. >> >> the pentagon described the current one as modest. apparently it is not modest enough. it will be 15 and $30 that they requested. it'll not be the 6%. we will have an increase that is the cost of living. modest compromise. we have not done anything to do this for years. i would like to give everyone in

this. it is not that way. we have support from some of the veterans groups. they have offered their support. i appreciate that. it is easy to say no way know how. i understand that. i was here in '94. we are in a tougher situation. we are able to balance the budget. we are in a much worse situation. this is why these costs are

skyrocketing of the control. >> last question. >> is anything that we have not asked about that you expect to be a subject of the big debate? is anything you are bracing yourself for? >> know. not really. >> we talked to the democrats. i do not know if that could or could not come up i do not know. hopefully if we do have anything it'll be on an issue and not on the process.

it laid out the process. we went to another way of doing our budget. we have over 600 amendments. i am hopeful that we do not get away from our bipartisan culture. i do not expect that to happen at all. [inaudible] >> i think he is going to offer that. >> thank you very much. >> to expect the market to be broken up into two amendments? >> we will take this.

>> a hearing on security concerns in europe and asia in the aftermath of the death of osama bin laden. in a little more than an hour, president obama pose a trip to new york for a ceremony at the 9/11 memorial. then a forum on the effect of the killing of osama bin laden and relations between the u.s. and pakistan. later, we will we ever the chairman of the aislhouse armed services committee. >> there several then some are including a committee. this is on c-span2. here on c-span, the cochairs of

the national cochairs on fiscal responsibility and reform will discuss the budget, deficit, entitlements and tax policy live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. also, a pentagon briefing on the role of reserve units including comments from general james cartwright, a vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. >> congratulations again to all the winners of the issues student can documentary. you can view all the winning videos on their website. >> now a hearing on security concerns in europe and asia.

this is a little more than one play five hours. >> first of all, welcome. we will be started here pretty close on time. i want to apologize. some of my colleagues found out there getting out early today. i think we all hit the airport. i hope they show up. we have a few more of my republican colleagues.

it is within the jurisdictions of this subcommittee. to terrorism. last sunday night, america learned an elite american unit has killed osama bin laden. i'd like to personally congratulate the bush situations, as well as our intelligence kmooet, law enforcement, most importantly i'd like to thank all of our fighting men and women in uniform, especially those in the unit six that did such a great job under great stress. great risk and relentless resolve on their part produced this great victory. the events of last sunday inevitably remind us of the

tragedy of september 11th 2001. those we lost that day remain in our hearts and our minds. however, we must also recognize that due to the vigilance of the american troops, law enforcement officers and ordinary citizens, the mass murderer behind the attacks on 9/11 was unable to strike the united states before we got him. we may never know ul the details about the operation which led to the death of bin laden. we do know that civilian and military elements of the united states government worked with international partners for years to track him down. we're here to learn more about and to encourage such counterterrorism cooperation. specifically, we seeking to strengthen ongoing efforts with our european and you're asian allies, including the sharing of information, resources and successful practices. counterterrorism is working in afghanistan. our european allies have made and continue to make significant

contributions to the international security and assistance force. our eurasian and our asian partners also assist. i was pleased to reed this week that kazakhstan ratified an agreement that formalizes the arrangements under which thousands of flights have crossed kazakhstan air space since 2001. such contributions are essential and must continue. our mission in afghanistan is not yet complete. counterterrorism cooperation with our european and air asi e allies must be global in scope. i'm interested in listening to the allies working together to address the threat being made.

excuse me. i think the president is calling me. i'm sorry. i'm in a committee hearing. i'm going to turn my phone off, and i'll call you later. okay? i bet that's never happened to you before, has it? i apologize for not shutting that off earlier. now, when you're in with the president and you do that, he glares at you. the united states can learn from the approaches taken by our european allies. i am particularly interested in how our allies approach counterterrorism and share successful practices. for instance, the united kingdom and the netherlands have implement eed programs that wor with communities that counter radicalization. it would be helpful to understand how officials from the department of homeland security posted in our embassy throughout capitals in europe and eurasia can bring such

innovative practices here to washingtonment i hope you'll address that when we hear your testimony. terrorism threatens not only our lives but our way of life. i hope that our witnesses will describe the administration's efforts and the efrlts of our european and eurasian partners to balance security concerns with the need of robust transatlantic trade and tourism. trade with europe and eurasia is vital to american economy, supports hundreds of thousands of american jobs across all 50 states. this trade must continue. this i look forward to hering about initiatives such as the visa waiver program that seek to provide access and american markets and for common sense precautions. i'm in favor of expanding this program to include additional qualifying european partners as well as historical lies such as taiwan. i was just in taipei recently, and they made the case that we ought to recognize them for this program. to foster trade, the united states assigned our hopes to --

we have signed our hopes to sign several different elements with our european and air asian partners. for example, negotiations continue with the european union on a renewed passenger name record agreement. it's my hope the agreement will deepen mutual trust and bolster confidence in the atlantic. our common security and prosperity depend on us working together. finally, we must look at terrorism in the context of the events taking place in the middle east, north africa, which some have called the arab spring. al qaeda's role in these uprisings has been nominal so far. instead, the american ideals of freedom, democracy and opportunity have inspired many. however, i am concerned that these uprisings could create an opening and i hope you'll address this, for radical groups such as hamas and the muslim brotherhood to increase influence or even acquire a base in the region, a country from

which they could threaten united states and israel and our european allies. it's important to understand that these radical groups do not have to convert people to their twisted version of islam in order to gain support. instead, hamass and the muslim brotherhood have a history of provide goods and services, food aid and medical care to those who would otherwise not have access to such necessities. the united states and our european allies must take action against such a tragedy. we have a tendency to think of this arab spring as one event. however, the event is are interesting. i'm interested in the wojts' assessment of what we're doing to support democratic forces in each country. i'm also interested in how these uprisings each individually impact the united states counterterrorism strategy and cooperation with european and eurasian allies.

the death of osama bin laden marked a major victory, but let us be clear. the fight is far from over. the united states and her allies must stay committed to the counterterrorism mission in afghanistan and around the world. this subexcrete can do what it request to help. we'll continue to focus on terrorism and examine it from you'll angles. we'll be traveling extensively throughout europe to find out what our allies feel about all of these issues. i want to thank our witnesses and members for participating in this hearing and i look forward to a productive discussion. my minority member is not here so i'll recognize mr. poe of texas for his remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. like many americans, i'm worried that pakistan is not as good a friend as we think they are are. at least as much as they claim that they are a friend of the united states. capturing osama bin laden was a great moment in not only our history but world history, but

it revealed also how unstable our relationship is with pakistan. i, too, want to commend those who were involved in this operation, the president for making the decision to go and take out osama bin laden and his compound, all of the intelligence agencies and especially the navy s.e.a.l.s, osama bin laden has met his maker and i appreciate the navy s.e.a.l.s in arranging the meeting. but let's look at the facts. bin laden was hiding in a city just 35 miles from the capital city of pakistan. his house was a massesive million-dollar compound, eight times the size of surrounding houses, had 15-foot-high walls, had barbed wire. once in, with he can see the compound had been built especially for osama bin laden and his hideaway or hideout, and perhaps the worst thing of all, the compound was just a stone's throw away from the west point of pakistan.

it would be like john dillon jer living across the street from the fbi building down the street and the fbi not knowing about it. it's very perplexing that pakistan claims they were unaware. even administration officials share those suspicions. the cia director leon panetta asertded that pakistan had not done enough to bring osama bin laden to justice. now saying that, quote, there's total mistrust between the united states and pakistan. those are strong words from the person who is the cia director. john brennan, the deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism says it's inconceivable osama bin laden had no support system to help him inside pakistan. a year ago, hillary clinton following a trip to pakistan, said in an interview with fox news that elements within the pakistani state know the

whereabouts of the al qaeda chee chief. so it seems to me that pakistan was totally incompetent in their security issues or they knew of the location of osama bin laden and hid him out. if pakistan was helping bin laden hide from us, i sefrnl don't think we should be giving them $3 billion of american aid. it doesn't seem to make us any safer to give american money to a country that may be playing both sides of the field. i've introduced the pakistan foreign aid accountability account, which freezes ny foreign aid to pakistan until it's proven pakistan didn't know about osama bin laden's wheres abouts. they have opportunity to make their case before we give them any more money. america just wants some answers. where do we stand? where does pakistan stand with

the united states? president bush stated in his joint session to congress after 9/11, to our allies, that you are either with us or you're with the terrorists. and i would like to know where pakistan is in that group. there is no middle found. i'd like to also find out what's going on with the mekdgo designation. a federal district court ruled that the state did not give the mek due process when it decided to keep the mek on the fto list. the law states that reviews are to take place within 180 days should the group appeal its designation. it's been past 120 days. it's now 230 days. during this time, the mek has been attacked by the iraqi military. yunami has confirmed that the soldiers killed 34 residents at camp asha raul, 34 residents that have yesterday to be buried because the iraqis refuse to allow them to be buried.

high ranking public officials in the iraqi regime repeatedly cite the u.s. terrorist designation as their justification for treating the residents of camp asha rof so harshly. two battalions are still there. iraqi troops won't let residents bury the dead. they also won't let anyone come in for regular visits. u.s. representatives have not instigated an investigation. the u.n. has not instigated an investigation. and of course iraq has not. of course we wouldn't expect those responsible for the action to instigate investigations. and all of this, to me, seems to compounded and made more difficult because the state department just won't take a positionen the m he ek. it's like we say in texas, time to fish or cut bait. either keep them on the list or

take them off, but naik a decision. i think the evidence points to the fact that they should be taken off the list, but this delay, delay, delay, not being able to make a decision for whatever reasons is i think a problem that the state department can resolve and is within the state department's power to resolve that matter. so those are some questions and concerns that i have, and i would hope these can be answered. i have introduced hres-60 which urges the secretary of state to take the mek off the fto list. we have 65 bipartisan colleagues who believe and signed the bill. thank you, mr. chairman. by the way, i do like your cell phone tone. it's very patriotic. i'll yield back the rest of my time. >> well, that was beethoven.

