? >> i think mike would agree with that. and then we get down to the homegrown extremists which have grown because of ease and acktess to the internet, use it to pross le ties and it has grown by leaps and bounds. and that provides a substantial challenge to us. you ask what we do to identify

these pockets of radicalization. task forces are working with law enforcement, working with our capabilities in terms of identifying those who are identifying with radicalization whether it be with the internet or the community which we are jointly addressing. i mentioned two other areas that are a threat within the united states. one as it relates to individuals going to somalia to fight. we are closely monitoring that situation as well as threats from al-qaeda in iraq individuals that have had some association with al-qaeda in iraq. and all of these are task forces that we operate in along with our work with the fusion

centers along with the homeland security as well as nctc to identify those radicals. >> director of homeland security and congressman panetta. >> i'll just echo what the secretary said yesterday about the four pillars of the homeland security security enterprise, but the areas that she mentioned yesterday that are fundamental into addressing this homegrown extremist issue are f.b.i.-led. the fusion centers which are owned by the state and the major urban areas in the country to do information sharing and analysis and to support the jtps with information but also the national suspicious activity reporting initiative that we work very closely with the

department of justice and the f.b.i. and the secretary if you see something say something campaign. those last two are critical to identifying pieces of information that may be useful in another context or triffle or criminal trives or criminal activity. in light of the difficulty of deterring and disrupting these small less sophisticated attacks, we believe the role of the public and local law enforcement is going to be critical in identify that. >> we're going to have to wrap up further questions. but at a later date we need to focus on the issue of cyber security. i believe these are one of the bigger attacks of the country. and we need to educate the public on how serious this issue is. >> well, it's a good lead-in.

director clapper you had several bullets in your written statement about cyber security. and you said that the impact is difficult to overstate. but as you know there is really a difference of opinion about whether we're talking primarily of annoyances, you know, with computers that run slower, whether we're talking about crime, theft of property and certainly a lot of money that's stolen or whether we are talking about a matter of national security. and so i would appreciated if you and the directors could talk to us about the degree to which cyber threats do pose a threat to our nation's security because that is relevant to how much money and what kinds of authorities we have to look at to deal with the problem. but first, we need to understand whether we're talking primarily about crime

or whether we're talking about national security. >> well, the effect can be the same whether it's the source of an attack or intrusion comes from a criminal be it domestic or unorganized international ring -- national ring. from a nation security standpoint the threat by certain nation states is quite profound. if in fact the capabilities that we ascribe to them are actually exercised. so i think what we see in terms of these penetrations some of which i alluded to by way of example and what the potential is there i think emphasizes the importance of this whole issue of cyber protection. i think we're very interested in the -- the administration is in engaging with the congress on the multiple legislative

proposals that have been put forth. but it is potentially a huge threat to our security. i think the department of defense's stand-up of cyber command is, you know, department's clear recognition of this and the importance of having a cyber arm in a war-fighting capacity and similarly the department at large, the department of homeland security sees this from a domestic perspective. in the interactions that i participated in with key industry officials, i think there is a growing awareness of the tential vulnerability to this country because of our huge dependence on cyber for a whole range of things. >> without a question of doubt, it's very large national security issue in a variety of

ways. if you look back historically and see what russia had done in estonia or in georgia before offensively in exercising its military might in the cyber arena as an example, you have in the counter intelligence not just intelligence officers but you have probes and capabilities of this intruding into networks and ex-fill traiting the information that would be beneficial to you that previously you would have to recruit somebody inside to obtain which makes it much easier for those trying to steal our secrets -- to steal our secrets. you the possibility of assault on infrastructure and bringing down pieces of the infrastructure if they're not adequately protected. and then there is been a crime in banks and robbing banks of millions of dollars over night

by intruding and upping the limits on say a.t.m.'s. the problem from our perspective is we think of it in particular categories, crime versus government involvement. you don't know if it's a group of individuals at the behest of an actor or a high school kid across the street. for us it's coming together as entity and bringing our skill sets together before we denominate it as a crime or intelligence probe and working together to identify to the tribute of the intrusions and decide what terms to take whether treating it criminally or other national security challenge. >> i don't think there's any question. but this is a real national security threat that we have to pay attention too.

i know there are a lot of aspects to it. the internet, the cyber arena is -- it's this vastly growing area of information that can be used and abused in a number of ways. when it comes to national security, i think this represents the battleground for the future. i've often said that the potential for the next pearl harbor could be a cyber attack. if you a cyber attack that brings down our grid system, financial system, brings down our government system, you could paralyze this country. and i think that's a real potential. that's the thing we have to pay attention to. other countries are designing a specific capacity whether it's iran or china. we're the subject of hundreds of attacks to try to get information. we've got to department defenses against that but we've got to put our assets in places

where we can provide sufficient warning that these attacks are are coming. >> mr. thompson from california. thank you, mr. chairman, thank you for the work that you and all the great men and women who work for you provide regarding safety and security. i have a couple of things that i'd like to touch on. first there's been a lot of discussion about the extent of certain provisions of the patriot act. i think it's important to know that there is still some concern about the vivel liberty side of these provisions. it's a bipartisan concern and it's a concern reflected across the country. so director mueller i hope you're willing to work on improving the patriot about so we can be as safe as we possibly can be without sacrificing the civil liberties of the american people and i know there's a bill in the senate and they're working on

that. -- to achieve both of those goals. general clapper, i've got an issue in the ranking member alluded to it and that's what's happening in mexico regarding the drug trafficking organizations there. somebody said that this could easily spill over and be an even larger problem. i'll submit as it already is. they're growing dope in the lands throughout the country. it's very prevalent in my area. and there's been a good effort on behalf of local law enforcement to really go after this. but there seems to be somewhat of a disconnect at the national level. i know that i mentioned the relationship between the mexican drug trafficking organizations and what was

going on and was directed by someone who said we have no information that that is the case. but if you talk to state, local even federal folks who are on the groundworking these issues, they'll tell you that it's very much the case. in humble county just last week, they made a big bust on heroin with direct ties to direct trafficking organizations in mexico. so as we're debating how we're going to handle this, it's quickly spinning out of control to be an even greater problem. i certainly hope we could marshall all of our efforts to come together to fair it out and stop this horrific problem because it's already an american problem and it has all kinds of connections to

terrorist opportunities that we cannot afford to allow to continue. and i'll just ask one more question, and i'll take my answers off the air and general clapper that is, as we continue to meet tough budgetary problems here at the federal level at all levels of government, the need to provide the best possible intelligence isn't going away. we're asked to do a lot more to ensure the safety of america and americans and do that with an either shrinking budget or a flat line budget. and the terrorist challenge that we face aren't going to be shrinking, and they're not going to be flat lining. they're going to be growing. so can you give us an idea how

you're going to be able to handle that? >> let me make a brief comment about your well-placed concerns about mex co. i was going to -- mexico. and i was going to ask about homeland security security as well. this is a problem. we've raised this issue in terms of its priority and the national party framework which is the guiding direction for priorization of issues to category one which is the highest. we are working with the appropriate mexican officials in support of president calderon's campaign internally. but there's no question this has huge concerns for us here in the united states because of the obvious potential, not only potential but actual spill-over

in the border states. with that i would ask karin to speak. >> these guys have actually seized our public land. and they're creating huge problems, public safety. people can't use our public land. they're contaminating waters, tributaries. it's the spill-over effect that just goes on and own and on. >> karen? we have an unprecedented effort right now along the boarder in materials of resources, technology to do our best to security the border. and i think we're doing a better job than has been done before. we are very concerned about the possibility for the spill-over for the kinds of cartel violence that we see in mexico where they're actually fighting over specific roots into the u.s. we have not seen that type of system metric violence spill-over, but i'm not going to tell -- systemic violence

spill-over but i'm not going to tell you it doesn't exist. so we've been working with d.e.a. to attempt to focus on the flows of illegal flow of cash and guns that go way beyond just the border. but as far as the border is concerned, we're seeing all of the staff going in the right direction. we've got seizures of drugs and money and guns going up. and captures of illegal immigrants going down. we're going to continue to work that and we're very concerned about making sure that we plug any potential gaps or holes that could provide an avenue for terrorists across the border. it's a continuous focus but clearly there is drug-related violence and the entire law enforcement community is working that. >> thank you. >> just to answer briefly your commentary about our budget challenges. i have been through this before.

i was -- served as the director of the intelligence agencies in the early 190's. when we were directed to reap the piece as it was called then by virtue of the fall of the soviet wall, which we did. we took substantial cuts which came to a screeching halt with 911. and then we ramped up again. so now the pendulum will swing back. all will understand that we're going to be in for some belt-tightening and given, you know, the funding that we have been given over the last 10 years since 911, that's probably appropriate. this is a case where we must work as partners. we in the community and you in the congress to help guide this , i personally hope to profit from mistakes that i made i think when we did this in the

early 1990's. we have one outside group that's very familiar with it. they sent me some recommendations on areas we need to consider for examination in the personnel structure and acquisition. i have not actually looked at those recommendations yet. of course, this will be a subject among the ice community and leadership. this is an area we need to work with you. >> thank you all for your service. and director mueller thank you very much for what the f.b.i. and the great job you did in north carolina, not just in the case but with the conclusions of daniel patrick boyd who pled guilty to being a homegrown terrorist yesterday. i hope there's more of that. i know how hard it is.

