>> i know why the individual did not vote, because he did not want to break the law. they did not understand it does vote -- break the law. maybe they cannot even read that in english, understand it in whatever language. it is offered to them, and we are seeing better registration fraud and we are seeing photophore lot. we know acorn admitted to 440,000 falsified voter registrations. i cannot imagine that none of those went and voted and we have evidence to the contrary. have you -- to do you know donna brazile? >> i do not know her personally. >> she was managing the gore campaign in 2000.

>> i cannot recall that. >> that is my recollection, and i recall this statement when it was pointed out the heard that her campaign was 4.5 points down in the polls, and this is from memory, her answer to that was, i am not being -- worried about being down. i can pick up six points on the street. i happened to think of that when i saw the video. he sees the world from an entirely different view at least on this subject. we are interested in legitimate voters, and i would make the point to you that there is a bed rock underneath our constitution, and that is america's confidence in legitimate elections. it is not whether or not we have legitimate elections. if they believe they are, they will have confidence in them and accept the decisions with the constitutional republic we have. we have secretaries of state around the country working to clean up the voter registration

rolls. they have had great difficulty getting access to this say the act -- save act, that is to be provided to them, and they are looking to justice for recommendation, particularly iowa. are you prepared to make that list available to the secretary of state who has been working to have the to the minerals in iowa? >> dhs is working -- >> i am asking you for recommendation. >> it is a dhs decision, and dhs make that decision -- >> dhs has announced they are looking for guidance from doj. >> i would love to see that reference that they are looking for guidance from doj. in arizona, we have pre-cleared an arrangement, six years ago, so paris and that is making use of the saved database and their

verification process. in the course of making use of that saved database, they do so in a manner that impacts or implicates the voter rights law -- >> could you missed any reason and i will wear it does not have a district in at that wants to use the sabre list in order to clean up their rolls to provide legitimate elections? can you imagine any reason why doj would recommend not to provide that list? >> as i understand that process, the key thing is you have to have the requisite underlying data, including alien registration numbers come out of the individual.

if you are not collecting the data, then the same database will not be helpful. >> could you cite the statute that prohibits that? >> again, the department of homeland security is the department that administraters the save act. as i understand it, if you do not collect the requisite data come the database is useless. >> gentleman can finish the question. you are finished? >> in which case, i point out that this has been passed back and forth for too long and it is a time to get a resolution. i yield back. >> without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to submit to the chair additional questions for the

witnesses, the witness in this case, which will be forwarded, and we will ask the witness to respond as promptly so the answer will be made a part of the record. all members will have five additional days in which to submit any additional materials. thank you, and those of you who have attended today, thank you for coming to the hearing, and this hearing is now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tomorrow we will discuss efforts to combat jet trafficking in the americas. the white house shifted its strategy in 2010 to focus more on prevention and treatment and must on law enforcement. our live coverage begins at

10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> it was clear that when that eighth amendment was ratified the death penalty was not considered to be prohibited. the death penalty existed in all the state only penalty for a felony. it for somebody today to say that somehow the american people have prohibited the states by ratifying the constitution they have prohibited the states from applying the death penalty, i do not know where this come from. the american people never voted for any such thing. >> antonin scalia but reflect on 25 years on the bench and -- reflects on 25 years on the bench. >> former house speaker newt gingrich predicted fast economic growth based on energy and manufacturing.

if president obama loses the election. this is one of many topics and the speech he gave friday at the institute seminar. the former presidential candidates also talks about foreign policy calling saudi arabia the mystique is country in the world. this is about 50 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for bearing with us for a few minutes. welcome to the 2012 capitol hill seminar. my name is catherine rodriguez and i am the elected director for the clare boothe luce policy institute. as the nation's premier organization for conservative women, our mission is to promote leading conservative women and prepare women for leadership. we do this through a variety of unique programs and events like this one to expose young men and women, college students like you, to some of their

conservative heroes. we also help students bring conservative ideas to their campuses through our campus lecture program. our speakers include great women speakersbay buchanan, michelle malkin and kate obenshain -- some of whom you will hear this afternoon. if you are interested in hosting a conservative speaker or would like any other information on how the institute can help you fight the left on your campus, give us a call last 888-891-4288 or visit our web site, cbpli.org. i know you are all looking forward to the speakers today so i will not hold you up any longer. we will have the opportunity after each speaker for q&a. we have two of the student in turns holding microphones -- one on this side. raise your hand. at one on this side. if you would please line up behind them.

they will hold the microphone up for you to ask your question. >> i would like to welcome our luce institute in turn laurel conrad to reduce our first speaker. >> welcome. my name is laurel conrad and i am a student at cornell university and a summer intern at clare boothe luce policy institute. i would like to introduce efforts speaker, conservative leader and former speaker of the house, newt gingrich. he was inspired by an early age by his experiences as the son of a career soldier to dedicate his life to his country. he is the architect of the contract of america which led the republican party to victory in 1994 by capturing a majority in the u.s. house for the first time in 40 years. when of the numerous accomplishments that took place under his leadership, with congress passed the first balance -- balanced budget in a generation. "the washington times" has

called newt gingrich be indispensable leader and time magazine named him man of the year for 1995. his background includes a commitment to academic achievement. he received a bachelor's degree from emory university, master's and doctorate in modern european history from tulane university. before his election to congress in 1978, he taught history and environmental studies at west georgia college for eight years. he represented georgia in congress for 20 years, including four years as speaker of the house. he served on the defense policy board under president george w. bush. in 1999, gingrich was appointed to the united states commission on national security 21st century and the -- commission to examine national security challenges. he is also committed to developing free-market health care reforms centered on the individual. in 2003, he founded the center for health transformation. he and his wife host and produce award winning documentary films together and

author the author of books. his daughter has spoken at the luce policy interests -- institute and has written policy breaks for us. he has written 23 books, including 13 "the new york times" best sellers. during his leadership he used his incredible background to be one of the strongest, most compelling and innovative conservative leaders on the stage. join me in welcoming this extraordinary conservative leader, newt gingrich. [applause] >> thank you all. some housekeeping. i will give you a very brief talk so we can spend most fun -- most of the time questions you want and at the very end we will take two or three minutes to take pictures.

i noticed several of you kept jumping up and taking pictures. and those of you trapped of the year could not do it. i am delighted to be here and i am very interested in sharing ideas. the reason i agreed to come because i think developing the next-generation of conservative activists and leaders is very important. i just got a note today from the young america foundation, i think i have spoken in 19 out of the last 20 meetings. and i do that because i do think the education matters and i do think getting people committed matters. i want to give you three or four big jumps -- think of it as an outline. first of all, my younger daughter jackie and i wrote a book of "five principles for a successful life." it is aimed at people younger than you but the principals our universal. these are things i actually develop out of trying to think of what i had done in my life that was successful. the first is to dream big. the second is to work hard.

the third is to learn everyday. the fourth is to enjoy life. and the fifth is to be true to yourself. let me tell you why i say this. you are at the right age to dream big. and if you don't have the courage to dream big at your current age you will not acquire it at 45. it can be anything. it could be having a family. i have a 12-year-old granddaughter who wants to be a ballerina. i have a 10-year-old grandson who will be 11 on saturday who thinks he wants to either be a chess player or a sniper. he is not sure. at nine years of age he read -- "seal team 6." think about who you want to be a and b the courage to not leave with your teacher tells you are parents or friends. understand -- and this is where i disagree so deeply with president obama -- the key to success is to work hard.

his comments the other day birgit on irrational. or just left-wing academic -- verged on the irrational or just left wing academic. tenured faculty -- nobody actually creates the money but they are happy the alumni showed up for you show up with the federal government pays -- shows up to pay them. a slightly distorted view. people who are successful all work hard. this is the primary thing to get locked in your head. if you want to play a big game, you are going to get to practice, and in order to practice you have to put in the time. it gets me to my third point. enjoy life. i learned many years ago -- i did a course and as part of the course we had one of the most famous inventors of restaurants in america. norman brinker and then it tgi friday's, steak and ale, the salad bar -- the waiter walking up and in introducing yourself.

