approach that was tailored towards a unit population. -- unique population. guest: that is correct, but the laboratories of democracy are in the states. when you try to set standards in washington, 50 unique health care populations, $1 trillion when we do not have it, that is when the policy becomes problematic. it was extremely partisan. governor romney brought together democrats, republicans, people from the private sector. i think that clip shows he is willing to defend it and it shows he has an incredible command of the issues. guest: i think he did a great job getting that plan passed, but i do not know what is unique about the health care population

of massachusetts. it has people who get sick and who gets dropped -- get dropped. it has people who cannot get insurance. guest: they are unique health care markets state-by-state. what the president has said is that we should take a federal standard and apply it to 50 states. that is why it was rejected by voters. guest: the principle that people without insurance should be able to get it, people with pre-existing conditions ought to be able to get insurance and hold onto it -- that principle applies across state lines. host: stephen mcmahon and kevin madden are with us. check u out at twitter.com/cspan. donald trump in the "nework post." he is going to be in iowa june

10th at a republican party fund-raiser. guest: i think it has the potential to be a distraction. we had a hard time of being a party of rebuilding to restructure of a modernized message. the risk we have trump candidacs that in index a level of celebrity in the campaign where we are no longer talking about big eas. what can persuade the republican voters and others to vote for republicans. it does not put the emphasis on rebuilding the infrastructure, that and articulate republican ideals. star guest: in to resemble the

ringling brothers circus. and where does bachmann come in. host: let's go to california. what is on your mind today. caller: i think it is absurd, states cannot do it alone. it is another divided and conquered by the insurance companies who incidently control the whole issue. they have probably intimidated obama to a certain point. obamacare, the term really trivializes the issue. you recall the massachusetts plant rand paul -- romneycare? cannot have this kind of

non-i thought, non-logic in the country and release survive. we nd universal health care guest: i think the caller raises a good point. aspersions aside, which i do not have any place in politics or this conversation, you do have some candidates who are here responsibly characterizing things it in a way that is inaccurate. you saw that in 2010. whether it is that the panel or other things the republicans complain about that are just not present in the health care reform bill, they use everything they can to take it down. that is politics and politics is a beanbag, as someone just said. now we have fiercely opposing views and it is good for democracy in many respects, as long as it is honest and it is

on the merits of legislation and does not get personal. host: from cleveland, ohio, loretta is on the phone. caller: all like to change the topic just a little bit. regarding the republican problems, an not only do they have a problem trying find a candidate, but now that president obama put all of bush they were not on the books, they are now on the books. it cost america up $11.5 trillion, and there was another $700 billion in tarp. and now the republicans have another $900 billion tax cuts

for the next two years going to the same people, the rich in the corporations. someone needs to do the math on this. republicans are going to have to explain what happened to the $ 3.5 trillion that bush gave them for jobs. if they are going to get on to obama about no jobs, higher debt, the growth of the government, all of that was what the republicans and bush did. allied to hear what mr. mann has to say about that. i will take my answer off the air. guest: that was a lot of numbers and i'm not going to do t math because i cannot. but to answer the question from the broad view, we are seeing a very good and robust an important debate on the contrast between the republican world views and democrat world views on issues like taxes and

spending. if you look at the debate before november 2010, and leave that to the media -- the midterm elections, the argument was whether spinnings were working. now the debate on capitol hill and the country has shifted to where we're talking about how much we are going to cut. that is a big cultural shift up on capitol hill as well as a political shift in the date. republicans are winning because we have made the case that the amountf federal spending that took place with the democrat congress and with obama and president obama was not creing e jobs that we need and that we need to start reforming our spending practices and our tax burdens on small business and individuals, so that we can create more jobs in the private sector. host: steve mcmahon, the plan

they will be unveiled this week with regard to next year's budget that would take on medicaid, medicare, and social security. speaker boehner saying that it is time to take on these big entitlement programs. you see this debate leading up to 2012. guest: you do see a shift in many respects are around the whole issue ofpending and what is the appropriate level of government involvement. but you do see the spending packages with the republicans say did not work, but says the president has been in office, 1.7 million private sector jobs have been created, the unemployment rate lower than what was when he was elected. the economy seems to be moving in t right direction. the stock market does not impact every american but they give say state of the health of the

business community. they are many signs of progress out there. there is a different opinion now about the role of government spending at gni. the president shares that. the president was the first person to say that we get -- we need to get our fiscal house in order. all like to remind the republicans who complain about this so loudly and eloquently that when george bush took office, there was a $1 sign -- there was a trillion dollars surplus, and now there is a whole the we have to dig ourselves out of. what is important that we are fair and that the people who paid into social security promise that they would be repaid get paid. and that the republicans come to the table with everything on the table. the presence of we will have to talk about everything, that

means there things that democrats do not want to talk about entitlements, and republicans who will have to come with something on defense. defense is a huge part of the budget and it is something that they are loath to talk about cutting are trimming back. you can i get to where we all needed to in terms of the dead and the long-term deficit situation without putting everything on the table and having a conversation about moving forward. host: the late is continuing resolution expires this friday. from florida, good morning. what is undermined, george? caller: my two points are, progressive taxation. second, health care.

it is no longer we the people paying, it is some of the people. the democratic house will have to admit that. when it comes to health care, a decade ago i paid $500 of month and i never collected a penny. the lady told me it was because of the people using and although i had never used so i quit, $500 and i put it into the bank in case of tragedy in my family i worked at a scheduling program with the hospital and paid out to build $500 a month after the fact. i do not know why we pay for health insurance when i could pay after the fact and have the money in the bay. the health care proposal comes along. i'm not only paying for myself but everyone else. i'm going have to pay for

everyone else. i am an s corp under. i work arou the clock. but i am one of the few victims of the progressive taxation system. host: wilthat be addressed? guest: the task code is something that the president wants to take a look at. i understand his frustration. to many wealthy people and corporate corporations are able to avoid paying taxes that they should be paying on the law. i will say this, $500 a month, if you do get sick and got forbid that that happens, it could be hundreds of thousands of dollars that you will incur in medical expenses. the freeloaders that you're just complaining about, you will become one of those people. it is supposed to get everyone

in the system and now when they are sick of before they get sick. so that you can spread the risk and spreadhe exposure over greater pool people. mitt romney talks about the people who are freeloaders w we did they are sick and go to the hospital for preventative care are the people who are driving up the cost of health care. that is why your $500 premium one up so quickly. but it will not get cheaper unless everyone get sen. guest: tax reform is a lot like health care. everyone believes we need some sort of reform where we disagree on the specifics. republicans believe and we need a wer tax burden, and put more money back into the economy and give people more control over their dollars of the within generate mor economic activity. the difference with some democrats is that some believe th tax code ought to be used

punitively, that when we see wealth and success, we need to make sure that that is taken from people putnto growing the size of government. that is where we disagree on the specifics. i think that steve and i agree on this point on how we reform the health-careystem to where we he to have patience adding incentives and lower costs. that particular caller had a great incentive in controlling his own cost of health care. he wanted made sure he got the best deal and that he was using the health-care services they were not extraordinary were in line with his cost. also in line with making sure he was helping. but too often the way we hav the system set up, you are incentivized to give whatever care when -- after your deductible because it is all free. that is the great struggle right now. if it is the trouble on policy,

raer than applying one federal standard and compelling people to buy insurance nationally, states should be able to set up a run exchanges and market-based health care reforms. host: this is directed to you, kevin madden why has the republican congress not put up a jobs bill? guest: the best thing we can do right now for jobs and speaker boehner and others in the republican leadership of made this case time and again, create more ctainty. right now we have are coming out of the democratic congress and two years of one-party contl in this city, where there was a lot of uncertainty. there was a constant threat of more regulation and more taxes.

with speaker boehner and the republicans are along with senator mcconll, they try t put together and craft legislation that could put more certainty for businesses to thrive and hire people, lower the tax burden, and cut federal spending to where we can put this money back into the local, regional, and national economy. host: from the "national review." john bolton has this article. there is widespread objection over what the policy should be toward libya. guest: consider the source, that is where i would start. but the president has actually done a better job of articulating it anthe media has not reported the distinction that he is drawn pretty clearly.

the policy of the united states government is that gaddafi has to go. the policy -- the goal of the military operation is different. it is an international military coalition, u.n.-sanctioned doing this. and it is doing it with our european allies. the goal of the military opation is not to overthrow gaddafi. it is to protect the civilians and try to the escalate the crisis over there. there is a military operation and hopefully we will be out of there and now will be completed very quickly. and then there is ongoing u.s. policy is that gaddafi should lead. and there are ways to accomplish that including economic embargoes. i happen to agree that the president would have been better off if he had given -- given the speech that he gave a week earlier.

and he needs to continue to drive the distinction between our policy goal in the military operation. they are dferent. but i do not think there is incoherent year. it is clear what he wants to accomplished militarily as part of the coalition, and the united states interest long term, and they are not different from when george bush was president. guest: the president has not been clear in all. that is the frustration from even some of his own supporters. hope is not a strategy. and as president continues operate of foreign policy where he thinks it is. one of the big problems that we have here, there is no doctrine. his doctrine is to notave but doctrine and there is an incoherent on why he is applying the decisions he came up with. i will not criticize any individual decisions. that is better left to people with much stronger policies.

but the broader view, the summary of criticisms is that there is no foreign policy. george bush have freedom agenda. he articulated it clearly and methodically guest: that is not quite fair. the president has been on the side o democracy and greater freedom for people all over the world and he has been consistent about that over time. his policy is also fairly clear. it is no more cowboy diplomacy. we will have the support of our allies and our friends to make united states are respected country again. george bush's father understood that very well. that is why he put together coalitions before he invaded countries. i believe president obama is back to the policy of george bush's father. george bush lost policy led to

people all over the world hating us. guest: to ruff a share -- to refresh your memory, george bush went to congress and got a vote on his action. >> tomorrow all look at the weekend congress, including the federal budget negotiations and a stopgap federal spending bill due to expire on april 8. jennifer britain and greg myre talk about the middle east protests and their book. john della volpe as the latest on his pole.

live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. next, the co-chairman of the 9/11 commission talk about the rise of homegrown terrorists. then the senate hearing on cancer clusters. after that, stephen goldsmith. charles murray, author of the "bell curve" discusses disparities in white america and economic and class distinctions. live coverage begins tomorrow at 5:30 p.m. on c-span3. on wednesday at a senate homeland security hearing meeting, the 911. >> 9/11 commissioners talked about the threat of homegrown terrorists. chairman not keane said that homegrown terrorists are the greatest potential threat right now.

they discussed how to implement the recommendations and the national security gaps that still remain. this is two hours.

[inaudible]

morning. thank you all for being here. the attacks on america by islamist terrorists on 9/11 took place almost a decade ago, but

the memories of that day are still searing. the attacks and did thousands of lives, changed families forever and forced the country into another world wide war. we all remember that morning. i know we will want to the moment we leave earth. the nation watched on television as those extraordinary might be the twin towers of the world trade center collapsed into a pile of smoking rebel taking so many innocent lives with them. american airlines, 70,000 smashed into the pentagon and set it ablaze and in the fields near shanks bill pennsylvania we solve the smoldering crash of united flight 93 whose brief passengers fought to retake the plan from the terrorists who had

targeted washington, d.c., probably targeted this very place where we are, capitol hill, and by their heroism saved hundreds if not thousands of additional lives. but even as we mourn, we began to ask -- when i say we i mean not just those of us privileged to serve your but people throughout the country and particularly the families of those who were lost on 9/11. we began to ask how those attacks could have happened and what could we do to make sure to the best of our ability that nothing like that ever happened again. and so we have created the 9/11 commission to investigate did happen on 9/11. what were the flaws in the homeland security and what could we do to protect the nation against another such attack from islamist terrorists or anyone

else who would want to carry out such a dreadful act. coming to the leadership of that commission were to extraordinary americans, gifted, able and extremely patriotic, governor tom kean and congressman lee hamilton. we are privileged to have them with us as our witnesses today. the commission they lead and the staff would you two and a half pages -- to end a half-million pages and individuals in countries including every relevant senior officials of both the clinton and bush administration held 19 days of public hearings across the country with 160 witnesses testifying. the commission's recommendations were sweeping and they were definitive, they were not just a

general conclusions, but they were specific recommendations for both immediate actions venetian needed to take to defend our selves against further attack but also long-term actions we could take to blunt the terrorist message and dry up the recruitment. in response to the commission's recommendations, this committee author -- and i am honored to see not only senator collins is here but senator mccain and three of the four original sponsors of the legislation, the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004 that adopted most common of all, but most of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission and putting the director of national intelligence and the national counterterrorism center, which i fought and i believe the commission thought were the two

most substantial and significant recommendations for the change that was making. that act was the most sweeping reform of our government's intelligence apparatus and together with the adoption of homeland security act a couple of years before represented the most significant changes in our national security framework, governmental framework since the end of the second world war. this committee was privileged to be deeply involved in drafting these and other pieces of counterterrorism legislation to implement the commission's recommendations and further strengthen our security against. but a lot of hard work in identifying, recommending and then adopting the specific reform was done by the two gentlemen who were testifying before us today. the vice chairman of the 9/11

commission now the co-chair of its successor, the bipartisan policy center's national security preparedness group. i thank, and we today for being here for their hard work and dedication to public service throughout their lives and for providing our nation with the most compelling reminder of how much we can accomplish in public life when we put party labels aside and work together for the national good. today in the exercise of the committee's responsibility to constantly evaluate and investigate our homeland defenses and also mindful of the approaching tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we are beginning a series of oversight hearings all that we have attempted to accomplish after 9/11. today we are privileged to have

governor kean and thomas hamilton to help begin the review with their opinion of the state of america's homeland security. we've already scheduled for more subject matter hearings for may, june and july will work among other things that the office of the director of national intelligence, the effectiveness of the aviation security reforms, what we've done to keep terrorists out of the united states and how we are progressing on the goal that we all said we have to improved emergency communications among law enforcement and associated personnel. i do want to say how grateful i am for the prepared testimony that the two of you submitted to the committee which will be included in the record. you've touched on some of the concerns that the committee has and will deal with in the coming

hearings. one of the most significant is with regard to the director of national intelligence and how that office has done and whether it needs further support to help achieve the goals that you have to have a strong deck of national intelligence who can marshal the full capabilities of the intelligence committee. i'm encouraged by some of the recent changes that the current dni general jim has carried out for further integration but i must say i am also concerned about some of the continuing bureaucratic resistance from other components of the intelligence community which under our vision and i believe yours were supposed to be under the supervision of the dni and i know from your testimony to you

both share some of those concerns and i'm interested in hearing your comments on those and i note with appreciation that he also talked about the importance of moving rapidly towards better interoperable communications systems and that one of your recommendations is the we set aside the so-called deep lot of the spectrum for the funding of the public safety improvements. senator mccain and i sponsored legislation to accomplish that in the last session and we are working to introduce it a similar bill in this session. so, to summarize an awful lot very briefly i would say since the 9/11 commission reforms were adopted we've seen a very significant improvement in our homeland security. we had many victories in our battles with terrorists, many

plots broken and attacks planned against america thwarted. we've also had close calls that is the case of the christmas the bomber and the other case of the times square bomber and some tragic failures like the home run radical islamist major speech of who murdered 13 americans at fort hood. so, we want to continue to learn from our success and our failures and that is the intention of the hearings the we are beginning today. let me say finally that we are very proud and grateful to be joined this morning by some family members of 9/11 victims who went on to become leading advocates for the creation of the 9/11 commission, the implementation of its recommendations and have continued to play a wonderful oversight role in that work.