director clapper, i wanted to make a statement of concern and then i've got a couple of questions to follow and i wanted to answer them all, if you would please, whoever would wish to. it's concerning the muslim brotherhood. i'm concerned that they're using egypt it as a graph. and we don't grasp that threat. the brotherhood isn't a danger just because they're terrorist because they push an extremist ideology that causes others to commit acts of terrorist. according to the department of justice and the f.b.i. the brotherhood is actually inside america. i hold this up from the holy land foundation finance support trial. evidence was introduced by federal prosecutors titled "the explanatory memorandum." the document says the

brotherhood is engaged in and a quote a civilization jihadist. their work in america is a grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within and the last page lists the name of 29 organizations in the u.s. whom the author who was a member of the muslim brotherhood claims are involved in this so-called civilization jihadist process. so the danger of the muslim brotherhood is not just encouraging terrorism through their ideology but also trying to take over government. so everyone has to succumb and live under their ideology. the 911 commission record says we must learn about their ideology. do you considering -- consider the muslim brotherhood

dangerous? and can you talk about the memorandum and do you see the muslim brotherhood dangerous based on that? should we consider them as front groups of the muslim brotherhood here in america? and to your knowledge, do our intelligence, agencies act in any official capacity with those organizations that are listed in the memorandum? >> let me speak to the muslim brotherhood as an international movement. and then i'll ask director mueller to speak specifically to it here domestically. the reason i do that, of course, is because the muslim brotherhood is prominent in what's going on in egypt and the mideast. it's an umbrella term for a variety of movements. in the case of egypt, a very heterogeneous group largely

secular which has issued violence and has decried al-qaeda as a perversion of islam. they have pursued social ends, betterment of the political order in egypt, etc. >> it's not the violent side. i'm interested in the nonviolent side, which is what i was talking about. >> in other countries there are franchises of the muslim brotherhood. but there is no overarching agenda particularly in pursuit of violence, at least international. with that since there are entities that are associated with the muslim brotherhood i'll asked director mueller to speak to that. >> obviously, elements of the muslim brotherhood have supported terrorism, right. >> to the extent that i can provide more information, i'd be happy to produce those in

closed session. but it would be difficult to do it in open session. >> i appreciate that very much. i also wanted to mention relative to what's going on with al-qaeda and i know that some of you brought that up before. but this in particular when you talk about the internet and the web inspire which is the fourth edition and what they're doing and how they're encouraging people in america, young people in america in a way that we've never seen before. we've got to pay more attention to that. i know you're very much aware of it. samir khan who is considered to be the editor of this started in the basement of his parent's home in charlotte, north carolina. and we go from there. my frustration was that he was allowed to operate here even though we tried to shut him down and of course he moved to yemen and look what he's doing. the propaganda side of what they're doing is really frustrating in the sense that they -- they are moving in a

way we've never seen them move before. the jihadists websites, one of you mentioned it, they're doing gaming. they're doing ways to pull our people in in our modern technology things that they can innocently get involved in and they don't really realize what they're getting involved in and what the basis behind it is. i hope we're keeping track of all these websites that are springing up and how this is all fitting into the picture of what you're facing with the threats of homegrown terrorism rising now. because i think this is a tremendous feeder in a way we haven't seen before. >> congresswoman as we've discussed many times before looking in the ways that individuals are being radicalized is our number one priority because they do have an access to our facilities, they understand our people, they understand our culture and it could be used against us.

it's not just watching in conjunction with the f.b.i., it's doing in a way of respecting civil liberties who have acceptable first amendment speech. but it is also seeking with policy agencies and informing them so they can empower the communities to go out and engage their youth as well. so we can empower main stream -- mainstream the moderate muslims and how their kids could be victimized through this propaganda. >> i hope with can work on this program because that's very important and a great interest of mine. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i know her plans for putting something bigger on this subject. and i'm sure you'll cooperate with that. >> i would like to get more information on the muslim

brotherhood and their impact when we get into closed session. let me just ask a quick question for all of you. when president calderon from mexico was here and spoke to a joint session of congress, he said when the ban on automatic weapon expired that there was a flow from the united states to mexico of automatic weapons. i'm just asking if anyone on this panel would state you anybody? >> would you like to say anything about that? >> i will have to take that for the record. >> i just wondered if anyone was prepared. regarding egypt, there are reports that you think it is unlikely president mubarak will

step down tonight. then there are other reports that he is saying that he is in power and there are no decisions about the future. let's assume there is a change. what impact will the change in egypt have on the region, particularly israel? >> we follow that very closely. the overall regional impact of what is happening in egypt is something that we obviously have to pay attention to. the egregious i talked about that were present in tunisia and egypt are president -- are present in other countries throughout that region. we have to pay attention to help these factors come into play. let me make very clear that i received reports that possibly mubarak might do that. we are continuing to monitor the situation.

we have not gotten specific word that he will do that. >> does that mean suleyman with debt that? >> i do not know the particulars of how this would work. i would assume he would turn over more of his powers to omar suleiman to be able to direct the country and direct the reforms that hopefully will take place. if egypt and develop a timeline for political reform that leads to free and open elections -- if they can move in that kind of orderly process, it could have a positive effect with regards to that area.

if, on the other hand, this turns in another direction, that could affect not only the security of israel, but that of other nations. >> have you done any particular analysis of what the changes would need to israel? >> yes, we have. we will be happy to share with you in another forum. >> how would you assess the stability of the following governments -- saudi arabia, syria, and jordan? >> again, in open session, i am a little concerned about sharing specifics about any of these countries. i think it suffices to say that there are a number of countries in the arab world that reflects some of the same concerns. the concern about the lack of freedoms, the lack of political

reform, the lack of truly free and open elections, the economic stagnation, the impact this is having on unemployment, particularly for the young. i think all of those factors are at play in a number of nations across that region. all of which means we have to pay a great deal of attention. i think the traders, the factors that kicked off what happened in egypt could impact other areas. >> thank you. i wonder if we could squeeze in another one. the lebanese parliament has selected a hizbollah-backed candidate. how do you evaluate the lebanese prime minister and can he make decisions independent of hezbollah? >> he has publicly stated that he intends to be independent, but given the realities of political life in lebanon, that remains to be seen.

that is obviously something we are watching carefully. perhaps we can discuss this more in closed session. >> i yield back. thank you. >> thank you met, mr. chairman. -- thank you, mr. chairman. you talk about radicalization. could you elaborate a little bit? is it really self- radicalization or is it just one person being radicalized by others? >> let me ask the director to speak to that. >> congressmen, what has changed more recently is that where as several years back there tended to be some personal contact between individuals to have not become radicalized, is with the increasing media --

facebook, youtube, -- we have seen individuals being inspired on their own to a greater extent. i think your point is a good one. it is really not self- radicalization. there is still a linkage to the ideology, which is being pushed to the internet and modern communication. >> anybody else? >> i think it is really important -- we have been talking around it -- but to put this in overall context. the reality is that our biggest concern about al qaeda is that they could conduct 9/11 type attacks in this country. i think as a result of the work that has been done by going directly at them, i think we have seriously undermined their ability to be able to conduct those kinds of attacks. having said that, we are now resorting -- they are now

resorting at other ways to come at this country. try to inspire sleeper's to go after lone wolves, inspire magazines to urge people to do what ever they can to do something someplace, somehow, someway. that is the nature of the kind of threats we are now dealing with the concern all of us in this country. it is in that arena where we had the toughest job because while these are less sophisticated, they are tougher to find. >> i would add maybe a little different perspective on this. there are people we single out as self-radicalize years. i think oftentimes they have issues of frustration and then assume the mantle of some

radical philosophy to justify or reinforced taking action against these frustrations which may have to do with their upbringing, their environment, lack of employment, economic frustrations, whatever they are. they gravitate to a radical ideologies. this is fed by the use of the media. i think that reinforces it. i am not so convinced that is the actual instigation of it. i think in the end, it is probably an individual -- an individual case by case basis. >> it was said at some other time that the united states would have to reassess either its relationship or dealings with the muslim brotherhood. what is this administration's relationship with the brotherhood?

>> sir, i think -- i do not know. >> no relationship with the brotherhood. to my knowledge. >> there is no relationship with the muslim brotherhood. there have been out reaches to the muslim community in general, but we are not aware of any direct outreach to these particular organizations. >> why has it not syria fallen into disarray as we have seen in other areas? >> i think assad believes that despite some of the economic difficulties and challenges in syria that he is connected with the people and that as a

consequence he does not have this concern. i do not know that that is a wise judgment, but it appears to be the judgment he has made. it will be interesting in all these countries to see the contagion effect, particularly with the activism of social media. >> i think the reality is that he exercises tremendous control over what happens in syria. the result of that is that there is not the ability to be able to proceed to do the kinds of things we saw happen in other countries. having said that, i think there are some of the same ingredients that occurred in some of the other countries. i think the potential for that is there as well.

