the next generation of body scanning machines are also not effective at detecting explosives hidden within the body and raise prices and health concerns that dhs has not fully addressed. our conclusion is that, despite 10 years of working on the problem, a detection system still falls short in critical ways with respect to detection. dhs must improve requirements and tested in the field. next, the standards for terrorist detention -- president obama signed to video executive orders on the treatment of detainees. by bringing the united states into compliance with the geneva convention, they have

substantially fulfilled our recommendation. commerce and the president must decide on a comprehensive approach for how to handle these detainees that is grounded in the principles of fairness and due process and protecting the american people. as tom suggested a moment ago, we have much since the attacks 10 years ago and we are safer than we were on that day. all of us agree that there's much more to do. political leadership for both

parties and at all levels of government should renew their on completing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. you may not know that, on september 11, anne was the only reporter left on air force one. president george bush was unable to return to washington for several hours. she is now of covering her sixth u.s. president. she is the president of the white house correspondents association. we turn it over to you and we welcome you. thank you for coming. [applause]

>> these panel members are well known to you. he knows the pressures -- and the risk that a president faces in the oval office. he is -- he also has an olympic record on issues like this. leading up to the september 11 attacks, he was the united states senator and he quit the senate intelligence committee right after the gulf war in frustration. i think you called it a waste of time. more on that later. john lehman, i have heard it said, mr. secretary, that secretary of the navy is the best job in washington.

of course, the former navy secretary told me that. he is ceo of more than 1 million employees and $95 billion in budget. he has staples of both business and defense who lend experience inside and out of washington. tim robo, as a congressman, he saw september 11 develop from capitol hill. as the most recent ambassador to india, he has also seen what it is like to watch and help an ally respond to the incredibly savage terrorist attack in mumbai. next to me, 14 years as governor of illinois, my home state, he was also chairman of the

president's intelligence oversight board in the early 1990's. gentlemen, to all of you, your chairs have given the government a report card. is there and something that you think has made a critical difference or that, if it were enacted, if it were employed, would make a dramatic difference for the next 10 years? >> listening to our chair and moisture, i think it is obvious to me that the most frustrating recommendation that we made was one we knew would be frustrating when we made it. that was the reformation of congress, where congress had to reform itself.

i said that with sincerity. we knew that the potential was up this would not succeed. but we also knew that, if we did not ask, it would never happen. at least, we wanted to make the issue in the forefront. it is not just that they have not made the joint committee. they're maintaining the status quo and the status quo follows the budget. the status quo perpetuates old habits that we found were faulty. and the other problem that you have is that it also interferes with the ability of the d and nine -- the dni to become autonomous. if i had to pick one, i would have to say that would be the most frustrating. >> i think any to emphasize the

positive. it has been to a years since 9/11. the house up in one successful terrorist attack. a lot of things have been done right by it to administration's. but if i have one failure that i put above any of the rest, it is the failure to give the dni true control over the entire intelligence community. budgetary control, and more control over personnel. with one major improvement, one way to say that everyone is singing from the same page of the hymn book, it would be to give authority to the dni. >> i would like to emphasize both positive and the negative. a think there is much to be

proud of as americans, to see how many of the great things were implemented. but think we're definitely safer. i would use new york city as an example of a leadership that took everything we said sears say and implemented nearly all of it and did it very effectively. because of them following our recommendations, new york city is probably the most secure city in the world. that is a major plus. on the minus side, i totally agree. the way that the dni was implemented, it is not the way we had intended it. we needed a leader of the intelligence committee that could tear down the stovepipes and eliminate the bulk of

bureaucracy that had made our intelligence community so dysfunctional in the past. the positive -- the effects of a recommendation have been to frustrate people. has good talent does have anywhere in this country coming to the intelligence community, it has vastly increased the bureaucratic load that has made much less than it should have. >> there have been four din's in the last six years. does not have the position that we intended. it has a need for julia and

sharing. -- need for agility and sharing. it remains a big problem. >> i am an exuberant optimists. i come back home to america and i have served our country overseas for the last couple of years. i am very optimistic over what we have done for the last 10 years, however i-- how we have responded to reforms. i was with a very high indian official the day after osama bin laden was killed. and he said the this is exactly why the united states of america needs to be involved and active in the world, because you have tenacity to keep going after people, the training of joint operations to do it better than anybody else, and the moral courage to do it the right way.

with that successful strain, i think it shows the united states and successive administrations -- the obama did a magician and the bush administration -- it has put the united states in a better position. as a former senate staffer and a member congress, i believe that the single most important thing that we need to see happen is congressional reform. why is that? congressional reform can drive the dni and oversee changes that need to be made and strengthening the position of dni on budget and personnel issues. it can find a practical solution and drive change in other areas. i have talked a little bit about

the global strategist and what we have talked about in pakistan. . >> of gov. thompson. >> i am an eternal optimist, too. i am happy to report that i agree with the words said so far by my fellow members. why am i an optimist? because we are safer than we were 10 years ago. no major attack on our soil in a decade. al qaeda has been content to attack elsewhere in the world. maybe it is just lock. but we're also better in many ways. but we're still foolish in a number of ways. our chairman talked about it earlier.

the inability of first responders, the police, the fire, the transportation, federal, state, local to talk to each other when something bad is happening, lives were lost online/11 because the police could not talk to the firemen. that should have been lesson number one. then comes katrina. another demonstration that first responders could not talk to each other to mitigate suffering and death. and now irene -- they still like -- they still cannot talk to each other and irene is some light katrina, a regional catastrophe, running from north carolina up to the canadian border. what is the answer to that? the answer seems simple.

there is a block of radio frequency that can be given to first responders. why has that not been done? why has it languished in the congress for 10 years? unlike members of the 9/11 commission, senators and representatives have constituencies. when we set as commission members, we did not have commission -- but did not have constituencies. we advisers, but we did not have to report to anybody. but legislators do. but this could still be solved. there are two answers. one, give that block to first responders and have the federal government pay for the implementation. no. 2, seles to the private sector. they will -- sell it to the private sector. they will be the towers. the federal government will

save money. and the first responders will get to use the radiofrequency. pick one. either one. get it done. 10 years and we still cannot talk to each other when disaster strikes. >> lets me get senator gorton in on this. that was one of your issues. >> yes, it certainly was. i choose the second door that jim has just come up with. there is a dispute going on in congress right now about the d block that was originally reserved for the private sector. it is worth several billion dollars in an auction and it could cost $50 billion to implemented. it is a fantasy to believe that that money will come from congress. we are in the worst fiscal challenge we have ever had. that kind of money will lobby given to local and state

governments by congress to build up out the d block as a publicly owned facility. on the other hand, the auction will do something for the deficit and, second, the private sector will build it out. and third, there can be an override in times of emergency in which it will be available to the public sector. in my view, that is the proper answer for the de blog. >> several of you mentioned hurricane katrina, hurricane irene. i was there as the storm came ashore. i was impressed by all the local people that i talked with down there about how efficient the local authorities were. i was impressed with the incredible amount -- you think that there are good the disease that come from your work and

from the recommendations -- good legacies that come from your work and from your recommendations. >> we talked about the importance of unity of command. when a disaster strikes, it is important to have a person in charge. new york mastered that. it is the police. they are in charge. now, there are still some problems, but it was a big step forward. not all the communities have done that yet. there is not necessarily a unity of command so that, if a disaster strikes, somebody is in charge. somebody has to be in charge. every community, small as well as large -- >> how do get that? look at the bp oil spill.

the governor of louisiana said that they needed birds and they went in and build it themselves. had you get locally elected officials who feel a tremendous responsibility to the voters they see every day and to agree that there has to be this hierarchy and how it benefits them? are there any thoughts? >> i think the points to one of the real benefits to the way the 9/11 commission was constructed and the way they put out their duties. the book which produced had a large swath, not only of public officials who have read it and taken it to heart, and the public has a much higher awareness of it. in effect, you have decentralized the implementation. in new york, they will not wait for the federal government to sort out the d band problem.

they spend a lot of money with a defense contractor to come up with a much higher technology freaks and j -- technology frequency solution so that they can talk on the highways and in the tunnels. that is better than try to have it done through a centralized bureaucracy. i think that awareness is around the country. >> one of the great things about the american people, as we recall which ivanov's, hearing stories about how the pentagon responds and was very successful in many ways. it is not because they're in our book. it was up because something congress told them to do or the oval office told them to do. it was the knowledge and experience and the practice of arlington and alexandria and rescue crews and the pentagon that had practiced the previous

2 9/11, knew that unity of command made sense. there were calling each other by first names when they responded to the pentagon. one of the most important things in this report is getting back to knowing that the american people have a lot of these answers. this unity that we had after 9/11, when people were giving blood, helping each other out, and this unity of purpose that was so strong in america is gone today. it is one of the most important things we can get back. >> i need to put an addendum that john said about new york city and the benefits of decentralization recommendation. new york city is a wealthy community. new york city was the subject of the 9/11 attacks. your city has always been held up as the place -- new york city has always been held up as a

place where it might happen again. so new york city responded in a way that it should have and it had the resources to do it. but few other places in the united states have those resources. they do not have the experience of 9/11. as we went out to the country after the 9/11 commission report and talked about it, the further you got away from new york city, the less concerned people were. they just cannot imagine it happening in chicago or the morning -- or des moines or loss angeles. but it can. this country is so big and so wide-open, so easy to attack, pipelines, cyber security, which we have not talked about, the ability of terrorists to hack into systems and shut down electric power or shut down vital resources.

we have not done anything about that. >> fred. >> let me join the opposite side for a second. when we first started our review of the facts and what had happened, it was not just communications where you had a problem. the firemen from new jersey could not look up the hoses in new york. there were practical problems. i think that part of it, the physical part of it, has been solved. >> i want to move all of this to the dysfunction in congress that you described and the idea that the white house has not put out this commission or has not filled out a commission on civil liberties. i would like to start with these two former members. q. you think -- obviously,

things are different in 2011. bipartisanship is not in great supply year. is it impossible for the institution of congress to make the kind of reforms to have suggested? ambassador? >> no, not impossible. but it is extremely difficult. >> what dynamite can you put under their chairs to make it happen? >> the dynamite fuses lit right now. they have a bomb underneath them that will go off sometime in the fall or the winter. that is the budget and the deficit and the super committee that is looking for ways to save the taxpayer money. even as important as saving the taxpayer money, to streamline congress -- congress has not looked at reforming how they do their oversight in decades. they can both contribute to the deficit by shaving off committees that are requiring

the department of homeland committee to come up week after week to different committees can do photo ops and hearings and oversight when there is very little follow-up -- that congressional oversight could drive reform and other important areas. we have talked about inoperability, the dni, licenses, by metrics. congress can have one powerful committee, rather than dozens of them, and really push reform there. it is critically important that they do it. i think there is an opportunity now with the crisis we face to do that. >> here's the problem. as a part of the congressional culture, we have lost the powerful leader. a powerful speaker, a powerful majority leader. we have raised up dozens of powerful individual representatives and senators.

in the old days, when you had a powerful speaker, he could say, hey, this is congressional reform. this is what we will do. now you cannot. now they have to build coalitions with in their party and within their branch of government and get everybody's consent in order to be elected in the first place. and then to maintain their rule, they have to sort of let it go to the committee chair and the subcommittee chair. these committees proliferate because this is power and prestige for the individual members and chairman. that is what blocks congressional reform. i do not know if we will ever get the powerful leader back. it will take maybe some catastrophic event to force the resolution of these issues if individual leaders cannot do it. >> i think nancy pelosi would be

surprised to hear that. i was on the intelligence committee for a couple of years. during the war itself, i learned more from television than in the briefings that took place. [laughter] and i hardly ever got a briefing in which i did not read the content within 48 hours in "the washington post." it just seems to me that we were just spinning our wheels. i think a large part of it is due to would congressman roemer said. it is the division of authority. even on the intelligence committee, the people from the pentagon, the cia dieppe -- the cia did not have to pay great deal of attention to us. congress forfeited all of the

movement in this direction to the administration by putting up the authority. they should be motivated by the fact that, if it were consolidated and just two or three or four committees, the authority, the influence of congress over what goes on would be greatly enhance. >> you have watched from inside the oval office. >> the phrase "what is the bomb it willds to be lit?"it i not matter politically. the bomb is lit. it will not change because the underlying cause is campaign finance reform. it is the 74 act. what it did did, by limiting the individual contributions, has

made every congressman, except those were very wealthy, totally dependent on bunglers and fund- raising. the way you get powerful bunglers is by being a subcommittee chair. when i first came to washington, a freshman congressman was limited to an a and a b, two. that was it. and they tended to become experts in that two. now they have six. but the second year, they can rankle the chair of some subcommittee and that brings with them and hold wrath of lobbyists to hold a cocktail party is who hold party so that they can -- lobbyists who hold party so they can raise money so they can run. >> i would come back to a point

that jim made. it will not come from super committees or committees or even the good work of senator lieberman and senator collins. this change has to be driven by the leadership. it has to be driven by the senate leadership, the house leadership, the democrats and the republicans. it has to be bipartisan. it has to be driven by the american people. you pointed your finger at the executive branch and the cia and the fbi and you demanded reform and 21st century change. but when you looked in the mirror, you did not change ourselves. you have an obligation to come into the 21st century and major committees reflect the challenges and the threats to america today and you are not doing it effectively. >> i want to shift gears for a moment. we will be opening this up to questions from all of you. the issue of civil liberties and the protection of civil liberties and how that is

balanced. the administration believes it must protect americans and, legally, how do you do that with some of the detainees in guantanamo. where do we have now? where is the government -- what do you think practically can be done in coming years to settle what is not only unsettled, but the president has named as members of the oversight -- mr. hamilton? >> the question you have poses what can be done? first, we have to put into functioning reality the commission. it is a puzzle to me why that has not been done. i am not sure i'd understand it. president bush supported it. president obama has supported it. but neither has made it work.

the very first thing that has to be done is to appoint the remaining three members, get them confirmed by the senate, give them a budget, and let them go to work. the reason that is important is that every argument since 9/11 has one on the security side. 60 people, up with ideas that need to be implemented -- security people come up with ideas and need to be implemented. they can make a very powerful case. it is understandable, i think, why the country has agreed with it most of the way. we have given in the process a lot of power, and a lot of powers of intrusion, by these intelligence groups into the lives and privacy of americans. you very much need a robust board with a lot of power that can push back and make the argument in support of the protection of our core values

and our civil liberties and privacy. that is number one. no. 2, what needs to be done is they have to deal with this problem of the suspected terrorists. that is a dilly of a problem. you have a guy in front of you. you strongly suspect he is a terrorist. you do not have the evidence that will stand up in a court of law. you may have some evidence, but it may have been produced by a means that will make it not admissible in a court of law. if you release them, he can kill you. he can do a lot of damage to you. ok, that is a problem that does not fit in our system. we have to figure out a way. i am not suggesting it is easy, but it has to be done in a way that has a statutory base. this gets into difficulty questions of due process.