>> it's patriotic. >> it does sound patriotic, doesn't it? first of all, let me say to my witnesses before i yield to my colleague from oosarkansas. i know you're hear to talk about europe and eurasia and pakistan and the issues just raised by my colleague are under the middle east subcommittee's purview. but i hope you will address those issues bau i shier hbecau agree with everything he said. so as much as humanly possible, i hope that you'll include those in your thoughts and remarks when we get to the questions. with that, i'll yield to mr. griffin, my old buddy, from arkansas. >> your old staffer. thank you. >> and he was a good one, too. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i want to say thank you for holding this hearing and thank you to the witnesses for coming. i think that this topic is as relevant or more relevant than ever in the wake of the killing of osama bin laden.

what i am particularly interested it in and maybe i can get to follow up with some questions, but i just want to throw this out there so that the witnesses will maybe be able to address it in the context of the other questions. is the impact that a leaderless al qaeda has on the disparate terrorism yets spread throughout the european continent and what, if any, changes we might see in terms of an increased or decreased threat. i could make the case in the absence of one leader that there could be an increased threat and increased independence of the disparate groups on the continent. i ask you to keep did in mind and if you could address it, i'd appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you, mr. griffin. now we'll hear from my colleague from ohio, ms. smith.

she yields back her time. with that, let me introduce our witnesses today. i want to thank you both for being here and thank you for your patience. daniel benjamin was sworn in as coordinator for counterterrorism at the department of state with the rank of ambassador at large may 28, 2009. from 1994 to 1999 mr. benjamin served on the national security council staff. and in 1994 to 1997 he served as foreign policy speech writer and special assistant to president clinton. before entering the government, mr. benjamin was a foreign correspondent for "time" magazine and the "wall street journal." that must have been an interesting switch when you went from "time" magazine to the "wall street journal." some day i'd like to talk to you about that. mark cumins is deputy assistant

secretary for international affairs at the u.s. department of homeland security. mr. assumcumins is responsiblpr as director for european and multilateral affairs in the department of homeland security 0 office of international affairs from june 2007 to august 2008. prior to joining dhs in june 2007, mr. koumans served in the u.s. foreign service. welcome to you both. we'll recognize you, ambassador benjamin, if your statement is going to be excessively long, we'll just accept that for the record. but we'll give you as much time as we think is reasonable. >> thank you very much, chairman burton and distinguished members of the committee. i have submitted testimony for the record that provides additional detail about u.s.

counter-terrorism cooperation with europe and eurasia. i want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and i must say it's a great deal to testify today as the united states celebrates al-qaeda. you mentioned my service on the national security council for t -- for the last two years of that time, i was director of threats when president obama declar declared for peace everywhere. i should say this is by no means our end to al-qaeda. much of its activity evolves to its affiliates and much work remains to be done. but as we approach the tenth anniversary of the 99/11 attacks, we should recognize that one of the unsung periods

since that dark day has been an operation of global lines against terror, one that agents effectively to protect our innocents around the world. in the critical areas of intelligence and law enforcement, governors have been taught together time and again, including ones in plains across the atlantic and public transportation systems worldwide. our european allies have responded extremely positively to our development and a european union underlined against the u.s. and counter-terrorism efforts. but statements also noted that al-qaeda remains a serious threat. europe very much remains a focus of terrorist plots. over the past year, we saw several attempted attacks, a suicide bombing in scandinavia

and separate bombings in the metro and several caucuses. our work expands the globe. we work with our nato partners in isap in stability with afghanistan. we've been working with our european allies in the yemen process, and we are increasing our coordination with france and other european partners to con strain the environment in which al-qaeda operates, by strengthening governments and other regional partners. such work helps to deny safe haven to terrorists, which is absolutely vital. to deal with the terrorist threat and identify individuals who are preparing to commit violence, information sharing is absolutely essential. the united states and new york are committed to posturing and sharing information in the prosecution of terrorist-related offenses. we worked on these issues through the united states treasury's tracking program,

homeland security presidential directive 6. there have been some concerns raised in europe about these programs, but we know that our approaches to protecting privacy have more similarities than differences, and we share a strong commitment to protecting civil liberties. i am confident that with goodwill on both sides and the common sense of resolve, we can achieve the common goals we seek. another crucial aspect of our ct cooperation is our bilateral work with key partners to build other relations with nations around the world. from italy in the south to the netherlands and denmark in the north share our views on implementing strategic counter-terrorism actions that deal with the capacity of partners and to stem terrorist recruitment. while al-qaeda and its affiliates are our highest priority in our ct diplomatic

engagement, hamas also remains a major focus. we have been and will continue to work through bilateral channels to impress our european allies to take more aggressive action, fundraising at both the eu and state levels, and i've made this a personal priority. in conclusion, the magnitude and bre breadth makes sure we work with our partners around the world to identify areas where further work remains to be done and how we can further collaborate ever more effectively. only through such cooperation can we succeed. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. benjamin, and now we'll hear from mr. -- secretary komens. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the

homeland security corporation with europe. like you, i would like to acknowledge the achievement of last week. like secretary napolitano said, the death of bin laden is important not only for the united states, but for the entire world. i would like to commend baroso and kerkov. we all agree that bin laden's death is not the end of our security efforts. al-qaeda and other organizations will continue to plan attacks here and abroad, and so we must remain vigilant. security is more of a shared responsibility than ever before. preventing terrorism is dhs's core mission and one that forms part of its other key mission subsidizing borders, immigration laws and shielding disasters. in order to succeed, our partners must work with the international partners. the attempted terrorist attacks on christmas day in 2009 and the

bomb in 2010 underscore our international security with national security. criminals look for vulnerabilities in international networks to carry out their attacks. i would like to highlight three points. first, if a dhs works with our allies to prevent terrorist attacks. second, they cooperate in particular to prevent terrorist travel. third, the visa waiver program provides incentives to maintain high security standards in deep cooperation with the united states. my first point explains how dhs works. to that end, dhs is nearly 400 employees in europe working daily with government, the travel public, the aviation industry, cargo shippers and others. it is dhs's goal to expedite legitimate travel and trade, both of which are critical to the u.s. economy, while preventing the flow of illicit goods and people and lessening illegal activity. much of this activity takes

place at the operations level, combatting human and drug trafficking, screening u.s. bound maritime cargo containers, assessing airports and air carriers, conducting passenger screening and forcing u.s. customs and immigration regulations and investigating cybercrimes. on my second point, terrorist travel represents one of the greatest threats to european and u.s. security, and therefore, attention and disruption are key goals. every week there are 2500 flights between europe and the u.s. they share passenger data and share information with our european partners in order to identify both known and unknown potential terrorists. dhs has a number of programs to address this threat. under the immigration advisory program, dhs posts officers at foreign airports to work with the airlines and foreign officials to identify high-risk and properly documented travellers before they board aircraft for the u.s.

another example is dhs's collection and analysis of passenger name records, or pnr data. in recent years, pnr data has been pivotal in cracking the cases of david hedley, new york subway bomber and times square bomber. i just note in passing that we just passed the one-year anniversary may 1st coincidentally the same day as osama bin laden's demise. they were denied entrance to the united states and were initially identified through the analysis of pnr. presently we're renegotiating a new agreement with the dau to avoid a potential conflict with the european privacy law. i should emphasize the dhs is not negotiating for the collection of dnr, which is required by u.s. law, but to ensure a stable and legal environment under which it is transferred. our goal is to improve security

while reassuring our allies to privacy. we have held six negotiating sessions and hope to continue these talks in the months to come. since 1986, a visa waiver program has allowed people to travel without first obtaining a visa. 30 visa waiver countries are in europe. by statute, these countries developed a security partnership with the u.s. and dhs conducts regular, detailed reviews of each country. these reviews focus on u.s. law enforcement, national security and immigration interests and they continue to share information vital to our national security. chairman burton and distinguished members of the subcommittee, i look forward to working with you as we advance cooperation with european partners. i will submit longer testimony formally for the record.