they are two of the most likable tests we have around capitol hill. [laughter] really i would say lovable and committed. the commission would not have been created without their advocacy. we wouldn't have passed its legislative recommendations without the most effective lobbying and its implementation would not be as good as all of us want it to be if they had not stayed on duty as they have. so why can't think you enough to read i know i can't speak for anybody on the committee when i express my gratitude for an admiration for your personal strength, for your skill and continuing commitment to america's homeland security. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

this year we will commemorate the worst attack ever on the united states. in doing so, we must ask ourselves are we safer or are we just safer from the tactics that terrorists already have tried. is our intelligence community better at fitting together these complex pieces or have we just been lucky? are we anticipating the next threat such as the cyberattack or the use of poison? or are we just looking backwards reacting to previous plots? undoubtably, compared to where we were on 9/10, 2001, we have greatly improved the framework

for information sharing among our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. but sometimes, it has been and in that bond maker or faulty fuse this spirit american life. once again, the to extraordinary leaders of the landmark 9/11 commission lee hamilton and tom kean are appearing before the committee as we evaluate our progress in securing the nation. in september of last year, they were assessing the terrorist threat reports warned of an increasingly wide range of u.s. based militants who do not fit any particular ethnic, economic, educational or social profile. the american melting pot reports

that it has not provided a fire wall against the radicalization and recruitment of american citizens and residents though it has arguably more bus into a sense of complacency that homegrown terrorism couldn't have been in the united states. this report correctly called 2009 a watershed year in u.s. based terrorist plots with 43 american citizens residence aligned with violent islamic extremists charged or convicted of terrorist crimes in that year alone. this committee first sounded the alarm about home-based to order the some five years ago and has held 15 hearings on this topic. we found the individuals within our country and with our prison

system and in our communities are being inspired by al qaeda's violent ideology to plan and execute a tax often acting as the lone wolf without direct orders or ties to al qaeda. as senator lieberman has indicated, the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004, which we offered, did do much to improve the management and performance of our intelligence homeland security and law enforcement agency. this most sweeping reform of the nation's intelligence community suggests after world war ii would not have happened without the leadership of our witnesses and the efficacy of the families of victims.

the resulting increased collaboration and information sharing has helped our nation prevent numerous attacks, and there have been on told successes, and many cases the intelligence community and law enforcement have quietly connected the botts and thwarted plots. in other cases, alert citizens have reported suspicious behavior to the authorities just in time. challenges still remain, however. we continue to see troubling examples of the pre-september 11 stovepiped combined set from some of our intelligence and law and for some officers. for example, as documented in the kennedy's recent report, on the fort hood attacked, the army and the fbi collectively had

ample information to major hasan's connection to a radical lawyer extremism but they failed to act on the red flags signaling that he had become a potential threat. major hasan and others seemed to find motivation and ideas on the line. technology is transforming the culture, the economy and our world in many beneficial ways. yet we must also be alert to the fact that terrorists are seeking to exploit the internet's potential as well. we have witnessed recently that the internet can serve as a platform for extremist propaganda on the one hand and peaceful revolution on the

other. other commission recommendations have not yet come to fruition. and of course the most obvious example of that is, chris's failure to reform itself. but there are others as well we must make more progress as the chairman has indicated in enhancing first responders communications. gap also remain at the borders and in our inspection system. as the news today indicates the potential to plant an explosive somewhere within the millions of pieces ship around the world to each day is a real vulnerability. it is also troubling that the border patrol does not have the ability to detect illegal activity across approximately three-quarters of our northern border we must continue to work

to find a balance that opens the border to our friends while closing to those who would do less harm. nevertheless, they're has been real accomplishments. the biometric system for screening foreign nationals seeking to enter the united states, the creation of a consolidated terrorist watch list, the dedicated dhs and steve and local law enforcement employees all to surf recognition. but even in these areas of progress, improvements are needed. biometric screening must be expanded to include foreign nationals leaving the the united states. screening technology must be improved to keep up with changing threats and to ensure that the safest possible effective screening equipment is

deployed. i hope this year we can expand protection against lawsuits for citizens to report suspicious behavior indicating potential terrorist activities. we must also pass legislation to ensure that the key u.s. intelligence officials are consulted falling a foreign interest detention in the united states that did not happen in the case of farruca of tumult followed. finally, i continue to have deep concern that this administration refuses to acknowledge that violent islamists ideologies is the ideologies that fuels' these attacks. the administration should have an overarching national strategy to counter this growing threat within our own country.

ten years ago, nearly 3,000 lives were lost on that terrible day. we cannot become complacent or let our guard down when every single intelligence briefing that i have ever had always warns that the enemy remains determined to attack our country. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for the excellent statement. normally we limit opening statements to the chairman and ranking member on the committee but senator mccain, as you know, the original sponsor of the legislation that created the 9/11 commission senator mccain, i would invite you to make an opening statement if you like. >> i would like to thank the witnesses. i think what they did was one of the reasons why this country hasn't been intact since 9/11.

the dedicated public servants in example of bipartisan shipment -- by partisanship and it's appropriate on the ten year anniversary we get their continued input. thank you again for your service to the country. >> thank you, senator mccain. before we go to the witnesses i want to introduce charles doud who is here, deputy chief of the new york police department for communications. he's been a very strong proponent of allocating the d-block public safety and we appreciate the fact that he's committed enough that he's in the room today. governor kean, welcome and we look forward to your testimony now. >> mr. chairman, ranking members of the committee, we are pleased to have the opportunity to be here with you once again today. nobody -- nobody has been more important than you all have been

at the center of defending this country from the terrorist threat that we face. we are deeply grateful we've made in support of the 9/11 commission recommendations and your leadership continuing to reform the national security institutions. over the last decade we've done much to ensure we are taking a difficult step necessary to confront this enemy, protect americans from our allies and for that matter people throughout the world. today, we are appearing in the capacity as the co-chairman of the bipartisan center is national security preparedness group. now it's a successor organization to the 9/11 commission. a growing and a strong roster of national security professionals who work as an independent bipartisan group to monitor the implementation of the 9/11 commission recommendations and to address the emerging national security issues. let me begin by describing the

changes of the governments since 9/11, the current threat and perhaps updating you and some of the commission recommendations. lee hamilton will continue assessing the status of the implementation with a number of the recommendations. so now nearly ten years after the tragic 9/11 attacks and seven years since we finished our report, it really is as the committee decided a very appropriate time to see just where we are on the national security and how we are doing. the terrorist attack as everybody knows, have a profoundly dramatic impact on our government and private-sector. for that matter on our daily lives. the suddenness of that attack on american soil and the loss of so many lives i think made a lot of us feel vulnerable in our homes and caused us to question whether or not our government is properly organized to protect us from this kind of lethal threat.

the economic damage resulting from the attack was severe. businesses in all sectors have adapted in one way or another to this new reality. over the past ten years the government response for the challenge of the transnational terrorism has been equally dramatic. we've created a major new institutions from the department of homeland security, cyber command and the 2004 leadership of senator collins and lieberman, congress created the office of the director of intelligence, national counterterrorism center, what to make sure we had a unity of effort among the intelligence community. now despite all this progress, some major 9/11 commission recommendations still remain unfulfilled. and we would suggest today that these require urgent action because the threat from al qaeda and related terrorist groups and individual tenants to violent

islamist extremism assists to this day. al qaeda and related terrorist groups continue to pose a serious threat to all of us. al qaeda central has been diminished with its leadership, osama bin laden and al-zawahiri are at large. it would leave us less likely the threat is more complex and it's more diverse than any time in the last decade. al qaeda and its allies continue to have the intent and the reach to kill dozens of americans and do so in a single attack. there is a high risk of attacks we believe they will likely be small. the change in recent years is the increasing role of the number of u.s. citizens and residents have taken and the leadership of al qaeda and allied groups.

another development is increasing diversification of the types of u.s.-based jihadists militants. some individuals inspired to engage in a tax on their own weigel others have been actively recruited by overseas terrorist groups. indeed these would be the do not fit any progress toward ethnic, economic, educational or social profile. the questions the amount or attempt range from shootings to car bombs, suicide attacks through in-flight bombings of passenger aircraft. we've seen a pattern of increasing terrorist recruitment of american citizens. in 2000 mine there were two actual terrorist attacks on our soil. you're referenced the fort hood shootings and explained the lives of the 15 people and one u.s. military recruiter killed, another wounded in little rock

arkansas. many counterterrorism experts talk about 2010 and named it the year of the homegrown terrorist. self radicalization is an alarming development. our group issued a report as you mentioned last fall and radicalization and we are going to follow up this spring with a set of recommendations to deal with this important and very, very sensitive problem. we also face new threats like the discovery in october, 2010 of explosives in toner cartridges addressed and synagogues in chicago and shipped on fedex and ups cargo flights. the cyber threat is also increasingly severe. they pose a danger to our critical infrastructure. defending the u.s. against such attacks would be an urgent priority. so we would like to offer our assessment today where the

government is implementing a 9/11 commission recommendations. an emergency preparedness we have made some progress to establishing the unity of command in other words, one person responsible for coordinating efforts and disasters. but having said that, our recommendations are still a long way from being fully implemented. we found too many community leaders and first responders have mentioned to us that many metropolitan areas still haven't solved the problem of having unified command structure. moreover, an acceptable that the government still is not allocated additional 10 megahertz of radio spectrum, d-block as you mentioned to public safety, so that the first responders can communicate the disaster. now, i recognize that the efforts and the leadership as you have shown through your bill and i believe the president supports such a recommendation

and congress needs to act. there's been improvements in the transportation security but technology still lags for the weapons concealed in their bodies and for detecting explosives contained in bags. the gao continues to find holtz and virtually every single security later that we establish. for the security remains the top national security priority. as the terrorists continue to exploit the vulnerability is to get entry into the united states several let him the tax over the past two years have been by terrorists who could have been detected by the u.s. immigration system. we require a more streamlined harvest watchlist capability and better sharing of information between intelligence agencies and immigration authorities. one area of progress is the deployment of the bi letcher gentry system known as the u.s.

visit. we still lack of water in a comprehensive exit system we don't know in other words when people leave the country. the commission recommends the government standardize the secure ratification and federal government should set standards for the issuance of this difference and drivers' licenses. the real on the act established these standards by statute about one-third of the states complete with this first tier benchmark. the deadlines for compliance have been pushed back now twice. they lay in compliance creates vulnerability and makes us less safe. i would ask no further delays should be authorized right now i ask my friend and partner who i admire almost anybody in this country, lee hamilton, to continue. >> thank you, tom, good morning. am i to begin by endorsing what tom has said with regard to the

leadership. not only has this committee but specifically of the three centers in front of me i can remember coming to your offices shortly after the 9/11 commission was made tom and i spoke to each one of you and you were very courteous and receptive, but beyond that, you acted with a genuine political leadership, and the country is very grateful to you. i think there are a lot of reasons why the 9/11 commission had a favorable response, but two of them come first the families who gave sustained sophisticated support for our recommendations but suddenly specifically the political leadership embodied by the three of you just really quite extraordinary, and tom and i are

the very grateful to you for what you have done and when the chairman and moment ago outlined your continuing hearings and investigations i was immensely pleased to hear that because i think having been on the inside and on the outside, you have the powers that we don't have in terms of getting people before you to provide tough oversight, and that continuing effort by this committee is just a hugely important. because people say often this morning how much more needs to be done. with respect to intelligence reform, the dni has made progress in several areas, increased information sharing, the improvement of cooperation among agencies and of analysis of intelligence and sharpening the collection genuine progress, no doubt about it. still it isn't clear to us that

the dni is the driving force for intelligence community integration and the commission envisioned. some ambiguity probably remains with respect to the dni's authority over budget and personnel although that can be disputed i guess. strengthening the dni position would advance the unity of intelligence effort that we think is still a very much needed. i don't anticipate new legislation. you would know more about that than on this subject in the near future. so we have to live with that statute we have for an extended period of time. it might very well be that in the future some legislation can fortify the offers. repeated in the kitchen from the president of the dni is the unequivocal leader in the intelligence community i think would be greatly helpful. the fbi has gone through a

dramatic change. i think it is moving in a positive direction but in some sense in complete. it's that i believe strong leadership from the director mueller to collect and analyze intelligence to prevent terrorism. that's an enormous cultural change as you all know away from its former focus strictly on a law enforcement. it's progress has been significant but uneven. the fort hood shootings highlight the lingering problems your report which i looked over quickly has spelled that out in a very persuasive and compelling way. analysts do not appear in the fbi to be driving intelligence within the organization. nor have they achieved status on the cover with the special agents who traditionally a rise to the management of the bureau.

fbi headquarters components didn't play the role in analyzing the threat posed by the person who leader allegedly did the shootings. there were miscommunications as senator collins indicated in her opening statement that in the field offices so the shift taking place within the fbi is still very much a work in progress and the congress needs to keep up to help the fbi with its difficult transformation. the cia has improved its intelligence analysis and remove barriers between its analysts and operations offices. our sense is that there has been more talk than action with respect to improvement in the cia's human operations. it is very difficult business particularly in closed societies and among close-knit terrorist cells. more money and more personnel do not necessarily result in better

agents. while the cia has attempted to recruit officers qualified in the languages of the greatest interest that too is very hard part of the problem is that young people in our country with some exceptions of course don't gain proficiency in foreign languages. congress can help on that. they then must continue to rebuild the will require strong support from congress and the excessive branch. we want the agency to take calculated risks to protect the country, congressional oversight must be the politicized so that when the agency fails as it occasionally well it is not an appropriately to blame for taking the necessary risks. in pershing information sharing across the federal government and the state and local authorities was a major recommendation. in some ways i think the government is doing better. the joint terrorism task force's infusion centers across the

country have improved information sharing, the national counterterrorism center as analysts and other officers from all agencies of the intelligence community working side by side sharing information with their home organizations. there have been some failures as there's already been indicated. there is no question that wikileaks, a novelist publication of sensitive documents, is very sentiment and real concern. those are legitimate. but the need to share information we think is still remains highly important, and we should not backslide on that. congress has to stop the government strike the right balance between the need to protect unauthorized disclosures and the need to share information to defend ourselves against the threats we face. among our major disappointment has been the administration has not in paneled the privacy and civil liberties oversight board.

