both here and abroad. this draft has become particularly evident in recent months as bouts of sharp volatility and risk aversion in markets has reemerged and reactions about european sovereign debts and related strains as well as development associated with the u.s. fiscal situation, including last month's downgrade of the u.s. long-term credit rating by one of them made it -- major credit rating agencies, as well it is difficult to discuss how this has affected economic policy so far. while the weakness continues and a td of key reasons for the press release a place of the recovery, other factors may restrain growth in growing corridors.

they continue to tighten their belts by cutting spending and reducing payrolls in the face of ongoing budgetary pressures. there's ample room for debate about the proper size and role of the government in the longer run a substantial fiscal consolidation could add to the headlines. the fiscal drag on the economy in the face of sluggish recovery highlights one of the difficult trade-offs currently face. as i have emphasized, they address the fiscal burdens that are associated with the aging of our population and the ongoing crisis in health care costs. the government will spiral out of control in coming decades researching severe damage.

bob prompt and decisive action to put the finances on a sustainable to drudgery is urgently needed, policymakers should not disregard the fragility of the economic recovery. the t-v l -- two goals set in place to the longer-term and avoiding the creation of this bill had winds are not incompatible. acting now to put in place a plan for reducing plans lobbying attentive today recovery in the near term can help here. prices of commodities increase sharply earlier this year. higher gasoline and food prices

translated into decreased ones for consumers. december able to pass through the higher cost to the customers as well. the global disruptions associated with the disaster in japan put upper pressure on motor vehicle prices. as a result, inflation picked up significantly. the price index for personal consumption rose at about 3.5% compared the average of less than 1.5 some of the proceeding two years. in particular, the price of oil and other commodities have either leveled off our come down from near highs. this step up in automobile production should reduce pressure on car prices. we see little indication that a higher rate is ingrained in the

economy. they remained stable according to the indicators. deflations of personal approach catchers and measures are derived from the yields of percentage treasury securities. in addition to the stability, the substantial amount of resource slack that exist in private markets continue to have a moderate influence. nominal wage increases have been offset by productivity gains c. it should be a restraining

influence. although they expected a moderate recovery to continue, the committee has responded to recent developments by marking down the aisle of for economic rent. most consider it to be consistent with the dual mandate to promote maximum employment. given this outlook, and they decided to provide more specific guidance about the expectations for the future path of the federal funds rate. it indicated that economic conditions including low rates of resource utilization and likely to warn levels at least

through mid-2013. what a judge to be the likely scenario for resource utilization in the medium term, the target for the federal funds rate to be held at its current low level for least two more years. in addition to this, the federal reserve has cells that could be used to provide additional stimulus. we discussed the cost of such tools at our august meeting. my colleagues and i will continue to consider those and other pertinent issues including economic and financial developments at our meeting in september. we're prepared to employ those as appropriate to promote a shower economic recovery. let me commit on a few words. as monetary and fiscal policy

makers consider the proper policies to address the economy's current weakness, it is important to of the knowledge the strengths. not withstanding the trauma of the crisis and the recession, the u.s. economy remains the largest in the world. there is a degree of international competitiveness that has improved in recent years. our economy retains the market orientation, a robust controversial region of entrepreneurial market and this. carpenter remains a leader. i do not expect the long run growth potential of the material to be affected by the recession is our country takes the necessary steps to secure that outcome.

economic policymakers face a range of decisions. every household and business must cope. these are not easy tasks. i have no doubt that these challenges can be met. the strength of the economy will ultimately reassert themselves. the federal reserve will do all that it can trees are high rates of growth. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> let me grab the microphone summer here. what i love the chairman to answer these questions. i've been assigned the task of posing questions assigned by

others. i will start from one with our cochair. many of you know he is the co- chair of the committee for irresponsible fiscal budget. his question is this. an excellent presentation, and he said the country would be well served by a better process for making fiscal decisions. the negotiations that took place disrupted markets and probably the economy as well. individuals have had little apparent excess wed process changes. policymakers do not seem to like change. what form might these changes take? can you tell us where we might look for the first signs of

improvement. >> as i discussed in my speech, fiscal policy is of a cold. it involves multiple objectives. we need to have long-term sustainability. our budget is not on a sustainable path. it is a very important issue. we have to be attentive of what is happening in our economy today and that it is constructive. fiscal policy is very important for long-term growth. we have to make good choices. to have to think about how to invest on the spending side and reform and improve our tax cut on the revenue side so that our fiscal policies are conducive. we have to do this in a way that is not disruptive to

financial markets. when a better process so we do not half the same consequences that we saw with the downgrade and some of the financial volatility that was associated with a process this summer. i will not be able to give you a detailed recipe for a new fiscal process. that is a priority of congress. this goal this availability -- fiscal sustainability listed a long red to figure out how we will address the cost of health care plan i hope in thinking about their fiscal policy congress will look at a long horizon and think about the entire horizon and the process.

secondly, and it is important that there be some kind of metric. one possibility would be the amount of debt relative to gdp. there are many other possibilities. economists love metrics. winnie's of thing to measure our success or failure. the actual process again i can i get into detail. there are a number of countries around the world where fiscal roles have been put in place. it provides policymakers to make

a good incoherent long-term decisions. it is important that we all get together and make sure that in the future where making hard decisions in a way that is not as destructive as it was this last time around. it's a provides a good fiscal outlook. >> we just go to this in part as the peer >> do you think it had minimal expenditure cuts in 2012 and the bulk of the cat's 65%?

70% -- 65%-70's are occurring after? >> this has been an interesting experience. i pointed out that a downgrade was not want to provide any information. everybody knows what the fiscal situation as picture interestingly, treasury interest rates are lower today than they where before the downgrade. so far there has not been a permanent impact on our interest costs. some of that has flowed through to other borrowers. if you listen to what they said, a day did not make the claim that the u.s. did not have the

resources to achieve stability. is not a question of economics. this is a growing country. there are ways to have a sustainable budget. they were concerned given the way things have evolved that there's not an adequate political process that would bring about the necessary changes. let me not make light of that. there are real disagreements. they need to be worked out. we need to work together to find solutions and to achieve what we know we can achieve. it is a sustainable budget for the u.s. government. >> there's a second part to this question. i would preface it by saying be

respectful of your remarks about the fragility of the economy. do you have a sense of these reductions that should take place in the next 10 years ta? they have been charged with 1 + 5 trillion. they have said something closer to 56 trillion. how do you view that? >> they have come from the congressional budget office. i would not hazard any particular number. i would say the general agreement among congress and administration and outside efforts that the steps that were taken what constructive is only

a first step. more will need to be done to treat -- to create long-term sustainability. the number depends on how quickly we want to stabilize its debt to gdp ratio. the 1.5 trillion is one step in the direction of sustainability. >> the there question comes from the company. there is a related question that comes from northwest equity partners. these have to do with fed policy. there has been much in the press about the potential for other reserve currencies to emerge. it is kind of a two-part question.

how important is it that it remains the primary reserve currency? do you see them changing their position on the dollar to try to their of theirvisa th currencies tax credits it speaks on dollar policy. it is important to say. a couple of comments. the fact that the dollar is the primary reserve currency does provide some benefits to the u.s. economy. it makes our interest-rate a bit lower. there is an effective there. the dollar does remain the currency in which the majority of international reserves are held. there is no official reserve currency.

it is a choice. the dollar remains the currency of choice. i suspect that will continue to be the case for some time. a lot of reasons for that. this is something we do not want to lose. we want the markets to be liquid, reliable. and the ability to transact easily is very important. this is one of the reasons why the dollar has remained a key currency. the federal reserve policy is mandated according by congress to address two objectives. one is maximum employment.

i'm sure it is meant to try to reduce unemployment. the second is price stability. these are the objectives that we address. price stability is saying something about the dollar. it means the buying power of the dollar remained stable over time. the federal reserve going bad has maintains a very good record of low inflation. it means stable purchasing power for the dollar has registered. low inflation domestically does not mean the foreign exchange value would be high or low. that goes to a whole variety of factors.

in the longer term, there is a very close connection between our mandate in the value of the dollar. it depends on two things. it depends on our inflation rate in the strength of our economy. we have kept inflation low. inflation has been lower in most countries. that keeps a low. until enhance the dollar. our policy of trying to promote recovery until the economy get back to a country can grow will make the u.s. and attractive investments. it to be the other half of the equation.

>> there has been publicized the fact that there was decision on the open market commission. it may not be a new development. it seems that there has been a more public conversation. how do you view dissension? how should the restaurants would get that ta? >> there's a reason why it is a committee. my attitude has been in two people agree one is always redundant. we have a committee to bring different points of view and

analytical approaches, different perceptions to the economy. i have tried to encourage debate and discussion about what is the right approach. one thing is certainly evident. currently we are in a situation which in many ways is unprecedented. there are problems affecting our economy. we have been looking at alternative ways to stimulate the economy. there are different views on what it is. it is natural to have some disagreements. there's no hiding that.

it is ultimately constructive. when we have these discussions, it is the highest level of collegiality. conversations are extremely cordial. that is what they can do. it will not always be available. we will do our best to find a middle ground. >> a closing question. how would you rate paul g. montes ---- paul giammati's portrayal of you in the recent movie "too big to fail?"\ >> that did not see that.

i saw the original. [laughter] [applause] i think he is an excellent actor. i met with them. the first thing i found out about him was that his father was a commissioner of baseball. what you think we talked about? i think that will do. tell me thank chairman bernanke. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in a few moments, finances have been destructive including comments from timothy geithner. and about 40 minutes, president obama speech to a joint session of congress outlining his plans to create more jobs. then a hearing on homeland's

security since the 9/11 attacks. we will focus on president obama's plan for creating more jobs in the first meeting of the joint committee. our guest will be joshed ernest. washington journal is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. this weekend, the 10th anniversary of 9/11 with nine coverage from each of the memorial sites. here's our live schedule. the flight 93-memorial dedication ceremony. sunday morning at 8:30 a ceremony from the world trade

center site with president obama and former president bush. then vice president biden from the pentagon. the honor those the honored. 9/11 remembered this weekend. >> treasury secretary timothy geithner honor and david cohen talked about how terraced financing has been disrupted since the 9/11 attacks. the comments are little more than a half-hour. >> thank you. i want to welcome all of you here today to pay tribute to your work and the work of so many others. we meet today in the shadow of a

tragedy. our nation suffered a terrorist attack that killed thousands of people. >> those attacks were brutal. they were sophisticated. they were well funded.

the aftermath of the attacks our government revamps the national security structure to fight the threat more effectively. as he began to understand the complexity of al qaeda and other organizations, he wrote of as far sinking his said war is a matter not so much of arms as the money.

the long art of efforts began before 9/11 with secretaries. there preventing the illicit use of the former financial system. we needed a dedicated effort to disrupt the funds in networks of terrorist organizations. secretary snowe established this. president bush appointed them. stewart built a comprehensive strategy.

that team continues to carry on the work that they were instrumental in establishing. they bring together targeted sanctions and international section. it disrupts their ability to fund them. we are analyzing and acting on intelligence toucan restrain the activities to those that would fund terrorism. in the harsh directions, it exceeds.

international cooperation is for the work. whether we are providing intelligence they can act on are receiving intelligence we can use ourselves. multi lateral institutions have institutionalize this focus on year in blockszing this money for terrorist activity and reinforces the ability of governments to target their founders. because of this strategy, they're no longer free.

the pool of money is shrinking. it has grown harder to hide and move funds. 10 years ago, al qaeda is ability to act as a large short 11 to carry of the deadliest terrorist attack. today the al qaeda struggles to secure city financing. it can no longer rely on a thick rolodex. in may, its leader was killed by u.s. forces. oxide is a sophisticated organization. toll continue to find ways finance this. as a look for new methods to move money, we will continue to

develop strategies to stop them this provides them the ability to defeat it as it evolves. terrorism office of has become an integral part of the u.s. architecture and has expanded the options to the president. fueled by success and the recognition it has received, it helps make sure that battling it becomes a central part of our nations and other nations counter-terrorism strategies. as the all move forward together, increasing international operation will be essential.

credit for this progress is owed to many people in the ring today in the hundreds of other dedicated and talented people. they have helped make our nation safer. they will continue to do so in the years to come. we owe them our gratitude. this is a solemn gratitude. thank you. [applause]

join me in thanking the panel. when al qaeda struck the united states, killing thousands, they demanded a swift and powerful response to punish those to leverage all power. to make sure nothing like the attacks ever happens again. our military quickly strong into action driving al qaeda from the safe haven destroying the camps and shut thing the ability to plan, coordinate and launch

another attack. it is also understood that more needed to be done to fight al qaeda including the financial situations. the united states government has undertaken an unprecedented efforts to unmask and choke off the financial support here treasury is not alone. this is truly a whole of government effort involving our colleagues from the defense department's and the law- enforcement community. nor is the united states alone in this fight. we worked closely with the un.

we worked closely with dozens of other countries, many of whom are represented this morning to stem the flow of funds to terrorists. we worked closely to prevent terrorists from using the financial sector to receive, store, move, and use funds. i would like to briefly share the treasury department's assessment of the current situation and sketch out where we will take the financing efforts and the mob -- in the months and years ahead. it became clear that al qaeda was dealing with financial difficulties. we believe is of the worst financial position in years. we assess the situation when not

only impair its ability to operate boeing also likely send al qaeda and its uncertain funding. al qaeda devotes a great deal of attention and effort she raising money in managing its budget. we've learned that al qaeda kept accounting statements on operating costs such as weapons and fuels. it amounted to little more than $1. it is attracted the attention of senior leaders who lamented that they were experiencing great financial hardship. these are not the theoretical concern.

the shortfall had begun to affect the operational capabilities. new information revealed that al qaeda is not only was stressed financially but it was struggling to allocate funds to execute attacks against the u.s. and western interests. this led al qaeda to explore new avenues. further last year, they were seeking to fund-raiser another method, kidnapping for answers. the picture we have been able to piece together includes good and bad news. while it was heartening to get confirmation to disrupt the financing from we are reminded that al qaeda remains an innovative and adaptive adversary. we will continue to innovate and adapt as well to maintain the impact we began to see in recent years. with that in mind, let me turn to the key areas where we will be focusing our energy.

first and foremost, we will keep the pressure on. the recent death of osama bin laden and others capped off efforts to attack al qaeda and has left it weekend. for us the treasury, that means continuing to concentrate on the support networks. yesterday we designated three cockeyed leaders including al qaeda commander, the deputy until his death last month. a longtime al qaeda fighter in terms of the terms as early as last year. he was arrested by pakistani authorities. these actions follow a set of designations we announced in july. it runs through i ran into pakistan. it depends on an agreement between al qaeda and the government and allows them to operate. job one is to continue our focus

on shutting down the pipeline. we need other countries to work with us to combat al qaeda, the affiliate's, and other terrorist organizations. this is especially true for kuwait. it has become environments for funders. there's no question that they are strong allies of the united states and that we share many important goals and work closely together on many important initiatives. the fact remains that kuwait is the only country in the gulf that has not penalize the financing. in a mutual evaluation, the imf emphasized that this deficiency hampers the ability to combat financing. although they enacted a good law a year ago, implementation has lagged. the approach taken poses a danger to them into all of us. we will continue to work with them and urge them to take the necessary steps as others in the region have done over the past decade. as al qaeda of falls and the threat changes, we will continually adapt and expand our efforts to meet this challenge. we are increasing efforts to combat the support network for

al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, al-shabab, and others affiliated with al qaeda. attacking these groups financial support gives new challenges. working with our colleagues and our partners we will devices structures with the way they move money. we're focusing on emerging trends and how terrorists raise money. most importantly, the increased use of kidnapping for ransom. it is a critical funding source

for al qaeda and the affiliate's. we have information that they have raised tens of millions of dollars since 2008 your kidnapping for operations. it is easy enough to say that no one should pay ransoms. at the personal level, when a colleague our job is being held

hostage, it is hard to hear to the no ransoms policy. few do. they're turning to kidnapping for ransom. the u.s. government has a policy against paying ransoms. we believe this dissuades some from targeting americans. really a big share we're planning to target mainly europeans and not americans for kidnapping for operations. they believe they would pay ransom by the u.s. government. in addition to bolstering the

approach, the community must make kidnapping harder in the first place to improve security measures. we must make it more difficult for groups to move and use that cash. as a sharpen our efforts to combat new ones, we'll continue efforts to stay ahead of new ways they store and move money. are growing success in driving them out of the former financial center has led them to rely increasingly on formal methods of moving money. it has sparked an interest in exploiting new technologies and a payment methods. such as storer by you cards in transactions by cell phones. it brings people are around the

world into the sector. it is a critically important goal. these new methods also create new vulnerabilities if not adequately covered. as we continue to disrupt specific actors in networks, we will work to build a more transparent financial system with a robust safeguards that is increasingly inhospitable. as we remember the victims of the 9/11 attacks, this important milestone also provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the progress to have made. more so than anyone would have predicted three years ago. this is things to many people in this room the route the

treasury department, across the u.s. government and around the world had dedicated their careers to this cause. as a survey the challenges ahead from terrorism to other threats, the effective deployment of financial measures will continue to be central to our strategy and success. i speak for all of my colleagues when i say we relish the opportunity to use these tools

to make our country safer. thank you. and >> thank you for this very kind words. thank you for inviting me to this very distinguished meeting which i am honored to be a part of. my boss called. i can attest to this. his role and value in the counter-terrorism efforts are evident to all of us who work with him. i want to thank the office of intelligence for the extraordinary work you do to deprive our adversaries of the funds that feel they're dangerous ambitions. you're on the front lines of the fight. carnation is much safer. i want to thank secretary timothy geithner for sponsoring this symposium today. a displeasing to see so many friends and colleagues. i see the color is back in his cheeks. he looks much younger. his clothes are a step up from one u.s. and work.