i look guaforward to answering r questions. >> thank you very much. before i get to my questions, i would like to once again stress i just got back from taipei, and they have been a great ally, taiwan, for a long time, and they should be a top candidate, i would hope, for the visa waiver program, and i hope you in the department will look seriously at that. the first question i have is, after bin laden's death, there may be some changes in attitudes around the world. with our continued commitment to freedom in the middle east, afghanistan and elsewhere and stopping al-qaeda and the taliban, do you think that the attitudes of our allies that have been working with us in those areas and those endeavors will change? will they remain as committed as they have been, or do we expect any change or have we seen any change? >> thank you for that question, mr. chairman. i think that our expectation is

our allies will maintain the same sense of urgency, the same sense of mission that has characterized the cooperation we've had for many years now. if you look at the statements from any number of different european leaders, they were quite clear that this is a mi milestone achievement but is by no means the end of the threat. they all experienced the heightened threat environment in the fall. germany arrested three terrorists in the midst of the conspiracy just a few days ago. i think there is a widely shared understanding among the governments of europe that this threat is by no means over. >> so you anticipate the commitment to afghanistan will remain just as strong as ever? >> well, as you know, there have been a number of different statements about troop levels and things like that in afghanistan in particular, but overall, we note that our european allies have supplied a large number of troops, a large number of teams for training

police and other parts of the afghan government, and we certainly hope that they will continue to do so. i don't think that this event is going to, in itself, trigger any kind of sea change. >> thank you. one of the concerns i have involves the middle east. i was a senior republic in the middle east the previous two years. as my colleague from texas was alluding to a few minutes ago, we're concerned about what's going on in the middle east. what i'd like to ask both of you is, our allies in europe, europe and eurasia, what is their attitude and what are they going to be doing, from your perspective, to help us make sure that the entire northern tier of africa, as well as the persian gulf, doesn't go up in smoke? in particular, i'm very concerned, and i'd like to know the attitude of our european and

american asian allies. i'm very concerned about who is going to take over in egypt? who is going to take over in libya? what's going to happen in syria? all these areas that will affect the entire world are in the middle east and they are supplying energy in large part for many of the countries in europe and eurasia. so i know this is a pretty broad question, but i'd like to know what your assessment is, both of your assessment, is about what's going to happen in those countries and what you project in the future. i mean, if egypt goes to the radical elements like the muslim brotherhood, if syria goes from asad to a radical element governing that country. if muammar gadhafi leaves and there are radical elements tied

to al-qaeda, and we know they're there, would we be able to take over that country. >> as you said, mr. chairman, it's a very broad question but let me take a stab at it. >> they're just as concerned as we are about the fate of the region. we've also seen change come to the region. there is a broadly shared desire to see egypt, tunisia and other countries that hang in the balance involved in a democratic way that meets the aspirations of their people. as you know, we have very close cooperation with the europeans on what is going on in libya. we've coordinated closely in terms of our assistance and our messaging to tunisia and egypt, and we've also coordinated equally, for example, in our outrage on the intolerable crackdown that has occurred in

syria. this is just a sampling of our coordination. it is by no means meant to be exhaustive. i would say we are working together to ensure that we do see the kind of middle east emerge that we would like to see. we are, of course, all concerned that terrorists will try to exploit this moment. because although the arab spring, as you mentioned, has been, nits oin its own way, a strategic blow to al-qaeda, because they were not part of the movement, they were not part of the story there, and, in fact, the events themselves demonstrated the falseness of one of their core beliefs, which is that only violence would change these countries. we view these as very positive elements, but terrorists will go whenever they see an opportunity

as there is distracted security areas in the region and border security is not what it should be, they may see this as an opportunity. we're working closely with diplomatic intelligence, law enforcement and military channels to do what we can to ensure the region maintains its security and to ensure that terrorists do not have an opportunity to exploit this moment. it's still very early days, but i think we're still very optimistic about the trajectory in the region. >> i'm about to yield to my colleague because i've used a lot of time already, but i would just like to urge homeland security and the state department to do everything, along with our allies, as humanly possible to make sure we don't have radical elements take over in egypt, syria or some of those other countries. i understand, and i think we all acknowledge, that we've had some repressive administrations over

there. it was very difficult in egypt and syria, there's been a lot of oppression there, throughout africa and even in the persian gulf we've had those problems. but one thing i don't think the world can tolerate or live with is several more irans popping up in the northern tier of africa and the persian gulf, because we might not be able to get enough energy since we're not drilling here in america. we might not be able to get enough energy to turn the lights on. so this is a very important issue, and i would just like to urge you to make this a top priority. and with that i yield to my colleague from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i follow up on my opening comments. now that osama bin laden is dead, who is the most -- who would you rank as the number one terrorist group in the world as opposed to the united states?

>> well, sir, undoubtedly al-qaeda remains the foremost terrorist threat we face. operating from the al-qaeda core base in the pakistan/afghanistan region or through its affiliates in yemen, in northeastern africa and northwestern africa. so as the president has said, as many others have said, this is a historic achievement but this is by no means the end of the story, and if anything, i think it demonstrated our determination to continue to remove al-qaeda threats that we face. >> i agree that the death of osama bin laden shows other terrorists that the united states is resilient and will do whatever we can for as long as it takes to make sure we're safe. cia director pinetta makes the comment there is an unusual distrust between pakistan and

the united states now that we have found him harbored in the country for so long. do you share that opinion, mr. ambassador? >> ambassador richard holbrook, the president of the united states, they have always said there is a trust deficit between our countries that we are working hard to overcome. as john brennan said, we're also going over the question of what systems there were to support osama bin laden in abbottabad and to make it possible for him to live there unmolested for such along -- a long time. i do think it's important to emphasize, as our secretary said this morning, our relationship with pakistan, while it occasionally has its challenges, is a productive one. that more terrorists have been apprehended or killed in

pakistan than anywhere else, and that this collaboration between our countries has been absolutely vital to degrading the al-qaeda threat over quite a number of years. so it is a complicated picture but it is a vital relationship and we need to keep working at it. >> i understand it's complicated, and my question is, do you believe that the pakistani government knew that osama bin laden was in their country? that's just a simple yes or no. >> i believe that they thought there was a good chance that he was somewhere in pakistan. i can't imagine, given all of the focus on fighting extremism, particularly in the federal tribal areas that they were certain he was not in their country. whether or not they knew he was in abbottabad, i think that that is -- that probably came as much

greater surprise to them. >> of course, the united states didn't notify pakistan that we were coming in to take him out, and they have now objected and said that strained our relationship. my opinion is they knew or they're totally incompetent in their intelligence field. let me switch gears a minute and ask you a couple questions about the m.e. k. every time we're together i ask about the mek, and i hope we get an answer soon. is the state department going to take them off the list? and if so, when? when are you going to make a decision? >> i'm afraid the answer is the same as when we saw each other a couple weeks ago. we are working as expeditiously as possible to complete the review that the u.s. court of appeals ordered . as recently as april 6, we received new material from mek council, and we are reviewing it, and just as fast as we can, we are going to get a

recommendation package to the secretary and have a decision made. >> six months, a year? do you have any idea? >> i can't give you a certain date, but i can tell you it will be less than six months. >> as a follow-up, i have attended, as many members have, all of the classified briefings that i'm aware of on this issue. has any new information come to surface in the last two months that would help members of congress on this issue, classified or not? >> as i mentioned, sir, we have received new information as recently as last month from the mek themselves, so we're reviewing that information and seeing if it helps in our deliberations. >> all right. i'll yield back the remainder of my time. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> i apologize, i missed part of your question. did you ask about what our state department is doing to urge those people who have not been buried would be dealt with? are you aware of what he asked earlier on? i mean, if those people were killed some time ago, and for whatever reason they're not being taken care of properly, it seems since we're a strong supporter of iraq and the iraqi government, we ought to be doing everything we can to make sure that's taken care of immediately. >> i fully agree, and as soon as i get back to the department, i'll check with my colleagues. >> would you let me and mr. poe and others on the subcommittee know about that? >> certainly. >> i yield to my colleague. >> i want to shift gears a little bit and talk about russia some. on the judiciary committee, we have looked into the issue of

piracy, and a lot of that, it seems, stems from activities, illegal activities, in russia. some of it by organized crime, and when i look at some of the official cooperation with european countries on terrorism and law enforcement and the many different areas that we cooperate with our european allies, i often see russia included in some of those agreements and relationships that sends a signal that russia is helpful and a partner on a lot of these issues. i have -- i would just like to get your take, both of you, on issues of russia, how they are on issues of piracy, and if they've cooperated with us. and i'd like you to also address

the role of organized crime in russia, and we're not hearing as much about it as we did maybe five years ago. i think it's fair to say, just in terms of press coverage -- i don't know if that's because it's become so routine or maybe it's decreased -- if you could comment on the role of organized crime in russian society today and how that impacts, if at all, the official russian government's cooperation with us on counter-terrorism and things like piracy. so i would welcome your comments on that. >> thank you very much, sir. i confess in the

counter-terrorism environment, we have put aside the issue of piracy. i would welcome a debriefing on that. i will say we have not detected any impact in our cooperation on counter-terrorism from those issues, and in the course of what is a very close relationship with the russians on counter-terrorism, i think that we would certainly be able to discern. i will say that the counter-terrorism cooperation was a bright spot in the u.s.-russian relationship before the administration came into office, and it has continued to be, and i think we've actually deepened our cooperation with the russians on counter-terrorism as deputy assistant secretary komens can contest as well. we've done a lot of work with them on asian security, and we're developing some agreements in that area and will come into

fruition soon and we've cooperated closely on issues such as designating al-qaeda members and al-qaeda terrorists and we've also had an exchange of information on subjects of interest. so i think it's a very good relationship and one where we are continually looking for ways to deepen it to the benefit of all of our citizens. >> have you seen any identifiable limits on their willingness -- russia's willingness to cooperate on counter-terrorism? is there any threat that is a threat to the united states where they have been unwilling to show the cooperation that they've shown, for example, in al-qaeda, or have they been a partner in the sense that we have gotten to know other european allies as partners?

