college level where people can complete their course no matter what. i think the administration who allocated the $2 billion for the training program, i do hope that it go to the right direction so that people walking the streets will not ever enroll in a community college, may have a desire to go to a trade program. ...

the local companies news, the national needs, if you could talk about that. guest: that is one of the criteria used in evaluating them. it are some feels like the health professions you will see turning off proposals from the community college all over the country because of their issues all over the countries -- country. many are unique to particular areas. gail, good morning, you're on. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to comment i have two

children in the university -- well, three, but to the freshman the september. one at tulane university and one ruling him. him -- i partially moved to vermont because of its school system and its ability to prepare children for higher education. so they went into a situation for which they are well prepared and both received excellent i'm not sureand about community colleges. i have nieces and nephews in milwaukee who are attending community colleges, but i still believe that a four-year education and possibly a masters degree is very valuable to our children and to our society. i have another daughter in nursing at another university. are, i do believe there options to community colleges.

they are valuable for some people but we cannot disregard higher education at the university level. host: the debate goes on. guest: it is not an either/or situation. many start at community colleges. be feeldents who may they can't afford a four-year institution for four years or can't white out what they want to do yet to start a community colleges. advocates for community colleges would never say that should be the end of higher education. for many it is a step. work you can see his online. thank you for joining us this morning. that will be our show for today on the "washington journal." would go live to the bipartisan policy center here in d.c..

threat assessment, jihadist terrorism featuring former congressman lee hamilton and governor thomas kean of new jersey. thank you for joining us today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> good morning. it is a pleasure to welcome you this morning to the release of the report on jihadist terrorism, a threat assessment

for 2013. obviously, following discussion. the bipartisan policy center homeland security project is led by tom kean and lee hamilton. its core mission is to sustain an active bipartisan voice and homeland and national security issues. it is a truism that our national security threats are always evolving. assessing these dynamics, however, is far from obvious. and predicting the contours of this changing threat is harder still. on the solemn week, we are determined to advance discussion of the terrorist threats curtly facing the nation -- currently facing the nation. we hope to stimulate an active debate on measures that should be taken to most efficiently meet these new challenges. it is always my pleasure to welcome congressman lee hamilton to the stage. he will be presiding over today's discussion.

>> good morning to all of you. thank you for coming. jason, thank you for sponsoring this at the bipartisan policy center. we appreciate that very much. the homeland security project mission on-- homeland security issues. we seek public discourse and develop solutions and recommendations for security challenges, especially the threats posed by the terrorists. responsibility is to report to the american people the threat as we see it facing the nation. we do not do this to stroke fear , but rather to inspire and we accurate discussion so citizens and lawmakers alike can make up their minds and take up

the steps they think are necessary to protect the nation. record has been pretty good. not perfect, but pretty good. the second paragraph in the assessment here says this -- "since then, al qaeda is zero for 12 in the united states. it has been 12 years since 9/11 and there have been no major attacks on american targets. record is not perfect. you cannot remember the fort hood incident and the boston marathon, the attacks in benghazi, but it is a pretty good record of which our nation, i think, can be proud. these incidents that have occurred do not represent a strategic attack by al qaeda or affiliated group.

they are certain the tragedies. but they are not catastrophes. serious damage has been done to al qaeda central in pakistan and afghanistan. his leadership has been whileted by drone strikes the terrorist organization has been dealt harsh blows, it has not been eliminated. and as reports say, they are the terrorist resilience. affiliates in yemen and somalia have suffered significant losses as a result of u.s. and allied countries counterterrorism operations. the threat is evolving a substantial tracts of the world are currently into malt, creating conditions for highly resilient al qaeda splinter organizations that share its ideology and lethal message -- methods to pose real danger to the united states and its allies. tom cain and i are proud to

announce the publication of this report today. jihadist terrorism, a threat assessment. all third -- authored by some genuine experts. my guess is it would be pretty hard to assemble anywhere in the more codified persons than the authors of this report. you'll hear from them in a few minutes and they will be introduced. they have produced, in my judgment, very good report. i am not sure it would be possible to get a better one. this report provides a very thorough assessment of the threat facing our nation. and we aim to make this report first of an annual report. i get a little nervous when i hear people making predictions about terrorism. we have had some off-the-wall ones, to be blunt about it, as we look back over the past few years.

this report sums it up correctly, and i conclude with this -- it is too soon to predict the long-term threat posed by al qaeda and affiliated groups. as the movement is undergoing a upnsition that may end buting to be its last gasp, the bright set of circumstances in the unstable middle east could also revive the network. that is the kind of careful language that is typical throughout this report. now i turn it over to you to make introductions. >> thank you very much, lee. heyou so well outlined threat 12 years after 9/11 has

shifted. we must now recognize individuals who were radicalized on the internet often inspired by al qaeda's jihadist message pose a very serious concern in this country. these lone wolves might not be able to kill in mass numbers as happened on 9/11, but what has happened at fort hood and boston show alienated people can do a lot of damage. and online messaging can radicalize these people. we also have another problem. in thisal situation country is far different than when it was. there are budget cut bets that demand we review exactly how we're spending our money on homeland security and make sure every dollar spent well. it is important, therefore, to review the threat and revise our

strategies to ensure we have the smartest counterterrorism policies and programs in place. this is the time, as we all know, here the bipartisan center, a very strong bipartisan or partisan division. therefore, it is so important that in this area, which is so important to the national security, that we maintain a bipartisan approach the republicans and democrats agree on the most important problems and divisions facing this country. from terrorists abroad and at home. the country safety, not political advantage have to be what we are about in this country. that is why it is so important now and why we welcome so much this report from these four excellent authors. they have developed 11 recommendations for policymakers in both the executive branch and the legislative branch. at this time, i want to let them

discuss these recommendations and the rationale for each. then we can begin the public dialogue on what needs to be done to keep our nation safe and secure. i would also, before we start, would like to recognize. we worked very hard on the 9/11 commission and nobody works harder than someone who is here today. richard, it is nice to see you. thank you for your work. very solemn anniversary this week when we remember those who lost their lives on 9/11, the self-sacrifice of so many who bravely responded, and the men and women in the military and civilians who have died or been wounded in the service of their country since 9/11 we must commit ourselves again to do our best to ensure this never, never , ever happens again. it is now my pleasure to introduce carie lemack, the

director of the homeland security project at the bipartisan policy center. she moderates today's panel. >> thank you very much. thank you all for coming here today. it is my duty to introduce the authors of this report. i think has artie been discussed, this is a real group of experts that probably don't need any introductions, but it is my task as moderator to do so so i will oblige. first person i'm going to introduce us immediately to my left, peter bergen is the author of four books, through which our new york times bestsellers. many of you have probably heard of his most recent book which was "manhunt." many of you may have seen the recent movie made about it as well. thank you for being here. to his left is grew soft man who has been setting terrorism for more than 30 years. he is currently the director for security studies at georgetown.