there is life after the government. it is good to see you again. in three days will mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. it is right would take a hard look at the work we have done to disrupt this. of like to summarize the threats we still face. the death of osama marked a milestone. the be on it, the leadership strings have been decimated. over the past 2.5 years, more bidders have been eliminated in rapid succession since anytime says 9/11. every major affiliate has lost the key leader. more than half of the leadership has been eliminated.

al qaeda cotton continues to get pummeled. this is not mark the end of al qaeda or the continued plotzing. the preeminent threat remains outcry debt and its affiliates and its appearance. since of timber 11th, the objective of the united states has been aimed at preventi the recurrence of attacks by al qaeda on the u.s. comment. they continue to identify operatives overseas and develop new methods to bring them to attack this at home. this was taken root far beyond the leadership. including in the middle east, east africa, central asia, and southeast asia. although each group is unique, they all aspire to advance the regional and global agenda. by attacking u.s. and other interests and of plotting to

strike the u.s. homeland. in south asia, they continue to pose a threat from their base of operations. an order to make this comment is a launching pad to carry out attacks against the homelands. the united states faces today of counter-terrorism unit. the direct threats posed and the large volume of financial support from individuals that flow from backup region to other ones. i want to emphasize the severing the pipelines is a major counter-terrorism priority. in northwest africa, it has shifted its activity it to the relatives safe haven. the tactic not only endangers taurus the supplies them with an influx of cash. al qaeda seats to inspire

conflict against the united states. al qaeda has had some success in rallying in the villages. in addition to plus directed and plan from overseas, the appearance, individuals who are

there are engaged in terrorism. other organizations continue to threaten u.s. national security interests. they seek to undermine the security and stability of allies. or engage in other activities that amenable to u.s. ones. we receive the support from the government of a run. it has an expansive organization. hezbollah receive support from iran and supplement its budget through drug and criminal activities as well as remittances from sympathizers. this backing helps fund the global terrorist operation, security, and weapon system. it allows them to increase their political influence. it is with in this environment

that the administration developed the counter-terrorism from where. our national strategy is clear. our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda and allies. in june we released the strategy. this strategy is just one part of president obama's larger security strategy. our policies do not define our form policy. they are vital and reinforcing elements of our broader national security interests. our counter-terrorism efforts are essential to keeping them safe and secure. when it the key objectives is to deprive terrorists of their finances. our strategy set out u.s. policy to expand and enhance efforts to block the flow of financial resources to and among terrorist groups and to disrupt

facilitation and support activities. pursuing prosecution to enforce prosecution. our efforts include a wide range of activities. collectively, our activities seek to use all elements of power to sever the funding. it disrupts the ability to raise in move material support stock, prevent terrorist of use of systems and of the charitable sector. improve cooperation with partnering countries. improve our insight into tears finances and activities. in pursuit of these objectives, we have made important progress in combating this. since 2001, the united states and partners have put relentless pressure on al qaeda

and reducing the reporters to the group and inflicting severe the give leadership losses. no doubt where making it harder for them to find and apply operatives around the world. we're making it harder for them to use money, all of which makes it much more difficult and much more time consuming to carry out attacks. the arabian peninsula is the most important source for oxide and its affiliates. will it to our partners in the region to take the lead with u.s. support and insistence rigid and assistance. progress has been made by our partners. for that we of gratitude.

unfortunately, lots of countries in the region have made the same commitment to prioritizing terrorism finance. they remain relatively permissive for all the answers and facilitators. we seek stronger engagement with them on other groups that are fund-raising in these gulf nations. we will continue to push for actions by these government xbox. -- by these governments. reacting to the core finance of difficulties and the affiliate's have required less support as they plan am out terrorism attacks care of the court continues to revise strategic guidance, some have turned to crime to generate funding,

particularly kidnapping for ransom. and at times drug-trafficking. the use of kidnapping reflects a broader concern about the crime. we have concerns that as they come under more pressure they will turn increasingly to criminal networks to facilitate their operations. this is an issue that the president feels strongly about. they continue to feel the forces of terrorism. this is something the president has raised on numerous occasions fed ransom payments only make them more of a threat. the nexus of crime and corruption is extremely worrisome. bakery new findings. they continue to have sufficient resources to sustain the training infrastructure, conduct the tax as well as against the united states.

on the multilateral front, we have worked to halt funding to terrorist networks and individual terrorists who the chansons raising -- who the regime was 1267. it is amenable to finance years under 1267. we have worked to halt funding to terrorists. al qaeda is weakened financial stake today is traceable at least in part to designations of financiers under 1257. during the past few years, the regime came under attack because of increased judicial scrutiny, particularly in europe, with critics arguing it does not provide adequate due process protections for those so designated. in the last year, we have worked diligently with our partners on the security council, particularly in europe, to seek

a solution to this project. there were security council resolutions which strengthened the sanctions to respond to criticism about the regime fairness and transparency. going forward, we hope to see the european union or individual european governments established domestic mechanisms that are able to withstand european court due process concerns. terrorist networks including al qaeda, hamas, and hezbollah have established a legitimate charities and have exploited legitimate ones. the united states has taken action against terrorist entities, donors, and charities through executive order 13224, which freezes assets under u.s. jurisdiction and prevents u.s. persons from doing business with them.

i want to be very clear. well government actions with respect to muslim charities have been infrequent, the have had unintended chilling effect on well-intentioned donor activity. president obama acknowledged this on a speech in cairo. we are working with muslim americans to increase awareness of existing policy and remove unnecessary hurdles to legitimate and important charitable giving. finally, i would note that our efforts to combat terrorist financing, like a larger efforts, are shipped by strategic events. in the last seven months, we have witnessed extraordinary political change sweep across the northeast and north of the cup. it is the most profound change in modern history in the arab world. al qaeda and its ilk have been left on the sidelines, watching history pass them by. president obama has pledged the united states on the right side

of history, pledging support for economic reforms and universal human rights the people in the region are demanding. seismic events such as these under way come with both opportunities and risks. so too for our counterterrorism efforts. we will have to be vigilant to ensure transitions do not create new opportunities for terrorist financiers. we must make sure we are able to take advantage of these opportunities to continue our efforts against the financiers and the terrorists the support. in closing, i would like to say -- to set a brief word about the evolution of the terrorism finance community. what started as an analytic nation has evolved into a full- blown community of experts today, whose work directly supports the national security agenda. these dedicated experts and public servants, many of whom are here today, have proven the

power of financial intelligence. this strand of intelligence is accuracy and durability. it has given insight and understanding of terrorist networks as never before. it has helped expose inner workings, plans, intentions, relationships, and operational capacity. i think there is no great testament than the presence of the director of national intelligence. the treasury department's office of tourism and financial intelligence, the cornerstone of this effort, triggers the to targets the top threats facing our network, including drug trafficking, rogue regimes, and transnational organized crime. a decade after september 11, the terror finance community continues to evolve and thrive. earlier this year, the director established a new intelligence manager. this new position, headed by

lesley ireland, who is here this morning, looks at national security threats including terrorists, drug traffickers, and transnational criminals. i want to emphasize that our progress in combating terrorist financing is the result of many people spanning many years, working hard, day and night. thank you to the distinguished guests. they include steven levy. they also include americans, a former part -- foreign partners, and multilateral institutions, who had an idea of disrupting terrorist finances, which has since evolved into one of the most powerful and effective instrument we have been pursuing terrorists and protecting our citizens from attacks. it is a truly administration relies upon every day. our efforts to dismantle and

defeat al qaeda -- we will continue to strengthen as we do everything in our power to keep the american people said. i want to thank geithner and all of the treasury department being here to participate in this very important event. on behalf of president obama, thank you to all those dedicated treasury and other professionals who have truly made this country in much safer place. thank you. [applause] >> in a few moments, president obama's speech to a joint session of congress, outlining his plans to create more jobs. then a hearing on homeland security since the 911 attacks.

on washington journal tomorrow morning, a focus on president obama's plan for creating more jobs, and the first meeting of the joint deficit reduction committee. the deputy press secretary, representative tom bishop and representative lynn jenkins. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of live events tomorrow morning. former vice president dick cheney will be at the american enterprise institute to talk about how the u.s. responded to the 9/11 attacks. also on c-span 3 at 11:40 a.m. eastern, president obama will be just south of washington. he will be following up on his speech tonight, speaking about jobs and the economy at the

university of richmond. >> the day after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3. senate floor speeches. an american artifacts from the smithsonian's american history museum. recovered artifacts. also, lectures in history. a northwestern university professor on how societal changes in the first half of the 19th century led to the birth of the women's rights movement. you can get our scheduled e-mail directly to you. >> president obama presented his jobs plan to a joint session of congress thursday night. this is 40 minutes.

>> the president of the united states. [applause]

>> thank you. how are you? good to see you. thank you. thank you. >> members of congress, i have these distinct honor of presenting to the president of

the united states. >> thank you. thank you. thank you so much. thank you. mr. speaker, mr. vice president, members of congress, and fellow americans, tonight we meet at an urgent time for our country. we continue to face an economic crisis that has left millions of our neighbors jobless, and a political crisis that has made things worse. this past week, reporters have been asking "what will this speech mean for the president? what will it mean for congress? how will it affect their polls, and the next election?" but the millions of americans who are watching right now --

they don't care about politics. they have real life concerns. many have spent months looking for work. others are doing their best just to scrape by -- giving up nights out with the family to save on gas or make the mortgage, postponing retirement to send a kid to college. these men and women grew up with faith in an america where hard work and responsibility paid off. they believed in a country where everyone gets a fair shake and does their fair share -- where if you stepped up, did your job, and were loyal to your company, that loyalty would be rewarded with a decent salary and good benefits, maybe a raise once in awhile. if you did the right thing, you could make it in america. but for decades now, americans

have watched that compact erode. they have seen the deck too often stacked against them. and they know that washington hasn't always put their interests first. the people of this country work hard to meet their responsibilities. the question tonight is whether we'll meet ours. the question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy, [applause] whether we can restore some of the fairness and security that has defined this nation since

our beginning. those of us here tonight can't solve all of our nation's woes. ultimately, our recovery will be driven not by washington, but by our businesses and our workers. but we can help. we can make a difference. there are steps we can take right now to improve people's lives. i am sending this congress a plan that you should pass right away. it's called the american jobs act. there should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation. everything in here is the kind of proposal that's been supported by both democrats and republicans -- including many who sit here tonight. and everything in this bill will be paid for. everything. [applause]

the purpose of the american jobs act is simple -- to put more people back to work and more money in the pockets of those who are working. it will create more jobs for construction workers, more jobs for teachers, more jobs for veterans, and more jobs for the long--term unemployed. it will provide a tax break for companies who hire new workers, and it will cut payroll taxes in half for every working american and every small business. [applause] it will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled, and give companies confidence that if they invest and hire, there will be customers for their products and services. you should pass this jobs plan right away. [applause] everyone here knows that small

businesses are where most new jobs begin. and you know that while corporate profits have come roaring back, smaller companies haven't. so for everyone who speaks so passionately about making life easier for "job creators," this plan is for you. pass this jobs bill, and starting tomorrow, small businesses will get a tax cut if they hire new workers or raise workers' wages. pass this jobs bill, and all small business owners will also see their payroll taxes cut in half next year. if you have 50 employees making an average salary, that's an $80,000 tax cut. and all businesses will be able to continue writing off the investments they make in 2012. it's not just democrats who have supported this kind of proposal. fifty house republicans have proposed the same payroll tax cut that's in this plan. you should pass it right away.

[applause] pass this jobs bill, and we can put people to work rebuilding america. everyone here knows that we have badly decaying roads and bridges all over this country. our highways are clogged with traffic. our skies are the most congested in the world. this is inexcusable. building a world--class transportation system is part of what made us an economic superpower. and now we're going to sit back and watch china build newer airports and faster railroads? at a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in america? [applause] there are private construction

companies all across america just waiting to get to work. there's a bridge that needs repair between ohio and kentucky that's on one of the busiest trucking routes in north america. a public transit project in houston that will help clear up one of the worst areas of traffic in the country. and there are schools throughout this country that desperately need renovating. how can we expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart? this is america. every child deserves a great school and we can give it to them, if we act now. [applause] the american jobs act will repair and modernize at least 35,000 schools.

it will put people to work right now fixing roofs and windows, installing science labs and high--speed internet in classrooms all across this country. it will rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hit hardest by foreclosures. it will jumpstart thousands of transportation projects across the country. and to make sure the money is properly spent and for good purposes, we're building on reforms we've already put in place. no more earmarks. no more boondoggles. no more bridges to nowhere. we're cutting the red tape that prevents some of these projects from getting started as quickly as possible. and we'll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria -- how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it would do for the economy. [applause] this idea came from a bill written by a texas republican and a massachusetts democrat.

the idea for a big boost in construction is supported by america's largest business organization and america's largest labor organization. it's the kind of proposal that's been supported in the past by democrats and republicans alike. you should pass it right away. [applause] pass this jobs bill, and thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work. these are the men and women charged with preparing our children for a world where the competition has never been tougher. but while they're adding teachers in places like south korea, we're laying them off in droves. it's unfair to our kids. it undermines their future and ours. and it has to stop. pass this jobs bill, and put our teachers back in the classroom where they belong.

[applause] pass this jobs bill, and companies will get extra tax credits if they hire america's veterans. we ask these men and women to leave their careers, leave their families, and risk their lives to fight for our country. the last thing they should have to do is fight for a job when they come home. [applause] pass this bill, and hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people will have the hope and dignity of a summer job

next year. and their parents, low--income americans who desperately want to work, will have more ladders out of poverty. pass this jobs bill, and companies will get a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job. [applause] we have to do more to help the long--term unemployed in their search for work. this jobs plan builds on a program in georgia that several republican leaders have highlighted, where people who collect unemployment insurance participate in temporary work as a way to build their skills while they look for a permanent job. the plan also extends unemployment insurance for another year. if the millions of unemployed americans stopped getting this insurance, and stopped using that money for basic necessities, it would be a devastating blow to this economy.

democrats and republicans in this chamber have supported unemployment insurance plenty of times in the past. at this time of prolonged hardship, you should pass it again right away. [applause] pass this jobs bill, and the typical working family will get a fifteen hundred dollar tax cut next year. fifteen hundred dollars that would have been taken out of your paycheck will go right into your pocket. this expands on the tax cut that democrats and republicans already passed for this year. if we allow that tax cut to expire if we refuse to act middle--class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time. we cannot let that happen. i know some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-- class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away.