this is a major recommendation very strongly supported by all of the commissioners. i am informed and i'm not sure that i'm quite up-to-date on this, that the administration is nominated to individuals for the panel. i know one of them personally and as far as we know they have not yet been confirmed and the panel certainly hasn't met the administration i believe needs to push this on a priority basis because the board has a lot to do and i think this committee can be helpful in pushing the administration. we are equally disappointed the congress hasn't reformed itself along the lines we recommended. we recommended that congress create a joint committee for intelligence or create house and senate committees with combined authorizing appropriation powers those recommendations may be a bridge too far. last week the chairman of the house intelligence committee

announced the decision to include three members of the house appropriations committee to participate in the house intelligence committee hearings and briefings. that appears to us to be a positive step will obviously there is more to do. oversight of the department of homeland security is fractured. the massive department will be better integrated if there's better integrated oversight. i know the concerns expressed about that. it is in our country's security interest that congress make security reform a priority. preventing the spread of nuclear weapons must be a national priority. the administration hosted a major nonproliferation summit last year announced the new initiative to secure all nuclear materials by 2013. it plans to spend $14.2 billion over the next five years to secure the nuclear and

radiological materials. may i say outside of my statement that i -- because of other responsibilities that i have dealing with nuclear power, that i have recently had the occasion to listen to some highly qualified people within our government, and i believe the access to nuclear materials and the ability to use those materials and explode them is much greater than people generally think. and so, i hope the congress will keep a hard and too sharp focus on the proliferation and i know there's some suggestions they want to cut some of these important programs. money is not everything here, but we must not weaken or underfunded one of what president bush and president obama both said is the highest

priority security need. at the outset of his administration president obama issued executive orders that brought the united states into line with international norms for the treatment of detainees. that fulfilled part of our recommendations. we believe there is a conflict between the role of law and holding detainees indefinitely without resolving their cases. both presidents bush and obama have wrestled with this problem. it's a tough one. president obama took the step forward by requiring periodic reviews in the status of detainees there is an awful lot more to do. the congress and the executive branch simply have to agree on a statutory base to give us a comprehensive approach to dealing with the detainees. the congress and the executive branch need to agree on the rules of evidence and the procedures that should be applied in determining how to deal with these detainees. i don't think this is a problem

that can simply go on and on and on. you need a statutory base and i don't suggest it's easy to reach it to how to deal with these potentially very dangerous detainees. we had a number of foreign policy recommendations in the report, the events today in the middle east and north africa are clearly indicate the region is in a state of the people and it's quite unclear to many of us how it will emerge. we will address the role the u.s. policy plays on counterterrorism, but we didn't come to be honest about it with considerable modesty. we believe that although the countries share a common religion people have many cultural national ethnic and tribal differences, and therefore we have to deal with them on a country by country basis. we want our country ways to advance its core values but a

pragmatic approach for each country, one that supports the agenda of opportunity for the islamic world we think is necessary. sukkah to conclude, significant progress has been made since 9/11 and the country is undoubtedly more secure. yet important 9/11 commission recommendations remain to be implemented. and over the next two years a lot of heavy lifting still needs to be done. as tom mentioned a moment ago the fact we have resolved the radio spectrum problem and have not resolved the unity of the demand is just really distressing to us. it is a no-brainer with regard to the safety and security of the country. some progress lead in both areas but not nearly enough. congress has resisted reorganizing its own institutions and streamlining the oversight of the intelligence and the department of homeland security would go far towards advancing unity of

effort in at the intelligence community and within the dhs. always the dni needs a clear eye appraisal. i think it is functional functioning reasonably well and likewise the fbi but i think they both need -- we have concerns about each and the goal should be to strengthen both the dni and the fbi. the terrorist threat will be with us far into the future demanding that we be ever vigilant. our national security department require strong leadership, management at every level to ensure that all parts are working well together and that there's innovation and imagination. our agencies and their dedicated work forces have gone through much change and we commend them for their achievements in protecting the american people but there's a tendency towards all bureaucracies and vigorous congressional oversight is just imperative to ensure that the remain vigilant and continue to

pursue the needed reforms. so our task is challenging and difficult we constantly have to assess our work will the devotees and anticipate new and evolving lines of attack. we've done a lot and we can look back with some satisfaction that there is an awful lot more to do. we are very grateful to you for the opportunity to testify before this committee on which has had longstanding leadership on these issues and we will do our best now to respond to your questions. >> thank you for those fought for opening statements. i think that you've really helped us get some perspective on where we have come in the last several years certainly since 2004 when the 9/11 commission act was enacted. you've also given us a clear statement of unfinished business and priorities for the future and i appreciate that. before i begin my question i want to note that since we began with abraham space who is with

was taken at the pentagon on 9/11 and is another one of those family members who have continued in the battle to everything they can to make sure nothing like this happens again. i thought both of you summarized well where we have come and also noted the steps we've taken to improve our homeland security including those very significant steps to work part of your recommendations that we adopted have strengthened our security but the the nature of the threat has changed and that we can never say never but certainly in our defense is against the sophisticated 9/11 type of attack but there for the presence of that happening are down, thank god, but there is a

higher risk right now what smaller attacks than 9/11 and particularly of attacks that come from within the country because that has become the focus of al qaeda and all the other international islamist terrorist groups. i wanted to begin by asking you, governor, just to talk a little bit more about the inadequacy of the unity of command at this point and what you think we can do about. >> well, this is one of the problems of 9/11. the question is who was in charge. so our recommendation is strongly to all communities there's got to be one leader, new york city made a lot of progress in that regard by putting everything on to the police department. other cities some of which follow the pattern and some

haven't. and so there is still a member of communities some of them fairly sizable and people tell us there is still that question if something really happens who is in charge? businesses have made more progress. i think almost all major businesses i know have somebody who's in charge of something happens they know what to do and all that is in place. but communities not yet, and we think it's a very, very serious problem and one that we have to address make the best we can requirement that somebody be in charge. >> i'm really interested that you focus on the local or metropolitan level and i think we've got to do some thinking about to see whether we can create some requirement or incentive to bring about that unity of command at the local

level perhaps by making it a condition of some of the homeland security or other grants. let me take you to the national level. of the commission report on the unity of effort across before in domestic divided and the section of the report notes specifically that during the commission's hearings members of the commission often ask and i quote who is the quarterback. the other players are in their positions doing their jobs but who is calling the play that assigns the role to help them execute as a team to respond to this need my interpretation of the commission's report recommended creating a national counterterrorism center with the responsibility to develop counterterrorism plans to integrate all the instruments of

national power and i think that is one of the most significant recommendations and one of the most significant components of our legislation. so as you look back nationally now are you satisfied that there is clarity and unity of command at the national level and we have a quarterback and is it the national counterterrorism center? as committed as the national counterterrorism center and of course the dni. >> right. >> a combination. now whether they are being implemented as a quarterback, whether or not they really have the power that you intended when he rode the law and we intend to the we have recommendations i don't know because the signals sometimes are mixed, and we have to have unity of effort in that regard, we have to have the quarterback. and i would suggest that you

would approach the that area. whether one of the quarterback is in place and whether or not the quarterback has the power that you intended it to have in the legislation. >> there is no question the national counterterrorism center has created unprecedented cooperation between components of our security intelligence community's. in that sense they are all on the same board now and one of the problems i say in passing we ordered some of our earlier hearings and was a cause of some of the cases the we've study that were not as we would want is that there is -- the problem now is there are so many dhaka on the same board that it's hard in real time to separate out from handan to connect the ones that ought to be connected, but

they are not on separate boards anymore. >> mr. chairman may i say a word about this? you got two problems here. one is the scene of the disaster and there it is a no-brainer for me any way that someone has to be in charge. now that creates difficult political problems because the government wants to be in charge, the mayor wants to be in charge, the county officials want to be in charge, and there's a reason that it hasn't been resolved because the politicians are unwilling to address the question because it's a tough one to say who's in charge. now i don't know whether that barrier can be overcome or not, but in terms of saving lives it is an easy question to answer. you've got to have one person making decisions with regard to sanitation, public health, food, housing, transportation -- they have to make thousands of decisions within a matter of a few hours really at the seams,

and if you have confusion of command at that locale, you lose additional lives. so that's why we think it's an important matter. i really don't know about different metropolitan areas around the country and how well they have addressed this problem, but i'm very uneasy about it, and i don't really think it's been solved. ..

>> he is an extremely dedicated and important, capable man. but he is right in the center of the policy world at the white house. he is not removed from it, like i want generally intelligence officials to be. so am not sure whether he is the right person to do it, but if he is then it seems to me there ought to be a very clear designation that he is in charge of homeland security and counter terrorism. today, quite frankly, from where i said it looks to me like a number of different people are involved in it, including mr. brennan, the director of national intelligence and several others, d.h. as secretary and others. i don't know who the quarterback is. i can identify the commissioners that raise that question.

>> that's right. >> my guess is the same commissioners would be raising the same questions today. >> that is very helpful commentary. i agree with you that we have got the combination, and i'm simplifying your the, the critical role of intelligence and counter terrorism and, and security, but also then the other roles which are different of preparedness and prevention and response. i agree with you the that the top person today in our government is john burnett. assistant to the national security adviser for counter-terrorism. and, again, i have great respect for him. whether that is the right place for that to be, that will to the is an important question or whether --

>> presidents have the right to organize the white house of the want to. >> right. >> they should have. maybe the president is comfortable with this. as an outsider who looks at it fairly carefully it's not clear the lines of authority a precise. >> yakima and i think you have quite accurately identify the key players. it is the secretary of homeland security, the director of national intelligence, the national counter-terrorism center. others at the fbi, but more than anyone else john brennan seems to be coordinating that effort. there are different roles, although you could pick one of the other players and make that person the coordinator. might be the secretary of homeland security who has both operating and intelligence authority. you have given us a good charge for our review during this. my time is up.

thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me pick up on this very issue of who is in charge. to me it was very clear when we passed the reform act in 2004 that we wanted the deal and i to be in charge. that is why we created this new quarterback position. yet i completely agree with congressman hamilton that in this particular administration the person who is in charge is john brennan at the white house. putting aside his enormous debilities, which we all agree to, one of the problems with that is there is no accountability to congress. it is a member of the president's staff. there is no, we cannot call john brennan to testify before us. we cannot hold him accountable

for a decision. i think that is another very big problem. the other area of confusion of command as the congressman has said, when disaster strikes and we saw this with of two but allowed. there was tremendous confusion over who was in charge and who should make decisions. in that case it ended up being the attorney general who made the decision on how to treat abdul battelle up without any consultation whatsoever with the p and i, the head of the counter-terrorism center, the secretary of homeland security

or any top intelligence official on whether or not of bill michelob should be questioned about whether to -- there were for the plots and information gotten from him. my questions are these, however, i these problems that we can fix through legislation? on their problems that depend on an individual president setting that up who is truly going to be in power? the reason ask this question is when i go back and review the language creating the dni, it is pretty strong language. now, we tried to get it to be even stronger in the area of personnel, but, in fact, the dni has strong the party to set

priorities for the intelligence community to oversee the budget, formulation, make some personnel decisions. my point is, is this really a case where we need to strengthen the law? is it a case where the president needs to empower the person we intended to be in power? and i would like to hear from both of you in either order on this question. >> i think the latter, the president has to step in here. in the law as we all the can be strengthened. as i suggested, this law is not going to be changed in the immediate future. it took us several years to get this on the statute books. they be down the future it will

be clarified, but center collins, i basically agree with your comment that there is sufficient authority than present law we envisioned, of course, that the dni would be the central powerful driver of the intelligence community. i don't think he has been. now, i want to say here, as you know, i've known all of these men that have held that position. a very tough position. we've had good men in that position. they have been quite strong. that line of authority is not as clear as it should be, and so i think given the circumstances that you now have your second choice, that is the president has to step in and make it very clear with regard to its authority in the intelligence community over budget and over personnel and over transfer of funds within the budget, and so far as i can see that really has

not been done. now having said that the dni deals with some pretty powerful players. the secretary of defense, cia director. if they get a decision within the bureaucracy that they don't like they will go directly to the president. there enough. so the dni may have authority, and he may try to exercise it, but he is going to -- he has to exercise that authority with extraordinary skill and discretion these are all major players within the administration. so that power has to be very skillfully exercised. but i personally think the system is going to work out a lot better if you have someone at the top of it who is the driving force who is recognized as the center of power who has the authority and obviously has

to have the support of the president to do the things that need to be done to give unity of effort. >> i remember when the bill was going through. that is weakened a bit in the house. i remember talking to lee about it at the time. don't worry. in the end it's the president. if the president gives the dni the authority did the and i will use it the way you want it. if not the law isn't going to help. that is where we are. my own belief is the law says that the and i ought to be the top intelligence operative. at think a lot better that way. this president wants somebody else. my only recommendation would be that he make that clear both publicly within the public and within the administration. everyone knows. if somebody else will be in full charge let's say who that person

is. that way everybody knows. the worst thing of all is a vacuum or confusion warrant lines that are not clear. the president is the only one who can make those lines clear, and the president is the only one who can make that happen. >> i agree that the president's response is absolutely clear and needs to be clear. if the president is not in powering the dni weekend by it all the language in the world. the dni is not pulling to truly be in charge. i also remain very concerned about the lack of accountability to congress and the public when it is a member of the president's staff who is running the intelligence community. >> i just want to support what you said. a think that is terribly important. >> right. >> very, very important to be the person who is in charge,

leverage is hot to be accountable to you people at all times. that is just fundamental, it seems to me, in the way that this place ought to operate. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, senator collins. of course i agree with you. it strikes me about both the importance of presidential and support your belts merely have the dni have ample authority, not as much as any of us wanted, but ample authority requiring the president to make clear that dni is the person in charge of the intelligence community. we all expected that coming and as a new position to oversee existing agencies which have a real life of their own and a constituency of their own would be difficult. it is interesting to really just

amplify what i said in my opening statement. i think because of his background in the military and credibility at the pentagon he is actually negotiating an agreement with secretary gates which will enable the dni to have much more authority with regard to a intelligence budgeting appropriations then was the case at the beginning of the office. that is dead. the question of who is on top over all and the counter-terrorism, it's a complicated one. there is not only the intelligence community, but all the others, operators, printers, responders. i, again, i agree that it has to be somebody at the top. nothing-about john brennan is accountable to congress. we have to think about whether,

how to deal with the problem. very important. when we first talked about the position what we envisioned was a man of woman stepping into that position to stay five or six years and developed a position, strengthen it and all of that. that has been one of the problems. hopefully we have one now that will stay for awhile. >> i hope. thank you. next in order of arrival senator akaka and then senator carper. >> thank you very much. hal, would like to welcome governor came and congressman lee hamilton. thank you for being here today. although many of the information sharing and intelligence shortfalls at the 9/11

commission and identified have been addressed, critical work remains to ensure that we have an agile and well coordinated response to various threats. you have been discussing this. starting off federal workers will be addressing the intelligence community and other agencies in make daily sacrifices to keep a safe. it's essential to this effort. additionally we must never lose sight of the privacy and civil liberties, implications of our efforts to protect the nation and particularly i agree with you and your witnesses, comments that the privacy and civil liberties, oversight board must be set up immediately. congressman hamilton, as you

know, i believe that the gao could assist our efforts to strengthen oversight of the intelligence community. in response to my questioning in 2007 he stated that gm should have the same authorities within the intelligence community as it has in other agencies a key principle of my intelligence community audit act were included in the intelligence authorization act last year. under this legislation the director of national intelligence must issue a directive to facility, facilitate g.a.o. audits and evaluations of the intelligence community. my question to you is, what element should be included in

the de in i directive to promote the effective oversight? >> senator, i'm not sure i'd understand the question. what elements should the deal and i insist upon? >> include in the directive to promote effective oversight. >> the dni oversight of the intelligence community or your oversight? >> well, either one. yap. >> well, i'm not sure. i am deeply impressed that only you folks in the congress can effectively oversee the

intelligence community. the press does not know what is going on. those of us outside the congress don't have the information that you have in your staff to what is calling on. unlike most other areas of our government the only really effective oversight of the intelligence community and upended can come from the congress. now, you don't have another it -- you have other agencies. you have the president's advisory board. they are all appointed by the president and are not an independent group. and all of the recommendations that we made we thought that the strengthening and persistence of the congressional oversight were just absolutely critical.