was previously the corporate chair in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency at the director of grandpas and ec office. to his left is michael hurley, who i've known for quite some time and very proud to say i've worked with and he was on the 9/11 commission where he led the counterterrorism policy investigation. he was in the cia for 25 years. he volunteered on 9/11 to go to afghanistan and served 2 tours. he has been on the nec staff twice as well. dr.'sntleman not here is others. you just got his doctorate i believe it was last week. he is a former fbi agent and was governor arnold schwarzenegger's deputy director for critical infrastructure at the outward for the office of homeland security and currently at ufc.

these are the four tillman who authored today's report and i'm going to turn it over now to peter who will begin telling us about what they found. >> thank you for directing the report. us inyou all for having your group. thank you bbc for publishing the report. in q2 three researchers who played a critical role in the .eport we deal with the domestic threat and the international threat there is some good news on the domestic side and also some bad news. the good news is, the number of terrorism hasist been following quite dramatically in the last several years. it is not a perfect indication of a falling threat, but it is an indication. in 2009, there were 41 jihadist terrorism cases of people living in the u.s. accused of some kind

of terrorism crime. this year, there have been only 6. you can see in the report, it is a steadily downward trend. another take away from the report on the domestic front is none of the people in the last three years from 2011 to 2013 trained abroad. that is significant because, obviously, someone goes overseas and gets training, it will be more effective than someone who is merely radicalized on the internet. all the 9/11 hijackers received training in a training camp in afghanistan, so the fact we're at this moment going overseas to get training, i think is significant. the older brother in the boston marathon bombing did go overseas and make contact with sort of is nott groups, but is clear they had any role in planning or training of that operation. another take away on the seeingc side is we are

very few or no groups involved in these attacks or plots. if you go back to the immediate post-9/11 era, you would have like the virginia g hyde case -- jihad case were several people were involved or the fort dix case with a plan to attack fort dix in new jersey, several people were involved in that. now we see individuals, and mostly in pairs. an, or thenidal has boston case. if you look at the 9/11 plot, 19 hijackers and dozens of others were involved in some way in planning the operation. you're seeing smaller groups, lone wolves by definition can do less damage than groups. we continue to see about one violent serious terrorist incident a year since 2009. in 2009.arlos bledsoe

matron adolphus on and then the times square incident in 2010, a drive i shooting in northern virginia military recruiting center in 2011. luckily, no casualties. finally, boston. we continue to see about one incident a year. another good thing we're saying of the 221 jihadist terrorism cases since 9/11, not a single one of these cases involves ,eople acquiring chemical biological or radiological weapons, acquiring, developing, or deploying. we are seeing other kinds of people motivated by other political ideologies developing weapons. 13 cases from right-wing groups or individuals, two cases from left-wing groups or individuals -- pardon me, one case on the left-wing side and two with his syncretic motives. if there is an attack of this type in the future, it is not

likely to come out of the jihad he accra on. it is more likely to come out of people with other political motivations. turning to the international side, bruce will amplify some of these points. is a mixed one. i will conclude by saying rather than getting into individual places, because bruce candela some of that, one of the wildcards -- which include the report was five wildcards. as congressman hamilton pointed out, there are two interpretations of what is going on and bruce and i debated this in the course of this report which is, al qaeda central is basically on life support. i think there's little debate about that. 33 of the leaders of al qaeda have been killed in drone strikes in pakistan just under obama. the leader of al qaeda appointed a yemeni to become his number , the bench month ago in pakistan is basically more

than decimated. it is almost empty. that is one interpretation. you can also make the interpretation that things are looking pretty good for al qaeda because of the 5 factors or could look pretty good because of the following five factors. first of all, what happened in egypt, the fact there was a military coup against an elected muslim brotherhood government, we were all focused on syria but in a way, this is more important than anything else. it confirms al qaeda sentra -- central narrative that elections, basically should not get involved in the elections. the crusaders "will never allow them to come to power." that seems to have just been confirmed in egypt. if you remember the muslim brotherhood in egypt, you saw what happened a couple of days ago.

minister survived an assassination attempt. you're likely to see people more inclined to take up arms that are engaged in politics. this is a big problem in egypt and perhaps elsewhere. another factor, a small one to my perhaps, prison breaks. huge prison break some places like iraq and the last year were senior members of a qaeda and iraq are getting out and hundreds of their colleagues. we saw similar one with the pakistani taliban in july. another big sort of factor is the sunni-shia divide. as you have seen in syria but kindiraq and lebanon, the of sectarian tensions in the middle east are being amplified. if you look at what is happening today in syria, who is lining up behind the united states in the war against assad? important sunni states. form,re is a war of some and there is a war going on already, but if the war is

amplified come it will look a lot like sunni states lining up essentially concede the fact of shia alliance of iraq, syria, lebanon, hezbollah. this conflict could spread. finally, syria to be a training ground for the future. a could also turn out to be place where a lot of foreign fighters go to die. we were concerned or any iraq war there will be blowback. it turned out many of the went there asrs suicide bombers or were killed in action. and the blowback that we feared coming out of iraq did not happen. syria, the same thing could be true or look again like the afghan war. for the arabs are not cut it believed the group, syria was a much more important conflict in the afghan war room which was a sideshow. there are many ways this could go, the election

of april 2014 is something of an isn't seen tohich flawed or corrupt, a leader emerges. we the united states say we are staying and our allies also stay. we point out we have an agreement with the afghan government in some shape or form until 2024. if we say all those things and they happen, afghanistan could look all right. if the election is extremely flawed, no clear victor emerges in the first round, contested in the second round, we say -- we give a series of conflicting messages as we have done in the past about what are the intentions there. you can see the situation regarding intro problem. already members of al qaeda are drifting into areas like kunar and eastern afghanistan. obviously, i don't need to tell everybody here what a disaster it would be for our qaeda to re- base itself in some shape or form in afghanistan. >> let me echo what peter is saying, that thanks to those

us in thenvolving second report that we have had the opportunity to work on. peter is much too modest, but a really have to pay tribute to peter and his remarkable team at the america foundation that really did all of the heavy lifting. i have 30 years plus of study view. so much a cynical things are certainly worse than i started in the 1970s. i think that is what struck me about working on this report with peter. bin laden is dead. norm is plus. but we see that environment changing much more than we could have anticipated three years

ago. much better news, as peter outlined, domestically, what we saw back then was really a burgeoning domestic radicalization problem that seems to have diminished but at the same time, expressed enormous tragedies like the boston marathon. for me, the biggest change is that the core may be in decline. carie lemack promised us it was good. it is good to have some disagreement and then arrive at a consensus. i think the al qaeda core is in decline. i am agnostic was state of events it is in, but putting aside that certainly is not what it once was. i think what we found enormously worrisome is the growth of our qaeda and expansion of the movement, al qaeda has a presence in more countries today than it did on 9/11.