we interviewed him and he said, when people come to ask him for career advice, no matter what their age, the number one question is, what do you like doing. the reason is, to do anything really well you have to do it so much that you got to like it. nobody can will themselves to do something consistently they don't like. so, i really encourage you to think about it. life is not mean it is always fun, but that you have some deep sense of satisfaction that this is a good way to spend your day. i spend virtually all of my time either learning or teaching. i teach in speeches, in books. i just wrote an e-book called "no taxation by misrepresentation" taking on the tax bite.

we did it as an experiment to see how e-books work. i just did a paper that was submitted to politico an hour ago arguing it was legitimate to ask questions about national security in terms of the muslim brotherhood. i am constantly either reading, listening, writing, speaking, doing media. and that is probably 90% of what i do. obviously i am half irish -- i like talking, i like reading. i like learning. all of this kind of works pretty well for me. then, i think, you have to recognize -- you got to learn every day. the reason you have to learn everyday is twofold. first, the world is really big. i am 69 years old. i have worked at politics since august of 1958. and i learn stuff every day.

i traveled a fair amount of the planet, and i am looking forward to my next trip. because there will be things i'd never seen before. i am currently working on a novel and potentially a movie about george washington as a young man. and i am back real engaging and rethinking about washington -- somebody probably first encountered when i was 9 for 10 years old. i have a grandmother who taught me american history when i was very young. now at 69, i have a whole new set of questions and a whole new set of understanding and back trying to learn again. you've got to say to yourself, if i going to achieve a big dream, i have to work hard, learn every day, and i have to enjoy it. if you find attractive something where you say, i don't enjoy this, you have to have the courage to change. it is very important.

which gives me -- gets me to my last point -- you have to be true to yourself. the fact is, if you are not true to yourself, you'll just crumble. you can't be true to somebody else. it can't say, they get to the fine for me whether or not i am ok. adam smith in his first great book which proceeds -- proceed to the wealth of nations talk about the idea of looking in the mirror. when you look in the mirror, and you see the person you want to be. if not, candidly, the person who has to change is you. not other people who validate you. it is a very hard thing to do. i've done things in my career that absolutely involve people thinking that i was not. some of the time, by the way, they were right. which is one other point i would make about working hard. it doesn't always work. i just lost a presidential nomination. you probably know this. i ran for congress twice and lost, in 1974 and in 1976. i had a project starting in

december -- in 1970 to create a house majority. we have been in the minority since 1954. i thought 21 years was long enough. the project i was running, we lost in 1981, 1982, 84, 88, 90, in '92. there were people -- the week before the election were election day of 1994 that we were nuts. i just saw a guy the other day who said to me that the two great surprises of his life was you actually could have a republican speaker of the house and that the berlin wall fell. he put them in the same league. i had to be willing to endure two losses in congressional campaigns in order to finally win.

i had to be willing to endure a losing year after year, getting back up and say, what didn't quite work, and going back added. i coined a phrase in that period called cheerful persistence. both words are important. anything you really want to achieve, you have to persist. if you want to be effective, you have to persist cheerfully. in a free society, you attract people by being cheerful. if you are persisting but you are grumpy, people hide from you. if you're depressed, they ignore you. if you're angry, they try not to get near you. but on the other hand, if you are cheerful, they will tolerate you. think about people you know personally. cheerful persistence is a disciplined behavior. i want to -- a couple of books i want to recommend. i would urge all of you to buy a copy of peter drucker "the affected executive." his argument is in the information age, every worker is an executive. knowledge workers by definition are about executing. it is about 160 pages long and

it is an astonishing book. i urge -- 168 pages long and it is an astonishing book and it is the best single book about being effective i have seen. he starts with a very important point, which i believe deeply having spent my whole time studying it. effectiveness is a learned have it. it is not about genetics, it is not about i.q.. it is not about personalities. learning a set of patterns that work. and then being disciplined about resupplying them and resupplying them and learning in the process -- re-applying them and re-applying them and learning in the process. let me talk briefly about where we are as a conservative movement. i think we are in the middle of a tremendous amount of change

and i don't frankly know how quite we will get the where we are from -- to where we are going. the conservative movement really began in its modern form in a reaction against the republican establishment and against the national establishment, which are parallel but not identical. if you go back and you look at the rise of goldwater, it is really taking on both the national system -- the welfare state, lyndon johnson, etc. -- and it is taking on the republican establishment -- nelson rockefeller, the northeast. it had a huge impact. there is no question that it changed the underlying pattern of the republican party decisively in ways that are still true to this day. at the same time, it created the framework within which reagan could rise. but it is important to remember, if you go back -- this is why i am a historian and not a political scientist. any social science that has three lines is inherently unlike the real world. because the real world does not have street lines. in 1972, when richard nixon one a decisive election -- won a decisive election and carried

virtually every state, there was the zeroth reason to believe ronald reagan would become president -- there was zero reason to believe ronald reagan would become president. the vice president with spiro agnew. there was ever a reason -- every reason to believe after nixon that spiro agnew would be the republican nominee. there is a great book, i think it is called "a heartbeat away" about the discovery that iran agnew was a crook and about getting him out of the presidency, which led nixon to pick gerald ford. nixon then resigned. ford becomes president. ford then makes to the huge mistakes. he treats the reagan with contempt -- which just makes reagan irritated -- and he picks nelson rockefeller to be the vice-presidential nominee. had ford picked ronald reagan to be the vice-presidential

nominee, history would have been totally different. reagan probably would not have ended up running for president. he would have been on a ticket and the ford that either would have when they were lost, and if it had one ford would have served as president. the guy who tells the story beautifully is one of the leading analyst of american polling. he always says that he learned about campaigns being real because he was convinced to leave his job and go to work for teddy kennedy and kennedy was like 30 points ahead. and the week after he left to work for kennedy kennedy david interview with roger mudd in which roger mudd asked a to a -- ask a trick question. kennedy is running against jimmy carter. roger mudd asked this very unfair trick question -- why you want to be president? kennedy couldn't answer. he couldn't answer him so badly -- you could probably google this -- that his campaign just started to collapse.

charlie cook is the guy who tells the story. charlie cook is the one who left his job to be a field organizer for kennedy because this is going to be the winning campaign. he watched it disintegrate. but there was no point in 1979 where you would have said reagan is inevitable. at this stage in 1980 reagan with nine points behind carter. i am just giving this as a way of thinking. you don't know how the movement is going to be bold and to the next phase. you don't know what will happen decisively. but let me tell you what i think the three great needs are. first, we have to win the cultural fight to take back the campuses. we have allowed the left to develop a bizarre domination of american intellectual life, much of that reinforce the by course of behavior. -- reinforced by coercive

behavior. how many of you are on a campus where it is the size of a painful to be conservative? ok. why should it be true? conservatism is the dominant dog you structure of the american people. why do we tolerate academics who are not -- nuts imposing their view and false history. teaching stuff that's not true. you want to understand why barack obama has such wacked out ideas, he is the perfect representative of the academic class. he really believes this stuff. he thinks he can get there on your own. he thinks government is the magic thing that should work. i thing he was genuinely shocked to discover the shuttle ready jobs were not shovel ready. to live in america and not figure out bureaucracies are not exactly agile is truly being out of touch with reality. but he lives in that world of

people -- they have nice cocktail parties and talk about the latest weird book they read -- [laughter] and excited because a highly esoteric poet is coming by hill was last read by 11 people but who hates america and has this wonderful new crop -- problem called "why i hate america" which is filled with a deeply powerful meaning. my describing the world some of you know? ok. one of the great challenges of the conservative movement of the next generation is a had gone all out fight for the academic world. those of you who are attracted to that, i would urge you to get a phd and find a campus and start a war. you don't have to argue for a countervailing bias but just argue for facts. a fact-based society destroys modern liberalism because modern liberalism is based on such a large number of fantasies and highly inaccurate things.

second, we desperately need a generation of innovation. one of the sad part about my not being more competent as a candidate is that we really need a whole range of new ideas. let me give you a quick examples. brain research -- alzheimer's, autism, parkinson's, mental- health, traumatic dream -- a traumatic brain injury, post- traumatic stress disorders -- the research is the biggest area of break through in the next 25 years. it will have more impact on human lives, the federal budget. we have all of this effort on aids, and i understand the importance of aids and i understand the political power, but the fact is alzheimer's is massively bigger, autism is massively bigger. why is it we don't have the same level of focus and investment and why aren't we having the kind of breakthroughs we are having in brain research, which covers all of these aspects?