i will conclude by saying that, whatever you, but, you should have a statute that the president and the commerce of raison and it must -- and the congress agrees on and it must be at least perceived as fair. that is a slippery slope. but it has to meet that standard. therefore, i think the president and the congress are derelict in not pushing a statute that gives us a comprehensive way of dealing with these suspected terrorists. some improvement made, as we recognize in our statement. enhanced interrogation has sharply been reduced. but these two problems are very important. >> i agree with that. but he noted reality here.

any presidential candidate who campaigned on anything other than jobs next year is wasting his time. ask bill clinton. but if you were to take a poll of the american people, the plight of guantanamo detainees would be way down here at the bottom. when you said to them "and if we let them go, they may kill you," id would be weighed way down here. -- it would be weighed way down here. the president has a lot on his plate. he has a recession and three wars going on at the same time. he has a dysfunctional congress and a very partisan congress. he does not -- so he has not got into it yet. he could easily get to it. just tell your staff to name them. since they are not confirmed, it

is their fault. there are even stronger issues of executive power, the state secret doctrine. in many instances, this administration has gone one better than the bush administration. in that kind of white house, facing the kind of threats that this nation faces on a daily basis, the civil liberties issue will might get much traction. that is the real world. >> there was a call in about the privacy and civil liberties board. president bush established such a board by executive order. it was located in the executive office to the president. and it was staffed. it was fully appointed. when the house turned over at the end of the bush administration, there was a

move to make this an independent agency or an independent commission. so the bush administration dissolved its commission. i have no idea why this has not gone forward. >> what did the commission do in terms of the language on detainee treatment? >> that was not on its plate. for instance, national security letters, investigations, and a problem with the fbi. it was supposed to be called upon whenever there was an issue like that. the model was spiffy have -- was pifiab.

was thathe issues tha people wanted to have subpoena power. when you say that in the executive branch, everybody says here we go again. this is building another bureaucracy. so that maybe the reason. >> another reason for it is that one of the recommendations we made that has been virtually ignored -- that is the vulnerability we found in our investigation of the desperately slow appointing and confirmation process. there is no question but that contributed to allowing the attacks to happen. most of the senior national security positions were not filled nine months after the president was confirmed. as you saw in their televised hearing, most of the senior people that testified were holdovers -- faa, norad, cia,

, etc. nothing has been done. there have been over 3000 presidential appointees. most of them do not get filled by the end of the first term. -- not most, but a lot of them. that is one thing that has to be streamlined. we have to make sure that a new administration does not come in to nt file cabinets -- to empty file cabinets, the they can name their people and not go through the delays and clearance that do not even allow the president to get their nominees up to the hill for three months to four months and then the committee's are swamped by too many. >> i want to emphasize and agree with what john just said. the entire point medan confirmation process is broken down. -- the entire appointment and confirmation process is broken down.

they were so worried about received minor conflicts of interest. people get savage over relatively minor things. when you cannot get the people you want to take the office of the first place, and if they do agree to do it, they go through six months or a year of help before they are ever allowed to take the office in the first place. a bit more trust and not so much detail on the application form and an agreement by the senate to deal very promptly with nominations that require senate approval is a national security issue. >> your the only one here that has had experience with this confirmation process directly. i agree with what you have john have said. i always thought that a proposal put forward, the

president has a right to have his nominees voted on within a certain amount of time -- 60 days, nine innings, whatever -- and he deserves an up or down vote. if you put that in the statute, what do think? what is wrong with that? >> the senate probably would not accept it. >> it would be very are to get it through the senate. however, this does not have anything to do with the constitution. the rule i adopted for myself was that that was absolutely right for every appointee who served at the pleasure of the president. i would generally vote for them, even though i did not a group -- did not agree with them. certainly, there ought to be a prompt vote. i would not have applied that at the other end of the extreme. people who serve for life, like

the supreme court justices, i would not have favored something that said that that could not be filibustered or that there cannot be a considerable debate on it. after all, the constitution said with the advice and consent of the senate. i did buy it -- my view was that, if my advice was not sought, i would not give consent. >> ambassador. >> the more i reflect on it, i agree with jim. jobs and the economy will dominate the landscape in the presidential election. but when you start to think about the scope and the intimacy to americans, the privacy issues, not just their mail or their telephone calls, but their e-mail, the privacy of

conversations that they have through e-mail, their identification numbers and so forth, these are very critical important issues to most americans. the congress should address this in a way that there is the liberation and time to do it the right way, bouncing security issues -- balancing security issues. you do not want to have this debate five days after a catastrophic attack when there probably will be a push to get legislation through that will not have the necessary balance between the two. in terms of scope and timing, i agree that it is not at the top of the list for congress and most people. but it should be somewhere in the top 20. >> us talk about something really scary. cyber terrorism.

it is no longer a sci-fi, space, and star were stuck a thing. what could the -- were the elements in this report that would give the government a start on doing more on the potential cyber attacks? >> i think it is beginning to be addressed. it is curious anyway that it has taken law enforcement to get there. cyber threats have been known for a long time. after postponing the debate and posted questions for a long time, it seems we're beginning to move. you have to have somebody in charge of cyber security within the administration. they have to have direct access

to the president. they have to be able to cut across a lot of departments and agencies because a lot of them are involved. organizational way, steps have been taken. but it is not seem to me that they authority exists. >> basically, the pentagon. >> nsa is a powerful actor here, because of their technological skills. they have to develop both offensive and defensive approaches to dealing with cyber attacks. you saw in the paper yesterday about the north koreans. it is thought that they have made a cyber attacks on the banks in south korea. we have to develop a set of tools that not only protect government, but protect the private sector. therefore, you have to have a lot of interaction, if you will, with the private sector.

so much of our vulnerability to cyber attacks is in the private sector, not controlled by government. an awful lot of work needs to be done and is beginning to be done, but we have a long way to go. >> on the one hand, you look at the threat and how it is being met -- totally decentralized. the chinese are doing it through their technological universities. 17-year-old said 18-year-old being paid $17 a week to come up with different approaches to hacking, coordinated by the pla. and you look at the way we're starting to respond, which is to create a big ponderous bureaucracy with the g s seven, g as well, jim is 15. who do you think will win if we decentralize our vast bureaucracy? on the other hand, look at the

silicon valley. all of the big companies are more concerned than the government is about being hacked into and counterattacking. i think that try to come up with a concept we have for the dni applied to cyber, to have a small powerful or nadir to coordinate government activities -- you do not want nsa running to a cyber business of google. we should take our model from the threat, decentralized, but will coordinated. >> we invite you know. rob will manage a question and answer period.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> i would like the panel to address austerity. could you -- are we doing the cost benefit analysis right? is it possible to invest in the future where we could be as secure or more secure at a lower cost? >> i think the question is a good one and it would not have been put five years ago. or 10 years ago. what has happened is that, for a number of years, we did not pay attention to cost. we knew there were a large number of steps to be taken to secure -- to improve our security. we did not ask too many questions of our -- questions about the cost.

the last figure i saw was $80 billion total intelligence. whether that is right or wrong, i do not know, but there has been an explosion. the department of homeland security, a $50 billion budget. the defense department, much higher expenditures because of homeland security and the wars we're fighting and so forth. i havee first time now, by i been going to congressional committees and testifying that there is a question of cost. your question reflects that. it is a relatively new element in the debate. are we getting our money's worth when we spend all this money for security? i think that is a legitimate question. as i said, we're just at the beginning of that cost effectiveness debate.

if you sit down and argue with somebody about whether or not it security step is necessary, you have a tough burden of persuasion to say that it costs too much or that it is not necessary. they can give you 101 reasons why a particular step is important for the national security of the united states. i am glad to hear the question put. i do not have an answer for it. i think we're on the cusp of the debate for cost effectiveness. i hope it becomes a more robust debate. >> it is an important question. that's begin with a promise. the very first -- let's begin with a promise. the very first obligation is to keep its citizens secure.

if they cannot do that, they cannot do anything else, whether it is education or is social programs -- you name it. security comes first. that is the obligation of government. that is why we have a government. that is why we are not self- sufficient individual society. the question of cost is important. at the moment, the chinese are paying for a lot of our security programs. who knows how long that will go on. but the question should be not how much is this but is this worth paying for? is this good security? is this the best we can get? if so, we will buy it. if it is less than the best or if it is duplicative or it is an added writer to benefit a

congressman or senator is constituency, then the answer is no. >> summary comes to you and make some argument to take a certain security step. you know good and well that, if a terrorist attack occurs or something worse, you will get the blame for it. so you will take every possible step to protect the american people and that is a very understandable and even desirable trait in a politician and a president. excuse me for interrupting. the answer to your question is a qualified yes. if we had this dni that we envisaged, was somewhat more 40, my estimates is that we could probably get at least the quality of intelligence we have now at a modestly reduced costs. i do not think we would cut it in half or anything like that. but i think we would improve its

efficiency. >> i totally agree on the part of the budget that i am most familiar with, which is the pentagon budget. i hate to sound like the crazy a local, but more and more of the money is going to the burn sarkozy -- to the bureaucracy. when the pentagon was created, it would have a mean and powerful secretary with a small staff. three months ago, the pentagon put out its latest report. the staff, the bureaucracy around the office of the secretary of defense -- forget the services -- 750,000 people. during the reagan america -- during the reagan administration, we had a 15 division army, twice as many airforce aircraft at half the age. today, the budget in constant

dollars, excluding the war, is 50% higher than it was at the height of the reagan years and the force is half the size and the bureaucracy is twice the size. that is exactly what has happened in the intelligence community as well. instead of acting as if it is determined -- you put more money in and get more capability out -- the budget debate about our security is where is the money going and let's change where it is going. >> i would propose three things to strategically get after question and find sound answers to a better, safer intelligence and security system. can we save money? absolutely yes. one way is that we come back to congressional reform. many of us talked about the need of congressional reform as one of the most important unresolved issues that we recommended.

we do not just talk about congressional reforms for homeland security. there was a guy named harry truman back during world war ii who formulated a committee to oversee expenditures during world war ii. it was a very risky endeavor in wartime. if propelled him to national prominence, to make tough decisions and find where there was waste and war profiteering and the things to both get better defense and save the taxpayer money. secondly, dana priest wrote an excellent series of articles in "the washington post" talking about the overlap of waste and too much intelligence. on the 9/11 commission, we talked about the frequent, but fragmentary nature of the intelligence coming in. we did not say fragmentary in terms that it was not good and robust stock. there was so much of it that some of it was not getting to

the right people. now we have created a system with 80 billion in intelligence and i think there is some overlap and reduction and some waste. finally, what we had envisioned was a dni that could have oversight over the committee and manage these ideas without getting dragged into a court of law. this dni could bring out those oversights and over budget problems and architecture is the have the budget authority and personnel 40 to say that -- to save billions of dollars before the gulf to far down the line -- before they go too far down line. the office was created in the

right way, but it is too big now and the authorities are not appropriate for it. >> a lot of what the commission looked at when you're doing your investigation was winning the hearts and minds. i was wondering if anyone can address radicalization and how the government or local groups or local police should be combating this. since the commission ended its work, that has really become one of the main terrorist threats in this country. the number of cases involving american citizens themselves is over 50 now. i was wondering how you could approach that and what needs to be done. i am not exactly clear if dhs is supposed to be leading this, the be a voidre seems to

in government issue. >> i think you have put a point on what security folks know. you have a spectrum of the possibility of terrorist attacks, from the lone wolf on one and who is operating by himself to the 9/11-type attacks. what your question suggests is that we have seen an acceleration of people, american citizens or people who are in this country, who have become radicalized. this makes law enforcement and homeland security function much more difficult because you're not just guarding against extensive effort by al qaeda from afghanistan or pakistan or wherever, but you're dealing with people who might be in indiana or somewhere else in

this country. how you deal with it? we're learning as we go. we have to increase our communications with the islamic communities in this country. some places, john, i think in your city, you have done quite an excellent job of the nypd developing contacts with the islamic communities in new york city. in mind state of indiana, we have islamic groups and i do not think we have done nearly as good a job as new york city has done, but smaller in scope. what this problem is very local. it means you have to have contact with the leaders of the islamic communities who are the people who can identify

suspected radicals within their community. it is a problem that the federal government clearly has to deal with and be helpful on. but the real action is that the state and local levels to identify the people and try to head the mob. in chapter 12 of the commission's report is on the whole question of what to do about islam and the foreign policy measures which are largely ignored in their reporting on the report. but that raises the question on how the united states foreign policy must deal with the islamic world. i will not going to that, but it is a big question. >> it is like saying how do we prevent bank robberies? the answer is that you do not prevent bank robberies. use all backgrounds after it happens.

the notion of trying to prevent attacks by radicalized americans or people in this country lawfully is almost impossible. when you overly religion on top of it, and all the structures it puts on law enforcement, it is difficult. when you talk about infiltrating a group to which these people might along, it makes it even they do not know about the individual radicalization of a member of their group or someone who is not a member of their group. you are out of luck. we could not have a permit -- half prevented what happened at fort hood. maybe a psychological examination of that individual with all the warning signs. this one is more difficult.