that is basically doubled from the 2008 figure. that is fundamentally worrisome. hand in glove with that, the al qaeda brand, unfortunately, seem stronger than it has ever been in receipt years. islamists will always be stabbed in the back. but i also think it is reflection of al qaeda's on strategy and some of the success of that strategy and expanding further field to new places. existing areasts in africa and east africa. we see how groups like al qaeda and iraq that similarly were the victims or targets of successive inroads made against its

leadership. three initial leaders of the movement were all killed in u.s. operations, whether was airstrikes or drone strikes -- ground strikes. at the same time, al qaeda and iraq is stronger today, which i think is another warning sign. for me, the game changers are basically first and foremost, syria. i would argue, as we do not report, that al qaeda pitched its fortunes to syria. it is in the heart of the arab world. secondly, it is a tremendous religious importance to al qaeda. mentioned in the koran. it also has significance in the treaties, inthe other words, the carve up the middle east of the western powers achieved after world war

i syria was part of the same territory where islam's third holiest shrines are in jerusalem. it is sacred for that reason as well. for centuries, sunni islam has struggled against what was called imitable times -- medieval times. the author of the religious and moral precepts of jihad, 14th- century text. it has been used as a battle call for contemporary jihad he. very much about the importance of waging war. historical and religious connection to the struggle today. report,ntioned in the assad was the perfect villain. this brings me to another worrisome trend of development that we're seeing in the al qaeda movement. it used to be in the old days, in essence, al qaeda was about killing a most about killing muslims, not its stated enemies.

but today, especially in syria, we see arms of al qaeda. they're engaging in precisely the social welfare activities that are designed between , runningproviding food bakeries -- all the kinds of things the mainstream core al qaeda could never do or never did effectively, yet they're incidentally not running fairly effective propagating the campaign. -- propaganda campaign. i find that troubling because it deems our qaeda has learned its lessons of the sillier in the rack -- in iraq and their brother dangerous. especially in assessing the reaction to the boston marathon bombing is that, yes, it is tremendously successful. the immediate response, especially by him emergency

personnel and first responders, police department, and so on. it was really spectacular. at the same time, a reaction may, i think, have laid the groundwork or sent the wrong message, i should say. idiots, twowo amateur terrorists, were able to paralyze the entire austin metropolitan area to close down logan airport, close down mass transit. unfortunately, the message that may convey to terrorists brought the world, there is and does pay. in terms of having a disproportionate both psychological bullet also financial effect on the target audience, the lesson is clear that terrorism may yet succeed. our adversaries may in fact be up tong back in the run- our withdrawal from afghanistan in 2014 and we may not yet be out of the woods and the transition and evolution.

we see they continue. the final point is they were

notit means they are getting the coherent guidance we believe it needs. the second recommendation is congress should hold a series of public hearings on where the united states stands in its terrorism strategy 12 years after the 9/11 attacks. we think this is a appropriate moment for that. some of us on the 9/11 commission thought that congress lost an opportunity in the fall of 1998 after the simultaneous

attacks on our embassies in east africa and after president sentence authorization of cruise missile strikes to hold public hearings in which the american public could be educated about what the threat was. and what we needed to do as a country. that was a lost opportunity. we think we may be at another inflection point given what is going on in the arab world, given that the situation is now different from what it was 12 years ago and the american people would be well served by publica series of hearings, broad public hearings defining what the priorities are today and what needs to be done and what has not been done and so on. that congress should use the withdrawal of combat troops from the end of 2014 to review the authorization for the use of military force. was passedhe aumf in the weeks immediately after the 9/11 attacks. it was a broad granted authority from the executive rent and it

was time to take a close look at that and see if the purposes are still being well served and what should be changed. we also recommend that congress should put the cia drone program on more sound legal footing. we are not saying that congress should dive into the operational details of drone attacks but we think it should be on a very ,ound legal basis and congress as a coequal branch of government, should have a big role in that synthesis such a roof found change in our national security prost your. congress should create an independent investigative toddy. dead body that should be patterned on the national -- investigative body that should be patterned on the national model that should explain how the attackers oblate law enforcement and how we identify lessons learned form it in a bipartisan way.

we selected the national transportation safety board as an example because that's a board that goes in after an airline crew -- an airplane crashes and its is respected around the world for its judgment and evaluations. we think something similar could be useful and helpful here in the era of terrorism. in the area of terrorism. we think the administration should repatriate some of the resin are still being held at guantanamo they prost attention facility and use civilian courts to try terrorists. the administration should also create, in our view, an assistant secretary for countering violent extremism at the department of homeland security and provide that inesion in all the issues countering violent extremism. is a role for the

legislative branch with that recommendation because they would have to create that position. the government should incorporate lessons learned from the boston bombings into its current emergency response land to ensure a more measured reaction to tragic but smaller scared -- smaller scale terrorist attacks. the u.s. government should make a concerted effort to track the flow of arms into syria and urged u.s. allies to keep these weapons out of the hands of jihadist fighters to the extent possible. the united states should keep careful track of foreign fighters who have joined jihad is ripped fighting in syria. another recommendation of the united states should remain a military presence in afghanistan after the nato combat mission and's and december, 2014. we have spent some us national treasure and blood in afghanistan. we were able to push al qaeda out. many of them went to pakistan but we denied afghanistan as a

place where the terrorists were able to plan and do training for operations. revert, ihings to think, would be to deny that big sacrifice we have made over the years. we think that is important. finally, we call on the government to release additional osama bin laden documents captured at the robot abide compound. a limited number of documents have been released so far -- abbottabad compound. i think the public would gain by knowing more of that information. we think that would be an important recommendation as well. >> with that, i will take -- i will takehe liberties to ask some questions and then we will open it up to the the audience but we cannot start today without talking about syria. one thing that strikes me is we allegedly have seen chemical

weapons used by syrians. is this something we need to be concerned about at home? assess that and how do you think the threat from chemical/biological weapons has increased or decreased? deployededa in iraq chlorine bombs on 17 occasions. the only -- it is not a particularly effective way to kill people. people who died in these attacks were killed by the blast. nasrada in iraq -- al was a splinter group of al qaeda and they are prepared to use chemical weapons albeit of a crude nature. are they behind the seron gas attacks as the assad regime claims? that seems absurd. the number of people killed is

beyond the possibility of any terrorist organization. when the seron gas was deployed in the japanese subway, they only killed 12 people. these are the purview of states, not these kind of groups. i mention al qaeda in iraq in this context because they have shown they are willing to use these kind of weapons at a technical level that they have at the time. i think that is a fact that speaks for itself. syria is worrisome on some many levels. just focusing on the terrorist game, al the long qaeda has sought to eliminate all its opponents and take power so one can see that the longer the civil war unfolds that the opponents of the assad regime might favor or promise to

support. couldt that support, they come out on the losing end. i don't think al qaeda wants to take over the entire country. not be undesirable but i think it wants to carve out safe havens and sanctuary at -- sanctuaries and that is the oxygen al qaeda breeds. the other thing is foreign fighters. many have not been americans going to syria. our european allies are streamed about that in discussions with the heads of intelligence and security agencies. the figures vary but in some cases, it is a huge problem. usually you had to go to afghanistan or pakistan to do jihad but you can drive from harris very easily to damascus now. about thenly worry foreign fighters going to syria