second, we got into a brawl about it -- i meant what i said about going into space. the weakness we got into was my opponents probably said, well, nasa is so incompetent, how could you possibly throw so much money at it? that was the right question, but then they cut off the answer. what we need is a new model for going into space that uses the private sector, it uses prizes and entrepreneurship. my guess that the people pretty knowledgeable about this, those with 30 years of experience, they believe a private sector effort to get to the moon would cost about 5% of what the federal government plans to spend. the model i tell people are the right brothers -- wright brothers. a practice five years, spent a total of $500 in 1900's money -- they actually had 500

flights that failed. december 17, 1903, the first four flights failed. they flew on the fifth flight. so, they discovered how to fly. for $500. the smithsonian got a $50,000 grant from congress to build an elaborate fancy airplane, launched its offer of a boat of potomac and it went into the water and sank. $500 private sector, two guys who are passionate and a $50,000 bureaucratic project. and the smithsonian was so mad at the wright brothers were succeeded that relations were so bad for 37 years the wright brothers when i give them the original plane. -- would not give them the original airplane. some of you interested in doing this, we need a generation of innovation. we need to apply a six sigma for the federal government. it would say trojans.

we need to fundamentally overhaul the congressional budget office which is a disaster. it is a bastion of liberalism propping up models that don't work. we don't have the intellectual horsepower of engaged in these kinds of fights. the third thing we need is something we have a fair amount of the probably need 10 times as much -- we need a lot more noisy people. we need people who are prepared -- there are so many fronts to have fights on right now. and of course, some of it is cultural and some of it is dealing with the changing real world, and some of it is dealing with the obama administration. but we need more people on blogs, twitter, talk radio, tv, more people writing books. two last examples -- we are now going through a revolution in energy.

there's an american energy opportunity that by itself is going to remake your life. you should be dramatically optimistic. if we can beat obama this fall, we will see a takeoff of the next decade that will once again make america the leading country in the world. we will be the dominant manufacturing country in the next decade, the dominant provider of energy. people forget, we are an enormously and doweled country. when i first thought environmental studies in the 1970's -- this would be a great case study for someone who wants to do an interesting book when they -- we use the popular book called "the limits to growth." it have been developed using fancy computer models at mit and was seen to be very advanced. garbage-in, garbage-out is a very important part of computer work. everything they describe as wrong. this is the problem with modern left wing environmentalism. every single prediction. you get a copy of the book -- it is just wrong.

the most recent vivid example of the left being wrong is the concept called peak energy. how many of you heard of peak energy or peak oil? one of the things academic leftists love talking to people about. we are going to run out. -- there is a funny movie called "the last car" i think, in 1980, i think, and it is like jimmy carter's world coming true. only enough gasoline leapt for one car and the whole rest of the country does not have cars -- only enough gasoline left for one car. a black utopia, if you will, where everything the left dreams of has happened and it is really miserable. in that context, innovation has changed everything. we now have a combination of what is called fracking and

horizontal drilling which enables you to go down and get what is called tight oil or gas and shale. we knew there were gas and oil after index and foundations -- formation but we cannot get them. let me give you two numbers to illustrate the scale of the american energy opportunity. the amount of natural gas recoverable in the united states went from seven years in t yearso 100 -- in 2000, to 125 years today. for most of you -- a few of you may live more than 125 years -- but for most of you we have found that natural gas to get through your lifetime. remember, this is assuming we don't find more. the numbers for oil -- 10 years ago north dakota had 150 million barrels of reserves. the current number is 24

billion. north dakota this year passed california and alaska and is now the second-largest oil- producing state in the united states. this is what is wrong with liberalism. if you went 10 years ago and said north dakota will be the number two or of the state, they would say you are crazy because they live in a polaroid snapshot world. but history is made dynamically, it is made by inventing things, creating new potential. how many of you have a phone that has a video camera? i rest my case. just think about the dynamics of what is happening to your personal capacity to deal with the internet. so, there are things we can do when we need a generation of innovation, and we need people to be noisy about why we should get it and we need to reset the country on a belief that we could have a dramatically better future.

i think that is the challenge for you generation. let me, if it is ok, toss it over to questions. [applause] and i gather you should ask the questions into the microphones of a nice spin people know what is going on. -- the nice c-span people will know what is going on. >> what do you think is the most effective way for us to encourage young people to join the conservative movement? >> i think the starting points are two things. one is -- do they like having a job? would they rather live in a future where there are a lot more jobs, opportunity, and take-home pay and a lot more choices or one where we all come to resemble downtown detroit? second is a question of freedom. do they want to live any world where they get to define their future and make their choices or do they want to live in the world or somebody in washington, d.c., and an unknown bureaucracy issues.

regulation that the deregulation is to define their life? would that work? ok. i am not a young person. i don't know what works. >> thank you, mr. speaker. from north dakota state university -- >> that is why he kept nodding, yes. >> thank you so much for pointing out the successes we have had. -- and the state of north dakota, especially of the energy in this day. but to take my question in the different direction -- how do we when the culture war in this country and win the cultural battle for conservative soul of the nation? been a very good question. first of all, about -- >> a very good question. first of all, about -- about north dakota. vote left will start whirring about north -- north dakota,

because you know when there is an oil boom there are not enough -- there are so many jobs, too many jobs. having no jobs, and no roads -- if nobody puts a truck on the road, the road last a very long time. just think about it. just watch the way the left will react to north dakota. western north dakota has to many jobs, to many people, too many folks striding around. it is a small town that has one traffic light, it's a long time to get through because all of these people are there. so, you have this constant complaint, either why can't we all lived in detroit where they are going back to farming in downtown detroit because half the buildings are unoccupied or the complexity of succeeding. it is a very important part of

life. if you succeed, there will be changes. i bet all of you have had this experience. you go back home with folksy went to high school with and you try to describe your new life and for a fair chance for some of them you live in two different worlds. my impression is most north dakota andns are happy to have so much will produce they have a $3 billion surplus -- most north dakota residents are happy to have some much oil produced. i think the greatest the lustration of winning a cultural war in a very direct way is abraham lincoln. there are a couple of books by a theologian, one only and that the greatest speech, about his second inaugural, -- one on linkedin's greatest speech, and one as president, and one called

cooper union. if you want to understand being persuasive and you want to see a cultural fight, studied abraham lincoln. abraham lincoln in 1850's, there is a very unformed argument in 1850's. should slaby allowed to expand, does it matter? -- should slavery be allowed to expand? you have in abraham lincoln's somebody who is very carefully moving public opinion extraordinary -- in an extraordinarily well thought-out way and it all blows up in his face and you end up in a war. and he then has to mobilize and sustain the north, despite huge casualties. we lose more people between the north and south combined in the civil war and then all of the other wars combined.

and from a much smaller population base. if you read abraham lincoln's gettysburg address, it is a campaign document. no president has been reelected since andrew johnson -- and dejection -- andrew jackson in 1832. the gettysburg address we looked at as a historic, cultural -- read it as a politician speech. basically saying to the north, if you vote against me, your son was killed in vain. now, are you prepared to let your son's death be meaningless or are you on the side of freedom? it is really designed to take this cultural fight. callista and i have done a series of books on american exceptional is in and we are doing it to pick a fight with the left. either the declaration of independence matters or it does not. if it matters it is a real document and it says your rights come from god, you are endowed by your creative.

this is a cultural fight we want to have a country because the hard left of not believe any of that. you get in a very serious question on the nature of america. and i think you want to get people down to first principles and you want to get the down to facts. is it a fact that we now have a lot more oil because of innovation or not? this is why i am reading this piece on the muslim brotherhood. is it a fact that there are people on the planet who said -- say they would like to kill us? let's start with that. if you are on the hard left, they will say it is just political language. you would think after 9/11 or this week's bombing in iraq or the car >> -- car bomber in times square, maybe people who say i want to kill you actually mean they want to kill you. it is a very important core level argument and we have to be more prepared to wage a those kinds of first principles fights. >> mr. speaker, thank you very much.