>> you get time with these people. you do not suddenly become radicalized and strap a bomb to your best. it takes four or five years from someone who is attracted over the internet and talks about that kind of doctrine. they become more intrigued with it. they become liberal. they become radical. finally, they become radicalized enough to do harm to other people. you have a chance to interrupt the price of -- interrupt the process. we have to get away from the police. there are other people who are trained better than the police are to involve themselves into society and these communities. we have to find a way to intervene. we have tips from parents and community leaders and schools.

there are ways we find out these people are headed in this direction. we have got to find ways -- i do not know who is in charge in the federal government -- someone has to find ways to intervene before someone straps a bomb to themselves. we are >> all ask the question, what keeps you awake at night. i will answer the question. a radicalized cell in the united states that can pull off a catastrophic event here. a few months ago we had something that almost combined both. there was a person who was a terrorist living in chicago who could travel between india, pakistan, and the united states

seamlessly. he was the guy who helped plan the attacks on mumbai. those attacks killed 177 people. six americans were killed. they almost started a war between pakistan and india that might have resulted in some kind of nuclear war. this self-radicalization issue is an important one. it is designating a lead agency in the united states who is responsible for it, where it is either homeland security or the fbi. now these people can train themselves on the internet. the five-year time frame is now time to months before they can be radicalized. it is really shrinking. >> self-radicalization is the

wrong term. there is a 500 pound elephant in the room -- a small elephant. that is the saudi network of mosques and schools that are preaching a puritanical and islamist point of view. 80% of the muslim schools in this country get most of their funding from saudi arabia. many of you watch and read the report and watched television. many of the hijackers were given assistance by the king fahad mosque. at one point, the wife of the saudi arabian ambassador wrote

checks to two of them. they run a network of 400 schools around the world that preach a very islamist points of view and there is no alternative. as ambassador roemer made the point, it would take more than one day's operations in iraq to fund every saudi funded school in pakistan. we have not done any of that. we have not worked with any of the secular and islamic countries to build schools and give parents an alternative to the hatred and the intolerance they are being taught in their saudi arabian-funded schools. never was that issue ever

raised with the saudi arabian government. >> there was a report released in june providing concrete guidance about radicals. the woman over there. you have a question? >> i was going to ask where the panel thought the next terror attack would come from. i was going to ask about self- radicalization. you already answered it. is al qaeda still a player here? >> al qaeda is certainly a player. it is a different al qaeda. it is not the al qaeda we dealt with on the 9/11 commission that was centered in pakistan. it is diverse. it is in somalia and nigeria and

a number of other places. they seem to be more and more independent from any central authority. they are planning their own attacks. these attacks are not necessarily 9/11's. they are individual attacks and individual people, such as the guy who tried to put the bomb in times square and the underpants bomber. that seems to be the new strategy. it is difficult to defend against. it is coming from different places. we have got to get ahead of that and realize we have to depend on now. it is a different kind of al qaeda. >> that is part of our success. al qaeda does not have a huge refuge from which to plan elaborately. these smaller de-centralized

groups are attacking people in their own neighborhood. they don't seem to be able to put anything remotely like 9/11 together. the damage is in their immediate the vicinity. >> you cannot look for someone who says al qaeda. the problem is the copycats. the radicalization is spreading. >> the good news is the bush administration and the obama administration has [inaudible] the central structure. al qaeda is the base. they have spread to pakistan. they have global intentions. they keep those global interest. we have to keep our eye on even a degraded al qaeda or an al

qaeda that is attempting to replace some of its leadership. there are other groups out there that are starting to be like the al qaeda of 1999 and 2000. there is a group based in pakistan that is not just regional. it is fund raising and has tentacles into terrorism. it has global intentions to try to get our homeland here in america. to think that once we finally take care of al qaeda sometime in the future, that point is never reached. there are other groups that will try to match al qaeda's intentions, purpose, and scope. >> in the 9/11 commission report 10 years ago, we set out a strategy to deal with al qaeda. it had three component parts to it. you attack the enemy. that is military special forces.

you try to knock them out of business. the second is you try to do everything you can to try to prevent radicalize asian. we have been -- radicalization. we have been talking about that. the third thing is we protect the homeland. that has been the basis of u.s. policy toward dealing with al qaeda for 10 years. that strategy is very sound. it has a horrendous problems in implementation. it is still the strategy this country is using with regard to dealing with al qaeda. >> hi. news.om nbc how well is the nation prepared for catastrophic attacks? >> it depends on the nature of

the attack. if the attack is on unprotected implements up our infrastructure, we are not prepared at all, except to respond. if you are talking about a tax on subways since -- attacks on subway systems, it depends on the city involved. new york can be much safer than the subway system's of chicago -- systems of chicago or other large cities that do not have the advantage that new york has in terms of experience. if you are talking about airports or harbors, then per haps we have some minimal protection. you can only get to the outside zone in many instances. you cannot get to be plainness

or the -- airplanes or the ships unless you subvert the security process. the answer has to be, not prepared at all to prepared well, with most of it in the middle. >> go back to 9/11. look at katrina, which was poorly handled. then the oil spill, better handled. down to irene. we are doing better dealing with catastrophic events in this country. we still have a lot of things to do. communication and all of the rest of it that could make us stronger. are we better prepared for a catastrophic attack? in my mind, there is not any doubt at all that we are much better prepared than we are 10 years ago. are we where we should be? i do not think we are.

a lot of improvements can still be made. progress has been made and it is important progress. >> i am curious if congressman hamilton and governor kean believes the work of the super commission will make it more difficult to get d-block money. >> the main thing about the super committee is that it will knock everything off of the calendar between now and the end of the year. the total focus of the president and the congress is going to be on the work of that committee and what they recommend. i have no idea what they will recommend. everything we have been talking about here are things the president and the congress ought to do. it will be subordinated to that.

the entire budget of the united states government is writing -- riding on what that super commission does. they report at the end of the year. i have no idea if they will be successful or not. it becomes the focus of action and that makes these other things more difficult to achieve. >> it is hard for congress to prioritize. they are not able to do it. whether or not this committee will be able to do it for them and what did they will accept that is a question. as far as the d-block goes, there are ways to do it. it does not have to cost a lot of money. it is not going to be federally funded, moved to the other ways to do it. we will be a lot safer if we get it done sooner rather than later. >> they have to learn to do

more than one thing in the budget at one time. we have a lot of things to do in this country. they are all connected in one way or another to the budget. the super committee knox everything off of the calendar or the debt ceiling -- knocks everything off of the calendar and the debt ceiling debate knox everything off of the calendar. you are dealing with a lot of problems that may not be of the same magnitude. this government needs to be able to focus on more than one problem at a time. >> does live from cnn. from cnn.ro has the commission thought about any other recommendations to go forward with?

>> we do not exist anymore. we are going to have lunch together. i will let you know. >> we testified on these things. we have done that any number of times. i am scheduled to testify next week. september 8. we are trying to keep these issues we have been talking about front and center in the appropriate committees and put them forward. denied, we are meeting with some of the -- tonight, we are meeting with some of the people and we will talk to them about what needs to be done. the commission went out of business a long time ago. it was a statutory commission through the work of the bipartisan policy center. they have been able to keep plugging at it. we think we have suggestions

they should implement. >> there has been a bill introduced in the house to reconstitute the 9/11 commission. sorry to tell you all that. [laughter] it is not exactly zipping through. >> i was going to say to your question -- to end on a note of optimism and deep concern -- hopefully, the 9/11 commission has worked to make our country safer. many of these recommendations have been executed. our country today is much safer. we are here today to talk about 8 or 9 that, 10 years later, have not been implemented and

could make this country safer. if it takes us 10 years to consider those pending recommendations, how do we stay ahead of the terrorists? how do we address the next set of concerns? if it takes us every 10 years to do this, that is not good news. the terrorist cells are entrepreneurial and quit acting. they reacted in months or years planning, not decades. one thing the government should think about is, how do they do things within government where they are not creating commissions all the time so that they are making the country safer with oversight, good ideas, and using their imagination. >> there is one thing i want to say. we have always said in meetings on the 9/11 commission and we

should always say it. the commission would not exist except for the work of the families from 9/11. we would not have been able to do the number of things we got done but for the lobbying, the appearances, the work of the families of 911 -- families of 9/11. every time we had a real problem, the families from 9/11 were there to help us make the country safer. we have members of the families from 9/11 here. i have not testified once before the united states congress without looking behind me and seeing a member from the families of 9/11 to support what we were trying to do. i did not want this to end without giving credit to those families and their efforts, despite their own tragedy, to

make us all safer. [applause] >> those families have been remarkable. we are deeply indebted to them. having said that, before things get to bed optimistic around here, i want to say to you that 10 years -- before things get too optimistic around here, i want to say to you that we are not in the place in this country where the first responders can talk to one another. 10 years after 9/11, we are not at the place where we know who is in charge at the site of a disaster. i can go on and on progress, for sure. we cannot act ourselves on the back. first responders should be able to talk to one another after a disaster.

that is so obvious. we have not solved the problem. that is the great criticism of the united states government, in my view and likewise on the other things. progress has come slowly. tom and i and the other commissioners have a deep frustration about some things that are so obvious to protect the american people and they have not been achieved. >> on that point, please join us in thanking our panel and moderator. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next weekend, the 10 year anniversary of 9/11 on the c- span network. live coverage from each of the memorial sites, new york city, pennsylvania, and the pentagon.

the flight 93 national dedication ceremony. sunday at 8:30 a.m., a memorial from the world trade center side with president obama and former president bush. vice president by then from the pentagon. -- vice president joe biden from the pentagon. >> our conference on terrorism looks at security since the 9/11 attacks. we will hear from joe lieberman. his remarks are 30 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, very much, gary.

thank you for that welcome. i remember a gathering here a few years ago when henry kissinger was the keynote speaker, and the moderator said henry kissinger is a man who needs a knowledge reduction, so -- needs no introduction, so i give you dr. kissinger, and kissinger got up and said the it was probably true that he did not need an introduction, but he liked a good introduction, so i appreciate that introduction. [laughter] good afternoon. let me thank the national consortium for terrorism and responses to terrorism and the university of maryland. in less than two weeks, the united states will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on our homeland in our history.

this anniversary will stimulate quite a round of reflection on where we have, in the past decade and where we are going, whether we are safer or not, whether we have done well or not in responding to the attacks of 9/11. for me, this is the first of several occasions i will have to reflect on these questions, and i thank you very much for giving me that opportunity. we are at a moment here at home when the american people are understandably focused on the economic problems we are facing rather than the threat of terrorism to our homeland security. the fact that terrorism has receded so from the forefront of our national consciousness is a reflection not just of the failures of our economy but, i think, of the successes of our counter-terrorism policies over the past decade. we have not had another major

terrorist attack on american soil since 9/11, and 10 years ago, no one would have dared to predict that with any confidence. unfortunately, our success in keeping our homeland say has -- keeping our homeland safe has also prompted some to question the seriousness of both the original thread and the continuing dangers. it has become fashionable in some quarters to characterize the past decade as a time in which america mistakenly exaggerated the danger posed by islamic extremism and terrorism and overreacted in the wake of 9/11. this view is, in my judgment, profoundly mistaken, and its embrace would lead to a false and dangerous road map to our future. the american government pose a response to the tax of 9/11 and -- the american government's

response to the attacks of 9/11 and to the broader ideological challenge those attacks represented to our country has been absolutely necessary and correct. first and foremost, we were right to recognize that after 9/11, we became a nation at war in the conflict that was and is real, by little, and global with -- real, brittle, and global with -- brutal, and global with the forces of islamic extremism who attacked us. we have also been absolutely right to book this conflict at the top of our national security agenda, where i believe it continues to be long for the foreseeable future. the enemy has been weakened in the past decade, but clearly not rank with. -- clearly not vanquished. the threat posed to us and our allies throughout the world, including most particularly the muslim world, is absolutely real. had we not acted in the way we did for the past 10 years, it is very likely we would not

have enjoyed the luxury to day of debating whether we overreacted to the threat. our enemies would have taken advantage of our lack of resolve, and i fear, many more americans would have become the victims. the fact that we have gone a decade without another mass casualty attack in the united states, as you well know, has not been because our enemies have stopped trying to attack us. our homeland security has been hard won and fiercely fought. it is the result of the determination and focus of leaders across two administrations and six congresses to enact and implement reforms and reorganizations within our government. it is the result of painstaking and often dangerous work by countless heroic individuals -- soldiers, diplomats, intelligence operatives, and

law enforcement personnel, to name some, operating at home and on almost every continent, and what is different in to many cases as compared to pre-9/11 is that they are coordinating their operations with one another. as a result, we have made tremendous gains against the forces of islamic extremism that attacked us and our allies around the world, and i believe without a doubt we are much safer today than we were 10 years ago. at the same time, we have made these dramatic and effective improvements that i have referenced briefly in our homeland security. we also prosecuted the war against islamist terrorists abroad with a determination, ferocity, and ingenuity that our enemies did not expect from unmanned aerial drones to the unprecedented fusion of intelligence and military operations through a brilliant new counterinsurgency doctrine

that blended civilian and military initiatives. united states over the past decade has built end of lease the most capable counter- -- built and unleashed the most capable counter-terrorism forces in human history against what i would describe as the most significant terrorism threat in history. we showed that our best in the world military could dominate on a very different and unconventional battlefield, and a clear result is that they have failed to achieve their goals. al qaeda leadership in the tribal areas of pakistan has been decimated. its a fairly which came -- affiliate in iraq, which came dangerously close to seizing control of the country has been gutted, and the founder and architect of the 9/11 attacks is no more, just as having been -- justice having been delivered

to osama bin laden by courageous american hands. more fundamentally, our country grasps the basic nature of this conflict almost from the start. rather than seeing it as a clash of civilizations, a battle between islam and the west, as al qaeda has sought control, the united states and our allies have correctly seen the war -- in our case first under president bush and then under president obama -- in some ways as we saw world war ii and the cold war before it -- as an ideological struggle between an extremist minority -- a violent extremist minority the sikhs in very real ways to dominate a -- that seeks by in very real ways to dominate a large part of the world and eliminate the freedoms of the people in the heart of the world and on the other side, a moderate majority. in this case, on the front lines of this battle of muslims who wanted the same freedoms and opportunities that we all

desire. the clearly stated goal of the violent islamist extremists -- and this really is clearly stated, back into the 1990's -- has been to establish a caliphate, and empire within the arab and muslim world that would overthrow the existing governments there. it may seem fantastical to us, but that was quite clearly what their goal has been. i think we also correctly diagnosed early on that the ideology of the islamist extremism, the political ideology that they made of islam was being read in part by the for the deficit and the broader middle east, by the corrupt and -- by the freedom deficit in the broader middle east, by the corrupt and autocratic governments there that gave no valid to their people for legitimate grievances, let alone granting them human rights and economic

opportunities. now, throughout the middle east, we see the narrative of violent islamist extremism being rejected by tens of millions of muslims who are rising up in peacefully demanding lives of democracy and dignity, of opportunity in the economy, and involvement in the modern world. indeed, the rallying cry of the arabs offering and its successes -- of the arab spring and its successes thus far are the ultimate repudiations of al qaeda and everything islamic extremism stands for. i would like to think -- i hope that our willingness to stand up to a violent extremist repressive is long in the name of human rights may have given to the people of the arab world some of the courage invincible but they have so remarkably -- some of the courage and principle they have so