>> mr. schiff of california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to clarify something before i ask a question. earlier, there was a comment made -- i support the provision extensions -- that we could get a wiretap on a child pornographer but we could not get a wiretap on a lone wolf. this is not true. if you have evidence of a crime, you can get a wiretap under title 18. if you have evidence of the radiological weapons attack, it can also get a wiretap under title 18. it is comparing apples and oranges. if you have the same evidence of either crime, you can get a wiretap. i think that was a little misleading. i do not think it is accurate to say you cannot get a wiretap on a radiological bomb case. my question is on something

different. >> can i respond to that? >> if yes. >> i did not attempt to mislead. but all we were talking about the roping wiretap statute. -- i thought we were talking wiretape rulioving statute. if it was not reached out, we'll still have that capability under title 18. >> regardless, you can get a wiretap under title 18 if you have the evidence. it may be less effective if they are going from phone 2 phone. that would be true in a child pornography case, too. i think it is a little misleading to people that are not first in this to suggest you cannot get a wiretap in a

radiological bomb case. >> you may want to share the divorce between a intelligence based investigation and a criminal based investigation. >> i just wanted to make that point. >> bite -- in no way are we trying to mislead. you can get on the criminal side of the house a number of the capabilities we have on the security side of the house. if you do not get on the national security side of the house, you may be able to get on the criminal side of the house with a much enhanced burden of proof, but you could still get it on the criminal side of the house. it is misleading to make that differentiation. the standard is different on the national security side of the house that it is on the other side of the house. >> again, i have no question.

i do not think anyone was trying to mislead. i think for the audiences here today, to suggest in broad terms you can get a wiretap on child pornographers but not against a radiological bomber, that is not correct. what i want to ask about is the report that we received those two sentences to egypt, which i thought was striking given the prominence of egypt, not only in terms of what is dominating the news, but also in terms of the broader issues we are confronting. i think that two developments -- the most discouraging i have seen in the last few years and the most encouraging. all the discouraging side, you have a governor who was

assassinated for speaking out against the blasphemy law. the person who killed him as part of a security detail is being celebrated in pakistan with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating in support of the assassin. that is the most discouraging thing i effort in terms of the battle of ideas in a long time. all the other hand, the most encouraging thing i guess seen in a long time is happening ing it. i know there is a lot of risk, but the potential, i think, is enormous in terms of liberating the arab world from the shackles of authoritarian regimes. they have subjugated the role of women and resulted in the lack of opportunities and provided fertile ground for terrorism. i wonder, in light of these two very significant things, whether

we are missing the force of the treaties? this may get mr. panetta to the commission you're talking about. sometimes things that are out in the open we pay a lot -- we pay less attention to. i think what is happening in egypt has enormous ramifications in terms of the war on terror. i would be interested to get any of your thoughts on that situation. egypt has broader implications. held shape are other priorities? >> i will ask leon to add to that. there is a stark contrast between pakistan and egypt. of course, pakistan is a sovereign nation which has certain interest at heart. sometimes our interest, belize,

and values converge and sometimes they do not. with respect to what is going on in egypt, this is an yvette. there are potentially great opportunities to come up with a counter-narrative to al qaeda and its franchisees and what it is espousing. >> i do not think there is any question that this provides a tremendous opportunity to try to move egypt in the right direction. i think the administration and the world for that matter hopes that will be the case. the opportunity is there. the opportunity for the leadership to be able to reach

out to the opposition, to be able to develop the constitutional changes and political reforms that are necessary, and the opportunity to truly develop free and fair elections so that the people of egypt can exercise the same freedoms that we do. that is a tremendous opportunity. and it is one that i think we are taking all the steps possible to try to see what we can do to try to move it in that kind of orderly transition. the problem, as you know, is that when you had these events take place, it becomes very uncertain and oftentimes very unpredictable to try to figure out whether or not those in a leadership role will make the right decisions at the right moments and whether those who are in the opposition in the demonstrations will be able to

exercise the kind of bitter ship necessary in order to ensure this goes in the right -- the kind of leadership necessary in order to ensure this goes in the right direction. it is done right, it will help us a great deal in trying to promote stability in that part of the world. if it happens all wrong, it could create some serious problems for us and the rest of the world. >> mr. king of new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director panetta, he said there was no involvement with the muslim brotherhood in this country? >> my understanding of the question was does the administration in the united states have a relationship with the muslim brotherhood, to which i believe the answer is no. >> that also applies to the fbi obviously. >> yes. as i believe you are aware, we

do not have a relationship with them. we continue to have issues with them. we do not have a formal relationship with them at this time. >> if you have an informal relationship with them? >> no, but there are occasions when individuals who may be loosely affiliated with care that we have relationships with. we have no formal relationship, but there are a number of fluid organizations, depending on where you are in the country. on some occasions we may be with persons to have ongoing issues with care. >> are you concerned at what is happening in egypt could spread throughout the region? does that include morocco? >> i think there are a number of countries in that region that could be impacted in the same

way. >> also, as far as india and pakistan, are there any changes on the kashmir issue? >> there have been efforts to try to reach out between pakistan and india, but as far as i know, they have not gotten anywhere. >> recently -- yesterday or today -- they agreed to resume strategic dialogue. if that happens, that would be a movement in the right direction. >> i know nothing can be anticipated, but if the situation in kashmir does improved somewhat will we get more cooperation? >> i have to say this -- the have provideds cooperation and have given us -- have worked with us in the

efforts to try and go after al qaeda. i appreciate that effort. at the same time, obviously, we worry about the relationship with militant groups and their relationship in terms of the effort with regard to india. if the kashmir area could be resolved, that would help a great deal over all in terms of pakistani security. >> i yield back. >> thank you, mr. king. >> i want to thank the panel for their testimony here today. i want to thank you all for the work you are doing to keep the nation safe. i am very pleased that we have had a robust discussion this morning about cyber security and vulnerability that we face. as some of you know, i think we

have a great deal of work yet to do. i will start with the director and perhaps director miller could comment as well. how do you assess the progress we have made in dealing with the cyber-threat overall? we have set up a cyber-command and have set up defenses with respect to networks. we are working towards protecting the dot-gov network. much of it is in private hands. i want to know if there were a major cyber-attack on the nation, do we know who is in

charge and do we have sufficient of parties to actually stop an attack? >> i think we have been working very hard to try to make sure that as a community we are putting together all our capabilities and authority to be able to respond effectively to cyber-intrusion. it does not always clear from whence they come or how they can be attributed. we recently signed an m.o.u. to create a joint unit said that we have an enclave that will allow us to deploy our abilities appropriately and will approve -- will improve our ability to share technology and information. of course, we will use that in our department's role of sharing that information when

appropriate and possible with the private sector and, particularly, the critical infrastructure sector that we work with on a daily basis. >> could we stop a major cyber- attacks on the nation today? do we know who is in charge? >> i would say that the administration is working right now on a copper adzes cyber- security strategy. that will allow us to do that. >> the answer is no. >> i think we are in a much better position than we were in. there is much room for progress and improvement in this area. we are working on that with the white house. >> has einstein-story been deployed? >> i do not believe it has been deployed, but i will get back to you on that for the record. >> i would say that what has been in place for a couple of

years is a joint task force. it is a hub of identifying and achieving a tax big, large, or small. you have all the relative agencies there. if it turns al to be an attack -- if it turns out to be an attack by a high school student down the street, we will not take that to be a crime. depending on where the attack originates, you'll have people at the table capable to do that. if it originates in the united states, we would have jurisdiction. if it comes to putting a wall between the attackers and a particular entity within the united states, the department of homeland security would have a role.

we have a focal point that immediately identifies the attack and identifies the focus of that a tag annualizes all the capabilities we have to address this. >> regardless of if it is the intelligence side or the law enforcement side. >> our -- what is our level of progress in being able to protect against an insider threat as it relates to cyber? >> that issue has come to the floor and been reaffirmed by the wikileaks disclosures. within the intelligence community, at least, we had a strategy and have embarked on an improvement program to attend to the insider threat whether it is wikileaks or any sort of insider

threat. better identification of people who are on networks, patrolling media, and most importantly -- this applies for several purposes -- auditing and monitoring. our progress is uneven at this point. we have embarked on a campaign to police that up, particularly within the intelligence enterprise. the white house as a study group on how to do this across the government. i think your characterization is right. we have made progress, but there is a lot more that needs to be done. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman from new jersey. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman. to our panel, at thank you for being here today. to the men and women who served under you in the intelligence committee, our heartfelt thanks for their service to our country. it is difficult and trying situations. the nation owes you a great debt of gratitude. this will be for anyone who might want to attend comment. a few years ago, the issue of piracy seems to resurface with somalia. it appeared at the time that there was somewhat of a disorganized than that was interested in shaking down someone for money. we all know the circumstances that developed after that. recently there are some who are suggesting that terrorist networks that have attempted to

become involved with piracy issues from two vantage points. number one, to be able to find money for their terrorist activities. number two, if they cannot shape tell somebody for money, they can create real terror in an incident that they might perpetrate. can you comment on that at all? >> you have highlighted a serious problem. there has been no government there since 1991. that is with the pirates are most prevalent. there is some connection in somalia with relation to piracy. they do obtain revenue from some of these pirate activities.

most of it appears to be individual criminal gangs operating to extract money for holding hostage these ships. that is something we are watching. this is a high interest item for the community. would you like to add anything? >> we are worried about piracy in the area. it shows the problematic potential linkage between our share by the -- al-shabab and somalia. we have had a series of americans go to somalia to join it. >> i am wondering if you can

confirm or deny efforts to train a security force to fight piracy? >> it might be best to discuss that in closed session. >> maybe you can test on this. more broadly comedy have any suggestions for what additionally we might be able to do to address this issue of piracy? >> 1 and the challenges with pirate -- one of the challenges with pirate is if you catch them, what do you do with them? convicting pirates turns to be rather problematic. it is not something that we in the west can do. it is a problem. >> thank you.