i am from florida. i became a citizen last year and recently ran to be a delegate for the rnc convention and was told by the good old boys i could not make it. the young people could not become a delegate. i became an alternate delegate but as of the republican party need a transformation for the next generation? do we need to go back to the 1980 idea of ronald reagan expressing a genuine message to be inclusive and open? >> sure. of course, we do. if the old timers say there is no room for them, beat them. marco rubio did not wait and line. he beat the incumbent governor and he said i want to run for the u.s. senate. i knew him before he became speaker of the house. he had a very methodical

campaign to become speaker when he was clearly too young. politics in the end -- there is a very good book of "plunkett of tammany hall." plunkett later in life told this reporter about how things worked. you find an office you can win and you beat somebody. then when you won, you are somebody. you are now a real person. in the age of information -- let me give you two examples. i did jay leno the other night. did any of you see it? what did you think? ok. i saw snooki and i had a serious and meaningful dialogue.

seriously. snooki exists because she exists because she exists. this is part of the nature of the modern world. you could have a brother or a sister and do your own tv show and three years from now if it catches on, you make money. if it doesn't, don't make money. so, part of the trick is to be noisy. part of the trick is to take yourself seriously. i first appeared asking for a zoo in the city of paris for what i was 10 -- harrisburg when i was 10. i had people my whole career thinking i was too noisy. my attitude is it is nice to have an occasional republican willing to debate and argue and be in the media. but for a large part of our party, i was seen as so guy -- why doesn't he just be quiet? there is a famous book where the title was "tell newt to shut up," and it was a quote from john boehner. go back home and be it rather than complaining about it. fill the vacuum with their own

energy and courage. >> first, i'd like you better than snooki. i am michael, going to law school in boston. i have been doing research on campaign finance. as you probably know, you have a world in course in it this past year. what do you think of the state of campaign finance and how would you fight the left on things like the disclose act and other things they have been attacking super pacs for monday utilize the in the 2008 cycle? >> i think the ideal campaign finance system would allow any american to get any amount of after-tax income if they filed on the internet every night and they gave it to. i think it would clear up all the current bologna, the current red tape. the way the system currently

works, if you are rich enough -- if you are mayor bloomberg, you can buy re-election. but he is writing a personal check. he spent so much the it -- getting reelected for mayor of new york that it was virtually impossible to give -- compete because if you are a middle- class candidate you could not raise the money. i think it would be healthier, instead of the money going to the supers -- super pacs that are so all outside of the system i would have the money went directly to the candidates and the candidates have to take responsibility for the advertising, and i think you would have a much cleaner system. every night reporting on the internet, you know who gave what to whom and just relax and get away from the mess we're in now. campaign finance has consistently made the system worse and it had diverted incumbents' toward spending so much of their time raising money that they have far less time to think and far less time to work with the legislators then they did 30 years ago. -- than they did 30 years ago.

>> thank you very much, mr. speaker, for this wonderful speech. i am currently with the foreign affairs committee. i want to shift the dynamic of the discussion and ask a foreign policy question, if you don't mind. recently, in the last few days, there have been a lot of reports from both sides that are sort of taking this critical view of candidate romney's foreign policy, saying he does not have a specifically defined foreign-policy, and that is because president obama has had almost more aggressive foreign policy to some extent than president bush. i wondered if you could comment on that and what is your view in terms of this upcoming election, and in particular, how do you define it republican

foreign-policy in the next foreign -- coming election? >> that is a good question. i think it is actually an advantage that romney does not have an automatic sense of what he would impose on foreign policy, because i think the world is evolving in ways we don't understand right now. i would just give you a couple of quick examples. i was at a speech in singapore in june and i went early to listen to some of the speakers before i talked. one of them was a chinese in economist who pointed out in the next 10 years, india will add 70 billion -- 70 million workers and china because of the one child policy will lose 70 million workers. i went back to rss who works -- russ for me here, i asked sen meet the comparative numbers.

70 million workers added to india is the equivalent of the gentleman and british work force combined. nobody here -- our foreign- policy establishment in both parties doesn't think about a world in which the addition is bigger than germany and great britain, and yet that is the reality. if you look at the build up of military force in asia and the decline of military force in europe, there are very substantial changes underway in ways we don't fully understand. in fact, there was an article this morning about the iranians by new technology to try to maximize their first 648 our capacity to inflict damage to the u.s. navy -- 6 or 8 hour capacity to and flood damage to the u.s. navy.

if i were to say to you what is the most dangerous country in the world today, what would you pick? china, russia -- i am going to give you two countries not on that list. the most dangerous country in the world today is pakistan. pakistan probably has well over 100 nuclear weapons. it had a growing islamist factions. it is a very precarious, very complex country. it has substantial terrorist organizations operating all over the place. the pakistani intelligence service funds some of those operations. i mean, it is truly complicated. we all worry about iran might get a nuclear weapon. pakistan has 100 nuclear weapons. iran -- ahmadinejad talked about eliminating is a row, so from that point, but there are a lot of people in pakistan who would like to eliminate somebody.

whether it is india, what have you. the second most dangerous country from our standpoint is saudi arabia. it is the largest funder of wahabism in the world, a radical islamist position totally incompatible with your lives. this is one of the conversation nobody in our elites want to have. none of you women would be in this room. he would not be allowed to be here. you have to look carefully at what does this all mean. i don't think today that we have designed systems that fit the realities of the world that is

emerging, and i think one of the things i would recommend to a president-elect is he really methodically rethink -- and not just assume that he wants the right wing version of the establishment but that he actually wants to rethink what are our principles, goals, and what kind of systems we need to get there. i think the changes in the world around us are that big. i think are some of -- i am about to get the hook. >> one last question. i want to ask you about electromagnet pulse. i know you have written a little bit on it. it is such a frightening prospect and we had a taste of it if you weeks ago when the power went out of the storm. the you know people in the private sector working -- do you know people in the private sector working on it? >> that everything that are the most immediate threats to your lives on a grand scale -- assuming there is not a nuclear war -- is cyber warfare, which we don't understand very well, and an electromagnetic pulse and of the two, electromagnetic pulse is much worse. we clearly know the technology

because we first discovered it in the late 1950's when we set off a hydrogen warhead in the south pacific and 28 miles of -- 20,000 miles away in hawaii it knocked out lights and telephones. if you launch the weapon at the right out the to be potentially can knock out in large part of the country. the reason it is so formidable is if you burnout elektra generating systems can't replace them. -- electric generating systems, began replace them. you going to a pre-elliptical world. -- pre-electrical world. if anybody wants a sobering the deduction, michael author wrote a great book called "one second after" actor -- where he shows you the town of north carolina after an electromagnetic pulse event. it is one areas, if i was looking at restructuring our

national security system, we should have a very methodical program of hardening our systems. and you can hardin all of these large generating systems so an electromagnetic pulse would not destroy them. and also think through how you harden and of stuff that if there was an attack you could rebuild the system pretty fast. today it would truly be a nightmare. let me just say, i hope all of you will get active and stay active and be engaged and i hope you will be engaged in an aggressive and direct way, and don't be too patient. we need people who are pushy and willing to work hard. do we have a couple of minutes to take pictures? who is my leader? you are my leader? the you want them to take pictures outside? -- do you want them to take pictures outside?

x tomorrow the cato institute hold an annual conference. they will look at economic growth, at the origins of government, and how public policy is created. our coverage starts at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. public hearings with minnesota. republican start their platform progress in mid-august. c-span coverage of the party conventions continues august 10 with the reform party in philadelphia followed by the republican national convention with gavel-to-gavel coverage.