[applause] this is the american jobs act. it will lead to new jobs for construction workers, teachers, veterans, first responders, young people and the long--term unemployed. it will provide tax credits to companies that hire new workers, tax relief for small business owners, and tax cuts for the middle--class. and here's the other thing i want the american people to know -- the american jobs act will not add to the deficit. it will be paid for. and here's how -- [applause] the agreement we passed in july will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next ten years. it also charges this congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by christmas. tonight, i'm asking you to increase that amount so that it

covers the full cost of the american jobs act. and a week from monday, i'll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run. [applause] this approach is basically the one i've been advocating for months. in addition to the trillion dollars of spending cuts i've already signed into law, it's a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by making additional spending cuts, by making modest adjustments to health care programs like medicare and medicaid, and by reforming our tax code in a way that asks the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share. [applause] what's more, the spending cuts wouldn't happen so abruptly that they'd be a drag on our

economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle--class families get back on their feet right away. now, i realize there are some in my party who don't think we should make any changes at all to medicare and medicaid, and i understand their concerns. but here's the truth. millions of americans rely on medicare in their retirement. and millions more will do so in the future. they pay for this benefit during their working years. they earn it. but with an aging population and rising health care costs, we are spending too fast to sustain the program. and if we don't gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won't be there when future retirees need it. we have to reform medicare to strengthen it. i'm also well aware that there

are many republicans who don't believe we should raise taxes on those who are most fortunate and can best afford it. but here is what every american knows. while most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets. right now, warren buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary -- an outrage he has asked us to fix. we need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake, and everybody pays their fair share. [applause] and i believe the vast majority of wealthy americans and ceos

are willing to do just that, if it helps the economy grow and gets our fiscal house in order. reformso offer ideas to a corporate tax code that stands as a monument to special interest influence in washington. by eliminating pages of loopholes and deductions, we can lower one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. our tax code shouldn't give an advantage to companies that can afford the best--connected lobbyists. it should give an advantage to companies that invest and create jobs here in america. [applause] so we can reduce this deficit, pay down our debt, and pay for this jobs plan in the process. but in order to do this, we have to decide what our priorities are.

we have to ask ourselves, "what's the best way to grow the economy and create jobs?" should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? because we can't afford to do both. should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? [applause] right now, we can't afford to do both. this isn't political grandstanding. this isn't class warfare. this is simple math. these are real choices that we have to make. and i'm pretty sure i know what most americans would choose. it's not even close. and it's time for us to do what's right for our future.

the american jobs act answers the urgent need to create jobs right away. but we can't stop there. as i've argued since i ran for this office, we have to look beyond the immediate crisis and start building an economy that lasts into the future -- an economy that creates good, middle--class jobs that pay well and offer security. we now live in a world where technology has made it possible for companies to take their business anywhere. if we want them to start here and stay here and hire here, we have to be able to out--build, out--educate, and out--innovate every other country on earth. [applause] this task, of making america more competitive for the long haul, is a job for all of us.

for government and for private companies. for states and for local communities and for every american citizen. all of us will have to up our game. all of us will have to change the way we do business. my administration can and will take some steps to improve our competitiveness on our own. for example, if you're a small business owner who has a contract with the federal government, we're going to make sure you get paid a lot faster than you do now. [applause] we're also planning to cut away the red tape that prevents too many rapidly--growing startup companies from raising capital and going public. and to help responsible homeowners, we're going to work with federal housing agencies to help more people refinance their mortgages at interest rates that are now near 4 percent a step that can put more than $2,000 a year in a

family's pocket, and give a lift to an economy still burdened by the drop in housing prices. other steps will require congressional action. today you passed reform that will speed up the outdated patent process, so that entrepreneurs can turn a new idea into a new business as quickly as possible. that's the kind of action we need. now it's time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for american companies to sell their products in panama, colombia, and south korea while also helping the workers whose jobs have been affected by global competition. [applause]

if americans can buy kias and hyundais, i want to see folks in south korea driving fords and chevys and chryslers. i want to see more products sold around the world stamped with three proud words -- "made in america." that is what we need to get done. [applause] and on all of our efforts to strengthen competitiveness, we need to look for ways to work side by side with america's businesses. that's why i've brought together a jobs council of leaders from different industries who are developing a wide range of new ideas to help companies grow and create jobs. already, we've mobilized business leaders to train 10,000 american engineers a year, by providing company internships and training. other businesses are covering tuition for workers who learn new skills at community

colleges. and we're going to make sure the next generation of manufacturing takes root, not in china or europe, but right here, in the united states of america. [applause] if we provide the right incentives and support and if we make sure our trading partners play by the rules we can be the ones to build everything from fuel--efficient cars to advanced biofuels to semiconductors that are sold all over the world. that's how america can be number one again. that's how america will be number one again. [applause] now, i realize that some of you have a different theory on how to grow the economy. some of you sincerely believe

that the only solution to our economic challenges is to simply cut most government spending and eliminate most government regulations. [applause] well, i agree that we can't afford wasteful spending, and i will continue to work with congress to get rid of it. and i agree that there are some rules and regulations that put an unnecessary burden on businesses at a time when they can least afford it. [applause] that's why i ordered a review of all government regulations. so far, we've identified over 500 reforms, which will save billions of dollars over the next few years. we should have no more regulation than the health, safety, and security of the american people require. every rule should meet that

common sense test. but what we can't do what i won't do is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that americans have counted on for decades. [applause] i reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. i reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients. i reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. [applause]

we shouldn't be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards. america should be in a race to the top. and i believe that's a race we can win. [applause] in fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everyone's money, let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they're on their own that's not who we are. that's not the story of america. yes, we are rugged individualists. yes, we are strong and self-- reliant. and it has been the drive and initiative of our workers and entrepreneurs that has made

this economy the engine and envy of the world. but there has always been another thread running throughout our history a belief that we are all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. we all remember abraham lincoln as the leader who saved our union. but in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future a republican president who mobilized government to build the transcontinental railroad, launch the national academy of sciences, and set up the first land grant colleges. and leaders of both parties have followed the example he set. ask yourselves where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways and our bridges, our dams and our airports? what would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend

money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges? millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, had the opportunity to go to school because of the gi bill. where would we be if they hadn't had that chance? [applause] how many jobs would it have cost us if past congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the internet and the computer chip? what kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down social security or medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? how many americans would have suffered as a result? no single individual built america on their own.

we built it together. we have been, and always will be, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, a nation with responsibilities to ourselves and with responsibilities to one another. members of congress, it is time for us to meet our responsibilities. [applause] every proposal i've laid out tonight is the kind that's been supported by democrats and republicans in the past. every proposal i've laid out tonight will be paid for. and every proposal is designed to meet the urgent needs of our people and our communities.

i know there's been a lot of skepticism about whether the politics of the moment will allow us to pass this jobs plan or any jobs plan. already, we're seeing the same old press releases and tweets flying back and forth. already, the media has proclaimed that it's impossible to bridge our differences. and maybe some of you have decided that those differences are so great that we can only resolve them at the ballot box. but know this -- the next election is fourteen months away. and the people who sent us here the people who hired us to work for them they don't have the luxury of waiting fourteen months. [applause]

some of them are living week to week, paycheck to paycheck, even day to day. they need help, and they need it now. i don't pretend that this plan will solve all our problems. it shouldn't be, nor will it be, the last plan of action we propose. what's guided us from the start of this crisis hasn't been the search for a silver bullet. it's been a commitment to stay at it to be persistent to keep trying every new idea that works, and listen to every good proposal, no matter which party comes up with it. regardless of the arguments we've had in the past, regardless of the arguments we'll have in the future, this plan is the right thing to do right now. you should pass it. and i intend to take that message to every corner of this country. [applause]

i also ask every american who agrees to lift your voice and tell the people who are gathered here tonight that you want action now. tell washington that doing nothing is not an option. remind us that if we act as one nation, and one people, we have it within our power to meet this challenge. president kennedy once said, "our problems are man--made therefore they can be solved by man. and man can be as big as he wants." these are difficult years for our country. but we are americans. we are tougher than the times that we live in, and we are bigger than our politics have been. so let's meet the moment. let's get to work, and show the world once again why the united states of america remains the greatest nation on earth. thank you, god bless you, and may god bless the united states of america. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> after the president's speech, members of congress

responded just of the house floor. >> i am congressman randy nock a bower of texas. >> i was disappointed. we were hoping the president would bring new work, fresher ideas about how we get americans back to work. this sounds like another stimulus package, which is what the president proposed the first time. we know that has not really worked and we still have over 9% unemployment in this country. obviously, we are looking for more details. the president was short on details tonight. he said he would get back later on how to pay for this. overall, i am disappointed that we are trying to do the same things we have been doing, and those are not working. >> specifically, what would you have liked to hear from the president? >> one of the things we have been saying to the president is these job-killing regulations

spewing out of this administration -- this president is setting records on new regulations. one of the things we pointed out today is just a portion of the new dog-franc bill -- dodd-frank bill takes millions of hours to comply with. we are putting our money and resources for compliance officers, and not people who can go out and building things and create jobs >> the president putting a halt to new epa regulations? >> would like to see the president do more of that. hopefully he is beginning to realize those are just killing, particularly at a time when we need energy development in our country. that was legislation that was really going to stifle energy production in our country. that is something we do not

need right now. >> in texas, the unemployment situation is not as bad. the president talked about bridges between ohio and kentucky. is there some real validity in doing that, in getting people into those jobs, building schools and roads and bridges? >> absolutely, if you can afford it. we would love to build more things and roads, but i think we have to do it within our means. we know a lot of those projects are not necessarily being held up by funding, but the long permiting process that takes 10 years to get a highway project permited. if the president really wanted to do something positive, he could help us fast track some of those projects. >> why do you think what you heard from the president will not speed up those things? >> it is one thing to say something. it is another to take positive action.

>> thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> the president mentioned a jobs program in georgia, an experimental jobs program where unemployed folks can get new skills. how is that working? you think that is something that can work on a national level? >> i think it is possible. that program was started by our labor secretary back in 2003. initially, it was for no pay. unemployed for more than six months. but have an opportunity to partner with a voluntary program with countries for six to eight months. hopefully, some of those companies would say these are good workers with a great

attitude. they stay up early and stay late. we're going to give them a job. it is not perfect. we do not have time to discuss the details. but i was pleased to hear him reference the georgia program. the commissioner is still enthusiastic about that program. it is working fairly well in the state of the georgia. >> do you think the president's goals on job creation and tax plans are feasible and can be passed? the you think something will pass? >> the american jobs act -- he said let us pass this now. he said it at the end of every paragraph in his speech. $447 billion -- that is more than half of the original stimulus act that passed in 2009. we did not do much for the unemployment rate there. the other thing he did not say is how much additional taxation

in regard to the so-called rich add who constituted the rich. those making $200,000 a year -- it would have been great if he had said -- i am for balance. i have been talking about balance a long time. i would enjoy a balanced budget amendment. wouldn't that be refreshen? -- refreshening -- refreshing? >> they would get the payroll tax extension cut in half for the next year, but only if they hired additional workers. i do not think they should get a free pass on that. what concerns me -- it is a compassionate thing. i understand. he talked about reforming

medicare and medicaid, and was not specific about that. the was a lot unsaid. the devil is always in the detail. if he had said let's pass a balanced budget amendment and we are going to go ahead and extend the tax cuts for everybody beyond 2012, we are not going to let them expire in this deep recession. this is not the time to raise taxes on anybody. a rising tide lifts all boats, and especially the boat of the middle-class. >> thanks for being with us. >> glad to be here. >> thanks for being with us. >> what did you hear in the speech? >> i heard a rousing speech that focused on what the american people care most about. that is jobs and economic

recovery. a lot of specifics. we will get more details to follow. the focus is on the unemployed. we have lots of those in ohio. returning veterans with no jobs. some mentioned helping our young people. i have been worried about them with no work all over this country. it is paid for. the president said put politics aside and he is willing to fight for his ideas across the country. i was really glad to hear that. >> the president said he would fill in more details. what can you tell us about how this will be paid for? >> he was talking about a cut in payroll taxes. i think that is going to be a big help to small businesses that hire, and also individuals who will be able to have less taxes to pay. he also made a reference to those who obviously have done quite well. in my own opinion, they need to

show they are for the republic. we expect he will give more detail on that in the future. if more people go back to work, more revenues coming to the federal government. unless you get people back to work, you are not point to solve the deficit problem. 40% of carpenters are out of work. they could be fixing our schools and highways. the you know how much that yields back to the economy for every dollar spent in transportation and infrastructure? it gives back $1.50. it is much more than tax credits we have used in the past. he was right on the money in so many fronts. his focus is right. he is embracing the whole country. i thought his spirit was 1000%. he is willing to fight for it. so are we. >> what is the unemployment situation like in your district?

>> it is over 9%. we have chronic unemployment related to the outsourcing of so many jobs. he talked about rewarding jobs in america, making things in america. in our region, we are not producing cruise. the chevy car is really an ohio car. also the wrangler. chrysler was rescued and our steel industry is picking up because of that. we have some of the leading solar production platforms on the continent. we are trying. but we cannot do it without the federal government helping us, and the president and congress pulling with us. i am very excited. i wanted him to talk about jobs for the last 2.5 years to the extent he did tonight. >> thank you for joining us.

>> congressman from missouri. how are you? what was your reaction to the speech? the american jobs act -- pass it now. >> i think the president laid out a very common-sense plan to create millions of american jobs. it makes sense. he took ideas from both republicans and democrats, put it into one piece of legislation, and said no congress do your work. we have had six weeks in both the house and the senate to listen to our constituents.

>> good morning, the meeting on homeland security will come to eared, and the committee is ready today to hear testimony assessing the status of homeland security on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the september 11, 2001 terrorist

attacks. the chair wishes to remind our guests today that demonstrations from the audience and the use of signs and t-shirts or verbal outbursts are against the rules of the house. we thank you for the cooperation in maintaining order and the proper decorum. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. i welcome everybody to the hearing today and i especially thank the witnesses for being here today. chairman lee, leeamilton, who had a truely outstanding career in the united states congress, as chairman of the foreign affairs committee, foreign mmittee, a person who person son mid the best of congress and served as co-chairman on the 9/11 commission, and somehow we always get him to come back. he has amazingtamina and dedication, lee, great to see you here again today. i understand he's running late to travel today, but also

secretary tom ridge will be testifying today. tom ridge was the first secretary of homeland security. prior to that, he served as governor of pennsylvania, and served six terms in the house of representatives, and our third witness this morning is the honorable eugene dedaro. all of us have personal stories from september 11th. in my own case, lost 150 constituents and friends on that date. you can go to other districts where there's many, if not more, and i know we've worked with family mmbers of the 9/11 victims, but it's important that we not be bogged down just in grief, that we look forward, and that was really what i think our country did starting on september 12th,001. one never forgets september 11, do all we can to the families of

those murdered that day, but also to all that we possibly can to make sure that these attacks are never replicateed. we have not been attacked in the country for 10 years, and this goes to other administrations and the obama administration. this is one issue which is probably as close to being bipartisan as possible. obviously, there are some philosophical differences and policy differences we have, but the fact is certainly when i was chairman before and then ranking member and as chairman now, i always believe had the excellent working relationship with ranking mber thompson as we tried to find commonground and try to minimize the differences

between us. there's been other actions taken beside the creation department of the homeland security. there's the director of national intelligence, and, of course, this committee itself was set up in response to the attacks of september 11 which probably goes to one of the areas where congress' not done what it was supposed to do by what was recommended of the 9/11 commission, which is to consolidate jurisdiction within this committee as much as possible. there's still over 90 or 100 or whatever number we want to use, subcommittees, commites, and commissions that the department of homeland security has to report to. this is not a turf battle. this is the fact we send mixed messages to the department. we are sending mixed signals as far as what congressments in the area -- congress wants in homeland security, and this fragmentation to me is inviting, if not disastrous. certainly it's preventing law

enforcement and intelligence agencies from doing the jobs to the maximum by sending so many mixed signals. again this is an area where ranking member thompson and i fully agree. it's an area where secretary ridge, secretary napolitano fully agree, and just as i said, overall, our policies have been bipartisan both in congress and the executive level, a also the failure to consolidate jurisdiction has been a bipartisan failure, and we have to do all that we can to bring that to consolidation about, and others in the area of grants which has been spread to other areas that need them the most, and i give credit for -- the

work that was done, and not trying to draft back into duty, but congressman frank wolf and i are reconstituting the commission ten years after. other areas to move forward and allocate to police, firefighters, first responders. no one wants to go through another september 11th where there's a lack of communication, inability to communicate, and ten years later, we have not taken action. i'd like to acknowledge to the audience chief johnson and story county from iowa who were in the

forefront of fighting for the deblock which is absolutely essential. the leadership is devra davis stated because of bin laden and all those who oppose terrorism. at the same time, and n we have al-qaeda attempts to recruit in our country and attempting to recruit people under the radar screen so as we

have scored successes in one area, the enemy is adopting, and we have to continue to adapt along with it. as we approach this weekend, it's important to think back on how horrible that day was and told ourselves we would not allow that to happen again. the further we get from 9/11, the horror in the people's recessed memories, but the further it's behind us, the more we, i believe, invite another attack whether it's in congress as far as cuts we make to homeland secuty, whether it's media who agent like the struggle is over, or just the american people who is very understand baling, wants to put this in the rearview mirror, but the fact is, the enemy is there, just as dedicated before, it's weakened, but adapting. we have to stand as one to do all we can to make sure that 9/11 never again repeats itself