remarkably shown in the last several months. now, did we make mistakes over the past decade? in prosecuting the war against violent islamist extremism? of course we did. just as every nation, including ours, has made mistakes in every ward day and we have fought. yet, looking back at our actions over these 10 years, it is crystal clear to me that we have gotten a lot more right than wrong, and we are better off than safer as a result of it, and so is a lot of the rest of the world. looking ahead, i think we have got to acknowledge some unsettling facts. in protecting our homeland, we have sometimes benefited from just plain love. -- just plain luck. had faisal shasad wired his bomb correctly and detonated last year, the history of homeland security that i have just surveyed in the past

decade would have looked very different, than thankfully it does today. we have sometimes benefitted from just plain luck. this is the challenge we face in a country as open-ended and free as ours is and we want it to continue to be. it is difficult to be 100% secured. while high it is down, they and -- while al qaeda is down, they and their ilk are certainly not out. current political and geographic realities and not for traces of closure and complacency. in addition to the threats from abroad in places like somalia and yemen and pakistan itself

and, of course, iran, which remains the no. 1 state sponsor of islamist terrorism and just about on every continent in the world, most notably in recent times to watch the spread of islamic extremism in africa, as evidenced tragically by the bomb exploding in the building last week, current political realities really remind us that this war is not over. in addition to those threats from abroad, we also, as you well know, face a new and ominous threat at home from so- called home grown terrorists, so called lone wolf terrorists, and i know that has been one of the topics that you focused on at this event today. it is most important to note, and i speak to the chairman of the homeland security committee, that the two islamic

attacks in which americans have been killed inside america since 9/11 were both carried out by radicalized muscle americans. -- muslim-americans. most people do not remember bledsoe, but he was a convert to islam and spend some time abroad and got up one day and walked in on an army recruiting office in little rock in just shot the recruiter and killed him simply because he was wearing a u.s. army uniform. the congressional research service reported that between may of 2009 and july 2011, about two years, 31 arrests were made in connection with homegrown threats. -- homegrown plots by american

citizens. many who had direct contact with al qaeda or other violent islamist groups in yemen, pakistan, or elsewhere. by comparison, in the more than seven years before that from september 11, 2001, through may, 2009, there were 21 such plots. i think one of the major reasons we are seeing this increase in home for an american terrorism -- in homegrown american terrorism is because our enemies know how much we have raised and broadened our guard, our homeland defenses against attacks like 9/11 here that is why home grown terrorism is a real and growing threat to america and why it demands a very strong, methodical response. in that regard, after promising to do so for quite awhile, the

obama administration recently released a new strategy that seeks to address this honed grown that, but to me, the -- this homegrown threat, but to me, the report, which is entitled to "in powering local partners to prevent violent extremism in the united states, was ultimately a big disappointment. the thrust of the report and the strategy the administration announced in it is that we need to engage domestically in the war of ideas against the islamists and recognize that the terrorist threat is not just coming across our borders but that there are americans who are subject to radicalization and attacking our homeland. that, of course, i agree with. that is true. the administration's plan, however, for dealing with that reality i think suffers from several significant weaknesses. the first is that the administration still refuses to

call our enemy by its proper name -- violent islamic extremists. you can find words comparable to that, but not the ones the administration continues to use, which are violent extremism. there are many forms of violent extremism. there is white racist extremism. there has been some environmental extremism. there has been animal rights extremism. you could go on and on. but we are not in a global war with those. we are in a global war that affects our homeland security with islamic extremists, and to call our enemy violent extremists is so generally vague that it ultimately has no meaning. the other term used sometimes is al qaeda and its allies. that is better, but still, it is too narrow and focuses us on groups as opposed to what i

would call an ideology, which is what we are really fighting. i assume this refusal of the administration to speak honestly about the enemy is based on its desire not to do anything that might feed into al qaeda's propaganda, that we're engaged in a "war against islam." that is so evident realize that we can have refuted it, and i think we have done so effectively. in the poll of muslim americans, there was more than half -- i have forgotten the exact number -- felt the leaders of their own community were not doing enough to attack and criticize and distinguish between them and muslim extremists.

to me, the poll was just an expression of a reality that i have seen very clearly in my own interaction, with the muslim american community, which was extremely overwhelming. -- overwhelmingly patriotic and nonviolent. but the problem here is as we know, when you are dealing with so on conventional and brutal an enemy, it takes a very small number of people to do very great harm, so the numbers i referenced a moment ago from the congressional research service are significant to us. in fact, our most important allies in this war, it lead, are -- i believe, are the overwhelming majority of muslims and communities around the world

who want the same basic things people everywhere want -- a life of freedom, a lot of opportunity for prosperity, a chance to raise their children in freedom and safety and give their children the chance they deserve, exactly the opposite of what the violent islamic extremists offer them to the arab uprising is this your the best proof that the muslim majority in the world understands that. to win this struggle, it is vital that we understand, as i said a moment ago, just fighting an organization, al qaeda, but we are up against a broader ideology. if you will, it politicized theology, quite separate from the religion of islam. success in the war will come consequently not with a single terrorist group or its affiliates are eliminated, but when the broader set of ideas associated with it are rejected and discarded.

there is a reluctance to identify our enemy as violent islamist extremist makes it harder to fight this war of ideas. let me give you an example from our senate homeland security's investigations into the murders at fort hood. there was clear evidence they found that major hassan's fellow soldiers were very concerned with his increasing public identification, statements with violent islamist ideology. at one point, for instance, he stated in front of a group of them that he thought a muslim american soldier would be justified in killing his

comments in defense of islam. but rather than reporting that immediately, they kept quiet. major hassan was actually promoted after making statements like that. how could that have happened? maybe some of his other statements just came from ignorance about the whole reality of islamists radicalization. some of the rest of it came from a fear of making waves, particularly making waves that would cause the people who were making them -- put them in jeopardy of being labeled as prejudiced. to its credit, the administration's strategy does outline a community-led a push to countering homegrown violent extremism.

the federal government plays a significant role in fostering friendships, providing support, sharing information, and helping to build trust between local muslim communities and law enforcement. i applaud that. the strategy also reaffirms its commitment to promote american ideals as a counter narrative to be bankrupt ideology of the islamic extremists. i applaud that, of course, as well. but the document never states what we were hoping for on the committee, which is who is in charge of these programs. it never defines what resources are needed to make them work. it does not list specific actions that should be taken by specific dates that combat the clear and present danger of homegrown islamist terrorism. these, to me, are significant omissions. there is clearly a lot more work to do before we have from the administration the kind of clear, national strategy that will make sense from the government wanted you but, -- from the government's point of

view, but, frankly, also from the point of view of the muslim communities we are trying to engage in america in this fight. i think such a strategy also must address the role of the internet in radicalization and what we must do to counter it, and the report does not really do that. our senate committee released a report in 2008 on this subject, which showed the importance of cyberspace to the self- radicalization process. three years ago, terrorists communicated mostly in password-protected chatham's view today, -- islamist or jihadist chat rooms. they are spread out over the web and are very adept at using social media to train and recruit. to address the strategy, we need a plan that will define how the government can work with the private sector internet companies and others to remove terrorist content as best we can from these sites, although that is not easy to do because of the openness of cyberspace.

not easy to be permanently. we also need to facilitate, i think, new partnerships between the internet companies and muslim american communities to create positive content that counters the propaganda of the terrorists, and we also need -- although the report suggests one, but a better organized national engagement with muslim american communities who, i repeat, are our most powerful defense against homegrown terrorism because we obviously hope that within the muslim american communities, leaders and members will be educated and community members will create an environment in which individuals who know of others who seem to be radicalizing will come forward and report them to law enforcement. this is the ultimate in the growing and important and construction movement of see something, say something.

the islamic extremist and some who have explicitly declared war on us in 1998 -- osama bin laden did that here they have already attacked as with a declaration of war, and then brutally attacked us on 9/11. these people will not soon surrender their fanatical ambitions. that is what it is and where we are. as we approach this 10th remembrance of 9/11, looking back, we have reason to be grateful, i think, for all that has been done together to protect our homeland and our people and to deny the islamic extremists the victories they have sought, but it is also clear, though not pleasant to say, that this war goes on and will go on for quite a while. in the years ahead, we and our allies throughout the world must remain engaged, strong, adapted, and together, united in

this conflict, as we have been during its first decade. thank you very much. [applause] them that if i understand correctly, senator lieberman has just a little bit of time to answer questions. we solicited questions from facebook, twitter, and our own list and got quite a response. i do not know if you are able to answer at least a few of these if time permits. first is -- "do you believe there have been sufficient attempts by u.s. government at all levels to reach out and educate the u.s. muslim community about radicalization, and do you believe they have shown the right sensitivity to the culture and religion of most americans? >> the answer is no, not yet. a top of about this a little in

my remarks. -- i talked about this a little in my remarks. this goes back now a few years, but i had leaders of several muslim american groups testified at a hearing at a committee and asked about their interaction with the federal government and i, at least, was quite surprised that they all said that the most and best interaction that they had with the federal government was with the fbi. interesting because the fbi established was part of use in centers across the country and have established an outreach program. strangely, and our committee created the national tourism center, the responsibility for overseeing a lot of the response to confront terrorism has gone to the ntpc -- i have a lot of respect, but it did not make sense that that should be the case. this report from the administration does not make that clear, either. i think -- i will go back to

another theme i stated in my report. i think we can do better at interacting with the muslim american community, and it is critical to dealing with this homegrown terrorism problem. i think one part of it, if i may just repeat in summary, is to make clear that there is a distinction between muslim americans and this minority of violent extremists who have taken the religion of islam and made it into a radical, political ideology. so i hope we will do better at this in years ahead. >> what is your response to criticisms that the u.s. counter-terrorism approach is reactive ion that the focus and resources always seemed to shift to whatever group has conducted the last major attack, rather than strategically looking at all kinds of future threats? for example, the as increased focus on right wing terrorism immediately after oklahoma city, and after 9/11, the focus shifted almost exclusively to

islamic terrorism. >> we were being attacked, as you know, through the 1990's. you could go back further if you go back to the hezbollah attacks inspired by iran on the marine barracks in beirut in 1983. and you could go back to lockerbie with americans on that plane, but in terms of home broadcasts, 1993 at the world -- homegrown attacks, 1993 at the world trade center with the truck bomb, and, of course, abroad with attacks on embassies in africa and the u.s.'s coal in yemen. in 2000, we only believe will go after 9/11 because it was such a monstrous attack, but it is true, during that time we were not focused at all. i concluded based on my own work and really being greatly affected by the report of the 9/11 commission that 9/11 was a preventable attack.

i believe if the federal government on 9/10 had been organized the way it is today, we would have prevented that attack, but since then, i think we have been quite broad and strategic and perhaps the most significant thing we have done -- in any war, intelligence is important. in this war, so unconventional where we are fighting an enemy that does not come at us in the uniform in tanks in uniforms and fighter planes and battleships. it comes at us from the shadows, essentially, wearing civilian outfits and attacking civilians. intelligence is critical, and i think the most significant changes we have made, improvements we have made in the last decade, and these have really been strategic and not reactive -- for the improvement in our intelligence community and the coordination of our intelligence community

components. just to mention in the sentence, there has been a remarkable, generally unheralded, not totally perfect but i think overall good transformation -- dramatic transformation, historic transformation in the aforementioned fbi, which went from its historic role of being an investigator of a set of crimes after they occur and then turning them over to law enforcement to now seeing our domestic counter-terrorism unit agency primary unit, whose aim is to prevent terrorism attacks on us, not to apprehend after they occur. >> we have time for one more? ok, looking at places like the united kingdom where the government has recently been in -- -- recently abandoned efforts to engage nonviolent islamic

extremists, how do you believe that the added states should deal with domestic ideologues that preach radical ideologies but do not directly promote or engage in violent activities? >> this is a very thin line between just about all muslims in america and this minority of violent islamist extremists is a pretty clear line, to me. i spent a lot of time on this. this group is a difficult one because it is right on the line. they are extremists. they are very provocative. they have a right under our constitution up to avoid to be -- up to a point to be provocative, and yet, they would claim that they are not violent, not preaching violence. it is a very hard line. i do not have an easy answer. i would try to engage, but i would do it with great care and kind of skepticism because once you are preaching an extremist ideology full of hate and

saying you are not calling for violence, that is a tough line because you are not sure that the people listening to that particular prison, whether it is -- that particular person, whether it is a religious leader or just an individual -- understand that all the hatred and extremism that is being preached stops at action. that is very hard to do. so i have engaged with a lot of skepticism and doubt. >> i think that is all the time we have. i want to give a rousing round of applause. thanks for your insights. [applause] analysts next debate the question -- are we safer? >> without further ado, we will get into the afternoon program,

and the debate. k here is to introduce the moderator of the debate, a distinguished professor of homeland security and counterterrorism at the national defense university, before joining the nvu faculty, he was professor of the jews to form a home security and prior to serving as assistant secretary, he was the deputy mayor for homelandecurity and public safety for the city of los angeles, but the part of his record that i think is perhaps most interesting and impressive is he has a two-month old brand new daughter. [applause] its going to moderate debate this afternoon title "are we safer?" >> thank you very much. if our distinguished debaters could please take the respective lectern.

and thank you for mentioning my brand-new daughter. if i doze off, it has nothing to do with the speakers. 10 years after the horrific attacks of 9/11, is america safer from terrorism? that is the question that will be debated here today by our distinguished speakers during this session looking at issues 10 years after the 9/11 attacks. as gary manchin, i am on the faculty of the college of international security affairs, and it is my distinct pleasure to be today's moderator for the chair for what will undoubtedly be a lively engage in debate between our two terrorism experts. before i introduce our distinguished debaters, i would like to quickly outline the agreed upon question and format for this debate.

the debate question is -- 10 years after the tax and 9/11, is america safer from terrorism? this is limite to terrori against the united states and the u.s. homeland, not against u.s. interests overss, such as embassies or military bases, and it is limited to terrorist attacks, not covert attacks by nation states -- nation-states. we are referring to the likelihood of potential severity of a possible terrorist attack. the debaters arguments will compare the two points in time -- today, september 1, 2011, and the day before 9/11, but arguments may also include how america's current volatility, if any, may be exploited in the future. format of today's debate is, after a provide brief introductions, each for this event will have five minutes to make opening statements, setting forth their position on the question.