as the situation gets more complicated but i think everyone is worried about a repeat of the past were the foreign fighters return to their home countries. just the sheer diversity and an array of assad's chemical weapons according to my understanding, their dispersion means that sooner or later they will fall into rebel hands. the problem there is that you have defectors from the syrian military and the chemical corps. in this case, you could have people with considerable training using chemical weapons with the access to these weapons that are not homemade but our industrial-strength, as it were, and perhaps the delivery means like artillery shells. they could be smuggled elsewhere. >> i agree with what you have

both said. what congressman hamilton said in his remarks that it is difficult to make predictions about the future. with respect to syria, i think is going to be very important to track as best we can the foreign fighters going into syria. not just the foreign fighters but the weapons they are given and compile as much intelligence as we can on the refugees because there is a vast number of refugees and this could be good pickings for al qaeda to do some radicalization among those populations. i have been around long enough to remember, as some of you do, the support and the provision up editions and arms that the government -- of munitions and arms that the government gave and we gaven

them ammunition that was pretty sophisticated and we lost track of them. some of those weapons were creating problems, potentially, for civil aircraft in her and our personnel. there is some lessons learned from that program. ofng able to keep track these things as best we can is a hard task. youthing we know is once give weapons to people, they very seldom give them up unless they have some huge incentive to do that. it can create future difficulties. aboutmakes sense to talk the strategy the government is using and is the counterterrorism strategy sufficient? talking about the and as a, there is a debate -- talking

about the nsa, the vote was very close in the congress on this issue. far as we can as tell from the public record, only one case -- what is controversial in the united states is the telephone metadat a. americans care less about overseas e-mail traffic. in only one case of the 212 cases since 9/11 came out of the telephone program and it is a trivial case -- a guy in san diego sending money to al shabab . , only a few hundred dollars. that is not something someone thed want to encourage but government had access to all your phone records for the past five years. no matter how carefully they manage that program, who is to say some future administration

five years down the road does not have the same view of the way this eta should be handled? that would be question one. are we in a situation -- i was astonished by the " new york where essentially any program you use in the united states on a computer has a mandated backdoor into it that the and as a can get into. get into.he nsa can it seems like an un-american --cept that everything obviously, two people involved in this are well intentioned. i thought you we are doing a lot of the right things. had 12 years to get our counterterrorism policy right and we make recommendations in the report but there is no magic wand that needs to be waived over the situation.

personally, i am concerned about grabseems to be this huge of executive power on the issue of our private communications. it would be one thing if you everysay that all the - terrorism case was because of nsa surveillance. in the report, almost every case made is waste on the typical things that make any typical criminal case. a suspicious activity report in 90%, tip from a family or community member in 33% of these cases, an undercover cop and half of these cases. that's how these cases are made. >> i think the fundamental argument of the report is in the last paragraph which says the threat is changing and our responses and policies and strategies have to change and evolve as well.

that is the yardstick we need to measure this against. future,the immediate how serious, how flexible are we to become what has become a more diverse threat? on the one hand, the number of positives five years ago, nearly three dozen somalis were being recruited in the minneapolis -- st. paul area. that is a phenomenon we have been able to detect and has decreased on the positive side. on the worrisome side, an exemplar of the changes is this to tsarnaev brothers. it attracted attention but not enough attention were there were continued problems in terms of the sharing of information and intelligence between federal, state, and local levels. as the threat becomes more and diffuse, will become more important. -- meorries they the most the most and where we need to pivot the most is we weaken the

error high-e and value targeting drone program has been successful but, at the same time, what does that say when al qaeda has been able to at ad further afield worrisome dimension? it is active and twice as many theaters as it was three or four years ago. we need a different strategy that does not focus on one arm of al qaeda but treats the entire movement in the same way. >> i think the report is strong the domestic side -- we have seen a change from initial worries after 9/11 that help that would be planting operatives in the u.s. and that would be a huge problem. what we are seeing now in some ways is more individuals who are self radicalized over the without those

direct operational control links to al qaeda. this presents a very difficult law-enforcement problem. you are talking about individuals who may not have a radius criminal records and not have come up on the radar's go public government or authorities locally or statewide or federally. it is a big problem. in terms of the white house strategy, there has been a big emphasis on the use of the drone which has been ineffective in many ways but one worries about the long-term consequences. i recommended to those of you here who may not know of out of them of the bipartisan policy center hosted a panel four talking about the legal basis and moral basis and the policy basis of the drone program and it is worth taking a look at. governor cain and congressman hamilton assembled a panel of legal and policy experts to discuss those issues.

into some ofgot consequencesrm that we really need to consider. every time we are able to take out some terrible guy who is planning something against the united states but there are longer-term consequences. >> thanks you for that plug-in that can be found on our website at bipartisan policy.org. >> one of the recommendations that was incredibly innovative was the call for an independent the united states but there are longer-term consequences. >> thanks you for that plug-in that can be found on our website at bipartisan policy.org. >> one of the recommendations that was incredibly innovative was the call for an independent body like the ntsb to investigate terrorist attacks. i have called for investigations into terrorist attacks as one of the 9/11 family members. i remember that fight as well as getting them the resources and time it needed. it was a full-time process to do that. to beall for a body prepared in case there is a

terrorist attack to come in and takes thee, that burden off the victims and their families and the public at large to have to call for an investigation. i also think it could provide an opportunity to remove the polarization of attacks because you will automatically know there will be an investigation and the public will find out what it needs to much like when we have some sort of aviation or transportation tragedy. andnow the ntsb will go in investigate and when they are ready, they will provide us with details and people don't seem to mind letting them do their work. they know there will be transparency afterwards. how did you envision this body being created? can you give us more details? first of all, one of my colleagues from the 9/11 commission has fought long and hard about this and has made a similar proposal in the past. in making these proposals, one can see that there will be

pushback and it will be controversial. unless you ruffle a few feathers and push ideas out there, it's sometimes hard to make progress. one can see some obstacles to such a body. when there is a terrorism attack in the u.s., the fbi dives in right away and there is a cloak of secrecy the goes around the investigation. we also think it is important and would serve -- attacks are going to happen in the united states under republican and democratic residents in the future. approach andrtisan a panel that is respected because of its expertise in a number of areas i think would be extremely helpful and useful politically and useful to the american people. >> peter or bruce? >> i second everything mike said. of can imagine the same kind

-- and attack doesn't have to be successful. you could look into something like the christmas day 253 plan and there were important lessons learned and there was an internal cia investigation that was a white house for port and there are some things that have to remain classified but given how that was a very politicized event because of some missteps by some people in the administration initially about what they said about it -- you can imagine this kind of body would be very useful. the 9/11 commission is sort of permanent. it would be made up of similar leaders and staff. it would not have to be as big as the 9/11 commission but i think it is a great idea. there is a threshold question.

what particular event is an act of terrorism? what would trigger the use of this organization? we werethis question as writing the report in terms of what we would include in terms of a threat assessment. andd cover ecoterrorists terrorists on the fringe politically or should we concentrate on al qaeda and transnational terrorists which are traditional? there are the initial triggering threshold questions that one would have to consider. is still controversy about the anthrax attacks. i feel the fbi story is the correct story that it was bruce ivins. but if a was a nonpartisan group and the syrian political leaders were involved, controversies like that would be less likely to happen.