>> is there an asterisk by russia? >> no, i certainly wouldn't say there is an asterisk, and i have an excellent relationship with my counterpart in russia, who is a first-class leader in this area and widely recognized as such. i wouldn't say there is an asterisk, but i would just, you know, reiterate that some of our relationships in western europe go back many, many decades, and obviously in a historical perspective, we're still building the relationship with the russian republic day by day. but i'm quite pleased with the progress, and i have every hope for a continued success in this. let me put it this way, i haven't come up against any hard walls. >> do we have any time for the secretary? >> sure. >> secretary, if you could

address the russian relationship. >> thank you, congressman griffith. i will echo everything that admiral benjamin said with respect to not having encountered any brick walls and the great depth of our partnerships in western europe, albeit the most recent partnership in asia. we have put some additional ideas in front of the russians. i can think of one additional setting. this one concerns transportation, and others concern transportation as well, having to do with securing aviation, securing airports, but also bridges, tunnels, that's a multi-mode am removal. we gave them weekend to post --

>> i'm getting ready to yield to mr. bill rachus and. >> there is russian troops, as you know, on georgian voil. you might consider giving us an update on that and what the long-term prognosis is. because the people in georgia are very concerned about that in the future. with that i'll yield to mr. borakis. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate it. secretary kumens, thank you, of course, for your service. you noted that every week there are 2500 flights between the united states and europe, and they said.

they used that as our point of departure in the united states. i apologize if you covered this >> wear -- where we have the pushback is in the releasing of international data. why does the eeu believe that sharing of data regarding only must beloads? seems like a long time to me. if you can answer that question, i'd appreciate it. zds as.

>> i can share some of the she not mea-- sentiment. it's important to realize we are dealing with two different governmental structures, the parliamentary structure, our three parts of government. they have privacy laws that differ from ours in some respects, despite the fact that the underlying foundation, as you said, is quite similar and there is much more that unites us than divides us. but there are distinctions that are important to them, so they would like us to go through and consider every aspect of the agreement carefully. did they get this retained? what sort of date at that time did you tell him? >>. >> one we look forward to concluding to getting close to

an agreement, and as i said, in later months, we will determine it. >> i think that covers it, i really do. note we have a new subset of players, in a sense. we're no longer dealing with the european parliament, but in some ways congress has to explore all these different issues and satisfy itself in a way, and the eeu did not. it's an education, if you will, and share some of the. i really do think a lot of it is learning how -- we do the same things in different ways, so i

don't think there is a dash working their way through challenges. thank you. >> my next question is for secretary cumens. i am wondering about the radi l radicalizati radicalization, particularly as it relates to the balkans, mainly ini albania. tehran is closest to the most corrupt capital in the world. what -- less of a haven that fair owe's on the united states? >> thank you, congressman. with respect to albania -- i

should preface my remarks by saying everywhere where the department of homeland security declares internationally. we work with the department of state and choose omission authority. that being the case in about 99% of our postings. countries such as albainia, we are particularly dependent on the state that would be different. of defense, it has been -- the engagement in albania has been through the international law enforcement academy, alea in bucharest. there has been a certain amount of training and capacity building that has taken place. i don't have that off the top of my head, but i can supply that

to you. >> would you provide the information to me? thank you very much for being here today. we appreciate your testimony and the questions you answered so forthrightly. we'll probably have another hearing on this subject down the road. i looked at the map the other day of e e e e e e e e e. thank you again, gary. appreciate it. we turned the air-conditioning down to make it a little more warm in here. i hope you appreciate it. dr. schmitt is a former staff director of the senate select committee on intelligence. he was executive director of the president's foreign intelligence advisory board during president ronald reagan's second term. dr. schmitt's work focuses on

longer term strategic issues that will affect security at home and its ability to lay abroad. margaret thatcher, center of freedom. ms. mcnamara joined in 2006 and focuses on particular i go i can issues and the war on terrorism. she also -- that would be forthcoming in 2004, a member of the european parliament in brussels. with that you can ask questions.

>> if i can begin by offering, eat the mussels in brussels. very poetic. i don't eat the musserks ls. the question i really can't focus on is the threat of isringhausen laum i can terrorism. this is a broad topic, so i'm more than happy, after sally and i finish up the talk with more detailed topics, as you wish. ly last summer i tiled.

there were two reasons i conducted the study. first i wanted to see if there were other lessons to be learned and how other dmok raesz, especially those who dealt with terrorism in the past, were handling the new threat. my second goal was to make sure america's response tartism good for the plate. on the first, much to my surprise, the value of comparing our respect active approachesiv the allies brought together few lessons learned. the differences are many. different lel system, different national histories, different constitutional structures and differences in the perceived threat. but that said, two points stood out to me. the first is that in each european country i looked at, it was placed clear that a threat

grew. so outstanding differences between the wall and intelligence informing. second, it's. the approach to counter-terrorism, i found this remark to be of the with the explicit purpose of that country from becoming a safe haven for terrorism again. counter terrorist operations outside of france on at least three occasions over the past year and a half. even the germans are perhaps the most effective allies in afghanistan contribute special operation forces to help remove the taliban from power prior to 9/11. and in the past year, they've

eliminated much of the caveats that were in place as part of its current afghan mission. so while there is certainly a difference in the scale of what do militarily compared to our allies, it is not the case that they have no law enforcement approach to counter-terrorism. third, this will deeply encouraged. in short, they don't twist, when one looks at the laws, data sharing, preventive arrests, the monetary loss, even germany has utilized ethnic pro filing and

data mining while spain, the u.k. and france all have detention of terrorist suspects, days of intergags being suspected terrorists, who for one reason. let me kwk thatx. that system rests on francis 'investigative. >> this is an array of powers. the only american office that bears some resemblance ithat of an independent counci but unlike an independent council whose mandate is tied to a particular face, they can

build-up and discretionary power that this is not to suin that when we thing about our own response, we must recognize that the united states is not bringing on the car meal leadership i need. >> thank you. miss mcnamara? >> dwirnd members of the committee. with your agreement, may my testimony be entered in for the record and i just have some remarks for the day. >> mr. chairman, many of america's strongest allies in this fight are in europe, first among them, the united kingdom. but in addition to individual nation stalts, thetes, the eu in

additional in the united states. they recognized terrorism as a defense. it denies terrorists border hopping when another terrorism was not looked at. the eu also financial assets will be frozen and to whom they're denied. this is proving to be one of the most valuable conclusions. and my opportunity to raise funding in europe. theeu has also countered several missouri tamts. recruit them to terrorism and the training of terrorism. however, the eu is severyour si.

these keep the united states away from what they further should be doing. they have weakened rather than strengthened cab mary. th failed to unite it on the grounds that an 18-ho curfew may breach the european convention on human rights. the u.s. should be especially wary of the eu's politica agenda in this regard because it's the way the eu spends money inside the united states to savor its political causes. they vangsed among observes, the

statute of the criminal although court. the closing of guantanamo bay and u.s. recommendation of policies. after 9/11, they tried to walk in solidarity, but since then, it's been marked as much by confrontation has it has by cooperation. the eu has attempted to frustrate several counter-terrorism policies, the trucking program wch is also known as the smith agreement and u.s. ren additions. in terms of the piano and a greet, and they have duchb it on a fill rit ration. . they suld stop this

involvement and approve the deal from 2007, the program is essentially for day watch spen. a swift lead canceled by the -- however, any piece has forced ift upon the program, too, which has limited its usefulness. the eu does understand that fill traiting the money is a power against terrorism. if the eu and the united states are clearly against terrorism, you will have fill traited all these markets. therefore, it's hard to see it as a terrorist organization. the eu's willingness to turn a

blind eye is uncon shonable. our funding, moral, political and material support would dry up. with regard to detention of renditions policy, i am sure the honorable members here today remember the european parliaments 2006 investigation when poland and romania was found hosting those falities. no statement has been declared and theseeports could have been used to find information involved in the successful operation agnst osama bin laden this month. all the sisters say is bilateral reels ships, especially in terms of sbelgment vooelsz relations.

the remainder steps down in particular with sbelt means as getting all this together. in fact, they have been compared to -- i would recommend the following policies to the european union, which you may wanto bear in mind on your trip. the european parliament should approve the 2007 euuspnr agreement without modification. the current euus legal negotiations to adopt an umbrella agreement on data sharing should simply accept u.s. data provisions as adequate. the eu should also add hezbollah to its list of formal terrorist organizations, and they should include individualists who are engaged in any terrorist activities.

thank you very much. >> now, you're with the margaret thatcher -- >> have not f-- center for free. >> boy, they picked the right one for that. i was mesmerized by what you said. first of all, you think if the eu was more cooperative in trying to cut off funds to hezbollah that we could have that organization dry up because they have said so themselves. >> i don't think we could end hezbollah, but we could make things incredibly difficult for them. they use europe as a base, they use it as a staging point and the united states has passed legislation requesting time and again the european union to lift hezbollah as a formal terrorist organization. that needs to happen and it needs to happen sooner rather than later.

