Transcripts For CSPAN2 Tonight From Washington 20120912

israeli military talks about iran's nuclear ambitions. been a house hearing on screening visitors for potential terrorists. and from today's "washington journal," a look at what kind of threat is still pose i al qaeda. >> the former commander in chief of the israeli defense forces said today that the best approach to preventing iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomatic talks and tougher sanctions. he said he didn't support setting a deadline. from the brookings institution, this is an hour and 25 minutes. >> good morning. welcome to the center of the brookings institution. i intend paula, a senior fellow of the sublime center. welcome on this very solemn anniversary. we are here today to deal with another topic of immense importance to america's national security. one very different from the anniversary that we are celebrating but one that obviously pretends to have a similar impact if it goes the wrong way. and, of course, one of the great issues that we're wrestling with is exactly what does it mean for it to go the wrong way? what constitutes the wrong way? here in united states and in the middle east there is enormous debate over how to handle iran's pursuit of a nuclear enrichment capability, a capability which would give iran the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons if they chose to do so. and obvious a this is an issue that's been with us for a very long time. i remember i first encountered it in immediate aftermath of the gulf war in 1991 when israel purchased 25 longer-range f-15 e. strike fighters. and those fighters were designated not f-15 e., but f-15-i. and the manufacture said that the i was for israel. if you spoke to israeli air force pilots and commanders, what the uniform would say to you is now now now that i is for iraq. this is an issue, this is a problem, it is a threat that the israelis have been thinking about for a very long time. they has been a great deal of effort trying to figure out how to develop a military option to disarm iran, to destroy its nuclear program if they ever chose to do so. and they've been working very deciduous lead at the. but by the same token, you will have noticed that while this is been a topic of an active conversation, some sense is going all the way back to 1991 at the very least, since 2002, israel has not yet exercise that option. it has not done so for good reason. there are all kinds of good reasons not to strike and all kinds of bad reasons involved in a straight. and this is created a conundrum for israel and it has created a conundrum for israel's allies in the region and out. and it is why to this day as iran continues to move forward in defiance of united nations security council resolutions, israelis and their friends, first among them the united states of america, continues to debate whether rice course -- the right course of action is. today we're absolutely delighted to have with us lieutenant general trampling. general houses is well-known to most in his audience. i will simply point out that after a long career in the israeli air force, general haloutz growth to be the chief of staff first of the iaf and then later of the idf, israeli air force and the israeli defense forces. and in those two jobs he served as two of the seniormost israeli military officers responsible for making decisions related to things like a strike on iran. for that reason his experience makes him uniquely qualified to offer insights into this issue ever actually decided to have general haloutz with us today. i'd like to start by welcoming general haloutz to the podium. you make some remarks, if any i will have a bit of a conversation and then will open up things to all of you. before i do that though let me just ask everyone to please set your faces to stun. please turn your cell phones offer at least two sided so we can have a good conversation, and everyone could hear what general haloutz has to say. general, please, the floor is yours. [applause] >> i have to shut my phone as well. well, first, 11 years ago we woke up to a new era after the very tragic terror attack on the twins in new york, and i think that the world was complete be changed since then. and the major goal of every one of us is to try and do the maximum in order to prevent such events from happening again. so all the sympathy to the families and to the victims of this great nation. well, a few remarks about the hot potato. first the i is for independence. independence in all aspects, even to take decisions. i would say that the most bothering thing, in my view, that the iranian case became a political issue instead of stay as a pure security defense issue that should be addressed regardless of your political view. and if such a thing, i think the most interesting issue at the top of the news at the top of the concerns of many nations becomes the question of likud or labor party or democrats and republicans, i bought it anyway. it means that if someone is going to be elected, he's not going to do anything but he's going to do nothing about it. and if other one would be elected he will do everything. so it's not about everything and not about nothing. it's about doing the right thing. and what is the right thing to do, that's the question. i think that too much is said publicly, and the discussion over the iranian case exposed to much of the operational abilities, plans, not to the details but they give a very general description of what can be done, what should be done, et cetera, et cetera. and in a way it's kind of irresponsibility of those who spoke so much about it. and i'm not going to address none of those issues. not about airplanes, not about bombs, not about penetration, not about anything. i think that in this forum, and many other forums aside the forum behind closed doors, we have to keep our mouths shut a little bit, and to deal with the strategic points of this problem. the alliance with u.s. is the most important and strategic asset to israel, and that we have to keep in mind. and i think while saying it, that any decision, if and when it will be taken, should take into consideration this top priority thing of keeping the alliance with the u.s. strong and reliable. reliable