>> mr. chandler? >> thank you. this is my first opportunity to visit with people in the community as a brand-new member of this community. i want to echo summit these comments -- some of these comments about the war the men and women do for our country. i think you are a true american patriot. you pick your lives on the line. -- you put your lives on the line. thank you very much for all that you do. i reviewed your task as one of the most daunting tasks in any area of the government or anybody that i can think of anywhere.

when you look at all the hot spots, you think about what you are required to do. it is remarkable how you get your arms around in. it is amazing to me. anything we can do to help you keep our country safe, i know everybody here wants to do. it is extremely important. i wish you the best of luck. in terms of asking you questions -- where to start? there are so many things that we need to know about. you are now dealing with the middle east. i am particularly interested in and then in -- in a van -- events in yem. i'm curious the sat is of al qaeda -- in the status of al

qaeda. when a failed state in somalia and potentially one in yemen. we are concerned they could become a failed state. i hope not. the region is extremely volatile. i am wondering what we are doing in terms of resources. do we have sufficient resources to understand what we are doing in the horn of africa and yemen? what is the situation there? the second situation is one that makes me nervous. pakistan is extremely crucial to what happens in the rest of the world, what happened in afghanistan. to it is one of the most dangerous places on the planet. you have a state that has

enormous volatility and nuclear weapons. what can you tell us about the security of the nuclear weapons under the control of the state of pakistan? are we in decent shape there? what needs to be done to make sure the weapons are sick. ? >> thank you very much -- weapons are secured? >> thank you very much. we appreciate that. a couple of comments about the country's you bring up. it might be better if you want to get into more detail in closed session. probably the president of yemen is facing some profound challenges. he has some secessionists in his own movement -- country.

he has been in place for a long time. they have had demonstrations in the street. he has been an ally of ours, articulately militant and extremists that jeopardize him. in terms of your question about resources allocated, that will be better discussed in closed session. you are right about pakistan. there are a lot of challenges as will. our assessment is that the nuclear weapons and pakistan are secure. that is probably all we should say about that in public. >> i am very happy to talk about it in closed session. with yemen, two principal concerns. they are continuing to plan and tried to execute from yemen and

vince similar to what we sell on december 25 of last year. their effort to speak to english speakers in the west and inspire them to act in our home countries without going to yemen in getting training. in somalia, there are problems as well. al-shabaab is closely aligned with al qaeda on the leadership level rather than al-shabaab and the troops. al-shabaab is launching transnational attacks. they killed 74 including an american during the african world cup. we have a history of several of americans traveling to somalia to fight al-shabaab. they remain focused on the potential for them to ease -- be used as operatives in the united states.

>> thank you. i appreciate it. >> i am sure you are all familiar with the conclusions of the risk report. they expressed a concern of the likelihood of a buyer terror attack that is high. he did a biological terror attack is high -- the likelihood of a biological terror attack is high. how do you assess that for a globally? do you believe a biological terrorist event remains at or at the top of a threat to nations around the world? >> for there is a clear commitment on the part of al qaeda with a focus on obtaining chemical or biological weapons.

the likelihood of obtaining a biological weapon is more likely than producing a yield producing nuclear device. the likelihood of using a real logical device that does not have the yield might be equally high. the possibility at anthrax has been focused on by the groups in the past. it will continue to be focused on. i think the loan will attacks still stands out as the far more likely event. >> that the threat concerns as a great deal, because oftentimes when it comes to biological and chemical threat we tend to come in the bight of nuclear -- we tend to, and the light of

nuclear attacks, not to focus on that element. from an intelligence point of view, we see that al qaeda continues to look at that possibility. that is something we are focused on to insure that they do not develop that capability. in dealing with al qaeda, the likelihood is that they will use anything they can to create terror. that means to have to focus on all of the spot. >> thank you. i will yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you. i want to thank each and everyone if you for your service. i know some of you have been serving this country and protecting us on your adult life. i want to thank all for that. my question will still with the debt that we have.

and then mullien secretary of state had made the comment that our national debt could be one of our national security issues. i would like to ask you to address that. do you think that is a possibility that would -- that could create some problems with that owned country'ies it? ? >> preeti owner this debt? -- own this debt?

>> it does propose a threat to our national security. the allusion that there is a relationship with china. we recognize that we are going to have to play our part to help reduce that debt. i agree that it does pose a huge problem for us. we have to deal with it, in my view. >> i would speak to that more as a former director of the office of management and budget. that threat of?

-- debt and the consequences of that internationally and economically and in terms of the resources we need for the feature, there is no question that it represents a threat that we should pay attention to. obviously, from an intelligence point of view, our main focus is on al qaeda and the threat they focus to attacking our country. we should pay attention to the threats in this country as well. >> as a foreign policy issue, it is a constant area of concern when we are dealing -- >> can you move your microphone? >> it is a topic of discussion in relation to our foreign relations.

it is connected to our ability to deal with other countries. it is a top concern. secretary clinton has said that it is something that we have to deal with when we are sitting down with the chinese and other countries. >> thank you. i will yield back my time. >> thank you. . i appreciate the integrity that the brain and your commitment to keeping the american people safe. we are waiting to hear what president mubarak will say to the egyptian people. people in the united states are paying attention as well. we are nervous about the white a change to egypt -- about what a

change to egypt will mean to the region. some will have sympathy to the american people and peace in the region and to a commitment to a peaceful relationship with egypt. i am wondering if you can comment on hamas and hezbollah and how you see the impact of the current instability in the yemen, tunisia, jordan, and egypt and the changes we have seen. how do you see that impact in the light that has to look at hezbollah, secretary kate has said -- gates has said has belie is perhaps the best armed of the isanization's -- hezbollah perhaps the best arms of the organization's?

? are we sending from them that they see an opportunity to perhaps enhance hostility with israel at this particular time? if you could also comment regarding the urbanization as well. asian -- is weaponization as well. >> we are watching with great interest to see how it unfolds and whether or not they do have an opportunity to exploit or further their interest or not. al qaeda has had a standoff relationship -- standoff posture toth respect to outreach an

egypt. that is to be determined. they are observing this as we are. they are looking for opportunities to further their interest. you highlighted hezbollah rightfully so. they are very well armed. they also an attempt -- and tend to raise social needs of their people. -- attend to the social need of their people. they are arming themselves. they have extensive vessels. that poses a threat to israel. >> there is no question that the people at this table is confronting terrorism and all its forms. we have talkin do we have talked

about al qaeda and all of the different verse -- we had talked about al qaeda end of the different versions. there are other terrorist groups that threaten this country. you have identified those that we are worried about. hezbollah is a terrorist group that clearly has ties to iraq as as hamas and the others. our concern is that ron -- iran could impact the stability of that region. hezbollah is well armed. it has exercised its eerie -- experience on what is happened in the 11 non -- in lebanon. this is a way we have not seen as much in the past.

we think they are exercising greater influence today. they do have weapons that can impact in other areas in that region. it did a group that we pay a lot of attention to. -- it is a group that we pay a lot of attention to. you have identified the group's that -- groups that the intelligence community has to pay attention to. >> the only thing i would add is that i think hamas is the one that is most immediately affected anby a ditch imprisons. -- by egyptian prisons. we can talk more about that in

closed sessions. >> this may not be wise for this session, but i would appreciate getting more information on your assessment as to the number of rocket and capabilities of hezbollah as well as the ground troops assessment. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. i offer my sincere thanks. thank you predicting -- i think you -- thank you. you reference the potential threat caused by the health infrastructure vacuum in certain countries and extremist groups.

how would you characterize the severity of this thread? what recommendations would to have to combat this threat? >> the threat posed by the provision -- quite the threat of the extreme and -- quite the threat of the extremist groups and the help vacuum. ealth that team. >> hezbollah and tends to this. it solicits a positive response. that is one of the things that the muslim brotherhood does in egypt. that is not under the guise of an extremist agenda. they can pursue other social

services on behalf of the citizens. it is not have a view with promoting violence. this is something we try to watch. this illicits something we have to monitor. >> the only organization i would add -- they have an enormous presence in pakistan providing medical service and education. they have gained support from the government of pakistan. it is also a terrorist group responsible for killing six american in mumbai and many indians. >> are there any recommendations

on how to minimize the threat? >> one way is to either to a plea attempt competing services -- to provide competing services or supported the nation state in areas they operate to provide similar services. they fill a vacuum that the state does not provide. >> let me comment that in dealing with terrorism and al qaeda and g. heileman -- and jihad, we try to do everything we can to make sure that we did able their leadership and control and operations. one of the things we have to pay

attention to is the larger message that goes out that attract people to jihadis. people to pay attention to delivering this kind of services. the united states has to be smart enough so we are competing in the same arena. we are not going to be dealing with the fundamental problem that inspires the high -- jihad. >> thank you very much for your open testimony. one and thebe th chances for the american people to look at the business of intelligence and the american people. we will reconvene. we are running a little bit behind.

we will work hard to be out at 1:30 p.m. -- to be out at 1:30 p.m. the will reconvene there. we will get under way. you get a bad cafeteria's sandwich -- cafeteria sandwich. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> up next, in the house debate extending provisions of the patriot act. president hosni mubarak made a statement.