so with that, i want to thank all the witnesses for joining us here today, and i'm privileged to yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. tompson. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and most of what you said i agree with, and as you said, we clearly have had a wonderful and positive relationship as we have differences from time to time. i'd also like to welcome our newest member on the democratic side to the committee, so we now have a full complement, and we look forward to the debate. >> welcome you also, thank you. >> mr. chairman, today we meet to hear testimony on the nation's progress in bringing about safety, security, and resiliency against terrorism since the attacks of 9/11, but before we look back, i want to

acknowledge and remember all the firefighters, police officers, and on-air people who lost their lives that tuesday morning. remembering those who died must inspire us to make this nation better and safer. mr. chairman, there no doubt that the events of september 11, 2001, brought about fundamental changes to this nation. the events of this morning changed just about everything we know about aviation security, information sring, and fast response and recovery. overtime, this government changed policies and practices. the american people have changed their expectations. today, most peoe regard many new security issues as a reasonable price for security, but as we enter theecond 9/11 decade, we must begin to question the price we pay. between 2004 and 2010, the department spent nearly $300

billion to secure our nation. several initiatives have improved our security and eliminated many vulnerabilities we once faced. increases in the number of rder patrol officers, the establishment of secure flight, and u.s. visit, the revitalization of fema, and new attention to securing chemical and bilogical materials all improved our security posture. all of these things have been good and necessary, but as we reflect on the past 10 years, we cannot pretend that progress has been steady and unimpeded. many pointed to the growth in homeland security spending and reliance on outside contractors at the beginning of homeland security industrial complex which may undermind our security in the long run. i cannot isolate the cause for this incredible increase in spending, nor can i deny that congress' has the inability to

consolidate jurisdiction is a contributing factor. the splintering of jurisdiction fractured every aspect of the didn't's operation and decreased its ability to operate effectively and efficiently. the inability of congress to provide the department with one strong and steady hand created opportunities for the network of using consultants who we may call the beltway bandits. i hope that the chairman work with the leadership to ensure that these jurisdictional hurdles are overcome as chairman already said inthe opening comments, there's enough blame on both sides to go for this jurisdictional hoer rases that we in this case. this committee mors pursue jurisdiction of the department. mr. chairman, as we were called on 9/11, we must remember that the terrorist attacks of that day caused us to fight a new kind of war. the war on terrorism has not

only been waged in information and iraq, but it has also been fought on our shores. a recent study reports that nearly 200 terrorism cases have been brought in u.s. courts since 9/11. nine out of ten of those cases have ended in convictions. we should be proud of our success in engaging threats here at home, but our work in securing the nation must also assure our rights and freedoms. the 9/11 commission understood this necessity and recommended a privacy and civil liberties oversight board. today, that board is still not functional. i hope my colleagues will join me in requesting that appointments be made to this board immediately so as i consider our progress since 9/11, i would call it a mixed bag. we made strides, but still have miles to go before we can rest. i yield back. >> thank you, ranking member

tompson and members of the committeere reminded opening statements mob published for the record, and i alsosk unanimous concept to insert the 10th anniversary report card, the recommendations prepared by the bipartisan policy center, national security preparedness group. without objection, so ordered, and now we'll -- secretary ridge, good to see you, very good. joined by secretary ridge. first witness this morning as i mentioned is lee hamilton, long time distinguished member of congress, vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, former president of the national center for scholars and true gentleman in every sense of the word, and if anyone served in congress and served his nation in a bipartisan and patriotic way, it's lee hamilton. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman.

i ask unanimous consent my statement be put in full in the record. >> without objection. >> ranking membe, mr. chairman,members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear with you today. this committee provided outstanding and enduring support for the implementation of the 9/11 commission recommendations. we are most appreciative of the leadership and its members for your support. by doing so, you're helping ensure that our nation takes the difficult steps necessary to confront the terrorist threat and to protect the american people. today, i'm appearing in my capacity as a co-chair, the bipartisan policy centers preparedness group which is a successor to the 9/11 commission through the nspg, governor chain, who could not be here this morning, governor ridge and i together with a bipartisan group of security experts monitor the implementation of

the 9/11 commission's recommendations and address emerging national security issues. it is a very special pleasure, of course, to appear with governor tom ridge as well as the comptroller general before you this morning. last week we released a important on the commission's recommendatns. the good news is that substantial progress has been made in fulfilling many of the recommendations. among these is the transformation of the intelligence community in breaking down barriers and information sharing. however, the unfulfilled recommendations in the report indicate we're not as secure as we could or should be. i'll cover several now and allow ridge to discuss the others. unity of effort for the many actors at a disaster seen is critical because a well coordinated response saves many lives. our nation was not fully

prepared for the size and complexity of the 9/11 attacks or for that matter, hurricane katrina. ny metropolitan areas where multiple agencies respond to a disaster still have not solved the problem of who is in charge. dhs and state and local governments have toork together toesolve gaps in establishing roll roles and responsibilities, conducting disaster planning, and exercising those plans. a unity of command, knowing who is in charge, is a no-brainer in terms of wt must be done to respond to a disaster, and it is a source of high frustration to me, and i think other members of the commission that we have not yet resolved that problem satisfactorily across the nation although some communities have made considerable progress. secondly, the civil liberties

and executive power. i spent a good day yesterday listening in good part to the extraordinary capabilities that we have today in government to surveil people and to keep track of what they're doing. i've had that briefing before and i'm impressed over aga. if you have not had the opportunity of what the capabilities are today and what they will be ten years from today, i urge you -- taking whatever steps you can -- to get that briefing. we recommended in the 9/11 commission that a privacy and civil liberties board should be addressed to monitor civil liberty concerns across the government. you will not fail to be impressed by the potential of

government and individuals now to intrude into the lives of ordinary people. although legislation was enacted to establish this board, it's been dormant more more than three years. to date, only two of the boards five members ve been nominated by the president, a chairman has not been selected, the remaining three should be appointed immediately. next, the director of national intelligence, the establishment of the director of national intelligence and the national counterterrorism center 20 coordinate the activities of the intelligence community represented major progress and intelligence reform; however, there's some ambiguity about the dni's authority over budget and personnel, and there's been four dnis in six years. further clarity about that role is needed, and that clity can come from either additional legislation or by action of the president with repeated

declarations from him that the dni is the unequivocal heard of the intelligence community with rerd to budget, personnel, and other matters. next, standardized secure id's. 18 of the 19 9/11 hijackers obtained 30 state of issued ids amongst them enabling them to more easily board plain -- planes on that dreadful morning of 9/11. therefore, we recommended that the federal government set standards for the sources of identification. 2008, dhs issued detailed regulations setting standards for driver's license issuing. however, the state's compliance with the regulations has been delayed until 2013. that delay in compliance creates vulnerabilities and makes us less safe. no further delay should be authorized, and instead from my point of view at least, the deadline should be accelerated. next, transportation security.

with significant federal funding, tsa deployed large numbers of enhanced screening equipment in explosive detection. unfortunately, explosive detection technology lacks reliability and lags in its capability to automatically identify concealed weapons and explosives. dhs must improve the way it sets screening technology requirements, works with the private sector to develop this equipment, and tests it in the fid. finally, with regard to standards for terrorist detention -- i know this is not within the jurisdiction of the committee, but it's an important matter -- for too long we delayed resolving the important problem of recon silling the rule of law of detaining alleged terrorists, no doubt who they attempt to do the nation harm. there must be a law, comprehensive approach for how

to handle detainees and protect the american people. to conclude, while we have done much since the attacks ten years ago, we are safer than we were that day, all of us, i think, there is still much more to do. political leadership from both paies and at all levels of government should renew their focus on completing implementation of the 9/11 commission recommendations. thank you. >> thank you, chairman hamilton. the next witness is an old friend of people in the congress. i had the privilege of serving with tom ridge when a member as congress, became an outstanding governor of the state of pennsylvania, and was present at the creion when president bush appointed him to be the first assistant to the president of homeland security. he's a unique perspective on this being there from the start an monitored the develop over the department and of the

homeland security mechanisms in the country oer the past ten years. tom was a college graduate, law stay tuned, drafted, served in vat nawm, received the bronze star, and truly outstanding member of congress, and, again, like chairman hamilton, dedicated to his country and on this issue in particular. it's an hoer nor to have you here today, and you are recognized. >> thank you chairman, ranking member and members ofhe committee -- [inaudible] i join my colleagues in thanking my colleagues to express my appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you today as we reflect upon the nation's security efforts ten years after the attack of 9/11/01, and franklys we consider the priorities for the future. i'm very pleased to be joined

today at the witness table by someone you recognize. we all recognize as a great patriot, lee hamilton, and obviously we recognize the service and contribution -- >> pull the mrch close. i'm having a hard time. now it's fine. thank you very much. >> i recognize the service of comptroller gene dodaro, who bring distinguished credentials and significant points of view to our conversation today. as i look back over the last 10 years, it is abun adaptly clear that america was, is, and will always be an undenily resilient country. in the decades' time, we strengthened intelligence assets and partnered with allies and friends, captures and killed terrorists, destroyed safe havens in afghanistan and around the globe. we set up a new department, the department of homeland security, and repositioned as the country embraced an e motionally

charged, but i think strategically driven, national mission. we improved preparedness and response kates and established layers of security throughout our aviation system. we embedded new technologies and security measures throughout both the private and public sectors. individual citizens, i believe, are more prepared and they are certainly more aware. with public and private sector leadership in investment, we are more secure, but we rain a target nonetheless. over the course of 10 years, the threat remains strong and continues to change. we have twharted some attacks, but others have simply failed. what makes some uncomfortable, we must acknowledge no matter how hard we try, another attack is likely. the responsibility is on us then to understand there's more to do

and that luck is not a strategy. as we close one as a rule inert, we should anticipate the terrorist adapts and seeks out another and be ready for that. we must view security as an ongoing process, not an end point, a delibetive process, not a breathless reaction to all conceivable threats 1 required at all times. terrorists do not rest, so neither can we. we wear wristwatches. they have time. a number of security measures await our attention. we have strengthened information sharing in this country and among allies and friends, but we still saw an attempted christmas day bmber come close to his goals doo to an information not being shared. i, for one, also believe that the failure to sharenformation

and the failure to act led to the horrible tragedy associated with the deaths of the people at fort hood. we need to create a culture of intelligence sharing where everyone feels empowered to hit the send button to share more, not les we bolstered communication technologies burks -- but an inoperateble communication system remains undelivered. if the tragedy of 9/11, the specific recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and the sustained pleas of police, firemen, and emergency service personnels cannot generate federal support for such a network, what will it take? ladies and gentlemen,what will it take? we have instituted an entry system to validate who comes into the country, but have not created an exit system that ensures the same visitor leave and do not exploit an unfinished system. it is likely, therefore, we have

people among us overstaying their visas. where are they now? what are they doing? why are they here? respect the way i say this -- the issue of congressional oversight is a 9/11 recommendation that also goes unanswered. ..

but we all know this threat would remain long after the man was killed. 10 years is not a lot of time, but it isnough time to know in the next 10 years to fight will be with us. it will go on, but so will we, as a stronger and more secure country, as the resilient in freedom loving people we have always been a designation that will always remind you those the last one september day. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, secretary ridge.

our next witness is to keep everybody on this. attorney general gene dodaro come within more than 30 year record of achievement. he served more than nine years as chief operating officer at gao and with that i look forward to your testimony and it's a perspective we don't always hear, so i search and look forward to you this morning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member thompson, members of the committee, very pleased to be here today to discuss gao's view on homeland security issues. it's a privilege to appear with hamion and bridge this morning. we issued a report of the work we have done over the past decade, looking to homeland security issues. we've made over 1500 recommendations during that period of time. with adopted a constructive approach and try to do our part to help about quest to make our homeland more secure.

the department has reacted favorably to implementations and is adopted many and many have not been fully implemented. they bought a message of our report was progress indeed has been made since 9/11, but much work remains on gadson weakness is that the department needs to address in order to reach its full potential. on the progress site, when secure flight. we've assisted out to check against terrorist watch lists on passenger lists. we have a visa entry biometrics system as governor ridge mentioned, to track people coming into the country. we have a visa security program come over dhs is now working with department of state officials in the process of determining who gets a visa in order to come into the country. there's also what automated verification authorization

system for the visa waiver countries, wher pieces aren't needed, that checked if they counted. we toasted resources at ports of entry, equipment and infrastructure they are and that the borders across the country. i'm also pleased there's been greater emphasis on cybersecurity in the national infrastructure plan in fema has issued national response framework and documents to ensure emergency preparedness and better clarity of goals and responsibilities. on the work remaining side, first to point to the fact that we need to continuously improve the processes and technologies for screening at the airport, particularly including a plan to bring the equipment for screening checked baggage up to current levelsor detecting explosive devices. secondly, i would echo the

comments of my colleagues in that we needn exit system for this contry. over stage remains a significant problem. estimate to betweenour and 5 million people and if we all reca, five of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 had overstayed their visas. so having an exit strategy is important. his great opportunities to expand the visa border security program. dhs is not working with the state department on all critical high-risk issues previously done by placing additional people overseas are perhaps remotely working within the united states. so that's an important issue as well. there's also a task to provide more timely and actionable threat and alerts on cybersecurity issues to the private sector and others and help them dealing with a growing problem of cybersecurity intrusions.

there's also a need for fema to come up with the metrics assess it to assess capabilities and readiness of jurisdictions. we have framework and guidelines , but we'v yet to have any objective assessment of readiness and preparedness levels across the country. also, you need to effectively implement the global nuclear detection strategy and we've made some recommendations in this area. there's a need to strengthen efforts to detect biological agents and threts to our country. lastly, i would point to a report, highlighting the need for the department to improve their management systems and infrastructure to help support these very important missions. problems that have been occurring in the acquisition area. it's been a number of failed acquisition attempts. a lot of money is at stake to

about 40% of the budget is on acquisitions and that means to be improved, along with development and testing of technologies before they're deployed. so the financial management systems need to be strengthened to properly account for funds available. they're one of of the few departments that are unable to pass a clean audit opinion. going forward in the austere budget environment, it's important that we make the most efficient use out of the monies and manage wisely. this concludes my opening stement. i look forward to answering questions. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you controllers general dodaro. my first question would be to secretary ridge and hamilton. i'm on this committee, the intelligence committee and i haven't figured out what the role of the director of national intelligence is. i don't mean that in a sarcastic

way. he seems to be no defined role. if anything comes position is weakening. chairman hamilton, he mentioned that they take action to firm up responsibilities. we tried to have the race firm that we in general petraeus. i don't see much likelihood you'll see this president or any president the immediate future coming back on the powers of the cia. as a practical matter, where do we stand with the dni? >> i think it's very important to understand where we were before 9/11. at that time, you had the so-called leader of the intelligence community, director of the ca, who didn't have power over the budget and most of the personnel in the intelligence community. so all of the cia nurse focused on the cia and not the other 14

or 15 elements of the intelligence community. our principal recommendation in the 9/11 commission report is that you had to get away from stove piping information from conduct human agency and the basis of need to know and can do the agency on responsibility to share because we lost lives because we did not connect the dots. we did not share information. we recommended that you needed someone overeing the entire intelligence community with considerable power, with respect to personnel budget. he passed a law saying that the direct of national intelligence that power, but in the same landwehr was wordage that kind of weakened the power so you may get some unambiguous. so the director four and six

years in that job. the direct heirs have performed very well. it's a test spot, even with the statutory power because you are dealing with very big players in any administration. secretary of defense cia air. regardless of statutory powers he may have come enough to exercise power with a great deal of diplomacy and discussion in order to make it work ffect lee. personalities are very, very important. i think the dni has done tremendously good work enforcing, if i may use the word, sharing of information. do a better example of what tom ridge referred to, removal of osama bin laden, when we had a marvelous example of sharing of information, coordination,

integration, military civilian components of our government. so i think mr. chairman, the dni is a work in progress. i think several of them have made very significant progress over a period of time. we are not there yet. you do not have the seamless sharing of information that you would like to have, but it seems to me, it's a lot of progress has been made. but a personal preference would see a lot in a bid, making it unambiguously clear that this man is in charge because somebody has to knock heds to be blunt about it, within the intelligence community, to get them to coordinate and integrate their activities. i think almost the same thing could be accomplished if the president ade very, very clear repeatedly, his support for the dni. i think president bush and president obama have both done

that, but not as forcefully and repeatedly as they think the job requires. so it work in progress. a lot of progress made, still a lot to do in improving intelligence sharing and the government. >> secretary ridge come anything to add to that? >> one brief comment. i appreciate lee hamilton did on that and share it. the role of the dni if you look at lucy might eat to coordinate activity. well, this might be attempting to courtenay activities between agencies that the mine site and arled by strong personalities. so the extent we should could clarify with great specificity the role of the dni is strictly oversight. does he have budgetary control?

is one thing to control or at least had the opptunity to coordinatea dvd, but it would be well stated if you want to get somebody's attention, you control the purse strings. the men who have served us as dni had done a remarkable job. it's a difficult task given the institutional mindset about the agencies of which the oversight responsility and coordination accountability. and i was not privy to some conversations that the dni's have had with respect to the intelligence community leaders. it's difficult to them and acting secretary, as congressman hamilton has pointed out, further clarification of greater specificity as to the church might be helpful. >> my time is running out for her. i would like to ask important questions of chairman hamilton as secretary ridge. do you just synthesize a few at

the import of radio interoperability and i respect term? >> well, look, this is another no-brainer. did people but the responsibility at the scene of the disaster must have the ability to commucate with one another. not just verbally, but exchangg all kinds of data and information that can be helpful to the first responder. this is a source of enormous frustration why we can't solve this problem 10 years after the fact. i know there are two bills pending in the congress. the commander of ground. you can argue it flat. i don't want get into that this morning. it's less important which approach of these is taken minutes to get it done. we cannot permit delay of this. we lost lives that 9/11 could be lost lives that katrina because

we were not able to get good communication. one thing you know when you study these disaster events is that communications under the best of circumstances are going to sail. it's a chaotic situation. but going into the event, you want to have the best communications you can. so my plea to you is get this thing resolved. i think it's an urgent question and shame on us, shame on us if we have not solved that problem in the next disaster strikes. >> secretary ridge. >> once again, i find myself doing that the hip with lee hamilton. but it simply, ladies and gentlemen, detect elegy exists. where is the portable will to get it done? by the way, there are competing measures before the house and

the senate. but i look to you this. polimen and firemen and emergency responders what you do make a choice. all they want is a system. the opportunity to get voice and data and video over the broad band and not just in response to a terrorist attack, but a natural disaster or horrible accident or incident. what if we do for this country, although it's an investment taste upon the reality of associate with 9/11 would dramatically improve public safety across the board. as i repeat again, it's not a matter of technology that exists. it's in order to execute on the recommendation of the 9/11 commission. >> i recommend that i introduce to your. that's excellent leadership.

