mr. olsen appeared as a witness before this committee previously and briefed members and staff over the last several years. i'd like to welcome him back to this committee. i'd like to begin today by discussing the current terrorist threat and the role of what we call nctc, which mr. olsen will be leading if confirmed. the nctc is the central agency within the united states government dealing with the identification, prevention, disprescription, and -- disruption, and analysis of terrorist threats. it's very important. while it's best known for analyzing terrorism-related intelligence, it also plays an important role in conducting strategic planning for counterterrorism actions across our government. the thrks ctc grew significantly in size, capability, and maturity under michael leiter. its successes and those of the broader counterterrorism community include numerous plots that were tabaretted here at -- thwarted here and abroad. nctc achieved less noticed by equally important advances in the

mr. olsen, let me carry that question one step further because obviously it is a very, very serious issue when you have a member of congress who thinks that he has been misled so i want you to have the opportunity to explain and i want to quote to you what congressman wolf's recollection of the scenario was in the memorandum that he prepared within the last couple of weeks. i know you had the opportunity to look at it. here is what he says. he said it has recently come to my attention that i was misled about the status of the transfer of the knees in april, to those inclined to read the information confirms the newsweek report the federal employees were explicitly directed to hide the information from the members of congress especially republican members. during an april 22nd, 2009 meeting in my office with members of the guantanamo bay detainee review task force including mr. olsen, i inquired about the status of the potential transfer of uighurs detainee's to the united states. mr. olsen indi

. >> thank you madam chair and welcome mr. olsen. you certainly come to this position with an impressive array of credentials and i congratulate you and certainly senator conrad's accommodation certainly speaks volumes about what you represent and what you bring to this position which is obviously a significant as we continue to face a growing threat. i would like to just explore with you for a moment in the aftermath of the assassination of osama bin laden, how would you describe the al qaeda threat and what it poses today? i know you have said it is significant and it remains the most significant threat to the united states in combination with regional affiliates that were dispersed and as you mentioned it is certainly a dynamic and complex environment and certainly an asymmetrical threat. how to identify, how to quantify. where do you think we stand today in terms of one, mitigating the threat and certainly since the killing of osama bin laden? >> thank you very much senator. the threat i think today is as diffuse and as complex a

and homeowner,s according to mr. olsen, logic of collective action can not organize. they don't have the incentive to organize in the sense nra is representing their point of view. rather than a special interest, they are promoting a public interest. i'm raising the question. we are a group of many economists and thinkers here. the, assume, now, this is just a big assumption. assume that there is a rent seeking and debt loss to getting rid of mid. we need to assure the debt code we don't have the rate loss. if we change the rules in middle of the game it impacts current people who may have had the decision based on the current rules. somehow if we, global warming and everybody move to the north pole and we can start all over, perhaps mortgage interest deduction is not there. we're not starting from all over. we're a history made the decision knowing that was in place and is it fair? and, if there is a dead weight loss cord, there is always a way to negotiate and provide the necessary way to remove that dead weight loss. i'm not sure what that is. i'm trying to raise t

now the question is are they a special interest group or is it the case of when mr. olsen was my professor and he actually asked you to go to the former society republic in my bio he's the one that forced me to go there. [laughter] >> he's -- you know, his book was on the ransacking special interest group. the nar creates so much debt to the society. well, many of the policy advocates position that we provide certainly benefits our members. but the true beneficiaries are the homeowners, existing homeowners. they own reduction of their home values and homeowners make up 75 million families. that are the comfortable majority. homeowners according to the logic of collective action cannot organize. they don't have the incentive to organize. nar is representing their point of view. rather than a special interest, is nar promoting a public interest in representing? so i'm just raising the question. i know we are a group of economist think here. the -- assume, now this is just a big assumption, excuse me there is a loss of m.i.d., and then you say, well, we need to change the tax