Transcripts For CSPAN Capitol Hill Hearings 20110908

are going to another part of the country because of maybe newly discovered resources, better work environment, more intelligent work force, maybe better opportunities, maybe better tax structure and free right of every american is seeking prosperity for their company and for their family to go seek these places. if we tell boeing they can't build a plant and build jobs in south carolina, next, they may be telling sam smith in oklahoma, i'm sorry, but we need you to stay in oklahoma and we don't want you to move to texas or move to south carolina to go work in the boeing plant, which we just canceled. is that the kind of world that we want this government to have? i would say no. do we want the people of south carolina to have 1,500 new jobs? yes. do we want to hurt the people in pew get sound? no. we have given our states the right to choose, whether they have the right-to-work state or union state. every state has a difference in how they do that and it's part of the environment that that state creates to bring business into the community. what in the world is wrong with that? and when did we become big brother's job to tell someone where they can and can't offer you a job? we are now saying that the people of washington state, who i have many friends there and i love very much. i don't mean to be in any way defaming washington state, but we have a group of bureaucrats, those are more important people, because the government is telling them they can't do it. tom scott has this bill and going to take it up next week, which are going to protect these jobs from government interference and take the commonsense step and prevent the national labor relations board from restricting where an employer can create jobs in the united states. who would ever this thought we would have to address this on the floor of the house. in fact, president john f. contendy in writing one of his papers at harvard, came up with the term, the great frontier, which the concept was, if you failed in one place, the great blessing of america is, you can pack up and move to another place. and at one time, that was the frontier now that frontier is in technology, in science. that frontier is not just moving from one place to another but from one idea to the ear. and that's the greatness of america. to have the government tell you where you can and have you can't locate is against the spirit of the american dream. this one, we need to do it right away and we're going to do it and we hope our friends in the senate are going to help. we have -- the administration's new maximum acheefment -- achievable technology act, standards and cross-state air pollution csa pmp r for nearly all american consumers. 10,000 power plants are expected to be affected. and i can't tell you the number in other states, but texas surprisingly fell under this act, which no one anticipated and we actually had no input somewhat soffer. but that's a different argument, which i made before. we are talking about 17 to 19 plants expected to be closed down. these are coal-powered plants. we are talking about coal-powered plants. the result to middle-class america is an annual electricity bill increase from 12% to 24%. just by this one regulation that has been proposed dealing with coal-powered plants and greenhouse emissions. representative sullivan of oklahoma has come up with a solution for this. h.r. 2401, the transparency and regulatory analysis of impacts on the nation. one of the things that we think any regulation should be looking at as he is doing this type of work is how does this impact the jobs of the american people? how does this impact the economy of the area? if you have a state that has 20 power plants and the results of your mandatory and arbitrary ruling, going to shut down 12 or 15 of those power plants, doesn't figure that the price of electricity is going up. if they make a conversion to some other form of power at great cost and expense, billions of additional monies having to be spent, even if they do that, you are going to have downtime when electricity is going to be scares and blackouts is going to be increased, it hurts every industry and every person that depends on that electricity. and has anybody looked into this this and said how this affects? no. what sullivan is trying to say is that we need to call a time-out and would require a cumulative economic analysis for a specific environmental protection rule, specifically delay the final date for both utility mact and csapr rules until the agenda has been studied. some of this has been done with computer projections. but the factsr it's kind of a shock and surprise to everybody who is in the business and it's time we call time-out and rather than cost this country jobs, give these people a chance to continue to have good jobs for the american people to work at. this is a good bill. and we are going to take this bill up the week of september 19. the next bill that this republican congress is going to take up is h.r. 2250, to deal with what's called boiler mact. from hospitals to factories, colleges, thousands of major americans use boilers that will be impacted. these new stringent rules will impose billions of dollars in capital and compliance costs. increasing the costs of many goods and services and you know, college kids will tell you how expensive it is going to college. they don't need any more increased costs and increasing the costs of higher education and putting jobs at risk, just what they have done under the boiler mact rule. what are we doing with h.r. 2250? representative morgan griffith of virginia has proposed this. called the e.p.a. regulatory relief act and would provide a legislative stay for four interrelated rules issued by the e.p.a. in march of this year. the legislation would also provide the e.p.a. with at least 15 months to repropose and finalize new achievable rules that do not destroy jobs and provide employers with an extended compliance period. in other words, if it's a problem, let's fix the problem without costing people jobs. let's fix the problem with a reasonable amount of time for compliance so it's not a knee-jerk reaction that is required by everybody to keep them from going out of business because of e.p.a.-imposed rules. basically, just like the last bill we talked about, this is saying, stop this craziness, take a new look. let the people you are regulating have some input into the costs and the compliance and the job loss and then this restructuring, if we've got to fix this problem, restructure it in a manner that makes common sense and keep the american men and women working and the factories open and producing and the colleges open and producing and not impose a short-term, heavy burden of additional capital infusion in order to meet regulatory changes. give them time, a reasonable amount of time that common sense says it will take to fix the problem instead of imposing these rules. october 3 is the week the republican congress will be bringing that before the american people and before this house. this is one i have been working on for quite a while and i hope as part of our efforts in thesenings that we talk about the mact issue, imposition of regulations on greenhouse regulations on cement factories and the fact that we have driven cement regulations off shore to india, china and maybe to mexico, where they don't regulate at all the emissions and then we think it's going to fix greenhouse gases. it's kind of insane that cleaning it up over here and driving people offshore to where they don't clean it up at all is going to help anything. but that's a different argue. and the week of october 3, the cement and mact regulated rules, they are expected to affect approximately 100 cement plants in america. their costs estimated to be between $3 billion and 4 billion for $6 billion to $8 billion. do the math. that is a tremendous burden if these rules come into effect. these costs will be cost prohibitive and the cement industry could be at risk across the board and we can wake up finding ourselves importing from other countries by necessity a product that we lead the world on. you know, concrete is the second, most used building material on earth. the only thing used more than concrete is water. so portland cement, which is the base ingredient of creating concrete is important to the building of infrastructure, building and basically everything that we live with as anything on earth and we are in that business and we produce cement in various states in this country. we produce the portland cement process and these regulations would shut down factories and basically cause these international companies, because all companies whether they are based here or not, will move to someplace else. and you wonder why jobs are going overseas. well, in this case, in the cement industry, jobs will be going out of the country for one specific reason. government regulations beyond reasonableness. the cement sector regulatory relief act sponsored by representative sullivan, will provide a stay of these rules. hold off, brother. we need to look at these things and provide the e.p.a. with 15 months to repropose and final idse new -- here's the magic word ditch achievable rule and provide employers with an extended compliance period. once again, quick cramming it down our throats and do it tomorrow, give us time to implement reasonable rules and as we look at these rules, annualize what they are going to cost us in the way of jobs and our economy and take that into consideration as you plan out the reasonable way forward. and you will find that things will be taken up in the next couple of months. right there is the secret key ingredient and come up with rules you can achieve without destroying jobs that will still, over a long-term, if you get time to apply, will meet things that need to be cleaned up. october 3 we will take that up. . sometime in october or november, we'll take up another one. these jobs in the portland cement factories, they're good jobs. they're labor jobs, but trained labor jobs. they were between $65,000 and $80,000 each. that's a good american job that ought to be done by an american, not by someone from china or india because we've driven the jobs out of our country. coal ash. h.r. 2273. the -- these are anti-obstruction regulations that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to fix according to the existing regulations, affect everything from concrete production to building products like wall board. the result is an estimated loss of well over 100,000 jobs. so you know, at the end of the haas month, we had no job gains. not one job was created. that's what the report said. just in the things that i've read to you so far, as a result of these regulations, if all this took place next month, just the numbers that we've given, we're talking about about 500,000 jobs -- jobs so far that these bills -- that this republican congress is going to take up and try to get reasonableness in this regulatory process. it's time for the congress to not surrender the law making, rule making authority to regulators without overseeing what they're doing and make sure their not harming our economy and harming what's going on in america an the jobs that everybody needs. we can't afford to lose more jobs. we've got to keep the people working that have jobs and then we've got to enhance these businesses in such a way that they feel they are not going to be threatened by surprise regulations and therefore that we need to say, i've got stable ground under my feet, i can start to expand, i can start to hire again, i can start to invest my capital which right now is sitting in the bank into new and better products, services, factories, etc. so this coal ash bill that will cost this country 100,000 jobs, h.r. 2273, the coal residual reuse and management act, sponsored by representative david mckinley of west virginia, the create -- will create an enforceable minimum standard for regulation of coal ash by the state, allowing their use in a safe manner to produce products and protect jobs. it's just basically saying, let the people that had this coal ash and it's in certain states more than other places, use this coal ash and regulate this coal ash in such a manner that it does enhance the environment without destroying american jobs. once again, congress has got to act and the republican congress is prepared to act. hire come misfavorite of the crazy regulatory acts. -- here comes my favorite of the crazy regulatory acts. the e.p.a. is proposing rules to regulate dust. now i live in texas. we've got more highway miles than any other state in the union. plenty of paved roads. but we've also got what we call farm roads and ranch roads and in the western part of the state, those farm roads are covered with what we call calichi, a pulverized limestone. in the eastern part it's covered with certain types of gravel, some of it river gravel and other things. and when a farmer drives up to his house on his driveway, it's usually got some kind of gravel or calichi on it and it kicks up dust. the e.p.a. is now saying, you can fined for driving home every night on your gravel road. what's your solution? well, it's easy. go out and spend $20,000 and pave your driveway, five miles of driveway. so put pavement on it. make sure you put a certain kind of pavement because it's got to have pavement that doesn't kick up dust. arguably if you use asphalt it won't kick up dust or concrete won't kick up dust, or not as much, but you might kick up a little more dust if you do what they call squirt top which is tar with gravel spread on it, until that gravel sets it kicks up dust. if you went to the expense to build a farm road that was a paved road, paving it might kick up enough dust to get you fined anyway. the e.p.a. wans to regulate dust. california does this already. i asked one of my california colleagues, how do you keep from getting fined in california for having that dust regulation? here's what they said. water down your roads every day so it doesn't have dust. mud's ok. dust is bad. ok. now it may be great for california, i don't know what the water situation is in california. but it hadn't rained in texas, some kids are about to go to school and haven't seen rain in texas. obviously, i went to the airport and saw this water on the east coast and we're like, we don't know what that looks like. why not take this rain to texas where it hasn't rained in six months and half of my neighboring county of bastrop is burning to the ground. we may be the only state in america that is praying that a hurricane will hit our coast so we can get some rain are you going to tell that farmer, who, the only way he's getting that water he's feeding his animals is through shallow wells that may have gone dry on him or deep well he is that is to drill for additional water under the ground or windmills pumping the water if you're out west, which they're not that deep, a lot of them have gone dry, his precious water that his livestock and family needs to survive, he's got to take it out and squirt it on his road so he can get home at night? does that make economic sense to the american people? i don't think so. 6 but then if you sit in the big e.p.a. building in washington, d.c. and never even seen up with of these roads and probably never been outside this beltway, it may make perfect sense to that person. in this paved world that we live in inside the beltway. but it doesn't make sense to the average person that's trying to make a living all across this -- the rural parts of the united states. not just rural. but all across the united states. where unfortunately, we kick up dust. by the way, plowing kicks up dust. so when you can only plow when the fields are wet. did you ever plow when the fields are wet? only person who would sit in the e.p.a. office and think that the farm products magically appear at their grocery store would know that you can't get nauf a muddy field an plow effectively. you can turn up some moisture at the right time and you can keep dust down and farmers do. they don't want that topsoil blowing away like it did in the dust bowl. they've learned their lesson about that and they're doing the best they can. and i would commend them for doing it. i went to school in lubbock, texas, back in the 1960's. at the end of what we call the dust storm era. and because of modern farming methods and so forth, they still have dust storms up there but nothing like what they had in the 1950's, nothing like what we had in the 1960's and i would argue because of good, modern farming methods, they keep the dust to a minimum but we still sometimes have half the state of new mexico blowing through the panhandle of texas. who are you going to fine? the state of new mexico? new mexico farmers? texas farmers where it lands? who is going to be responsible for the dust in the air. the e.p.a. says somebody is because they set regulations and that would be a violation. the biggest shortage of anything in this town is common sense. this is the most nonsense call rule of anything that's come down. one of our new freshman congressmen, congresswoman kristi noem, she knows rural america and knows the ridiculousness of this set of e.p.a. rules. she's come up with a farm dust bill we'll take up this winter to make e.p.a. start using some common sense. the president was asked a question about this in one of his meetings recently a town hall, he sent this farmer on a bureaucratic wild goose chase and never got anything in return so as a result of that, that farmer, his efforts, that wild goose chase produced nothing, kristi noem has h r. 1633 which would protect american farmers an jobs by establishing a one-year prohibition against revising any national ambient air quality standards applicable to coarse particulate matter. that's dust. and limiting federal regulations of dust where it's already regulated under state an local laws. in other words, let the states take care of it. let me tell you something, this is not one of those texas brags. we had dust storms where i went to school where girls didn't wear dresses in the spring because it would pick up pea gravel the size of a dime with 60-mile-per-hour winds coming across the plains and blow that gravel so hard against their bare legs if they had on dresses it would literally cut them up as they tried to walk to class. that's an act of god. that's not -- nobody created that wind. and certainly pea gravel is about as big a particulate matter that would be flying around anywhere. but the federal government doesn't control the wind. and it never will. got to get some reasonableness into what's going on. finally, because i've been talking about this now for over a year, and i, in my office, we are tracking heavy regulatory agency and every day we're seeing new and bizarre concepts of what we need to do from regulatory agencies, we're seeing bugs shut down major highway projects, when the president laughingly said he learned that shovel-ready jobs are not really shovel-ready jobs, he should have told you why many of those jobs weren't shovel ready. it was because of regulations vee ated by the regulatory agency that stopped legitimate road an bridge projects funded and i have one in my district right now that is funded and the dozers are on the ground ready to move. and that project is shut down by one of these many, many regulations. and it's the same across the country. we can't do today what f.d.r. did. it's great to talk about what f.d.r. did. i don't think that it accomplished a whole lot in getting us out of the depression, but that's my opinion. but the facts are you couldn't build a hoover dam today, just up and start building the hoover dam. mied were, just to build an electric power plant, the number of regulatory agencies and permits you would have to have would cover the laws of this chamber before you even get to break ground. i've seen those rules posted on walls. it's an amazing number of rules. we are a world of government control of everything. and that's what these regulatory acts are about. finally, this congressman, john carter, because i'm looking at this stuff now, just for the last year or so, i really and truly think the best thing we can do to give the stability to the employers who employ people is to basically ban the implementation of any new federal regulations from now through february -- january -- january 31, 2013. guarantee a two-year window for businesses to hire without any fear of new costs from regulations and we would make certain exceptions for the military or foreign affairs or internal agency management and rules. they would be able to have regulations that fit in those categories and make sure we keep our foreign operations and military operating and they have to make rules to operate under. we would exempt those particular things. but the rest of them, we'd say just time out, continue your studies. continue your discussions. i would encourage you to extend an arm out to business to say, this is what we're looking at, let's hear what you think. let's start putting ourselves together with the idea of people, a part of this environment too, people are really what makes up this country, without people, we're just a bare land. . and people need to have a job and the people who create jobs need to have a reason. and people who have ideas, the great driving force of america, the new idea, you know, we got so many examples of new ideas just in the high tech industry and the communication industry, the receive nution -- revolution has taken place of new ideas. those new ideas come from the freedom to think and the belief that you can take that idea and put it into reality without somebody stepping on your toes. these regulations and this control from washington, d.c., this cradle-to-grave mentality that is running inside this beltway and the creation of regulatory rules is putting the brakes on our economy and putting fear in the hearts in business people and employers who want to make their business better by hiring those good people who are graduating from our colleges and universities, those good people who are trained in the skills we need to put to work in america. and we'll put them to work in real jobs, not government-created jobs with borrowed money, but real jobs that produce something and create wealth and make us and continue to keep us the most prosperous nation on earth. it doesn't come from government but comes from the people. the people are the wealth of this nation, their ideas and entrepreneurship and investment in capital and willingness to take a risk in america because they know that america is great. and people who don't think we are great think they are smarter and be inside this beltway and make rules that can tell you how to run your life or how to drive home on your farm road than you know. i say, i get out of the way. and that's what this fall is going to be about. we are going to be bringing these things up and these are things going to be brought up and voted on this fall because we republicans believe that the right path to create jobs and create wealth in america is to get the regulators to start thinking in terms of creating jobs, not destroying jobs, enhancing businesses, not knee debating businesses, and to put america back to work. and if we put america back to work, the debt goes down, the tax revenues go up and the country has more to pay back the people we owe, we can get our financial house in order and get our credit rating back and we can start operating like americans always operated. and as much as at that was criticized in the 1920's, that statement is true. it's the american people that give the american people jobs. not the government. let's put the brakes on these regulatory things. look forward to it. pay attention to it. members of this house and anyone around the country who has an interest, give us your input, because we are bound and determined to level out and stabilize that playing field that business creates jobs on so we can put america back to work. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2011, mr. garamendi is recognized as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you very much. it's a great privilege to stand here on the floor of the house even at this late hour as we prepare to hear the president of the united states to come before the joint session of congress to talk about how america can get back on the right road, on the road to recovery, from this long recession and how we can create jobs here in the united states. for many, many months now, my colleagues and i have been on the floor and have submitted legislation time after time and week after week talking about specific programs to create jobs. i want to thank my colleague on the republican aisle for his presentation and the solution of doing away with regulations as the way of creating jobs. he mentioned getting government out of the way and he also mentioned the hoover dam. that was built with borrowed money. up, they borrowed money to build the dam and did create jobs. now, whether there are regulations or not, the fact is that the united states created an enormous infrastructure system in the past and for the last decade we have done very, very little. we borrowed a vast amount of money to build infrastructure projects in iraq and afghanistan but precious few in the united states. we need to bring that money back home and build those infrastructure projects here and by all expectation tomorrow, when the president stands here before us, he will be talking about infrastructure, as he should. it is the foundation upon which we build any economy and it's certainly the foundation upon which the american economy has been built and succeeds such as it is today. we need an infrastructure bank. we need to take money that we will borrow at about 1% or 2% interest rate for a 10-year note, put that money into an infrastructure bank, let's say it's $20 billion, reach out onto the pension funds, in my state of california, the public pension funds and say here, invest in this public infrastructure so we can build projects in california and put in place the levees to protect us from floods, we can put in place the communication systems, the fiber optic cables and build the water recycling facilities, the dams we need for a growing pop situation in a state that could be growing if we put in place the infrastructure. nothing modest, but rather a bold program, a bold program to build america's infrastructure, to rebuild the bridges, to rebuild those facilities that are crumbling as a result of years of inattention, infrastructure, construction jobs, putting people to work and as the president said, there are a lot of construction men and women that are prepared to get dirty in the job once again to end unemployment. that's one project that i'm sure the president will be putting forth to this congress and the question, are you ready to be bold. are you ready to step forward and put america back to work or talk about regulations and doing away with regulations and one of the regulations they want to do away with is one that would prevent mercury from being in our water and air as though they somehow think that mercury is good for children and adults. what we need is a safe and clean environment. and by the way, if you want to stop all regulations, i would suppose you would stop the president's effort to roll back the regulations that have no good purpose. the current administration is in the process of reviewing the regulations and eliminating and rolling back and modifying those that don't serve a good useful purpose in protecting americas cans. so here tomorrow, we'll have the president speaking here on the floor of the congress talking about putting men and women back to work. and to date, no one republican bill would create one job. a lot of bills have been brought to the floor that would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs. what we need to do is not to address the deficit with immediate cuts that actually constrain and restrict the economy and austerity budget is not called for as we limp for in the current economy, infrastructure bank being one example. a tax policy, a tax policy that is rational. let me put this in the context of what we talked about on the democratic side, which is jobs, putting people back to work. we can do that. and it in amendment ajeopardya which wife there is that kind of ageppeda to put americans back to work. we talked about infrastructure, which is down here. it's not down at the bottom of this list. it's the number one thing that's on the agenda and we should talk about research. yesterday, i was in davis california and invited there by a bio-tech company that uses biotechnology to manufacture bio herb side is and pesticides, these are natural chemical compounds that actually kill bugs or kill other plants. they formulate this using research that comes out of the universities in california and around the nation. that research is extraordinarily important. it's creating a whole new industry of safe, biologyically derived chemicals that are safe in the environment, that come from the environment and kill bugs in agriculture or unwanted plants. that's what we need. that's the research ajeopardya, part of making it in -- agenda, part of making it in america. part of our east-coast-west -coast aagenda after. paul tonchinga was showing me pictures of the deficient sfation that has occurred in his part of the new york state. and part of that conversation came the word infrastructure. i'm sorry what has happened in your district in new england and here in the east coast. our hearts reach out to you and your constituents as they go about rebuilding and today there may be another flood. paul tonko. thanks for joining us. mr. tonko: thanks for bringing us together on a thoughtful discussion of how we grow jobs in america. and that is a vital agenda. i thank you for bringing us together and i thank you for allowing myself and others to share the woes we have faced in our respective districts over the recent district work period. it's ironic in my district in upstate new york, within days, we suffered from an earthquake, from a hurricane, from a tornado in my hometown and now flooding as we speak. the ravages of the waters of irene have produced tremendous consequences for the great communities and the people that i represent. and as i have said in all of my stops in the district, i knew there was a strength to the people that i represent, that they have made a profound statement about that resilience and that strength in the last few days. i have seen people lose everything they have ever worked for, homes totally washed into the river, devastation from the floodwaters, you know, cattle that were lost, harvest season, and sweat equity and resources and fuel that will never have the fruits of that labor captured in harvest. these heritage infrastructure, as i made mention in my hometown, the oldest building dates back to 1766, older than our nation, a wedding gift from sir william johnson to his daughter and watching the velocity of the waters tear away the stone of that building and expose it to the elements and it was severely threat yepped and weakened by the storm and i mention that because it is so important for us to put together the resources for us to come back with the skilled labor. the heritage infrastructure that very much trailed through the waterway path in my district, covered bridges, historic homes and chumps, gathering places -- and churches, gathering places to the places that i represent and that character has changed and we need the resources to rebuild the system, the system that manages the waters, the technology. and my district hosted, hosted the site of the erie barge canal that gave birth to mill towns, that became the epicenters of invention and innovation, the progress of which we speak, the agenda, is about now a new era of job creation where we move it up a notch because of our society. we have shared manufacturing of traditional types with other nations and now it's our job to bring in issues like the chip manufacturing that's done and all sorts of innovative ideas in clean energy that allow for renewables to take hold and i make mention of that because we have a richness of history that spoke to job creation that offered the opportunity to have our constituents, our constituents of the past express their god-given talents and strengthens the larger picture and society and impact around the world, coming right here from new york state that gave birth to a westward movement that reached the west coast of california. we can do it again. we should take to heart our history that shows that we have that pioneer spirit and we have that uniqueness gift and have those gifts and strengths and opportunity to turn these situations, these challenges into jobs that are driven by ideas, that translate into manufacturing. manufacturing of an innovation economy, of the present moment, and we can make that happen by the stewardship of sound public policy and our budget planning. i firmly believe we don't cut our way to prosperity or opportunity. we invest our way to prosperity. we invest our way to innovation to opportunity. that's what it's all about. to make it -- and the make it in america agenda embraced by the democratic caucus in which we have the pleasure of serving has adopted that slogan, has adopted the meaning of that passionate opportunity for us to take the trades, take tax policy, take the energy challenges, take the strength of labor, reinforced by the underpinnings of education, higher education, and coupled with research, it all happens if we put the plan together an thank you for opening us up to a discussion that is very meaningful to the lives of our community, of our individual constituents and to the fabric of our communities which are really looking for this sort of involvement, this implementation of strategy. mr. garamendi: representative tonko, you so well explained with great passion, the problems your constituents are facing at this moment as the floodwaters rise in your district and throughout the northeast, or i guess most of the east coast as the tropical storm that started in the gulf is finding its way up the east coast. our prayers go out to the people that have suffered thus far and our hopes that this will not be a repetition of the devastating floods of last week. you also brought to our attention the need to rebuild. this is part of the community of america. we're a community. we're a 380 million, but we're still a community. we call ourselves americans and in these times of disaster, we must come together as a community, bring what resources are necessary, not what's available, but that are necessary to rebuild to get people back on the path of living their lives in a safe, harmonious community with the necessary resources to carry out their goals. so they can have a job, so they can rebuild the manufacturing facilities that fits into the make it in america agenda. as we go about that rebuilding, as the roads, and we've all seen the pictures of washed out roads, you showed me the picture of the loch, was that an eroe -- erie canal loc snmbings mr. tonko: it was the second stage of the system when we moved from the pursuant to the rule driven to the loch driven, to see the damage, tens of millions of dollars of damage, putting the trades to work to rebuild the communities. you made an interesting observation, the impacts of natural disasters and manmade disasters never ask about political persuasion or philosophy or geography. we've been impacted from coast to coast. with pride, the other day, we in upstate new york, the colleagues were talking about, when the midwest needed us we were there, when the west coast needed us, we were there. the southwest needed us, the gulf coast, we're there. now it's the time for us to ask your help. thanks to the goodness of folks like yourself, we're going to make it happen. we're going to be able to rebuild. i think the greatest commomity we can bring to individuals at times like this, where they're endure, they're coping with tragedy, is to deliver hope to their doorstep. that hope goes a long way. the hope to recover, the hope to rebuild, the hope to re-establish the character of these communities, which is so replete with history and heritage expression, covered bridges, historic homes, historic churches, loch systems that define not only the developments of new york state but this nation and the global impact it had with quality of life being enhanced simply by the genius of oftentimes blue collar workers. so make it in america came to mind for me over this past week. the greatness of how we developed jobs and products in this country, now finds us a century later challenged with new dynamics. how do we draw ourselves away, and wean ourselves off the dependency on fossil based fuels. how do we grow america's independence and high tech jobs that impact the quality of health care services or communications, we've seen it. you know, our whole sputnik moment drove us to land a person on the moon before any other nation. we need that passion again. we need that resolve here today and make it in america does it. mr. garamendi: you're talking about real patriotism. you're talking about real american patriotism. the great strength of this nation. first of all, our compassion for each other, that we're willing to sacrifice today so that you can rebuild in the northeast. the northeast has tone that, all of america has done that many, many times for california, because it seems to have more than its share of disasters but across the nation this year, we have seep natural disaster after natural disaster occur with billions of dollars lost. as americans, it is our patriotic duty. it is our community, to reach out to help rebuild. as we rebuild if we keep in mind these seven principles of the make it in america agenda, we'll not only put people back on their feet but we will strengthen the american economy. you mentioned that loch taken out, the historic nature of it, it's been rebuilt, it's a modern piece of equipment. but if that equipment is made in america, it's not only going to help the economy in your community, once it gets back into place and the commerce that results from it is restarted, but it will also mean jobs for steelworkers who are making the steel, the fabricators who are building the loch, the engineers, even the regulators making sure it goes in in a safe and appropriate way. those are all american jobs. part of the rebuilding of america is the make it in america. so that americans can make it once again. mr. tonko: i think what this tragedy reminds us of, we come together at times of tragedy in a way that brings out the best expression of america's spirit. this is about a sense of urgency and justice. people have been brought down by this tragedy. but their resilience, their strength of character is driven by the belief that we can work together to rebuild. i was so inspired today in caucus to hear so much support for a supplemental and to say, no idea of offsets no offsets here. this is tragedy. if this nation were being attacked by a foreign enemy, we wouldn't sit around and play partisan games or political -- have political dialogue over what to do. we'd go right to the table and say, this is what is needed, let's make it happen. that's what i think we need to have here. we need the american response to come forward and react in a way that really has that american spirit all about it. and this is how we built america. one community at a time. putting together the strength that are all released here in this country, able to be expressed in magnanimous terms. this is what is so important. weir going to rebuild america by making it in america. there are jobs that can invest the power of that genius in all sorts of ways. infrastructure needs that are out there, the traditional sense or in the more creative, or updated sense with broadband and transmission system that needs to be upgraded to speak to what is a vulnerability in our system. so there's a lot of work there, waiting to happen. we need to invest and we need to do it in a way that doesn't have us groping for offsets. there's no more important issue right now that john -- than jobs. jobs, job creation, job retention, let's make it happen. as we do it, let's make it response to tragedies that i see in my district other the last week and a half and we heard about in caucus from other colleagues. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, you're quite correct about how we pay for all of this we know we'll borrow money to rebuild communities, as we should and we must and as it is our purpose in a community. but in doing that, we must be very careful not to offset that expenditure in some way that harms others. for example, the educational system. now tomorrow, we have a bill on the floor dealing with charter schools and the funding of charter schools, both the physical and the educational programs in charter schools. if a charter school is to be built or any school, for that matter, it's our tax money, local or federal or state tax money, that money ought to be used to buy american made equipment. american made roofing, american made concrete and steel, so our tax money is used to buy american made. if you want to use your own money and anybody that wants to buy a solar cell for their house, fine, buy anything you want to buy. if you want to use your tax -- our tax money as a subsidy for that, it ought to be an american made solar panel, not one made in china, but one made in the united states. i have two bills that deal specifically with that. one in the energy that says, hey, you want an energy subsidy to put up this clean energy solar plant, good, we need the clean energy but use that tax subsidy to buy american-made equipment. that way we can rebill our american manufacturing base. similarly with transportation. in transportation, we all pay 18.5 cents on every gallon of gas, the federal excise tax. it's used to build roads and repair bridges, not enough to keep us going but nonetheless, billions of dollars a year. is that tax money used to buy american made buses and american made trains a and american-made steel and concrete? not really. we need legislation that says, our tax money is going to be qused to buy american-made equipment. mr. tonko -- mr. tonko: thank you again for bringing us together. i notice in the list of dynamics, you have research and education and i'd say slash higher education. i witnessed testimony of those investments yesterday in my district. with a group called energy voters. they're taking the waste heat market in this market and retrofitting it so they capture that as a byproduct in the industry in different industries and they make certain it's utilized to add to the energy supply that that industry might need. now what happens there? the genesis of that story is that ideas, again, were thought up pause of the investment of education and higher education, this brain was ignited to come forward with this idea that would capture heat and that heat mark, waste heat market is a precious commodity now. so instead of it just going up into waste, it is captured, recaptured, brought into the energy grid for that particular industry, where -- we're directing greenhouse gas emissions to the positive, reducing those, and reducing the energy supply this industry needs and creating jobs in this incubator startup that came up with this idea. this took investments in research dollars, it took tax credits from the federal government, to buy in the commitment of the private sector, it produced the equity they needed with the tax credits provided and all lived happily ever after. there's a win-win-win scenario that was produced and that's grounded here in america and we can export this intellect, this concept, to people around the world and we begin to be the agents that deal with the waste heat market. what a wonderful concept and that's how you grow jobs and they're projecting within a few years 120 jobs in this concept. this is wonderful. this is what we're talking about as a democratic caucus, investing into the intellectual capacity of this nation in a way that responds to challenges that confront us this very day and where we can grow our energy independence, grow jobs through investing in ideas, moving ideas along, reserge equals jobs, research equals jobs. you can't say it over enough and often enough. mr. garamendi: you are correct on that. i want to give examples of how that policy finds its way into legislation and then i want to turn to our colleague from texas, sheila, thank you so very much. but let me give a couple of -- tax policy. you're talking about a system to capture waste heat and to use it in a productive way, generating electricity or for some other purpose. that's a capital investment. when the democrats controlled this floor we passed legislation that allowed a business such as you've described to put that equipment into place and to write off the total investment in one year, in the very first year. an immediate writeoff, given an enormous incentive for businesses to make a capital investment. now that's very wise tax policy put forth by the democrats, signed by president obama and it's one of the kinds of tax policies and tax breaks that we think needs to be in place to grow the economy. there are many other examples and i can go on for several hours but i'd rather turn to my colleague from the great state of texas, please tell us what's going on in texas besides fires here and there and once again another disaster area in which as america we need to reach out and support texas. ms. jackson lee: let me thank my good friend from california for carrying on, if you will, for carrying on the clarion cry that all of us heard throughout our districts and around the country. to my good friend from new york, let me just turn and say to you, what deep concern the american people have, do not listen to the jangled noises of cuts and not having the potential to assist our fellow americans. we were all pained to see pratsville and to see what has happened to unsuspecting people. that's mother nature, to see what happened to vermont and all up and down the coast, as we have listened to our colleagues. and as i was driving in texas i want to you know that i saw the smoke. this is not something that is distant and far away. we've seen the pain of congressman doggett's district and i want to thank him for his leadership there, as i mecksed that the leadership, the members have give -- as i mentioned that the leadership the members have given, you go to a place where 500 homes are gone and more and as he indicated maybe even 1,000. so i happen to be proud to be an american and when i listen to my friend from california with the list of assets and credentials that you bring to the table, your leadership in the state of california, leadership of mr. tonka in new york, i -- mr. tonko in new york, i know that we are all wearing that brand of proud to be an american. that's why democrats proudly wear the insignia dealing with make it in america. and frankly, i can't project on hat president might say, by i would hope that a good portion -- and want the american people to hear me because when we traveled across the country with the congressional black caucus, the congressional progressive caucus, minnesota, oakland, miami, detroit, cleveland, los angeles, atlanta, thousands were in line from all walks of life, what they said was they wanted a job. and i want the president to hear that as he passionately speaks to the nation tomorrow and i want the president to lift his pen, make it in america could be part of an executive order. make it in america could be part of instructions and so as i come -- as i listened to you i wanted to come and frame it in this way. the american people are looking for work now and i'd like the president to listen to our dialogue as he finishes the finishing touches to show the american people what can be done now by a agreeable congress maybe, but by the president with the support of those of us who believe we owe an obligation to those who are suffering in this disaster to declare it an emergency and that these funds are an emergency. i don't want to hear the chat that are talks about deficit spending. everyone knows when you declare an emergency it is off count, off the account, if you will. it's off the balance sheets. so that's one thing. the second thing is let me give four points of what i would like to see. you mentioned about buying, what a brilliant idea, i want to go further or to compliment that legislation. let's get together and that is even though we think america buys america, if the federal government needs a paper clip, it should be the paper clip company in illinois, in california, in new york, in mississippi, in texas. because if the government buys something for you, you've got a business with 20 or 30 employees. let the federal government lead, let the president announce tomorrow that he is asking his agency, barring any legalities or contract, to buy america. you mentioned buses and all others i assume with federal funding, excellent. because that is not happening now. the second thing is the criticism is that there are workers not trained to the work. there's a new day now. technology, it's medicine, it's various new jobs, it's systems logistics, etc. allow someone to train to a new job and have a stipend while they're training. that allows them to be like they're working and to get paid. then i would like to see our private sector stand up. i'm proud to be an american. born in the u.s.a. step up and stand up. i want them to provide the president within a period of time a six-month to 12-month plan, it's called the i'm an american plan, of how their industry can hire the qualified unemployed. i come from energy territory, i know week of had a lot of discussion about that. but they exist and they hire. somebody else might be coming from technology, somebody else is health care, somebody else is in industries that we're not even aware, of course we've talked about the whole renewable energy, but there are a lot of energy industries that can be asked to come to the table, you need hires, i understand that you have not, but i need you to be an american. proud to be an american. the private sector, finally met me just say that one of the problems -- finally let me just say that one of the problems, i have a man in my area that is making solar flash lights. not solar panels, he doesn't have to worry about the panel issue, what a brilliant idea. can't get a bank to lend him money and he wants to build his company in and around my area and hire people. he can't get a bank loan. well, i want the president within reason to be mr. dereg on the take the challenge of the banks and ask them, so what is the regular that keeps you from loaning to a -- reg that keeps you from loaning to a credible, legitimate businessman who has a proven product? he's making it in china, he wants to bring it home. so i want the president through an executive order to insist, put a criteria in, that our banks have been given a gift, they need to turn that gift back as proud americans and loan to small businesses. so