takes me to the most interesting problem that i see, that reliability is not the strongest point between the sides right now. each one is expecting the other side, each side suspecting the other side it's not putting all the cards on the table, and doing things behind the back, et cetera, et cetera. and i think that we have to reveal the understanding between the side, to review in order to enable us all to get to the right decision and the right timing. and it's all about timing, because we have two scales. the israeli scale and the american skew. and those two scales are not meeting for the time being unless one watch will stop, and then the other one will reach the same time. but so far as long as both of them are rolling in different speed, there is a big argument about timetable, or the time left to take the right things to the right measures, vis-à-vis the iranian case. i think that the policy, based on three phases, three faces, diplomacy, sanctions, and use of force is the right policy. the question if we are doing it in a row, or we're doing some of the in parliament, in order to save time we should do some things in parallel and not to do it in a row. and more than that we have to elaborate a little bit, what is diplomacy, what is sanctions, to what extent? we can see the canadian example about diplomacy and we can see some other examples about diplomacy. what is the right diplomacy? i think that the right diplomacy is to isolate, one, you want to use those things, and international isolation is the most important thing, and followed by sanctions, and sanctions should impact first of all the regime. because we have nothing against the iranian people. by saying we, i think i'm covering everyone. not against iranian people. i remember myself in 1972, spending two weeks together with iranian pilots in tehran, using f. forced simulated because the iranian was the only one band that had the money to buy the most expensive simulator that the americans produced. so we were sent there to have some training. and i found that they are human beings like us. very well-educated, very polite, smart people. and want to live. the rest from my father who is from iranian origin, and he told me the stories about his background in this country. unfortunately nowadays we can't visit their but i hope in the future we will be able. anyhow, sanctions. diplomacy, sanctions, and use of force. use of force is not just saying that the state should be on the table. that's a very nice slogan, but we have to give it more -- more explanation. what do we mean when we are saying stick on the table? absolutely should be the last, last, last, last option, in my view. and never use force before you must use force. but when it comes to the use of force, i think put a stick on the table, has some real activity. it can be done before using the force. for example, force projection, exercises, training, together with others, just to show that each one is backing the other. i think that reducing the volume for the size of the exercise between the israeli forces and the american forces is an indication the wrong direction. instead of increasing the volume, it is straining. nothing but straining. force projection, i don't have to explain your what is the meaning, but someone on the other side should see visually through the media, and by other means, that we mean business. because i can't see how you could convince the iranians only through diplomacy to come to the table, negotiate and agree on something. the coffee indian is a great coffee, but meeting in vienna every month to drink coffee doesn't bring solution to the problem. we have to find other ways, and other ways is combination of diplomacy, strong diplomacy and diplomacy is not related only to the iranians. we are speaking diplomacy with to build a front. the relevant front, and the relevant front includes china, includes russia, includes india, includes many of the forces which have meaningful way on the decision-making progress -- process. it's not a problem of u.s. and israel. it's a problem of the entire world. because the iranian case is not israeli case. it's not the american case. it's not saudi arabia case. it's middle piece, it's europe, and it's the entire community, free society. all those who are interested in free society should be interested in preventing the iranians from having nuclear weapons or because, one, they're going to have it. it will open a nuclear weapon race in the middle east, in my view. then the turks will fall and the egyptians will follow, and the saudis will follow. no one will leave them alone in this region to be the original superpower. no one. and we have to ask ourselves is that we want to achieve your my answer is of course negative, no, we don't want it. the redline policy, i think that red lines are read the moment that you are drawing them. but when you come to take the decision according to the redline you may find out that the color is not read anymore. it can be black, it can be green, it can be blue. because situation is changing. we are living in a very dynamic world, very dynamic. every morning new news. and you cannot escape to a decision that was taken at a specific time and act accordingly later on. because you have to prejudge all the factors, all the facts, all the ingredients, all the elements, and come to a decision, real-time decision, that shows that you are addressing the real-time problem, and not a problem that you face a few months ago, a few years ago. more than that, i think that giving lines, enabling the other side to bypass the lines, so don't draw the lines in order to enable them to know exactly where are the borders. now. keep some uncertainty, and uncertainty is confusing the other side. it's not -- stop confusing yourself if you're making decisions or so. lead to confusion to the other side. we must create a decision-making process that will integrate the interests of all participants. you know, in this case i in the how they are electing a new power. nothing in the room. nothing supplied to them into the white smock is coming out of the window. -- white smoke is coming out of the window. so i'm looking out the window for those organization nations, people, who should sit together, agree upon