instead of having the fbi saying this is our conclusion and that's it. >> four years after the fort hood tragedy, we are still debating whether them major who committed the attack is a terrorist. this would take it away from struggle -- from strictly legal framework. i think it would be enormously invaluable institutionalizing the lesson learned from every terrorist incident. that seems to fall by the wayside. it depends on the same people being in office or being in their positions of responsibility is not always the case. there is a diversity of jurisdictions in the united enablewhich this would more cross-fertilization. i think it is enormously important. >> my colleagues know more about this than i do in terms of the middle east but looking at the israeli example in a society that is under attack a lot and they have formulated methods and standard operating procedures for dealing with this and

getting back to business and getting back to normality as fast as possible after an attack. it lessons learned aspect of and trying to do this and that is credible with the american people has a lot to offer. >> there is often a lot of controversy with terrorist attacks whether al qaeda is involved or not. in the madrid 2004 bombings, there is a debate about that. something like this but -- would be and are mostly important and disentangling the rival claims are false claims that are made from the truth and i went to find if the cell cut or whether it is an affiliate or associate or whether it's in an independent group operating because it is in sync with the al qaeda aims. all of those are important. >> i agree. i appreciate you spelling it out more. i will take one more cash and from me and open it up to the audience. that is -- i will take one more

question from me and opened up to the audience. decides ifepartment these are terrorist organizations and is it something we need to look at as groups evolve and we need to tout -- evil in our ways designate them -- and evolve in our ways to designate them? >> there was a big debate whether to designate the hakani group. if we designate them, it is hard to negotiate with people you've designated. is it a terrorist organization or not but it was designated. as a practical matter, does the designation change the way they do business? i don't think so. it's not like they are operating with act accounts you can closed down. it does not operate like that.

>> it depends on the group, i think. as a moral weapon or statement of policy, it is in our mostly important. groups like the hakani network may not care but other groups were concerned when they were placed on the united states list but on canada and france. it's another important weapon. there are weapons against terrorism that are non-kinetic. is the system perfect and doesn't affect every terrorist organization the same way? no, but it does not mean it does not play an important role against the battle against terrorism. >> i think it should be used when appropriate. i would love to open it up to the audience. there'll be a microphone going around so state your name and affiliation and let's keep them short so we can get good questions. i will start off with governor cain right here. there is a microphone coming.

>> thank you very much and bank the panel for a terrific discussion. i want to follow up with something bruce said. you said out qaeda is staking everything on syria. moment what the united states should do in reaction to the gas tax -- gas attack -- there are so many facets to this one. is there a best possible outcome for us? if so, what is it and how do we pursue it? bestn my view, the possible out, is the one we could have a year or so ago if we had backed the opposition groups, not just to diminish the wereal of the jihadis who the most competent and ruthless fighters.

us more have given influence perhaps over these groups than we have now. i think it would have given us greater insight as to what is happening in syria which we don't have today. i still think it is in essence the same policy, backing the groups in them a couple to al qaeda. --inimicable to al qaeda. al qaeda is it tempting to rebrand itself just as osama bin laden said. he understood that al qaeda had to convey a different image. it is a wolf in sheep's clothing but it is sensitive to public perceptions to the extent that it was not five years ago. we know it is something that is changing and we have to push back hard against. factet's start with the

that it does not call itself al qaeda. they understand the branding problem. they had an ice cream eating contest in aleppo and a tug- of-war contest as having town meetings and showing videotapes of bidding aging with the locals. and a sense, the report is the first time that al qaeda is in a like hezbollah massive way and is learning. centric population- strategy. eventually, they will do what they have always done which is involved tell of them-style rule but not doing that right now. style rule but they are not doing that and now. now.t

if you don't do this, what are you signaling to iran? thatld say to the critics if not now, when? this, don't respond to when do we plan to enforce this international law? the president is in a difficult situation in terms of international law. he does not have the un or nato or the arab league in any any full way. congress, it's a big gamble for a president who has taken big gambles in the plast in the past whether it was the osama bin laden raid. it was a big payoff but if the vote was held today, it looks like he would lose but things can change. party which is seriously concerned about iran and the liberal side of the democratic party which is seriously concerned about issues

like responsibility to protect, they will have to do some serious thinking about these issues as they begin to ache about which way they will vote. >> john? microphone is right behind you. >> terrific report. many of your recommendations are self-evidently useful. the one that i think is the most significant and difficult as the one that has to do with congressional race for him or jurisdiction within the congress. it was the 9/11 commission in my judgment that made the most concise comments on the problems with congressional jurisdiction with regard to homeland security. it made some very useful recommendations. i was on the hill at the time with jim turner and we agreed that they reaction within the congress was something of a

windup with very little pitch in the end. it was difficult to do. if you could move in this direction, i don't think anyone would dispute if you had congressional oversight that was more focused, more rational that it would be a major contribution not only to the commission but other national security issues including the nsa surveillance issue of how do you get there? the second comment, you talk about change over 12 years. beginningback to the of my own intelligence career in the late 1970s, i remember the assassination of the ambassador to afghanistan. analysts looking at that, that was not hard to do. it was a tragedy but we could identify the extremist party within the spectrum of parties in afghanistan.

clear that they wanted to risk killing the ambassador. he was killed in an assault on the hotel where he was. it was ultimately blames more on the soviet trained afghan forces . analysis, national framework. towers ind to the 2006. fbi investigation was what the consensus was that iran was responsible for this act in 1996. we had the general there who was held accountable for not protecting his forces. at that time, he lost his second start. over time, we have come to realize that we underestimated the strength of al qaeda at that time and the underestimating the

potential for an islamic identity to mobilize and mobile -- and motivate forces across the region and ultimately across the world. national identity for these groups was subordinated to an islamic identity. it took us a long time to realize that. when you look back on kobar towers, it more likely al qaeda than iran. general schweiker got his second start back in 2008. and-forward to syria compared with 1979. it was so much easier to establish attribution and today it is virtually impossible to establish attribution because you have the proxy wars and the sunni/shia conflict, militia but countless numbers.

this is an extremely complicated picture to analyze. does anybody on the panel not understand why the american -- hisis war where he war weary and concerned about putting our military at risk and does does not understand where the national interest is and why we need to do more in terms of threat assessment to make it clear to people why the risk would be worth taking? >> thanks for that. let me try tackling the first point. i am not an expert on congress. i have worked for those who are and have mentors who are. in the nearly 10 years since the 9/11 commission report came out, the cochairs of the 9/11 commission have lost no opportunity to keep hammering on the point that this is something the congress needs to do.