but his i know that there is off internal of shiny within each agency. i think within the dni office as well. that can be important to oversee. that is not an independent oversight. that can only come from the congress. i do want to pick up on your observations about the privacy and civil liberties board because this has been a source of enormous frustration to tom and myself. i cannot figure out. i just cannot figure out. i don't know what president bush and president obama think. they just have not put an effective board in place, and i can't understand why.

this is greatly needed because in homeland security and intelligence matters you have had greatly accelerated the surveillance, all kinds of provisions are written into the law which expands the powers of the fbi and the intelligence agencies. understandably in most cases i think to check on what the american people are doing. i think somebody needs to be out there to keep their eye on these folks. a very aggressive way because the security people within an agency almost always when the arguments. you need an independent source to really keep your eye on them. so we favored a strong, robust

oversight of civil liberties and privacy with the power to issue subpoenas and the power to call people in front of them. keep an eye because i think there has not been enough attention to the question of civil liberties and privacy in general with regard to komen security. >> nothing has frustrated me more. >> almost all our recommendation is a lack of progress on civil liberties. i don't know what problems the administration has with the bill that you passed, but if there is a problem with it, something wrong with the structure, i think it's intrusiveness something, tell us and maybe you'll change it. but it's just not to appoint members. two years ago and administration having not even nominated enough to make a quorum, it's

frustrating and makes no sense and leaves a big hole and what we should be doing. i don't understand it, and frustrated by it. if there's a problem of which there would tell us what it is. >> thank you for the observations. i really agree with you that we need to set that up immediately. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. >> you know what, quickly we can -- senator collins and i were talking, we can address a letter to the white house but john brennan. >> ask what is going on here. i don't think there is any policy or ideological opposition to the board. i suppose it's always possible that there are elements within the intelligence community the don't like the idea, but i have not heard that either. i don't know. it just could be that it's down at the bottom of somebody's in

box. they never quite get to it. okay. we will address a letter right away. >> thank you very much. >> next is senator corporate. >> thank you. we have gathered before they number two of my favorite people a great governor of our neighbor. lee hamilton, vice president of one of my, i'm privileged to think of him as one of my mentors. still active and vibrant and contributing. about once a month and asked what is wrong in washington. one of the things i always talk about is a lack of trust, sometimes between parties, sometimes executive and

legislative branches, sometimes committee chairs and ranking members. this committee is an example of what you can get and when you have a trusting relationship. every month i talk about the trust. u.s. interpositions as leaders of the 9/11 commission and how you provide it an example through that trust to the other members and achievd extraordinary consensus and came to us and enabled us with the to reflect and follow that example. i just wanted to lead off by saying. we are fortunate to a share the subcommittee. the federal financial management. we focus on the ways that we can -- it lets me poke into every nook and cranny of the third government to see if there are ways we can get better results for less money.

in this room yesterday we had among others the department of defense, gao, and we were looking at the gao report the cannot yesterday setting major weapon systems for 2010, $402 billion, up from $42 billion a decade earlier. in this room we had hearings in the last month on something called improper payments to be not fraud, but mistakes and overpayments. and in number for last year, 1,205,000,000,000. not counting department of defense, prescription drug program. we had hearings on surplus property, thousands of pieces of surplus property we don't use. they are a burden on us, 300 billion plus tax money not being collected. that is the kind of step we focus on in this room. i think with that spirit of trying to change the culture around here the department of the defense legislative or

executive branch, to go from a culture of what i call spendthrift to a culture of thrift and to ask, would you join with us today maybe just to think about it and come back, but just that i no there are things we are doing. a whole bunch of hearings on those. domestic discretionary spending programs and defense programs that we can get a better result for less money or a better result for not of a lot more money. with that spirit can you think out loud with us for a minute or two here today about some way we can get a better result in this area of national security, homeland security, maybe a better result without spending more money or even spending a little bit less. >> next question. >> well, my impression, senator, is in this area of common security and intelligence, i know this is not the

intelligence committee. in this area the whole question of cost effectiveness rarely rises. >> that's true. >> we have been set on a course for understandable reasons since 9/11 to create enormous increases in intelligence budgets creating a whole new department, massive new department. everybody has said full speed ahead. i don't have the specific figures, but in intelligence you have had an enormous increase in the total amount of money spent just over the last few years, for reasons we all understand. so, when you began your comments on cost-effective now is getting better results from less money my response was bravo. i think you need a hard-headed

business attitude in this area which has been totally absent for tenures. probably a little exaggeration. , but i think cost effectiveness here would be important. eight these fellows come and who had these agencies and not only hold their feet to the fire with regard to homeland security and stopping terrorist attacks, but make sure that this money is being wisely spent. it makes a lot of sense to me. i think you perform an enormously important service as you push the whole business of cost effectiveness. >> public or private sector, if you wrap up to the extent and as fast as we felt we had to after 9/11 you are going to problem to fester going to have problems. your going to have to overspend and waste money.

i'm sure that has been done spending on non military intelligence, that number is now public. military intelligence spending is not public debt. i assume combined it is around $80 billion. that is a lot of money to be a lot of it wrapped up in a great hurry. at think what you are doing is very important. you need to not only do this well, but efficiently. >> and just calling to ask you to think about this for awhile and maybe respond on the record. one last question if i may. going back to the early 1990's we have seen a couple of countries come back and forth across our radar screen including somalia and yemen. both countries have been in almost perpetual decline for what seemed like a couple of decades. as a result we seem to have different interest groups proving a clear and present danger to our country. they are somalia and al qaeda

from the human. both hired directly and indirectly responsible for december 205th christmas day bombing attempt at fort hood and alabama and minnesota terrorism cells. it is clear that if these two countries implode they will impose a more serious threat to us and the rest of the world. could either of you please describe your thoughts on the threat that these groups opposed to the united states and if our federal and government is doing enough to prevent these two specific terrorist group from going into a more powerful global entity? >> you are right. obviously it is interesting how this business has evolved. years ago we used to worry about urban areas and powerful countries. now it is the un govern areas of

the world, the wild areas, the areas where there does not seem to be any authority. these organizations develop. beyond even yemen and somalia we don't know what is happening now in that area of the world. we don't know what's going to happen if and when quadhafi falls and what that land, how tribal that will become. we don't know what will happen in some of these other areas that may or may not disintegrate -- disintegrate. said this is -- this has got to continue to be our priority with the government collapsing it is going to be worse before it's better. are we doing enough? we are never doing enough. i know we are concentrating. i know the intelligence communities are working hard to learn what they can learn. we still don't have enough people and boots on the ground. we are depending on other intelligence agencies in that

part of the world which now may not be able to give us that information any more. so it is a continuing and a very, very serious problem. we have to be ready to address not only those two areas but other areas that may develop. >> thank you. congressman hamilton. >> well, i think you put your finger on maybe the most difficult problem with regard to protecting ourselves from threats from abroad. you have got governments in these countries that really do not cover in throughout the country. you have all kinds of trouble ethnic differences. very, very hard problem. i think we have to work as a nation on developing the capabilities that deal with these countries. i must say i'm not quite sure how how would spell out those

capabilities. supporting the government is often done to try to insure stability, but we have surely seen the limits of that in recent years. i think we just have to develop the expertise for these countries and figure out on an ad hoc basis with each one of them what kind of capabilities exist within the country to counter the extremist groups. if you have a government that is reasonably stable, reasonably competent, you have to work with that government for sure. if you do not have then you may have to insert capabilities our cells. you can't generalize too much. the kind of plots we had with

fedex and ups packages that were sent into the united states that originated in yemen indicate test the challenges that we confront. you have to have a multi layer approach, obviously, to deal with these, not just in country, but tried to stop it when it's in transport whenever the threat may be. we said in our report about the evolving nature of the threat. this is a mind of the fangs exactly what we meant. it is a formidable challenge. >> i would suggest, you can't do it at a public cheering, but when you have private hearings with members of the intelligence community, i would ask, have our source of the information's been

compromised? how much? where did we find out the information we used to stop plots? we get information from various governments. was it the egyptian government? can we still depend on the? did we get stuff out of even libya? a lot of those people are working with us. probably not on an inability to day. if we are losing those sources of information, what will we do about it? >> thank you. >> the afghanistan experience should tell us not to ignore these countries. as difficult as it may be, if we had intelligence, in groups that are plotting against the united states in some way or our allies, i think we have to get our brains together and figure out the best way to do it. depending on the strength of the intelligence you may want to use

drones, you may want to use special operation forces. your preference would be to have the local government deal with it, but if the local government doesn't deal with the then we have to take a position that it is a threat to our national security and deal with it. >> thank you for those comments. i just want to say again to both of you, thank you so much for being an inspiration to us all. >> thank you. governor, i have a few more. the be the last one here. we talked about the evolving nature of the threat, and i know that we agree that one of the most significant developments in terms of the terrorist threat has been the home run radicalization and self radicalization. it may have existed in some way before, but not really in an

observable or consequential way, and we have seen it over and over again in cases that have existed, including the two that you mentioned, a gunner, in 2009 in which a successful terrorist attacks were carried out both in arkansas and at fort hood. those are both on grounds of radicalization cases. it's not totally clear who he connected with in yemen, but he was radicalized. by coincidence just this morning i was informed by my staff the last night the most recent addition of a magazine called inspire, the fifth edition which is published by al qaeda on the arabian peninsula appeared. quite remarkable. very slick. printed in english, published in

english, aimed at an english-speaking audience, including here in america. i think increasingly and perhaps we should take this as some kind of compliment, if you will, that we have built up our perimeter defenses, you might say. protecting the homeland such that our foreign enemies are now trying to develop within our country people who can carry out terrorist attacks. anyway, we have done a number of hearings and made recommendations about this. it is obviously a complicated problem because the most difficult, unlike 9/11 which we should have detected and stopped , very often these are people operating as so-called lone wolves. i note that international security prepared this has focused on this problem. i wanted to, first, thank you for that.

i know you have described the problem. as you mentioned, the recommendations will come the spring. i just wanted to give you the opportunity to comment on this new element in recent years, very significant threat element, attempts to protect the homeland i don't want you to preempt your recommendations, but anything you would like to say about what more you think the government ought to be doing to stop the problem? >> extraordinarily difficult because, as you say, our defenses based on our recommendations, many cases on your work have been to stop people like the 9/11 co-conspirators' from coming in from other countries and u.s. arm. those defenses are not adequate when the dangers come from somebody who is an american citizen.

they are inspired, a lot of these people, from the internet. one of the missing pieces that we never quite nail down and the 9/11 report was whether or not it was anyone in this country that supported or helped the terrorists in any way. we had a suspicion that this guy we mentioned his report. we have not got the staff for time to dig into it further, but his contacts were suspicious. he is now gone and has become one of the people that is recruiting overseas. he has a definite connection to even the 9/11 hijackers. we don't believe there is an enormous radicalization taking

place. a very small number of people. these people, many of them don't look like a traditional terrorists, american passports, present the greatest danger. we think there ought to be a real effort and a real dedication by our intelligence community's to implement a strategy to deal with it. i'm not sure that is in place as yet. >> senator. >> yes, sir. >> obviously it is a lot better to stop a terrorist attack before it happens and prevent people from being injured. i think we are now in our group working on a radicalization report which we hope will have some recommendations for you before too many weeks go by. one thing -- two or three things come to mind. one is, this is a good illustration of how important it is to work with state and local

officials. in my own experience and my state have seen communities that have out reach to the islamic community and those that don't. community of makes a difference. that committee knows the community better than anybody else. i think it is very important for the federal officials then, and it's not easy because there are so many communities, but they have got to strengthen the state and local contacts in order to better prevent radicalization. secondly, i think there has to be a peer out reach to the islamic community. i no there is some controversial aspects, but most of the islamic

leaders with whom i have had any contact want to help. believe you me, they know their communities pretty well, not perfectly, but pretty well. and so did liaison with those people is very, very important. we have a representative today from the nypd. i have been -- he would not much more about this than i, but i am impressed with the way the nypd has -- i'm not sure the quite -- the right word to use,d various communities within the new york city region and have reached out to try to understand those communities better. the people that cause you trouble our young men for the most part.

they are the key. now, maybe not exclusively, but for the most part. the community bidders have to understand their own young people. i think that the new york pd, the nypd has set an example of contacts that other metropolitan areas to follow. the other thing we talked about earlier is the coordination or effort within the federal government, if you ask the question today, who is in charge of dealing with homeland radicalization in our government i don't think i could answer that. maybe someone from the government can. it's not very clear to me who it is. there ought to be somebody in charge. >> i agreed to be we have asked that question.