the facts first of all. agree upon the facts, and once agreeing upon the facts, then agree upon the decision. but as long as we don't agree about the facts, no doubt we will find yourself with the decision that should be taken. i wrote down one of the issues that we agree upon. we agree upon the nuclear iran is unacceptable. we agree upon that the iranian is to moving on with her program. that nuclear iran will enhance other middle east countries to enter into this race. we agree that diplomacy and sanctions first. we didn't agree yet, and i will come to, what is the meaning of sanctions. and we agree that use of force should be prepared, displayed, but not used but as a last resort. last, last, last, last. mini lasts should be added before using the force. because using the force is not promising anyone that we will end forever the iranian nuclear program. depends of course on achievements, and i'm not going to enter into it, but i want to say one thing which is very important to all decision makers. never underestimate the israeli capability. without i, i think that israel is a strong country with a lot of options. on what we are not agreeing so far, on timetable first. who should do it, and how to handle decision-making process. those are the three elements in my view which are the most important. agree with timetable, that's a challenge, who should do it, i think we should put it aside for time being, and how to handle the decision-making process, which is very important for the participants, and i believe that the participants who were on this table should be more than israelis and americans are because as much partners as can be recruited to this job with this mission, as better the results will be. will be from all aspects, from the international results and the pr results, or how it looks to the world. i will stop now. the 10 minute you gave me, and join you. thank you. glaad. >> thank you, general. i think you set the stage nicely. there were a number of points on wanted to pick up upon before we opened up to the questions from the audience. and the first one was this. you said force should only be indeed. .. .., last resort. i think i got all the lasts together. about five. if i missed a last. but you also said that the talks so far are not producing anything useful, just a lot of people drinking could be a needs -- coffee. what needs to go into that gap? what more would you like to see the united states the international community doing to produce perhaps better negotiation that you seem to have in mind? what is it that we're not doing now that we ought to be to fill that gap? >> well, i believe first of all that sanctions are connected in a way. first of all, in order to have more effective sanctions you have two recruit more partners for sanctions. so far when the iranians are trying to export their oil without buyers, who are those buyers? may be to convince them to buy the oil from different resources, other resources. and to buy them into the treaty that you impose sanctions. second sanction, one of the sanction, you know, two days ago it was mentioned that iranian currency was dropped by 8%. and asked myself how many iranians are keeping dollars in their safes if there bothers an% collapse of the real. very few. those -- [inaudible] but the average is looking for his family, how defeat them. and went to bring the iranian to the dilemma of bread. been this point without starving anyone of course, we have to do it in the most humanly way. but unless we bring them to this dilemma, the leadership, because once you bring them to this dilemma, then you will see the people are saying something. so far the people are saying nothing. so we have to motivate the people to look around and see what is going on with him because the regime decided to grow on with the project which is unacceptable to the world. sanctions are not only oil and materials for weapons, for nuclear weapons. sanctions, there is a long list, thousands of items can be added constantly. i don't want to mention -- i don't want to go through this, but i'll mention one. for example, the iranian airlines is beginning to fly to the western countries. it's a part of the negotiations in vienna, okay? do something about. iranian ships which are shipping across the ocean under the flag of existing country, or existing countries, but unknown countries. that's how it is done. et cetera, et cetera. and the least is impacting a lot of the iranian civilization. and that's the problem, or the dilemma. the specific things which are pinpointed, just the regime itself, would be the best. but such doesn't exist. we have to be more sharp and sanctions. and as i say, together with diplomacy, that diplomacy is two different faces. one is the country that already agreed, like canada, and see how many will join. second is to collect other forces, so far to be a part of the. some in south america, i would like to see brazil their, see russia, see china, see india, et cetera, et cetera. the leader of the world economy, because if the leaders are not going to be a part of this, the sanctions take time to be effective. >> there's another idea out there, more than an idea, it's reality. you may have noticed, general, that some scenes be killing a lot of iranian scientists. a lot of iranian computers seem to be malfunctioning, and a lot of people who seem to believe that there are some countries out there that are deliberately doing this. >> it was mentioned somewhere? >> people have all these wild conspiracy theories as you know in the middle east, but let's take this as an idea. you know there's a debate related to covert operations, maybe they make less more likely an alternative source of pressure on regime, that's one argument. another argument is it's the kind of thing that could provoke the iran regime and start an unintended clash. what's your feeling about whether or not this is a useful way to try to close that gap that you were describing? >> first of all, i think that the underworld campaign is part of a campaign. it's not secret that the iranians are already 10 years, two years ahead. and the delay was achieved, according to some, were done by, i don't know whom, maybe it was so far successful. but the recent into this success, at