>> janet napolitano said an egyptian politician with ties to a group on the designated terrorist organization list was there before he was allowed into the country. she made her comments during testimony to the security committee. issue is joined by the head of the national terrorism center. this is about two hours and 20 minutes. >> nearly 11 years after the attacks, america is more secure. what the united states is making significant progress, the rest purses and continually of golf. we face direct threats from al qaeda and growing threats from other foreign based groups that are inspired by al qaeda.

perhaps most crucially we face an environment where violent extremism is that defined or contained by international borders. we would like to address threats that are home grown as low as those that originate abroad. these are not limited to any individuals. the tactics employed can be as simple as a homemade bomb or as sophisticated as a biological dredgers are coordinated cyber attacks. all we deal with the number of threats of any time, at three areas merit special attention. the first is aviation.

it makes clear that commercial aviation remains a target. the methods intact is are sometimes increasingly sophisticated. cyber threat and incidents have increased it diffidently over the next decade. our nation continues to confront a dangerous but her situation. we remain hopeful that congress has strong cyber security legislation this year. and the third area of growing concern is home grown violent extremism. within the context, we know that foreign terrorist groups are actively seeking to recruit

westerners to carry out attacks against western and u.s. targets. we have a variety of activities using personal interaction and publication of magazines. today it operates with the understanding that a significant terrorist risk to the homeland is posed proposed by extremist inspired by all canada and its affiliates. the threat is -- by al qaeda and its affiliates. the threat is real, including the rest of nassar jason in fort hood in 2011. importantly, we also know that violent extremism can be inspired by various religious, political or other ideological beliefs and that the recent terrorist attack overseas in

bulgaria has was the shootings in or, colorado demonstrate, we must remain vigilant -- in aurora, color demonstrate, we must prove remain vigilant. with respect to the aviation sector, we have implemented a layered detection system focusing on risk-based screening, advanced targeting and information sharing while simultaneously facilitating trouble for nearly 2 million passengers per day. following the 2009 threat, we lost a historic global initiative that has improved cooperation on passenger and air cargo screening, technology development and deployment, information collection and sharing and the development of security standards. we have strengthened the

intermission sharing with our international partners. for example, our new and historic agreement with the eu allows us continue sharing passenger information so that we can better identify travelers who merit our attention before they depart for the united states. and at home, we have continued the deployment of advanced technology at airports, including ait machines, while at the time implementing a more enhance process, more efficient such as tsa pre-check and mobile entry. we have continued to partner with sector-specific agencies in the private sector to help secure cyberspace and critical infrastructure, such as the financial sector, the power grid, water systems and transportation networks. we have taken significant action to protect government systems through the deployment of intrusion systems like einstein, a greater monitoring

and sharing of information, natural exercises, and initiative responses and a response initiative to recruit the next generation of cyber professionals. internationally, we're working with our partners to share expertise, combat cyber crime, and implement a share systems and networks. finally, we haven't proven domestic capabilities to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against their citizens, our communities and are critical infrastructure. we have increased our ability to analyze threat information at all levels. specifically, we have worked to build greater analytic capability through 77 different fusion centers, resulting in unprecedented levels of information sharing at the state and local level. we invested in training for local law enforcement and first responders of all types to increase expertise and capacity at the local level. for example, we have transformed how we train from one officers

regarding suspicious activity through the nationwide suspicious activity reporting initiative with the doj. we are also in the final stages of implementing a countering bond extremism curriculum for federal, state, local and correctional facility enforcement officers. it will help front-line personal identify activities that are potential indicators of potential terrorist activity and violence been through the nationwide expansion of the "if you see something, say something" campaign, we are urging all americans to alert local cop -- law enforcement. in conclusion, dhs has come a long way in the nearly 11 years since 9/11 to enhance the protection of united states engage our partners in this shared responsibility. together, we have made significant progress, strengthened the homeland security enterprise. but many challenges still remain

pure and threats against our nation, either by terrorism or otherwise continue to exist and the ball. dhs continue to be bald as well. we continue to be ever -- dhs continues to evolve as well. we continue to be ever vigilant. thank you for your attention as we work together to keep our nation safe. >> thank you, secretary of potano palin thank you for working with the technical problem with us. -- secretary napolitano. thank you for working with us on the technical problem. prior to joining and ctc, you counsel,serve as general the chief legal officer for an essay pink he has also served in the government with the fbi and the department of justice

predict is a pleasure to have you testified before this committee for the first time. >> thank you very much. i appreciate this opportunity to be year with the committee today to discuss the terrorist threat facing our country and our efforts to combat it. i am particularly pleased to be here with secretary napolitano, the department of hamas security and nctc as strong partners in the fight against terrorism. during the last year, we have continued to make steady progress against terrorism. at the same time, acts of terror and acts of violence still threaten is here and abroad. just last week in bulgaria, seven people were killed in a brazen terrorist attack on a bus filled with israeli tourists spend while there is no suggestion that the shooting last week was connected to international terrorism, the attack is a tragic reminder that a lone calculating shooter

can inflight devastating damage. but the last year, with the guidance and support of this committee, we have plays relentless pressure on the core of al qaeda. we have denied that grips save havens and the ability to plan and to train. following the death of osama bin laden, several lieutenants have been eliminated. the leaders that remain lack experience and they are under siege. they have a very limited ability to recruit and to communicate with other operatives. in short, the until the picture shows that al qaeda core is a shadow of its former self. -- the intelligence picture shows that al qaeda corp. is a shadow of its former self. they continue to pose a significant threat to our country. leadership's core struggle to remain relevant, it

has turned to other groups to carry out attacks and to advance its ideology. these groups are from an array of countries, including yemen, somalia, iraq, and iran. the men and women and the counter-terrorism center are working to resolve and present the terrorist attacks. -- and prevent the terrorist attacks. first, beginning with al qaeda and pakistan, as i mentioned over the past year, sustained pressure has degraded the pakistan days, al qaeda's leadership and its capabilities, leaving the court allocated at its weakest point in over a decade. the death of the layton, the subsequent losses of other top lieutenants to -- the death of osama bin laden, the system's losses of other top lieutenants, have impacted these groups in tribal areas. al qaeda is having a greater

emphasis in smaller spots which is more difficult to carry out and less easily detected. some may inspire like-minded individuals to conduct attacks in the name of bell canada. beyond the core of al qaeda, we face a core of affiliated groups enabled in part by political instability and unrest in areas such as yemen and somalia. to varying degrees, these groups coordinate their activities and follow the direction of al qaeda leadership in pakistan. the single most capable of filling it today is al qaeda in the raven peninsula. it is based in yemen. this group remains most likely to attempted to carry out transnational attack, including against the united states.

the group maintains the intent and the capability to conduct u.s. attacks with little or no warning. aqap demonstrated this last may when it attempted to bring down an airliner headed to the united states. we monitor the key groups in the middle east, south asia and in africa. these groups remain primarily focused on local and regional plots. they are active in countries like mali and nigeria and are focused in attacking western interests. incursions into somalia is eroding the safe haven in somalia. it is also conducting attacks against regional and western targets in east africa, having carried out in a recent low

level attacks in kenya. pakistani and afghani militant groups, the haqqani network, continued to be a direct threat to the u.s.. it is pursuing her operations outside of that region as a strategy to achieve their objectives. allocated in iraq continues to carry out high-profile coroneted attacks against high-level political -- carry out high- profile coordinated attacks against high-level political targets. they forecast a new offensive against individuals in iraq and threatened to carry out attacks in the united states. in the past two years, american and canadian law enforcement authorities have arrested aqi

operatives. i would like to take a moment to discuss the terrorist threat from lebanese hezbollah. it has engaged increasingly aggressive terrorist campaign seeking to carry out attacks in places like he did come in israel or thailand. israel has blamed hezbollah for the attack last week for the israeli deaths in bulgaria. since 9/11, the regime has expanded its involvement with terrorists and insurgent groups, primarily in iraq and in afghanistan that target u.s. and israeli interests. iran has been linked to plant elsewhere as where could be disrupted -- as well. the disrupted attack upon the ambassador proves that they're willing to conduct attacks

inside the united states. the home grown violent extremists who are inspired by al qaeda's ideology continues to pose a threat to the united states. aqap members created propaganda specifically for an american audience. even after their death, that propaganda remains acceptable online. to the homeland, their difficult to detect pimp they may carry up their attacks without travel. briefly, if i could turn to the role of the national center on terrorism, we review all intelligence collected inside and outside of the united states. we have an access to the entire catalog of terrorism issues and our work force includes representatives from across the government. today, we're facing a dynamic

and complex threat in burma and we're seeking to adapt to that threat. i would like to focus on a couple of key initiatives that we have adopted, in particular, the threat to the u.s. homeland. pursuit group analyst examine thoroughly focusing on details that could yield of relevant information. these analysts provide leads to organizations like dhs and the fbi. second, we continue to implement the important reforms in the process. we have improved your processing and information sharing. we work closely with the rest of the ct community to expedite the information sharing. we have implemented technology.