the answer we got was the director of the national counter-terrorism center is in charge. that surprised us, frankly. there is an attempt to try to organize this better and a recognition that this is a real problem. we will benefit from your recommendations greatly, and a look forward to them. >> they need operational responsibility. >> that is the problem. interestingly enough, and this now goes back a while, we had a hearing here maybe two years ago now. it's somewhat dated, but a hearing with some leaders of the muslim american community. we asked, is there any agency of the federal government that has gone out reach to your community which has done the most? to me the surprising answer we got was, yes, the fbi through

its state offices had been reaching out quite a lot and had some communication the nypd sets the standard. it has committed -- not inexpensive, labor intensive. they have committed a lot, maybe because they were so struck, traumatized by 9/11 they have committed a lot of resources and excellent communication with the muslim american community. the lapd does a great job, but there are some places and the country with significant muslim american communities where my impression is that the outreach and communication from local law-enforcement is slim to none. that is a dangerous situation. we look forward to your recommendations.

senator calls mentioned something at the beginning. i'll do it quickly because i know we are both concerned about this. to come back to your report, you do a great service by identifying the enemy here and saying, yes, it was al qaeda. more broadly it is an ideology which is violent islamist to extremism. that is what inspired the attacks of 9/11 and has continued to inspire this myriad of attacks large and small since then. at that you made a substantial contribution when you said, ', we are not fighting terrorism, some generic evil we are fighting an ideology, a corruption of theology. our strategy must match our means to to ms, dismantling the al qaeda network and prevailing

in the longer term over the ideology that gives rise to islam and terrorism. it has been so frustrating that the administration continues to resist identifying the ideology preferring instead to say that we are in a conflict with violent extremism. it is by no the extremism, but a particular kind. in our report on the fort hood attack we pointed out that the defense department has even tried at one point to characterize the threat represented by the fort hood attack as workplace violence. of course it was a lot more than that. you know, i guess i understand what's going on. i think somebody thinks that if we use the term is longest extremism it is offensive to

muslims. i think it is quite the opposite. we are talking about, as you said, a very small group within a larger community in america. people who are followers of islam, not islamist extremism. anyway, i invite a response. >> look, we've worked on that one. how to characterize it. debates on the commission and did research. >> right. >> for instance, some people suggested jihadist, some good connotations in the muslim world. we rejected a lot of these terms. islamist doesn't. as llamas to extremism is what it is. i think words are important and language is important. naming the enemy is important. islamist extremism is as good a time as we have been able to find for actually identify what the problem is into the people

are. i think everything from our research shows that the community itself accepts that term. >> i appreciate that answer. i continue to use the term that you use because islamist makes the point that this -- that a political ideology really has exploited their religion. not islam. that me ask the last question. the commission made it, a series of recommendations. successful on almost every one of them. convincing both and wrestling the bureaucracy to except what you were recommending and also our colleagues. this was very disappointing.

center collins and i, very stubborn people. normally we don't yield, bob the reaction has been so overwhelming that we pull back a bit. i think that mary and carry are ready to take up this battle again. it is worth trying to do it. the truth is the oversight and congress is much too diffuse and overlapping. the consequence of that is that we are taking much too much time of the executives, particularly in the department of homeland security. i wanted to ask you if you have any thoughts about how to go at this. some sense about whether there is a way in which we can prioritize. at think we try to do a lot at the outset. we get totally defeated. this give me your thoughts about whether you think it still is a

problem. they have a tactical suggestions about how we might take this up knowing that these too irresistible forces focus on this. >> you know, lee mentioned why congressional oversight is so important. the rest of us can know the information that you know when you are doing your oversight. only you can say how effective it is. if the administration is really forthcoming in the way it has to be when they talk to you and if you really feel that you get every answer you want and the oversight is effective, that's great. we thought it would be much more effective to be interesting enough every time, now it is the

third, director of homeland security. everyone has said what can we do for you? number one, do something about congressional oversight. that's important. between 80 and 90 committees. they all say they are spending as much time testifying when they should be protecting it. preparing congressional testimony takes time. it takes time testifying. they are doing a lot of it to be that is extraordinarily important. giving the intelligence committee some fiscal responsibility. if they are not paying attention they will. also we think very, very important. it was a top priority. we think it still is. anything that increases your ability to oversee these intelligence agencies and make them perform is a step for protecting the country. the you have any thoughts? >> two points. one going back to your earlier

question. how to deal with islamist extremism. your comments are well taken. know your enemy is the first goal of finding anybody. i sometimes think we have a good bit of confusion on hit the enemy is. on the positive side of want to say that in the war of ideas i think we have made some progress. the progress is that al qaeda is having a hard time. they have identified themselves as of violent organization. i think we are making some progress there. it is important progress because they have not rallied the masses to their support. so that needs to be said, but your basic point is very much on target. the second point on the congress , boy, oh boy. i think things happen in the

congress when the leaders don't. my perspective is a little more from the house, obviously, that from the senate. i wonder whether are not the key national security officials in the hs, secretary of intelligence officials and so for have been able to sit down in a congenial environment to discuss this problem with the leaders of both the minority and the majority party's. it is such an obvious thing and that you weekend and department like vhs when you have all the time that they have to spend that you referred to testifying. so i think we need to focus our

attention on the of the bodies. they have to understand that this is a national security problem. they are not dealing with a political problem and domestic consequences. they are dealing with trying to make the national security of the united states, putting it on a firmer basis. when the congress requires, i was told at one time that every single senator sits on some committee dealing with homeland security oversight. i don't know if that is exactly right. if it is, it is an absurdity. that is not the problem. you are undermining the effectiveness of homeland security. i don't know any way to get at it other than impressing upon the leaders the necessity of

doing this for the national security interest of the estate's. the leaders have enormous problems in both bodies, but they tend, if any be so blunt, to look at so many of these problems as an internal political problem that they have to solve in order to maintain their position in the caucus. okay. we are not naive, but this is a different quality problem. we have to get that across. >> that is very helpful, and something for us to work on. the truth is the leaders have not made an attempt at this with everything else going on, since the legislation was first considered in 2004. the truth is they didn't make much of an attempt then, really hardly any attempt because

they're working so hard on getting the rest of the legislation passed. why take on this fight? but it is also true that the people that have the most interest in seeing this kicks which is the leaders of the homeland security department, they always have of the priorities. maybe the immediate budget priority, maybe a legislative priority. make another try at this, and i agree it has to come from the leaders. thank you. when you were talking about both the reaction of the muslim community and also about al qaeda and the ideology, is struck me we should at least know that in the last few months there have been this remarkable development in the arab world. ..

in the movements, but the leaders in both cases had the opportunity with senator mccain to visit about a month ago both countries. they are very focused on political freedom, economic opportunity and essentially getting their countries into the modern a world, and they view the islamist extremism as regressive. some of them aren't religious but that's quite a different as

we were saying before, and in some sense i know this is hopeful, hopeful thinking, optimistic thinking but what is happening now i think is profound repudiation of the ideology of islamist extremism, much more widespread than any of us are capable of, so it is a final statement by me. i don't know if any of you want to comment on that. >> you articulate it much better than i did but i think that is a hugely important development. >> and i think it really cries out to us to do whatever we can to be supportive. these are very proud movements of ultimately people in tunisia, egypt and hopefully libya will determine their own destiny, but the me the coming need some technical assistance and they may need some economic support. they are looking for investment from u.s..

i think finally you will get a kick out of the one mccain and i were on. we met with a crew of the leaders of the uprising and one of them said to us, senators, we want to ask if you can help us to get one american who we would most like to come and speak to us here and i thought to myself who is this going to be. and the answer, mark zuckerburg. [laughter] welcome because -- because they felt in some sense, first he represented the new world of telecommunications but that in some sense he had provided or facebook provided them with what we might call the weapons in their peaceful revolution. >> very remarkable. i'm very hopeful. >> i can't think the two of you enough for what you've done in

my testimony. it's very helpful, very specifically helpful to focus our review that will go on for the rest of this year. we are going to keep the record of and for 15 days for additional questions and statements. thank you again very much. the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] chils

inspiring a lot of people to make sure that others don't have to go through the same thing.

trevor has come out with great purpose and has decided to devote his life to helping children who also face frightening reality of having to deal with cancer. trevor and our other distinguished witnesses are here to testify on a very important issue, the need to better protect our families and communities from dangerous diseases that occur in clusters. i'd like to also recognize the two other witnesses from my state of california. ms. aaron popovych, who i think no the tecum needs no further introduction. we know of her work. and dr. jeanne solomon boustany tremendous amount of work on cancer clusters. without a doubt our country is made great strides in addressing devastating diseases that once commonplace. our nation invested in drinking water treatment plants and waste water treatment facilities and of these facilities are now essentials parts of our public health infrastructure. despite these great advantages

we still have more work to do to address diseases such as cancer and birth defects that took the lives of our children and family members. according to the environmental protection agency, from 1975 to allow seven, rates of childhood cancer increased by more than 20%. i want to say that again. according to the epa from 75 to 07 rates of childhood cancer have increased by more than 20%. so consider this hearing an alarm bell. the country needs to pay attention to a statistic like this. according to the national cancer institute, leukemia is the most common form of cancer accounted for 20% of the incident. the greatest number of childhood cancer occurs during infancy. the first year of life.

our youngest and most vulnerable in our society should not have to shoulder such a devastating burden. when the same disease suddenly impacts an entire family or an entire neighborhood or an entire community, people are rightly concerned a common factor is the cause. scientists don't always know the exact cause of cancer, but we know that when we look at cancer they usually find its genetics or environmental causes. just last year the president's cancer panel said that it, and i am now quoting it is particularly concerned to find the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. let me repeat that. the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated and i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record

the report from the president's panel and without objection i will do that. panel urged the federal government, quote come to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, air that needlessly increase health care costs, crippled the nation's productivity and devastate american lives. clearly efforts to address disease such as childhood cancer and birth defects research focus, coordinated and effective action at every level of government so that we respond in the most effective manner on a cluster ochers. that is why i introduced along with senator crapo es 76 for children in communities from disease clusters act. s 76 is designed to increase coordination, transparency, accountability when federal agencies work to investigate and address potential disease clusters. it's designed to give people in

communities a seat at the table to better understand such investigations. and if we've learned anything from the battle about we learned the community was at sea and didn't know where to turn. they have to turn to an attorney and his able assistant to find out the things going on in the community that were making their own experiences. this bill by itself is not going to end disease clusters. we know that. but some important step helping the communities effectively investigate and address devastating diseases that still impact our families, neighborhoods and society. the critical importance of our bill can be stated in a simple way. if by working together we can establish the cause of the disease cluster we can take steps to end the problem and not waste precious time when so much is at stake, the very health of

our families, and that is the simple truth about our bill and now i'm delighted to call on my cosponsor, senator crapo. -- before. i appreciate working with you on this legislation and appreciate you calling this oversight hearing on disease clusters and environmental health. this is an important issue as you have indicated, and i really am glad our committee is looking into it. i want to thank our witnesses for coming today. on ha erin brockovich and dr. solomon we appreciate you making the time to be here and appreciate the information in the testimony you're going to provide and i want to extend a special welcome to trevor schaefer who is the chairman has indicated is from idaho has an incredible history that helps us address this issue. trevor is the founder of trevor's track foundation and we in idaho are proud he is they're

doing this great work. when he was 13-years-old trevor was diagnosed with brain cancer and with the love and support his family, and i want to point out that his mother, charlie smith, is also here today. smus that, charlie, if you would, would you stand for a second? >> charlie, think you for being with us. trevor relocated from mccaul idaho tbilisi idaho to undergo surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. after surviving and recovering from his grueling ordeal, trevor decided he wanted to help children with cancer, and so in 2007 along with his mother, charlie, he founded trevor's trek foundation. through raising funds to provide mentoring services for the young cancer survivors it is a shining example of how the selfless actions of an individual can make a real difference in the lives of those in need. and as if his work at the

foundation isn't enough, trevor is also a volunteer with the make a wish foundation. in idaho and he's helped the comprehensive cancer alliance for idaho to create the childhood cancer strategic plan. he's also a u.s. ambassador for the national disease cluster alliance and has organized the first child cancer awareness walk in idaho. you can see that he's very committed. in all of these things have been achieved by a young man who just graduated from boise state university in 2008. i'm very happy the you could join us today, trevor, and thank you for coming and we look forward to your testimony. we are very appreciative of the incredibly hard work you have put into these kind of issues. madam chairman, let me say briefly i appreciate the opportunity for this committee to take a closer look at the issue of disease clusters. while we've heard quite a bit about them through books and movies such as erin brockovich and john and hearts of civil action and others, we've not had

a recent detailed discussion about them here in congress. but we should. and thanks to the effort of people like trevor and charlie and erin and our other witnesses, we will. today's hearing begins the discussion and i look forward to hearing from our experts about the scientific research behind the causes of the disease clusters. the coordinated response between federal state and local government and that may be helpful to us. think again madam chairman that concludes my statement. >> thank you. i was remiss the wanted to introduce another californian sitting next to trevor's mom, charlie, and this is the woman who brought this particular issue to my attention and worked with the family and is an advocate for the family and is an author. susan, will you stand up? i'm proud you were here and we are proud of you in california and now is a pleasure to call on senator lautenberg. >> thanks very much.

many of us in this room are, appeared in some grand parents and try to protect our children. hats off to you for the work that you've done. you are a living example of what happens when one has courage and determination and thinking for what you've done. no parent should have to be afraid to send their child into the backyard to a neighborhood because it might make them sick if this is the reality facing parents who live in communities where residents are under assault from diseases such as cancer. for example, in the 1990's a cancer cluster was discovered in toms river where children were being diagnosed with leukemia and brain cancer at an alarmingly high rates. toms river is the home of two from sites and a number of industrial facilities. and investigation of toms river by the state centers for disease control and prevention found in

association between mothers who drank contaminated water and children who developed leukemia. as science tells us children on a specially vulnerable when the encounter dangerous substances. studies show as much as 5% of childhood cancer, 10% more neurobehavioral disorders and 30% of childhood cases are associated with hazardous chemicals. and make no mistake you don't have to live near a superfund site to be exposed to potentially harmful chemicals. they are all around us. testing by the non-profit environmental working group found more than 285 industrial chemicals than newborn babies, and more than 400 in adults. additional testing by the cdc also found hundreds of industrial chemicals and adults

including six carcinogenesis. studies show that mothers -- kids whose mothers have high levels of certain chemicals in their blood are more likely to have behavioral and health problems and that's why we've got to create stronger and more effective regulation of chemicals that could harm our children, an issue we ought to be tackling on several fronts. i will soon introduce an updated version of my state chemicals act which would require that chemical manufacturers prove that their products are safe before those substances and death in our bodies. i received helpful feedback on the bill last year and i will incorporate ideas that further improve the bill. and i'm committed to working with colleagues on both parties to modernize the substances control act in a way that protect public health and works for businesses but the need is

to urgent to wait while i would children continue to be exposed to untested chemicals, and i'm going to be working with chairman boxer to mark up the bill. we also must pay close attention to what's happening in communities who are disease clusters present in the basic risk. i'm proud to co-sponsor chairman boxer's legislation to make it easier for state and federal agencies to work together to investigate disease clusters and educate communities about them. the bottom line is that we've got to do more to protect our children and grandchildren from substances that could damage their health and shorten their lives. so i look forward to hearing from today's witnesses about how we can create a healthier environment for everyone, particularly our children and i think you very much, madam chairman. >> thank you very much, we are

going to call on the two senators coming now in a moment. i wanted to ask unanimous consent to please in the record support for the boxer crapo bill from the health network, the breast cancer fund, the sierra club, the center for health and firemen and justice in virginia, the national disease cluster alliance a lot to insure we get that done and i also want to put in the record the disease clusters in california that were identified by the nrdc and the national disease clusters alliance eight sites where they found these clusters so i will put those in the record and senator johanns, you are up next. >> thank you for the opportunity to revive been called to the floor in about 15, 20 minutes to speak so i'm going to pass. if i have anything i will offer it in written form and again, thanks for the devotee.