this reform needs to be made in oversight. they have made that point repeatedly. they also said in the room port, i have heard them say this is probably the heaviest lift of any of the reforms recommended by the 9/11 commission. the best formulation i heard and i live it to experts like jim turner and lee hamilton but i this reform needs to bethink ths needs to grasp that this is a national security issue. i think that's the argument that making these changes in the jurisdiction of committees and oversight is a national security issue that will improve the security and defense of the united states. that is the underlying point in the argument that needs to be made and it needs to emit persuasively and forcefully3 . the 9/11 commission folks ever. we made it. i don't know if it will happen. i think we can just keep pounding away on that theme. that is my best thinking on it. >> in terms of the national

the national atlas these days is weighed down with a lot of baggage and not the least of from iraq and weapons of mass destruction and faulty intelligence. we should not let the past blindness or tether us to not atking coldly and soberly the threats as they are today. , and ie report concludes think is definitely the case, is no al qaeda threat is ever completely localized print it is has always transformed itself into a regional threat and spread into surrounding countries. , and i a year ago, we would have talked in nigeria.aram many al qaeda threats have gone beyond regional to international. summer, we see the closure of error 19

embassies and consulates because of a threat from al qaeda in the arabian and samoa -- in the arabian peninsula. this continues to develop while we are enmeshed in taking over parts of yemen. al qaeda has greater ambitions to attack the west, particularly the united states. syria, because of its geographical situation, the crossroads of the middle east and europe because of its contiguous borders with three of our closest allies, turkey, israel, and jordan, means that whatever baggage we have from afghanistan or iraq over the al qaeda threat, we are talking about something with very withrent consequences perhaps repercussions that would manifest themselves far faster than a normal al qaeda time cycle.

right back here. i want to build on a comment that the governor made. the 800 pound gorilla this week is whether or not congress should authorize a military strike. given the impressive area of talent and experience of this panel, i would like you to answer, if you will, a two-part question. what is the threat assessment of near-term retaliation should we strike and secondly, what is the consequences, drawing on your knowledge from the intelligence community and related activities, of our not striking? threats i have heard from the syrian officials about retaliation remind me of baghdad during the 2003 -- just

you wait, israel has attacked syria on multiple occasions and there has been no response. respond to your neighbor so i think it is a red herring. my personal view is we should respond to the use of these weapons. as bruce has pointed out, we are iraq war.igating the this is a new situation. if we don't respond in this instance, when we'll we -- when will we respond? >> sam rayburn said to lyndon johnson that he wished all of wisemen had run for dog catcher and they would understand politics. i think how we do it is important, probably more important than what we do. in some respects, the train has

already left the station. israel has retaliated pretty harshly against syria in the past. they just do it and don't wave the flag and take huge amounts of credit. their messagedent has gotten across and it is a significant deterrent message. i think what we do will play into the response of the retaliation. in terms of the capabilities of our advertiser -- of our advert sherries to -- other adversaries to mentor retaliation, it is there in hexboollah. it would be enormously consequential. should that be a deterrent? i don't think so but that's something we have to bear in mind. the consequences of not doing anything -- that i cannot answer. it gets into the realm of guesswork and we just don't know.

ofan also tell you all sorts bad outcomes given the scenario of has the law if we do something. xbollah if we do something. >> i don't disagree. i think they are very good points. syria of somef testimony we had on the 9/11 commission from clinton national security people. theyked them about options considered for use of force in afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks in the late 1990s. one of the answers we received and some factors they were waiting were the fact that we had a no-fly zone in iraq and we were knocking out airplanes every once in a while. we had taken this military operation in the sudan using cruise missiles. there were various things going on and one thing that was waiting on their minds at the you had two or

three military operations going on in the muslim world and you being veryng seen as aggressive against that part of the world. afghanistan, it's just something that concerns me when i think about it to take on another prospect. i am not saying that is not the issue but that is the underlying issue that one needs to think about. >> [inaudible] the homeland security project is working with the cyber securityon objectives to look at what we need to do to make sure the grid does not get a tax through cyber attacks. necessarily not

related to your question but we keep that in mind here. let's go back here. up on this to follow- task force tummy tuck. do you envision -- on this task force. you have use the model of the ntsb. is that the way you envision this as a post-incident? >> in large part, it would be an organization that was step in after an attack but hopefully the lessons learned from each may bet would provide how to avoid future attacks. we have commissions after something bad happens. one could think about a commission for trying to head off certain things from potentially happening as well. >> richard?

former member of the 9/11 commission, a partner at mayer- brown in washington. i want to thank you for an extraordinary discussion so far this morning and the breadth of the discussion is truly impressive thanks to tom and lee and all of you for this discussion. it seems like the recommendation or streamlining congressional quotidianis somewhat in views of the immediacy of the other issues like syria. however, it is one of the things that sticks in our craw as the 9/11 commission recommendation that never got any traction in

congress. tacticserested in the of finding a way to reignite that recommendation and i like very much what mike hurley said about the national security implications. let me suggest that you perhaps as aatever hearings come new secretary of homeland security is selected to hammer that point. i would suggest that perhaps one of your greatest allies and our ticket with -- and articulate spokespersons for reform would be janet napolitano who could talk to the extraordinary drain on resources and difficulties that are posed by more than 100

committees and subcommittees to staffhe secretary and her must report. further that you secretary napolitano and her staff go into chapter and time as to the amount of and the disruption that these put on the department of homeland security. thank you very much. >> those are excellent suggestions are you >> we will keep that in mind. over here? i have a recommendation for critique from what i have not heard. as you may know, former senator bob brandt has been fairly

outspoken about the role of the 28 pages in the 9/11 report that remain classified discussing the in thele international financing. i have an open letter from the speaker of the house of the syrian parliament to our speaker of the house john boehner, inussing the saudi role the financing. we know from intelligence reports that the al qaeda groups that have been vetted by the state department in libya, some of their weapons have been caught shipping over to syria group in hasra their financing coming from this. perhaps, as well, their chemical weapons and other weapons that they have as well as logistics.

it seems to me that if we are going to be shutting down this operation, the key thing to do is to shut down the financing emma the international financing. that includes both going after the role of saudi arabia in financing these operations but also the role of these banks which are considered too big to involved inbc to be laundering drug and terrorist money. bags were to separate the according to glass-steagall standards, you could probably solve that. on the agendaing as you probably know. what are your thoughts about that? is it time that we declassified these pages and went with ex- separation to protect ourselves from these things? from the joint intelligence committee investigation not the 9/11 commission. congressman wolf this past

summer had legislation passed that would set up a commission -- this is one of the four areas they would look into, the whole saudi involvement question. wouldthe financing, i look -- i would recommend a book that explains some of the genuinely positive achievements that have been made in stanching the flow of the money to terrorist organizations. one does not know how deep the well is that over the past decade cometh as one of of the success stories in the war on terrorism. lex i agree but terrorism is a cheap form of warfare. the most significant al qaeda attack in the west was self financed with credit cards, it cost 8000 pounds. look at the boston attack. i don't know how much it cost that i would be so rise of it wasn't just a few hundred bucks

and theressure cooker necessary ingredients. the notion that if you close down all of this money flow, terrorism would disappear is a false assumption. by the way, terrorists are volunteers, particularly suicide terrorists. you cannot pay people to kill themselves. in 9/11s money involved to carry out that the reason it succeeded is there were 19 toling -- 19 people willing die and that something money cannot buy. but ian important thing think the saudi's themselves have a better sense of this problem. at are controls over their charities. what they can control is the millions of people who come to saudi arabia, many who contribute to some funds that will help somebody and ends up somewhere else. that is a hard thing for them to control. commission, you have said in the past this is