i wanted to come today to answer the question of americans who say, i need a job now. and even though there will be some legitimative initiatives and i want to applaud the president for his leadership in coming forward and putting it to us, but we know that the democrats are ready to travel down the job road and to give the american people their jobs now. mr. president, if you're going to run into obstacles, not the democrats, then you stand up and use that executive power. and i know that the members on this floor, i'm going to speak for the california and new york, will stand alongside of you and behind you, that you will provide jobs for the american people. so i'm delighted to have the opportunity and again i want to offer again any help that we can give, i'm a member of the homeland security committee. we've done this for hurricane ike and hurricane katrina and hurricane rita. we are helping the tragedy in joplin, missouri. i went to alabama to see what a tornado can do. there was damage with the earthquake that went on right before on the east coast. i asked, what are we than the federal government to be the rainy day umbrella when you are in need? there's no excuse to block any funding for those in need and we're going to be behind you and create jobs. i yield to the gentleman. mr. garamendi: representative sheila jackson lee, you're a true leader. your state of texas is under a fiery assault and will also need direct federal assistance. not only in fighting the fires but also in the event -- eventual recovery. ms. jackson lee: will the gentleman yield for just a moment? i mentioned congressman doggett but what i wanted to say on this point that i think is important and i'll state it is documented that our governor has cut the volunteer firefighters, those are great heroes, we even lost a firefighter just a few months when our wildfire started in the spring. of course it sort of -- i won't even say the term died down but it has risen again and attacked a whole new area. so we're going to have to ask for federal aid and we have just, as i understand the facts through congressman doggett, the governor has just indicated, governor perry, that the federal government has a role. he has just asked that texas be declared a natural disaster. my question to my fellow colleague is then what will be our response from people literally -- pratsville was washed away, there are nothing but ashes, they can't even find a picture book. so are we going to tell them it's off budget? we're not able to fund it, it's deficit spending? i think not. i thank you for reminding the american people that texas is facing its own mountain to climb and those fires by the way have not yet been extinguished. they're visible to all of us. mr. garamendi: we understand. there are many different kinds of disasters. the natural disasters that we discussed several minutes here on the floor. there's also the disaster of not having a job. of losing your home. not being able to care for your family and seeing all of your dreams just basically disappear for lack of a job. as we reach out, as we think about these natural disasters and our human desire to be helpful, we need to also think about those millions of americans, and we're probably talking well over 20 million, maybe 25 million americans, that do not have a job. and they are facing their own personal disaster. they need help. they need help from many different places, certainly there are communities, wherever it may be, but also the federal government. and i know that those of us on the democratic side of this aisle have for the last three years attempted and succeeded in developing programs that actually have created millions of jobs. a lot of people talk about the american recovery act not working. in fact it did work. some three million jobs were created. those are not my estimates, those are estimates by congressional budget office and others. give or take 100,000. we're talking about thousands and tens of hundreds of thousands, millions of jobs that were actually created. we cannot go through an austerity period at this point. because people are hurting. they need help, they need jobs and we can do it and simultaneously build the american economy, buy the infrastructure, putting in place the foundation, by educating. great example, i ran into just yesterday, i talked earlier about this biotech company that's creating bioherb sides and biopesticides them. need to hire technicians in their laboratories and in the manufacturing. they can't find them. the education bills that we put forth that have been stopped and actually reduced by our republican colleagues are necessary for the community colleges and other educational institutions to provide the skills needed for those people that have lost their jobs to become technicians, high paid technicians in that new biotechnology field. so there's where these things come together. we need to always keep in mind the millions of personal disasters that are out there as people have lost their jobs and struggled. representative tonko, i know you're facing natural disasters but just, when we were here in august, early august and july, you were talking about these job and the need for jobs in your area. so please come back. let's pick this up again and carry on. mr. tonko: i want to pick up on that importance of education as a role for our comeback. but before i do that i want to thank two very good friends and two very sensitive hearts for the empathy that you have expressed on behalf of the people of my district and neighboring districts in the northeast. so, representative garamendi from california, and representative jackson lee from texas, thank you for bringing out the neighborlyness in all of us. that is our becks expression as an american people and we do it through the auspices of our federal government, when one amongst us hurts we respond in a way that enables us to come back and strengthen the fabric of our entire nation. . the district that i represent, the region i represent was dubbed the fastest growing hub in america for green-collar jobs and high-tech jobs. and the reason that happened is because we invested through federal government, state government and private sector and in an agenda that speaks to cutting-edge technology. there are three basic formats that need to be responded to, your physical infrastructure, your fiscal infrastructure, your capital infrastructure, and human infrastructure. and representative garamendi and representative jackson lee, you both reference the education issues. they are very important to the comeback of this nation, to growing jobs and retaining jobs. what i witnessed through the efforts in our region, we have a clustering happening as you have this -- we have the largest ship manufacturing plant construction going on right now in all of america in the region that we call capital region, new york. and i know as other industries come in, other businesses come in, there's a demand for workers. now, it's great to grow jobs. that's our first step in the process. but we have to make certain that jobs are responded to with the skill sets required and the skill sets need to be brought to and enhanced for all neighborhoods and all communities. it has to be the coalition of workers brought to the table. how do we do it? investment in education, beginning as early as pre-k and right through the college setting. i witnessed what happens through our community colleges. we have those investing in solar application to construction majors, those who are going to be building residences and businesses, they have state-of-the-art no-how from solar to wind, geothermal, whatever. that cutting edge is being evidence. we have several in our region, but one that incorporates the business that has produced automation in the manufacturing, at a plastics company in new york, that absorbed some of the greatest blows from mother nature. but right there in one of my counties in new york, just absolutely replete with heritage and history in that county, in a rural county, they are providing for automation and advanced manufacturing. and that took place because we are invested in a center for advanced technology and there we are getting ideas again that are put toog -- to go in a concept and you need the skill set to operate these automated networks that are now part of the assembly process. so it's that investment again in the worker, in the brain power. this country will be competitive if we put the tools together, if we provide the tool kit and how does it happen? it happens by doing it smarter and that enables us to cut costs and be competitive in the global market. and make it in america is a pronouncement of a commitment by the democratic caucus and house of representatives that says let's do the tax packaging and research development incentive that bring together the strongest force of manufacturing. manufacturing as a sector was ignored in the last decade and a half and now this president has said we shall going to be about a clean energy agenda and bolstering our manufacturing sector and i know there is growing expectation we will hear about making it in america and infrastructure bank and i'm convinced that is what we'll hear tomorrow and produce a far sfronger outcome for america's potential. mr. garamendi: as you were talking, i reached back and found this display that i have used and used it before, these are critical investments, yes, infrastructure, the dams, the roads, those are critical investments, but here is the most critical investment of all, american workers, being educated, getting prepared. this is where we need to make a critical investment in america and this is a key part of the make it in america agenda. that's the education. labor and education, making sure our labor force is well educated and well prepared for the jobs of the future. sheila jackson lee, looks like you want to get in the middle of this. >> i would love to have that in front of me as i was looking and i thank the gentleman for being prepared with such important statements, invest in america, and make it in america. ms. jackson lee: i want to acknowledge the whip of our caucus, mr. hoyer, who has been persistent and joined him like a choir because it is important. i want to hold this up. when we had the helm in the 1990's, since i'm talk ping patriotic and proud to be an american, we understood one economic factor and even politically, some of us suffered, but under the clinton administration, if i might say, it was an investment and revenue and we turned the economy around and we weren't down in the soup. we knew we had to tighten our belt. and did a budget reform in 1997, but 20 million jobs were created. i don't want to hear -- i know there are a lot of pundits and economists who say we are on our less leg. don't tell that to the american people. we are resilient because we are going to help you. you might have thought that manhattan and new york were on its last leg in 2001. that might have been our assumption and conclusion when we were so overwhelmed with grief. look at them now. why? because we put federal government, public-private partnership together and are restored. this is what we are talking about. another economic point i want to make very quickly. i have no angst against china and india but i'm disappointed that they want to compare. what they are saying is the growth in those areas is the passing up. do you understand we have been growing for almost two centuries. we started in the 1900's and no one could catch us. we have our economic challenges because that is almost what economics is about. the growth they are talking about is the fact that there is something to grow. they didn't have anything. and so if they are growing, they are growing because they are developing this new, if you will, level of income in their citizens, a middle class that at the same time, they have this huge economic pithole which is the numbers of poor and impoverished and comments on that. what i'm suggesting is that america is the zpwratest economy in the world. -- greatest economy in the world. and we have challenges. if you want to understand what we need to do is do this, we need to build the inventors who are out there and build them up. the president is going to talk about the patent bill and we need to do what you have dictated but i want everybody to know that america is not broke nor are we broke of ideas. making it in america, investing in america and building revenue and deficit reduction, we are the nation that many will look to for its greatness and i thank the gentleman for this particular special order. jobs, jobs, jobs. mr. garamendi: it is jobs, jobs,s. this is america. this is america, the strongest coubt country in the world today. there are others that are growing but this is america. we talk about patriotismism. we aren't broke but we have extraordinary strength and it's the american worker and they need a chance. they need a governmental system that is supporting them with education, with programs such as infrastructure, with using our tax money to buy the products that they make. this is america. we are americans. we are the people that get things done. nobody's been at it longer than upstate new york, industrial revolution started in your territory, mr. tonko and i see the strength that you have and the people have to rebuild after this devastating week. >> and they motivate and fill my voice with passion. i thank you for the wonderful support you have expressed today in the caucus to do a stand-alone supplemental bill for the people of this tragedy. my district was in the midst of this. 47 districts were impacted by it. by representative garmeppedy, i couldn't help as representative jackson lee just spoke of late with such eloquence, that america's most shining moment are when we invest in america, invest in the canal system, invested in infrastructure programs with rail, invested --? mr. garamendi: ms. lee likes that. tonchingtonching invested in a race to the moon that unleashed untold amounts of technology. that investment had a bipartisan spirit to it under the republican and democratic administrations. we were at our shining best when we invested in america. what do we hear? let the free market rule. go tell it to companies whose countries are co-investing with them. we hear it all the time. they are co-investing in these other countries. the private sector investment in renewables used to be placing america number one. we slipped to china and recently to number three after china and germany. the america we all love is not about being three, we love being number one and that's the investment we are talking about. mr. garamendi: let me interrupt you for a second because you said something that caught me just like that. public policy, public laws make a difference. i want to give you an example, you mentioned germany and the advances they have made in green technology. i had the opportunity over the recess to go to a manufacturing plant owned by seimens, one of the biggest manufacturing companies in the world. in sacramento, california, and they are manufacturing in sacramento, starting with just pieces of steel and building light-rail cars and heavy-duty engines for amtrak. this is the heaviest manufacturing that occurs in any country. if a germany company located in sacramento, manufacturing from start to finish for american transportation systems. why are they doing that? why is that german company investing millions upon millions of dollars in california to manufacture trains and locomotives. they are doing that because the stimulus bill said that the money must be used on american-made equipment. the laws we make on this floor, the work done in this capitol, will determine the future of americans' manufacturing. if we ignore the necessity of putting in place laws that say make it in america, use american taxpayer dollars to buy american-made equipment, if we ignore that, those jobs will go offshore and equipment come onshore. that's not what i want and that's not what it is all about. it's about a set of policies, trade policies, free trade, no. fair trade, yes. china, you are manipulating your currency. there is a bill being held up by our republican colleagues to force china to deal with its forced manipulation in currency. advantage in costs simply through an unfair trailed practice that china is hoisting upon this nation and others. taxes, we haven't talked about tax policies much but tax policies are important. energy and we'll come back to energy in the days ahead because this is about national security. labor, research, education, research. we have five to seven minutes and do our lightning rounds and go round and round, that invest in america, i like that one. sheila jackson lee, texas, tell us about it .. ms. jackson lee: i know california has faced its own trevails when it had a natural disaster and let me say to my friend from new york, you are absolutely right. we are committed for that supplemental to those in new england, to those on the east coast, and to my fellow texans. i know there's a time and place for america to stand with you. i want to see the president with those of good faith, there's a little comment here, congress, the autumn of its discontent. i want the gentleman from california to know that i have no discontent. i have excitement, i have enthusiasm. i just ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to join me and walk down the aisle and celebrate the idea that we are the congress of action, take the democrats' ideas about job creation, about investment, about infrastructure, about educating our people, about research, take my ideas about getting people trained to jobs, paying them while they're training, they have an income, take the idea of buying a paper clip from a small company that's here in america and take the idea, if you will, to ask our fellow americans, corporations, i heard they were people, to stand up and give us their six-month plan to put people to work. they've got openings, they've got openings, let's ask them to join us as patriots and put americans to work, however they want to frame it, but americans will then be back to work and then we are then healing that economy because everybody says, people working, people buy. that means they're buying furniture, that means they're buying paper clips, that means they're buying cars. that's what i'd like to see and i will finally say this, mr. president, if you've got a pen and you want to sign it into law, or into action, if you will, as an executive order, we're standing with you and the american people, we want jobs. mr. garamendi: thank you, sheila jackson lee. mr. tonko. mr. tonko: sure. i try to do this in lightning speed but i think of two things here. people that were impacted by the storms in my district, that need to rebuild are also impacted with the loss of jobs, small businesses that have shut -- are losing jobs for the community. so it makes sense to bring back those jobs, the dignity i of work is what should drive us, of what should motivate us. and oftentimes in this equation, as has huge byly been the tradition, poof -- hugely been the tradition, people of modest means, businesses of modest means, farms of modest means have been impacted here. so we need to respond and we need to respond with that dignity of work, for the young college grad who has college thrones pay off and so come back when you have experience. for the middle aged person who lost a job through no fault of her own, now needs to continue to work and maybe at the age of 55 is having a tough time landing that work, our seniors who need to implement their income. across the age sprecktumtre need to be there to provide the dick -- spectrum we need to be there to provide the dignity of work. let's give america our newest shining moment. let's invest in jobs, let's make it in america, let's invest in manufacturing as a sector. we are so perched at the top of the list with manufacturing jobs. we lost too many because the manufacturing sector was ignored. let's sign that moment again for america. mr. garamendi: tomorrow -- thank you, mr. tonko. and sheila jackson lee, your repation of your constituents and of america is unparalleled. you are fighters. you are fighters for those of people who have faced their personal disaster of losing their job, losing their home and many of their dreams. tomorrow here on the floor of this congress the senate and the house will meet and we'll be listening to our president talk to us and to the american people at a moment in time that is of critical importance to the very future of this country. a moment in which we will choose the path, an aggressive path to deal with the disaster of unemployed americans. he'll come to us with a plan, i believe it will be a bold plan, it will be comprehensive, it will cover probably many of the issues that are here on our make it in america agenda. but i want all of us, democrat and republican, to take those ideas and to put them into law so that americans can have a job. so that once again they can become taxpayers and in doing so bring to america's treasury the money that we need to deal with our deficit. it's a very, very important moment. we're going to need to reach across the aisle, right down this middle aisle, reach across it, and say, ok, our colleagues here were talking earlier about regulation. there's some good that needs to come from that. there are regulations that impede progress. and on our side we want to put people to work. with that we await the president tomorrow and we'll stand with him and with all americans to put us back to work. thank you so very, very much. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion to adjourn? a motion to adjourn, yes, sir, please. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, i guess we've talked long enough and it's time for adjournment. i move for adjournment. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning for morning >> the chamber will be prepared for president obama's address for a joint session of congress. we will have coverage as the president lays out his jobs plan followed by your calls. you can also watch the speech and add your comments on the facebook page. the speech will air again at 11:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is this sunday. an update on the current terrorist threats and the role that the u.s. intelligence plays in combating that threat. the senate panel takes up a computer data fraud and sever security legislation. later, a hearing from british parliament on allegations of phone hacking by some british media organizations. >> henry clay ran for president of the united states in 1844 and lost. he is one of the 14 men featured in the weekly series "the contenders." henry clay's kentucky home. >> next, a conference on u.s. security in the threat of terrorism. we will hear from homeland's security secretary janet napolitano. this event was hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. [applause] >> thank you, charlie, and thank you for your service to the country and to the department of homeland's security at a critical time when it was being formed. and also thanks to everyone for this event. they have both been a good friend to the department of homeland's security. and thank you for inviting me to be the keynote speaker. at the outset, i want to take a moment to thank our nation's intelligence professionals for the work that is done every day to keep the country safe from threats in the are constantly evolving in terms of origin, attribution, tactics, and techniques. in the department, we depend on that information every day. whether we are screening airline travelers or checking cargo at the ports of entry. whether we are working against a threat in cyberspace or against critical infrastructure, or whether we are responding to threats in our own communities. dhs is part of the intel community. we benefit from the work that you do in the country benefits as well. we also recognize that this is difficult. success often is years in the making. success often never rises to public view. a lot of the work takes place in the background under the guise of cameras, not all of is evident as the operation that killed bin laden. it is part of an important partnership we have with you to keep the country safe. as we approached the tenth anniversary of 9/11, i am often asked, where do we stand in terms of our nation's security? i think it is fair to say that we are a stronger nation out. 9/11 was a national tragedy, a day of tremendous pain and suffering for our country. people from over 90 countries perished as a result of it being the worst terrorist attack ever on american soil. this week, we take time to remember and honor those that we lost. we also looked to where we are 10 years after had a role that the intelligence community continues to play in our counter-terrorism efforts. i think there is no doubt that the united states is stronger now than it was before 9/11. we have bounced back from the worst attacks ever. we have made progress on every front to protect ourselves. our experience in these last 10 years has also made us smarter about the threats we face and how best to deal with them. we use the knowledge we have gained and some of you have health us to make ourselves more resilient, not just through terrorist attacks, but for threats had disasters of all types. we know that 9/11 was a big wake-up call. it prompted significant changes in how the nation protect itself. one of those changes was the creation of the department of homeland security, a department i am pleased to lead, which brought together 22 separate agencies into a single department he unify our nation's efforts to protect the homeland. as a result, 9/11 also prompted changes in the intelligence community. a decade ago, i think it is fair to say that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies were aware of potential threats to the homeland from terrorist organizations like al qaeda. we did not necessarily have the systems in place to prevent and communicate the information we had in the most effective way. essential information sharing that was needed to confront the threat was, i think, is impeded by longstanding cultural, legal, and institutional barriers. and a lack of overall coordination and cooperation. i think that was a result in part because we have not been successfully attacked on american soil. it took that successful attack to confront us and lead us to make some fundamental changes in how we collect intelligence, and how we share and communicate intelligence across the country. today, federal agencies like the office of the director for national intelligence, the terrorist training center, and a robust information sharing environment how have, i think, strengthen our analysis, improved our ability to have accurate watch lists and databases and created a need to share culture as opposed to the need to know culture. it lead to enhanced coordination, tools, and capabilities. i think the intelligence committee -- community is producing better intelligence. it has led to the arrest of more than two dozen americans on terrorism related charges. they have also resulted in numerous thwarted plots, many of which are not publicly known,. we work every day, often literally side by side. and we work with other federal, state, local, territorial, and private sector partners to enhancing the sharing of information and the security of communities across the country. that has resulted in more effective passenger screening, strengthened borders, and enhanced critical infrastructure. i think we have seen an example of that resilience of the last couple weeks because mother nature herself has been fairly robust, showering us with hurricanes and wind and the storm hold up the atlantic seaboard and up into new england. because communities are better prepared at the local officials have better training and better equipment, they are more resilient. they are more able to respond. we get in a position where the federal emergency agency is a team with them as opposed to working over them. and we are working with a number of states right now. we have a name for the partnership that encompasses the state, local, territorial, private sector, we call it the homeland security enterprise. it is a governmental approach and a nation approach for how we protect ourselves and how we move not just through counter- terrorism, but also terrorism prevention. the threats picture today is somewhat similar -- a somewhat different from what happened on 9/11. it did not begin on 9/11, and did not end with the death of osama bin ladne. -- laden. it requires us to be flexible and adaptable. what we continue to face, we also have a growing threats from other terrorist groups inspired by similar ideology. there are few operational connections. perhaps the most critically, we face an environment where extremism is neither constrained by international borders nor limited to any single ideology. one of the most striking elements of today's threat picture is the plot to attack the united states increasingly involve the united states citizens and residents. based on the latest intelligence and law enforcement actions, we are operating on the assumption that individuals that carry out terrorist attacks like to be in the united states and could carry out acts of violence with little or no warning. we have seen the terrorist groups seek to recruit individuals that are either westerners or have connections to the west, but might be unknown to those in the icy, unknown to the authorities. the use of mainstream and social media, information technology by these groups as an additional layer of complexity to an already complex direct picture. that is why we are working with a broad range of partners, to gain a better understanding of behaviors, tactics, techniques of other indicators that could point to involving terrorist activity. and working to design the best ways to mitigate or prevent that activity. one of the things we have worked on as improved information sharing and improved public awareness. we have worked hard to strengthen a homeland security enterprise architecture to reduce risk and prevent a successful attack. the architecture is based on the simple but powerful press that in this day and age, homeland's security begins with town security. all of us are stakeholders in the effort to keep our families, communities, businesses, social networks, places of worship secure and resilience. this realization translates to a number of features that did not exist 10 years ago. for example, we now have 72 recognized state and a major urban area fusion centers. they serve as a focal point for information can be shared on a real-time basis. the fusion center's support the joint terrorism task force that have been very successful in investigating and prosecuting terrorism cases. the fusion centers become a successful part of the construction of the homeland security enterprise and architecture. portals of entry where we can convey information and receive information back about tactics, trams, and behaviors. in addition to the fusion centers, we have greatly expanded and enhanced the nationwide suspicious activity reported initiative trains stake at a local law enforcement to recognize indicators related to terrorism, crime, and other threats. this initiative standardizes how those observations are documented, analyzed, and shared. with the fbi, and other i.c. partners across the country. we lost the national terrorism advisory system in april. it replaces the old color-coded system of alert. it is designed to deliver timely, detailed information about specific and credible threats to the public, government agencies, first responders, and the private sector. how does it work? we assume that we live in an era of enhanced threats. that is the base. the existence of threats to the united states is not going to disappear. when we have specific and credible threats, and there is a multi agency board that the threat analysis on a daily basis, they can make a recommendation to me to issue an advisory. it can be limited in terms of the population it is designed to reach, and it is also designed to expire unless there is refreshed intelligence that says there is a specific or credible threat. that prevents the accumulation of threats over time, which became a problem with the color coded system and caused us to always be at orange whenever you entered an airport. the system has come into place and is linked very closely with the initiative. then we moved to individual citizens, and if you see something, say something campaign. this is an effective way to be vigilant, and he indicators of terrorism or crime. we emphasize the importance of reporting suspicious activity to the proper law enforcement activities that than have training themselves about how to deal with those reports. see something, say something ties in to the other initiative. it covers reporting of activities from federal buildings, transit system, major sports and entertainment venues. we have too many partnerships to list, but with major league baseball, the nfl, as they open football season, and with the u.s. tennis association as the conduct of the u.s. open, places where large numbers of people gather. like all good architecture, these elements learn from and to build on the past. for example, we need to counter the threat of violent extremism that is arising in our own communities. the so-called homegrown extra tests. we have developed a curriculum and tested it with law enforcement officials to help do that. we have trained nearly 50,000 frontline law-enforcement officers and we have worked with hundreds of communities have a local organizations over the last 18 months to implement community oriented policing strategies that have been successful in the past. we have now tailored them to combat the rise of a violent extremism. we are using some of the law enforcement techniques that were successful in the past against gangs and loss angeles or translate that into how we train local law enforcement to watch out and know about the techniques, the tactics, the warning signs of the violent extremism. that training in compasses protection of privacy, civil- rights, and civil liberties. we're highly cognizant that in our efforts, we also have to protect the values of the country. those values are found in the constitution and our respect for civil liberties and civil rights. we built those protections into the training and the actions that we take. finally, we recognize that in this threat environment that is ever changing and ever growing, we need to expand to is trained and who can watch effectively for signs of a terrorist act. more and more often, we are tipped, not necessarily by the federal intelligence community, but those that are trained in the local community and inundated by individual citizens. we expanded our reach, we have become smarter as well as stronger. we know how to analyze or better analyze, i should say, threat information required at the local level. and to share it where it is appropriate. we know that communities at local law enforcement must be a correct response to a variety of potential threats, and to build an understanding of these threats into the work over the long run. we know much more about how to fulfill the security missions while maintaining our deep commitment to the constitution. let me add that in this scen securityland architecture, the security enterprise, one of the fundamental concept of shared responsibility. we have recognized and witnessed the tremendous role that the public plays. according to one recent outside analysis from 1999 through 2010, 86 plots against americans were foiled. they were foiled by tips from a range of sources, including individuals. what is most critical to know is that the information originated with the public and is credited with stopping almost 1/3 of those terrorist plots. in other words, a kind of awareness for vigilance, we are urging through the "see something, say something" campaign. i think it is already saving lives and helping to for nearly 3/10 plots. -- to thwart nearly 3/10 plots. more than 80% of the plots detailed came from and were foiled by information generated from the country at large. we need to view that as a central source of intelligence analysis. the department of home-security exists in harlarge part -- homed security exists in large part to prevent large-scale 9/11- style attacks. credit goes to many in this room, because building a government department is not easy. combining 22 different agencies is not easy. we have, i think, though they foundation of a new homeland security enterprise meet the terrorist challenge of the day. and the intelligence community has been a central part and will be, and continues to be, a central part of that enterprise. i think we have successfully protected the country over the past 10 years of over the result of a lot of -- as a resulta lote of you in this audience and across the country. the commitment needs to be reduced. the threats have not gone away. the continued to evolve. a work becomes more essential every day. that partnership and the utility and use of intelligence in the right way to protect the united states is an essential part of the homeland security enterprise. >> i think you very much. -- thank you very much. [applause] >> secretary napolitano has agreed to take a few questions. we have received a few questions from intelligence and national security alliance members. i would like to run through a few of these. some have been covered very expertly. one area you might want to speak about a little more is the role your opponents have played in countering terrorism beyond the borders to prevent the threat from coming into the homeland. there is courageous and valiant work that goes on every day. >> you are exactly right. we have an intelligence analysis division at the department. a lot of that work is translated into what if they t.s. of -- what does a tsa operator or border control officer need to be looking for. that means we need: data and watch lists. we have to have our computer systems talking with each other across different departments. some of the major evolutions we have seen over the department is the ability to use the data we have and push the borders out word, so we do not wait until something or someone enters the country. we maximize our ability to keep that cargo out of the country. i'll give you an example. on christmas day 2009, a man boarded a plane in amsterdam. he had a petn around his groin. he was going to blow up a plane over canada. it turned out that in our after action analysis, he was unsuccessful. the passengers on the plane deserve a lot of credit for that. looking back, what happened? how does this guy get on the u.s. bound plane with explosives? it turns out there was information that cbp had on this side of the ocean that tsa did not have on that side of the ocean. the databases were not linked to each other. that is no longer the case. we are able now at the airports, at our last point of departure, to do a lot of work before a passenger even gets to the airport for pre-screening of that passenger. when you hear the head of tsa, who used to be the deputy director of the fbi, talk about moving to a more risk-based process within airports, the reason he is able to do that is because we have combined a number of computer systems and pushed that data out words so we can better protect the homeland. >> secretary, you spoke deeply already about making certainly relevant information gets in the hands of law enforcement at the state and local level so that are aware of the threat and have the tools needed to respond when they have specific or actionable information. is there anything you plan to do in the next 18 months to strengthen their relationship with state and local beyond what you just address? >> we will continue the work we have already begun. for example, we do regular checks with the sheriff's of the counties along the southwest border. is there spillover violence from drug cartels or not? we do not just rely on what we see in the newspapers. we go to the people on the ground that know that information. i think we are going to continue to try to provide training and underwrite the cost of some of that training. state and local authorities are really strapped for cash. i know we are to. i think this will be an issue with the budget for the training center's we operate. but we want to do more training, particularly countering violent extremism and training in some of the precepts of intel analysis. we talked about the 72 fusion centers. we have moved our own intel analysts out to the centers, so they are located there. they are seeing the bulletin's that are coming their way. they can help train personnel at the local level in some of the elements of good analysis. >> secretary, thank you very much for coming in and sharing your thoughts with us. you continue to make great progress at the department. i think the nation is greatly encouraged by what you are doing. we wish you the very best in the months ahead. >> thanks for having me. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> let us take our seats. i am senior intelligence adviser to the national security alliance. it is my great pleasure to introduce the next panel. the intelligence community receives oversight primarily from two select committees, as well as authorizations for funding. the house select committee on intelligence and the senate select committee on intelligence. the close relationship between the director of national intelligence, the agencies, and these oversight committees is imperative if the united states is to counter threats to national security. it is our privilege to have two distinguished members from those committees with us here today, chairman mike rogers, who represents the eighth district of michigan in the u.s. house of representatives -- he has done this since 2000. his experiences as a u.s. army officer and fbi agent, a businessman, and a representative of the michigan state senate and the u.s. congress provides him with a unique perspective on the security needs of our nation and the role of the intelligence community. he has worked hard to strengthen the intelligence community. he is noted in congress for his efforts to fight global terrorism. the speaker of the house appointed congressman rogers to the chair for the 112th congress because of his experience and reputation on national-security issues. i think we can safely say he always brings great energy and passion to this position. we are also honored to have with us senator mark warner, who was elected to the u.s. senate in 2008 to represent the people of the commonwealth of virginia. his experience and record as a successful businessman and governor of virginia prepared him for the challenges of washington. he has established himself as a national leader on fiscal and security issues, one who is willing to reach across the aisle to find common sense solutions to the challenges facing our solution -- our country. he is an advocate for a strong intelligence community and recognizes it faces tough decisions in an era of budget austerity. also has a significant portion of the intelligence community located in virginia. our moderator is kim those here -- dozier counterinsurgency, counter- terrorism, and now the intelligence community. while covering the war of iraq in 2006, she was critically wounded in a bomb attack in baghdad that killed an american soldier, an iraqi translator, and 2 below of her media colleagues. she fought to fight -- she fought to survive the war in iraq and made a detailed and moving account of her recovery. she is a staunch supporter of combat-injured soldiers and their families. ladies and gentlemen, over to the panel. [applause] >> thank you for that introduction. i want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to grill you guys on stage. 9/11, the 10th anniversary, and what comes next. i am when to start with a freebie. i will ask you both to give me a report card. what have we done well? where are we lacking? our american safer than they were 10 years ago? >> shy and demure kim dozier. i mean that in the best possible way. thank you for the opportunity to be here. i would argue we are safer, but not for the reasons we think. terrorism has changed as much as the intelligence community has changed. we have clearly been much more aggressive about integrating analysts into the action side of intelligence in a way we had never done before. we have applied technology to our profession in a way that had not been done before. >> you mean drones, but you will not say it. >> we have applied technology in a way we have not done before. there is an aspect of how we collect information and get the right kinds of information to the right kind of analyst. that has happened over the last 10 years. because of that and because america is more aware of the threat, we are safer. we of denigrate job on the core of al qaeda, but there is plenty of work left. we are safe not because the problem has gone away, but because we have risen to the challenge and our awareness is much more acute than it was. >> i would agree with chairman rogers on the overall frame. let me acknowledge on the front and the new guy on the into a community. i am still in the learning process. charlie mentioned i am very glad you had a lot of government contractors supporters in virginia. i have tried to get out to see those agencies. my perspective on how we have improved comes from my tenure of governor as much as the federal. we were the first state to set up a cabinet level, and security adviser. we worked with private-sector infrastructure to do a proper it mapping. we've made progress there. i have also seen where we have not made as much progress. the first few years after 9/11 -- i was sworn in three months after 9/11. we had a flood of homeland security dollars. every local fire department wanted a hazmat uniform, no matter where we might be. we are still sorting through that process. we have done better, but there is still work to be done in terms of how to distribute funds. at the same time, i would argue we have seen better information sharing on the domestic side. but i still remember those 20 days when this whole region was terrorized by snipers. for most of that time frame, the expectation for the sense was that this was not just a rowboat lone wolf, but might have been a terrorist incident. i can assure you as somebody who saw that up close and personal there was still a lack of collaboration and coordination among slot enforcement. i think we have made progress. i would agree with the chairman. on the international side, with technology and analytics, it is much better. i do think we see new threats. i think one of the biggest new challenges we have not gone right yet is the challenges around cyber security. as we think through moving to the cloud and other technology advances, are we going to have the intel chasing the technology advances? i think that is an open question. >> let's talk about tracking a terror suspect, then and now. they do not face some of the border issues we do. when a terrorist suspect crosses from cia into fbi territory, so to speak, how are we doing on that? the intelligence, when you put it into an intelligence network, when you put it into analysis, and have that pot and the pot back here, how do we do on mixing and sorting that? >> we are doing better. it is not perfect. one of the things about the fbi and cia relationships -- it was blamed on a cultural problem. but the culture was spread through legal hurdles that were also in place. when you had grand jury testimony, even if it was very specific, it was almost impossible to take the grand jury testimony from an fbi case in transfer it to a cia officer. they had legal hurdles which fed the culture of the differences. much of that is gone. you still have personality differences that happen in any organization. that still happens. but it is diminished. through good leadership from both the agency and the fbi, they have been able to mitigate a lot of that. now when you have somebody that you are tracking that may be trying to enter the united states, the flow of information is easier and more seem less. an analyst in the fbi or an agent in the fbi will have as much access to that information as a case officer or analyst at langley might have. >> i would simply add that i think the physical collaboration at the center make sure that information is properly shared. >> you all talk about this blizzard of information. people get their reports. they get their analysis. some of it is redundant. the all hang it out there on computer portals so somebody else can see it. but there is a lot of overlap. it is just too much to digest. there still remain walls to putting it all into some artificial intelligence systems to sort it out. >> i do not think that is an intel-only problem. i think one of the challenges, as we sort through the debt and deficit issues, is the over reporting and a number of policy goals and objectives that most agencies have, and just sifting through this blizzard of information. it is high priority that we get it right, but this is a government-wide problem. >> i would say there are efforts under way on that front to find the right i.t. technology that will help sift through the information. one of the real problems today is the sheer volume of information to get through to get to the right place. i think we are closer to that than we were a year-and-a-half ago. it will have fits and starts, but i think it will dramatically and exponentially increase the value of information that allows an analyst to come to the right conclusion, either for targeting of policy formation or their conclusions on what their thoughts are on a particular region or person. >> six months away? a year away? i hear about this all the time. we have known about this for some time. i know there are computer systems out there, various competing ones, that could address it. but every system designer tells me there are legal issues. >> there is some of that. we will get through it. you solve its and pieces. it would be more of a pilot project in a place we know we can contain legal issues in a certain set of information. deadly will take that and extended. it is not clear to the instant. this is one of those million- dollar problems to solve. it is difficult. you have to get the right qualifiers in the right place to have a good outcome. that is a huge challenge for programmers to get to that place. i think we are getting there. i think you will see a pilot program within the agencies were we can contain it. we will get to the sharing part later. >> let me add as the new guy that one of the concerns i have had is not only the question about how we make sure the various agencies share the intel appropriately, but i have had a real question that has not been fully answered about how the intelligence community is using more open source. we have not only various agencies that collect, but there are huge open source issues with all -- with social networking and other tools the did not exist several years ago, in many cases. some of the