>> i think -- think the number. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. hamilton, jurisdiction is the heart and soul of committee's ability to t this done. as you know, that's an issue. we try when democrats are in charge. we shy when republicans are in charge to get the jurisdiction of the committee. in her testimony as well as secretary ridge's is again another one of those no-brainers for us not to get done. can you just put up team time,

repeat how important consolidated jurisdiction is? >> well, you think both the chairman a new, mr. thompson, have articulated it well in your opening statements. i don't know how many cities in such committees are now involved. i think close to 100 oversight and both houses and oversight of the dhs. governor ridge, secretary ridge can speak t that better than i. but it is an enormous burden to put on a secretary to come running up here for a second time, sport and as tha is an chu azzarello all the questions and reports so that the fragmented jurisdiction becomes a real hindrance to their respective performance of the department of dhs and theyave

enoughroblems without an additional one here. now, i serve on every congressional reform after we had in this congress during my years in the congress and i think our sults were less than spectacular. but i know something about how difficult it is to change jurisdictis. i think what has to be done here is for mebers of congress and particularly the leadership of the congress to recognize that insetting up these jurisdictions, they are not just moving boxes around to placate members of their caucus. ey are dealing with the lives of the american people. and the jurisdiction, and integrated jurisdiction of the oversight committees is essential to the effect of performance of the homeland

security depart name. >> mr. secretary, do you want take a shot at it? >> well, thank you, congressman. i can remember proudly and happily te 12 years i served in the congress of the united states. an essay sitting at this level are probably enjoy asking questions morehan answering them, but that's aother story of enjoying the conversation were having today. i remember a ti time again with colleagues on both sides of the outcome a walking to get a vote and we be scampering from the committee to subcommittee and we would all lament. wheresoever schedule. we don't get a chance to spend an hour to an committee because there's so much jurisdiction that's been shared andthere are too many people to stay focused on one or two committees because the diversity in assignments is worthy of her wording, even on members of congress.

and i believe that the department, still evolving, still trying to integrate the business line for maladies associated with procurement reform and budget reform and fince and h.r. and i.t. and you still have the responsibility to develop and execute on policies. your partnership come in the partnership of the congress of the united states, the strategic heart mayorship is absolutely essential to the success of the department and enhancing the security of the united states is in the hands if you can compress the number of committees and subcommittees so that there is a certain level of web-based expertise among a smaller group of members, of house and senate members that will oversee the department. again, that responsibility falls to the leadership and i would be

hopeful one of these days we can create the true strategic relationship and partnership by integrating some of these committees so there is not as much oversight. i can recall in my own experience, we were conducting war in afghanistan and iraq and i appeared before the house and senate more often than secretary rumsfeld did. but that's not just yours truly. that's the undersecretary and to be secretary. and by the way, everybody takes their responsibility to abeer before you seriously. there are boards and we sit in front of our colleagues and ask questions you might anticipate and then obviously there's questions for the record. would be a much stronger strategic partner if yu would consolidate the jurisdiction and i think the dhs can regardless of the administration and he's in charge could benefit from it and certainly appreciated. >> thank you very much.

mr. dodaro, we have a question about resilient spending. u lucked out with the department is doing well and what they need to improve on. but therere some people who say we spent over billions dollars in dhs. ca we look at that investment and say that is a level of security that we can reach, that won't guarantee that nothing bad will happen, but we need to also prepare the public for when something bad happens, how we come back as a nation, whether it's a county, city or state. have you looked at that issue from an investment of dollars in point in seeing whether we should be also preparing for something to happen?

>> we basically look at the concept of resiliency and the fact that it needed to be built better into the planningfforts of the department, along with the response plan. we focused a lot on the initial recovery from an event -- excuse me i got it backwards. the initial response, but the recovery efforts have been ones that take longer and still go on over a period of time. as we looked at it conceptually. we haven't, i don't believe, look at how many dollars go into that area versus the other area. but we have looked at are the investments made over the years and i do think the depart and greatly needs to expand its capabilities to make those investments were wisely and prudently. we've made many recommendations. they've developed better plants, but they have to implement plans to make sure whatever investments they make, whether it is for the initial response to recovery or resiliency for

going to provide a good return on investment for the american people. i think they have had some major problems right now i'm the i.t. portfolio. our 466 projects every $3 billion in needed serus manageent attention back to run accounts of the board. so this is a broad-based problem. it's not just one focused on resilient they. >> well, the point i'm trying to get at is, do we continue to throw good money at the situations or is there a point where we have to come up from policy standpoint, prepare this country to b able to come back after the occurrence, notwithstanding doing the best job you can, i think the resiliency aspect of the depart and is something we need to put front and center because every

situation that occurs, historically we throw millions and sometimes billions of dollars after the christmas day bombing incidents, we thought machines for afterwards that people already said they would not detect ther items that we alreadknow that wille coming through airports. so is that a good many? >> basically, i agree there is a need to make more prudent investments. we've said many times that reports the technologies need to be tested and environments before they are deployed and we've made many recommendations to make sure that they strength in the ability to do that. there is the initial, you know, the action that people want to do something quickly. we have suggeed they need to

put better processes in place to make sure whatever they do and they make those investments they actually work and get us. so i agree completely with you. i know we've made many recommendations. think the department is trying to improve their acquisition process is an investment policies and we are going to stay focused on the issue to help make sure that they do. you know, we have been managing the transfer of department of homeland security that we keep for the congress. one of the main reasons it's on the high risk list is because the management pack says suport these provisions have it been implemented usinbest practices. >> thank you. >> thank you, ranking member. i recognize the gentlelady, ms. iller for 10 minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the witnesses and your service to the nation. a quick observation before asked

the question i'll pick up on sending secretary ridge said when you talk about the christmas day bomber and the lack of sharing information. this particular incident has fallen off the radar screen. but it sure has announced for a security area. it's crazy watching the skies go to the federal court system. he's not representing himself. you know, we had to give him his miranda rights, send and to the university of michigan and here's this guy who, in my mind, should've been tried as an enemy or military tribunal and it makes me mad. i kn you're a vietnam veteran. i'm pretty sure when you're in vietnam looking at the enemy come you didn't think about giving them the miranda rights or what have you been letting them go through the federal court system. we are facing a different kind of enemy. every time i look at the poster on the back, showing the twin towers, i think about these

cockroaches, these murderers commit these terrorist after us now. that particular day, back i saw the battlefield in an asymmetrical term and battlefield in hismind that davis unseat 198 and the northwest flight. i think it's outrageous that this administration does not treat these terrorists as enemy combatants. that is what they are. we need to have a clear view of the animal rear facing for going for going to be successful in securing borders and securing our homeland. i'd like to ask a question. i'm going to pick up on the visa issue that both the secretary and mr. dodaro mentned as well. i am the chair of the subcommittee. my ranking member mr. cuellar and i will have a hearing on the entire visa situation which is a great consternation, pointed out in theconsultation, continues to be of great consternation.

it has been advanced that about half of all the illegal aliens that are in our country actually did not come here across the border. .. is you could flush a i haven't read all of her 15 recommend asians yet. in regard to the visa is there anything you can tell us.

>> yes, first i mentioned the visa security program and this is where dhs is working the state department in the initial screening before the visas are given. right now, there is only i think about -- they are not fully deployed in all high risk areas and i can provide the statistics for the record but our basic.there is that having dhs work more with the state department can enhance that initial screening process and that is particularly important because of this overstay issue and it will take us a while to be able to deal with that issue. so we think dhs can either be deployed in order to work with the state department but also to work with remotely her to work with them to screen them and communicate electronically. the main point there is that all high risk country should he covered and can be covered. right now they are not covered. also on the visa waiver countries, the electronic

notification system, that is working fairly well in about 90% of the people are authorized using the electric system. but 2% or not and that is over 600,000 people, so we have made a recommendation to the department to figure out why they were allowed thinner why the electronic notification did not work harper lee in that area. and then there is the exit system strategy. there have been a lot of pilots that have an provided satisfactory answers. that is one of t things i want us to do more work on to see if we can help identify some means to do this. it is a huge issue but it is very important. until we have all three of those itial screening the countries that are not in the visa -- required to have a visa or visa waiver and those that are on a visa waiver and have an exit system you won't have acomplete system of protection. >> could i just add in

response -- look at biometric exit system is required today by law. it is in the law. dhs will tell you that it costs too much to implement. if that is the case then they should come back to the congress and give us a plan as to how they are going to do with it in ascii for the money. but like anything that is complex the thing to do here under the present circumstances is to face it, and that might take a period of a few years. you can start with the vast majority of travelers who go by air and you can have a biometric exit system today incorporated into our current airline operations without much difficulty. very similar to the way that you get a -- and a reservation situation. you can do it with one fingerprint per passenger.

so what i'm saying is that it is a tough problem and it is not easy and it isn't expensive. but the law is the law and it is vitally important to the security of the country that we ha a biometric exit system. if you can't do it all at once which you probably cannot, at the very least we ought to phase it in. the canadian border you are right in there at the canadian border, you could make that land border and exit of the united states and new technology could play a role in making exit a reality there at a reasonable cost. i want to see us move ahead on this. >> thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for your service to our country and for being before us today. i wanted to comment a little bit on the whole issue of jurisdiction because you all

have no problem with us up here wanting to solidify the jurisdiction of this committee, and it is very frustrating on our part to put so much time and effort into understanding the issue that the department is dealing with and doing our oversight to it, to try to go along and draft legislation and to try to pass it, passing it out of committee in many cases and thenhaving it signed because it does have another jurisdiction and it has got to go to another committee and they never take it up or they really never take up. so when you look at the actual legislation that comes out of this committee it has been very little in the five, six or seven years we have been around now because we are signing by those jurisdictional issue so anything you can do to continue to soar to push the congress to get it all in one place or at lease in

less than the 88 subcommittees and committees both on the senate on the side that i last counted that have some piece of jurisdiction would be important for us here to be able to actually follow through on a lot of the work that we do. i am also very concerned with the u.s. visit program. for mr. choir i was the chairman when the democrats controlled the maritime border committee and that was a very big issue for us and in fact when secretary napolitano was bore our committee this year, i asked her specifically about the exit part of the u.s. visit program and she said a sickly that the department was not going to continue to work on that exit peace and instead would prefer to put money into ice and that there was really no way -- the department stopped working on the backend of that, so in a

minute if you could give a comment to that, what do you think that is wise or whether we should continue with my good friend mr. hamilton said at lease began to implement it in the airport situation. i also want to ask you about the program if any of you are familiar with it. that is the transportation worker identification card and in particular may be to our secretary over there. because we have had so many problems putting this together. it is a biometric card. it is a card that is supposed to be read by a reader. there are no readers yet and it is a big problem in particular for people -- for workers who ha to go every day and you have to take time away. do you think a mail-in system to review a -- we are almost coming

on the fifth year of the renewal of this twit card for our workers and they will be facing some of the same problems they face five years ago when we started into this program of how do i get it, where do i go? do i have to drive two hours and as you know right now it is a flash card rather than a reader card so if you could comment on that. the last and is the issue of the continuity of the congress. in particular as it relates to the house of representatives. we really have done nothing to insure, and as you know in the house of representatives, if something should happen to a majority of us, there would need to be special elections in order to put someone forward and be able to constitute the house back, and that might eat a laborious process. if you could comment atll to whether the congress or this how should really be concerned about doing something about the continuity of the congress? and any of you who would like

to. >> i will start on the twit card, and i would be happy to subm our report on this card for the record. we find a lot of control problemsith the card in terms of how dhs enrolls people to use the card. the fact that they don't require updates and whether people still need the card or not. we actually had undercover investigators gain access to forge fake cards and false documents so there is a lot of control problems in order to make it work effectively under the current program. we have made a number of recommendations andi will submit that report for the record. with regard to trying to address the overstay issue with i.c.e. resources, you know basically that would be helpful but that really not going to address the problem in our opinion.