>> timothy geithner will be at the brookings institution talking about the government- backed mortgage lenders. he can watch it beginning 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> that is not only one of the major challenges facing our country, but it is how we maintain a healthy lifestyle and to have the judgment and strength to say no. >> sunday night, we will discuss today's college student. his school is the site of the george w. bush presidential library. >> part of the patriot act are set to expire on figure 28.

the house voted to proceed with the bill to extend key provisions of the act days after a similar measure was voted down. here is a debate prior to today's procedural vote. it is just over an hour. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one hour. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'm happy to yield the customary 30 mines to my good friend, the gentleman from boulder, and pending which i yield myself such time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrdreier: mr. speaker, 18 days from now three key provisions of the patriot act are set to expire, leaving a gap in our national security framework. today's underlying legislation would temporarily, and i underscore the word, mr. speaker, temporarily extend these provisions to allow for the development of a long-term

solution with the many questions that are out there. now, mr. speaker, with strong bipartisan support, the previous congress simply passed a blanket one-year extension without addresng any of the underlying challenges, questions and controversies. and, mr. speaker, i'm the first to admit that there are challenges, questions and controversies that relate to the patriot act. unfortunately, and again it was by a vote of 315-97, february 25 of last year, mr. speaker, and we went to that entire yew, -- through that entire year, but guess what? not a single hearing was conducted subsequent to the passage of that extension. not a single hearing over the pastear has been held. now, feel very confident that my colleagues who have joined me on the floor here from the judiciary committee, mr. lungren who is here right now, mr.

sensenbrenner who chair the subprime committee, mr. gohmert, i mean, these gentlemen and i have just had a conversation, mr. speaker, in which they have made an absolute commitment that this congress will not make the mistake that was made over the past year. following this short-term extension, we will have a thorough oversight process in which the committees of jurisdiction take a very close look at how we pursue the terrorists who threan our homeland. now, everyone acknowledges that this is not only controversial, not only filled with questions and not only filled with challenges, but it is very, very complicated. the individuals and networks who seek to do harm to americans change and adapt every single day and mr. lungren and i were just vag conversation in which we were looking at the situation as it existed a decade agoing, right after september 11, and the threat is much different

today than it was 10 years ago. and that's why we need to recognize that they are constantly changing and adapting their tactics to try and undo the united states of america and the free world. staying one step aad requires a tremendous amount of flexibility, ingenuity and coordination. and of course the right law enforcement tools. just today the secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, said that the threat that exists today, and mr. gohmert just showed it to me on his ipad, it's on the front of one of the newspapers around here, the threat that exists today is as great as it's been since september 11, and then when i said it to mr. lungren, he reminded me that it's a different thre. a different threat today than the one we faced in the past. and that's why flexibility, ingenuity and coordination are

absolutely essential if we are going to proceed. ensuring that we are taking all necessary steps while fully protecting the rights of all americans, and i want to underscore, this is one of the reasons that going back 10 years, as we were legislating through the prison much of september 11, i was -- prison am of september 11, i was very -- prism of september 11, i was making sure we were not undermining the rights of the american people. we need to ensure that that is a priority as we proceed. this process i going to be a lengthy process over the next 10 months and it's not a process that can be resolved in the seven legislative days that exists between now and february 28 when this is scheduled to expire. in the immediate term, it is imperative that we temporarily extend the expiring provisions to ensure that we do not

suddenly create glaring loopholes in our national security. it is imperative that we commit to a comprehensive and, yes, transparent process, and i had a conversation with my california colleague, mr. rohrabacher, downstairs. we want to, all the way to when this measure comes to the floor, ensure that we have an open and transparent process when it comes to changes, modifications to the patriot act, and we want amendments to be considered, we want there to be a free-flowing debate as we proceed. now, mr. speaker, the last piece of legislation, the resolution that we were just discussing, has to do with job creation and economic growth because we want to unleash the potenti of the american worker treeing them from the onerous regulations that have been imposed on them. and some might say, is this in fact a jobs bill? when i think about what happened to our nation's economy following september 11 of 2001.

we all know the devastation that took place. the new york stock exchange had to close down for a week. we saw tremendous disruptions in our economy and the job force. this measure is designed to ensure our national security and witht national security, we don't have the potential to save and create jobs in this country. so i see this measure as being critical to our quest for sustained, we're enjoying economic recovery today, for sustained job creation and economic growth and believe that they are so inex-trick pli tied that it is essential that we put this extension in place so over the next 10 months, nothing will be done to undermine the security and safety of our fellow americans. e five most important words in the middle of the pri amble of the constitution are -- of the

preamble of the constitution are "provide for the common defense." mr. lungren and i were talking about this yesterday morning at the republican conference, it is absolutely essential that we recognize that that is our number one priority. proving for the common defense ensures our economic security where the potential for job creation will be able to be sustained. i urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way, since we had a vote of 315-97 on february 25 of last year with, again, strong bipartisan support from many, many, many democrats who unfortunately chose to vote no when we had this under suspension of the rules, now we are considering it under a process. this is bipartisan, by the way. when a measure is not successful under suspension of the rules, democrats an republicans alike bring measures to thfloor under this process that we're considering this measure today. so i urge my colleagueto support this so that we can

proceed with the very important work that mrs. sensenbrenner, lungren and others had been pursuing. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: the patriot act is a bill that's been plagued with abution since it first passed. today's rule is another example of short circuiting a system that our founding fathers set up. if there was ever the need for close supervision and congressional oversight of a law, it is a law that discusses how and under what conditions the gornment can spy on its own citizens. but yet after 10 years of public rerd, we all agree there are some clear sections of the law that can be improved. instead of debating these sections of the law to better find that balance between protecting what makes it special to be american and protecting our national security, instead, republican leadership has decided to ram through this bill with as little debate as

possible. mr. speaker, we spent an hour earlier discussing how we will spend 9 1/2 hours discussing the organizational aspects of the house committee structure and yet for something that cuts to our core identity as americans we only have an hour under the rule and an hour under the bill to discuss it in its entirety this bill would re-authorize three of the most troubling provisions in the patriot act. again, instead of debating the merits of the provisions and coming up with solutions that both sides can agree on to protect what it means to ben american, republican leadership has a tendency to force it through under a suspension and now they propose it under a closed rule. on such an important issue, one that affects our national security, our civil liberties of

every american, that goes right to the heart of what it means to be american and our identity in this great republic, the american -- the majority has reverted back. just yesterday, they held a vote open for more than half an hour pressuring members to switch votes. thankfully, the effort failed to switch the majority which is why we're here today with an additional hour to discuss the patriot act, weawowfully insufficient. ic member -- i think members can be grateful that we at least have this much. the majority says they haven't had time to look at this, but they've had hearings on other topics. apparently the topic of abortion was imrtant enough to have a

discussion of the judiciary committee but the -- not the topic of the curt of the american people. why can't the judiciary committee find time to hold a hearing to discuss an issue this important that cuts to the very definition of what it means to be american. even if a little more time is needed, a month, two month, why sthrnt a 3day extension or 60-day extension before us instead of a 10-nth extension? it shouldn't be used as an excuse to prevent all proceedings from moving forward. mr. dreier: will you yield? mr. polis: i yield for a moment. mr. dreier: as i said work the controversies, the channel, and the absolute humongous task that is faced, we know the legislative process takes a while and to have that 10-month extension is essential for the work. mr. polis: i think there would be broader agreement if there

was perhaps a 60-day extension and maybe another 60-day extension but putting it off 10 months or a year can give an excuse not to bring to the forefront these rules that need to be dealt with. there's already been the single most significant bill was h.r. 2, the repeal of an entire body of health care law. sometime -- somehow there was the ability to bring that to the floor within days of the opening of a new congress. both parties want to ensure that the government has the tools we need to fight terrorism. we can all agree that the patriot act has issues that need to be recovered. -- resolved. if we can move this bill through the regular order, i'm confident that the judiciary committee can make improvements they've already discussed in prior sessions. last year, the judiciary committee reported out by voice vote measures that would imflive patriot act. it's clear there ibipartisan support to improve this bill.

even as we speak, the sete is debating three different versions of the re-authorization bill. yet here in the house, we have only this one, originally scheduled with hardly any debate, and now with a very closed sucture and no ability for members of either party to offer amendments. apart from its procedural flaw the re-authorization fails to provide the administration the tools and support it truly needs. the administration, which does support re-authorizing the patriot act, has asked for a real re-authorization rather than a short-term extension that increases the uncertainty around left arm planning, intelligence and law enforcement as they carry out this mission. instead of a patch to get us through another few months at the expense of the civil liberties of the american people, we need the opportunity to work together to fix this bill. specifically this bill would re-authorize section 215, 206 and 6 001 of the reform and

intelligence act. one section allows them to capture any relevant thi that may be relevant to an investigation, your medical records, your diary, even what books you checked out of the library and what websites you visited. in the past, these were limited to narrow classes of business anrecords but the specific facts pertaining any anygent of a foreign power swept away the basic requirements. it was reported by a bookstore that everybody, the information regarding everybody who purchased biographical books about osama bin laden had been requested. the justification us for this provision is that the government needs to be the -- to have the ability to protect our national security yet this goes against the basic constitutional notions of search and seizure. we have a -- we should seriously consider making changes to this