we have seen no fruits ofny sort of engagement except for the ct that erope i nothing more than, as they say themselves, a political, moral and fund-raising base. >> wow. i want to you make notes of everything this young lady said, because when i go to brussels, i'm certainly going to utilize that. i have a couple other questions and that is, across the northern tier of africa and the gulf area, we see the rise of, quote, unquote -- sorry for this feedback -- the rise of, quote, unquote, the freedom movement. what is it. >> the arab spring movement. >> -- the arab spring movement. and i'd like to get your take on that and how that will -- what

would the end result be if all of these uprisings are successful? i'm very concerned. i know that muammar gadhafi has been a tyrant for a long time, but we took him off the terrorist list a few years ago and now we're participating with france in running him out of office and there is a major civil war going on over there right now. in egypt we've seen a big change. bart is gone and we're looking forward to elections, i believe, in september and later on in the year. we see changes, possibly, in syria and elsewhere. and my biconcern, as you heard from the first panel, is, what are we going to ha in the future? can we do something about this? i'm very concerned that more radical elements --

>>s that better? >> that's better. -- more radical elements may be on the horizon. and i don't know what we can do to predict that or what we can do to completely eliminate that possibility, but i'd like to have your ideas on how we should deal with this unusual state of affairs that are taking place all throughout that region right now. and as i said before, it's not just because of security and stability in the middle east, it's because the energy nes in the united states, we are so dependent, at least in large part, fromnergy from the middle east, and if we see radical elements take over in syria an possibly in jordan and egypt and libya and across that area and we also have some problems in yemen, as you know, big problems in yemen, and the persian gulf. i'd like to know what you think from your think tank's

perspective we can expect and what we should be doing to stop the possibility of radical action taking place. i know it's a big, big question but one that i think is extremely important. >> that is a big question, and of course a lot ofhese questions are going to vary in different circumstances. we have different players and different ways of influencing in each country. but let me say -- >> we have been told by our intelligence people al-qaeda is in libya. people who fought in afghanistan with al-qaeda are now in legal positions in some of those tribes. in egypt, the muslim brotherhood is an organization that in the past has been looked upon as a radical organization. the same thing is true over in syria. that's radical elements in those areas that may be different in some respects, but incompetehins

americans ought to have some idea of where we're heading, especially if we're talking about giving support to the rebels in libya and the democratic movement in egypt and possibly supporting movements in these other countries as well. we get one view from the state department and from homeland security. this is the american government's positions. but you folks are experts in think tanks that work on this all the time, and i'd like to have your candid observations in this area. >>o start, i'm quite worried that arab spring is going to turn into an arab winter, and i mean that in the worst possible way besides the points you're making. i've had a number of conversations with european friends in government and the european union about what their plans are in the revolutions. we know that we basically had

all these failed policies for the last ten years, so then you ask them, what are you going to do, and they have no answer. so there is a passivity. they're still trying to figure out, what kind of policies are we going to implement? so that's not a good sign. on the american end, i would say that -- i think, to be frank, the administration hasomething of a hands-off approach to what's going on out of the fear that they'll look like they're being american colonialists, so to speak. i don't think that's the way to handle the situation. if you want to prevent the worst from happening, you have to get involved. it doesn't always mean you'll succeed, but i know if you're not deeply involved and trying to move things forward in the right way, you won't succeed and you won't have the success that you want and you wind up with radical elements, actually, because they are more organized.

they'll wind up being the dominant figures in these revolutions as we move on. so i think we're actually in a quite dangerous period where we've got revolutions and both the united states and our allies are acting way too passively when it comes to these changes. >> i absolutely agree, my friend, dr. schmitt. i think leadership matters. there is this idea that if america takes a backseat, they'll look like colonialists. i think there is a difference between taking a backseat and looking weak. america can only succeed if america is involved, and i think american leadership is desperately needed in the region. with regard to libya, i think that's a key test case. if libya goes the right way, i think it will provide an example. i do agree sadly that i don't think we have our eye entirely on the ball. we have seen recently that president obama, president sarkozy and prime minister

cannon put out a big paper saying get out, gadhafi, you absolutely have to go. i agree. how are we going to do it? i would like to see a stronger objective, i would like to see greater american involvement. one thing i'm not in a position to comment on, and you may know yourself, surely we have intelligence on libya and the opposition in libya. we have been there for a number of years now, we've had a failed engagement, but the result of that is we probably had a lot of western involvement, a lot of western intelligence. we probably know something about the opposition, even if we don't know everything about them. we need to start looking now about who do we think is in our best interest? who are the libyan people going to support? i don't know if this is a civil war. it looks to me like gadhafi is just massacring his own people. i would like to see a test case and that's why i would like to see more american involvement. second, libya has constantly failed. a few years ago we had a

mediterranean union. it was hailed as one of the eu's greatest strategies, they were going to engage north africa and it was going to be more democratic, there was going to be great energy products. some of the stuff we were saying was ludicrous. as it's happened, we spent a lot of money at not seeing any results. david cameron h recently asked the european union to look at its entire aid program, look where aid program. look where the money is going, the provisional reports coming back is that their projects are horrific. they're spent badly and it's highly ineffective in terms of what we want to do. promote our values, relieve poverty. that sort of thing, so i think the eu needs to take a root and branch look at its policies and change them. >> i have another question or

two after my comment. >> i'm not going to be long. >> thank you. appreciate it. i want to pose the same questions i posed to the previous panel. maybe i can ask mcna mara first, on the eu dragging its feet, can you elaborate on that, please? >> in my longer testimony, i outlinedhat happened and the different situations we have been bn through and it looks almost like a fairy tale. the europeans want this, the americans agree even though they think it will limit the program and the europeans say, not good enough. originally, america asked for 38 pieces of data. you've said, okay, give us 19. this is mandated by u.s. law that this information has to be provided in advance.

that's why in my view, it happened, so good one for doing that, but the europeans, they don't like this program. a polish mep came to heritage in late february last year. under the lisbon treaty, new powers granted saw them immediately strike down the third it ration at the pr agreementnd he said when th european parliaments did this, there was whopping and cheering in the chamber. he said, i thought we'd won the world cup or something. heard him say we've got those amicans. the us is the americans. the most absurd part about this, we act as if we're just trying protect americans. we're not. we're trying to protect people in the ue, too. the ew, the staff, the pilots. if al-qaeda was intent on crashing the plane as we saw in

pennsylvania, if they can't m manage to get their target, they'll kill as many as possible. this is about protecting european people as well as americans. it's the european parliament. i've never experienced anything like it in my entire life. i thinthis is about the european parliament being juvenile. i think the pnr agreement we have in place, i think it should not only be agreed, but extended for another seven years. i would like to see more pieces of information, but that probably won't happen. the agreement we've got, we've had testimony about war supplies. we even have the eu foreign minister on record before she was appointed, saying this is a vital program. she testified in the house of laws that the pn rrr agreement a vital program and now, we're seeing pushback on it. i think it's wrong. >> thank you. dr. schmidt?

sorry. you're right about the new eu parliament exercising its muscles since the lisbontreaty. i think one thinks we sometimes don't appreate the degree to which there has been very fundamental changes and eu governing structures. it's called a treaty, a very much constitutional agreement. i would also say that along with the parliament, one of the difficulties we have is with the european court of human rights. another body which is relatively independent and not responsible for to directly to home governments. all as producing a lot of decisions which are very problematic when it comes to security. i know that if i was in government, it would be a very

complex thing to handle. we hav i think it's fair to say, very good relations bilaterally with a lot of countries, en countries we are very much in disagreement with. when it came to intelligence sharing and security matters behind the 9/11 curtain, they were very cooperative. eu element really does make this a more complex game. whether eu matures or not, that's an open question. right now, it's a very difficult obstacle in gets the security matters accomplished. thank you. >> yes. >> i'm sorry. there's a couple of things i forgot that i'd like to say. >> you recently, a few years ago, added new countries to the visa waiver program. i think it is a fantastic thing. not least of all, a great public diplomacy thing. familiarity breeds favorablety. when people come to the united states, they find they love americans, they're great. they want to come back. they want to spend money. everyone's a winn. however, the part of having all these frights coming in, you

need information, you stop the bad guys coming en you upgraded the visa waiver program, you upgraded the security requirements and it's been very, very successful. at the time i remember i held a blic program and we hosted the honorable richard barr. the eu was in the audience and said, we might takeembers states to court. it puts to the ue how much information they get. the eu is trying to supernationalize visa policy. at the nation state level, it works pretty well. now one warning i will give here, i'm afraid the eu might have -- the heritage foundation for once. for a number of years, i had recommended there should be an umbrella agreement in terms of respecting data transfer, good standards that the europeans can

accept that. the way americans treat data is good enough. the eu and u.s. is now negotiating, however, i am very afraid that that umbrella agreement is going to turn into the eu trying to limit further agreements instead of just being a generic agreement, only if it's limited to being held for a certain amount of day, narrowly providing the scope that you can request information. i'm afraid it's going to be a shopping list of restrictions. and i would caution you to be very careful on that. >> thank you very much. dr. schmidt? >> i apologize, this is a big, larger point, which is that if a bomb, god forbid, goes off in london. it's not the eu held responsible. it's the members of pa lament of the united kingdom. i think at's fundamental

distinction, which is that you have members of a governing body in the parliament elected on all kinds of grounds, but protecting the citizens of a particular country. >> thank you. one more question or do i have time? again, the question regard toto alban albania. what do you suppose to stamp out human trafficking and arms trafficking that characterize the economies of countries such as albania? >> i really don't have this expertise to be able to answer that with any, in any specificity. my suspicious is that th is something they've given ov to the european union to sort soft take responsibility for, since basically, the europeans face the brunt, doesn't mean you don't have responsibility. given the resources i would say that's probably something