our counter-terrorism data layer processes information and allows analysts to search and correlate terrorist information in a single environment. later this week, the london olympics began. in the last two years, nctc and british partners have been leading the u.s. effort to make sure that we're collecting and analyzing and sharing all potential threat information relating to the olympics and that we are in a position to respond quickly. finally, if i may say, all of these activities must be consistent with the private and civil liberties of the american people. i am committed to making sure that we retain the confidence in the trust of our citizens. i would like to close these .losinremarks our progress is dependent on maintaining and developing a diverse work force, while much of which comes from other

agencies, like the department of homeland security. mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity and thank you for your continued support of our mission and the men and women of the national counter-terrorism center. >> secretary napolitano, who would like you to discuss the whole issue of the member of the egyptian islamic group who is here in the country and would extend for the future as representatives come from the middle east? >> my understanding of the immigration and nationality act is anyone who belongs to a foreign terrorist organization, before receiving a visa, must apply and receive a waiver from secretary of state and secretary of homeland security.

i know we have seen a number of them, for instance, you and secretary clinton, sign one for a member of the iraqi national congress, and this has been the procedure since 1996, 1997. if you are designated, if you belong to it, you cannot come into the country without getting a waiver. my understanding is that elden, who is an elected official in egypt, was part of a delegation that came to washington, went to the white house, went to the national security council, and also met with members of congress. he is a member, according to his own facebook page, of the islamic group, which is a designated foreign terrorist organization. yet he was given a visa, never applied for a waiver, no waiver was given. when he arrived at the kennedy airport, he didn't go through any secondary inspection. he was at the white house. met with members of congress. were never told he was a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization. now, the reason i ask this question, it appears as if the

law was not complied with in that he did not apply for waiver, congress was not notified, which is also required, that whatever waiver is given congress has to be notified that one ever these individuals is in the country. my understanding also, i take all the information provided by your department in a letter to me, but the reason said no waiver was required is because there was no derogatory information found. yet his own facebook page says he belonged to a terrorist organization. the concern i have is, this individual case is one thing, but as we see the results of the arab spring, whether it's egypt, libya, hopefully syria, and other countries in the middle east, we have people coming to -- coming to this country or attempting to who may have been involved in the past peripherally or real with various terrorist organizations. this administration, another administration, may feel some of these people can be dealt with, can be worked with. if that's going to be done, to me, it seems to me it would

have to be an open process. transparent process, where congress and the people would know who is being let into this country, what were the factors that went in to giving this person a waiver, what level that decision is made. we went through a situation in the 1940's with people in the state department said mao was an agrarian reformer. we can have people making bad decisions. my question to you is who in the state department, who in homeland security would initiate allowing someone from one of these organizations into the country. for instance, even if they are not designated as a foreign terrorist organization, you can have the muslim brotherhood without going into details which may be considered one way in egypt but another way in syria. members of it may have different types of relationship with the organization. who is going to be making those decisions? who is going to give the waiver? is congress going to be informed so we know who is going to be allowed into the country and who is not and why is a

waiver being issued? i say in this case with all respect it does not appear that the letter or spirit of the law was complied with with elden who was a self-proclaimed member of a designated foreign terrorist organization. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think a couple of things. one is i think you are right in pointing out that as we move forward we are going to continue to have visitors to this country that state department and others feel are useful to bring to the country, to have discussions moving forward. who in the past or who say members of a political party that in the past has been so designated. in the particular case you refer to, this was a state department selected group. originated there. he was vetted before he got a visa against all known terrorist and other databases for derogatory information.

none was found. as he entered the united states, we, too, vetted him against all of our holdings, including terrorists and information from a variety of sources. no derogatory was found. before he entered the white house, he was vetted a third time by the secret service, no derogatory information was found. we have some confidence this was not a security breach in that sense. with respect to notification for -- to congress about this, that's something i will have to look into. i don't know what the status of that was. within our organization when we get a visitor like that, we have had some in the past, it's usually a combination of our counterterrorism group and c.i.s. that reviews the information and then oftentimes -- not oftentimes but occasionally will actually come up to the secretary.

>> with all this vetting, the fact is his own facebook page, he said he was a member of the islamic group which is a designated foreign terrorist organization. how did that escape the entire vetting process? >> again, mr. chairman, i think we have to add more nuance to that. we have to know what the group was. is it now a political party that is running the government of a country that has strong ties with the united states, and if that is so, what is the actual information, what is the content of the information, substance of the relationship, and particular instance you raise. i think everyone who looked at this individual felt confident that he was not a security risk to the white house or to the united states. >> i think you have proven my point. that was a policy decision. it may or may not have been right. i'm not quibbling with the decision. i'm saying under the law people

belong to a foreign terrorist organization, a formal process had to be gone through, reasons given why the waiver was going to be granted, and congress notified. that's the certain i have. even though he had it on his own facebook page, he belonged to a foreign terrorist organization, we could have hundreds ever people in this situation over the next several years coming in who may not brag on the facebook page th are a member of a foreign terrorist organization. it raises questions to me how effective the vetting process is. or if a policy decision was made and it was made without congress intending to be notified -- under -- if he applied for a waiver, and it had been granted, you would have had to notify congress. congress was left out of it. he was allowed in without a waiver. >> let me just -- if i might, mr. chairman, if i might give you -- separate it into substance and process. on the substance there was no derogatory information. he was vetted multiple times. but on the process, that's a fair point to make. >> i would say that that's a

significant point because i made it, but a significant point because, again, if a person belongs to an organization and he's allowed in without applying for the waiver, it's bad enough in our position we could be faced with this situation many times over the next several years. especially involving for instance, libya, syria hopefully, sometimes, egypt is going to be a work in progress. i would really ask if that -- you looked into and i hope the decision is not being made with the intention of keeping congress excluded, which, again, on the face of it, appears to have happened. also in closing, in the letter i sent to the department of -- i understand elden at the white house asked if the blind sheik could be released. he was told the answer is no. when i asked what is the position of the department of homeland security regarding any potential transfer or release of rahman, the blind sheik, the architect of the first world trade center attack, quite frankly the department isn't answer.

he's in the custody of the justice department. if he is going to be released, homeland security has a real role to play in that. the justice department and department of homeland security, it again appears they are not answering the question if there is any intention at any time to lease the blind sheik. >> let me say this. i know of no such intention. >> the gentleman from mississippi. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. madam secretary, in a hearing in one of our subcommittees last week we were told that american citizens can be trained to fly planes and not be vetted against a no-fly list. we were told that foreigners are vetted through a robust

process that would only start once they are cleared. the question was whether or not a process could be put before anyone before they admitted to a flight school would be vetted. and testimony from the department at that time was -- it couldn't be done. have you looked at that since that testimony was presented to this committee? >> i have. >> what is your position on it? >> well, the answer is, yes, there is a distinction between u.s. citizens and foreign persons who are seeking to get flight training. with respect to u.s. citizens who may be on one of our watch lists, there are a variety of ways that we can and do keep abreast of their activities.

i don't want to go into those in an open setting, but the law is somewhat unclear as to whether we can vet a u.s. citizen prior to their application for certification from the f.a.a. so the department historically has taken the position that we cannot formally vet them, any u.s. citizen, before that application. >> well, then that -- i would say that we introduced a bill last week to close that gap. do you support such legislation? >> after an opportunity to see the exact language, i don't want to say support, but i would say the idea behind the bill is something we support, yes. >> but right now you also admit that's a problem? >> it can be a gap, but again let me just say it is a gap that would be easily filled a number of ways, and those particularly have watch list information, there is a variety of ways to receive information

about possible flight school training. but it would be nice to tidy up the law a little bit. >> thank you. taking along the chairman's questions about intent of congress, congress passed a law mandating 100% cargo screening for inbound containers. you indicated that it can be done but that some other things are being done to do that. i think the question for some of us is that this was an act of congress -- an act congress feared the department should do. i'd like to hear where we are on a percentage of screening of

containers based on whatever system you are using at this point. are we 20%? 30%? where are we along the goal toward 100%? >> well, we have looked at containers from different angles, as you know, and as we have discussed before, high risk versus low risk, and we have actually done quite a bit to form and strengthen the international partnerships and the industry partnerships necessary to know and to secure containers and freight as it leaves foreign ports to the extents we can. there are a lot of foreign ports, it's just physically not available to us to do that. with respect to inbound, we have an algorithm we use to evaluate i high-risk cargo and