i.c.e. basically has about 1000 cases a year where they identify oversights -- overstays and that is compared with estimates of 45 million people in the country, so i think the exit system is very important and needs to be implemented, whether it is in phases or not. the volume is too big and it is always more difficult to find people after they are here than to make sure you know when they are leaving. so those are my comments on those two issues. >> on the continuity of congress question, i have not looked at that in great detail but obviously you ought to -- we ought to be very sympathetic to that. the airplane they came down in pennsylvania we think was headed for the capitol building and had it struck at the right time and in the right place you could have had a high number of casualties among members of congress. so i think it is a serious

matter and a few years back probably not so serious but becoming more serious, and the technology that is becoming increasingly available to the terrorists, including anthrax and we saw the effort to acquire castor beans for the production of this resin, a very toxic poison. those kinds of things could strike on capitol hill very quickly, so i'm quite sympathetic to efforts, and i don't know the detail of the continuity in the congress. on a committee jurisdiction question, i wrestled with that one. it seems to me that if it is going to be done, has to be done at the beginning of the session, and because that is when you consider the structure of the congress and it has to be done

by a bipartisan agreement among the leadership. it could not be possibly done by the leadership of a single party. the perspective that has to be taken is hat this is a national security matter. the lives of americans are at stake. on the basis of the quality of oversight of the congress, and this is not a matter of placating members of your party caucus. this is a national security matter. now we all know that the leadership wrestles with an awful lot of problems and they tend to solve those problems and my experience would be on the basis of their caucus. the eaders report to the caucus and follow the will of the caucus. i have suggested to the executive ranch and incidentally the executiv branch is enormously frustrated by this,

really frustrated. the director of intelligence of dhs and governor ridge has expressed that very well. i suggested the other days to some of the executive branch people that maybe what should be done is to put together a kind of a super committee if y would of past national security people, who have great stature, republican and democrat, and go to the leadership prior to the beginning of the new congress and just try to explain to them how importa this matters, that this is really critical for the national security of the united states. all f them would say that, have no doubt about it because i have talked to all of them. trying to get the leadership to see this problem in terms of a

national security problem rather than helping particular members retain jurisdiction of the dhs. it is a very ough problem and i am very open to other suggestions on it but maybe this is worth a crack. bipartisan leadership action will be necessary to get it done. >> thank you. the next person in line of questions is congressman walberg and congressman marino has been called back to his district. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much. i appreciated. mr. dodaro being a former prosecutor and district attorney, u.s. attorney, attorney, know the importance of trying to be able to communicate with agencies, whether it is a terrorist attack, whether it is an automobile accident or a drug raid and i am all for coming up

with a system and implementing whereby if we needed to, someone in pennsylvania could be talking to someone in florida via some type of direct communication. have you ever calculated or estimat what the cost of something like that would be because i know in my area of northeastern and north-central pennsylvania, the mountains cause a great many problems so we are probably talking about satellite. do you have any idea what that would cost us? >> as a pennsylvania native myself understand the mountains. very good. i don't believe we have. i know we have done a lot of work looking at the development standards to ensure the interoperable communications would take place. i will go back and check. if we ave anything i will give it to you but i can't think of anything off the top of my head

where we have done the calculation that you are requesting. it would be an interesting exercise. >> this is one area where i am leading in the direction of, you would pay for itself 10 times over. but thank you. i appreciate that. >> the cbo has made estimates on this and it is expensive and there isn't any doubt about it. do you put it the block network construction in place as the estimates from between 11 and $24 billion that i have seen. now, you are going to have to do all you can of course to control costs. the option of some of the spectrum can be used. i know that is a very complicated and difficult matter, but like all tough decisions in government is a matter of priorities here, and the capacity of the first responders to talk with one

another is so important. it seems to me that costs have to be worked out. it is a very high priority. we lose hundreds of lives because of this. i have experienced that myself. >> congressmen if might add being familiar with pennsylvania myself i dare say it would be a long time i suspect before we have the kind of technology that will reach into every community in eve state. i suspect as good s the wireless is and as good as the technology and the dramatic improvements within the private sector on a regular basis to expand the reach, but i don't think we have to make a perfect enemy of the good. i think it is like the homeland security, you manage the risk. would u2 to manage the risk? in this instance you save yourselves what do we do to bring the maximum bass communication capability with existing techlogy t as many people, communities and the

state as we can. it arctics this. i think it would be the infrastructure technology we have 290 or 95% of americans. i think we ought to move as quickly as possible. >> congressman hamilton and governor ridge, this final question. there has been some talk among colleagues, among people out in the field that, do you think at this point there should he at least a discussion as to combining the department of homeland security and the department with another department? would there be any efficiency and matt? for example, defense? >> creating a new department of government is arduous work. and once you have created it to

work is just beginning in a sense. i was around here when we created the department of energy back in 1976 and sometimes i wonder whether we have got an integrated department there even today. dhs has had very good leadership. tom ridge is a good example of that. >> that was not my intent at all. let me make that clear. >> look, what was 22 agencies or something like that were brought together, it is now has a budget of $50 billion or whatever the figure is, and if you suddenly moved to a new rorganization, i would be quite skeptical of that at this time. i think the focus at this point should be on getting the dhs to work and to work much better because when you reorganize the major department of gvernment and the federal government you have really got a formidable

task on your hands. >> govnor i have eight seconds. >> i reca the days where we try to identify the units of government that we would pull together to aggregate them to create the department of homeland security and there was much discussion as to other entities would we voted are not. i believe that the congress and working in the executive branch at that time assimilated the right number and the right rooms. the congress has been looking for day -- but all those reports like a lot of thers have gathered dust. so think we need to remind ourselves that mostof these were men and women working and existing agencies and the assimilation process continues. we also need to remind ourselves that the condition of homeland security will wear your customers and border protection, fema, the secret service, immigration and customs enforcement, coast guard,

they'll have traditional missions as well and on top of those missions we layered on additial responsibility to homeland security, so i think he want tointegrate anything to make homeland security more effective and more efficient, it is a national security issue. you don't need o integrate it to anything else. you just really need to integrate committee oversight so congress can become a strategic partner that dhs needs. >> gentleman thank you. and chairman thank you. >> the gentlelady from texas ms. jackson-lee is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much and i beeve it is appropriate during the days prior to the tenth anniversary that conjures emotions amongst many of us is to really cites the patriotism of the three witnesses and the value that they have given to the necessity

of securing the homeland. i pay tribute to each of you and your own responsibility and the way you let in thank you so very much for that service. i want to acknowledge as well my chairman and ranking member because they are accurate that we have worked together. the one thing that we have not done on this committee is challenged members to patriotism. we have disagreed on policy but we have not challenged the patriotism. i consider each of the members andmyself a patriot and i am so grateful thaeven though we critique studies, that the 9/11 commission will find its place in history along with secretary ridge who had to feel your ay after the aftermath of 9/11 but

the 9/11 commission report congressman hamilton, will be a book that we will continue to learn from. i think it is important to join the legislation of this - [inaudible] and i believe that it would be important for us to make two commitments. one, 10 yers later, we should have the ability to communicate amongst the first responders and of course, it anyone that is addressing a natural disaster. the second commitment is the combination of jurisdiction if you will, combining so that we have an efficiency of scale. i would like to thank our first responders but to add to that

our rescuers because there are those who came unlabeled at the world tower and in pennsylvania obviously there was devastation a a lack of possibility of anyone who had survived. no one knew that in the powers and there were a lot of those who were discovered and found, and let me thank all of those individuals and if i might say, i hope may maybe in these next hours the new york celration will find a way to add our first responders and add those who may not have been able to find space. a big pa system and put them all up in manhattan and i think it would all be happy. the reason why he laid the groundwork is because i don't think there is a more and important task than what we have before us. i wanted to probe mr. hamilton the comment he made about the inability to detect explosives

and the comment in our memorandum that says aviation and airport still remain vulnerable. can you expand on your point about the inability to detect explosives and my belief that is is still aviation airports are still one of the more attractive targets for terrorism? >> i think a lot of effort has been made in the area of technology to develop a device that can detect immediately various kinds of explosives that may b hidden on your body or in your body. and this is a problem that receives 9/11. this too has been a great concern that over the years and hang spent a lot of money and having a lot of i guess very evil scientist looking into it,

we have not succeeded yet. the gao i think as issued a report on this and i m sure the general may want to comment. but i think we have to accelerate this effort as best we can, and get our act together, because this is a huge vulnerability. in our air traffic system today. the detroit incident has already been referred to her, but i think dhs really has to bear down on this. seetary ridge may be able to comment on it as well -- to develop the technology to the point that we can make the detection of all kinds of explosives. all of us recognize the vulnerability. >> let mehank you for your service and have these questions if i might mr. chairman to let secretary ridge. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired.

answer the question. >> if i could put these questions on the record, let me just ask this question. >> i want to ask the question beyond the five minutes. >> it falls under my committee. >> the gentlelady can ask questions but they won't be answered. >> if you would comment in the course of answering the one about the explosion, the value of the ssenger fee for security and not privatizing tsa? >> i would ask if the answer could be given in riting to that question. >> thank you mr. chrman and i thank the panels for being here today and for your service. being a new member on the cybersecurity subcommittee, it has been an eye-opener for me beyond just my normal thought that the light switch works when i turn it on and off, and the mputer screen comes on.

i have the necessary protections on my computer that i can purchase for various things. as i have gotten into this committee it has been amazing to think about what has to be done in an age when a small cell can spend very little money to purchase resources that can break into and in fact can destroy our infrastructure very quickly, thinking of cms energy in my district and detroit edison and going through some of the processes that they do, amazing processes, to deal with these cyber attacks that come in on a regular basis. and then hearing talk about rum our own government level of the need to have a public private partnership and in dealing with these concerns for our energy infrastructure, our computer communicaons infrastructure.

i guess my questionalong this line specifically to governor ridge and congressman hamilton, what is the best way to address this threat to our critical in per structure from those who don't even need to set a foot on our land and also what can be done to improve this partnership, this public-ivate partnership that everybody talks about but at this poinin time at least to my understanding doest seem to be implemented to a great degree yet and is always seemingly below, performing below expectations? any solutions to this that you could address vernment -- governor ridge? >> first of all, i think the administration has clearly begun the discussion with a piece of legislation that has invited a great deal of scrutiny and some

criticism and as i've been participating in a couple of public forums it is pretty clear that at least initially they understand that it is something that they actually needs to engage in the private sector in and the discussion as i said standards and the like so i think you have got a long way to go. ..

in unelected capacities. we attract lawyers, signed case, cyberexperts. make no mistake about it. the great capacity of knowledge and information on this issue lies outside of government. if there was ever an issue where republican and democrats, both of whom talk frequently about public private sector collaboration come if there was ever an issue where you might want to think of some of your standards and regulations around a track to end up biting and creating a true public either part or sip can we bring in a series of x-rays to wor and then collaborate systemwide this would be the issue. this is the issue that i think puts itself to the kind of holistic collaboration between all the expertise you have in

the very, a lot with well-intentioned experts within the federal government. one final comment. when i try to attract just advisory board, nonpaying, to assist decorated terry of homeland security to deal with several issues, the requirements for the public site are in the kind of information they have to share with the congress or regulators discourage a lot of ll at tension people to participate in the riser report. and i understand excreting, but on this issue and other issues, we have to get it on the mindset that people with the expertise and a private set her cardhouse seems to simply feather their own vast to work and collaboration with the congress of the united states. on this issue, perhaps the

enemy. but at some point in time would have to trust americans to help america. and when you create regulatory barriers and impediments to well-intentioned people who went to disney executives, gillette executives to participate on a day-to-day basis, i think we really frustrate the value of the true public private sector collaboration. and this is what i thik really needs to be done and needs to be met now. >> thank you. >> i appreciate the question. they think we are beginning in the nation to seriously good address it, but were only beginning to. you're quite right to point out the vulnerability. we are exceedingly vulnerable to cyberattack in this country, both in government and in the private sector because the premise that are controlled so that the infrastructure.

secondly, when you have an attack, it's difficult to know where it come from and it is very hard to hold someone for something to teach, some state responsible. not impossible, but not always easily done. having said that, one of the things i think we need to do is make vey clear that a warning briley, an attack on this country's infrastructure by cyberattack, we will take exceedinglserious and we will respond. we will respond in the most appropriate way possible. we can't predict exactly how that will be. but if we can identify the perpetrator, then well o after them. will go after them with whatever means are necessary to wipe them out. we cannot tolerate this kind of

an attack. now, the ne point is next point disorganization. and here i am a little fuzzy to be blunt about it, but i think the government -- i hope the government is beginning to get its organizational structure in mind to deal with cyberattacks. the line of responsibility between nsa and dhs is not all that clear to me, but i think it's moving, although not as fast as i wou like. the type knowledge he expertise on this within the government so far as i now come to rest with the nsa. and they are developing both offensive and defensive means of dealing with a cyberattack and that needs to be encouraged. i do think, and you make the point very well in your

question, that we have to strengthen dhs's ability to work with the other. my judgment is that this point on my experience is the private sector is quite an evening here. there are many people in the air who are very plugged in on this and other vulnerabilities and are taking steps to deal with it and are consulting the government. but there are also many areas in the timing to be not the huge companies that are not so plugged in. and so, i think there has to be in the art as governor ridge has suggested between the terry and the government to sharpen our defenses. >> thank you. >> mr. cuellar is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i went to cheney mac and the ranking member for having this meeting, the work with if you

have done to improve homeland security. i want to thank the witnesses, chairman hamilton county secretary ridge and the controller, thank you for all the work gao, all three of you with the information resources you provide for homeland security. let e ask yo this question that has to do with aviation. in the wake of 9/11 we made sweeping changes to her aviation security that includes strengthening security measure for the two flight schools. i know all three of you mentioned a lot of progress, but it's still about more work to do. however, as recently as two weeks ago, we the situation close to my district in south texas. several were discovered receiving flight training in south texas without the proper visas. as you recall come the 9/11 aviation flight schools in visas also. those are the three major -- there is a major reason. in this case, what there's no

indication of terrorist intent on this particular case, we know the aircraft remains a highly attract a target for terrorists. it is strip leading contenders after 9/11 we have foreign nationals taking site and training in the u.s. without the requisite fretting or riverside. in fact come a few days ago the fbi and homeland security issued an al qaeda threat to small aircraft just a few days ago. just let me give you briefly the facts come in the way understanding. we depart from its core that of busting a tree at both imortant and so. that's how this got started. the boaters out there. this person is taking flight lessons. he was one of several mexican foreign nationals who traveled to the valley to get the pilot's license. homeland security went up there after the fact and deported

three of them because i think the problem was instead of using a proper and one student visa, because they were getting training, they were operating under a v1, b2 visitor visa. so instead of a student visa, the recent tourist visa is to get that training. eventuay, saa was asked in a sad, the mexican-based company that comes are tedious to do their training was leasing the aircraft to the pilots to train. again, fao rules basically the pilot and is responsible for the aircraft itself. the issue i have after 9/11 when you had aircraft, flight school training. you had visa issues, here we are 10 years later, what does this incident suggests that our progress in the broader issues of aviation security, visa

security, 10 years after 9/11? secretary, since you were there at my friend, president bush, governor bush, you had to get right on that and then the other gentleman can answer that. >> the details were first made known to me today by your explanation on it and make thank you for the. my first reaction suggests that it points -- the incident points to the lack of a broader inastructure associated with no the question of getting maxes theo the airports and flying lessons, but the broader and the structure this needs to be inadequate with regard to the issuance of visas and the identification relative to the individual to get the visas, their nationality and the reason

they have extended the visa. it would be problematic to me. and i don't know how to escape attention to the department of homeland security, but if there was a biometric card associated with this, they were lawfully just on a piece that i could check their tourist visa, i'm not sure if the proprietor i would've been inclined to give them flying lessons, at least not until i check with homeland security to give more background information. it speaks to a broader challenge we have. i know this is not the place to do with it all, but the broader idea of immigration reform and frankly the 21st century infrastructure to identify and monitor duties of those who would grant the privilege of crossing our borders as guests on the visa. >> and secretary, there's only one flight school.

imagine what could be happening across the nation. >> congressman, we did work in 2004, 2005, looking at flight schools in tsa over the flight school and there is need for improvement in that area and made recommendations it will be starting hools in following up in tsa's oversight over the flight schools. the other comment i have as it relates to general aviation, we have a lot of regulation of commercial airport at an state-level regulations and requirements for aviation. we just issued a report to be happy to provideor the record, highlighting issues they are. with regard to vis i reiterate my previous point that there is a need for the exit approach and whether or not these individuals with overstayed their visa or not. i'm not familiar as governor ridge mentioned that the

details, but the system still needs to be strengthened. >> hamilton. >> every one of your phone on private aircraft, general aviation in the fall of that impressed with how convenient it is compared to the commercial airports and how easy it is. and i thought a hundred times as i've done that, boy zero boy, this is a vulnerability for us. i'm glad to see now authorities are beginning to look into the small aircraft problem because it is a hugely potential problem for us. i can't add to it the others have said. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. choir in the chair now recognizes the chairman of the terrorism subcommiee, mr. mann. >> thank you, mr. chairman for

this distinguished panel and not just her presentation here today, but i would actually say at the zenith of your career, committed to these issues can each of you has taken on a remarkable role in this. and i appreciate the fact you have looked back and taken the time to analyze what hasn't been done on the recommendations who previously made. i want to focus a question with respect to that. mr. hamilton, i had the opportunity to o back and revisit a site in which a terrorist incident was averted and related to the situation in which there is a cartridge that was attempted to detonate on an air carrier plane, a ups plane. and the after action review that i got a chance to participate in was a case study you made about the lack of somebody really being in control from the simple

way for people who are trying to participate and help you are getting different demands from different agencies that the same time, same information. how do you get it right in that critical moment when as you stated, decisions are being made to be life or death choices. what we need to do to get better at the point of incident? >> you are speaking about the first responders and the unity of effort at the site? >> yes, incident command. and you identified in this report, which is not going back to that point. >> it's critically important. i don't want to suggest that the mass been done because i think a lot of some pilot programs have been run. some attention has been given to it. but i don't think it's a

resolved queion. politically, it is difficult to resolve. if you have a disaster as they have any consequences come you've almost certainly have a numberf contending authorities. you have a governor, a mayor, port authority and county officials. you're the president and federal officials. and politicians don't lie to address these kinds of problems ahead of time because theyare difficult to deal with who's in charge. , but our whole effort was to encourage that decision to be made in every metropolitan area if not a country. at the time of katrina, the governor of louisiana was very heavily criticized and i dont

know a lot of the details of that, but she had four helicopters in her command. she needed 150. so i've come to the conclusion that if you have a major disaster in an area of multiple jurisdictions, the federal government has to come in. the reason theyave to do is because they're the only ones who have the wherewithal of resources to respond. you need one. you need housing, unique food, you need hundreds of decisions have to be made fairly quickly about the response. so i think we have to just keep encouraging local, state, federal officials to plan and exercise their plans. it's not enough to have a plan.