section instead of blindly giving the government the ability to spy on its citizens. let me give a few examples. i think this will come as some surprise to many people of the transgregs that have occurred, the affronts to our civil liberties as americans that have occurred rn the patriot act. perhaps some of us have taken christmas vacations to las vegas. ll, there's a list of 300,000 people that visited las vegas in christmas of 2003 that according to an article in "the las vegas review journal" said the ka see yow operators turned over names and other guest information on an estimated 270,000 visitors. i think a lot of people don't expect that to happen enhey visit las vegas. there needs to be an oversight process in place to ensure that when extreme measures are necessary that interfere with our privacy it goes through the right chams. this particular incident, even

the f.b.i. conceded that the personal records had not borne out a particular threat. the patriot act has been used more than 150 times to secretly search individuals' homes and 90% of those cases, 90%, have had nothing to do with terrorism. the patriot act was used against brandon may feel, a muslim americ innocent of any crime to tap his phone, seize his property, copy his computer, files, spy on his children, all without his knowledge, mr. speaker. it's been used to coerce an internet service provider to divulge information about web surfing and internet activity and gagged that provider preventing them from saying their information had been compromised. it's been used to charge, detain and prosecute a muslim student in idaho, providing website licks to materials that were fun objectionable by some even though those same links were available on a u.s. government

website. mr. speaker, part of what makes america special is the balance between our civil liberties and rights as americans and our national security. when so many members of congress, so many americans, on both sides of the aisle, of all ideologies, feel that we can do better, i think we owe it to the people of this country to do better and have a better process as a congress, to improve the patriot act to help protect our liberties and ep us safe over the long-term. i reserve e balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself 30 conds to say i agree with much of what my friend from bowler hasaid. i will say this, it was february 25 of last year that a one-year extension was provided and in the a single hearing held. it was very important that we deal with these questions my friend raised and we have them as well. they need to be addressed. the administration has come out in strong support of this administration. they'd like to have the extension, not a 30 or 60 days,

they'd like it to go to december of 203, if they had their way, that's what the statement of 1kwr5d mrgs policy says. mr. speaker, i believe that we are very much on the right track to ensure that we gethose issues addressed. and now i'd like to yield four minutes to my friend from menomee falls, the chairman of the crime subcommittee, who will be explaining in great detail the challenges we face. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized fur four -- for four minutes. >> the iormation provided by my colleague from colorado doesn't mesh with the facts. first of all, i was chame of the full judiciary committee on september 11. when the patriotct was introduced, we had two hearings and a full committee markup. mr. sensenbrenner: the senate didn't have that, even though it was controlled by the democrats

and there were, you know, long negotiations to come up with the original patriot act the president signed. at that time, i insisted that there be a sunset provision on all of the 16 additional provisions of the patriot act that expanded law enforcement powers and i gave the commitment that as chairman of the committee, i would hold hearings on each of these 16 provisions, subsequently increased to 17, before the sunset expired. and i did. and at that time, the testimony was very clear that there was no controversy over making permanent 14 of the 16 provisions. and the patriot act extension did that. the three provisions not made permanent were the ones that were in controversy. and most of the complaints

advanced by my friend from colorado, mr. polis, were on the 14 provisions that there were no abuses that were brought out during the 2005 hearings. now let me talk about the three provisions that do expire, that are the subject of the underlying bill. first of all, section 206, the roving wiretap authority, law enforcement has had this authority on organized crime and drug pushing since 1986. the patriot act expanded it to include terrorism. there has been no constitutional challenge that has been filed against section 206. section 6001, the 17th provision and the lone wolf provision, says that someone who can be investigated urn the patriot act doesn't have to be a member of an identifyable group like al qaeda in order for the patriot

act's provisions to come into play. constitutionality of that is unchallenged. now section 215, which is the business records provision, there was a constitutional challenge and it was withdrawn. the challenge was in the case of muslim community associations -- association versus ashcroft filed in the eastern district of michigan. the plaintiff in the case alleged that section 215 violated the first, fourth and fifth amendments to the constitution. . the 2005 re-authorization of the patriot act amended section 215 and as a result of the amendment, the plaintiffs withdrew their complaint. we have solved those problems. so much of what we hear today are about issues that were made permanent because there really wasn't an issue or something

that involves other type of law enforcement activity other than the patriot act. this congress, i am the chairman of the subcommittee on crime, and we will have those hearings before this extension expires on deceer 8. and we will give everybody a chance to thoroughly air their complaints just like i promised and just like i delivered in 2005. and when the record is brought up to date, i hope that the members will confine their debate to what is actually in the expiring provisions of the patriot act rather than talking about a lot of other things, some of which don't even involve the patriot act whatsoever. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentman from colorado. mrpolis: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, a member of the judiciary committee, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for

three minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i appreciate the historical account that was just delivered by my colleague on the judiciary committee, former chairman sensenbrenner, and i have abundant respect and admiration for him and his motives and his desire to protect the civil rights that we all hold dear. but i find it disturbing that today we are going to start out on a 9 1/2 hour debate on a meaningless, redundant measure that simply instructs congress and its committees to review regulations and we could be spending that time dealing with such a very portant serious issue such as re-authorization

of this so-called patriot act. this bill is too serious, it's too important to be re-authorized without any hearings, no markups, who opportunity for amendments. i was glad to be one of the true patriots to vote against this measure when it was brought to the floor yesterday on a suspension of the rules. without due consideration by our judiciary committee. there's a bipartisan consensus that these provisions need some improvement. roving wiretaps, the lone wolf provisions, especially business records. while the threat of terrorism is real and law enforcement must

have the right to protect americans, any counterterrorism measure must have a solid constitutional fitting and respect for the privacy and the civil liberties of the american people. if congress re-authorizes these provisions with no changes, americans will remain subject to warrantless intrusions into their personal affairs and a gross overreach of federal investigative authority that could be and has been abused it's just not how we do things in this country, ladies and gentlemen. rather than taking the time to craft reforms that will better protect private sit zens' communications and privacy from overbroad government surveillance, the republican party simply wants to ram this bill through without providing any opportunity for anybody to

offer amendments that would improve the bill. we all acknowledge that law enforcement needs new tools to keep up with 21st century threats. but surely it's our responsibility in congress -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. johnson: thank you. but surely it's our responsibility in congress to re-examine legislation that was hurried through congress in the wake of 9/11, to make sure it lives up to our national ideals because this bill, this bill fails to contain any checks and balances to protect law enforcement abuses and protect civil be liberties -- cil liberties. i oppose the rule and underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yld myself 30 seconds to say to my good friend from georgia that no one is trying to ram anything through at this point. i would say to my friend that president obama strongly supports this extension, i would

say to my friend. president obama strongly supports this extension. he in fact wants it to go to december of 2013. we had a one-year extension put put in place by a vote of 319-27 on february 25 of 2010, there was a commitment then, certainly people inferred, we would have hearings. there was not a single hearing held during that entire period of time and we have made an absolute cmitment, we just heard from mr. sensenbrenner, we are about to hear from mr. lungren the chairmanf the cybersecurity subcommitteethat we are going to -- mr. johnson: would the geleman yield? mr. dreier: i yield right now to the geleman from gold river, five minutes. i wod love to engage in a colloquy if mr. polis would yield time on this issue. five minutes to my friend from gold river, the chairman of the cybersecurity subcommittee the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. lungren: thank you very much , mr. speaker.

i thank the gentleman, the chairman of the rules committee, for granting me this time. the author of the sunset provision that requires us to these three portions of e patriot act. i offered that when we had the re-authorization of the overall bill because i thought these were three sections that were, at that time, controversial, and that we ought to be required to review it. so i did support the authorization for a year that we had last year, but i fully expected that the judiciary committee would hold hearings so that before this date we would have acted on any changes anyone deemed necessary. i would say i am not aware of any changes that are necessary, and i have followed this ever since they put the sunset provisions in.

nonetheless, i had thought that during the last year while my friends on the other side were in charge, as a matter of fact i believe our committee pasd out a full re-authorization of the patriot act, that is the judiciy committee, under the leadership of chairman conyers, but it was never brought to the floor for us to consider. under any rule. open or closed. so what we are asking for in concert with the president of the united states is to extend it to the end of this year so that we can carry out the actually mandated obligation of oversight. chairman sensenbrenner, chairman of t crime subcommittee, has a track record. i believe it was 13 hearings that we held on these subjects. we went through chapter and verse, we had the f.b.i. before us, we had the attorney general before us, we had the criminal division before us. we had the aclu before us.

we had classified briefings as well as public hearings. we made some changes in 2005. pursuant to requests and information that was presented to us. now, i know some of our members said after they voted against this -- on this suspension calendar this bill h been in effect for 10 years, times have changed. yes, they have. and if we examine the changes we would see these three provisions are more necessary today than they were when first put into law. why? because as secretary napolitano, the secretary in the obama administration, stated just today we are on as high alert today as far as she's concerned in terms of the threat as we have been at any time since 9/11. and as the two co-chairs of the 9/11 commission said in testimony last year, which is basically repeated by secretary

napolitano, and the head of the nctc in testimony this week, we have a different threat today. we have the continuing threat of those of al qaeda onhe international scene still attempting to probe and find where they might be able to provide a catastrophic event against the united states, but the new facts show that the greater threat to us today is as they have said, less consequential attacks from smaller groups, some not even officially allied with al qaeda, sometimes inspired by them, sometimes incited by them, and these three provisions go directly to the investigation that is are necessary for us to deter that. this is not the regular criminal justice system when you examine the evidence after the crime has been committed to try and convict the individual. this is in the essence of deterrence to make sure that we are not collecting body parts after the attack has occurred.