they're looking across to address less than we are. >> would you like to comment? >> yeah, the european union does acvely deal with albania. i spend the vast majority of my time talking about what the eu shouldn't be doing. so let me change that and talk about what the eu should be doing. the eu should have a sensible neighborhood strate. where it could be helpful is in its earn neighborhood and in the ba ball cans. i'd like to see more attention focused in this area -- lord help us, it's not going to happen. so, i would like to see them have a more proactive strategy in the balkans. what we have found is countries as a recent member of nato, they generally do well inside the alliance because they pick up

best practice, they use with the colleagues. it's a very easy way of sharing information of saying, hey, we don't like this, you've got to do something about it, without making it an official diplomatic hoo ha. i think you should use your channels within nato to do that. >> thank you very much. thanks for testimony. appreciate it. thank you. >> my colleague and i are going to go visit the greek, cyprus and turkey and will probably have some questions for you down the road. one of the troubling things, at least it troubles me, is indicated, was that the eu seems to want to u serp some of the intelligence capabilities, the dissemination of intelligence information between the united states and these countries. that's troubs because as you said before, we've had pretty go working relationship with most of those european countries regarding intelligence

gathering. is this a problem that's going to increase? is it going to be more difficult to get intelligence data because of the eu? or i mean, i was not aware of this kind of problem until today. >> it would be an overstatement for me to tell you, ropean countries aren't going to give you information because of the eu. as dr. schmidt said again, this is the governments of these countries who have to protect the citizens. i think intelligence services are working pretty well. in terms of the eu trying to limit that, it is definitely the case. they have said their goal is to have one judicial system in europe. now, that might sod great, but in reality, it's not going to happen. can you imagine if you, mexico and canada all of a sudden said, we're going to have one judicial system? most people would think quite enough. there's a reason. so, the eu has institutionalized

things. we have europe. we have euro just. all of these things which most british people don't even know about. these are trying to get in on the intelligence game. and i think that is hugely problematic. now,ne thing i will say to you, the eu occasionally operates with the height of hypocrisy and the european respond as one of those things. we have had a year long investigation by the european parliament over u.s. rendition practices. oh, the americans are breaking the law, they're doing this, they're doing that. the european arrest warrant means that one member state, let's take gree, for example can request any person be extradited to greece without a single bit of evidence. does this happen? you bet. 1800 british citizens have been rendered. weere told this was an

antiterrorism measure. being rendered to other european countries because they left a gas station without paying the bill. i know gas prices are high, but in tradition, let's face it. >> 1800, you said? >> 1800, i believe, is the latest number. >> that's because of the eu's policy? >> absolutely. 100%. european arrest warrant. it was a five-ship project by the european union meant to be about terrorism and it's not been about terrorism. scotland yard has said come p plying with these warrants, it is taking our resources up. that was what i was testifying about, diverting the key resources for member states to do ridiculous things like this. i would rather the u.s. be using its -- the uk be using its antiterrorism resources to look

who's preaching hate to render terroris terrorists, not to get pple who haven't paid their bill at a petrol station. >> what, in your opinion, should we do as far as intelligence gathering capability, talking about the cia or fbi, to be making sure there is complete cooperation between the european countries at risk like we are and not ve to worry about there being an impediment. i'm really concerned after having heard what you said today that information that we might need in order to stop somebody like bin laden or one of his n minionfrom perpetrating another attack on england, france, united states, that we

might be at risk for not being able to stop it because there is an impediment to this shares of information, so if you could give me a reassuring answer. >> my number one recommendation would be to maintain your bilateral alliances. >> with individual countries? >> with individual countries. >> and not go through the eu. >> with all due respect to president obama when he came into office, i think he found a lot of enthusiasm for the eu. thought this is a great national multialliance. i think he's realized, sometimes, it's best to go through. in my view, the vast majority of the time, for things like intelligence, you must maintain those strong alliances and the way of doing that is other ways. poland was a perfect example. ch a strong allyally.

i met a polish guy who told me, why is it okay for 2,000 polish soldiers to be fighting alongside the americans in afghanistan where they don't need a visa, but we need a visa to get into the united states when the guys next to us can get in on visa waiver. i think good public diplomacy, maintaining your strong bilateral alliances and also, members of congress, you have a fantastic position here. i would not be afraid to push back with the european parliament. what they have done over the record agreement has endangered a key, counterterrorism policy d you have every right to be angry about that. and you have pa lamentriens on your side. it's new, intrapa lamentry grouping and they are some of the most pro-american groups. >> can you give me some information on that?

>> absolutely. >> my impression from again, when i was doing research and i had extensive discussions with intelligence and security officials in london and berlin and madrid, and paris, my impression was that the cooperation, bilateral level was still very high and that there's -- this doesn't make it easier, but there's a considerable amount of rhetoc that points in one direction, when operationally, things are going quite well in the other direction. there's a little hypocrisy and the public officials would say that what they're actually doing on the ground. >> let me end up by just saying this. if you at your various organizations come up with any information that would lead you to believe there is an impediment to the united states

getting intelligence data we need, we should let this subcommittee know because we would immediately contact home land security and the state department to make sure that they knew that we were concerned about this. >> if i could just add one more thing, one of the problems we found after 9/11 was is that the european union was a sense that precisely because the waters were so -- member states, there was a need in fact to work with the eu to sort of strengthen the capacity to change information and sort of holding the system. where people had hasafe havens. there are real problems the unions have in these things. on the other hand, there's a need to work with them, european uni union's not going to go away.

>> okay. i want to thank both of you for your testimony. i'd like to say for the record that will representative meeks and engel, minority members of thcommittee, would have been here, but they're with the president at ground zero, so they extend their apologies and thanks for being here. we stand adjourned.

>> now available, c-span's congressional directory. inside, new and returning house and senate members of with contact information including twitter addresses, district maps, and committee assignments and information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. or online at c-span.org/shop. >> in a few moments, president obama and goes to york. in a little more than an hour and a half, a forum on killing osama bin laden and relations with the u.s. and pakistan. then the chairman of the house armed services committee on defense spending. we will be aired the hearing on security concerns in europe and asia in the aftermath of the death of osama bin laden.

several wide events to tell you about tomorrow morning including a joint economic community -- a joint economic committee hearing. that is on c-span2 at 9:30 eastern. on c-span, erskine bowles and alan simpson will discuss the budget deficits entitlement and tax policy live at kennecott 30 a.m. eastern. also at kennecott 30 on c-span3, -- also at 10:30 on c-span3, the future a military reserves. >> congratulations to all the winners of this year's studentcam competition. you can't view the videos on our website at c-span.org. if you would like an early start on next year's competition, the

thing is the u.s. constitution. create a video about why it is important to you. but for details starting august 1. >> president obama went to new york today for a wreath-laying ceremony at the 9/11 memorial. the trip: the's mission that killed osama bin laden. before the ceremony, the president visited firefighters at the midtown buyer house which lost 15 men on 9/11, more than any other fire house in new york city. [applause]

>> the main reason i came here is because i heard the food was pretty good. [laughter] mayor -- mayor guiliani performed heroic acts 10 years ago i wanted to come up here to thank you. this is a -- this is symbolic

of your extraordinary sacrifices that you made almost 10 years ago on 9/11. we cannot bring back the france that were lost -- the friends that were lost. i know each and every one of you do not breathe for them, but for their family and their children. you give them comfort and support. because of the courage of our military and your outstanding work, we sent a message around the world and back home that when we say we will never forget, we mean what we say. our commitments to making sure justice is done is something

that transcends politics. it does not which administration was in office or who was in charge. we made sure that a person who committed that horrible act was brought to justice. it is some comfort, i hope. when those guys took that extraordinary risk going into pakistan, they were doing it in part for the sacrifices that were made at this station. they were doing it for your brothers that were lost. let me just say that although 9/11 was a high water mark of courage for you and a symbol of the sacrifice you guys make

every single day. it does not get as much attention, but every time you run into a burning building, every time that you are saving lives, you are making a difference and that is part of what makes this city great and part of what makes this country great. i want to thank you from the bottom of my heart and on behalf of the american people for the sacrifices that you make every single day. i just want you to know that you are always going to have a president and administration who supports what you had done for the people of new york. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. with that, i will try to find somewhere to get some of that food. [laughter] [applause]

>> after meeting with firefighters, president obama participated in a wreath-laying ceremony at the 9/11 memorial.

former president george w. bush declined an invitation to participate saying he chose to remain out of the spotlight. this is 15 minutes.

>> he gave him a photo.

apa@a@apop

[applause] ñ% [applause]

>> ready, set, march. >> following the ceremony, president obama met privately with families of the 9/11 victims. he went to a police precinct. this is about 11 minutes. >> nice to meet you. how are you, sir?

nice to see you. so much.k you i appreciate it. what is the date today?