importanabout a plan, but it's not enough. like the military does, and a constant of maneuvers and exercise is. he's got to have exercises in a given community. it seems to me, to get through this problem. so those are some random thoughts. >> i do want to say that we follow up on that. governor ridge, this has to be sort of a remarkable moment figure sitting here now 10 years later and you served in the congress. you were governor of the major state, pitcher on the ground floor in the beginning of the creation of an address critical agencies responding to this issue. more significantly, you were there every day with the president, making decisions in real time. as you look back now 10 years later, what is it that still keeps you up at night about what we can be doing were doing better? is there an observation saying

boy, we could do this now. this is the way that i would do it. >> someone asked me in the first couple of mons actually while i was in the white house, before we then created the department of homeland security, i slept at night. i said i don't sleep much, but i sleep well. they were kind of astonished by dnc. and the answer was obvious at the duties of the date required vigilance throughout the day and evening, but i knew they were literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands americans working in the government at all levels in the privacy are working together to make america a more secure. i still feel that way today. here are two matters they think we need to really embrace as we

look at the next 10 years. first, it is a risk we have to admit to ourselves that we can only manage, we cannot disseminate. the world of the dirt, public or, we can't guaranteei think c- ranking member thompson asked about resiliency. we are coming into a time of unlimited resources, reduced resources. let's be smart, let's target them. that's not fight the last war, but let's understand they can only manage the risk. if st. john pistole and tsa start moving in a direction where people freently fly, do background checks. we made deals to remaining tsa can focus on people they don't know in the baggage that belongs to people they don't know. i think we have -- we should be restless about the risk. it's manageable it would be to manage very, very effectively.

i still can't believe after 10 years and we talked about the infrastructure and no bread bad communication, but i still can't believe it didn't like the detroit incident in fort hood would occur. when people within government, with the feral government had information, it was substantial enough to ask. i mean, there's a lot of criticism because they weren't adequately prepared. you have to be in this day and age, the new norm of ters them come you have to be a little less cautious. you have to act. in the ad, as i understand it for public information, that the fbi was aware thathasan was e-mailing to a radical cleric in yemen and this was an act of duty soldier who when they type

to the department of defense will never know. but we did connects the dots. every once in a while thursday.com a big one. it just flashes off and on. got to act. the same thing with the father coming in to talk to the state department. we ask for uman intelligence. a father comes in to tell the state department that he believes his son has been radicalized by the way, i tnk my son is in yemen. now come you put those pieces together a post-9/11 world and what we know about al qaeda on the arabian peninsula and someone has got to yankees he said to come into the united states until you sorted out. this information sharing at the heart of everything we do is still probably the most difficult and challenging. and by the way, one of the most difficult and complex

characteristic or quality of combating terrorism. you would tnk after 10 years we would eat a little less cautious. i'm not saying being politically correct, but there's some things that require action. we need to get into that mindset. >> may i suggest you visit your fusion center? we have 72 fusion centers around the country. maybe if already done it. they are mixed, very capacities, but they do bring together the right people in the area, state, local and federal. it is in that center i think where you can see what has been done and what has not been done in a given area. i visited the fusion center in the state of indiana. i've done it in a couple other areas and i think they represent probably the best hope for giving you the kind of response you want on unity of effort in any given crisis.

>> gentlelady from new york, my colleague, ms. larke. mr. clark from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chair. my question to the entire panel is how can the department of homeland security best judge in urban areas ri of an attack based on the assessment that it uses now? i represent metropolitan detroit. we have a large international airport hub. that airport was the destination of the plane that the christmas day bomber attempted to blow up. there is a strong likelihood that our region could be the target of another attack. now in addition to the lielihood of an attack, the

department also needs to look at the consequences of an attack. metropolitan metropolitan detroit did not use that as an example. we have a large population center. we have a border that is water, that is also the busiest ternational border crossing in terms of trade in north america. we also have a large regional drinking water system. my concern is mini metro detroiters are at risk of being poisoned if a terrorist decides to dump a bunch of biological agents in the drinking water system. so essentially, the gao report mentioned concerns about how the department assess risk. and a few three genemen have any comment on how we can improve the accuracy of the risk

of threat of atta to search in urban areas like metropolitan detroit 10 years later. i people i represent are still at risk of a threat. i want to retype them the best i can. >> there's no way we could get you started to because we don't have the mind of a terrorist. but they have given us to big hands. one is they are going to do as much damage to us as they can. and the second is that they want to have symbolic target. so, every community has to sit down and analyze whether this community is most vulnerable? and theyhave to prioritize those vulnerabilities. you know your community beter than the dhs secretary for the president or anybody else and it is the local community that has to make the analysis of what are the target in my community and

are most likely to behave given standards that the terrorists have repeatedly given to us? they want to do much damage. so do you protect where people gather in large numbers? you protect iconic symbols and so forth. but it is a question of establishing priorities within the community. so the leaders in indianapolis, indiana or detroit, michigan have to come together and say okay, we have the following facilities in the maybe 200 of them that need protection. you've got to prioritize. you n't do it all. that's a tough decision to prioritize, but it has to be made in order to reduce the risk. there is no 100% guarantee that she's got it figured out, but that's the way you've got to do it. >> i would say that in that framework that mr. hamilton just

outlined, and she just has to risk assessments by different factors. waterside dirt, transportation, et cetera and our comments have been that information in these threat assessments and risk assessments should be shared more and used more in decision-ming services. so i think that's the issue in government bridge a an uncertain information. so the real challenge is how do we use information has not been connected at a national level and the regional and level. that is something we'll continue to take a look at. >> at her now, congressman, if you're referring to the methodology associated with urban area grants for homeland security. >> yes, definitely. >> and i think that process clearly has the ball i think in

a very positive way over the past eight years. i can recall since the repair after congress directed that the departnt create a model for that very purpose that we went through a cut will of the generations that were challenging. at the end of the day, i have no idea the evolution since i left it at the end of the day, a significant portion was based upon threat information gleaned over that. fears, not just from the fbi, but the broader intelligence community. i can recall getting a call of disappointment from a member of congress that he city that they happen to my present was no longer viewed as potential

target. and therefore, wasn't eligible tackier for the funding of the nrc the year before. it was one of the bigger challenges of homeland security. it's probably the only department or you have more political interest and engagement than anyplace else. you don't want to make those political decisions, but is subject to political influence and you want to avoid that at all costs. in this instance, why not threat assessments are in the intelligenceommunity has the most effect of html does dollars. in my gentleman south carolina. recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and they want to personal thank you for regaining the pictures surrounded the room here to remind us of the tragic event that happened 1 years ago this weekend. i want to thank each of the gentleman on the panel today for your service to our country and your very incapacities.

20 take an opportunity becae i and ne the end. just think the firemen and police officers and capitol hill police are defending us and what you guys do every day. firemen and police officers and military personnel around this great band for what they do to keep me and our constituencies. thank you as for recommending 11 commission report. i've got a copy of it with me. i want to talk about that in a minute. but i've talked about this numerous times in this committee, that the 9/11 commission reportas identied a number of threat to the country and usedthe terms that identify those threat such as jihads 126 times, muslim brotherhood 25 pounds come off, hezbollah, califf, sharia, nme, violent extremism numerous times in the 9/11 commission report.

but if we look at the fbi counterterrorism of 2008, to use the word jihad is zero times, islam is some zero times, muslim brotherhood zero times, hamas, hezbollah, al qaeda is zero times. the national intelligence strategy of 2009 uses those terms zero times. protecting the forest lessons from fort hood uses those terms zero times. i think it is important that we understand and can identify the threats of this country and discuss it openly wthout fear of using those terms if that is a real threat to this country. so i would like since you guys develop the eport and used those terms that than many times, mr. secretary, i'll let you start. why do y see we're not talking about her enemy or threats to this country and western

anymore? >> well, first of all, i respect them truly understand the question. >> tonight please, governor. >> i appreciate the thoughtful notes that question. the more appropriate response would be the attorney general. that said, i think depending on the mindset that you want to bring to the work to combat terrorism, and it continues to be a discussion, whether they should be treated in viewed as criminal says the administration generally does and i think that is reflected in a language they use. i don't agree with it. i did enoh criminal defense work and prosecution work to appreciate the fact that most criminals they are prosecuted for defending chose not to -- prefer not to be cut and certainly didn't want to surrender their lives in their

endeavor. so i do think that language probably reflects the mindset that is more appropriate to have the attorney general believes this country should deal with the terrorist one we apprehend them. i don't think there's any question in the attorney general's mind that the fundamental problem is the those within the muslim community, who would've taken a traditional religion unwrap themselves around a and distorted vision to protect the innocent killing, but it does protect to treat war as criminals. i don't share that point of view. >> mr. hamilton. >> i believe the greatest current terrorism threat to the united states is from islamist extremists. whether or not they are part of the core of al qaeda or one of their affiliate for ideologically affiliated, david

rese the greatest threat. we've also had the addition of homegrown for a. likewise the islamic extremists. and i think very important that you make a distinction between the islamist terrorists, the extremist and benign islam is. i think the country is still not very well. i still remember is that that was an excellent sample of what we should do, i remember president bush soon after 9/11, it was a matter of days coming he went to hamas and made that point. i thought it was exactly the right thing to do because he was drawing a distinction between the extremists and the good, if

you would, islam is. so i think we have to actively and aggressively counter the range of the ideologies that are violent advocate into what we can to remove them. i am not here to speak with others in regard to terminology. in the commission report via two enemies. one, al qaeda. and two, islamic extremists. and we've got quite a bit about what terminology to use. i am comfortable with the terminology we set out in that report. >> thank you. >> thank you, gentlemen. i recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a thank all the members for their service. less than 10 months ago as a district attorney iwas investigating a death of a young man, 16-year-old young man whose

mutilated body showed up in the town of milton, massachusetts. our investigation took us to north carolina, where this young man had hid himself in the wheel well of a 737 commercial airliner. teachout doubted the plainness landing gear went down as he was approaching boston. damage has incited the transportation security this morning and certainly about the screening checked points and the need to click explosives there. the tsa has said that every commercial airport in the united states receives a security assessment every year, including evaluation of access controls. in 2009, the gao when they were viewing method 87% of the nation's commercial airport had not conduct did any consequent expressio.

there is so much attention on the gate andn the check point there. it seems to me we are we open on perimeter security. and this major airport in north carolina, there have been repeated breaches of security that we are aware affair. i can imagine that air force alone. how would you assess their ability to live with perimeter security around the airport? if he put his own body and that was a while, he cou've easily placed explosives they are if he a personith a tragedy. but if a different intent? what if they put explosives in their? it seems we are focused so much on that and support netscape. what aut whas going on as we look at the perimeters? can you address a series that has been? gao has commented on it, but i do see much action fankly.

>> ourecommendations have been more that tsa needs to detroit vulnerability assessments with the asp ei perimeter issues, but this hasn't been done in a lot of cases and we've made recommendations along those lines. the other issue is the screening of workers who have access to facilities on every kilobases and we believe that issue needs to be adessed as well. i'd be happy to provide specifics for the record. >> anyone else want to comment on not? >> i'm very pleased to hear your remarks. my general impression with you think you are right. perimeter secuity is still a great vulnerability. so i would be supportive of efforts to make more inspections and bulk up our efforts have perimeter security. you know, there's so many areas of vunerability.

and we've concentrated a lot on the ones we think are the greatest risk, but others keep popping up and you put your finger on an important one. >> i thinkviation to the best of my knowledge is a target area. i suspect it still comes up on the reports that the intelligence community comes up as a otential target. we should never say we've eliminated it, but the notion somewhat could hijack a plane and take a commercial airliner contributed to a missile, i think that threat has been managed quite well. but i think we would be kidding ourselves if we didn't think aircraft generally as a target remains of vulnerability and remains a continuing interest -- a target of interest for those

who bring assigned. >> what's more frightening as we went back and looked at the videotape and knowing he'd done it, they still couldn't see into it afterwards. just a quick question if you can. maybe a yes or no since my time is limited. secretary napolitano told this committee that since 9/11 she considers the current. the most dangerous since 9/11, that we are in now and it is the most heightened state. would you agree? >> certainly, more intelligence information than i do a concert time, but there is a new mention that complicates her world and the challenges associated with the country and that's the homegrown terrorists. and the last 18 months and citizens and naturalized system s-sierra thesis. the world is a little more complicad for her and for this country. >> i am not aware of any

immediate specific warnings. but of course we found in the trove of information we got from osama bin laden read their interest in doing something on the anniversary of 9/11. so i understand that our security officials have ratcheted up the security levels quite a bit for the next two days. that seems to me to be entirely approve or hit because the intent here has been expressed. it has been expressed in the information we got from osama bin laden's hideout. >> thank you, gentlemen. the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle is recognized for five minutes. >> thankou, mr. chairman. and thanks to the witnesses for being here. congressman hamilton, my question is about what your thoughts are impressed with the southern border. with the drug cartels, the

continuous battles between similar chemicals cartel and the status of the bubble of violence that continues to escalate along our southern borders and sophistication of weaponry continues to it against. i was down at the port of entry and douglas, arizona. one of the things we saw the video was the night before one of the drug cartel ephesians he is was stolen or made a police vehicle right port of entry about 100 yards for a border, entered into a restaurant, unloaded 300 rounds and wounding scores of people. i want to ask you, what you think the level of threat to our homeland based on the level being pursued by the drug cartels in mexico and how that affects our threat assessnt from that area. >> well, first of all, i think the past two years and the

attendant public awareness of the narco threat clearly demonstrate areas of lawlessness adjacent to our southern border that we all should be concerned about. but you know, it is just a manifestation of a threat that is six state for decades and they still haven't gotten our arms around and that is the importation of drugs. we talk about weapons of mass destruction. long before 9/11, this country was dealing with weapons of mass destruction and was called drugs that have been coming into this from multiple sources around the world and we still haven't gotten o arms around not. my sense is again not privy to that kind of information frankly that i didn't enjoy knowing, but

i was glad i was part of the group inuit and could act upon it is that there is stil a greater need for us to develop the trusted relationships with our counterparts in mexico. there's probably a greater need with the matter we not trust for information sharing. and frankly, we don't have -- and i say that with great respect to friends and colleagues of mine to my work in mexico. we still don't have the decades long mature, trusted relationship withll the agencies of government within the law enforcement community generally. so it's an enormous challenge in this country. i think were up to the challenge, but it's going to take us a long time to do with the violence, let alone simply the manifestation of thereater problem than no the importation of drugs and someone who appreciates supply.

but it wouldn't become a minister was made to man. it's more complicated than arresting the supply. >> i'm not sure i cannot much. i know your experience would be much more immediate than mine. i am a long way away from the border. but i have been impressed her with a period of years how difficult this has been for this country to deal with. i thnk we've increased the number of regards every few years around here for a good number of years and i'm sure that's a mouthful and i know they do a lot o good work. i know we felt a sense. i don't know what the miles are, but extended sense that it had some impact. you would know that better than i. we put into place a lot of new technology with mixed results . and i think all of those things have to be continued and strength than to deal with the

problem. i think that that is very, very significt to the ountry. and we have probably not focused enough on the, those of us who taught with homeland security. that's about all i can say. i obviously agree with what government rich said. there are a lot of problems in this world that we can't all by ourselves. i don't agree can solve this by ourselves. for going to need a lot of cooperation with mexican government as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. high-heeled act. >> i recognize for this round of questions, the gentleman from california. >> thank you are much, chairman and ranking member thompson for walking me to this committee. i look forward to representing my constituents in the 36th congressional district on this committee. you know, i can remember very well on september 11th, as we

all do, where we were, what our first swear. i had just been a lot good to the city council of los angeles and mike council district includes support of los angeles and i represent over 100,000 people that just physically, you know, sit right next to the port of los angeles. and while the september 11th attacks were aviation related my first thought was the vulnerability of the port of los angeles. 10 years later and now representing the same constituents in congress, i am still concerned about the port of los angeles. between the ports of los angeles and long beach, we account for about 44% of the trade that comes into this country.