and as a result, we have tried to make changes in the law that will allow us to do what the 9/11 commission said we couldn't do borehand. connect the dots. why do we ve the lone wolf provision in here? because that is more and more the concern we have to have. now, this would not apply to major hassan becausee is an american citizen. we are talking about lone wolf provisions for those who are not u.s. citizens. but he was aone wol i you want to understand what a lone wolf is. heasn't officially connected with al qaeda or anybody else, but was in conversation, he was incited by our inspired by, and if anybody doesn't believe he committed a terrorist attack, they don't know what terrorism is. you talk about a lone wolf, about the guy who was on the airplane in christmas a little over a year ago. that would be a lone wolf. we might have been able to collect information on him had we had an opportunity to get some of this information. i would be happy to yield. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, we have

the benefit of having my friend from gold river, my friend from anom any -- anomys on the floor if they would underscore the commitment that was raised by the gentleman from georgia that we would be diligently -- mr. speaker, i yield myself an additional minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. dreier: i wod like to inquire of both my friends what kind of commitment they are prepared to make in dealing with this. we have gone for an entire year following the 315-97 vote passage of this measure without a single hearing being held. first i yield to my friend, the chrman of the crime subcommittee. mr. sensenbrenner: i thank my friend for yielding. i plan on doing with this re-authorization of the patriot act the same thing i did with the 2005 re-authorization of the patriot act. examine every one of the expiring provisions, let

everybody speak their peace, and then let the hse of representatives work its wl. there have been no civil liberties violations these three expiring provisions. they have all been upheld as constitutional or not challenged. and we did have a problem with business records and we solved that in 2005. so all of the fears that the gentleman from colorado is making, i think are a red herring. we did it when we were in the majority in the judiciary committee and unfortunately when the other side was in the majority, they didn't do it. mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. i would say to my friend i think it's very important to note that as those hearings proceed, issues that relate to civil liberties will clearly be a part of the hearing process and debate, am i correct in concluding that? mr. sensenbrenner: you're right. i did it 5 1/2 years ago. i'll do it again.

mr. dreier: i appreciate that. how much time do i have remaining, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: time has expired. mr. dreier: i yield 45 seconds. i'm happy to yield to my friend. mr. lungren: the reason i came to the house of representatives was in response to 9/11 to try and make sure we had the tools necessary to protect this country from these kinds of attacks and at the same time as someone who devoted his entire life to enforcing the law, but with the protection of civil liberties, to make sure that is done in this case as well. one last thing about the roving wiretap, it is not controversial. it's been used in domestic criminal cases since at least 1980. and all it does is respond to new technology. you have a wiretap tha now grants authority, once proven, gran authority to follow the person with whatever device it uses because, guess what? most people are not confined to a single l.a.n. line today. that is all -- that's all this does. would you think we would have

the same provisions we use against criminals we could use those against those who would want to destroy americans in america. terrorists. mr. dreier: i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. in response to my friend on the roving wiretap issue, it's fast mate nating. as i began -- it's fascinating. as i began my remarks, mr. gohmert showed me the ipad which had the headline that the secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, has indicate the threat that exists today is greater than it's been at any time since september 11 of 2001. that technology didn't exist back if 2001 or certainly back in 1980, the roving wiretap was designed to focus on the potential terrorist and not on some antiquated technology we have. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes theentleman from colorado. mr. polis: the gentleman from

wisconsin mentioned that he's not aware of abuses under section 215. i would remind my colleagues that most of the uses are classified under 215 and there's not been a briefing for members of congress this congress to determine if there's been abuses. i have not had a briefing, nor has one been offered to the members of the 112th congress. i think before we make a decision about section 215, we need to know how it's been used. that's a simple request. with that, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. kucinich: i request unanimous consent to insert into the record -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: two news articles, one from "the new york times," march 13, 200 "f.b.i. made plan debt demands for phone

records" and one from january 11, 2011, twitter signs -- shines a spotlight on f.b.i. credit subpoenas. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: i'd like to get back to first principles here. first amendment. congress shall make no law respecting the establish almost -- establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of people to peaceably to assemble and adress the government for redre of depree advances. this patriot act is a wholesale abandonment of the right to assemble peaceably. this patriot act is a square violation of the fourth amendment, the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. against unreasonable searches and seizures.

now, i can trust my friends on the other side of the aisle, they're decent people. this isn't about democrat versus republican. it's not about a democratic president, not -- if there was a republican president or we'll have one in the future, it's about something actually much more important than all of us and than whoever might be an executive. it's about the constitution of the united states. congress made a mistake. when it passed the patriot act. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. kucinich: i'm going to continue and then yield. congress made a mistake when it passed the patriot act. instead of sunsetting it and being done with it, we kept it goin this law today we seek to re-authorize certain sections of the patriot act. what i maintain is we have a

destructive undermining of constitutional principles. we can't say, let's trust our friends to do the right thing. it's beyond friendship, beyond party, beyond who's the president. i disagree with president obama on this. it's interesting, at this very moment that our president is on television celebrating the tremendous movement toward the free world of the people of egypt who have suffered real repression and suppression of their basic liberties, ewith can celebrate something happening -- we can celebrate something happening thousands of miles away. it would be much better for america if we celebrated our constituon. what we have done with the patriot act, we've given the government enormous powers. we've given the government to reach deeply into people's

private lives, into their business affairs, without a court order. we need to think about that. some people say they don't want government involved in certain thin. government is involved in a way that is devastating when you come to the devastation of constitutional principles, you give the f.b.i. the ability to reach into people's private lives without a court order. i'm telling you, whether you're democrat or republican, this is a very dangerous thing we're doing here. stand up for the constitution. the speaker pro mpore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: i yield my friend 30 seconds, the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. sensenbrenner: the patriot act has been the law for ove nine years. not one of those 17 sections have been declared unconstitutional by any court in the united states. the argument that has been advanced by the gentleman from ohio is just plain wrong.

there has been plenty of opportunity to sue and to get parts of the patriot act declared unconstitutional. most of thesprovisions haven't been challenged. so let's stick to the facts. rather than making up arguments that simply do not exist with the paiot act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: may i inquire how much time is remaining on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has nine and one quarter minutes and the gentleman from colorado has 13 and a half minutes remaining. mr. dreier: i'll reserve the balance of my time so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can exhaust some of their time and then -- actually, i'm going to ask my friend how many speakers he has remaining? mr. polis: we have one more speaker remaining. two more speakers. mr. dreier: i reserve the balance of my time and let my friend proceed. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado.

mr. polis: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, a member of the judiciary committee, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewon is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: good to see you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlemafor managing and i tha the distinguished gentleman from colorado. mr. speaker, we are not the judiciary. we are the people's voice. we are the united states congress. the issue of whether a court has ruled any of this unconstitutional is the prerogative of that court. but we have the prerogative to address the issues dealing with the people's voice. so i am disturbed that this comes to the floor first as a suspension, which was defeated by the people's voice, and now through some unique trickery to come with a closed rule so the people ose voice is shut down. this constitution deserves more. the founding fathers were wise enough to establish three branches of government. this house is called the

people's house. and therefore we have the right to have a voice, that voice was already expressed by members on both sides of the aisle, republicans and democrats, who voted this down because of the lack of opportunity to engage on behalf of the people. what more needs to be said? now let me say this about the constitution and about this process. first of all, we have been in some very difficult times and we understand the crisis of terrorism and the aftermath of 9/11. but let us be reminded that in those early stages, when we developed this constitution, those men who were on this floor had to be concerned about the oppressiveness of the state that owned and dominated this country before it was. yet they did not yield to not putting in the constitution the fourth amendment which says that we should not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure. i want to remind my friends that when the democrats attempted to

have open hearings in 2005, the republicans shut us down. they would not allow us to have people of a different perspective. they turned off the lights they sent out home, they wouldn't let the people be heard. is that what we're going to get now? so i raise the questn about the roving wiretaps. my friend on the other side of the aisle is incorrect. this is more restrictive than general criminal law and all we ask is allow us to amend it so it conforms to general criminal law. that is the point. i offered an amendment with mr. conyers that talks about requiring a different standard other than the knowledge requirement when someone breaks into your house. when they come into your house and come into your office, we need to have a standard that is articulated so that innocent persons are protected. we realize that we live under a cover of terrorism. we are patriots as well. we join with the patriot act. and i must say to my good friend from wisconsin, the most shining moment of the judiciary

committee was after 9/11 when we constructed together, republicans and democrats, i believe, the best patrt act going forward. mr. dreier: will the gentlewoman yield . jackson lee: i will yield in a moment. his majority at the time took that bill we developed in the judiciary committee in a responsible, bipartisan manner with the ehotion and back drop of 9/11 behind us and skewed it in a way that frankly narrowed the rights of americans. it doesn't matter whether the cases have been selected. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield. ms. jackson lee: the case -- it doesn't matter if the cases have been challenged by the court but whether the people of this place, the people's house, have a time to respond. i yield to the gentleman. mr. drer: i thank my friend for yielding. i appreciate tremendous bipartisan support for the effort led by our friend from wisconsin which i think is terrific. the question is that -- that i would propnd to my friend is if we look at the february 25

passage of this measure by a vote of 315-97 and the one year period of time, i know the gentlewoman is a member of the judiciary committee and home left-hand security committee certainly woulhave wanted to have had hearings, why weren't there hearings held in that one-ar period of time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: we know that february 25 is coming up. the fact that hearings had not been hold -- mr. dreier: last year, last year is when this was passed. ms. jackson lee: hearings had not been held as of december 2010, ehe knows if we were in charge we would have had the appropriate hearings. necessary to go forward before february 25. may i st have another 15 seconds. mr. dreier: i'll yield her further time. mr. polis: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order.