>> thank you, senator. senator white house? >> i will follow the good senator's example so we can get on to the witnesses, but i wanted in particular to the welcome ms. brockovich. we were together years ago on the children's health impairment coalition which is a wonderful organization and the chairman's home state and delighted to welcome her here to washington so thank you, madam chair, and i appreciate the way that you and senator crapo have worked together on this. >> thank you. we'll get right to our witnesses and the first witness, trevor schaefer come to the ambassador and founder of trevor's trek foundation, has been such an inspiration to me personally and so many people and inspired me to work with senator crapo on this legislation, so we are honored to have you. trevor, you have five minutes but if you go over a couple of minutes, that's fine. go ahead.

>> thank you, chair boxer. i would also like to speak three ranking member james inhofe and migrate senator, mike crapo for taking on the issue of childhood cancer and cancer clusters and what they mean to our public health. i would also like to thank all of the senators on the environment and public works committee for allowing me to address some of these issues today. and i'm so very proud to be able to state that i am here today as a witness for both the majority and minority kennedy members. most of you do not know me other than i'm associated with s76 also known as trevor's law. my hope is that by the end of my testimony, you will not only know me, but you will remember me as the voice of every child in this great nation.

as you've been told, i was diagnosed with brain cancer at the age of 13. until that time i've is thriving in a small town nestled on the banks of a glacial lakes in the beautiful mountains of idaho. i really had a fairy tale life in paradise. but the carefree days of my childhood changed abruptly and dramatically after my cancer diagnosis. like a snap of a finger, i was robbed of my childhood and my innocence. i was thrown into the antiseptic world of hospitals and eight hour brain surgery followed by 14 grueling months of radiation and chemotherapy treatment. unfortunately i wasn't the only kid in my town with this pernicious disease. in the same year i was diagnosed there were four other cases of

brain cancer diagnosed. over a tenure period, there was an abnormally high number of cancer cases diagnosed before and after i became ill. it continually repeats itself throughout our nation year in and year out. according to the cbc, 36 children per day, to classrooms full, are being diagnosed with cancer and related to genetics or family history. as trevor's law states, cancer is the second leading cause of death among children exceeded only by accident. many of us young cancer survivors will forever face chronic health challenges resulting in the heroic medical

measures used to save our lives. children who have had cancer often experienced confusion and embarrassment as they try to return to a so-called normal life and are dealing with the physical side effects related to their cancer and treatment. i can attest to that. several years ago when cancer struck me, i fought so hard for my life. i fought for the countless number of needle pricks, the blood transfusions, maza, vomiting and physical therapy so i could live to see the sunrise and the snowfall. i'm so grateful to be alive. still, the aftermath from the cancer treatment that i have endured have affected me in many ways. every morning i wake up with a ringing in my year which never

stops. i have trouble with my memory and i may never be able to have children of my own. how ironic that i fought so hard to save my own life, yet now i may never be able to give life. and senators, considered one of the success stories. although there is any significant increase in the cure rate of childhood cancer, children still are getting sick at an increasingly steady rate. in small towns throughout our country, possible cancer clusters exist. parents are trying to get authorities to investigate these clusters and what causes the disease patterns. scientists and health activists say the government's current response to the disease clusters

range from piecemeal to the nonexistence. some people were told that the small populations render them statistically and significant. there's nothing in such a diffident even about one child diagnosed with cancer and then buying of that cancer without ever knowing why. trevor's law seeks to rectify that by allow when people in small communities to have their voices heard and concerns about what they did about the environmental impacts on their children's health. environmental exposure is insidious in all instances yet in effect some were children in greater proportion than adults. children are more vulnerable to chemical toxins than adults

because they have fester metabolism and less mature immune systems. according to dr. sandra we are seeing more brain tumors in 4-year-olds, ovarian cancer and adolescent girls and testicular cancer an adolescent boy is. these cancers are rising rapidly, and of course children do not drink, smoke or hold stressful jobs. we therefore cannot really evoke lifestyle explanations. there are no good familiar as we know of. we are beginning to recognize that not only prenatal life but adolescent life is a time of great vulnerability and cancer causing chemicals. when the connection between health and the environment becomes even more important. toxins migrate read through geographical boundaries and property lines.

cancer's there's no ethnic group, no socioeconomic group, nor any geographical area. in its wake we are left with the burden of extreme personal and social costs. i would also like to stress that cancer does not only attack the victim. it greatly impacts every member of the family. syllabling soft inexperience concern, fear, jealousy, delta, resentment and feelings of abandonment which can last long term. relationships between family members can become tense. there can be stress on the marriage and oftentimes a family breaks up. i felt that if i survive i would dedicate my life to helping other children with cancer who

otherwise would never be heard. i truly believe that i have been given a second chance at life to convey to you the urgency and importance of addressing the proliferation of childhood cancer clusters and the methods of reporting them. for the children, i strongly encourage your support for trevor's law. in closing, i would ask you to consider how much your child or grandchild's life and well-being are worth to you. and while your doing that, please close your eyes for a brief moment and imagine a world without children. thank you. >> thank you.

erin brockovich, who is such a fighter for people who did nothing wrong and suffered and trevor, you touched our hearts deeply and i think you. >> chair boxer and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. my name is erin speed as an environmental advocate i respond to requests for help and ground water contamination complaints in all 50 states. on a oregon investigations in california, texas, florida, michigan, new york, new jersey, alabama, louisiana, illinois, mississippi and missouri. i'm also the proud mother of three wonderful children, two of whom are presently serving their country as soldiers in the united states army, one currently deployed in

afghanistan. each month on the receive over 40,000 visitors to my web site, thousand of whom report issues ranging from environmental pollution, cancer and disease, worker injuries and illness and more. these people make of whole communities that are witnessing firsthand the harmful effects that exposures to chemicals such as chromium's have had on them. these communities both large and small and in every corner of the united states are sending out an sos. from small farming towns like cameron, misery, too small desert towns like midland, texas, to the forgotten town in missouri where the lead are so large the children think they are hills and play on them. in passing as the children away if it is startling to see the palms of their hand gray soaked in thank lead dust.

unfortunately again in hinckley california this is becoming an all too common occurrence. it would appear most of these communities are under siege by one form of pollution or another. protecting the health of our family and children should be our top priorities for us all. yet the system for investigating, responding and reporting these concerns is inadequate. this is why i strongly support as 76, the strengthening protection for children and communities from disease cluster act also known as trevor's moly in honor of this brave young man trevor schaefer. trevor's law will assist communities impacted by disease clusters and will identify sources of environmental pollutants and toxic substances suspected of causing developmental, reproductive, neurotoxic and numerous cancers

and other adverse health effects. according to the cdc in 2011, one of three people with bill phill of cancer in his or her lifetime. one in three. as an advocate for the past 20 years i have reached an undeniable conclusion. there are simply too many cancers in this country and not enough answers. and that is what these communities who reach out to me are trying to do, get answers to the most basic questions. why is my child, who is perfectly healthy now sick with leukemia? why does my daughter had a brain tumor at the age of ten? why is the same thing happening to my neighbor's kids? hundreds of mothers and fathers ask these questions every week. today i would like to share with you a map over here to my left that i have put together over the past six months of communities that have come to me

with concerns of what they believe and they are seeing to the excess of cancer in their neighborhoods and communities. there is 534 dhaka on this map today and what makes me sad is i still have hundreds that have yet to position on the map. the statistics appear to be alarming. these are mothers reporting to me six children on the same block with leukemia. these are mothers reporting to me 15 children within blocks of one another who have globalist. in some instances it is immerses reporting to mothers the large numbers of pediatric cancer they are seeing in certain communities. this work is being done at hawk by concerned citizens. we must gather data from the field and act. we must develop national strategies for identifying actionable information. we must take a combined arms

approach if you will to the battle against disease of our own making. when i talk about this issue, i think of my son who is fighting the war in afghanistan. if i were suddenly to find myself in the field of conflict, it would not matter how credentializing was, and their mentalist, ph.d. or u.s. senator. i would take my leave from those who have been on the ground. make no mistake, i feel as if we are in a war here at home. in this battle we look to you as our commander. on that map, those constituents, your troops, they are sending the message, but we are not listening. while the land is not scientific it does show firsthand experiences are providing us the the the the we need. they are reporting to me for

help because they are concerned the pollution in their town as what is making them and their children six. i will continue to work diligently to get there for greater information and report what it is that they are seeing. this map i believe begs us all to do so. we must listen and learn from what these people and the affected communities are telling us. we can't just sit back and the safety of the offices and our own homes and hear these stories and think that isn't possible. the reports say it can't happen. i'm here to tell you today they do happen and they are happening. in april 2010, the president's council declared that the number of cancer caused by toxic chemicals is grossly underestimated and warns that americans face grievous harm from the largely unregulated chemicals that contaminate our

air and water. i was born and raised in a very simple, beautiful lifestyle in kansas. i happen to be raised by a very strong republican and military man who actually worked for industry and the united states government as an engineer. he is the very person that taught me the value of clean water, good land, good health and respect of one another. it always amuses me when someone believes i have a certain party affiliation. i find it disturbing for those who assume the environmental activist is antibusiness. i always felt a growing up but caring for the environment and public health was a conservative thing to do. i have leader learned it is just the right thing to do. we all need to come together on

this issue, republicans, democrats, independents, businesses and communities. we need a government, business and respective communities to join together as one for the betterment of the whole and begin to clean up our message. we should ask no more of ourselves and we ask of our children. we need to work together to find solutions and learn what i believe my children and countless other children who served our country are teaching us. we must protect and nurture and defend what we loved and cherished the most. our families, our health, our land, our water, and our very environment. chair boxer and senators today, thank you for the opportunity to share this map with you and be a part of this presentation, and i do think you for your tireless

efforts to help make our environment a better place to live. >> thank you so much, ms. brockovich. and this matter is really unbelievable that people called you. they didn't have another place to go. and you should feel really proud of your record in the past and that america feels comfortable in letting you know this but that's what we are trying to work on is to make it easier for people to report these to us and therefore we can then take the whole community and bring together state, local community, individuals and get to the bottom of these clusters of these disease clusters some of which are not related to the environment, and many of them are. dr. belzer, welcome. >> thank you, chairman boxer and members present on the

committees. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. i want to make a friendly correction, chairman boxer, to your opening statement. hi, too and a california native, so there's a certain in balance on this panel. [laughter] i was raised in court in california and my bachelor's and master's degree at the office of the california davis. a few years ago subsequently year and a master's and doctorate from harvard and i sometimes regret i was not able to go back. >> that's the thing we missed you. you left us for virginia and we can't forgive you for that. [laughter] >> my parents sometimes feel the same way. [laughter] my background is as an analyst, economist, risk analyst, and i want to point out that although

my ten years spent as an economist and the office of management and budget normally would make people take a sort of green on a shade a sort of view towards someone like me. i want to point out in particular device shepherded through the omb's convoluted process, the epa national human exposure assessment survey probably almost 20 years ago now at the time was the biggest attempt to get real world of representative data and environmental exposure, and i'm very proud to have shepherded through. at least 40 papers have been published because of this project. i'm happy to have played a small role in that. with that small introduction, i want to raise a couple of questions. am i written testimony covers a number of scientific and technical issues but i wish to focus on them right now.

first, how was the term disease defined? without a clear definition of disease, almost anything could be included within that. we have experience with this problem, the term adverse health effect is used hundreds of times in the federal law. but it's defined circulate or it's not defined at all. this creates a number of problems for us in attempting to be responsive. s 76 does not include a definition of disease either. it uses the term adverse affect but like existing law the doesn't define it. second, how is the term disease cluster defined? a scientific definition would be both sensitive and selective. sensitivity is needed to ensure that we miss very few real cases which statisticians call false

negatives. selectivity is needed to minimize the number of random cases but incorrectly plus five is as part of a cluster they would call false positives. now false negatives are obviously costly. we don't want to miss. but false positives are costly, too. they create a significant year and thinks like you and me lead to the closure of parks, schools and drinking water wells. they depress the market value of people's homes. this also creates a serious problem for scientists who are investigating, would be investigating petitions alleging the the disease cluster. the less sensitive the definition, the greater will be the proportion of investigations to come up dry because there isn't anything to find. when a scientist comes up dry, people are often more angry than relieved. the trust in government examines sometimes beyond repair. the conventional definition is the definition of s. 76 s really

good sensitivity but really poor selectivity. it is very unlikely to miss a disease cluster that means it has a low rate of false negatives. however, it is very likely to misclassify a lot of random cases as disease clusters. that means it has a high rate of false positives. in my written testimony, i would show of the conventional definition there was also the majority of random cases of disease getting misclassify as disease clusters. in my example, 27% of fixed geographical zones had greater than expected number of cases and so they would be a legislative deemed to be disease clusters. all of the data were false positives. now this doesn't help those who belong to the disease cluster. substantial resources would be spent searching for a retirement

linkages that do not exist. it takes resources away to try to understand the real disease clusters. my third concern, how was the term potential cause of the cluster defined? the definition of s. 76 is in some respects narrow and others very broad. it is narrow because it focuses on anything subject to regulation by the epa. the demand no scientific evidence. a chemical is a potential cause just by being present the required disease of interest, no evidence is required and the exposure for the chemical and no evidence is required for those response. in short, the problem is the definition doesn't follow the scientific risk assessment model. finally, i am worried about the possibility of supporting the science politics.