we have about 5000 men and women who actually work on the docks on a daily basis. and i think it is our seaports that are still probably the most vulnerable entry way into this country. and while utah about how we hae evolved in granting these homeland security grants to more represent threats on her and consequence. an honorable hamilton, as you said, they've given us a road map at the target would be something that does great damage and is in symbolic. i think an attack on america's support in long beach and los angeles could create a significant impact to our national economy and our global economy. so i spent 10 years on the city council worker but my

predecessor, jane harman, in approving the delhi international airport and the port of los angeles. but i'd like to know from the panel what you think we in congress should be doing, can do to improve the security at our ports. >> my judgment with feet that we've not focused enough on the port. i think the enormous vulnerability would be in the inadequate inspection of cargo probably the major problem. i am not a to date on what has been done on that. i do recall being disappointed again at the state to fight technology with regard to detection. you have these massive amount of materials coming into the

country in ships and our ability to identify dangerous materials i think is likely. at least that's my understanding that this point. i think you play an important role by bringing up the question of the full durability of the port. >> i might add, although at the time that the other about the fiscal situation in this country and dealing with the deficit and the debt, i must admit early on being very much someone who believes that during my tenure and subsequent to my tenure, that the united states coast guard is one of the most overstressed, multitask, underappreciated institutions that this fedel government and i think they are grossly, grossly and adequately funded for the multiple task they bring

in their primary responsibility to this country. these men and women for years, for decades literally get pretty much was left over when it's divided amongst the rest of the agencies. they have multiple task is and they just don't -- i daresay the generals and admirals and the other branches of the service would be up here in mass. if they received as little funding on strategic needs of the coast guard does. whatever reason, there is this mindset that we can do. i'll tell you if you want to do one day to improve maritime security in this country, go back and take a look at the coast guard's budget and bring in not just the incumbent, but the three or four that have preceded. i can recall flying in a helicopter, overseeing the g8

exercise at one time when the pilot passed me if i wanted to grab the controls. it was an infantry soldier. but i'll pretend like i'm flying like the tv commercial. and i said to the pilot. as it is this one of those helicopters as an engine failre rate that the faa would have grounded commercially and he said yes it is. one of the passengers in the backseat said to maintain the conversation? i remember going to an appeal. if opened a door for me and i've got to take advange of it. i really do budget secretary of peel's budget decisions to the highest level. well, i took the coast guard's budget numbers are mapped to the appeal board and i brought in a piece of steel, and no plate on one of their attorney or 30 year old ships that had been banned because it use because of the multitask vehicle or shut.

so if you want to do something significant to improve maritime security, kovac engaged the coast gud the money they need to do their job more effectively. >> i would say, congressman from what done a lot of job after work on maritime security, looking at vessels, people, cargo issues. we've sounds some progress being made in this area, but difficult to determine what the degree of progress in readiness really is at the ports. also i've mentioned already the transportation worker identification card and problems associated with that. at has a lot of problems and needs to be addressed. i'm also the key issue regarding technology and how different technologies could be used to help scan cargo and containers. and we've done work on which all provide to the committee, looking at the burgee technologies, really address that the volume of activity has

to entail some technological solution. >> thank you very much. my time is up. until we are screening 100% of our cargo, i think we've got a problem. >> i will say there is a concern on this committee. the secretary takes this issue very seriously. as a practical matter, the hundreds that will be difficult, but they are proving it. we actually passed back in 2006 and i know it's been continued hence, legislation by mr. lundgren and again in a bipartisan way we realize the vulnerability. i remember when there was a straight, billions of dollars were lost in a brief period of time. they received on in the arab quarter. so we certainly thank you. mr. kucinich is recognized for

five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, that you talk about the cut at the house of representatives supported and actually many colleagues here. i don't know if you are gentlemen are aare, b actually of the appropriations bill, if not week, i did not show support this, 2.7 billion was moved. that's 6% less than what was requested by the administration is specifically within customs and border protection, 89 million was cut. 1% less than trusted peer transportation security 292 million, 4% last. coast guard, something you're just talking about. 37 million was cut. and then within fema, the most romantically cut of 1.4 billion, which was 21% less than requested. what would you say to members of congress and the senate, who

despite your efforts in the report, seem to not value the services to the level that you say we need to have them, what would your response be? >> i am sorry. >> did she want to handle that? >> you are suggesting a number of cut had been made on homeland security in general. >> that's correct. question was specifically what advice would you give to members of congress who actually support those cuts and what would you are just a few clicks of >> well i'm no expert on the budget of the homeland security department. but having said tat, i would look with great skepticism by many cuts in this area because you are dealing with homeland security. you're dealing with the protection of the lives of the american people. so budgeting is always a question of priorities and i know how difficult it is to make

judgments with regard to priorities. but i'm very scared: probably would oppose cut on homeland security. >> okay, mr. dodaro, i'm going to posit nasty my second question the convicted that's about all the time we have. you know, i was really surprised with the exchange with the previous number because i'm sure the ranking member will recall the way that the curre secretary twice what is her intention of implementing 100% scanning of cargo. and actually the response hasn't been supportive. in fact, there is an absolute no intention. but i've gotten from those hearings to implement 100% screening of cargo. in fact, what the secretary has said for the record, the secretary has said they are exploring other means, which you, sir,referencing your report. for example, doing screening by

paper and looking at continual shippers and things that might be of concern and really getting away from the agreement if in fact they're going to be able to do screening. first of all, i thought we needed to clarify what the current secretary has said and what so far her intentions are. sir, i'd like to ask you in regards to your report on page 114, you talk about this whole issue. my question to you would be, you said, the secretary, the administration are preparing this route toward. it doesn't look like they are going to really follow through on what the commission asks for 100% inspection. could you expand more on what you planning on going further in your evaluation? ..

about reaching 100% requirements but there needs to be you know a study and alternatives to develop. >> i have got 32nd clip. mr. hamilton and mr. ridge, what do you think of the secretary not only this current secretary but the previous secretary not -- non-commitment to read meet your request and recommendation of 100% inspection of cargo? >> well, i think again i can't. >> to dan but i truly believe that literally speaking, it is probably physically impossible

to do if you really think about the volume of cargo into this country and within each one of those containers they are containers within containers and the like are cohabitants said that, i am familiar with some technology of detection that will enable i think, if it proves to be successl, enable us to get much much closer to reaching that, reaching that goal. again it is managing the risk and are there venues and ports of call around the world through which cargo might go tht we want to make our best efforts to inspect all 100%? i dare say yes. it again it is managing the risk. i am still of the belief that empirically to get to 100% we

encourage the research and development in detection technology and we can get very close to it. >> i do not recall that the 9/11 commission recommended 100% screening for the reasons of of the difficulty achieving it, but we certainly supported the idea that secretary ridge has indicated and that is risk management. i think in dealing wi the bulk of cargo that comes into this country on a daily basis, as a practical matter, you obviously want to improve the technology to the highest degree that you can achieve, but even after you do that, you are going to have to make judgments about cargo coming from different ports of the world and that involves a risk management decision. >> the time of the gentleman has

expired. the entlelady from new york, ms. higgins is recognized. >> thank you. getting back to the purpose of the hearing which was the progress made in the past 10 years and the security gap that still exist in the management and operational improvements that still are needed. last december "the washington post" reported that the top-seret world of counterterrorism has become so large, so unwieldy, so secretive that no one knows how much money it cost, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do this work. a new book out by dana priest called top-secret america, the rise of new american security state characterizes this as a terrorism industrial complex. we have 800,000 people who now

hold top security clearances. we have 51 federal organizations and military organizations that are involved in tracking the flow of money inside and out of terrorist organizations. we have 2000 private companies and 1200 organizations, intelligence agencies that are involved in counterterrorism. it seems as though this hearing and the information that has been presented by both the panel and ancillary information is very disconcerting. what the american people should have expected in the aftermath of 9/11 is the bureaucratic response is lean, muscular, transparent and effective. it seems as though what we have is a bureaucratic response that is loaded, immobile, ineffective and not doing the very things the 9/11 commission said was

most important. that was to remove the barrier that existed between federal law enforcement agencies toward the goal of sharing good informatios most efftive in thwarting preempting terrorist activity. lawrence wright ba look the looming tower, recounts -- there's a passage in there, a physical fbi agent got physically sick he does after he realized what had occurred, he said the intelligence existed to stop that variants of them on 9/11. so, you know the american people have been misled. i think what we did in the aftermath of 9/11 was said we got attacked. we don't know specifically who it is. here is a bunch of money. go out and do something about it. we created a bureaucracy that is not meeting its moral and operational objective.

so, i just ask all of you who have committed yourself to tr to improve the situation to comment on the information that has been presented here. >> well, i think you raise a questionthat probably would not have been raised a few years ago. you are of course right when you indicate the figures that show enormous expansion of homeland security activities. and we have not much focused on the matter of cost efectiveness up until this time, until fairly recently, the security people win every argument because they come in and say, if you don't do this, your vulnerability is going to be much eater. in the aftermath of 9/11, we tended not to worry too much about cost and therefore you get

an 80 billion-dollar budget for the intelligence community. i chaired the intelligence committee back a good many years ago when the budgets i think were somewhere in the range of $10 billion. i am not precise about that but roughly, so we have had an explosion of cost without any doubt about it. and the question of cost effectiveness needs to be brought much more into the debate than it has been thus far. having said that, may i go back to the point of oversight? this is why you need a congressional intelligence oversight, which is focused in my view should be in an appropriations subcommittee on intelligence and on -- as well as having effective oversight of homeland security. in effect you have a very

fractured oversight of homeland security, and in effect you have an inadequate oversight of the intelligence budget and in both areas you have had an explosion of cost. one of the recent oversight is necessary is to keep your eye on exploding cost, so i do not think members of congress can say you are innocent on this. you folks haven't done the job with regard to oversight. that is part of the answer, not the entire answer. but i like to see questions of your kind coming forward because i think we need some pushback on the explosive growth we have had in these areas. that is a fairly typical response by the american government. the increased things very rapidly on homela security. >> reclaiming the time that i don't have mr. chaired me i make a final point? this is my concern. this is my concern. we had a hearing in his

committee a couple of months ago on hezbollah. hezbollah s committed to violent jihad. they acted a proxy for iran, syria and venezuela. the information that was presented to this committee indicated that hezbollah had a presence in north america including five cities in the united states in four cities in canada. so they have close proximity to the united states. one of those cities with toronto, 90 minutes from my hometown of buffalo new york. we had niagara falls and a huge tourist attraction. we have a project which produces the cheapt and cleanest electricity and nala the united states. we have the busiest northern border crossing for passenger vehicles and my concern is that we are so preoccupied with the spear of receipt and so emerged in it that we are not agile. we can't adjust to changes on the ground and the terrorist

threat today is very different from the one that xisted 10 years ago. it is younger. it is more aggressive. it is more vicious and it is technologically savvy so we are preoccupied with this false sense of security that we built up within this bureaucracy. the terrorists are way ahead of us because they are smaller, they are mobile and they are able to move. that is a major concern that every american, regardless of whether western new yorker through this nation should be very concerned about. >> the witnesses may respond in writing. with that i recognize the gentleman from louisiana for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you ranking member and thank you for the witnesses today. in evaluating where we are today compared to where we were at would like to shift away from preventing the attack and talk a

little bit about a response to a terrorist attack, and just grading 9/11 in terms of resources provided, in terms of unified manner and money appropriated, how would you grade the u.s. government's response after the attack of 9/11 to the city of new york and to the other places that were affected? if you can rank it in terms of poor or fair or excellent how would you characterize it? >> at the time of 9/11? >> yes. >> was very poor. >> the resources provided on the ground in new york? >> there was a great deal of confusion within our government. we weren't prepared at many levels to deal with it both in terms of the emergency response and in terms of the defense of the country. multiple mistakes were made from the ticket taker at logan

airport in boston to the presidents of the united states. we in 9/11 said look we were not charged with the responsibility of accountability and we didn't get into it that we said there was a systemic failure, and that failure was literally scores, hundreds, maybe thousands of people in the country. it was a very poor response. it was a major failure of goverent. we fail to protect our people. >> governor? >> i think there is evidence that suggests that for years and years at least within a small group of men and women within the intelligence community, there was greater and greater sensitivity to a potential attacker nature which we were still quit unaware of the rise of these jihad is and i think the decisions made probably

have -- when president bush became president that decisions that were not made prior to the previous administration has set us up so that nearly we weren't as prepared as americans that we would be for such a catastrophic event. again, i know the 9/11 commission didn't look into that. i know individually that people at fame and everybody associated with this recovery efforts did everything they could, but this was -- i am not sure anyone's imagination was so expansive as they thought about preparing even for a potential terrorist attack that they could envision commercial airplanes being turned into missiles or that the twin towers would fall, so while we have certainly proved ourselves -- we were certainly not -- we became more aware of our vulnerabilities and we are

not more vulnerable because of it. even our best days whether you are replican or democrat in the president ush administration of the president clinton administration you could have seen even those within the intelligence committee thinking about the jihad is an extremist and a terrorist attack at that level. >> i think we need to understand that. there is a blame game that we often play but i don't pick anyone anticipated an attack at that level. >> i represent new orleans louisiana which in the aftermath of katrina the government response was very very poor in terms of getting resources they are quickly, unied command in all of those things in my question at what he is in fact the position of the house is that we have a pay-for for disaster response, how is that going to affect our response to the next big disaster or terrorist attack and if it means us coming in and cutting our cuts in order to provide funding

how would that hamper the response to a future terrorist attack? >> let me take a little extra time because i think it is a very good question here. katrina, as you look back and reflect on katrina, think there were a lot of lessons learned and they are perhaps more painfully aware than most members of congress since your constituents are in the city and the people that are responsible. there we saw i think the failure of the local and the state and the federal government to err on e side of preparation. you don't need to be a meteorologist to see that a cat 4 or five heading to a city that is 14 feet above or below sea level anyway there is plenty of blame to go around.

since that time, i believe that frankly i think right now fema has got one of the strongest and best administrators we have ever had in thiscountry, craig fugate. we worked with him and he was running the operation down in florida. the year before katrina hit for hurricanes hit around florida and he -- i think they are far far better prepared than i have ever been before to do with a major disaster and one final comment. never in the history of the country have we worried about budget around the emergency appropriations for natural sasters and frankly in my view we shouldn't be worried about it now. i realize we have fiscal problems but the real challenge, we are all in this country and mother nature devastated communities. we may need emergency appropriations and we have to deal with it until the fiscal albums it on. >> one of the wa to look at this is the progress being made. if you look at the response of 9/11, the response of katrina

and as you hav said very poor. the response to the oil spill, better. the response to irene, better. we are learning. the progress may not be as rapid as we would like that we are getting better at responding to disasters even though there are some gaps. >> thank you to the witnesses. thank you mr. chair. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. you arerecognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. by thank the ranking member and and a i thank r. panelist. nepa the tenth anniversary of 9/11 terrorist atcks on our nation, the possibility of another attack still casts an ominous shadow over the united states. i believe that we are definitely safer, however safety is a relative term in an ever evolving threat environment against our nation and her peoe. these changes made in the

transportation industry and in the intelligence community he definitely prevented nother successful attack to this moment. even with the death of osama bin laden we must continue our vigilant and to build out of a robust defense as well as strengthen our capacity to be resilient. on behalf of the people of the 11th congressional district of new york, i would like to express to those who lost a family member, a loved one or a friend on september 11, 2001 terrorist attack that their loss will never be forgotten and is a member of this committee and a new yorker, i would like to emphasize the importance of fully implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. we must partner with local, state and private sector partners to keep our nation safe. after witnessing first-hand the inability of first responders to

communicate on september 11, 2001 and the excessive loss of life as a result, i fully suppt efforts that would give first responders specific portion of the spectrum known as the block for a brazilian state-of-the-art communications network. our first responders definitely need to be able to communicate with one another in times of cris. so my question is what are your thoughts on a set aside for the dedication of the d block spectrum for first responders? the well i favor it and i m pleased to note that the chairman and ranking members here and i think a good many members of the committee's favorite. i think it is the most expeditious and the surest way to get reliability of the communication now. once you set aside the d block you are not through. there is a lotmore work that has to be done. it is essential i believe to

make it possible for the first responders to talk with one another and the best way to do that is to set aside a portion of the radio spectrum, the so-called d block, directly allocate that to the first responders. i favor that. i think it is very important. iould hope that the congress would take a lead from the chairmen and ranking member this committee and get about the business of dedicating the d block and let the private sector begin embedding the technology that we need. there may be political differences but i think the first responder community is generally saying work it out. we need the technology and we need it now, so. >> thank you and my next question is about how we deal with enhanced security while at the same time preserving our

very cherished civil liberties. representative hamilton would you expand on the ideas you mentioned in your testimony regarding the civil liberties ersight lord? >> i am impressed with the capacity of government to intrude on the lives of people. i mentioned earlier in the hearing today that i had a briefing on this yesterday and it is just absolutely incredible what the sophisticated devices can do with regard to intruding on your privacy and civil liberties. now even if you take the position that under present circumstances the civil liberties and privacy are being reasonably protected, i simply don't know enough about that but for the sake of argument i say they