conversations i have had a show we are further along on the open source issue than i expected. >> let that lead to the next question of what this means to americans and personal privacy. how are we doing on balance in that? a poll this week found that 54% of americans still want the u.s. to air on the side of protecting their personal privacy. what would be a message to them? grow up? this is the right way to guard our values? >> the premise of the question -- i do not believe you fundamentally have to sacrifice civil liberties to have a robust collection of information. there are protections under the law. i thought the patriot act was the most misunderstood piece of legislation i have ever seen. when you would ask the people, including folks from the aclu, whose intentions were pure, about show us the place where you say your rights are violated and your fourth amendment protection is circumvented, and they cannot find it. it is not there. a lot of this was perception. i took an oath to the constitution as an fbi agent, an army officer, and a member of congress. i protect the constitution. you can still have a robust collection apparatus. i do not think they have to be mutually exclusive. >> my colleagues at the ap did a story on nypd cooperation with the cia. the look at communities where terrorists have come from in the past and targeted folks in those communities who have broken the law, and asked them to inform. does this disturb you? >> this is again an area up where the notion the we're going to legislate -- i do not think you can get there. i think that generally speaking , through a very challenging time, we have gotten the balance right. i would drill down on whether the poll that you cited was more about people having their civil liberties impeded in terms of the government listening in, or whether it was a question of the kind of changes in lifestyle based on security concerns. wassn't sure what the poll really measuring. >> this is a really important question. directorate can get ahead of what the facts are. i saw the article. there was cooperation with the cia. they did have a cia employee in the unit. that does not the note collusion with the cia. it means they employed someone who was formerly employed -- formerly employed by the cia, and agents formerly with the fbi. i am opposed to racial profiling. i think it does not work. but there are things called criminal profiling that do work. if you are going to catch an irish mob bank robbery crew in a boston, you are normally going to show up at places where the irish connection folks would hang out. in the fbi, we used to say that is a clue. [applause] that is a good place to start. you're going to go to murphy's bar and talk to a bunch of people with irish last names. that is a good place to start. it does not mean you are targeting individuals. i thought the language was harsh. another example. you do a bank robbery. the first thing you do is canvassing neighborhood. the knock on the door and you ask the neighbor,, "did you see it?" the neighbor is not targeted by law enforcement. maybe they had information. the only way to do that is show up. this notion that they were targeting these groups was absurd and would be a waste of their time. but they did do -- a thorough review of this is fine. i think it is a good idea. but use the criminal profiling and say we have information on these five people and here is where they are attending and socializing, and we better get a handle in trying to understand it, because it is an intelligence-based investigation, much like we do with organized crime or drug groups. if you have a criminal profile and pattern of life, it will be similar. as an investigator, it is logical you would try to find patterns of life of people you know. if everybody there is a bad person, it does not mean you will be, but it is a good place to start asking questions. >> let us move to the enemy overseas. the evolution of how we have targeted terrorist networks are with the past 10 years. you could say we started small scale with special operations and cia-led campaign in afghanistan. we have moved on to a full-scale invasion of iraq. a larger troop presence in afghanistan. now, it appears we're going the other way. what do you think is going to be the effective way to fight in the future? what you think the white house countered -- of the white house counter terrorism strategy? it seems to be a combination of raids, operations on the ground, and what they call the white side of special operations, the green berets training local forces how to fight terrorists? >> i would actually think we have seen this process starts small and go big. the jury is still out on whether the go big strategy has proven a truly effective. i think when we are fighting a different kind of enemy that is not a nation-state, you will have to use units trained for that. there are other concerns about demilitarization of the cia. i think the changing nature of the enemy -- sometimes, that is perhaps politicized. the thing the white house approach in an area that is still evolving is a better direction now than it was with a notion we could simply go in and go big against a terrorist network and not create the kind of residual recruitment efforts we saw, for example, in afghanistan or iraq. was it perfect? absolutely not. and this is going to be something that will continue to evolve. i believe this needs to be a fight that we continue to try to find allies to make this not america alone in these circumstances. >> i think there is a danger in politics, especially in the grey area -- and it is great because so much of it is classified. the last big in a way it is wrong. every terrorist group, there will be new ones. al qaeda has no nation state to worry about. a country like iran need that is a growing state sponsor of terrorism. they are growing more bold and more brave in places like iraq. what it means to u.s. security interests. you are still going to have the other terrorist elements. it is hurt, but not gone. all of these groups have different strategies you have to lay at their feet. you look at afghanistan. the government was in absolute support of an organization that planned, recruited, and ultimately carried out an attack on the president of the united states. the president said, and give them up or we are coming in. they said, come on in, the water is fine. you cannot just you special forces and operations. it will not translate into every region of the country. it is dangerous to say this is the new counterterrorism strategy in the united states. it should be part of it. >> the devil's advocate would say we have taken out osama bin laden and the initial training camp. if we could have done that -- taken out the training camp, we could have avoided this. >> we could have gotten him in africa. he was operating in africa and we did not know it. in the 1990's, which could have gotten osama bin laden in africa. we would not have had this problem. we find ourselves in the fight we are in, not the fight we want to be in. torah bora would have been great if we were that close. no military operation goes exactly the way you plant it. -- planned it. that is the fundamental rule of the operations. once you have planned it, it probably will not look much like it. >> the notion that there is not lessons learned. >> including a full-scale invasion. >> the invasion of afghanistan, it was the world versus a rogue state. i supported when we first went in and what the president has continued there. we see the coalition of the willing continuing to shrink down. a lesson't recognize from iraq or afghanistan about how and when we use the full- scale invasion force as to what it means when you take out the top echelon of the bad guys, what do you do then? these kinds of conflicts are going to continue to rise all over the world. >> you mentioned that the cuts in the 1990's. you have been on some of the budget committees on how to reduce the deficit. you are both at the center of this particular storm. you have another round of major cuts aimed at the intelligence community as well as everyone else. i know they called it smart change where they say, do not lop off 10% like last time. that lead to hiring freeze is of no more analysts. >> we have seen the budget in the past decade approximately double to $80 billion. there has to be a recognition that that kind of rate of growth cannot be sustained. the admiral says that the single biggest threat to our country is not terrorism, but debt and deficit which will undermine our ability to stay the world's leading power. i do not think anything can be left off the table. the traditional approach, let's just, in and lop a percentage here and there is a ridiculous way to run an enterprise of any size. we have the notion of -- can you look at performance, can you look at metrics? can you look at ways that do not come in with just a percentage cut. as somebody new to the community, as i try to sort through all of the various agencies, organizations, and overlap, and i know there needs to be an overlap in checks and balances. how do you make the office of the dni not just another bureaucratic layer, but a place that's sorts through these issues. that is an issue. the performance metrics, trying to ensure the way you can bring about operational efficiencies, that has got to happen in every piece of government. we passed a piece of legislation called the gipper bill which required every agency to only have two or three policy goals. and to identify the top performing programs and the least performing programs. the first time we have identified the least performing programs. the notion that because we are a community of secrets and this information cannot be scared, some of these cuts are shortsighted. >> the 2012 intelligence authorization bill will be voted on friday in the house. we have spent the past six-seven months going over at every line item. every organization that grows that fast can get a little fat in a hurry. some of that was making up for the fact that we did not have a presence in that continent like africa. we had to make up for some of that. the fbi went through major changes and some very expensive changes. the rate of growth is unsustainable. i do not think the dni can do this. i think the authorization committees have to do this. i think that is why we are there. this is why we can see everything. >> you are the bad guys? >> i think we are the good guys in the end. i think we have found significant savings. we have found significant savings by merging programs, merging services, merging things that will not impact the mission of the intelligence community to collect and protect the united states. we went line by line with a fine-toothed comb. we shook hands on a deal and five minutes later, the whole building started shaking. i thought it was something pretty bad. thank god it was the earthquake. not will allow the dni to deal with those changes. emergency services and training facilities and other things, some of that is going to be hard. some of that has to happen to sustain the kind of equality we need everywhere. >> i have been an executive longer than i have been a legislator. i do think the role is critical. forces a bet if we don't the agencies to come forward with their recommendations for what is working the best and what is working the least. it is always easy to start a program. it is virtually impossible to force anybody inside, we are willing to self-identified. that does not mean that we have to take that as full guidance. it is something that we need to demand across the board. >> we are saying the same thing. that is not going to happen at if we do not make them do it. a look into all of the silos gives us a very unique perspective. we are going to look at that silo and merge it with thissilo and they did not even know it existed. that happens in the intelligence community. the budget committee house to set up the standards and say, you are going to have to change. here is your parameters. tell us how that is working out. they were completely engaged in all of the aspects of the bill. two things we said was going to let happen. this is going to happen and be a part of the solution. i think it has worked very, very well. >> you both describe the dni as the great persuader as opposed to the one that makes it happen. the responsibility falls to the committee to hammer home these cuts. >> intel is very different than the other operations committees. they cannot go above those numbers. when that bill becomes law, they just need to fill in the gaps. appropriators gave them appropriate clearances to sit on a committee so that we could bridge that gap before it got to the passes of the authorization. the authorization committee does one thing, they do the other. they are very good. this is one way that we said if we are going to play the management role on the money side, this is the way to do that. >> to kick off some questions from the crowd, john is en route, but he is a little bit late, so that means that i get more time with each of you. >> look at the time. >> what is the likelihood that bad with -- bandwidth for first responders build that is before congress will pass. was i not supposed to out you? >> it is an important question. what we do with the d block. an area tooking for have the federal government make a little money, create jobs, and that is where we are behind most of the world, allocating spectrum. the first bill that has passed commerce committee, it has got great goals. i support the approach on it. i do worry that in the first responder community, it is easier to get democrats and republicans to work together spent first responder radio engineers to work together. the first step is to give them a block of spectrum. the next up is to not only find its operation, but its long-term operation. i would urge they need to have some skin in the game. they have other spectrum that they could give up. we have states helping us build this. there are some folks that have raised questions in the house. out.oal is the right i hope we do not pass a white elephant that will cost us billions of dollars down the stream because we did not set it up right now. >> we did not have the coalition of the willingness among the first responders to what helped us put this together. there is going to be a lot of debate about d block and what happens. does it go to auction? there were a lot of inefficiencies with the money we gave to first responders to solve this problem. they all wanted their own system. it was an unfortunate expenditure of taxpayer money. we have learned from that lesson. the house is fairly close to the senate position on this. we are going to try to work out some of the details on who takes ownership and where the money flows to the d block section and how to increase the motivation of these locals to get together on communication systems. >> there are a lot of things that have changed technology- wise in the last four or five years that need to be factored in. >> moving on to the threat now. all of the top counter-terrorism officials say that the major threat for 9/11 our global attacks. not large-scale plots. none of those are in existence now for al qaeda. why is the number of homegrown terror cases accelerating? there is an uptick in multiple attacks. is this the threat facing law enforcement? >> i cannot say it is the single greatest threat. we have the rise of a gang activity and organized violence that poses a much greater risk to life and property. it is a huge problem. , if you can put a cost on it, you have a property that you are managing, the economics are out of whack. the terrorist event is much more expensive. new york is doing the kinds of things that it is doing. i think it is a mistake for the ic community that these are separate and loan wolf events. al qaeda copper aqap, somehow it is unrelated. we have seen a change in the tactics in the affiliates. some of the affiliates are new to the al qaeda network. that was by design. it had clear benefits to al qaeda. the tactics, that was one of the things that i found interesting, the debate they had amongst themselves about changing the tactics in the fight. u.b.l. was very american center. he wanted a big event around an anniversary because he knew it was going to be important to us. the splinter groups, they are an equal partner in a.q. itself. is it a lone wolf if he is recruited, radicalized, and directed by a group? i recruit you in the united states, finance you in the united states, give you some direction rather than recruit you in pakistan and i strap you with a bomb and put you on an airplane to blow up over the united states, what is the difference? eyes would say that there is no difference. -- i would say there is no difference. how do you disrupt an attack like that? it is a threat. we worry about somebody grabbing a gun and going down someplace and doing something awful. there will never -- they will never just do that. there are indicators leading up to that event. they are radicalized. >> in a certain sense, i have been amazed we have not seen more lone wolf or quasi lone wolf attacks. my personal experience with the snipers, two guys driving around in a beat-up car terrorize people for 10 weeks. one of the things that the president has said, not a comfortable thing to talk about, how we plan as a community to be resilient if and when, it will probably be more when than if we have an incident like this. we need to learn from the u.k. not anything about the anniversary this weekend, but there will be other incidents. trying to gauge and a corporate reaction is not something that the american public is ready for. >> the other analysts are here. i want to thank you for having us. thank you for allowing me to interrupt you so many times. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [applause] >> i thought before we started that it was up procreant ,i hung this flag of honor that has the names of the victims of all of the 9/11 attacks. john brennan is a friend, a colleague, and an enormously talented individual. he was appointed as advisor to the president on counter- terrorism. he has held several key overseas positions, particularly in the middle east, that give him a perspective on current conflicts and challenges. he managed the transition to the national counterterrorism center that it is today. upon leaving government service in 2005, he found his own successful company in 2005. i would like to say we did a job swap. i came out of government and he went into government. we are glad to talk about john for the -- about the threat to the homeland. why do you not start? >> are you ready to swap jobs again? thank you very much for inviting me here. thank you for sponsoring this event. it is nice looking out on the audience and seeing so many familiar faces. some of those faces are worked with 10 years ago and since then. in some respects, it seems like a lifetime ago, that tragedy on 9/11. this week is a week for remembrance of the victims as well as taking stock about where we have been the last decade. i met with several members of the 9/11 commission over the last decade. they gave report card on things we have done well and it thinks that we have not. i was talking to judy woodruff for the "newshour." we have done an impressive job over the last decade in terms of the threat that we face from overseas and making the united states and much less hospitable environment for terrorist operations. we have taken steps to fill those gaps that are out there that terrorists take advantage of. we still face the terrorist threat from al qaeda core. when this anniversary passes and everything is conjured up in our minds, that we not become complacent. we have to maintain that exceptionally high level of readiness. it is a level of vigilance that we need to keep as a country. both as a government as well as the people. one of the things that i think this country has done well over the past decade is to make sure this is going to be a whole of government effort and a whole of nation effort. there have been tremendous strides in the integration of information between intelligence and law-enforcement communities. there has been coordination among the state and local elements. it is not all the way there. it is not the perfect architecture, but we have come a long way. this demonstrates the ability of two successive administrations to enable and empower the counter terrorism community to do what they need to do. they are working harder than the american people are -- understand. whether they are at the airports, whether they are abroad, taking the latest threat peace that has come in. when i look back at the last 10 years, i feel good about what this country has been able to accomplish. the fact that we have been able to prevent another calamitous attack like 9/11. al qaeda is still up there. there are other groups that had been planning attacks. we do have the trustees of iraq, yemen, and other areas. we are not going to relent. one of the things that president obama has said is that we need to do everything possible to protect the american people. we need to do it with the law. we need to make sure we are working with our partners overseas. that is the big difference that i see. the international partnerships that have really blossomed. 10 years ago, there were a lot of countries in the middle east that were in denial. saudi arabia out was one of those. he acknowledges that saudi arabia was in denial. they realized after the attacks within the kingdom in 2003 that they had a real cancer within their country. they took the steps necessary to prevent al qaeda from using it as a base for attacks. the capacity building that we have done with other countries working with our traditional allies and establishing relationships with other countries, giving them the intelligence that they need, and giving them the training, letting them know how we have been able to make progress against al qaeda, these are things that as a country we should feel proud of. people here today should take pride in the work they have done in the government or the private sector to allow this to flourish. >> before i begin the questions, i should congratulate you, the president, andy and administration. having sat in your seat for a time, i understand at a personal level the courage and the strength it took for the president to make the decision he made to invade pakistan. i do not think that people fully understand the burden on the president and the weight of the responsibility of that moment. i speak for a lot of people in this room when i say that the nation owes him and you a debt of gratitude and we are safer for the killing of bin laden. [applause] >> as you know the credit goes to those brave operators to carry out the raid, those diligent and extremely proficient intelligence officers who were able to pull the thread over so many years. then to the president who was able to take that information in terms of what we knew but also it reflected the tremendous confidence he has in the u.s. military as well as the intelligence services. failures are talked about quite a bit. sometimes the lawyers are attributed to intelligence. i think the president felt we did as good a job as possible as being able to understand what was happening in the compound. we basically had as much information we could get without risking the operation. at the same time, these operators have trained and carried out to these types of raids repeatedly. one of the things after the ladenf and raid -- bi n raid, people say only to the united states could do that. we have that to termination, persistence, and capability to grow to another part of the world and do it effectively. that is one of the things it we were impressed with, that we can keep a secret. the president insisted on that. doing it in a way that led to success. it is not one person or group of operators. this is a product of work that was done or the last decade. people have been going after him for a couple of decades. it was a time of reflection, also in a time of remembrance of the victims. this was justice. this was something the people wanted and the search. >> post the killing of osama bin laden, will orchitis seek to retaliate? -- al qaeda seek to retaliate? >> we took material side of the compound. he is trying to direct operations. it also reflected his, how much she was distanced from reality. he kept pushing for these operations but the al qaeda authorization -- authorization -- operation were not able to carry out of those attacks. i see a combination of attacks that have sat cockeyed a back lot. den, who wasa active and engaged. he was orchestrating a lot of activity in yemen. these are the senior types who had the experience, the respect, they had the ability to orchestrate. you take them off and have a few other guys. they are still out there and we will be relentless in going after them but the senior leadership really has taken some severe body blows. we need to maintain that pressure and hopefully we're over the real speed bumps because of the raid against the osama bin laden compound. we need to do things, cockeyed in iraq is still active. they are attacking our troops street outside in the peninsula is active. they have a domestic agenda. is taking on many characteristics of an insurgency as a push to yemeni forces and civilian government out of the southern portion of the country. did you have people who are determined to carry out attacks against the homeland. that has a domestic and international agenda. they're looking at libya and the arms bazaar that is available. the threat is