12:35. i want to make sure i get it right. that is what i am talking about. well done. >> thank you. >> how are you?

listen, everybody, i am not here to make a long speech. i am here to shake your hand and say how proud i am of all of you. we had an important day. the reason it was important is because it sent a signal around the world that we have never

forgotten, the extraordinary sacrifices made on september 11. we have never forgotten the loss of life. we have never forgotten the courage that was shown by the nypd and by the firefighters and first responders. my understanding is that all of you were there that day. i know you will never forget. i know it is hard to fill the hole that occured as a consequence of losing folks that you have worked with for so long. what hopefully this weekend does is that we keep them in our hearts. we have not forgotten.

we did what we said we were going to do. america will come together across the years and across politics and across administrations. since that time, i know a lot of you have probably comfort in loved ones of those who have -- who were lost. a lot of you have probably looked after kids that grew up without parents. a lot of you continue to do extraordinarily brave things. what we did on sunday is directly connected to what you do every single day. i know i speak for military teams in saying about we know the sacrifice encourage that you

show as well. you were a part of this that helped us achieve our goal, and also help us keep our faith h. -- each and every day. i could not be prouder of each and every one of you. i hope you know that the country will continue to stand behind you going forward. there are still going to be threats out there. you are still going to be called on to take courageous action and remain vigilant. you are going to have the country behind you. god bless you. [applause] i very much appreciate the fact that mayor guiliani is here. he has have leadership on that.

we may have our differences politically in ordinary times, but when it comes to keeping this country safe, we are first and foremost americans. i appreciate it. thank you. [applause] we need to do two shots? why do we not get this crew over here? mind?ys don't thank you, guys. thak you. you get right in front of me.

you got to be in front. all right, one of those must have worked. >> there was also a wreath laying ceremony commemorating victims at the pentagon today. joe biden was joined by robert gates. this is about five minutes.

playing] ♪

>> yes.

>> of fort campbell, kentucky is the home of a special operations regiment that participated in the operation against osama bin baden. he will be there to thank service members that recently returned from the middle east. this will begin at 4:00 p.m. eastern. in a few minutes, a forum on the killing of a osama bin laden ayman relations between u.s. and pakistan. in about an hour-and-a-half, the chairman of the armed forces services committee on spending. and then that the relationship with asia and the killing of a osama bin laden.

on washington journal bank" -- "washington journal" we will look at the results of a republican poll. tim bishop of new york will take your questions about the legislation to end subsidies for oil companies. we will be joined by a publisher and blogger, author of "righteous indignation: excuse me while i save the world." a forum on the effects of the killing of osama bin laden on the relationship with pakistan. the killing of the al qaeda leader will force others in the region to rethink their stance towards the u.s. from the american enterprise

institute, this is an hour and a half. >> please put earphones on silent or vibrant. my mother invariably calls in the middle of somebody talking. i appreciate seeing such a good crowd here for an event we set up only this week to talk about the death of osama bin laden and the future of pakistan. this started in the aftermath of the news on sunday night that osama bin laden has been killed. it has snowballed since the end with a lot of public policy discussion in washington about the future of our relationship with pakistan, the reliability of our partnership with pakistan, the importance of our intelligence sharing with that country, the importance of the wars we are fighting in a afghanistan, l. lately, some emphasis on the unimportance of

the war in pakistan. i have seen suggestions that now that bin laden is dead, the war is over. we have an outstanding panel to talk about some of these questions than anything else you would like to bring up. we have pete hoekstra, the former chairman of the house permanent committee on intelligence. he is now an adviser at shapiro. a very distinguished fellow at the heritage foundation. we have the director of the south asia center at the asia council and a well-known commentator on pakistani military affairs. next to him is our senior expert at aei on indian issues and rights on all issues relating to

south asia. we also have somebody that rights on our political threats. we do our paddles in a slightly different style than in the past, a little bit more unfamiliar, but more lively. we do what we have referred to as meet the press style. we will not have opening presentations. we will go back and forth with a q and a n discussion amongst our panelists before we open it up to the floor. we are seeing discussions about our decision to go in

unilaterally and take out bin laden. how is it that we should be reacting to this and how do you a test the continued cooperation that we have up with pakistan, especially with your perspective as a senior official dealing with intelligence matters? >> it is good to be here. i missed all of the excitement on monday. i was in london. i was in bed. i woke up on monday and my blackberry is full of messages. something happened. i was a little bit behind. once you started peeling back the layers and started to hear the up for in pakistan, what is news? who did not know or strongly believe that bin laden would be in pakistan? i firmly believe that we would eventually get him.

we are persistent and we kept getting better. i figured that someday we would get that gem of information that would allow us to move forward or he would make a mistake. finding him in pakistan was not a surprise. the allegations that the military or isi might have some sympathizers in their midst, that is not a surprise. we have strongly suspected that in the intell community for years. we knew it. there might be american entries into pakistan that would test their sovereignty, that is not new. we all knew this. you see what is going on on capitol hill. what happened on capitol hill did not surprise me. it was a wonderful opportunity for a lot of people to make some

strong political statements. we will maintain the kind of relationship that we have had with pakistan for an end -- an extended period of time. we need pakistan, they need us. we have our internal political issues that we need to deal with. they have their internal issues that they have to deal with. how many times over the last few years have we not seen them protesting publicly, sending other signals behind closed doors, this is that a higher level of visibility because the events surrounding bin laden. we need this relationship and we need this to continue the fight against radical and jihadism and al qaeda. >> you may see this as a

casablanca moment. shocked to see that there were harboring of terrorists in pakistan. anybody paying attention knows that most of the senior arrest took place in pakistan. they took place in cooperation with pakistani officials. you are right, to play a little bit of the devil's advocate, this is at the heart of the debate, this is osama bin laden. i reject the term mansion. it makes me redefine everything i know about real estate. he was living in this place for years. the notion that nobody in pakistan knew that the most wanted terrorist was living there seems to be a little bit troubling. >> there were probably people within isi who knew he was

there. the question we will try to get an answer to is how high the information went. i do not believe the leadership of the government, the military, or the intelligence service knew or had access to this information or withholding it from us. they have cooperated with some missions on us. in other missions, they have undercut our efforts where we identified a target, we share the information in the planning with them for thursday. it so happened that on wednesday, everybody laughed. when we got there on thursday, there was nobody there anymore. we have known the weaknesses and

fragility of this relationship for the last nine or 10 years. there is nothing new here for people who have been studying this relationship. the only question is in this particular incidents -- incident with the visibility of bin laden, was this any higher? i do not believe that. >> as a former member of congress, somebody very close to many up on capitol hill, reactions to this, demands to cut off all assistance and cut off all cooperation with pakistan. you characterize this to be an overreaction. what do you think people should be doing? >> this is an overreaction. for those who propose cutting off relations and foreign aid, the responsibility becomes, what is the alternative strategy in

regards to pakistan? people on capitol hill, we cannot overreact or break off this relationship. we do not have a new strategy. it is the same thing we are seeing on the arabian peninsula and northern africa. our strategy is in tatters in terms of how we are going to confront radical jihadist. killing osama bin laden will hopefully allow us to move forward. dramatic changes in the relationship with pakistan, we have enough relationships to worry about in the world rather than adding to the list. >> talk about some of the reactions in pakistan. there has been some change. there was oen that fred was talking about. during the bush administration, we saw those are rests taking

place at a high level. we saw army isi going in and making arrests. during the obama administration we have seen many more drone strikes. we have seen many more targeted eliminations inside of pakistani territory. i wonder if that is part of the problem. how do you see the internal dynamics and how do you see the picture looking this way? turn your mic on. >> i would agree with the congressman that you cannot put an end to this relationship unless you have plan b. in the u.s. government, you do not have a plan b.

it is said that if you have a plan b, it becomes plan a. that is the problem with having too many plants. people like to keep it simple. it is an onion that you have to keep peeling. having looked at this relationship over its lifetime, this is yet another one of the elaborate hoaxes that rowntree identified when he went to the 1950's to pakistan. why are we giving all of this money to the pakistanis when we want them to fight against the soviets in iraq and iran? both sides are complicity. when you describe the relationship under president

musharraf, there was complaints about pakistan being complacent and the u.s. being fickle and not giving them the tools that they needed. that will continue. i see this particular event as offering a supreme opportunity to change the relationship for the better. the pakistanis began the change by having a very serious, introspective analysis about what is there national strategic interest? what will bring them closer to afghanistan, reduce hostilities with india, and put the relationship with the united states on a very honest footing. to start rebuilding their trust, printed yearly between the intelligence agencies. that is where it has to begin. there have to be some actions that will work for them.

while assuring the united states we are all on the same page and the afghans that we are all on the same page. the militants inside of pakistan as well as people like the afghan taliban. what is in pakistan's interest? that could change. the current u.s. stance and military posture would have to move much more ground forces to the northern border. that would concentrate the pakistanis and considering them to join some sort of reconciliation talks with kabul. that would be critical for the pakistanis to start rebuilding this relationship.

i frankly do not think that if there is complicity involved, it is people at the lower level only. the reason is that the $25 million reward is a lot of money. the chance of the leaking out and somebody cashing in that check is great. if we find the evidence and it comes out, i think it will be much more at the lower level. at the moment, i think we have to wait for that evidence to come out. >> and do you think that evidence will ever come out? >> depending on what they thetured from thes site, compound. the other opportunity is for the isi to create a group that works exclusively with the cia.

to look in the other towns to see where else there are similar types of habitations and work with the local police. see where the other leaders are. they are relying on couriers. that would make sense for them to be within courier distance. you are not relying on very long travel to create meetings without using the internet. these are things that intelligent people know much better than people like us. if you want to prove this, this is an opportunity for the isi to work with the cia. we will create a closed door team. >> all of the things that you are laying out seem sensible. well i do have unique respect

for you, i think these eminently sensible suggestions have been made for years about our relationship. you know i am a huge believer in democracy and civil governance. nonetheless, i wonder how much of a problem democratic governance is going to be in pakistan. you're answering to the clamoring some of a public. you want to be reelected whether it is the president, the prime minister. there are these political constraints that seem to be pushing in the wrong direction. i wonder how they reconcile this. >> i am not a politician. therefore, i can say these things. it would seem to make eminent sense for me for the politicians to look at their own self- interest. there is going to be an election

in two years. they should act in pakistan's interest. it is in their interest to end the state of hostility in the region. certainly to end the state of hostility with the united states, which is likely to be the case if the situation deteriorates. i do not think we can muddle through on this one. there are going to be forces inside pakistan that will not allow you to continue on the old path. this is an inflection point. they need to take charge. i am very disappointed that an opportunity was lost yet again by the civilian government to take charge of the decision making, policy-making to create a national discussion on what to do next. the prime minister, who was the head of government, took off to paris a day or two after this

event. this is not the way you run policy and take back what has been ceded to the military for a long time. there needs to be a single policy emerging out of pakistan, not dual policy is erupting. that creates confusion and creates greater fishers than pakistan can live with. >> it will exacerbate the problems we see in the relationship. one of the things that they suggest is that there is a good and there is an even better pakistan that can be built from this. one of the phrases that you used is the myth of the moderate pakistan. talk about the challenges that you see and you have been writing about.

