mr. larson who was with the cia and headed the unit at the department of energy and is now at the kennedylogical weapon in the hands of a terrorist. we also found in december 2008 that in spite of all the things we were doing because our adversaries were moving at a faster pace than we were that we were losing ground. i'm afraid that we would restate that same finding today that we have lost ground and the last 14 months because our adversaries commitment to acquiring a weapon of mass destruction, the ability to do so, and the organizational changes which have made our adversary particularly al qaeda a more nimble and effective opponent have grown. in our report card, we gave three a grades. we gave an a to the administration's review of domestic programs to secure a dangerous pathogens. we gave an a to the interagency by yo forensic strategy which is a strategy designed to allow us if we are attacked to know from whom that attack was launched. and the administration received an "a" for finalizing the reorganization of the national security council, which brought together to disparate gro

mr. kroll larson and for the great leadership that you've provided over this past year.ve started the day with breakfast with families of 9/11. in many ways they are responsible not only for our commission but for the 9/11 commission. it was their emphasis of the importance of understanding what happened in order to prepare america to avoid a repetition that led to the creation of the 9/11 commission. one of the findings of the 9/11 commission was the ultimate threat to the united states was when the worst weapons fell into the hands of the worst people. that led congress to create our commission to evaluate what is our level of preparation to avoid the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly into the hands of terrorists. so it was appropriate that we started the day by giving back to the beginnings of this effort with families 9/11. our report on today comes eight years after 9/11. it comes one year after the publication of the report which was entitled world at risk, purposefully titled to indicate this is not one nation's problem, this is a global p

mr. kroll larson and for the great leadership that you've provided over this past year. we have started the day with breakfast with families of 9/11. in many ways they are responsible not only for our commission but for the 9/11 commission. it was their emphasis of the importance of understanding what happened in order to prepare america to avoid a repetition that led to the creation of the 9/11 commission. one of the findings of the 9/11 commission was the ultimate threat to the united states was when the worst weapons fell into the hands of the worst people. that led congress to create our commission to evaluate what is our level of preparation to avoid the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly into the hands of terrorists. so it was appropriate that we started the day by giving back to the beginnings of this effort with families 9/11. our report on today comes eight years after 9/11. it comes one year after the publication of the report which was entitled world at risk, purposefully titled to indicate this is not one nation's problem, this is a gl

mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for coming today.n regards to monday's missile test, how would you characterize the notification china gave to the international community compared to the missile tests? >> i'm not aware we received notification until after the test. >> how would that differ largely with the ballistic missile test process? the u.s. undertakes for russia. do we provide notification? >> traditionally they noticed air men and various things, yes. >> so there was no indication at all or -- there was no communication in the community about the missile test and his seasons and so on. at least as far as we know from china? >> i'm looking at my colleagues. i am not aware of any. >> yes. i'm sure you can share some of that. it was not aimed at specific countries and that no debris was created by this test. before i move further, i have a statement for the record. thank you. thank you. china may be our most important dialogue in asia right now. japan clearly remains the most important region. with the new japanese government try

mr. larson's conference. we've just heard from mr. bill clinton.s, an at that time we were talking about whether america could continue to compete in the world, whether the germans and the japanese were moving ahead of us at a very rapid rate. in the 1990's, we adopted an economic program, and i would reminds all of you that we passed that in a partisan fashion with no republican votes. that's not the way we wanted to pass it, but that's the way we passed it. and we saw the greatest economic resurgence that i've seen in my lifetime in this country. jobs were created, surpluses were created, problems were addressed. just a few months ago, in the beginning of last year, we confronted the worst economic crisis since the great depression. we heard from president obama yesterday, as we heard from president clinton today. pundits, many of you, have observed that we have just gone through one the most productive sessions in the history of the house. confronting the issues that the president said he was going to confront, we said we were going to confront

mr. larson has told us we need to get to.come he can't make it a caucus issue until we got the majority of the democrats. we've gotten an enormous number of the congressional black caucus which is good. again, that was a caucus that common wisdom was we would never get. we've gotten over 13 of them. part of our second was to start with the conservative members first so it wouldn't get labeled, you know, a liberal lefty bill. we've got seven blue dogs. we've got three republicans. i forget how many democrats, but it's somewhere around like 20 or so. so it's a good mix of members. the other kind of thing that you have to remember when you're tried to pass legislation is people are going to look at what members you have. so you also have to look at the breadth and depth of the members that are on, that are sponsoring your legislation. so with that i'm just going to stop and answer questions. >> foundations of nonprofit organizations. there is a question of lobbying, and therefore, there is a question of the foundations supportin