still evident. the arabs spring has resulted in some people and a number of countries, the egyptians have been a close partner of ours or the years. there service who have been affected by this recent turmoil. i think the effort needs to continue. the challenges are still there. i think we put in place a good foundation and a lot of these countries that have been able to withstand some of these political upheavals. we had a relationship with the libyan government. we had close relations now. we recognize the pnc. we rely on these countries a very heavily. why don't we capture more of the terrorists and take them to guantanamo? we capture them when they can. -- we can. he is now in united states facing trial. we now rely and are able to rely on all lot of other countries. saudi arabia, the moroccans, the egyptians and others are now doing what they need to do. we do not need to do these things unilaterally. we work with them so they can find, detain, imprisoned the terrorists a very threat to them as well. >> one other countries take these people into custody, do we get access in custody? >> many times, whenever there is a terrorist that is captured, the first thing we do is ask for that access, in pakistan or yemen or saudi arabia. usually the countries and services will work with us. there are some concerns in these countries have if there are concerns about what the individual might do to us but i think it is important for us to be able to have that access so we're able to determine what this individual is saying, how they are saying it, not under arrest. i think, the relationships have developed to a point where we're given that type of access according to their rule of law. >> let's go back to the post-bin laden threat. dhs issued its and 9/11 warning. there was the states department worldwide warning to americans traveling overseas. this morning the department of defense raised its current level to grovel. as americans watching this, we know there was some reference to a 9/11 anniversary attack. what does this mean? are you concerned about an anniversary attack? do you see increased fretting -- france? -- threats? >> there were a number of security measures put in place in. now, we have seen things like in the bin laden compound. we know there have been times when they tried to take advantage of the attention paid to these anniversaries. activities are time to take place when they are ready as opposed to forcing it to take place in a day. we need to make sure we're doing everything possible to prepare and safeguard this country. so out of an abundance of caution, we have instituted a number things this week or the fbi and homeland's security, defense, the promised date, issues of alerts advisories'. we want to make sure people are aware. terrorist groups might try to take advantage of the large gatherings of people as a way to demonstrate they can penetrate our defenses. the president has insisted we do everything possible before an anticipated anniversary so that we are in the best position to catch something before it comes to fruition. right now, if we did and have something credible that would require and advisory large, we would put that out. i think we have come a long way in assuring that information as to the american public. there are these bulletin put out about threats to general aviation highlighting the fact that a al qaeda keeps coming back to aircraft as a target. this is something we need to maintain vigilance for. >> like you, i had the privilege of working with mohammad in saudi arabia and other intelligence chiefs. in the wake of the arab springs, where many of the government's that existed at the time i was there have fallen, and there are concerns of those -- this is an opportunity terrorist groups might take advantage. can you talk about the counter- terrorism relationships? should we be concerned they are not as strong? how you view the changes taking place? >> it was clear that al qaeda was not at the vanguard of any of these movements. in some respects exposed to the bankruptcy of the ideology is not having the resonance it had hoped to have. the impact on the ct relationships have been significant from the point is that we have had to work with new people and organizations. there is a concern in places like libya where there is not the same control. there lot of things out there that could be accessed and acquired by terrorist organizations. but the professional relationships that exist between the cia, fbi, others, with their counterparts, those are things that in door. although there are changes in personnel, i first noted this in the early 1990's when a number of countries sided with iraq when they invaded kuwait. those relationships were able to withstand those political challenges. the ct relationships have strength in some minds that it becomes the sine que non relationships. so there are some challenges, we need to be able to continue to work with the egyptian services. tunisia has a mixed record. even before the people. there were things they were doing that we run happy with. we need to keep pressing. yemen is a country that i am familiar with. i have been out there numerous times. i can say today that a counter -- counter-terrorism cooperation with yemen is better than it has been. that is a result of a number of factors. the terrorist factor is difficult there. they have insurgency-like features. we're sharing information. the yemenis have done a good job of finding and arresting and carrying out attacks against al qaeda-types. thisthough they're in domestic turmoil, that counter- terrorism relationship is strong. that is important for the united states. we want to do these things in a bilateral way. that requires cooperation, that they adhere to their legal system and international standards request twice you have mentioned caches of unsecured weapons. were we doing to make sure those are not taken and used against us and others. >> we have made a number of clear points to the tnc and those who we're working with in libya about things that we are concerned about. obviously securing any type of materials for weapons that could be used by terrorist groups, weapons of mass destruction or whatever else kind. there are a lot of parts to that country that are uncovered. a lot of concerns treated the libyan government is going to .ave a challenge ahead of it trying to overcome the tribes and families. there will be rivalries that will come to the fore. this is where the united states does respond well. we have people, we're working closely with the tse. -- tnc. we want to be able to go back to the embassy and work closely with them. once again have the type of relationship that we want to have with countries across the region. when you look at al qaeda, a lot of the senior cockeyed members are libyans. -- al qaeda members are libyans. >> i always -- i apologize in advance. you mention having met with the 9/11 commissioners about their report card. journalists will always ask you about the bad ones, not mention the other, the 30 of them you have completed. talk to us about the nine that they did not give a good grade on. where are the priorities and likelihood we can close this one out? i was not successful closing get out. i ask it with all humility. >> there are some within our control. the overhaul of the congressional oversight committee structure. that is something there has not been a single move to address in the last decade. that is something that needs to be addressed. it is tough. i will give it to congress that there are a lot of rice bowls there beside from that, the intersection between home and security and defense is quite challenging. doing that is important to do. they need to do it thoughtfully. i think they have -- they wanted the executive branch to overhaul itself. then there was the can the kept being kicked down the road. one of the other areas is the oversight board which is something that is a and appointed a group of folks that looks over the cyber liberty issues. we had a number of people we were trying to get to be the chair of that. the various things happened that, and we do not have somebody at. we are working on that. we have identified a couple of members but even though we do not have that, there are offices that work collectively as a curb. they will get together to make sure they are empowered. that they are able to do their jobs. there are issues of what the federal government is requiring of states. but states can pass their own laws that make things not permissible. there is this hamilton-jefferson challenge we are facing. biometrics is evolving. we need to stay focused on that. make sure we -- one thing they pointed out is we do not have a information on accidents in united states. we need to work on these things. when i look at the recommendations from the commission, between the last 10 years, you can check off a lot of them and say we have become -- we have come a long way. the fact we still have some things to accomplish, we need to stay focused on them but i like to look at those things in the win column. >> this is my hobby horse of the 17 not accomplished yoet. that is the additional bandwidth for first responders. the question to you is, what is the likelihood it will pass given all of the other in things facing congress right now, the fiscal concerns. second, is the president willing to make it a presidential priority to get this thing passed? there are two administrations and it hasn't gotten down. people will be hurt and people will die if we do not fit this thing done. >> it is one that a thing the 9/11 commissioners appointed to. -- pointed to. there is a buildup to to make sure it is going to service that. there are also issues related to, you want to make sure you have systems in place for the orchestration is not just been able to communicate with everybody. that can lead to a chaotic environment if there is no system in place, that there's going to be some orchestration of that opera ability. one of the real problems was there is so many people on the nats, we could not distinguish. it was almost overloaded. you want a system that will be able to leverage that. the president is committed to making sure he is doing what he can. there is a big congressional stake in this. there are different equities as well as perspectives. should we make more progress? yes. should we have this system that is going to be within some type of business architecture that will allow communication to take place in emergency situations but not so that the airwaves are inundated with everybody who can access the channels, that would lead to anarchy. >> talk to us about your view of how intelligence reform has been implemented and how it is working. iran the second dni -- you are on the second dni. how is reform working? >> uh -- ipods because of how was a working now -- i pause because of, how is it working now. minis to be an integrated community. thatnk that the changes have taken place are good. the real challenge to the commission is that the dni these to have more control over personnel and budget. they happen to be in departments and agencies that have their own cabinet officials with their own appropriators. it is easy enough to say the dni should be in charge of the intelligence community. but the practical implications of that is challenging. do you want to stick with from the secretary of state in large chunk of their work force? we make determinations based on what the national requirements are. so, one of the things jim is trying to tackle is it. .t. so that you do not have wasted resources, resources that not able to be integrated. but that you have the appropriate systems into place, you taken a place cyber security. all lot of money goes into the i t structure. >> bringing you new water. >> i'm glad it was not a note. notes are never good in my business. [laughter] >> talk to us for a moment, one of the things in the department of home and security was the intelligence and analysis capability. appropriate dni's role when it comes to a homeland intelligence? how has that capability been built? >> the department of holman security has a unique response -- responsibility. it in a waye to map the department can take appropriate reactions to mitigate those threats and vulnerabilities. there are different components within homeland's security. intelligence and analysis are there. karen is doing a great job. she needs to make sure the secretary has full visibility into those vulnerabilities that the secretary is responsible for addressing. yesterday we got together, the president has these by weekly sessions with the heads of departments, and defense, state, homeland's security, we went over the 9/11 anniversary preparations. we addressed the threats and talked about what we're doing overseas. what the fbi is doing here. we finished with secretary nicole itano -- napolitano, this is what we're doing to ensure we're protecting the homeland. that has to be informed by the intelligence committee to be able to help janet and others be able to identify those things that, if the threat is coming from bridges or tunnels, these are the things we should be thinking about. what we need to do so we can address possibilities. it should not be a replication of what ntc is doing. it is taking that threat and saying the mission is this, we need to match it against that mission so that the secretary knows there are certain policy initiatives we need to take, or additional security precautions. >> what is the appropriate role when it comes to home and security intelligence? >> i got a paper this morning. don't ask me about it because i have not ready yet. -- read it yet. to me, the broader universe of information is out there. intelligence conjures up something clandestine. there are many components. things acquired by law enforcement or at the border. applications. or from intelligence that is collected. i think the dni these to make sure the intelligence community is able to provide to janet, to others who have responsibilities for protecting the homeland. that the intelligence machine is able to collect and analyze information to allow them to do their jobs. the president looks to them that they can address the threats. they need the support. they need to be able to ensure they have a full visibility. jim clyburn needs to be sure that our analytic systems are really hitting on all cylinders in order to give those organizations what they need. that does not mean it is clandestinely required. open source is a great example of what we need to be able to do to leverage. social media, there is a whole new universe of information available. i think what the intelligence community has to do is make sure that that universe of information that is relevant is made available to janet napolitano and others. >> you mentioned the fbi and vhs -- dhs, there has been much written and talked about the tensions inherent in that relationship. is it working better? if there is a threat against bridges and tunnels, who is responsible and accountable for passing that to ray kelly, who is a commissioner in new york. >> a lot depends on where it is required. requires that information. it will immediately be disseminated. the cia has done a great job making sure that information is made available. it goes out and will be made available on fbi systems. it will be immediately available in new york. that is from the standpoint of a threat to bridge or tunnel. they need to use that information to track down that lead. the mission is not to ensure the propagation of information but it is an operational environment the combines federal agencies. dhs has responsibility to ensure that state and local officials have primary responsibility to ensure they are aware of this and they can take the steps because it is going to be the state and locals who have responsibility to step off the security presence at a bridge or tunnel or they need to do additional taxes. checks. bob and janet have a good information -- relationship. the thing is to make sure that it gets out there and people are able to take action appropriately. that is why i think the nature of the information needs to be at the release of aable level. if the information includes operational information that could compromise the message, that is not information that needs to get in state and local officials. the fact that there's a threat that might involve a certain type of person, that can get out and that these to get out quickly. one of the things bobbing janitor good at is not saying, that is my job. they want to fulfill their responsibilities but they're not going to say, don't share that information. >>, i think it's fair to say there is in a lot of progress on information sharing. but nothing is perfect and there is inevitable opportunities for failure. the attempted christmas day bombing, information was imperfect. can you talk to us about the progress you made? you're at the point of ensuring the sharing improved. can you tell us how it has improved in your level of confidence? >> one of the things we have done is you want to make sure you are able to leverage experiences seek and correct any deficiencies. the president has insisted whether it was the times square, the fort hood shootings, we look back to see what we had available to us and to say, ok, in light of what we knew before the attack, where could we have done better or been able to do if we had a better system of information sharing or different policies. in each of those instances, we found examples when -- there was a report that was not disseminated in a timely fashion because the resources on a particular test, was a single threaded. it sat there for a day or two. that is easily fixed. you can flag something. you sure about a misspelling. those are things you do not realize until becomes a problem. the issue of a sharing between the fbi and department of defense was a big issue. this gives to the issue of personnel files and other types of issues address personal liberty. there is a process whereby and civil liberties would be protected by the same time there would be visibility so that if there is concern that the fbi needs to investigate, we will do it. we have the recent example of the individual who's going to attack fort hood. we look back on that to seeing what could have been done differently to allow us to identify this individual earlier. thankfully there was a vigilant store clerk who brought the concern to the attention of authorities. i think that in each one of these instances, it brings to the surface some things you do not know our problems until you experience them. it sometimes require scos it changes, but in each instance, all of the agencies have been very good as far as explaining what happened. they want to be better. i have not found any instance where department has tried to cover up anything. after the fort hood shooting, in the oval office, the president said i want to get to this bottom of this. i want to make sure that we understand what happened. i do not want anybody holding back. sometimes the congress will do the wrong investigation. sometimes they hit us for the failures. we are most interested in making a difference in terms of our future capabilities. yes, there is accountability issues. somebody made a mistake, despite their best efforts, that is one thing. if someone was derelict on duty, that is something else. >> you mentioned it and the threat of the concerns him is the cyber threat. talk to us about your view of the cyber threat and what we're doing to combat. >> as challenging as the terrorist threat is, the cyber threat makes my head hurt. just because of the challenges we face and the openness of the cyber environment. we're talking about a domain that is privately run and organized. the u.s. government has responsibilities because we feed off of that internet. we want to make sure it is secure and we are able to stop any type of attacks against us but we have an obligation to the american people. there are a number of things that started in the previous administration, being able to have the ability to acquire the signatures of different tax, making sure we could share that it affirmation, sharing with the private sector. one of the challenges is we want to make sure they share their experiences with us when they get hacked. they have their own concern that if that information gets out, it could have an impact on their stock prices. we want to ensure there is this relationship where they can share this information and we will work with them. there is a debate right now. we had sent a legislative package to the hill the next certain requirements -- that makes certain requirements. we do not want a strict a framework that is going to be a deterrent to innovation and is going to paralyze the system. at the same time, the ability of a foreign actors or groups or even individual hackers to cause damage is serious. the cyber front is a concern. it is an open environment. we have made some strides. the president has insisted we need to work harder and better because of the concerns of the impact on, not just our civil liberties, but also on our economic well-being. >> does the government have the capability and authority? what are the authorities he needs? >> the legal authorities, some are addressed in the legislative package. there are people who feel we need to go further in terms of giving the government additional capabilities in this area. more regulation of that. there are ways to address it. do we have the capability? the technical world changes every day. the capabilities of these hackers continues to rolfe. we -- to evolve. we have a pilot of that has been running to make sure we are able to work with them so they are subject to being targeted by hackers abroad, companies try to steal from them. with these pilots, we will experience things. we have to make sure we are consistent with issues related to liabilities. i think that we need to look seriously at this environment and for going to have that as the backbone of our daily lives. what really needs to be done to make it more secure. some folks feel the market is going to develop that once it becomes cost prohibitive. the losses are billions of dollars. allowing the market to evolves in a way that will ensure cyber security is shortsighted. there are things the government can do in collaboration with the private sector that makes sense. >> are there specific things that the private sector could do to be helpful to the government? and other things you asked of the private sector? >> part of it is making sure they have the dialogue. the dialogue has been good with certain segments of the private sector. . lot of the financial sector's i think it is making sure that the companies share with us their experiences. we need to understand the different types of signatures. we need to make sure we have visibility into what their experiences are. but also to -- they can do some things themselves to tighten up fee practices. there are guidelines we can help them less. their security is dependent on the discipline and rigor they have in ensuring the protection of their databases of their critical information. particularly at a time of cost cutting with the economy where it is. some companies will pare back the investment because they want to make sure they can do what they need to do. if they are paring back those investments, they do that at their own peril. they need to continue to devote to their resources to it. >> the last question. no conversation with the complete without acknowledging and asking you about the impact of the current fiscal crisis. there is concern, in the wake of the cold war starting with bush 41, there were tremendous budget cuts in the security apparatus. the law-enforcement community. that has been built up steadily over the last 10 years. there is a tremendous concern here and nationally about the implications for our national security capability in this time of tightening budgets. can you give us a sense of what to expect? >> agencies are going to have to be part of the efforts to trim budgets so we can live within our means. the investment in intelligence has been significant. as we wind down in iraq and as we look afghanistan, we have to make sure we are able to have capabilities that will ensure that the investment that was made is going to allow us to do what we can to work with our partners. i think, this is where jim's role is going to be important. the need to have redundancy benny's to be thoughtful and deliberate. yet to look at these big-ticket items, these technical problems. what we need to do is focus on not the capability but, what are we trying to accomplish? make sure we are able to achieve those missions. in respect of of the platform or capability. sometimes, we know congress will have certain pet projects as well as agencies will have a pet projects. we need to make sure they are useful, meaningful, important for the mission. sometimes it is easier to start a project. some things serve their time. that is why i give that bob gates lot of credit. he made tough decisions that resulted in a u.n. cry against him. these were big savings. he was able to reinvest it. this is where jim needs to make sure, what are the real priorities there? he wants to make sure there's going to be the capabilities that exist for that. on i.t., there is a lot of money invested. as we go forward in some of these new areas, integrated networks, there are savings that can be achieved. we do not want to hurt ourselves in terms of what the american people expect from the security community. having somebody who can say, this served it's time but now the time has come to sunset it. >> thank you for year time today and your service. i think everybody wishes you every continued success. [applause] to wrap up today's events, we are honored to of the director of national intelligence address us on the role on intelligence and protecting our homeland. he is the epitome of a selfless and public service. 