>> it seems a little bit different than the congressmen. those who followed pakistan very carefully, to us, it is just another terrorist. for the men on the street, this is a completely different dimension. this is extremely significant. for the first time in many years, we have something that is understood on the street in the united states and understood in pakistan. it is worrying for me. a couple of examples come to mind. in january of this year, a governor was assassinated. this was a member of the establishment. he was assassinated because he showed sympathy to a woman that was in jail on the anti- blasphemy law. she was accused of saying

something in the profit mohamoud and was sentenced to death. he was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards. that is shocking enough. what he did afterwards was interesting. about five frontier people showed up to his funeral. the president was a close friend and from the same party. he could not show his face. there were 30,000 people on the street chanting in support of the murderer. that gives you the sense of the dynamics going on under the surface. al qaeda have a higher favorability rating than the u.s. last year. about 17% and 18%. i do not want to exaggerate what pulls me because how people answer questions very. you can interpret them in many ways. you have to seriously ask

yourself, what are the larger dynamics going on in pakistani society? will it be the liberal society that it was and should be? will that feed into the debate about pakistani democracy? >> this is not an exercise in observation. one of the reasons we have got one of the largest aid programs that the united states has, one of the most in addition to ones, is because we have a stake in pakistan's future. this is also directed toward the pakistan'si population. we have a stake in pakistan's future. we cannot afford to sit by and say that is the aid desk

officer's responsibility. >> the road forward will to begin -- need to get the pakistani establishment to think about what kind of state pakistan should be. there has been no effort to capture the top two people. if this is a moment that concentrates mines in islamabad, if we can get cooperation from the pakistani military establishment, you want the pakistani army to become a lot like other armies. it has legitimate concerns along its border with india. that is what the u.s. should support. there are other projects. that is the military side that has to be very focused. we should recognize that there are many pakistanis who are

fighting this fight. they are very bravely writing or speaking on television against radical islam. those are the people that are our natural allies. >> you bring me to a segue. this is a great question. how do we reassure pakistan that we are serious about helping them move forward? abandon some of their old strategic concepts about depths in afghanistan and abandon some of the proxy's that have been there for years. the united states made a collect world pledged to get us out of afghanistan. there are whisperings of the internal pressures that the drawdown should be quicker.

maybe it is true that the pakistanis want us out. how are we going to reconcile all of that? >> let me start by saying very bluntly and up front, the death of osama bin laden has nothing to do with what kind of forces are required in afghanistan, what their mission should be. we did not send troops into afghanistan in 2001 in order to get osama bin laden. we sent troops in 2001 and 2002 to rid the country of al qaeda and to defeat the taliban, which have been supporting al qaeda and to create a state that would be able to support itself independently and not allow the terrorists to return. those are the objectives that president obama restated in his

address at west point. those are the correct objectives to be pursuing. none of that is affected by the death of bin laden. al qaeda is destroyed by the -- is not destroyed by the death of bin laden. al qaeda house whether the deaths of many senior leaders, none of bin laden's stature, of course. interesting things will follow. the notion that this is the end of the fight and therefore we can pull out of afghanistan, there are so many logical non sequiturs in there that it is completely untenable. on the question of pakistan, if we pulled back from it and say, why do we care about it? we care about pakistan because of pakistan. for too long we have been having

the discussion about pakistan for how they should -- how they can help us in afghanistan. that is not how we should be approaching this. they have 180 million people, they have nuclear weapons, they have the highest population of the islamists in the world. it is a dangerous country, it is a poor country, and it has potential. it has been under military control for a long time. those are the facts that matter in pakistan. american policy has to address those fundamental flaws in the islamic state and the problems that the region poses right now. there are three things that happened to -- have to happen in pakistan for anything to change. the last one is that the pakistani ruling elite will have

to come to a consensus on the need to accept a very long, and pleasant, and bloody struggle to eliminate the islamist organizations that have permeated is lock -- pakistani society. in order to get there, the rule lingelite will have to come to a consensus that all islamist groups are a threat to pakistan. the key to that is something that they both said. the packagei staff -- pakistani leadership has to recognize that proxy's will fail. that has been relatively successful in a narrowly defined sense, successful for pakistan since the soviet

invasion. you could argue before that. president that started to move in this direction. as long as the elements that support militant islamist groups in pakistan believe that these kinds of proxy's are effective tools, they will not relinquish them. you will not have a consensus to move to the other steps. of those three things, the united states has the ability to affect the last one directly. weekend, and i believe we are on the road to defeating the principle of militant proxy's in afghanistan. in the past year, we have done tremendous damage to a group. i think we will see a lot of fighting this coming year as

that group attempts to reestablish itself in the safe havens within afghanistan from which we removed it. i believe it will fail. i will be that -- i believe that will be a part of the changing of the calculus. the next that will be defeating another network in pakistan. in some respects it will be harder. in other respects, it will be easier. it will take some effort and some very hard fighting. if we do not do that or complete that task of defeating that proxy, i believe that will be sufficient to validate for those within pakistan that support that proxy that the strategy of supporting proxies is successful. the proxy that is most dangerous -- that is the proxy

that is most thoroughly intertwined with pakistani security services. pakistan will not be successful until they take them on in some way. that will be the last to go in my view. if we lose the fight before then, the prospect for persuading the pakistanis for going after that approach in zero. it is time to turn things around to where it it always should have been. more importantly, we need to be in a afghanistan if we have any hope for setting conditions for success in pakistan for the long term. >> i want to offer the opportunity to react to each other. you react to different things that people say. the real question to my mind

coming back to the united states is a wholeplan a, plan b problem is our staying power, can we execute a plan like this? we are not good with nuanced policy. we are not good in using the scalpel at extracting from others the good that we need and excising be bad. we are about things like an amendment, do not do all of the nuclear weapons. please stop. you did it. you suck. i worked in government then. i worked in government at the

time. that was the lesson they learned from it. we had better make up our own game. no matter what you say now, you are going to turn around at some later point and say, you do not really matter come bye. react to the challenge to us? >> i agree with the scalpel, but this is a great moment to use a sledgehammer. the first great moments since 9/11 to use a sledgehammer. musharraf spoke about this in his memoir. the moment of truth where pakistan partially gave up its full blooded support for the taliban after 9/11 was when richard armitage called and said he would bombed pakistan back into the stone age. you do not always get the

opportunity to use a sledgehammer or the threat of a sledgehammer. i think the gravity of the situation is such that the international media attention to such is that we have an opportunity to ask them to do bigger things that we could have asked a week or two ago. they have to go beyond process like a former joint team with the cia. the concrete things that should be demanded are going after zawahiri or just let it be known that if vacant counter similar circumstances, the fallout in terms of public perception in the u.s. will be very difficult for any democratic politician to deal with in terms of this. let us understand the gravity of

this with concrete demands. >> i think i know where you are coming from. the analysis on a piece of fiction, which is the musharraf memoir. particularly about this episode, which never happened. richard armitage never used those words. >> you are ruining everything for us. >> i talked to the people involved on all sides. this was not the argument that he presented. the argument he presented was that a friend of his had call from new york and said that the americans will bomb you to the stone age. he completed the conversations. that is just to set the record straight. you should rely on the fact, not fiction, to make policy. the musharraf cooperation with

the united states was less than perfect, as everyone can attest to during the bush and administration. i am sure that the congressmen can attest to that. i do want to address another persist and application of a term which does not apply to pakistan, which is that pakistan ineks strategic depth afghanistan. this report -- this ended in 1991. this is a concept that he invaded pakistan in two territories. that pakistan would use afghanistan and iran to continue the fight. why would they want to do anything else? why would they chase pack thei stans -- pakistanis into

afghanistan? every time they talk about pakistan and afghanistan, this phrase keeps cropping up. two years ago, somebody at the national defense university brought it up and said, let me read the fine this phrase. strategic depth in afghanistan is a stable, prosperous afghanistan so that pakistan does not have to worry about that border. that is something that needs to be reinforced by the u.s. interaction with pakistan. what i was talking about and only come about if the u.s. and pakistan come together and say, what are the objectives on which we can agree? once you agree on those, you can then go to the smaller process these. what are the ways in which y