we do a random selection of a small percentage of other containers. i would say, representative thompson, this is an area that i know that the department and some in the congress are at odds about. but there are a lot of ways to protect the ports of the united states and the interior of the united states from dangerous cargo. and as we keep in mind 100% law, which we understand is the law, sometimes those laws are very difficult standards to attain and we have had to move in other directions in the near term to make sure that we are doing everything we can with respect to cargo. >> so what percentage screening are you out right now? >> i will get you the exact

numbers. i would differ in shape between high risk and low risk cargo. we are very high percentage on the high-risk cargo. the low risk, as i said them is very small. >> so you cannot give us a number. >> i can, but not at this hearing. that number is available. >> congress said you shall do it. they didn't say look at it and come back to us. when i am saying to you is, if you instituted the waiver, you should come back and say you like 100% with 20%. but i think it is not a good omen that we cannot get the number. can you provide us with any task orders that have been issued by

the department looking for new technology to get us to 100% or anything like that? >> we are happy to brief you and your staff again on where exactly we are. the numbers are available and i just don't have them at my fingertips at this hearing. let me also say that, as we move forward, we have to recognize congress also gave the secretary the power to waive that requirement and implicit in that, it is not feasible, practical, if it would have undue interference with all the cargo that needs to transit in to american ports for real time inventories for the manufacturers of our country, those are all things taken into account. and whether that interference with lawful and legal trade to get enough of a benefit that it makes it worth it. and we believe that there are

other ways currently available to get their. >> well, i am aware of information that you shared from time to time. what i would ask is, if you would have the current rationale for not doing it and what covered data supporting it, i think the committee would be interested in seeing it. the last question -- i appreciate your indulgence -- can you tell us how much of this cargo that congress said should be screened before it comes to this country is actually screened when it gets here? >> yes, i can give you those numbers. i would be happy to provide those numbers to you. >> so your testimony is that some of this cargo is already here before we look at it. >> it may be. it depends on the source.

but, again, there are multiple layers that go into examining and knowing what is in the containers that are on ships bound for the united states. some of those lawyers begin before it gets to the point of exit and it has to do with trusted shippers, with other initiatives we have, particularly in some of the large parts of the world could others -- of the world. others have to do with with the coast guard does before cargo is allowed to enter the united states. in between, there is the exchange of a lot of the manifest and other information necessary to evaluate whether cargo is high or low risk. so there is a whole system set up. i do not want to leave the public or the committee that we're not doing anything. we're doing quite a bit. but the 100% as the standard is

not yet attainable. >> i yield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman from california. >> thank you. i thank both of our witnesses appeared i'm not say from the beginning that some discussion of application of lone wolf, while it may not have assisted in the terrible case in colorado, we did have a debate on the floor of the house on whether we should have provisions allowed for the patriot act and we won them on the floor. and it was consistent with what the administration was supporting. so i appreciate the fact that it is now recognized as a current and continuing threat to was, that is, the operation of a lone wolf. madam secretary, i want to thank

your department for the excellent briefing we received on the subcommittee yesterday on the nuclear detection office. i think that some of the questions asked with respect to the last issue were addressed theire. i appreciate that and i appreciate the work being done there. i am very interested in a prepared testimony with respect to dhs implementing a curriculum for federal, state, local and correctional facility law enforcement officers, with respect to community-oriented policing in california -- policing. in california, for example, we have a post-officer standards and training commission that establishes the curriculum for all law enforcement officers who

are allowed to carry weapons and community-oriented policing is a part of that. so i look forward to see exactly what your department has. i would be most interested in an elaboration on exactly what the indicators of violent extremist activity are that you mentioned or referenced in your prepared testimony. reason i ask that this this could in the aftermath of the fort hood situation, it was very difficult to get some to it meant that we had missed a whole lot of red flags with respect to major hassan. and when we had a joint hearing asking representatives of the administration with dod about what those indicators or red flags should be and how they would have actually been implemented with respect to the dell hassan, it was difficult to get a response. if you were preparing a curriculum that is to assist

local and state law-enforcement officials as to those signs that hopefully will help us identify before violent behavior takes place, what are those signs? >> well, a couple of things. one is the curriculum is based on the community policing idea with the idea that police officers, deputy sheriffs, whatever, are normally in the best position to witness something -- tactics, techniques, other indicators. without spelling and and classified setting but those indicators are, let me say that we have involved local law enforcement, including california, in the development of this curriculum. part of it includes taking 62 cases of homegrown terrorism or purported terrorism from a variety of ideologies and mapping them out as to what

happened so that we can precisely look at what were some of the things, early warning signs, early trip wires, things that should have alerted law enforcement. and it can be as simple as communication with known terrorists that becomes available all the way to unusual purchases of guns and unusual purchases of explosives. >> how do distinguish between the area of protected constitutional speech and that which is an indicator of potential violent acts? in major hassan's case, we have evidence that a setting in which he was supposed to lecture on medical issues, instead, he went into a rant about the justification for radical

islamists attacking those in the west. yet that was not reported. that was not acted upon. i would consider that an indicator. is that such an indicator in the curriculum that you are presenting to law enforcement, including my state of california? >> perhaps. i don't want to get into the sun. -- into huss' son. the report has been issued on that now. but all of these things taken together, when you actually look at the efforts by the department on countering who want to extremism, there are a number of things. number one, we need to get a better understanding of the roots of violent extremism. what is it that is going on in society that needs to the creation of a violent extremist? can we get some of those responses? no. 2, how do we partner with non-your mental agencies, indio's, other groups that make

-- ngo pause, other groups that may come into contact with someone who is pre-operational attacked no. 3, to be aware of tactics and indicators. i think one of the best ways we can do that is to provide case studies and analysis coming either with the events that happened within the united states or like those that have been in other countries. >> if i could just add a couple of points -- dhs, undersecretary of potano's leadership, is taking the lead with this, along with the fbi, the justice department, and nctc. one way to address this is analytically. we have a group of analysts who look at the question of radicalization. we generated in never products toelp understand exactly what you're talking about, congressman, in terms of the pathway from radicalization to

mobilization of violence, hoping to explain what those identifiers are so we can then use that in training to sensitize local law enforcement and first responders to recognize those signs and then to take action when somebody is on that path and we can stop that person before they do take action. >> i appreciate that. tony blair said two days ago that the west is the sleep on this issue, that even he underestimated the power of the narrative of the violent islamists. i just hope that we have learned. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> i think the chairman and the ranking member for this hearing and acknowledge the witnesses and thank them for their

presence this morning. first, let me acknowledge the passing and funeral of inspector philip prather who was assigned to the houston division of the federal protective service. his home going service indicated a stellar record of service and i am grateful the director patterson was able to attend and secretary. and i hope we will have a dialogue over the next couple of days. let me thank you for your letter of sympathy to the family and i would just like to put on the record that there is a need for a more responsive hr, human resources. if you could look into that, i would appreciate it come in terms of working with the family. let me ask a question. if the homeland security department was operable in 1993

-- i think it was 1993-1994, and the action of the oklahoma bombing -- >> 1995. >> thank you. with that have been considered domestic terrorism? under the homeland security department? >> yes. i actually worked on that case. i would say, yes, that has all the hallmarks of domestic terrorism. >> and do we, as a department, your department, concern ourselves with domestic terrorism, actions that may be driven by american citizens? >> yes, representative, as you testified, we look at terrorism from above and from within. it can be islamist or motivated by other ideologies, but yes. >> with the situation that would have wired and set booby traps

and others in a residential dwelling that has now left dwellers outside of their home for a period of time and, if it had been triggered, could have caused massive loss of life, would that warrant homeland security involvement? with the local jurisdiction have to call you for that? >> well, the aurora tragedy is under investigation. i don't want to get too much into comments on that because there is still a lot we don't know. but i would say that, with respect to the response and the local police, by the way, i might make this point, one of the things we have been doing is doing a lot of training around the country on how to respond to different types of terrorists

and potential attacks. one of the scenarios we have been training across the country for something along the line of a mumbai style crime. we had actually coordinated -- >> i have another question. if he could finish. auroraa police -- l police were their and their responses to be commended. but with respect whether there is a federal response was something in that time, yes. >> let me express my sympathy and applause for the law enforcement and first responders. i do believe there are issues of domestic terrorism there. five members of congress attacked a staff person in the state department on the grounds of being associated with the muslim brotherhood, the mother,

father and brother -- i do not want to call that step person's name. i know that staff person to be an outstanding american. but they sent a letter to the state department inspector general. broadly, their letter suggests that they are muslim brotherhood operatives in the united states government. to me, that is a homeland security issue. my question to you, barring classified information and come if we have to have a classified response at a later time, are you engaged or have you been notified or are you investigating the idea of staff, present staff, being associated with the muslim brotherhood in the united states of america? they cited the decision where there was civilization jihad. they cited defacto identity. where is homeland security on this? >> we have looked into this.