30 years in the air force. a vietnam veteran. he was the first civilian director of nema. he got congressional authorization to rename it. he is the former president of fasa,. he was the second and the fourth director of national intelligence. he is a former colleague, a dear friend, a mentor, and an all- around great american patriot. please join me and welcoming a professional, jim. [applause] >> thank you very much. great to be with you. i realize i am standing between cocktails and whatever else you're going to do after this. i think this is an important forum. i wanted to have the opportunity to engage with you. it is a pleasure to engage with insa and scis. both organizations have a great deal of respect. i have a great relationship with each of them having served back in the 1990's as president of the predecessor to insa. i was a senior advisor for john at csis. i have a connection with both. it is better when we do something together. i want to offer congratulations on the excellent report to protect the homeland. taking stock 10 years later and looking ahead, david petraeus and ira going to have an opportunity to do that with a rare joint hearing with the intelligence committee's next tuesday, the 13th. it is the same subject, were heavily, and what we need to do. there is a lot of this going on about the last 10 years. it is obvious to all of us that cockeyed at today is not the same of al qaeda 2001. the pressure apart from the s, this steady pressure has had an effect. they're not done. i would characterize them as the wounded in action but not killed in action. we have kept them off balance. we of works to deny them. we have a complicated resources and money. we have undermined their plan to train. we have sent osama bin laden to the fate he so richly deserved. having played a small part in that, particularly those of you who saw the economic picture -- iconic picture, it was one of the most intense and gratifying experiences of my professional career. all of these accomplishments stand as testimony to the skill of many officers in our military forces. our citizens are safer because of this. zell why we have great reason to take pride, we do not have a reason to gloat or soften our efforts or relax. the terrorists are still out there. they are smart. they go to school on s. the nature of the threat they pose continues to evolve. while al qaeda is now weaker and they are not able to train and deploy operatives, it still represents a the ideological touch point to of an extremist movement. it continues to influence terrorists to public statements, including its affiliates and the homegrown violent extremists who are inspired by the global agenda. i think there have been three critical factors to our success in the last 10 years. the most important is the dedication, skills, and attention of the ic workforce. something i intends to protect even as we downsize. i have been through one of these exercises before. since john brennan earlier today made mention of something we're going to take on which i think is a real litmus test for the office of dni, we have been on a steady upward growth for the last 10 years in money and people. that encompasses the of -- entire existence of the dni. i hope to profit from my experience when i served as director and went through this before. taking care of people. second, something i am pushing very hard is the integration of intelligence activities. integration is might think, my sheol, my stick. -- my thing, my spiel, my stick. this is an area, that i ever learned is important. it is not an area that is not as mature as our classical foreign intelligence apparatus. we have only been doing this for 10 years. the third area is the expansion and maturation of responsible information sharing. that relates to integration. i would like to focus on integration and the sharpening of our focus. we have worked on the policy front which is kind of boring. not very sexy but it is important to work the policies and mechanisms that response -- gives sharing. cia as the emphasis on the prevention of another attack on the homeland and the buffet -- defeat of the terrorists abroad. more than ever it has been integrated with the other intelligence agencies, our foreign partners, and the private sector. organizations many of you belong to. the fbi is under the leadership of bob. the nation is blessed to have him stay on. if you can imagine taking on a high wire stress job like that for 12 years, i salute him. they have done a remarkable transformation in moving from an exclusively law enforcement organization to an intelligence-driven organization. i was in quantico recently to visit their training academy. they're about to open up a new facility dedicated to training intelligence analysts. i think it is a physical manifestation of the commitment the fbi has done. i had bob over last week to speak to the work force out at xo, lori crossing. he told a -- liberty crossing. he told us, it is not something you get done by closing business on friday. it takes time. it took him time to wrap his head around what he was about in the larger fbi work force. the old way of doing business, prosecuting bad guys is not enough when dealing with suicide bombers. as one example, the transformation has included the expansion of a joint terrorism task forces led by the fbi and -- in some 106 cities. there has been a remarkable transformation of going back over 10, 12 years at the nsa. they, too, are working to address the sophistication and use of technology. dia, my old agency, has established a task force for counter-terrorism which provides support for protection purposes. it also provides analysis, warning, and enterprise in tears -- integration. nga, i also served as its director for five years, it has done a great deal to embed and integrate special intelligence with its mission partners in the field and overseas. every ic component is contributing to a truly comprehensive counter-terrorism missions. some other examples. the treasury department worked with ic partners to find financing sources. he even terrorists require money. it is a common denominator. the designation of leslie who is in the treasury department. she is what we call a national intelligence and mina al -- manager for a threat finance. matt also was here earlier today. i want to commend the national terrorism center which is the primary organization for cataloging all intelligence except that which pertains exclusively to domestic terrorists. it serves as a basis for sharing information about suspected terrorists, applicants, and immigrants. i am pleased to have a matt olsen as an manager for counter- terrorism. matt is already having a huge impact. he is doing great. last but not least, i was saying this one for last, the department of homeland's security. it, too, has its own components. i view them as our principal ties to state, local authorities. we are working to enhance that. a partner with the fbi to lead a threat assessment coordination group. to figure out the best way to get to our state officials. i might mention something as an example where we have come is after we established a community task force to exploit the treasure trove of a media that was picked up at the compound, we set up a task force to get every arabic ministry to get our hands on. the first day of reporting went to state and local entities. i think that is a small anecdote and important one, indicative of the changes we are making. i also want to mention the fusion centers. there are 72 of them which is the local naxos -- nexus for imparting intelligence we collect at a national level. and conveying up words, i will call it street intelligence, which only localit is clearly an progress. let me dwell for a moment on the importance of homeland security and law enforcement, because that is where for most americans we are focused. when i first took this job, i was in joined by many to look for efficiencies and ways to sharpen our focus. one of my reviews, among others, was looking at all the advisory boards and panels. we had a lot of advisers, 250 of them. we had 18 different panels. it was too much. there is just so much advice i can absorb. based on that review, a pared them down from 18 too -- from 18 to 4. fred townsend is on that, and maybe there are others out there. the other 3 boards a cap on technology, on diversity, in the homeland security and law enforcement partners board. just to emphasize the importance a place on that and the unique perspective the people on that panel provide to me. coincidentally, i just met with them last week to receive their input on some key issues. i have found this group to be a gold mine of wisdom and insight in an area i am personally not as well rounded on. so they made a very articulate, eloquent cases for improving the intelligence enterprise domestically. i think you were right on the money. i intend to take that on. by the way, the training, particularly for advanced analysis -- we tried to police the battlefield a little on reporting processes and vehicles. i noticed that this kind of comports with the report which has a number of recommendations for me. i certainly resonate with that. i think there is an issue of how to describe that enterprise, the domestic intelligence enterprise. very important. the other thing that really struck me about this group was their great attention to and sensitivity about the protection of civil liberties. that is also something that we in the intelligence business have to be a little sensitive about. one of those elements is a civil liberty and privacy officer, which is a very crucial position on my staff. i have a police intelligence law enforcement and home and security 32-year veteran on my senior staff. he is essential in directing our homeland security and law enforcement partnership efforts with federal, state, local, and tribal entities. about a year ago, and met with the board of governors from the international association of chiefs of police, another very valued group. that encounter, which was almost -- i actually was down in orlando, i guess. i was originally there just to meet with a conference of all the fbi special agents in charge. i learned that the board of directors was meeting at another hotel, so i went over there. it was a fantastic session. i am engaging with them as well. i have visited state and major urban area fusion centers. i am going to do some more of that in october, three more fusion centers i want to hit. that is just to get me more sensitized to the prospective that the people operating these things have. last spring, i visited sites along the southwest border to better understand our capabilities there, and was tremendously impressed with what i saw. this business of intelligent integration is a big order. but it is something i am very committed to improving. and of course i alluded earlier to the raid and take down of ubl. i would submit that is a classic example of intelligence integration. the cia got a lot of the credit, and deservedly so. lots of publicity. but i would also tell you that were not for nsa, it would not have happened. it is a great example of integration, where the sum is greater than the parts. i am happy to tell you that this sort of integration is becoming more and more routine. we dwell on things here in the beltway, but if you go out to the pointy end of the stick, intelligence integration has become the standard. in the last month and a half, i visited five embassies in delhi, islamabad, couple, and bangkok -- kabul and bangkok. i have been impressed with the roles that chiefs of station played. they are the leaders of intelligence contingents in these agencies. you will find several of the organizations represented at these embassies. two ambassadors of the five, without prompting on my part, mentioned what impact that has had of having a designated leader for intelligence matters at each embassy. the ubl takedown is a visible, dramatic example of this. but i think this kind of goes on a lot. so let me close on it perhaps sobering, but realistic note. that is that despite all we have done in the last 10 years we cannot guarantee we are going to win every day. we just have to recognize that truth. we need that in the intelligence community and as a people. when we are inevitably attacked again someday, we will continue, i believe, to be relentless in going after those who planned coordinated, or executed such an attack. and we must absolutely be resilient. we must not allow anybody or anything to distract us from our mission, our principles, and our values as a country. 135 years ago today marked the end of the infamous james younger gang. in what was called the great northfield minnesota raid, law enforcement officials were waiting for them and gunned them down. younger and his brothers were captured. frank and jesse james were wounded but got away. five years later, jesse was killed for the $5,000 bounty on his head. a few months after that, his brother frank walked into the state capitol building in missouri and turned himself into the governor. he said, "i was tired of an outlaw's life. i had been hunted for 21 years. i had never known a day of a perfect peace. it was an eternal vigil. bark more a dog's fiercely than usual, or at the feet of forces in greater volume, i stood to watch. have you any idea what a man indoors to lead such a life -- endures to lead such a life?" i think it is our job to make every terrorist even more miserable than frank and jesse james' work. something we have underestimated is the effect of six years of isolation on ubl and the effect it had on his leadership of al qaeda. we have put in place some remarkable capabilities and achieve significant successes. it is clearly something we recognize. it is our obligation to do all we can to prevent another attack. we will prevail and we will not relent in that effort. that concludes my remarks. it is great to see you. my thanks again for sponsoring this. from what i have heard, there have been some great panel presentations and some great speakers. thanks very much. enjoy. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> that concludes our conference. plans for participating with us. -- -- thanks for participating with us. >> this weekend, the 10-year anniversary of 9/11, with live coverage from each of the memorial sites. here is our live schedule. saturday at 12:30 p.m. eastern, the flight 93 national memorial dedication ceremony. sunday morning at 8:00 thursday, a memorial from the world trade center site with president obama and former president bush. thus president biden from the pentagon. and honoring those who lost their lives on united flight 93. 9/11 remembered, this weekend on the c-span networks. up next here on c-span, the senate judiciary committee takes up computer data fraud and cyber security legislation. the measure would increase penalties for identity theft. the and a hearing from british parliament on allegations of phone hacking by some british media organizations. the joint congressional deficit reduction committee holds its first meeting tomorrow, with the goal of coming up with recommendations to reduce the federal debt by at least $1.20 trillion. the panel makes opening remarks and votes on committee rules, live at 10:30 eastern on c-span 3. president obama will address a joint session of congress and laid out his latest jobs plan. he is expected to propose an extension of the payroll tax cut and ask for new spending for transportation projects. follow online at facebook .com/cspan. >> book tv features 9/11 authors this weekend. also this weekend, a pillar -- a pulitzer-winning reporter suggests that government efforts to protect america after 9/11 are secretive and dangerous and need to be exposed. she is interviewed by the former undersecretary of defense. dick cheney talks about his experiences during 9/11 and the lessons he has learned since then. you can look at an interview with bob woodward later. find your complete schedules online. next, a hearing on cyber security proposals the would help law-enforcement investigate and prosecute computer data theft. we'll hear from the justice department and secret service. packard -- patrick leahy chairs the committee. the hearing is an hour and 30 minutes. >> good morning. this is a hearing on its cyber crime. we are protecting american consumers and businesses from threats in cyberspace. that has been a priority of this committee for many years, a bipartisan priority. we continue that tradition today. before we start, i want to thank senator grassley, who has worked with me on this. this affects all of us. developing a comprehensive strategy for cyber security is one of the most pressing challenges facing our nation today. i think of the day is not many years ago when you were worried about somebody going into a bank and robbing a bank and getting $20,000. the were usually caught. i think of losing a warehouse. now it is a lot different. in a study released today by symantec, it estimates the price is $114 billion a year. we witnessed major data breaches at sony, the international monetary fund, and lockheed martin, just to name a few. it is not a masked person with a gun walking into a bank. it is somebody sitting even another country away, committing the crime. our government computer networks have not been spared. there have been hacking incidents in the united states senate. also the central intelligence agency website. we can't ignore these threats. we can't ignore the impact on our privacy and security. that is why the committee will carefully examine proposals for new legal tools to outlaw, prosecute, and investigate cyber crime today. i want to commend the men and women at the department of justice and homeland security, and elsewhere across our government, who are on the front lines. every day, they are successfully investigating and disrupting a growing threats to our cyber security. in july, the fbi arrested more than a dozen individuals associated with a group of computer hackers called anonymous after the group launched a series of attacks on government and private networks. the secret service recently announced a successful sever crime investigation that led to the federal indictment of an individual alleged to have packed into the computer system at the massachusetts institute of technology, resulting in the theft of more than 4 million scientific and academic articles. these are just two examples of the accomplishment of the law enforcement community in this area. but with a toronto with greater threats. a recent report by the computer security firm symante forc found that any given day an average of 6797 websites harbor malware or other unwanted programs, an increase of slightly over 25% since june 2011. members of the department of justice and the secret service are here to share their views on this. later, the committee will consider these proposals and other privacy measures in the legislation. i hope the committee will promptly report this legislation on a bipartisan basis, as has been done three times before. we are talking about the security of our nation and our people in cyberspace. we have to work together. this is not a democratic or republican issue. it is a national issue we have to address. i hope all members of congress will join in that. again, i thank the distinguished senator from iowa for his help and yield to him. >> there are a couple of things i did say. i think the fact that majority leader harry reid had a meeting several months ago on various committees that were involved in this, and you and i were involved in that, plus the fact that in our party senator mcconnell has had hearings -- i think that highlights the bipartisanship as well as the national security reasons for these pieces of legislation. the second thing i would say, which i think you have correctly stated -- you and i are very close on this legislation. i can say from the standpoint of this committee, we have worked for a closely with the legislation of the administration. i may have ideas that very a little bit. i will refer to a couple in my remarks. i thank you very much for today's hearing. given the growth of the internet, our society depends on computer systems. this is important. several criminals are no longer confined by the borders of their community, their state, or even their countries. criminals steal personal identities and commit espionage without leaving their homes. several criminals are using the internet to conspire with other criminals. the collaborate to install malicious software, commit network intrusions, and effect, takeovers. they are also targeting point of silk computers at restaurants and retailers to steal millions of credit card numbers, as they did with companies such as tjx, boston market, sports authorities, and many others. moreover, there are online marketplaces that traffic in stolen credit card numbers. cyber criminals also continue to engage in phishing, denial of service attacks, and web application attacks. they are smart and they learn from their mistakes. they learn from its value waiting other attacks and from successful prosecution of their peers. they design relentless new computer viruses and malware as they attempt to say one step ahead of the program. all of these attacks are serious and dangerous to our nation. however, i fear the threats we have not heard about or even thought about will likely be more dangerous and devastating. so we must take these attacks seriously and insure that our critical system infrastructure is well protected from cyber criminals. accordingly, the federal government must take every computer system or potential longer ability seriously. and have asked the department of defense inspector general to promptly investigate allegations that department of defense employees purchased child pornography online and were never adequately investigated. these allegations include employees possibly purchasing child pornography from their own work computers. i remain deeply concerned the department of defense employees would purchase child pornography and continue to work in key positions and maintain high security clearances, putting our systems of work for intrusion. -- at risk for inclusion. i want to know whether these individuals will be brought to justice and whether government systems could be compromised because of criminal behavior. aside from this example, i generally support the efforts of the administration, undertaking to work toward a bipartisan solution on cyber security. i have some concerns with the administration proposal. i also have reservations about how the sweeping policies will be implemented and how much they add to an already large government bureaucracy. i also question the wisdom of some of the personnel appointments to critical positions. for example, the administration recently hired an individual at u.s. cyber command, an agency charged with securing our military computer network. i am concerned they failed to conduct an adequate background investigation of the individual's qualification. if they had, i am confident they would have easily seen that she had played a role in a clinton administration e-mail that was subpoenaed as part of the presidential campaign, or paid thousands of dollars for eighth degree in computer science, insuring our nation's most sensitive networks are safe from its cyber a spinoff should not be assigned to someone who obtained her degrees from a diploma mill. these types of personnel decisions weaken our ability to protect our nation from cyber attacks, putting up -- putting us at risk. they raise questions about whether the administration is serious about protecting our critical infrastructure and computer systems. the external threats continue to target our infrastructure, whether financial services or retail. according to a recent day to breach study conducted by the u.s. secret service and a verizon, 92% of the breeches were from external agents. i appreciate that the secret service continues to combat worldwide server crimes. in 2010, the secret service arrested more than 500 suspects for cyber crime violations involving over $500 million in fraud, and prevented another $7 billion of potential loss. i look forward to hearing how we can improve our protection of cyberspace. i am interested to know how they are working in emerging types of several criminal. i also want to know why they feel they need new bureaucracies and thousands of pages of regulations that could hamper virtually all businesses, large and small, across the country. >> think you very much. our first witness is james baker, an associate of the attorney general at the u.s. department of justice. i know he was planning to be here before for this hearing and we had to cancel and schedule a change. i saw him earlier this morning and am glad he is here. he has worked extensively on all aspects of national security policy and investigations with the department of justice for nearly two decades. he has provided the intelligence community with legal and policy advice for many years. in 2006, he received an award for excellence in counter- terrorism. that is the cia's highest award for counter-terrorism achievement. he taught at harvard law school and the institute of politics. it is always good to have you here. please go ahead. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the department of justice regarding dissever legislation proposal. this committee knows the united states faces complex security threats. the crippled infrastructure of our nation is vulnerable to intrusion could damage national resources and put lives at risk. intruders have stolen confidential information and intellectual property. we see several crime on the rise. criminal syndicates are operating with increasing sophistication to still from innocent americans. more alarming, these intrusions may create future access points to which criminal actors can compromise critical systems during times of crisis or for other nefarious purposes. that is why the administration has developed what we believe is a pragmatic legislative proposal for congress to consider as it moves forward on cyber security legislation. we think the proposal will make important contributions toward improving server security in a number of respects. i would highlight the parts of the proposal aimed at improving the tools we have to fight computer crimes. the proposal includes a handful of changes to criminal laws aimed at better injuring computer crimes can be investigated and punished to the same extent as other similar criminal activity. of particular note, the proposal would make it unlawful to damage or shut down the computer system that manages or controls a critical infrastructure, such as electricity distribution or the water supply. this narrow focused approach is intended to provide deterrence to this potentially life- threatening crime. because cyber crime has become big business for organized crime groups, the proposal would make it clear the racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations act, rico, applies to computer crimes. it would harmonize the fraud and abuse act with other similar laws. for example, acts of wire fraud in the united states carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, but similar cfa provisions carry only three years penalty. this makes no sense. we also want to include not only pass words, but by a metric data, single use pass codes, or smart cards used to access account. the language should also cover credentials to access any confidential computer, not just government systems. there are hospitals and air- traffic control towers, no less worthy of protection. this proposal would help equip law enforcement to fight a key area of its cyber crime, the theft of means of access for the purpose of committing additional crimes. the administration also proposes several amendments related to forfeiture, including adding a civil forfeiture provision. the lack of such a provision currently forces federal prosecutors to use criminal forfeiture authorities in circumstances where civil forfeiture would be more efficient. this position is consistent with other provisions in federal law that have existed for many decades. some have argued that the definition of exceeds authorized access should be restricted to disallow prosecutions based on a violation of contractual agreements with an employer or service provider. we appreciate this view, but are concerned the restricting the statute in this way would make it difficult or impossible to deter and address serious insider threats through prosecution. my written statement goes into this issue in more depth. we have been working with the senators and their staffs to address this issue. this is an important topic, as you know. the country is at risk and there is work to be done to better protect critical infrastructure and improve our ability to stop computer crime. i would ask that my fault written statement be made part of the record of the hearing. >> i appreciate the statement. first will hear from mr. martinez. he served as deputy special agent in charge the united states secret service. in nearly two decades in the secret service, he oversaw the first major cyber operation, operation fire wall, in which over 30 online criminals from across the globe were apprehended. that was very impressive. he is currently responsible for cyber training and intelligence operations conducted by the criminal investigative division. he supervises the new york electronic crimes task force, and oversaw national server crimes. none of these have been just in the locality where you are. he is a 1990 graduate of the virginia military institute, where he received a bachelor in economics, and is a commission in the u.s. army reserves. please go ahead. >> distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this morning's hearing. one of the challenges of producing an analysis of the server criminal underground lies in the diversity of the community. criminals make cluster around the internet chat channels or rooms or web forms. in some cases, it may come from a geographic area. they may know each other in real life. in other instances, the group may be dispersed across the globe and know each other on the on line. many venues are populated by those his abilities are unsophisticated. other more exclusive groups are comprised of members with a decade or more of experience and extensive tact -- context in diverge criminal world. one group may say they are researching and vulnerabilities and developing new exploits as a technical challenge fundamentally related to the basics of computer security. another group may have no interest in underlying technological issues, but will use exploits to intrude into third-party computer systems and harvesting of commercial value. other online criminal communities show even less interest in coaching and exploits, but use the internet as an operating basis, taking advantage of the anonymity and instant communication afforded them. hallmarks' that distinguished effective online criminal groups are organizational structure and access to well- developed criminal infrastructure. one manifestation is found in the online forums that first began to emerge approximately a decade ago. in the early days, these were established by criminals who exploits: financial data. many have strong representation of members from eastern europe. the membership now spans the globe and includes members from multiple continents. by using the built-in capabilities of the forum software, people behind the system are able to set up moderator's and administrators who maintain order at the website. some of these online forms evolved into marketplaces for criminal goods and services. by 2004, there were already well developed criminal marketplaces overseen by an experienced group of the ministers who were often established criminals. in reality, these sites serve as a business platform for a fusion of criminal communities, each of which contributes to the development of organizational capabilities by making a greater variety of criminal services available to members. some major causes of participants include the following broad categories -- carders, hackers, spammers, malware developers, to name just a few. the membership has greatly enhanced the criminal infrastructure available to pursue large-scale criminal activity. this in combination of other developments on the internet presents a global challenge to law enforcement, which has found itself forced to adapt to apprehend and prosecute online criminals. the administration is aware that in order to fully protect american citizens from cyber threats, sections of our laws must be updated. the administration released its proposal to address the security needs of our country. the legislative package proposed by the administration suggests key improvements for law enforcement. complex and sophisticated electronic crimes are perpetrated by online criminals who organize in networks with defined roles to perpetuate ongoing criminal enterprises dedicated to stealing commercial data and selling it for profit. this proposal would better equipped agencies with tools to combat transnational cyber crime by enhancing penalties against criminals that attack infrastructure and by adding computer fraud to recover. -- to rico. the secret service is committed to our mission of safeguarding the nation's financial into structure and a continue to aggressively investigate computer-related crimes to protect american consumers and institutions from harm. this concludes my prepared station -- statement. thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the secret service. >> you have no doubt in your mind these attacks are going to continue, no matter how many you have been able to stop in the past. is that correct? >> yes. >> like most americans, i am concerned about the growing threat of cyber crime. if you have a business, you worry about that. if you're just an average citizen, you worry about somebody stealing your identity, or anything else. i understand the fbi national white collar crime center received more than 300,000 reports of severed from last year, an astounding number. you discussed in your testimony the need to keep the computer crime abuse act up to date. how would the administration proposal update computer fraud and abuse act to insure the statute keeps up with changes in technology? >> in particular, on the question of keeping up with changes in technology, and would focus on the provision regarding trafficking, passwords, and other identifying information. right now, the language is broad enough to enable us to do what we need to do. we think expanding it to include other means of access to computers will clarify the future, as security systems advance and other new technologies are developed to protect access. this would be an easy way to make sure we can actually get at defendant's who were able -- who we are able to bring to court and not have them escape on a technicality because the court thinks the definition is not precise with respect to new technology. that is one example. >> i can imagine decades ago a predecessor of mine being in here talking about how we get these been kroeber's, these train robbers, and others. that is pretty simple. this, i have to assume that no matter how good a defense any major company has, somebody is constantly trying to figure out a way to get around it. is that true? >> that are under constant assault. that is why we had the large number you cited. >> one criticism of the computer fraud and abuse act is that the statute has bent -- this leads from your answer -- it could be used to treat regulate -- relatively innocuous behavior, getting around a service agreement, as a federal offense. what type of assurances do we have, if we passed the statute, that this or future administrations might abuse -- would not abuse the authorities under the law? >> we are accountable to this committee and congress in terms of how we enforce the act. if you look at our whole record with respect to how we have been forced the act over time, i think we have done it in a responsible way. we would be happy to work with the committee to find a way to address those concerns. there are perhaps a variety of things such as increased reporting requirements that might be effective. we are willing to work with you to make sure this committee believes you have appropriate information to enable you to assess how we are enforcing the act. >> you know what i am saying. if you have some kid that takes a card joyriding, you can charge and with a minor offense or grand larceny. most prosecutors would not charge grand larceny. we want you to concentrate on the real server crimes, not the minor things. >> we agree with that. we have limited resources. as you expressed, the threat is large. our resources are limited in terms of the number of people. >> how many investigators and prosecutors are there at the department of justice, investigating and prosecuting server crime? -- cybercrime? >> approximately 230. >> what about investigators? >> the exact number of investigators the fbi has in particular dedicated to this, because of the national security aspect, is classified. we would be happy to share that information with you in a different setting. absolutely. >> do you have sufficient resources? >> i think we can always use more resources. the administration put forward a proposal for fiscal year 2011 that included a request for i think approximately 160 additional personnel and $45 million to go along with it. we want to make sure we have the right resources. this is not something you throw bodies that. you need trained people, developed over time. we need a long-term goal and objective, in terms of bringing people in, training them, and having them be able to work on these issues. >> how many people do you have? and do you have adequate resources? >> we have put over 1400 of our special agents to do some sort of computer training. we take cyber crime as a serious offense. we have been doing this for a while, so much so that part of the training we now provide all special agents when they become agents is a specific 3 leak lot of cyber training. it has become part of our basic training for every special agent that goes through the academy. in addition, with the assistance of the committee, we now have 39 electronic crime task forces throughout the country, 29 domestically and two overseas. in addition, we have partnered with state and local law enforcement officers and provided them with training. we do that training through the national computer forensic institute in hoover, alabama, where we only trained state and local law enforcement on the basic skills of computers. those individuals, when they leave, of the members of our electronic crime task forces throughout the country, or are providing assistance and support to local municipalities to the country. we are proud to say we have had local law enforcement from all 50 states of the union and two u.s. territories. in addition, we train state judges and prosecutors, because we feel as important as it is to train our investigators, it is important to train prosecutors and judges so that judges know how to prosecute these cases. the other thing we have taken with the electronic crime task force model is we have partnered with academic institutions. a good amount of the research and development in this country is done by universities. for the last 12 years, we have been at carnegie-mellon university and have been a member of the software engineering institute, where we work with a federally funded research and development center to develop software and hardware that helps our investigators. in addition to that, we have also partnered with the university of tulsa, where we have a forensic facility, to boost the capabilities of our agents and state and local partners. >> i know my little state of vermont has been involved, so i appreciate that. >> i want to 0 in on cyber attacks on our infrastructure, like power grids, traffic control. these things, where they can be interfered with, control most of our important day to day operations. as such, our criminal law should reflect the need to protect critical infrastructure by sending a signal to would-be criminals that these attacks, even attempted attacks, will not be tolerated. that means not only criminalizing the conduct, but including tough sentences judges cannot play games with. i would like to ask questions along this line. the administration server security proposal includes a new crime for aggravated damage to critical infrastructure. this includes a three-year mandatory prison sentence for those who knowingly cause or attempt to cause damage to the critical infrastructure computer. why did the administration include this mandatory minimum for this crime, but not other crimes? >> because we understand the concern some members of progress have. we believe it was appropriate in this circumstance, given that it is involving damage to critical infrastructure systems the result in substantial impairment of the system. we thought given the gravity of the defense that a mandatory minimum of three years was appropriate in this circumstance. we thought it was a judicious use of the mandatory minimum concept, which is why we attached it to this particular offense. >> we are scheduled to mark up the senate bill. it does not currently include a crime for an aggravated damage to critical infrastructure with a computer. it is my understanding that may be added and marked up. however, i understand it may not include the mandatory minimum. with the department's support including a mandatory minimum as part of the committee process? >> the administration proposal is to include a mandatory minimum. we want to work with congress in this area. we understand the concerns and are happy to work with the committee. if we do think this prohibition, this new criminal offense, is something we do need to try to include. >> this is for mr. martinez. as i stated in my opening remarks, i believe we must take cyber attacks seriously and ensure our infrastructure is well protected from cyber criminals. however, i am concerned we provide too broad a definition for things like sensitive personal identifiable information, and that we made desensitize that information and create complacencies within the public. individuals that constantly receive data breach mortifications from their banks will begin to maybe ignore them. the broad definition of sensitive personal identifiable information could also offer a burden to businesses by requiring them to make unnecessary notification for what amounts to public information that is easily obtainable through internet searches. how does the secret service define sensitive personally identifiable information? >> we identified it the same way it is laid out in the administration bill and as it appears on 1028d7. we also need to take account when we look at what constitutes a date to breach -- it includes the information you are referring to, but it also includes section b, which states that it creates harm or fraud to any individual. that is taken into account with the definition in order to make notification. the other way i think we address it is through triggers. i think there are triggers in the bill that define win notification needs to be made and when it does not. in reference to the broad definition of personally sensitive identifiable information, i will tell you there are individuals in the online criminal community that can take that general information and put it together with additional information i have already compromised to give you better information involving your victim/target. i can take the first and last name of an individual and his home address and provide it to an online criminal data broker and say, "can you run a credit report on an individual at this address with this first initial and last name?" that can really cause harm to the victim. >> if banks involved breached notifications that include nothing more than their mother's maiden name, to you agree this broad definition could potentially desensitize the public perception, and maybe create a boy who cried wolf situation? >> there is a possibility something like that could happen. i go back to the administration proposal that talks about significant risk of harm or fraud. i think the company needs to make sure to take that into account before we start desensitizing these intrusions by sending too many notices. >> if you would support narrowing the definition of that term to cover information that provides significant risk, how would you narrow the definition? >> i believe that in that area, as the department has submitted as part of the administration proposal, it talks about combining the psii information with the second part of it. i would add that section to the bill as it is laid out in the administration proposal. >> if congress were to give rulemaking authority to modify the definition in the future, what agency or combination of agencies would use to just be given that authority? >> i believe the fcc, and i think in consultation with the department of justice, because the department of justice is responsible for prosecuting these cases. i definitely think the ftc. >> incidentally, mr. baker, i think the house of representatives would find it very difficult to accept the mandatory minimum. certainly i do not intend to include it in the bill that i will put forward. just in passing. butnot strong penalties, the mandatory minimum is something that i worry can be abused. >> i want to start by thanking the chairman and the ranking minority for convening this hearing. we have heard from the chairman, from the president, from the new leaders in the private and public sector that this is one of the most grave threats facing our nation, that the number and complexity of crimes continue to grow, and the impact on victims continues to grow. i am glad we are continuing to press on this. i hope we will take the opportunity to move in a bipartisan and responsible way to amend this in ways that deal with lack of clarity, but to also strengthen the tools available to law enforcement. i want to focus on a few simple points. one is about training and the skill set available in the department of justice and secret service. i was struck, mr. martinez, in your written testimony, about the scope available of training to agents, the institute in alabama that i know delaware law enforcement has benefited from, as well as many states. but i am concerned about the death -- the depth and breadth of training. there was a report from the department of justice which suggested the joint task force, a third of the agents engaged lacked the necessary expertise in networking and counterintelligence to be able to effectively participate, and many of the field offices lacked the forensic and analytical capability. i am clear that the training is expensive. we have lots of other things in our needs list for the country. but this strikes me as a critical need. i would be interested in comments about what we can and should be doing to strengthen the depth and breadth of training by law enforcement. as a follow-up, i think you have a reserve commission. in delaware, we have a national guard unit that takes use of a lot of private sector skills in our financial security system to bring them in as a resource. i wondered if you might comment on the possibilities or risks of in gauging the national reserve as a way to get some of the most skilled private-sector folks engaged in some of the national security-relevant pieces of ongoing forensic and network defense and investigations, if you mind. >> it is an expensive undertaking to get folks trained. that is why we try to force multiplied, working with our partners. cyber crime is not something that can be solved by one organization. we have to work in a collaborative way. that is what we have been trying to do with their task forces, a partner in the state, local, and federal partners, and bringing the private sector in. there is a section of the administration proposal which talks about having folks from the private sector come in and assist government. there is probably some mechanism being used in other parts of the government that can be used to help here. one of the other issues we c from server crime is a lot of involvement from criminal organizations. speaking about the national guard, there is something we could look into that is similar to some of the activity that other department of justice organization of law-enforcement organizations have done in the past with the assistance of some national guard entities in other parts of the country, and specifically in the area of linguistic capabilities. a lot of these criminals are eastern european and speak russian or a russian dialect. is it is not a way to get the same model for language translation and have that supplement what we do in cyber crime. these individuals primarily communicate through some type of online method, whether it is instant message, e-mail, or peer to peer. that would be a good venue to get that legalistic capability up to speed and use it further. >> i would be happy to work with you in furthering that. >> a couple of quick comments to amplify that. with respect to the national guard, i agree we need to use all available resources. a key is to make sure we understand what how they are wearing when they are engaged in that role and that it is consistent with executive-branch policy, and to make sure we have a corporate privacy protections and oversights, when any element of dod is engaged in those activities. i agree

Related Keywords

Vietnam ,Republic Of ,Alabama ,United States ,Langley ,Virginia ,Vermont ,Delaware ,Minnesota ,China ,California ,New Mexico ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Kabul ,Kabol ,Afghanistan ,West Virginia ,Amsterdam ,Noord Holland ,Netherlands ,Mexico ,India ,Egypt ,South Carolina ,Morocco ,Massachusetts ,Iowa ,Sacramento ,Libya ,Ireland ,New York ,Canada ,Germany ,Missouri ,Texas ,Iran ,Islamabad ,Pakistan ,Kentucky ,Boston ,Illinois ,Delhi ,Toronto ,Ontario ,Michigan ,Mississippi ,United Kingdom ,Tunisia ,Oklahoma ,Iraq ,Baghdad ,Town Hall ,Bangkok ,Krung Thep Mahanakhon ,Thailand ,Lubbock ,Bastrop ,Saudi Arabia ,Yemen ,France ,Kuwait ,Americans ,Moroccans ,America ,Egyptians ,Iraqi ,British ,American ,Texans ,Russian ,Libyans ,Egyptian ,German ,Libyan ,Yemeni ,Irish ,Erie Canal Loc ,Torah Bora ,Fred Townsend ,Mike Rogers ,John Brennan ,Jesse James ,James Baker ,David Petraeus ,Jim Clyburn ,William Johnson ,Morgan Griffith ,Al Qaeda ,Henry Clay ,Dick Cheney ,Kim Dozier ,Ray Kelly ,Kristi Noem ,John Carter ,Tom Scott ,Los Angeles ,Jesse Jame ,Janet Napolitano ,Bob Woodward ,Harry Reid ,Judy Woodruff ,Packard Patrick Leahy ,Amina Al ,David Mckinley ,Oakland Miami ,Sam Smith ,Jackson Lee ,Sheila Jackson Lee ,