the gentlewoman from texas has the time, the -- the time remaining is 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee feather sp --: if -- ms. jackson lee: if hearings were not held by february 21, 2010, the gentleman know he is cannot question whether we would have had the appropriate hearings before february 25 bauds we were not in chae. we ask to let the voice of the people speak. two days ago, the voice of this house spoke, republicans an democrats voted this down because theyelieve that the voice of the people should assure that thfourth amendment of unreasonable search and seizure has not been violated. mr. dreier: will the gentlewoman yields. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: we have freedom. mr. dreier: would the gentlewoman yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i would be happy to

engage in a colloquy. the point is, february 25 of 2010, there was an entire session of congress, it was when the democrats were in the majority, during that period of time through the entire one-year extension, there was not a single hearing held. i know that my friend, as a member of the homeland security coittee and judiciary committee would have been a strong proponent of holding those hearin, that's why it surprises me that assuming she did insist on them that she was unsuccessful in the quest to get those hearings. i should add that the organization for the 112th congress is just under way today, in fact, due to the fact that the minority has refused to allow the organization to take place. so there's been a year period of time and i wish very much that there had in fact been hearing last year. with that, i yield three minutes to my very good friend from tyler, texas, the vice chairman of mr. sensenbrenner's crime subcommittee, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize for three minutes.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from california for yielding. there have been some great questions raised about these provisions in the patriot act. but it's hard to believe that for all of last year, when democrats had the majority in this body, that if those same arguments had been made to speaker pelosi and to chairman conyers that they would have just continued to deny for an entire year the chance to have a hearing on these things. either they were not canned for the hearings on those things when they had the majority and could have done it or they did ask but if they did ask, why would they elect the same speaker to be their leader going into this term if she was so entirely nonresponsive to their pleas like they made on the flr this year? going back to 2005, for that

first extension. we had some very heated debates as chairman sensenbrenner will remember in private over what we should do. and there were a couple of us that fought hard in private to have sunsets on those provisions and my friend, mr. lungren, happened to have the amendment there that would all the sunsets on these and some of those concerns are the very concerned that have -- concerns that have been brought up by my democratic friends here. we want to make sure the abuses are not occurring, but so far we have not gotten the information from this administration to tell us what they have been doing. . one of the reaps we have sunsets is so we can force them to be accountable as they have not for the last two years. i want those hearings. you have been assured we will have those hearings that you couldn't get from your own party last year. we are going to have them. we are going to find out if there are any abuses and then we'll be able to know what should be done.

but please know, this is -- this does not allow under the fourth amendment a person has a reasonable expectation to privacy in their own house or place. that does not apply here. this is not to an expectaonf privacy in somebody else's property. that's not what the fourth amendment addresses. but i want to findout how this has been used. please know that last year in the extension all the things that my friends across the aisle are screaming about, we didn't have a chance to amend, we didn't have a chance to recommit. you got that on this bill. and as far as the vote on monday, it was under suspension, had to be 2/3, i think it was stupid to bring it under suspension because if they brought it under a rule it would pass because the vote was 277-148. now they are doing what they should have done the other day. they are new at leadership.

they are living and leaing. hopefully they are not just living. but we'll have the hearings. we'll address thes matters, and we'll find out if it should be done for more than a year. but in the meantime we appreciate the concern and hope you'll express -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself a minute to respond. at this point in the 112th congress the judiciaryommittee has found time to hold several hearings. i have been informed they have held hearings on topics that are certainly important, immigration, health care, and malpractice. yet this topic that's being discussed today, something that's so fundamental to our identity as americans has not benefit interested a single hearing in the 112th congress. one cannot say it's because they haven't had hearings or they are just constituting themselves. i have been informed they had several hearings to date. they have been on other topics. apparently this topic isn't important enough to warrant a

hearing in the early part of the 112th congress. one of the difficulties in exercising oversight with regard to section 215 is that the orders are prohibited from being disclosed that they got in order to anyone but their alternatives. we have -- attorneys. we have very little ability to even find out whether section 215 has been abused or not. with that i would like to yield an additional minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: the gentleman makes a point. if you are under a gag order, how are we supposed to know if there's any abuses. hello? what mr. gohmert said a moment ago, i want to associate myself with much his remarks. and i have hereor the record correspondentence i committeed on november 3, 2009, asking for -- correspondent, i submitted on november 3, 2009, asking for review of the patriot act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: we create government to securityur rights. not to give them away.

the patriot act represents giving away rights. not securing them. it's said while it hasn't been adjucated. the laws that we make derive from our constitutional authority, and that's not just a matter of political will, but it's about moral reasoning. and when we look at section 215 which lets the government obtain orders from private records or items from people not connected to any investigation, when we look at section 206 which lets -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. polis: additional 30 seconds. mr. kucinich: look at section 206 which allows the f.b.i. to obtain an order from fisa to wiretap without having to specify the target or device, when we look at section 6,001 which authorizes the government to conduct investigations of nonu.s. individuals not connected to a foreign power or terrorist group, effectively allows the government to

circumvent standards that are required to obtain electronic surveillance orders from courts . when we look at ese things, these provisions are divorced from our constitutional experience. they are divorced from what we know are commonsense provisions of what our rights ought to be. that's why i'm opposed to the extension of the patriot act. and why if we had any sense we could repeal the whole thing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield 3 1/2 minutes to the distinguish chair of the intelligence committee, mr. rogers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i am excited that my colleagues renewed interest in the constitution. this is a good day for this house and this country. but i can't think of a bill and provision that is have been more misrepresented than what happens in this patriot act extension. a, i think they make all the arguments in the world why we don't make this permanent. let's give it an extension so you have time to talk about t but there is an inescapable fact

at hand. by the end of this month, these provisions will expire. there are agents in law enforcement in our intelligence community who are preparing briefs to go to the court, the fisa court, to use these provisions. they will not be able to do it on march 1. why would we let that happen? let me give you a great compamplee. i used to be a f.b.i. agent i worked organized crime. we built a case, did a brief, took it to the judge and got a court order to do whatever. roving wiretaps. yes,efore this bill, roving wiretaps. why? because they would use different phones to conceal the criminality of their efforts. guess what? we have that happening now with terrorists. they go and buy 1,000, 1,000 phones that you buy that are already preprogrammed. these use it for one call and throw it away. what you're saying is we don't

care somehow it's ok for you to go after a drug dealer, a mafia don who uses his brother-in-law's phone, but you don't want to use this provision to go after a terrorist who is trying to hide their identity and their conversations and their content to build a radiological bomb. it's lewd dangerous. -- ludicrous. why would we do that to ourselves? make no mistake, you are putting americans in danger when you let this expire. on the roving wiretap, the b.i. director today said in an opening hearing less than 500 times, it's even been used. it is hard to get a wiretap. but what you're saying is after march 1, we can continue to do it for a drug dealer, but you can't go to the fisa court and get a wiretap on a terrost who is using these phones for god knows what. why would we do that to ourselves? why would we jeopardize american

safety when it comes to business record at the "new york times." before he wanted to do this evening, you could actually go to the hardware store and get those business records where he was buying materials to assemble a bomb under the fisa court, the patriot act. but what you're saying is we would rather wait until it explodes and kill thousands and thousands of people and the f.b.i. can go to the same hardware store and use a criminal subpoena to get the same records. it makes no sense whatsoever that we would let this bill expire at the end of the month and jeopardize the safety and security of the united states. when you look at the lone wolf provision, if you heard what the director of the nctc today and yesterday was talking about, the most dangerous threat that we have is somebody like alackey from yemen trying to radicalize an individual and get them to do something god awful like the new york -- times square bomber,

christmas day bomberer, like the hassan shooting at fort hood. that's their interest. you take away the lone wolf provision, and the government can't quite prove that they are a part of al qaeda, but we know they are doing something, you have handcuffed them to stop it before it happens. one of the reasons that we don't have an attackho are is because this act has been in place and they have used it judicial judiciously. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would remind members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from colorado has 6 1/2 minutes left. and the gentleman from california has 2 1/4 minutes. mr. polis: i would like to inquire if there are other speakers? mr. dreier: i have one speaker and i look forward to closing with a grant total of 15 seconds after we hear the eloquence of the gentleman from drexel hill, pennsylvania. mr. polis: i reserve the balance

of my time. mr. dreier: when i get 15 seconds. mr. speaker, with that i yield two minutes to a hardworking new member of this body, my friend from drexel hill, pennsylvania, as i said, mr. meehan. the speaker pro tempore:he gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. meehan: thank you, mr. speaker. it's a great pleasure to be here as a congressman. before i came here i serd as a prosecutor, both a federal prosecutor and state prosecutor. and i have actually been probably one of the few people who has actually been involved in the investigations who have used the patriot act. used the patriot act against the proclaimed imperial wizard of the kkk, plotting to take hand grenades to blow up an abortion clinic. it helped us to resolve the case. what's happening today by virtue of these provisions is not just use what's important in 2003 but to appreciate the changing nature of technology and the nature of technology and the need for law enforcement to be