that you gave it a b? you gave it the highest grade. this is something where progress has been made. for one moreime question, right here. it seems like the simplest and most effective thing the groups whose leaders are the object of eric targeting killing program would do is to send a lone assassin from this country to perform targeted killing of their own. brennan was national security advisor would open the door to his house by himself. former national security adviser was jogging by himself. while we are being strip searched electronically, those in the know are acting as if there is nothing to worry about. does this suggest that the threat from terrorism has been hyped? well, this is exactly the

reason that terrorism is appealing. it has been appealing for 2000 years because it has disproportionate psychological reproductions on its target audience. the compact between citizens and their government is a problem. citizens expect governments to protect and defend them. they expect them to do so in different ways than they do against terrorism than automobile crashes. automobile crashes don't necessarily affect people's behavior. people have not given up their cars but we see the pernicious effect terrorism has had on a on its confidence and leadership and those are important elements especially in a democracy. that is why terrorism is always

consequential. i think we should avoid hyping it because that's what the terrorists want us to do. that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to the threats as they exist and deny that they can have a profound impact on our way of life. to christmas day, the plan , 300 peopleflight would have been killed on the plane and more on the ground and it would have been covered by the media. it would have affected commercial aviation at a time when the world's economy was not in great shape. it would have to be reconfigured. the financial consequences of such an attack would have been very great. luckily, it did not happen. nobody on this panel is in the business of hyping a threat in any given year. more americans are likely to be killed by snake whites are lightning than by terrorists. however in some years, that was

not the case as we saw on 9/11 which had a transformational effect on this country. that's why we produced this report. it is a calibrated attempt to define what the threat of the -- with the caliber of the threat is. you could make the argument that the right set of circumstances, al qaeda and other groups can perform a self resurrection given the circumstances of the middle east. >> i want to thank you all for coming here today and remind you we planned this to be the first in a series of annual assessments of the threat. we hope to lay will look forward to seeing you next year here to discuss how the threat has gone and everything has been taking care of. i hope that is the case. teamt to thank the entire for making this happen. they did a fantastic job pulling this together and all the staff. i want to thank your three panelists.

i want to thank all of the staff that helps them as well. i also want to thank the former president of the 9/11 commission for attending. congressman turner, thank you for attending and congressman hamilton and governor kean thank you for being here and thank all of you for coming and we look forward to seeing you again soon. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

up this event. we are expecting you and secretary-general ban ki-moon to give us remarks on the situation in syria. when that starts, we will bring that live. a lot of coverage today as congress is back. ban ki-moon coming out in a couple of minutes. one of the stories we're following from the ap, assad remarked that the world should expect everything in response to

any attack on his nation, while denying his troops used chemical weapons. john kerry in london rejecting the denial, saying, what does he offer? we will continue to follow all this story today. let's wait here with the reporters for secretary-general ban ki-moon.

>> good morning. how are you? good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i am back from the st. petersburg g-20 meeting, and it is important to brief you. syria dominated the summit meeting. [indiscernible] it also dominated all the bilateral meetings i had with

world leaders. the main focus was on the allegation of chemical weapons used and the forthcoming report from my investigation team. i have not yet received a report from them, nor do i know what it contains, but i do know there has been serious speculation regarding a major use of chemical agents on august 21, the deaths of hundreds of civilian people. should this be confirmed by the report by the doctor and his investigative team, then this will be an abominable crime, and the international community would certainly have to do something about it. 1/2 years of conflict have

produce only embarrassing consequences in the council. should the use of chemical weapons be confirmed, then this will surely be something around which the security council could and indeedsponse something that should merit universal condemnation. i am already considering certain proposals that i could make to the security council when presenting the investigation team's report. there would be a need for accountability to bring those to justice who used them, should eir use be confirmed. there would be a need for greater security regarding any stocks, weapons

and their remains and urgent need for a cessation of hostilities. the syrian people need peace. ladies and gentlemen, let me say just a few words about their regular work of the g-20 discussions, where there was a rugrats on growth, further security, and investment. putge the g-20 leaders to sustainable development at the core of their work. in particular, i call for increased commitments on tolls,ng the minimum defining a global development agenda beyond 2015, and addressing climate change. i was encouraged by the response from the g-20 leaders, and i

look forward to building on those discussions during the general debate later this month when leaders come to the united nations. weekn to brief you next about my priorities for that time. and i thank you very much for your attention, and i am ready to answer your questions. >> thanks very much. good morning, secretary- general. cbs news. as president of the u.n. correspondence association, i want to the commute from st. petersburg on behalf of the association. my question is, there was an announcement this morning by the russian foreign minister that russia will press syria to put the chemical weapons under you u.n. control, and assad told charlie rose that he could not even act elledge that there were chemical weapons in

syria. how do you think an agreement by russia would come about. do you know anything about it, and would it lead to security council action? thank you. foreigne spoken to the minister in russia a few moments ago, and i also spoke to john kerry earlier today in london. acknowledge these ideas. as i said earlier, i have already been considering certain proposals that i could make to the security council when i present the investigation team's report. for a number of days already, i have been in centering -- then considering

proposals. syria wherenside they can be safely stored and destroy. and i urge again that syria should become the party to [indiscernible] >> thank you. with the situation right now, the war drums in the region, do you know if there are also diplomats considering evacuating the u.n. staff in lebanon? would you consider that in case of war? thank you. >> we have quite a number of u.s. staff irking in syria --

working in syria, including international staff and domestic national staff. staff, we have more including staff there. we have been taking very careful necessary preparations and consideration how we should ensure the safety and security .n. staff there. we will continue to carefully monitor the evolving situation. i can assure you that the security and safety of the you u.n. staff is paramount, but there are large amount of humanitarian works that we have deliver and humanitarian assistance daily to those who need our support.