when congress attempt to legislate science, ins is compromised. that science would be compromised if evident especially to me in the way the epa would be directed by its risk assessments and a health effective way. this is not science and it damages the credibility and integrity of risk assessments. scientists should never be told what conclusions to reach and invited to conduct research in order to support it. to be credible, risk must be devotee the custom-made objectively. this is a core scientific value. responsible scientists will not participate in the system in which corps scientific values are compromised. thank you again for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you. and i look forward to responding to your critique. dr. gina solomon, we welcome you. >> senior scientist at the nrdc. specs before, chairman boxer and members of the committee.

senator crapo, good morning. my name is gina solomon, i'm a practicing physician. i'm also a senior scientist at the national resources defense council and a and the director of the occupational and environmental medicine residency program at the university of california san francisco. most health professionals at some point in their career encounter a disease cluster. disease cluster is a mysterious excess of one or more illnesses such as cancer, birth defects or neurological disease in a particular work place or particular community over a period of time. and the disease clusters are frightening for communities and often frustrating for scientists because at least in the past there were limited tools for understanding and solving them. but my disease clusters also hold the potential especially with the new scientific tools of today and that are emerging as

we move forward. these disease clusters may unlock some of the mysteries of chronic disease including birth defects and cancer. when i was a clinical fellow harvard in the mid 1990's, i learned about the cancer cluster in nearby massachusetts. 12 children in that very small town got leukemia 03 period of just a few years and most of them live on just one street and a certain section of town. that cluster, like many, was not discovered by a state or federal agency or scientist but was actually discovered by community members who recognize each other when they were sitting, waiting in the waiting room at the cancer institute. ultimately, this cluster was confirmed by scientists, and it provided a very key clues because the was the first time that the chemical was linked

with cancer in humans, and an abundance of science since that time has multiply confirmed that plank. so that cluster provided a clue that helped science move forward. the senate committee held a hearing, a field hearing in april, 2001 in the town of nevada where within two years, the provincial rubber blade nose with leukemia. scientists published a paper calculating that a cluster of this magnitude would occur in the united states by pure chance about once every 22,000 years. that cluster provided clues that almost 80% of community members had urinary tungsten levels above the 90th percentile of people nationwide.

tungsten wasn't previously thought to be carcinogenic but it had never really been studied. the same metal band showed up at high levels in arizona. another community affected by childhood leukemia clusters. those two findings triggered a much-needed study by the national toxicology program which is ongoing today and which may advance the science and help protect public health. although it's really difficult to conclusively proved what caused any specific disease cluster, but i want to say today to you is that we can gather invaluable clues and hence from these tragic events and those can then help us solve the mystery of chronic disease. historic we disease clusters reveal the links between cancer and asbestos between peripheral not proceed, but faintest sestak

other male infertility and de bct. and between liver cancers and vinyl chloride, just to name a few examples. all of these chemicals are now well known to be dangerous to humans and one of them, the pesticide has actually been banned. all of the other chemicals i mentioned fall under the purview of the toxic substance control act and they are actually still in widespread use today. my colleagues and i just released an issue paper documenting 42 disease clusters and 13 states that have been confirmed by investigations, buy state or federal investigations this issue paper is attached to my written testimony, and we found examples such as brain cancer children and adults that the acreage in west palm beach florida which was brought to the attention of this very committee by center bill nelson a year ago. birth defect sand in california including 20 babies born over

less than two years with birth defects and for children with birth defects so severe that they've since died in a town of only 1500 people. there are numerous other good samples including the cluster of male breast cancer as well as childhood cancer and birth defects at camp lejeune north carolina where more than 60 marines the glove on the basis been diagnosed with breast cancer. this is an extraordinary alarming finding. it's almost impossible that could occur by chance alone it deserves urgent attention. some of the much needed tools to solve disease clusters are found in 76, the legislation known to many of trevor's law. this legislation would direct and fund federal agencies to swiftly assessed state and local officials to investigate community concerns about disease clusters and other causes, but it would also create consistent

science based guidelines for a systematic and team approach to investigating disease clusters. these guidelines would be developed in collaboration between the epa, the center for disease control, the national institute of environmental health sciences and the national institutes of health and they would address the issues of significance that are so often difficult in disease clusters. this would also set up local the advisory committees to improve outreach involvement of community members. this is essential to build trust within the community but also to learn from the community because it is often community members that pointed out the critical clue to unlocking these clusters. the other thing that s 76 is to increase the deployment of powerful scientific tools like

toxic coach nomex, pat we screenings and even analytical chemistry techniques that can screen for hundreds or thousands of chemicals and people. so i am thinking today as a resident of all of the many dozens of communities across the country that affected by confirmed disease clusters. and the communities where the residents are self identify in clusters and looking for help. these people suffer through illness and uncertainty for hope and loss and the fought for answers and in most cases haven't received them. but it's not too late for the communities and others like them. we now have the scientific tools and there's an opportunity to improve and systematize our approach to disease clusters so the community's get the support they need and the answers they seek. thank you. >> thank you very much. each of us will have five minutes to question, and so i would ask you to keep your

answers brief so we can get to all of you. i just want to say to dr. belzer, i want to clarify, page seven of our bill, we do use the definition of how the disease is defined, and it is defined exactly the way the national institutes of health defined the disease word for word, and then we even had an extra about the fact that it's science improves and there is a better way to do it we will do that. so i do feel comfortable, happy to work with you if you think there are ways we can make it better. the other thing is you point out that we force them to look at all of the various pollutants, but i want you to point out we don't exclude anything like genetics or anything else. we just say they have to include these, because if they don't then we will never know the answer. so i really think i appreciate your criticism and i know that

you're a minority witness today that the first from trevor, but i do think the important thing is to work with us. would you be willing to do that if we could work to tighten this up the would be wonderful. okay. trevor, you have testified before that your family has had difficulties in the past with the tumor registry when asking for an investigation. you have problems as a family into looking into this cancer cluster which is why we come senator crapo and i wrote this bill. could you describe the importance that you place on government agencies that are tall levels meaningfully involved in family and community members and the cancer clustered investigation? the importance of including the families themselves. >> thank you for your question, chair boxer. i believe the citizens and communities want to look to

their government for answers, and when they have questions about what is in their surrounding environment, they would like somewhere to go to talk to where they are not told that they are statistically insignificant, which is what we were told and that even if the data we had proves correct that our town was too small to warrant a study. and so i think that strengthening the coordination and accountability of federal state and local agencies is the key to creating that line of communication. >> of course that's what we are doing here. we are bringing together i think a more effective way to respond by including the communities of there's a frustration out there and to get the answers.

ms. brockovich, your testimony emphasizes the importance of ensuring accountability and transparency when the government agencies investigate potential clusters. what are the main benefits of the people stricken with illness and other people in their community from increased transparency and accountability and as we look at these clusters? >> i think that it's important to asked at a deep level to have the community involved as trevor has indicated in what he was just saying communities try to reach out to agencies that can be cancer registry's or local agencies, state and or federal and oftentimes they are to treat it as statistics and they aren't heard. they want to be a part of the process. i think that they are distrusting, and as a community, they want to look to agencies. they believe they are the ones that are overseeing them and then when they find out something has slid through the cracks it begins a distrust process.

so for them to be a part of a process with either the companies and clearly there agencies it begins to reestablish trust because a lot of times when you don't have that, we aren't finding of the information and we need to know from them when i'm in these communities. we've got to get to know the kind of be on the ground with them and they will begin to provide you with information that will give you more answers so we can begin to find a solution. so it's very important that they be able to work with you and they don't feel like they've been able to do that. >> how many people have contacted you for that matter that you showed us before? >> thousands. >> could somebody hold up that matt so that the senators who aren't here can get it? this is the map that ms. brockovich puts together and calls to her because she's famous and is known for going after these problems. and i would just say this is a sort of rhetorical question that it's okay. don't you think that this

indicates that people are frustrated -- it's unbelievable to me they would call you, someone in the private sector, the upper and called the epa or the nih maybe they are calling them as well but doesn't this indicate a lot of frustration out there that people don't feel they are being heard? >> they don't feel they are being heard and that's why i started this map of again over 40,000 e-mails by traffic just to my website each month what happens for me about eight months ago was that i kept seeing from communities we are concerned, we're seeing too many cancers, giving it to many cancers so that becomes a flag for me when i have not one community, not five or ten but 20, 50, 100 telling me the same thing so i s.t.a.r.t. it, and they are frustrated and they want some answers and as you said earlier, not everything when we look into it will be related to an environmental issue. in some instances it could

clearly be coming and we may be overseeing it because of these people don't just naturally wake up and learn of their friend with cancer and their neighbor or they get to know each other in the hospital and they don't realize their neighbor with in the same block. they are very frustrated and they are trying to find a way to reach all and they don't wake up and go we should call cdc and report this. we should call the national institutes of health and report this and i would have to tell you 80% of the people in their e-mail to me that have created this map have said we just don't know where else to go. >> i think the boxer crapo bill is trying to address this and i hope colleagues will jump on it as co-sponsors and we get this done for the committee. senator crapo. >> thank you madam chairman. i just want to say i found your testimony incredibly informative and compelling and again, i want to thank you for making the

effort to come here and be with us. one of the things he said in your testimony was you referred to your mother's experience when she went to the local cancer registry in your community to raise concerns about the potential disease cluster and she was told that basically her home was too small to warrant an analysis and your case was statistically insignificant. could you just comment a little further about that, about what did you do next after you had that experience? >> thank you, cementer crapo -- senator crapo. we were able to take it upon ourselves to get the proper scientists to conduct studies on a personal level to find out

some answers and kind of start ball rolling to see if there were indeed problems in our community. >> did you get assistance from any governmental agency whether it be the federal, the state or the local government in finding that scientist to help you? >> we did not. no. ..

you indicate that you think the atf dr had serious challenges in identifying and responding to disease clusters. could you clarify that? >> well, from experience in 20 years of being in the field that these communities and i talked to them as they are trained to track whether there are clusters are not and we acquired them, 99% of the time they've indicated that they have found that from the community with happen. one thing i think is very important is that we think there might be some thought and how great unifying these is these registry will come in and watch the movement of where these are going many, many times if we

find that we've given a contaminated community and were fortunate for doing so, we move. now we've lost track of where these people have gone. and when people come down with cancer, they reported to the state in which they reside. they don't reported to this date in which their friend. so we could potentially be missing hundreds, if not thousands of people because we can't track their move and in the geographic location, which it think it's very important. so from experience in dealing with these, especially with atsdr agencies but track to the sky registries are not there. it's frustrating for them. and that's what they feel voices are heard. >> thank you. dr. belzer, could you comment on how we do with the statistical significant issue when you have a small-town where we recognize u.s. on others. what do you do to deal with this

problem? >> drivers experience is not something i'm familiar with so i can't comment on that, but the term statistical significant should normally be used only after analysis is dirty than done, when did i party been collected. it is not something that should be said of anything or anyone before data have been collect it. it's a not then to imagine. i do believe that the terminology, which is normal and classical statistics is deep in the offensive to a lot of people because they understand the term and significance to me they are insignificant. this problem probably could be addressed if the epidemiologists applied a different set of tools. it takes away from some of that.

it's also probably superior tools and classical methods for the nature of the problem at hand. but epidemiology understands that. i think that's just a case of scientist communicated in their chart in a race don't fully understand. they could be far more sensitive about it. >> iceni time is expired. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. senator lost her. >> trevor, you said something in your commentary and we so much appreciate your being here. usage required to be alive. we are all glad you're alive. connecticut u.s.a. professional grandfather. i've got 10 grandchildren i know what they i want for them. they live are relatively

moderate if compared to cancer. one of the things i find so disturbing us in this place of contemplation and legislation, we often hear the theme for those who are afflicted with cancer or other threatening to life diseases. but somehow or other, we separate the heart and the mind here because we'll get into a about costs and what does it cost to save a child slave? it doesn't matter what the cost is. there isn't a family in the world who could dispose of -- wouldn't dispose of all of their asset to save the green child or child's life. and i've been fortunate enough to be involved in cancer research. dr. solomon, do you ever hear of the jimmy fund -- the

massachusetts situation? >> that was jimmy andersen was one of the first children diagnosed with leukemia. he unfortunately passed away. >> do you know a physician named landrigan quacked >> yes, not >> do you know a physician named landrigan quacked >> yes, not >> do you know a physician named landrigan quacked >> yes, not. >> a good friend of mine and he supports the legislation that i propose. and i did find out whether these chemicals being introduced in the products, you name the kind of product is a very important first step. and i appreciate the fact all of you are here to sound the alarm and let people know no one is exempt. we do a lot of this environment committee led by senator boxer to try and get conditions that will protect children's health

and that includes clean-air. it includes getting it of toxins and toxic materials coming out of smokestacks and that kind of thing. but i wonder, do you see communities right cannot seem that company xyz company dump their waste here and they should pay the price for the cleanup demands. do we ever identify the companies that say you've done it. he found the air, found the water, violated our children's health? is ever brought to the attention? second would be a good idea. i ran a business before i came here in the regulatory -- what

you call your company? regulatory basic. >> regulatory check the. >> i've been fortunate enough to be able to respond to the early deaths of my father, 43. my uncle in the same family comes 52. my grandfather 56, all from cancer. all from paterson, new jersey, an industrial city. so when the chance came along, i was able to help start a cancer research facility. you know.or holland? >> i know the name, yes. >> he did so much in childhood leukemia.

there are several questions that i would like to put to you at, but in keeping sometime disciplined, it's not easy. i would ask you this, but are solomon, the investigation into initially i cancer he can new jersey language because the cancer registry was outdated when the investigation began. looking at the bill proposed by senator boxer. wouldn't that have a good effect on the situation like this? like the contra identity and evaluate disease clusters? more quickly. we have to get out of the curve on this and i think it would be a terrific thing to do if we can move it. i've proposed a piece of

legislation, which i mentioned near, that we'd like to casino chemicals that go into the product that had been circulated throughout our world identified as being safe for children's health before it goes into the product so we then don't have to look like we do with the reform law, which said we should invest to kate chemicals and see what kind of harm they bring. we've investigated 200 chemicals out of 80,000. and it's not good to have a good idea to head epa searching for those things that are at fault as opposed to jumping on the bandwagon, getting this done before and i would plead with you. be in touch with your senators and make sure they understand the problems they've had.