then each participant will have three minutes to respond to the opening statement. after the openings and responses, we will then have a question time, and as chair, i will ask questions of each participant, allow them an opportunity to respond, and then i will solicit queions from the audience to ask the debaters. the rules require the questions from the audience be directed to me, as the chair, and i did receive permission to do this. [laughter] then will ask questions of the panelists here obviously, given the short time we have, all questions should be exactly that -- questions and not commenty. finally, each of our debaters will have two minutes for a final summation or closin argument. gary is here before me. he will be showing the time, and he has assured me that if we go over, he will give us a very nasty look. finally, one of the most important parts of today's debate is actually at the end when you will have a chance to

vote for the argument you thought was most persuasive in answering the question. voting will be conducted by text messaging,nd instructions are on your cable, as you can see. there's anld political thing that you make sure to vote early and often. we ask that you not take this saying seriously and that you instead wait for the conclusion of the debate. now, to our distinguished guests -- representing the position that america is safer from terrorism since 9/11 is peter, a familiar to many of us at cnn's national security analysts, but he is also an award winning author having written extensively on al qaeda, osama bin laden, counter-terrorism effort in the united states viewed his most recent boo is filled with " the longest war: enduring conflict between america and al qaeda -- his most recent book is "the longest war:

enduring conflict between america and al qaeda." please join me in welcoming him. [applause] to my right, represent the position that america is not safe from terrorism since 9/11 is david, a senior fellow at the foundati for the defense of democracy and internationally recognized author, educator, and expert on counter-terrorism issues. he has consulted on a range of issues including hostage negotiations, to developing stories forajor media companies. his most recent book was released -- i believe two days ago? >> monday, actually. >> monday. entitled "bin laden's legacy: why we are still losing the war on terror." please join me in welcoming him. [applause]

>> presumably you think it is more safe because you have been involved in making it morsay. let's review what happened on 9/11. four planes crashed into targets in washington and new york, killed 3000 americans in the course of a single morning, and looking more direct damage on the united states than the soviet union had done during the cold war. as of right and manage to do since then during united states? the answer is nothing. there has not been a single successful attack on the domestic united states for a decade. the idea that there would be one in the future it is fairly implausible, and if it does happen, i think it will not be something that completely changes our national security as 9/11 did. furthermore, there have only been 17 americans who have been killeding heidi terrorist attacks since 9/11 by people motivated by al qaeda'sdeal

jean-pierre fort hood, texas, the most obvis. more americans die in their bathtubs by considerable numbers than in terrorist attacks. we should not fear of heights if you're their ability to try to do anything in terms of catastrophic tax or anything relatively small is very constrained. why is that? the difference between 9/11 today and -- between 9/11 and today. on 9/11, there were 16 people on the no-fly list fear now, there are thousands cheered on 9/11, the work is currently a task force is pure enough, there are about 100. on 9/11, theia and fbi did not talk to each other, and one of the reasons help al qaeda successfully attacked was because it was on form to the fbi that they were in the country until way tlake erie joint session operations which killed osama bin laden was something that was almost never

used. now, we have had thousands of operations and have killed thousands of people in al qaeda and affiliated groups. think about the fbi, wherthere were almost no analysts. now ere are about 2000 year that is probably too many, but the fact is there's a much larger analytical capability. think about the u.s. public fear they were not aware of the problem. who disabled the shoe bomber? it was, of course, the public. who disabled mutallab? it was the public. people on the plane who disabled him. public awareness is a very different situation. and finally, we have the tsa. we may debate help perfect an organization it is, but it

exists and did not exist on 9/11, and certainly, that is a good thing. we may hear that al qaeda has a tough but we clever idea to bankrupt the u.s. economy. there are several problems with this idea. first of all, the american economy is very large and al qaeda's members are not economists. just for historical reference, we spend 9% in gdp in identity during the vietnam war. if they were economists, ty would recognize that the war on terrorism has been benefiting what some people in this room. it is no four incidents that five of 10 of the richest counties in the united states nowurround washington, d.c. far from bankrupting us, it has been from of the dget -- from an economic perspective healthy. sher al qaeda says they have the great idea that they will bankrupt us and it is part of the plan. remember the east coast blackout

in 2003? remember al qaeda saying they were responsible and, of course, that was not true? the subprime mortgage, fannie mae, tax cuts at a time of war, the entitlement programs -- you know what the real problems are. they are not caused by al qaeda. and we have killed 20 of the top leaders. that famous figure soft on terrorism guy said yesterday that al qaeda is on the road -- on the ropes. finally, david petraeus, and other peoples of on liberals the said they are facing strategic defeat. so they are facing strategic defeat. to fear them would be merely to do their work for them, and we do not want to do that. >> thank you. [applause]

>> i understand general petraeus is watching, so it will be interesting to see his reaction. david, you have five minutes for your opening statent on what you belie america is not safe. >> 10 years after 9/11, the united states is a far weaker country. everyone in the room knows this year -- heidi terrorist groups on the other hand are not significantly weaker and may in fact be strong appear therefore, we're less safe. it is that simple. i first sent to thelobal context in which the fight on terrorism moving forward will occur, and then i will talk about why it is foolish to count al qaeda out. we know that the u.s. economic was feared an economy in shambles, in national debt of over $14 trillion. this debt threatens our ability to maintain our current security apparatus on which peter is staking his argument and ao our ability to project power. a decade ago, we derived safety

from our ability to massively devote resources to this, which is exactly what we did, but in the coming decade, we had fewer resources to devote to it, and we may well he dramatically fewer resources in the current concern about the u.s. but the credit worthiness. this occurs in the context of global austerity with every country trimming its intelligence budget, as there is not just diminishing capabilities but also and threatening its ability, as we saw in the riots that threaten britain. moreover, in the context of resourced is a beef with everything from oil to commodities to food with skyrocketing prices, there would be further constraints of the u.s. abilityo deal with terrorists and further instability. not only does this mean we will be more hard essed to counteract terrorism, but it will be much more difficult to absorber another attack. our resilience has eroded. peter is right -- al qaeda did not cause all of this, but it is here, and for that reason, we're less safe. what about al qaeda?

what peter is talking about about how i hate it is on the books should be viewed with skepticism because we have heard all this before. president bush boasted that of 2/3 of al qaeda was a new leadership -- no learship has been captured and killed. in 2006, the u.s. intelligence community by consensus held that al qaeda had been defeated. president bush and the u.s. intelligence community then overstated al qaeda's weaknesses. in july 2007, the national intelligence estimate was forced to conclude that al qaeda had in fact projected or regenerating key elements of its homeland attack capabilities. there's no reason to think that right now the intelligence community has so much better understanding of al qaeda. the consensus view that the law and could be funded to federally administered areas of pakistan and the majority view the he was merely a figurehead -- he was not. in fact, peter referenced his

death. john britton said that we do not know who will replace him. this shows the weakness of our intelligence. moving from these shall we unverifiable proclamations about whether i'll fight it is on the votes, let's turn to objective indicators. in the 9/11 commission report, in analyzing what al qaeda and other groups need to execute catastrophic aacks against the u.s. concluded that they require physical sanctuary. 10 years ago, they had won in afghanistan here today, al qaeda affiliate's enjoy four -- somalia, yemen, pakistan. you look at the geography, it is not going in our favor. nobody has the plans to dislodge of fighting leadership from these areas. and they retain the capability to understate catastrophic attacks. beyond the threat of a massive cash as traffic attack, al qaeda's overarching strategy is going fairly well.

the group is undermining our economy. peter is right -- this is what i am going to say, but it is also true. the group has turned toward what they called a strategy of 1000 cuts, emphasizing smaller, more frequent attacks, many of which are designed to drive up security costs. al qaeda of the heated goods have gotten three bombs onboard passenger planes in the past three months. the fact that noby died does not mean those attacks failed. the ink cartridge plot presented a dilemma, to be the spend billions of dollars to inspect each and every package, or do nothing and keep trying. the argument about how small this is in comparison to our economy ignores our $40 trillion deficit. the fact that we will not be able to keep up this level of security spending, and also be added that there is some sort of keynesian affect ignores the fact that this is not productive spending. we're not building

infrtructure and road and the like. we are really preventing a terrorist group from hitting us. one final factor is home grown terrorism. there were 13 operational the heidi von braun terrorism cases in 2009, representing at the time over 1/4 of the publicly reported cases of g. hardy radicalization and recruitment since 9/11. 2010 figures were still greater than any other year. as one is deemed terrorists analyst said, when it comes to the threat of home grown terrorism, there's no denying that it is increasing. that is deemed analyst -- peter bergman himself. [laughter] the bottom line is that al qaeda did not pose a threat to us 10 years ago. but they may however pose an existential threat today, primarily becse the position we are now in relative to this group. >> thank you. [applause] >> david talked aboutl qaeda's strategy of 1000 cuts. this is more like 1000 begins

with a feather duster. nobody died. come on. an alternative history of world war ii were germany does not invade belgium for france or poland or czechoslovakia. we would not be writing the history of world war ii as of the nazis were a serious threat. the fact that he mentions the cargo plane fox, the urban warfare plan he mentioned in european cities in the fall of 2010 -- what do they have in common? they all faile so this is a record of abysmal failure. the safe haven these groups enjoyed in somalia -- they just withdrew from mogadishu. they called it a tactical withdrawal, but it looks like safe haven is beginning to fail. of a bat in arabian peninsula has had a safe haven for a time in yen, and it is expanding, but what have they been able to do? there has not been a successful

attack by al qaeda and its affiliates in the west since 2005. this is really a record of failure and a record of failure that is likely to continue here not to said that there might not be a small scale terrorist attack at some point in the future, but nothing that would be oriented our national security policy as 9/11 did, and nothing tt would allow us to say that we are less safe, which is really the burden of proof. you have to prove that we are blessed. it would be one thing to say that the war on terror is overblown, but to prove that we're less it is it pretty high bar that he has yet to jump over. >> thank you. david, you have three minutes to rebut pete's statement. >> the burden of pro lies on peter's said. a resolution is is the united states safer from terrorism? he argued that it is. all i have to show is that we are not, and i have already shown that. peter has not refuted the fundamental argument, which is look at where the u.s. is now

and its capacity to deal with the problem here our capacity is far worse than it was 10 years ago. all of feeders arguments prove that al qaeda was not an accidental but 10 years ago. they did not prove where we are going forward. he talks about how nobody died as part of 1000 cuts fewer not quite true. he did reference the 7/7 attacks. massive attacks in madrid. they have shown ability t carry out attacks outside their own territory with you got a tax. if you look at european blocs, which peter somewhat derived, the reason we are able to learn about this is from detainees being held in afghanistan who gave intelligence officers in afghanistan the name of a name that was not previously known to u.s. intelligence. we are drawing our assets away from afghanistan. will we be able to find out about this plot moving forward as resources devoted to the problem become less? that is the fundamental problem. he talks about withdrawal from mogadishu. ok, but they still control the

west of somalia outside that one city, which is with the african union forces are able to operate. bottom line is this is a very easy debate. peter has not repeated the argument that we are in massive financial trouble, which means that more resources are drawn away from intelligence, which means we are less resilience against the problem. he h not answered at all the arguments advanced quoting him the home gro terrorism is an increasing problem. it is not just words like g. hardy terrorism groups fear you have right wing extremism at home and other types of political extremism at home. the attack in norway shows you cannot ignore other non-g. hardy groups, and our capacity for all these groups is never less. he ignores the argument i made about how our allies also, will rely upon for vital intelligence information, will also have less resources in this era of austerity. it makes the entire system more unstable and gives more room for

violent, non-state that is to operate. this is very clear. he also did not answer the arguments that i made about why we should not trust the intelligence community now. debate is very clear. at the end of the day, the consensus view among people is that the threat is less than it was before, but the facts just do not bear that out. it is one of those situations where we saw some of against the ropes in the 1970's in a homily against george foreman, but the heart of george foreman punched a homily, the more he became tired. of the past 10 years, we wore ourselves out against al qaeda's rope-a-dope. >> i am going to ask you a related question. you indicate that we are safer because there have been unsuccessful attacks, but yet, when there are one of these unsuccessful attacks, at least the consensus among many is that it generates an incredible

amount of fear among the populace and does create a reaction, at least in the political world. how are we safer when our reactions -- in other words, the objects of terrorism -- is actually one would argue, been successful? >> i there was a huge reaction because of how the system works. new yorkers were back taking the subway in the morning. they were not terrorize. he said they have the thing coverage. it is pretty low. this will change that. americans are preoccupied by things like the khardashians.