the fbi has looked into this. we have found no credible evidence that such activity is going on. >> could you repeat that again, madam secretary? >> we have looked into this. the fbi looked into it. we have found no credible evidence that such infiltration is going on. >> and the fbi been a component that would have an intelligent component, would it be necessary for the cia, but the fbi would have used their writ -- their resources in the investigation? >> i do not know precisely who they use, but yes. >> the homeland security and the fbi have found no evidence of this. >> that is correct. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from texas. >> i want to thank the witnesses. first, madam secretary, let me compliment you on your recent attention to the caribbean. we cheered and oversight

hearing on the caribbean being the third border. i got reports that from governor for two new -- gov. fortunio. i also chaired a hearing recently on the use of drums. es.use of dron there is another issue of them being used throughout the united states in the interior. i bring this up because the gao said four years ago that the tsa, under dhs, had a role to play with respect to security assessments in national policy. then less than a year ago, we had a man who tried to use a drone in an attempt to blow up the pentagon in the united states capitol. i was surprised by the response

by your department that you had no role with respect to the d rones and that you would not send witnesses to testify at that hearing. so i just want to register my disappointment. i personally think that dhs does have a rope and in fact, i remember sitting on the subcommittee, both republican and democrat, agreed with that assessment. and we have law enforcement experts agree on the same issue, the dhs has a role in the issue of privacy and other science and technology and other departments within dhs to deal with this issue. can you explain to me why this has not been given any attention? >> i cannot speak to exactly how you rule was expressed last week. but here is what is going on. yes, you're right. we use the drones on the border extensively. with respect to the regulation

of the use of drugs in the interior of the united states, it is a relatively new phenomenon. this is the focus of the committee. the regulatory authority is with the a day in part because it is an air traffic control issue. -- with the faa in part because it is an air traffic control issue. but we're working with the faa to make sure that the equities are protected. we do have a funded project -- i think it is in california -- looking at drones that could be utilized to give us situational awareness in a large public safety or disaster, such as a forest fire and how they could better give disinformation. >> i appreciate that comment. the ranking member is prepared to offer legislation with me. i would prefer to see this happen administrative leave.

to coordinate with the justice department and the faa. i do think the faa control of the safety of the airways, but does not focus on security per se and i think that is an appropriate authority for the department. fort hood occurred not too far from my district. i went to the memorial service. since the tragic incident, it has been downplayed. first, it was a workplace violence incident. senior intelligence officials, including your predecessor, downplayed the e-mail exchanges between mr. hassan and alwaki. since then, we pleaded with the washington field office to respond to this threat. the wfo responded with he is doing research.

in one documentation, this is a politically sensitive issue. i think the failure to contact the dod resulted in the death of 13 soldiers, next to 9/11, the biggest terrorist attack on american soil. one of these e-mails literally outlines exactly what major hassad did. at the end of it uses, i would assume that the suicide bombers whose aim is to kill enemy soldiers or their helpers will also kill innocents in the process is acceptable. there is a huge red flag in this e-mail. as a former doj prosecutor, i cannot imagine -- i can see san diego's concern -- i cannot understand why wfo did not give it greater response. do you have a response? >> the report is an extensive

study on how the fbi responded. the director of the fbi indicated that a number of the recommendations are being implemented with information technology. at a personal level and a former prosecutor, at nctc, the port could shooting -- before it could shooting is a seminal attack where we are trying to learn what we can -- the fort hood shooting is a seminal attack where we are trying to learn what we can. >> i would sure hope so when you have a major on a major base in the united states and that is not transmitted to the general and the commanding officer in charge of fort hood. i think that is absolutely an acceptable. particularly, after reading these e-mails, i feel misled.

senior officials misled congress by downplaying the significance of these e-mails. i see my time is expired. >> the gentle lady from california is recognized for five minutes. [inaudible] >> your question is not being picked up. >> can you give me a little more time? >> you got it. start over. >> ok. you can start the clock over. >> as i was explaining my role here on the committee and also having where i live, congressman

ohbacher has the port in his district. my question to you, when you submit the information, would you also be willing to include in that -- and it may require a briefing or a classified briefing to this committee -- what do you view as the continuing vulnerability is within our nations' ports? what resources might you need to be able to address these gaps in the security of our ports? we would like to assist you with that. and number three, what is being done to look at specifically the small vessel threats that are now becoming a great concern to us as well. i should let you know that, for the record, i did submit a letter to the gao and i think it was provided to you at the time

back on may 7, 2012. so i just wanted to give you an opportunity to respond. >> i am always willing, rep, to work with you on the issues of the ports. they're obviously a critical infrastructure for the country. and we work with a variety of partners with them. they're complicated entities, special ones like the port of los angeles. some of the information will undoubtedly be classified. >> thank you. also, being part of the emergency communications and prepared this committee, we recently had an update regarding the reforms that have been done due to the grant program. i want to commend you and your staff for establishing transparency with those who utilize those programs with state and local governments. i would like to ask you what do you expect to do in terms of continuing to address how we can

make sure that those funds are actually risk-based vs by traditional formula? i'm specifically referencing the minimum amount that i believe this statute that allows, for example, well over two million dollars, i think, to various cities to do not rise to the risk that we see in others. >> as the chairman noted in his opening remarks, we have moved more and more toward risc-based approach to a lot of things. -based approachke to a lot of things. there is a little bit of a policy issue, i think, for the congress to consider. at a certain amount, risk evaluation is not perfect. it is someone -- it is somewhat of an art, not a science. on the other hand, where we have high risk areas and known risk

areas, we need to be sure to address those. >> ok. would you be willing though to consider working with this committee to establish those policies that would give you the ability to ensure that most -- more of those funds are in fact risk-based, especially given the fact of the tremendous reductions that your department has suffered. >> yes, we have proposed that the congress takes up all of our grants and look at merging them, reconfiguring them in such a way to maximize our ability to use risc-based criteria. so we have the proposal before the congress and we would be happy to provide you with a copy. >> my other question is coming your response regarding the ports, one of the things that you mentioned is that one of the difficulties is implementing 100% cargo inspection which

could be the cost of the international relationship. could you describe to the committee what you're doing in conduction -- in conjunction with the trade ambassador so we can go for it and have a more stringent system similar to what we have an hour -- but we have international with passengers? >> i have not personally dealt with the trade ambassador, the trip representative, on this. our staffs have had discussions. we have also had discussions port-to-port with respect to the actual schippers, consignors',e forwardrs -- consignors, forwarders and the ball like. >> when we have the trade agreements that came before this congress, i asked the trade ambassador specifically if he worked with you to establish thesegoing forward, we could eliminate this.

the answer was no. >> always happy to work with them. >> mr. chairman, would you allow me to ask one question to open? >> yes. >> mr. olson, i am sure that you are aware that in the committee there are many discussions about terrorism and intelligence. could you share what you view as the percentage of intelligence that you receive that implies that the terrorism that this country is facing is based upon people being directed by their islamic faith? >> the percentage directed by -- the best way to answer that question, in terms of our work, the suspect -- substantial amount of our work focuses on al qaeda and its affiliates.

international terrorism focuses on al qaeda and that ideology. >> could i ask a follow-up question? you are very kind to allow it. >> it is a part of my personality. [laughter] >> you just might get a hug, sir. would you agree that the al qaeda direction and directive is motivated specifically by the perspective of the work that they do? i will submit other questions like this to the record. >> it is much broader than faith. it is a particular brand of ideology associated specifically with al qaeda and its ideology. >> dr. brown is recognized for

five minutes. >> madam secretary, mr. chairman, right after the massacre, members of your department came here and talked about an alleged attack in which 13 soldiers were killed and many were injured. at that time it was stated that the local would be killing people. the more we have learned about that particular incident, the more there were gaps in communications between your department's and other entities that have been brought up. suddenly something that just really concerns me. the blood of those dead soldiers falls on the head of members of this executive branch because they did not do their work and because