can assure you we are making necessary preparations concerning safety and security of our staff. if serious says yes to transferring its chemical stocks to international control, how overly could the u.n. take those stocks? what is the timeframe? >> that is the proper way for syria to do. then i am sure that the international community will have a very swift action to make sure that these stocks, chemical weapons stocks, will be stored safely and will be destroyed. i do not have any out and worry about that. first and foremost, syria must

agree positively to this. >> thank you, mr. secretary- general. the foreign minister of russia has said that if the united states goes ahead with military action against syria, that will be the end of the possibility of peace talks in geneva. do you believe this is the case, and what would you urge the u.s. congress to do? there in know, i was st. petersburg with the joint brahimi.nvoy we discussed all that matters

concerning the current situation and how the current debate on the possible international response could affect the geneva 2 peace conference. at this time, of course, we can easily think this may affect negatively the convening of the geneva conference, but it is important, it is important that we continue to pursue, to convene a genie that conference as soon as possible. thepolitical solution is only viable option at this time. there were a lot of discussions on debate, the world leaders many possible issues, but at this time, i do not have any clear answer to this. andwhat i can ensure you, i

brahimi will continue to work closely together with the united states and russia for the original initiators of this. mr. secretary-general, should you be successful at getting the chemical weapons under control and out of the hands of people who can use them, how do you expect to be or what suggestion do you have to make sure that those who are responsible for using them are indeed punished, because your team is not going to place blame on any party. they are just going to confirm whether they were used or not. >> i believe this is a separate issue. accountability process is another one, and making sure that nobody commits a certain paren this use of chemical weapons and also takes sure that

the current syrian chemical weapons stocks should be safely stored and destroyed. so there will be no possibility. i believe even with this accountability should be perceived, with what has happened, accountability with the investigative team's report. thank you very much. >> secretary-general ban ki-moon giving an update on the situation in syria. the ap says the russian foreign minister, did earlier today that his country would lobby syria have their chemical weapons put under international control, and

you heard the secretary general remarking about that subject. syrian president assad remarked in an interview that the world should expect everything in response to any attack on his nation, while denying that his troops used chemical weapons. in london john kerry rejected assad's denial saying, what does he offer? words that are contradicted by fact. we continue to follow events on syria. expected in 45 minutes to talk about syria at an event hosted by the new america foundation. we will have it live at 12:30 eastern. we have a facebook poll asking whether you favor military intervention in syria. as of this morning, 115 viewers voting yes, 900 32 are against military action. 35 people undecided. we have over 600 comments on the

situation. we would like to hear your views. good to facebook.com/cspan. congress back in session today. the house gaveling in reedley at 2:00 eastern. they will start their legislative work at 4:00 with a pair of bill. later this week we expect the house to take up the syria resolution as well as a temporary funding measure. the senate back at 2:00 today. two digital nominations on the calendar. lawmakers opposed to start debate on serious this week. the house live on c-span and the senate always on c-span2. maintain family time, edith roosevelt purchased a family retreat called pine knot. d.c.is was close enough to

so he could get out here as often as needed, but far enough away that there was wilderness. this was a family lace. it was unique for the roosevelt because second more hill had become a place where there was constantly a hubbub affect today. this was the one place where it was private family time, and roosevelt made it clear they did not want anyone but family here. roosevelt, looking at the public and private lives of the women who served as first, tonight live at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span three -- c-spanc. --c-span3. 12:30an rice live at eastern. this morning, a discussion on

top straining from "washington journal." host: today we will break down a career that is a training program. the goal of this program ? on two-yearocus programs? >> these are community colleges. he is concerned about those who in the past may not have gone to college of all, and those who have been hurt by economic

disruptions. we are three years into this program. talk about the history of the effort, where it came from, and how much money has gone out. this is big money for community colleges, but smaller than what obama proposed. alien dollars. he has proposed large or grams. congress tends to ignore or cut them back. host: as we go through this program, we want to hear from you and get your comments. have you going to community college. we want to hear about your experiences. we have a line set up.

how did congress eventually passed this trade adjustment assistance program? guest: it was originally supposed to be a $12 billion program. it got cut. they had this money, and there is a sense that community colleges get the short end of the stick on a lot of government support for higher ed. most of the sport comes directly from local or state governments. they have had huge enrollment increases, particularly since the economy tanked in 2008. a lot of people wanting

retooling of their careers, help in getting ahead, so this coincided with a time when they were under increased pressure. host: let's talk about the requirements of colleges applying for this that has been going out. according to the labor department, those who are heart of this program are required -- colleges need to develop programs that can be evaluated. must the transferable to other institutions. take us through those requirements and why they were put in. guest: if you look at a four- year college, students earn a bachelor's degree. at a community college, students are goading for associate degrees. this program has been designed

to encourage different kinds of programs. in many cases the ideal community college will be in and out of community college, giving training, adding a job, then coming back to earn a degree to get the next promotion. in terms of requiring baby transferable credits, our population is increasingly mobile, so they want to make sure that people who started can advance their education elsewhere so they want a bachelors degree. a big emphasis on the program has been to encourage close ties between community colleges getting the support and local industry groups that want to make sure these programs are not just theoretically group, but meet specific demands in local communities. folks a sense of what is out there.

grants included 27 awards for colleges. individualo institutions totaling $78 million. sates were contacted to develop a project. a lot of numbers. give folks a sense of what kind of specific or grams those moneys go for. in massachusetts, community colleges develop a consortium, and they are developing competencies. they are working with industries to get ahead, what are the

competencies you need. then they are trying to align all the programs with those competencies. other colleges are bolstering certain kinds of programs. health repressions programs -- almost always have more demand than they can find laces forced to do this. they are trying to find ways to be more efficient and effective in getting students into their programs. host: you mentioned massachusetts. it is funded by a $3 million grant we are talking about today. we are taking your calls and comments. we will start with illinois,

republican from our eastern and central time zone. good morning. i am really impressed with the overall results of the community colleges, and as a .usiness owner they come from these universities, i have to train them over again and let them go because they cannot -- i need people who can do that job. i would want to hear comments from your guests in reference to the gap between the jobs that are actually out there that

employers need employees for versus the education that people go to get, and there is no jobs out there for them. tost: one of the goals is make sure you have that alignment. you mentioned a program in biotech. you see a lot of colleges noticing on the growth fields, not necessarily the fields they were pushing 10 years ago. the qualities this college -- caller mentions, many of them have practical approaches to issues. these are students looking to get ahead. they want programs that will give them skills, and many community college programs are designed to produce the kinds of employees you said you were these to the getting. i'm sure you're comments were using to the -- i am sure your comments were music to the ears. host: this story from back in

october 2000 10 from cnn talking ,bout organizations like kaplan for-profit colleges that pushed back against this program. what were the concerns? guest: there is competition for students and for federal dollars. which for-profit sector, -- there is a new round of debate around that is starting today in washington -- like to say they have better success than the community colleges do. community colleges would disagree with that. immunity colleges say they are less expensive. students need not barro as much. profitsre -- stuff four- -- the for-profit colleges say they get through more quickly. most community colleges are

turning away qualified students who could get jobs because they do not have enough space. host: question on twitter. thathere concerns these programs will impact student enrollment in traditional colleges? guest: not really. these colleges generally have to pass the issues. since 2008, while we have seen some recovery, state budgets for higher education have been cut significantly. a lot of public higher ed is struggling to keep up with demand. you do not see the concerns there. host: who is eligible for this program? can older students receive training if they have been laid off and their job no longer exists? guest: absolutely. the program is support for the colleges, and indirectly reaches students. community colleges serve a wide range of students, including

folders to its very many of the job training programs are very much focused on older students who may have been laid off or had their careers stagnated. host: let's go back to the phone, florida, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you guys this morning? i have attended both community colleges. i got my doctorate at a university. i still go back to the community college. they offer so many different programs that i was able to get involved in that i would not be able to in a larger college. when i started at the community college, and a lot of my andents had cheaper tuition take their classes there for the summer at the community college and then go back during the year to finish it up. i think it is great, what the