that is a sign that we have one. idea has specifics. >> you mentioned that al qaeda does pose a threat. existential us in the assistance of the united states. do you think it doesddress? >> i did not say they pose an existential threat. i said they may. if they do, it is because there's a different right now. if you go back 10 years, we

testified it. we could absorb another 911. 10 years ago because t summer between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. it would be much harder for our economy with the massive debt to absoer an attack they have. has the billions >> but what effect has the billions of dollars that have been spent on homeland security terrorism on the threat? you seem to suggest that has minimal impact. >> i'm not saying everyone in this room is wasting

their time by their jobs by any means. in fact, the fact that we haven't seen another successful attack that's large scale against the united states is due to the hard work that the security apparatus have done. it is hard wor not just our war against al qaeda but so many things over the past 10 years have weakened us. 10 years ago one reason that al qaeda was something we could absorb is because we had the ability when we needed to to ramp up our resourcings. we can't do that right now in other parts to the world. if pakistan implodes, what can we do? that's a country with nuclear weapons. we have so fewer options to deal wita dangerous world. that's also the case when it comes to terrorism. i don't need to win in this debate that al qaeda poses an existential threat, just that terrorism is more of a

threat now or at the least that we're no safer now than we were 10 years ago. >> al qaeda has proven to be somewhat resilient. it has exist is -- existed as an entity for many years. what do you think would happen if the american people become complacent and the security an rat issues not a robust as it has been over the last 10 years? >> this is a straw man. there's going to be some reduction in expenditure in this country. we're spending at least double what we're spending today that we were spending on 9/11. the idea that we don't have the resources to do so. after 9/11, we put 300 u.s. special forces into afghanistan. in the immediate aftermath. president obama recently authorized 100,000 men and

women to go into afghanistan. so we do have the resources if it's such a serious problem. stabbletsing afghanistan is certainly one of those problems. we have the resources d the political will. yes, there are resource constraints, but does that make us less safe suddenly spending 5% less at the d.h.s.? >> i won't awer at question. gary, how many more minutes do we have from minutes? about 10 minutes. >> ok, we have 10 minutes. as i mentioned we would like questions rather than commentary. an o crugsy just once told me, questions start with who, what, when, where, and why. we have one question here, the gentleman in the suit. anybody else over here? uh, in the suit. as opposed to the man without the jacket. if you could please stand

up and introduce yourself and address the question to me. >> rick with bio prep watch. we've seen over the last six to nine months, the arab spring, smer, fall and soon to be winter. given that level of instability wou the panelists expect incidents of terrorism to increase or perhaps decrease? >> and you violated the judge's order immediately. but there's one other question and then i can -- right here. the lady who's wearing a suit. >> what role would we place religion in the mix? the fact that whether driving terrorism is giving us increased he -- religion

around the world. >> what is driving the impact of instability around the world? >> it's hard to make predictions, particularly about the future and this is what david is trying to say, the future is very grim. let's look at the arab spring. not a single picture of osama bin laden in any of the protests. not a single american flag burning or israel flag burning. al qaeda's leadersnd ideology have been conspicuously absent and is is a good thing. that's the only place where we're seeing al qaeda can extend its reach in the world right now. and whoever place there is going to get a strong warning from the u.s. government that by the way, the war on terror is going to continue, including our

drone and special forces program. i think al qaeda may get some temporaryump right now but they're going to be under tremendous pssure. it doesn't really matter what the political future of yemen holds coming directly he from the united states. >> first of all, the idea that there were no pictures of bin laden is false. in kuwait in the square there were a number of pictures of bin laden that were displayed. this is an -- there have been protests that have been sympathetic of bin laden, but when you look at the overall picture of the arab spring, there's certainly reason for hope. but there's also reason over the next five years or so to be concerned. first of all, the operational capacity of al qaeda is very much increased with the violent people that have been released from prison. the talent pool is much larger and it's a fair

question now, especially as you see the growth of al qaeda in the sinai. it's a fair question on whether there's for quoid on the ground in egypt than in yemen. in libya, they made a break with al qaeda but they also said they weren't going to fight gaddafi's regime, which is something they went back on. in terms of the idea that the arab spring is going to provide a hopeful alternative. it's also about food inflion and unemployment. the trends are heading in the wrong direction. when you look at countries like tune tamisha and egypt, dependent on tourism. tourism is drying up. one thing you're going to get is the discontents of the arab spring.

historically when you have sky high expectations, reality is going to step in and fill in the void. we may well see that. >> thank you. with respect to the question on religion. david, i'll ask you first. what role do you think religion has in making this assessment of whether we're safer since 9/11? >> when we talk about ligion in the context of terrorism, which is only one of the facets of terrorism that we're talking about. domestic right wing streamism is another that is part of this debate. we're talking about a particular part of religion. there are several terms i use. one is the jy haddy view. in the studies i've done, religion seems to be more of a factor than a lot of analysts who tend the downplay the role it plays.

i will say there is an ideology, grunes like al qaeda and this i arab spring where it's flourishing as people hope their hopes have been dashed. >> muslims have relidges views and they have views about groups like al qaeda that claim to speak in their name. the groups that supposedly defend islam is not as impressive. al qaeda, suicide bombing has cratered in every country around the world. to give you a data point. think about pakistan. 1 0 million people there. look at the protests that followed bin laden's death. scores of people, maybe hundreds if you're lky. the sympathy that existed, the robin haad hood image he once had is completely

evaporated. while there may be increasing religion in the muslim world, it's no. transported to people admiring their handiwork aroundhe world. >> we have time for a couple more questions. a question from the man in the tie. and if there's anybody else back in the corner, if we can position the other microphone. >> the 9/11 commission noted that we not only had a lack of intelligence but we also had a lack of imagination. have we be sufficiently imagine ty or not to avoid the consequences of an action? >> pase state your name. >> i'm a docket ral student at george mason. given the islamists or terrorists' justifications for the use of w.m.d. against the west, how does this affect the debate >> peter, i'll start with

you on the 9/11 commission. you've been part of the bipartisan policy center with governor cane and lee hamilton so you're very familiar with what they have and the scorecard. one of the questions was the lack of imagination. isn't that a concern what we don't know in the future? >> i'm more of the evidence-based community in the sense that i don't believe that what we don't know is a thing we need to fear. that was kind of the rumsfeldian idea, that the unknowns. this is not the right way to think of the world. we know great deal about al qaeda. we have their crownewels, we got the treasure-trove. the treasure-trove from bin laden's compound shows that they had nothing real in terms of ideas. they talked about the

w.m.d. and it bought into their own propaganda point. when they actually had a w.m.d. point in afghanistan, which we olit rated when we got rid of the taliban. when you look at the 188 jihadi terrorists trials and convictions in the united states since 9/11, a really interesting point, not a single one involved chemical, radiologyal or nuclear weapons. for all the hysterical concern. a book was written, we're due for a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons 10 years from now. we're still waiting for the evidence of is. it's very difficult to assemble any sort of mass destruction. aaron has been trying for years to get nuclear weapons without success. while governments need to be concerned about it. as a real issue, the idea

that somehow weapons of mass destruction are going to be taken by terrorists into the united states, apart from a rison attack that might kill a few people, it's nonsensical. >> peter answered both questions. how do you respond? >> peter talks about the rumsfeldian scho of freak out about what we don't know and invade other countries. the school of that has actually made us less safe over the past 10 years. that's part of what this debate is. it the doctrine that peter is critiquing right now. it's not about freaking out and imagining the worse. it's about how safe are we compared to what terrorists can do? 911 was a failure of imagination. the fact that the only person in the administration who had thought of something like this was richard clarke and that's because he read a tom clancey novel where

that same thing occurred. you can see it in commentaries about the arib spring where people can't imagine how al qaeda could capitalize on that. al qaeda is trying to do just that. you've heard we're safer, al qaeda is on the ropes. whereas all the external evidence you see is in the other directio who are you going to believe? me or your lying eyes? you can look out in the world and see that al qaeda in terms of geographic scope has gained ground. yes, there are areas where they're more unpopular but they've always been a vanguard movement. their support has often by small -- soft support. setting up with a small group 10 years ago and remains a small group today. what is our capacity to deal with them? it's so clearly lower. >> i'm going to exercise

the chair's discussion and have one concluding question. peter, what would it take to maintain the safety that we've achieved since 9/11 and for david to answer the same question after peter has a chance. what would i -- it take to become safe since 9/11? >> we're never going to be absolutely safe. but we can -- what the government has done is clearly over the last decade is clrly made us more safe by any metric. the facts speak for itself. if we were less safe we would have had multiple al qaeda terrorist attacks on the united states. none of them have succeeded. even the near misses, al eda's attempto bomb the manhattan subway. even if it had worked in 2009 it would have killed perhaps two or three dozen people. >> the question is how do we maintain that safety in the future? >> it's about the public

understanding that there's a threat wch still exists. it's about not cutting d.h.s. by 5%. it's about maintaining our superlative special operations. the idea that our intelligence isn't very good flies in the face of what was one of the great intelligence victories of all time, which was hunting down bin laden. there's going to be some appropriate downsizing. everybody is going to have to pay at the nk on this one. there's no reason why e security apparatus shouldn't. as we know from the private sector, sometimes a little bit of belt tightening is useful. it gets rid to he programs which are unnecessary and the core mission is still there. >> thank you. and david, since you don't think we're safer, how do we achieve more safety? >> you mean what should we do now? >> we should we do that's not being done now. >> the rope-a-dope analogy

of muhammad ali and george foreman and what ali did in countering against the ropes. it turned foreman's strength against him. over the past 10 years, the correct thing to do is recognize that al qaeda is a small add versarery and not overspend and make the war broader, which is what 've done. the reason why i say we are not more safe, inhat lies what a proper road ahead would be. >> so we now have the closing arguments. david, if you could begin with a two-minute summation. >> five minutes? or the four-minute change? >> oh, ok. >> sorry. >> you'll have two minutes for your summation. >> sure. this is not a debate about whether we should fear al qaeda.

this is also not a debate about whether al qaeda is an existential threat. it's a very simple debate. are we safer 10 years lar? as i had just said, al qaeda employs essentially what is a rope adope strategy. let the united states hit it and hit and it eventually we get exhausted. $14 trillion national debt. we shall exhausted. peter never answered the question. the intelligence community is not going to be cut that match. that's vermuch an open question. it's not just us. it's our alliss. it's also the fact that we're drawing down assets in afghanistan. . i talked about the example of the opt a active who was part of the europea and found him based on picking up a detainee here.

peter's never answered the fact that our resilience is much lower. also, when it comes to trusting the intelligence apparatus. we've heard all these claims before about how al qaeda has died. it's not just jihadist terrorist groups. right wing extremists, other terrorist groups. overall the relative strength of the u.s. in al qaeda is very clear. qaeda hasn't died. it can very much capitalize on the arab spring. that's something everyone in this room understands that they have an increased capability and if the arab spring turns out to be a good thing in the future, which it may well be. the u.s. is less prepared to deal with this dangerous world. the bottom line is that al qaeda's rope-a-dope worked very well. the u.s. is very much

whooo! depleted and in -- -- very much depleted and non-state actors can pose a major threat to us now and all of peter's arguments about the last 10 years, only proves that al qaeda didn't prove an existential threat doesn't speak to our problem now with the diminished supplies and the arab resources we're entering into. >> peter, you get the final word and two minutes for your summation. >> the question are we safer today than we were on 9/11. let's look at what happened on 9/11. 19 hijackers were training and living in the united states. i think the f.b.i. and the d.h.s. and oths would be all over that right now. money transfers from dubai to the united ates financed the operation. i thinthe treasury would be all ovethat today.

they had a training base in afghanistan. they had commander control in germany. i think our liaison services in germany would be all or that now. clearly things have changed. something like a 9/11 can't get through and if the record on the failure of the chemical, biological and nuclear front that i earlier outlined independence indicates they can't get something big like that through either. the question of homegrown terrorism. there were cases in 2009 and 2010, 6 cases. but there's been a dim in addition in 2011. there were -- diminution in 2011. there have been 11 cases. an analyst said it was increasing. that analyst was david. he said -- american flights are safer than we were

september 11. and finally, the big one, al qaeda at the end of the day is not going to win. >> i do have to commend you on your preparation given that you probay reeled the work of each other stensively. we -- exstens -- extensively. we really appreciate the time. all of you have the unique opportunity to vote on which side of the argument was most persuasivive. if you agree with peter bergen's position that america is safer since 9/11, there are instructions on how to do that. if you agree with david's stand that america is not safer, there are instructions there. and although you may be tempted to vote for me, there are no instructions for that. but i want to thank everyone for what i thought was a very engaging and

>> president obama was in paterson, new jersey today. hundreds were forced to evacuate the area because of flooding from the passaic river. these disaster areas have become eligible for federal assistance. the president was accompanied by governor chris christie and members of the salvation army and fema. after meeting with residents, he spoke to reporters. >> your dog is ok. look at him. he is so excited. [laughter] absolutely. we have got some really good dogs around here.

nougats just got back yesterday? >> [inaudible] >> how was that damage? >> [inaudible] everything was good except for the floor. [inaudible] >> thank you so much. good luck to you.

>> we are going to do everything that we can to help you out. >> [inaudible] >> ok. we have got the head of the red cross but there. >> 28 years. first time ever in the house. >> getting to the top level, there? >> yes. [inaudible]

got everything out already. >> well, we are here to help you rebuild. >> good. thank you. >> [inaudible] up on the grass, please. up on the grass. 151. up on the grass. >> thank you. thank you. >> thank you for coming. >> i know that it is a tough time right now. you guys hang in there. >> you guys -- [laughter]

>> so, obviously, visiting wayne, paterson, the surrounding communities, not only here in enters the but upstate new york, vermont, the whole range affected by hurricane irene, i want to thank governor christie, blared jones, and the heart of the delegation dealing with this crisis. it is part of what helped to avert even worse strategies, this extraordinary responsiveness in state, local, and federal officials. i am very proud of the work that fema has done in the central agencies and the folks on the ground to have been coordinating with emergency management teams in germany.

i would like to thank the red cross for their extraordinary responsiveness and volunteers for getting involved in doing what they can to help these communities faced by hardship. the main message, not only in new jersey, but all of those affected by the flooding and destruction caused by hurricane irene, our country is behind you. we are going to make sure that we provide all of the resources necessary to help these communities rebuild. i know that there has been talked over whether or not there will be a slowdown in funding out here. as president of the united states, i want to be clear, we will meet our federal obligations. we are one country. when one part of the country is affected, like a tornado in

joplin, or a hurricane that affects the eastern seaboard, we make sure that everyone gets to help that they need. whether you are from patterson, a resident in new jersey, upstate new york, what the residents need is us to make sure we are doing what we can to affect badly did communities. i want to thank the federal officials who have been working around-the-clock as a response to this crisis. we know that it could have been worse. and we should not underestimate the heart ache affecting many of these people. we want to be sure that we are there to help. once the cameras go somewhere else, essentially, we want to make sure that officials continue to work on us doing the right thing.