forever yours soldier in this battle will be to keep on fighting. thank you all very much. >> senator, thank you for pointing out that the boxer crapo bill deals with the problem after the fact. nothing in this bill is going to prevent cancer clusters. i'm just saying it one occurs, let's have a way to respond. but simply to tell her communities to the best we can what is the probable causes? first of all -- most of all to protect other people and also to resolve their questions. but what senator platenburg is talking about is a new way to to make sure that before these chemicals are introduced, even more chemicals, that the burden changes so that the person -- the company or the person at the group that wants to introduce the chemical must prove its case before introduction. that is a very different and important move and i of course

will support you 100%. but these are different approaches to the same issue, but they are complementary. thank you for being here, senator. >> thank you, madam chair. this is certainly very, very important problem. i guess it's fun because of the nature of communication being so much easier now, the ability to perhaps keep track of things is so much easier, it is something we can address. i guess my concern is really two or three things. again, i believe very strongly that we need to deal with the problem. on the terms some of the things we have in place come in the registry program evidently is not doing a good job. and also, i guess i'm concerned that we are talking about it being under epa as opposed to i guess my question would be why not the cdc or the nih or the fda or all of these things that

they're involved in a similar way. were talking a lot about cancer and cancer is a devastating disease. there's lots of neuromuscular diseases, you know, afghan fighters so scheduled for this sort of thing. i'd really like for you all to talk a little bit about that. to me there's no excuse if we've got a registry problem need to get it fixed. i think that would have a great deal. we may be to totally revamp it. there's lots of diseases now that we need to be following that were not following three can do a much better job of that. i do have concerns also about perhaps duplication and maybe there's a better way to do this through some of the agencies that are set up really to investigate. because along with this, you have these clusters, but the cluster might be some pain that we are eating not enough software to much of what besides the environmental can do that

has been raised. so i appreciate the testimony. i think it very, very helpful. your written testimony got to look at last night and i do appreciate it. again, it's something we desperately need to work on. so don't misunderstand. i'm committed to helping, but i just want to make sure they were doing this right or we don't have, you know, more duplication and spending resources in the way we can get very, very aggressive. those accountable authority to netscape to to do a better job. does anyone want to comment quite yes, ma'am. >> i will. he got a couple of points than they just wanted to hit upon then i found interesting in dealing with all these communities and their reporting to me. there doesn't appear to be any national people's registry where they can report what more often than not if someone asking it

here, but i've learned from communities and those with cancer. if their doctors or an agency that will do the porting, they do the reporting, which is why they started to bring information to me. one phenomenon in the scene happening in the facebook world we live in now is e-mails coming from people that are facebook have now found their old high school made, but they've all been dispersed throughout the u.s. or other parts of the world. once they are stitched back together, they are learning all of them have can't or come a similar types of cancer and were able to pinpoint the mac one location. so i know there's been each of these up there that are involved, but there's one particular type reported and compiles data and then are the actual people and actual sources as this map would kind of indicate. so they need a specific place to report to come and not just cdc

come this summer they can report actual cancer. not necessarily where they currently reside. and being able to possibly share of the data because i don't know what exists that cdc ordered atsdr does, but to be able to share data between local, state and agencies to have and see what we are missing because we're not reporting it to agencies who were supposed to making the words. the information is getting lost. >> i agree. and i think again the sharing of data and as you say were in the face of a cage that does make this so much easier. ms. solomon. >> yes, your points, senator, were very important. the problems with tracking diseases in this country are

quite serious. the cancer registries have gaps in many states and many diseases that are very important, especially some diseases that appear to be rising such as parkinson's disease are really not tracked at all. so that is an important and related issue. but i also want to speak about the issue of duplication because it's a tricky issue, because in my view coordination of resources is very, very important and making sure that the approved the expertise is uploaded to address these clusters is also very important. up until now, the fact that it's really been atsdr or the states that have responded to clusters means that not all of the necessary resource is part the table, especially some of the

environmental sampling approaches. in addition, when we were involved in researching report on clusters, we contact did the atsdr, which is housed in cdc, assuming that they would be tracking disease clusters simply tell us where clusters are. they told us that not only do they not track disease clusters and have no information about where they are located, they told us furthermore that they are no longer investigating disease clusters. and so we said if that's the case, who is? they said this is the role of states and local governments. those entities don't have the knowledge skills. so that's why legislation like this will bring all those resources together. >> thank you. i don't want to kick out full time, but i think the point you make about coordination is a

good one. and again, i guess i just have to look further to see if the cdc is not doing that, you know, should they be the lead agency in doing it versus the epa? you see what i'm saying? the other team, madam chair and again, this is something that were really concerned about spending money these days. improving registries is getting these things under control really with david tremendous amount. that's the point we need to make. >> senator, thank you for coming. michael and i are very hopeful he'll join us in a look at this bill. i want to answer your one could treat, also mention and ask unanimous consent to put into the record this report from cancer facts and figures sent by the american cancer society.

they say about 1,529,000 plus new cancer cases are diagnosed in 2010. the estimate does not include noninvasive cancer or it also doesn't include skin cancer. and later on they talk about the cost in here. and it just is mind-boggling. the nih estimates the overall cost of cancer in 2010 of $263.8 billion. that is 102.8 billion for direct medical costs, 220 billion for and direct morbidity costs. that last part is duty. the 144 drag laws of productivity due to premature deaths. your point is so well taken. i think if our bills and we can get to the bottom as an lets say we go into a place and find there is no connection to the

environment. if there's something to the soil, air or water, and now you're going to prevent a lot of these cancers from happening. i think our bill at the end of the date is called for efficiency as we move forward. i want to talk about why epa. i think it's a fair question. it says all the agencies are going to coordinate. if they find it is an environmental issue, cpa that has ever, water and soil. they will find out what the cause is, but they can't move to fix it. so we wanted to give the agency to fix the problem if there's a

problem delays so that this isn't just an exercise. it actually has to follow through. if you're concerned about this, if you want to spell that, let us work together because i've got to save face and trevor knows this and he makes the point he's both a minority witness in the maturity witness. in this days we have so much rancor. i would hope we would come together around a very simple idea that if there's something really troubling new or bothering you and you want to work with us in a positive way, that would be fine. we want to get this out. we want to show america were not happy to see karen popovich was a private -- you're an attorney now, yes? you never did do that? she's an attorney by esme says. and that the best and an advocate for community. people are calling him because they are frustrated with their response. i would also make knowledge meant. the california epa express the

u.s. epa for providing consultation as they look at causes of purtzer faxon cattleman. now the jury is out. we don't know whether this is a cancer cluster i think the epa can be very effect did and it's nice to get this comment from my state, selected the type and the record. so i guess -- i have to say, this was written in december december 2010. so this was before jerry brandt took over. this is written by arnold schwarzenegger. it is a bipartisan thank you. trevor, i would like to give you the last comment of the day from the panel. if there's one thing you can tell senator bows and because he missed her testimony, if you

could sum up why you supported the boxer crapo bill, if you could look them in the eye and tell him what it is, that would be wonderful. >> well, thank you i'm a senator for being here. i have known many children who have lost their lives and lost limbs to cancer and it's heartbreaking to see that and i think that's why we're all here today, it should do we can as chair boxer said, if there is a problem that we address that. and i would also like to say that the medical community tumor registry come in cdc, overburdened with data and may think that this would streamline and consolidate the process.

so thank you. >> thank you very much. i want to see thank you to the entire panel. all of you have just topped us enormously. >> madam chair, can i just say one thing? >> of course. >> i guess what i was thinking, the british navy had a problem and the old days because they are sailors developing scurvy, okay. so they were able to discover that was from lack of getting vegetables when they were on board, fruits. and so, i guess what i would like is a situation where would we have a problem in a cluster, regardless of the disease, that when we go and investigate, we investigated figure out the cause, which is the epa came out and again i am not claiming to

epa at all, but you tend to think in terms of your training and whatever. they established the paint on the boat was good, decking was good and there is no environmental cause in that way, then we wouldn't have discovered that people needed to be eating more fruits. so i guess that's my only concern is we were going and what agency. >> this is what we're trying to say. well, that's the whole point of the bill. it's the entire response is coordinated. it includes the epa, the atsdr, the nih, the cdc. everybody is involved. and in addition, we pull in the state apparatus. we pull in the local city county. you're exactly right. you don't send and epa. that's not what our bill does. our bill says were going to coordinate this response, so

everything you said is what we do. and it's high time we did it because i don't want to see a private citizen getting calls because of no faith in the government because we just not coordinated. so i hope you'll take a look at this. i think you like what you see. and again, if you want to make it more clear, when they get more clear. i want to thank so much this panel. you have been excellent witnesses. i look forward to the daily pass traverse the part of the committee and bring it down to the floor. we have everyone's support and remove it through. and trevor, you know, life takes so many twists and turns and it's a mystery why. but clearly, your life took a twist and a turn in a way that is giving you the power to communicate your story and the empathy and compassion that you bring to this.

and frankly your common sense site is slow. it's extraordinary. and just thank you. you know, you could have gone on with your world and put this behind you and said, well, i doubt this in my life, but i'm closing the chapter. what you are doing is so anonymously hope: we are so grateful. and your senators are so proud of you and we thank you and we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> next, q and a with stephen goldsmith. in your comments on washington journal picke. the anti-defamation league has a conference today. they will hear from ambassador dennis ross. there will discuss the u.s. policy in the middle east. that is today live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> you can watch every program

that has a year on the c-span network since 1987. you can search the video. it is washington your way. >> stephen goldsmith, how would you describe the difference between being mayor of indianapolis for two terms and being deputy mayor of new york city? >> well, there are a lot of differences. there's one difference between being a mayor and a deputy mayor that's not insignificant. i'm now an agent, no longer the principal. there's obviously a difference in scale and complexity, but to some extent, you know, indianapolis is the 12th largest city in the country. it's not new york city in terms of population, but many urban

problems are common from place- to-place particularly in tough financial times. so it's fun and challenging and somewhat similar, but dissimilar in a lot of ways as well. >> when did you decide to do this job and why? >> well, i'm not sure exactly when. i was, yes, teaching at harvard running an innovation center and, you know, a little bit of consulting to cities around the country. and i wrote a book on social entrepreneurship which is the relationship between the entrepreneur and non-profits and cities and government. and there was a chapter in there about new york city and mike bloomberg and joe klein, the school chancellor and it was a pretty flattering portrait. i was impressed with what they'd done and i assumed that somebody in the bloomberg administration saw that and appreciated my good sense of judgment and mike bloomberg called me up and said, "i've got this idea." and i went, "this is a really strange idea. i'm not sure i'm ready for it." and he said, "look.

this is probably last april. it's the greatest city in the world, large footprint, a place where reform and innovation would be appreciated. how could you say no?" so i said, "that makes sense. i'll say yes." >> so how long have you been on the job? >> i've been on the job about six months. >> what was the first thing you noticed once you got inside the city hall? >> well, i mean, i'm a great fan of urban spaces, the diversity, the energy, the activity, the opportunity. i've worked on and off with most of the large city mayors in the country in the last few decades, you know? when i started as mayor of indianapolis, a group of us who were all friends were elected mayors of large cities at the time -- rich daley in chicago and ed rendell in philadelphia, kurt schmoke in baltimore. i like cities and kind of watch what they do. but this is a particularly interesting time for cities because revenues are down, expenses are up, a lot of stress in a lot of places particularly the protracted recession, although new york's been a little bit better off than most cities.

still has folks who are struggling. it's the common issues of people across the country who struck me, a, but b, the difficulty of injecting innovative reform in a really large bureaucracy also struck me as well. >> i have a lot of former things that you've written and also stories about you. what's the difference between being mayor of indianapolis and being deputy mayor of new york when it comes to the media? >> well, this -- there's more here and they're more aggressive. now, in -- i think media and cities have changed, by the way. i mean, the local hometown paper, which both was a cheerleader and could afford investigative reporters, right, they're both the -- kind of the truth calling squad in one sense and the cheerleader in another. that in many ways has gone away. the new york city, media is a very aggressive media. there's a lot of tabloid media.

small stories become large. that's the best way to explain this as i -- you know, i enjoy the social media. so i tweet from time-to-time and i tweeted a compliment to our truck drivers who are working really long days, sanitation department, in the snow storm, like, you know, "good job." well, you know, it turned out the timing wasn't so good because the job wasn't so good and that became its own, like, full page article in the -- in the newspaper on what i thought was a relatively innocuous attaboy. so i think the difference is that the high profile of little mistakes and big mistakes makes it difficult to pick up momentum for change, right? because you can easily -- you try to encourage as mayor bloomberg does an environment of change, an innovation, but that involves risk and risk is exploited by aggressive newspaper reporters.

i don't mean that they're doing their job wrong. it's just the way it is. so it's difficult to pick up the momentum from major changes with an aggressive press that doesn't kind of build it's -- on your momentum. >> well, they loved here, it seems like, pointing out the fact that in 1994, i think it was, the big snow storm in indianapolis you happened to be in new york and this time when the big snow storm hit around after christmas you were in washington and they loved to stick the needle in there. what was your -- what did you say to them at the time? >> well, in indianapolis, i was mayor for eight years and we successfully fought the snow every time except once. mike bloomberg's been here 10 years, successfully fought the snow 70 times and lost once. unfortunately, i was there for the once. and look, the city of new york has a very professional sanitation department, does a terrific job on snow. they had the sixth largest snow in history in new york city and some things went wrong, you know? actually, lots of things went wrong and we learned from our mistakes and we're going to

move on and correct them. >> why did it go wrong this time? >> well, there's a couple of lessons in here, some that are kind of localized about snow and others that are generalized, right? so if you have a very deliberate way that you approach a job, let's say, snow fighting, and it works every time, then you -- then you seem to -- you execute that the same way. well, if the snow is extraordinary, the timing is extraordinary, the amount's extraordinary, the wetness is extraordinary, fill in the blank, the same path doesn't always work. and what we found this time was that we didn't have really active up-to-the-date second- by-second management data reports about where the trucks had been, we're off a little bit, that there were mistakes made by others, for example, a thousand buses got stuck. and you look back and you say, "should you have declared an emergency" while the people here who met and decided not to declare an emergency made a reasonably good faith decision that turned out not to be -- not to be right. so the point of the story is it's easier to do monday morning quarterbacking.

here, i think we learned that real-time management data coupled with a little bit more in terms of deliberate systems would've helped a lot. >> alright, tell me where i'm wrong here -- born in indianapolis, went to wabash college in crawfordsville, which is an all boys school. still is? >> it still is. >> went to the university of michigan, got a law degree, came back to indianapolis, was a prosecutor? and then what? >> well, i really -- what i always wanted to do was be mayor. i thought that was -- that was the job where you could do the most good. so i went to law school and -- because you can't go to mayor school. so i went to law school. i practiced law in indianapolis, then tried to figure out how to break into politics and decided the route would be to try to get elected district attorney/prosecutor. i accidentally won. i was running against a really honorable guy. i should never have won. you know, the former congressman. >> andy jacobs? >> andy jacobs had an enormous character. he was just -- he was just a great guy. but for some fluke i won and then i served several terms and