>> [inaudible] >> we are going to make sure that the resources are here. all right? >> stay on this side of the line. >> tomorrow, the president travels to detroit, where he will give a speech on the economy and job creation. we will have his remarks live at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. >> many people in this town would like to see them -- themselves described as machiavellian. but not too many people would say it out loud. >> his name is synonymous with cynical scheming and a selfish pursuit of power. tonight, miles under argues that his theories may have been a response to the corruption

around him. that is tonight on a "q&a," on c-span. >> next, the afl cfo president outlined his plan for the united states. this is about one hour. >> let me say good morning and thank you for joining us. as labor day approaches, we rarely honor the people that make this country go. before hearing be deliver some long remarks, i wanted you to listen to the stories of some of

the people i am honored to represent, along with my fellow officers. i would now like to introduce a working american member from minnesota. hello. i live >> i am currently unemployed and a member of working america. i have been employed previously. a business manager. every company i have worked with, we have a pretty close to quadrupled sales and cut costs. i have a reputation for that. however, last year, a startup company, but we were profitable and our first year. for me to put them in a business plan, moving forward to be profitable. we did it. when that contract was up, i

thought i would go back to being employed. i did not think it would be difficult. i have never had difficulty before. for the last five months, i have been putting resonates in -- resumes in. i am unemployed. i have never been in a situation like this before. what i would like to see is our politicians encouraging companies to keep jobs here so that people like me can be employed and support our families. also, if our politicians would stop telling us what their colleagues are not doing and start telling us what they are doing. thanks. >> oh thanks. and by the way, her last name is spelled -- if your interested.

and now, steve, who works at a communications company in is a member of the ibew from new hampshire. steve? >> good afternoon. i am a conservative and a republican. from the united states navy. i am a communications worker, and i do not support what the republican party is doing today to diminished labor unions with right to work initiatives. those are not the issues that i vote when i vote as a conservative republican. i do not vote to have labor union as diminished. over half of the employees serving in the military or you're at home, trying to feed their families. unions fight to keep wages at a fair level and benefits intact for families. my family benefits from what labor unions do. my family directly lives on the

money in benefits that are brought about by collective bargaining, and i do not agree with any position that tries to diminish collective bargaining or the power of labor unions, so that is why i am here today. >> thanks, steve. and now, i would like to introduce our secretary- treasurer. >> thank you, rich. it is very clear that people are not paying attention to the impact of the economic crisis and its impact on young workers. one year ago, we met in this very room, and we talked about how dire the situation was then, and yet, today, very little has changed. young people in this country are still struggling it, and the lack of attention and that officials and have given to this widespread problem is inexcusable. we hear a lot about unemployment rates in this country generally,

but those numbers are even more dismal for our young people. the unemployment rate for high school graduates under the age of 25 was 22.5% in 2010. compared to 12% in 2007. partner that with the increasing cost of tuition for higher education and the resulting debt that young people are suffering under it, and what options do they have? the strength of this country has always been that anyone can access the american dream, and if you work hard enough, you can achieve it. that is really not the case today. supposedly, our elected officials focus on debt as it reduction. there was partly out of concern for the future of american youth. we have heard a lot about that, but how does cutting funds to public services and programs

provide the public safety net, health benefit the young people of america? how do those cuts benefit than people? the number one thing that will help young people is devoting our nation's smartest minds and best resources to creating jobs and making sure young people have access to those jobs. rather than spending all of our time and energy on cutting programs, we should be focused on creating the new economic engine that would help our economy thrive in years to come, so without investment and job creation, young people will suffer in the future as a result of stunted opportunities in the present. the long-term repercussions will be devastating, and not only to our young people but to our entire country. it is neither justin or intelligence to set aside as a

generation is impacted by the mistake of the previous generations shortsightedness. the good news is that the next generation is not just going to sit back while their opportunities are squandered away. young people are making a difference all across this country, across the globe, from egypt to wisconsin to ohio and arizona and anywhere in between, where workers and students are being treated unjustly. it is no wonder with unemployment at an all-time high, jobs being scarce, growing debt, and a tax on workers' rights that young people are mobilizing for social and economic justice. there are countless examples of their activism. we hear about them every day, and we are so proud with what we have been seeing, and one of the exciting examples that has been coming up is a summit which begins september 29 in

minneapolis, minn., and hundreds of young workers and activists and leaders from minneapolis and all over the country will take part in a creative dynamic summit that is designed by young workers for young workers, and our affiliates in workers are excited by the aggressive, creative efforts that the afl- cio are undertaking to in power the next generation of activists, and there is no question that this effort will benefit not only the young workers who so sorely need it but all workers in this country. thank you. >> thank you. and now, " we have a bus driver from ohio and a member from out there. >> good afternoon. my name is -- everybody calls may -- me v.j.

i am a very proud bus driver and a been a bus driver for many years now. i have not seen the governor create any jobs in ohio. he wanted to get rid of the unions. he wants to take away -- take away our rights. then there is a voter id which takes away the rights from black people, the middle class, and the unfortunate ones. he took our money from the public schools to do vouchers, telling us this was pointed up the budget. when you take money from the public schools, this does not take and help with the budget. all we want to do is work. he is attacking our police. he is attacking the fire department. our teachers. the common worker person. he wants to take all of our rights away.

we just want to work. we want to raise our families. we are not trying to be rich. we just want to feed our families, get a closing, and educate them, and when our children go to college, we want them to be able to come back to our community and make a living and work their in their community. we pay into our pension, and the money we get those back into our community. that is what we want. we want to be able to have a decent job and work. >> and now, i would like to kazakhstan the afl-cio executive vice president to take some words. >> thank you so much, and thank you so much for sharing your story. we reflected on dr. martin luther king and the march in washington 48 years ago. we are reminded that dr. king, who talked about jobs and

freedom at that march, that that message is as relevant today to us, because, quite frankly, we are in a crisis in this country with 25 million people unemployed and underemployed, and then you think about the percentages, when we think about 9.1% of our people overall not working, but you break it down for communities of color, african-american, 16% unemployment. latinos, 11% unemployment. it still continues to resonate because people need the freedom to work, but there is another freedom that people must have in this country, and they must have the freedom to vote, and what we're seeing across the country in so many of our states is this disenfranchising attempt to disenfranchise so many with these so-called voter i.d. laws, which, quite frankly, our voter suppression laws, and it is a new poll tax, if you will, and

so, in order for people to fight aggressively for new jobs, they have to be able to vote for those who support an economic agenda for all and to support the american dream. we know a little bit about poll tax. i know a little bit about it park -- personally, because in 1958 1959 when i asked my mother to buy me a pair of new issues, she told me she could not do that because she had to pay her poll tax. as an adult, she paid her poll tax until 1965. voting should not have been that hard for my mother. it should not be that hard for the millions who will be impacted by these laws today, and when wewhen we talk about te numbers we're talking about people who do not have identification because it costs. it is shocking to see that and unnoticed push, all of these

states this legislation has been introduced by republicans. they have done that under the guise of preventing voter fraud. but these laws disenfranchise voters rather than stopping actual fraud. there is little or no fraud to stop. even the bush administration's investigation uncut -- uncovered only 86 instances of improper voting across the entire country. about 21 million people is in danger because of a lack of state-issued ids. it should not have to be that hard but it is a certain community that will be disenfranchised. it is young people and people of color and the port.

-- poor. this is not acceptable. we are civil rights advocates and a voting rights advocates. we will continue to fight. we will not be silenced when it comes to putting america back to work. we will never be silenced when it comes to ensuring that everyone in this country has the right to vote. >> thank you. he works at at&t in missouri. >>, afternoon. -- good afternoon. i am a vice president for the local 6300. i am active in organizing mobilization. i am active for many reasons. for my daughter, she is 10 years old, and for the future of our

kids. the right to work is something they want to take away. it is not deserving. i will continue to fight that fight until it cannot do it anymore. thank you. >> thanks to you for telling such powerful stories. and to my fellow officers for their leadership and a tremendous energy. these stories from across the country are only a few of the stories. to many people inside the beltway or people who live in a gated communities never here. making sure people hear the stories is one of the core purposes. working people with a powerful voice when we band together. now more than other. working people need to have a voice heard politically.

to pare faced bill clinton, there is nothing wrong with america the cannot be solved by holding our politicians and our executives accountable. we got here because our politicians experimented with an extreme economic theory. deregulation of the nearly every imitation on the whims of the elite. these were supposed to generate wealth that would trickle-down to working men and working women. that theory failed. millions live with the consequences. 25 million americans are out of work or working part-time. this is a moment where working people will judge all of our leaders. will they propose solutions that are on the scale necessary to address the the job crisis and that america has right now?

we need to return to the america that i remember, and that millions of us hope for. with each generation, more and more people's voices matter. we what purpose and progress. the economic mess is the result of politics. it means the solution must be political as well. our politics must be flipped right side up to work again for working families. we must give the working people that i share this stage with and the millions more that we represent a new independent voice in our politics. that is what the afl-cio

intends to do. only together can we reinvigorate our democracy. that is why unions of the afl- cio are pooling our resources and developing your around mobilization capacity of our own. independent of parties and candidates and fuelled by the power that comes from unity. we will listen, and we will talk to all working people. not just those with the benefit of a union contract create the problems and solutions belonged to all of us. as we declare our political independence this labor day, we are announcing our independent advocacy arm. this will help build the power of america is silent majority, the middle class, and poor, who are struggling to just get by.

it will not directly fund political campaigns. nor will its matched the endless flow of cash from corporations. but it will be an effort by and for working people. communicating beyond our membership and striving to ensure that all the work -- all who work have a strong voice in the political process. what do we want to accomplish? first and foremost, we need to put america back to work. we cannot let the cramped politics of washington prevent us from realizing that our great nation can and must return to full employment. the afl-cio has developed a jobs plan that is serious and reflects the scale of the crisis that we face. with an air of bipartisan

consensus. in an area where everybody agrees that precious little action has taken place. that would be investment in our infrastructure. with construction workers idle, and our schools crumbling, now is the time to rebuild our schools. in fact, i just got back from the white house. the chamber of commerce and i stood side by side with president obama to call for investment, large investment in infrastructure. we also need to remind u.s. manufacturing and stopped exporting jobs overseas. we need to put people to work

doing work that needs to be done it. targeted work needs to be provided in communities of color, african-american and latino communities where the unemployment rate is two and three times as high as the national average. we can and we must provide the funds to end state and local government layoffs. we must help fill the massive shortfall of consumer demand by extending unemployment benefits and keeping homeowners in their homes. quite frankly, we must reform wall street so that main street can create jobs. we must also recognize that our joblessness has hit all communities the terrible force, african-american and latino communities have been hit especially hard. in the world's richest country, the rates of unemployment among

people of color art and outrage. it really -- are an outrage. it should preoccupy it all politicians regardless of race or party. in this land of plenty, one out of five children now live in poverty. in african-american communities, that is three times as high. in the latino communities, that is three times as high. that is why our agenda is both ambitious and essential. we take seriously the job of making sure that jobs are good jobs. expanding the right to bargain for a better living standard and helping more working people gain a voice with new aggressive tactics that fit the 21st century. the country is changing, and our approach to organizing is changing as well. together with our community affiliate's, working america,

we go door-to-door to communities across the country with 3 million members and the recruitment model that works anywhere, working america that is engaging union and nonunion working people on a massive scale. working america members are going deeper. those members are becoming leaders and building activist networks. we are working with groups such as the taxi workers alliance, that are doing some very exciting organizing among workers who are refusing to let blocks -- the law from stop them from coming together. more than any time in my memory, we are working hard to build a movement. the voice of workers has never

needed more amplification that it does right now. we are moving forward to make sure that the voice is heard clearly across the entire country. at this time, i would like to wish you a happy labor day. all of us are happy to answer any questions that you may have. can i have your name? >> [inaudible] matt with ccn.com. --don't thinkthe microphone [inaudible]

>> i do not think that microphone is working. >> all right. experts on both sides of the aisle agree that the current fiscal situation is unsustainable. i believe i heard you call for a lot more federal spending. is that responsible at this time? with record levels of debt and deficit? >> first of all, i am tempted to ask you to come with me and look at the real figures. the united states does not have a short-term debt crisis it is a short-term jobs crisis. if you look anywhere else in the world. let's look at it this way. if you put workers back to work so they are contributing, the debt goes away.

it is an investment in america. you do not pay for the house this year, you pay for it over 30 years. it is an investment in your future. you send your kids to school and you do not pay for the schools because most people can afford to pay for a whole year of schooling. you borrow. why do you do that? because you are investing in the future. investing in job creation is the best investment this country can have. putting people back to work will help solve that problem to the

extent that it exists. >> ok, next question. >> i want to ask, what are you planning to do the legislation, as well as issues in ohio? >> you will see the same action on us on 194. that we did -- you will see us working in coalition with progressive partners to get the necessary signatures to put that on a citizen's ballot so that the citizens can vote on that. >> september 29 is the date that we have to submit the signatures. just as the citizens in ohio gathered those 1.3 signatures for the citizens of the tote, --

people areot, working diligently to get the necessary 231,000 signatures that are needed to qualify for a citizens' veto. they only needed 231,000 and they turned in 1.3. they will have the same kind of diligence. >> [inaudible] >> typically, political outreach is focused on the ground game, knocking on doors. is this and ushering in of a new era for unions and their political advocacy? >> it is going to allow us to do several things. it will allow us to have year round advocacy. we intend to keep that structure in place year round.

we will build on that between election cycles. that will allow us to move seamlessly. in addition to that, our program in the past was geared toward talking to our members. we will now expand out and talk to all workers, which we will do. we will be building those partnerships and talking to workers beyond our membership. educating them, mobilizing them, and getting them out to vote. >> [inaudible] do you have a fundraising goal? >> no, we do not. >> you have been very clear in your opposition to the free-

trade agreement. you talked about the importance of not exporting jobs. with the current atmosphere in congress right now, are you hopeful, do you expect that maybe they will not be able to pass the free-trade agreement? given all of the acrimonious atmosphere now. what do think will happen? >> we intend to oppose those trade bills that we think are bad. we think the korean bill is bad because it will cost us jobs. we do not need to be going in the opposite direction. it also has a very low domestic content requirement. the europeans have a 55% domestic content requirement before it can be considered one of their own. this deal only has a 35% domestic content. that means korea could produce 35% of a car, somebody else

could produce 65% of the car. that is not a smart deal. columbia deal -- the colombia deal is something different. we are told that the mexican government -- the colombian government has suspended its union protection program. one of the hallmarks that signifies the change of the government and their desire to protect workers. they are now suspended that. that does not bode well. i ask this question of my ceo friends. it's 51 -- if 51 ceo's would have been assassinated last

year, would there be a clamor for a trade bill with colombia. workers, union officials are no less deserving as human beings and ceos. we will continue to fight that. the workers on both sides of the border also opposed to those trade agreement because they know that it is not going to be good for workers on either side. until we get a trade regime that really is fair to american workers and helps us to export products, not jobs, we will oppose that regime. >> [inaudible] i understand your opposition. i was wondering, with the poisonous atmosphere in

congress, are you hopeful that they will not be able to get this done? >> first of all, the republicans do not want to add taa to its. every trains workers who lose their jobs because of trade. they do not even want to add that into it. it makes our job all little easier. no one is going to support those trade agreements without taa adjustments. even many republicans. i think we have a real shot added. the fact that the government has not been able to stem the intentional violence against trade unionists should bring most people to their senses and hopefully they will vote against that bill as well.

>> can you tell us some of the things that you are asking the labor department to do? to help stimulate job creation and to help insure workers were currently employed targeting the wages they're supposed to get? >> we are asking them to enforce laws and protect workers. that is whether it is health and safety laws in the work places, and we are asking her to step up enforcement of the fair labor standards act. people should be paid the right rate. sometimes they get reclassified. we are asking her to look into classifications. we're asking her to do everything to make sure that workers get the full pay they are entitled to. quite frankly, she has responded admirably.

she has enforced better than anybody in the last decade. she has done a terrific job. we are very supportive and thankful for what she does to protect workers. >> at this point, i would like to go to the telephone. operators, you can give us a number from the phone. >> with the democratic majority headed from [unintelligible] >> we are having trouble hearing. can you start again? >> with the democratic majority handed down from 3 to 1, 2 to 1, how satisfied with you --

how satisfied are you about what they have done with their cases this year? which cases do you want to see resolved? >> i think they have done a good job under the circumstances. you will recall that under the bush administration for the last three or four years, they were not functioning. it is exactly what the senator says he wants to do now. there were thousands of cases that got backlogged. they had to resolve those backlogs. they have worked steadily to go through that backlog and they have done a good job. and then they did some routine enforcement. look, the law says that when you threaten a worker, when a worker does collective action,

you can not threatened, punish, or retaliate. boeing openly says, we are retaliating against them for doing activity. it has been a violent -- a violation of the law for 50 years. they face a tremendous backlash by everybody out there. the republicans are trying to intimidate them. trying to get them for making decisions. and they have investigations, and they have subpoenas, and they do everything they can to prevent them from doing what it is intended to do. that is protect the rights of working people in this country. we are all working men and women. i think they have done a good job. we know the intentions of the republican party. if you only have two people on

the board, the supreme court has said they cannot make a decision even if they both agree on that decision. we will do everything we can to prevent that from happening. i think president obama and the secretary are both committed to making sure that the rights of workers are protected and we have a board that can function. and remain independent, as it was intended. >> thank you. the person in the suit in the middle. >> i know you just came from the white house. do you feel that the president has made good on the campaign promises that he made in 2008 to organized labor? will they be able to support him next year? >> to the extent that he has been able to, it has not been a one-way street or a walk in the park. i think he has delivered on some things. i think he has not delivered on others.

we continue to push him on the things that are good for working people. the thing we continue to push on his job creation. i think he is going to do everything he can to create jobs from the scale that we need them. we will see if there is any kind of bipartisanship. >> [inaudible] there have been some suggestions that it was an effort to find -- fund elections. is that the case at all? what is your answer to that? >> we have always participated in elections down the ballots. we will continue to do that. it is to allow us to talk to workers beyond remembers. so that we can reach out to workers everywhere and bring them into the fold. enable us to be a more independent. it will allow us to build a structure that is beholden to working people 365 days a year. it will be beholden only to

working people. to our friends, it will give us greater ability to help them. to our acquaintance, we will do to them what to they did to us. we will tell them we love them and wish them good luck. >> thank you. the gray suit. >> hello. you agree with the chamber of commerce on the concept of an infrastructure bank. i am wondering how close you have gotten to tom donahue on that issue and if you have agreed what the nuts and bolts of an infrastructure bank should look like. >> i will not speak for tom, but we are pretty much in agreement that an infrastructure bank is a good thing. it can help out if it is properly funded.

he agrees with us that infrastructure is woeful in this country and we have to address it. it causes us as a nation to be less competitive and it causes individuals additional costs. the society of american engineers estimated that it could cost individuals a couple of trillion dollars over the next couple of decades is our roads, bridges, highways, and school starts to crumble. we use about 2.4% of our gdp on infrastructure. that is less than we used in the 1950's and 1960's. europe does about 5% of their gdp on and the structure. china is doing about 9%. he and i understand the consequences of that. the longer you postpone doing the and the structure, the less competitive you are. right now, you have low interest rates and a lot of

people that need work. it is insane not to be putting them together to fix a problem that the country needs fixing and can make us more competitive in the world. in addition to that, we have joined with the business and a couple of others to put together a fund from our pension funds to be able to leverage. the clinton global initiative, for instance. one of the first place is people do the retrofitting is right here in this building. we have had an audit done to see how we can become far more energy efficient. hopefully, we will make this headquarters the example of what people can do. it can pay for itself by the savings that it generates. it pays for itself and becomes a tremendous investment and the future.

it will draw down on the cost of energy and it will create work for people the need to work so they can contribute to society. >> but go ahead and do another question from the -- let's go ahead and do another question from the phone. >> you mentioned you were going to declare a political independent labor day. does that go beyond the super pac? does it have more practical implications for your political efforts in the 2012 cycle? >> i do not know what you mean by practical implications other than the thought that the allowance for the first time to move from electoral politics to advocacy to accountability. it will allow us to talk to all working people and get them involved in the process and give all working people union and nonunion alike a greater voice in the process. working america will be a real part of that process. we will be expanding them.

they will be talking to more workers at the doorstep of put -- about what we can do to create jobs in an economy that really does not work for anybody. the practical aspect of it is that it makes us more effective and it gives the workers a larger voice and a broader voice. >> thank you. >> are you expecting to raise the dollars in another form and fashion? >> we're going to use it to be able to talk beyond our members and a number of different forums. it will enable all of us to come together.

it will give us a broader base. >> do you expect it to raise large salary donations? >> we will take them wherever they come from. workers will donate. there will be smaller amounts. they will get their voices heard. >> thank you. >> looking back at last year's labor day, in the past 12 months, what has been the most significant events or changes for american workers, both union and nonunion, public or private sector? >> you would have to look at the unprecedented attacks on state and federal workers.

from the overreaching of a new class of governors and state legislature. and the attacks in wisconsin, ohio. people act like this was a spontaneous thing. it really was not spontaneous at all. the american legislative exchange council had a meeting of 2000 state legislators, passed out hundreds of pieces of model legislation, whether it was taking away rights, increasing the amount that people pay for health care or pensions. people like scott walker took advantage of that. it turned a surplus into a deficit so the big jump on the bandwagon. the ultimate goal was to eliminate the vote of 10% of the people that voted in the previous election. that is what you see. you take wisconsin.

the voter i.d. law, we have to do this because of fraud. look at what it does. 78% of african-american males between the ages of 18 and 24 gets disenfranchised because of that law. 25% of the elderly, the seniors, get disenfranchised because of the law. 55% of latino women get disenfranchised because of that law. what does that law due to create jobs? i want you to think back to the state legislature and give me one instance where those attacks created jobs. those people were sent to office because they said they would

create jobs. that is the most important thing they can do. for the workers, aboard the local school system, for everything else. that was probably one of the most shocking things. the response was just wonderful. we have been drawn to have a debate on collective bargaining for 20 years. we have not been able to do it. scott walker, the best mobilizer we have seen for a while, gave us that opportunity. we may present him with an award for being the best mobilizer of the year. people responded. independent business people. >> people from all walks of life and all political backgrounds came together and said, this is outrageous this is overreaching. this is outrageous, we did not vote for this. we had a recall election.

a lot of you out there smirked with the recall election. i have to tell you why we were so heartened by it. in 2008, barack obama one in wisconsin by 14 points. those six senate districts, that was an equal margin. they were the only six districts that we could recall. it was that like we picked those six. they were the only six because of the way the law as written. in those six districts, we took a 49% of the vote. if i were a republican, if i were scott walker and i looked at my six best performing

districts, i might not be too heartened by that. in fact, i might look at the other side and see them smiling. that is why i am smiling. that was a heartening thing. to see workers come out, independent business people come out. it brought us a lot closer together. they tried their darndest to make this wedge between public workers and private-sector workers. you can see that the which does not exist. -- wedge does not exist. let me conclude with one thing. the most disheartening thing that happened during that year was people coming forward, in leadership positions, and saying, those workers and wisconsin had a pension. they have health care. and you do not have it.

let's take it away from them. that was never the american way. america always looked at those who did not have and said, how do we help them? how do we get that for them? not looking at those who do have and say, let's take it away. that is unamerican. the people that say that, they have given up on america. we have not given up on america. the workers in this country have not given up on america. the vast majority of people called there have not given up on america. we resent those who say that the best years for america is behind desperate that we cannot give our citizens a good job. that we cannot give our citizens health care. that we cannot give them a secure retirement. that we have to scale back the american dream in the richest

nation on the face of europe. we refuse to accept that. >> [inaudible] just to follow up, what is your scenario for creating those jobs? what is at stake for workers? >> what is at stake is the future of the country. and whether we will have a country that continues to bifurcate. or you have rich and poor, but note middle-class. -- where you have rich or poor, but no middle-class. whether we will have a bright future or a dim future. whether the sun is rising or the sun is setting. that is what is in front of us. that is what is at stake in this election.

what was the first part of the question? >> [inaudible] we will pass out our job creation program. it covers a lot of things. infrastructure, not just the surface transportation act, the faa, the clean water act, increasing manufacturing. that would include the tax code. that would include trade law. that would include a number of other things. targeted job creation and communities of particularly high unemployment levels. aid to state and local governments of the can stop the layoffs. there are four drivers of the economy. consumer spending is the biggest. as long as workers' wages are stagnant or falling, consumer spending will not drive us out of the doldrums. the second is business investment. without demand, with all workers been able to buy, we will not see that.

the third is nets exports and our country has not seen that exports in many a decade because of portrait laws. and poor enforcement of trade laws. and the last as government spending. we talk about aid to state and local government, here is what is happening. we have some spending by the federal government and we had extraordinary contraction from the state and local government. they were negating the good that the federal spending was doing by contracting. if we continue to let that happen, more people will be laid off. we will give you the program, it is about six points. it also includes wall street reform. so they cannot continue to do the things that got us into the mass. -- mess. they can actually start lending again. small business needs money and they cannot get it because the banks are not lending. one other thing i just want to add because it affects so many

people, we really do have to correct and fix the mortgage crisis. that would put a tremendous amount of money back into our economy. and allow that consumer spending to actually -- the last thing on the list is the extension of unemployment benefits. if you take two or three or 4 billion people and you cut off all of their money and they stop spending, all of a sudden, a consumer demand falls. the economy contracts and it is bad for all of us. >> ok. i think we have time for one more question. >> how significantly do you think the initiative mr. obama can pass through congress will improve the economy by the 2012 election? if it does not -- if they do not

go far enough, are you concerned that the voters will be more skeptical of stimulative measures? >> could you repeat the last part of the question? >> are you concerned about voters grown skeptical of stimulative measures? >> look, the stimulus package is absolutely you worked. it has created 3 million jobs. it created more jobs in a year and a half during a recession than george bush created in the 8 years he was president. he had a negative job creation. people are cynical, people are anxious, people are nervous and they want action. i think they see who is stalling. when mitch mcconnell says his

main mission in life is to make sure that the president fails. people understand that, they are not dumb, they understand that this guy will do anything to stop the president from succeeding, even if it hurts the american people. you have to question the motivation behind it. is politics that much more important than the country? that is what they are saying. politics is more important than the country and every citizen in it. i refuse to believe that. i think it be took a survey of the people up here, everyone of us would say that the country really ought to come first. that is why workers have lost their voice. because of policies and political brinksmanship. it takes us to the brink of political disaster rather than coming together to solve the problems. they're fed up with that. they are fed up with everybody that is involved. they will check and see who is

pushing for jobs right now. they will see its main purpose and focus is jobs. i think they will support that person or persons. those that go through the motions, they will be able to see through that. they will be able to talent very quickly -- they will be able to tell us that very quickly. it is going to be more difficult to educate and motivate and mobilize people. that is a reality. but we will do what we have to do to make sure that people that support working people get the full support of the american labor movement. >> i think we are out of time. thank you very much, everyone. >> no clapping? [laughter]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> monday, a series of town hall meetings held by members of congress during the summer congress -- a summer recess. >> there are nine pieces of job promoting legislation passed through the house as early as march of this year sitting over in the senate. nine pieces. that is the most confounding thing about what is going on in the washington, washington inaction verses action. >> obama will talk about this at next thursday in a joint

session address, but i just hope the republicans are focusing on everyone, because right now they seem focused on just one person's job. >> town hall meetings from california, florida, and more starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. on tuesday, republican presidential candidate and former governor of massachusetts mitt romney will announce his jobs plan. this will be two days before president obama's address on his economic proposals. live coverage beginning at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c-span.org. >> it may not surprise you that we think a good things and comes in to is. -- twos. >> you can watch a live events

online. >> or view them whenever you want. c-span2 as non-fiction books every weekend. >> and on c-span3, explore american history tv. >> join us on facebook. >> washington coming your way with c-span. >> created by cable and provided as a public service. >> president obama travel the paterson, new jersey, to seize some of the storm damage. several were forced to flee because of flooding from the passaic river. but these have been declared a major disaster areas making them eligible for federal assistance. he was accompanied by governor chris kristi, members of the delegation, and fema administrator craig fugate. he met with residents displaced

and then spoke with reporters. >> how are you? are you ok? absolutely. you guys just got back? how bad is the damage inside?

>> we are going to do everything we can to help you recover. did you guys lose a lot of stuff inside the house? more cleaning supplies? they are on their way.

>> we have been here 28 years. >> this is the worst it has ever been in? >> absolutely. it is really bad. we got everything out already. >> well, we are here to help rebuild. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you guys. >> thank you. >> over to the side. over the grass. >> hello, mayor. >> thank you. thank you. thank you.

>> thank you for coming. >> you guys hang in there. we're going to do everything we can to help. obviously, visiting dwyane, patterson, members. this is giving me a sense of what happened here in new jersey, of state in vermont, and other states affected by hurricane irene. i want to thank governor christie, the congressional delegation, everyone that has coordinated in an unprecedented way to deal with this crisis. part of what, i think, has helped to divert even worse tragedy and a greater loss of life is because of the

extraordinary responsiveness and quick thinking of state, local, and federal officials. i am very proud of the work that fema has done from our central agency but the people locally here on the ground that have been coordinating with the emergency management teams in new jersey. i want to thank the red cross for their extraordinary responsiveness. we have seen a huge outpouring of volunteers, the private sector getting involved in trying to do what they can to help these communities. the main message that i have for the residents, not only in new jersey but all of the affected communities from the flooding, the destruction that happened as a consequence of the hurricane come is that the entire country is behind you. we will make sure that we provide all the necessary resources in order to help these communities rebuild. i know there has been some talk about whether there will been a

slowdown in getting funding, emergency relief. as president of the united states, i want to make it very clear that we will meet our federal obligations. we are one country. when one part of the country gets affected weather is a tornado in joplin, missouri, or a hurricane that effects the eastern seaboard, we come together and we make sure everyone gets the help that they need. the last thing that the residents in paterson, residents of vermont, or upstate new york need is washington politics getting in the way of us making sure we are doing what we can to help communities that have been badly affected. again, i want to thank federal to state, and local officials who have been working around the clock to respond to this crisis. it could have been worse, but we should not underestimate