the end of the day, the iranians students who are attending the western universities, in high quantities, will be well educated how to develop methods and systems to prevent another area of sanctions. .. i don't think in our world we should look at it as a trivial solution. unless they're doing some thing, which is strongly against international bow. in this case, we have the option. we can do it, but we have to prove. otherwise we are leaving it to the interpretation of individuals or countries, it better. you may find apartment to any leader in the world, so let's stay within the limits, within the cultural limits that we are given. >> let me, if i may, move back to this narrow question of the use of force. he didn't rule it out. you put it at the variant of the spectrum, but she didn't rule it out. he made clear your views, think that made sense. anyone in these positions knows that what looks very clear about moment in time can look very blurry at another point. but i would like you to kind of help an american audience understand a bit better how an israeli leadership might think about when you've reached at last, alaska my last resort. so without going into specifics, this is a matter of analysis. when does the benefits outweigh the costs and risks in operation? said give us you could send send of events out there come at infected have been it would ship that calculates to the extent where you think a conversation about the use of force. if you are back your job as chief of staff, when would you go to the prime minister said mr. prime minister or not, we have to strike. but mr. prime minister, now is the moment when we had to have a conversation about whether our current course continues to make sense or whether we need to shift to a different course because of something that happened. >> first of all, when they see a vast, laughs, laughs, it's nothing to do with that. it is represented mainly the level in each area. if we came within the week, we'll finish all successfully. okay, and not being achieved. maybe in two weeks will come. it means you are maximizing the author is another area and building the forest. you are building the abilities, not just a. i'm sure, by the way, that all those involved of the pledge involved. because otherwise they're not paying their salary. regarding the second part of the question, i think any answer i gave was he to match. when will be the point i would go to if i was then? i would say that the basic problem right now is the past experience of the different organizations, which are taken care of, the information to be provided to the leaders. and the u.s., you have the memory of saddam hussein and unconventional weapons. so i assume that they will come and say there is a green line only where per share 100%. there is no hundred%. and in this case, maybe it's different. so in israel, it's all case. i'm sure that no hundred%, hundred%, 99 is enough. okay? and that's without knowing what's going on now within those establishments. but i see them as human beings there was an organization gave information that led into operation and information was found to be not the most accurate one. it put hesitation next time. so generally speaking, when the ceiling is put the sword is on the run at the time. >> let's talk about the formula, though. let me see if i can pressure a little bit on that. when we think of threat, we talk about capabilities and intentions. >> yeah. >> when you think about iraq and not last resort, which side do you wait, one side or the other more heavily. is it the intention more troubling to you? the capabilities and again this gets back to the previous question of which might cause israel to shift and decide we need to move in? is similar something related to iran's capabilities or something related to the iranian detentions? >> the problem is the current combination will change in the future. right now the combination we have of their extremist regime with their extreme declaration states, et cetera, vis-à-vis israel and vis-à-vis the others by the way -- the others were claiming for elimination. only opinionated one with time being for the iranians in israel. they csi the last. so extreme regime with weapons of mass destruction is the combination that very few are ready to the on this other combination. i'm not saying the first thing in the morning after they will have a nuclear weapon, they will wake up and ahmadinejad will push the red button. but i would say that in different combination, the very stable regime, logical one, moderate one, such a weapon in this existence among other places in the world. we rely on the decision-makers rely on the system. the problem is we don't rely on the decision-makers to take the rights of citizens and the right time. so we can change the regime. or delay the project. >> want to teach quantize jicama questions for the first is a direct follow-on to what you just said. it's an unfair question, but i want to push you on this. because first elections on june 14th. imagine two wildly different scenarios, neither of which i expect to happen, but again just to sort of perhaps they should think a little bit to give us a better sense of how your thinking about this. imagine on june 14, somehow miraculously mahmoud abbas is reelected president of iran announces his first act is going to be a rapprochement with the international community to see the sanctions lifted by addressing the international community fears about nuclear weapons. and the alternative, much on june 14, costs until the money is elected president and announces he will do everything in iran's power to see iran protected. how do those two changes affect israel's calculus click >> the positive in this scenario is time. that's first. option one, okay. i think even myself if i was going to do it. the only pastor that maybe i can get is a man. option two will speed up the need to take the aggressive measures. of course it should be carefully checked, carefully assessed, et cetera, et cetera. before election and most of the cases i won't use afterwards. the american embassy in jerusalem. >> i thought you were going to say that. >> so those are words we have to believe the words that with all respect, when they are used, whether they're used for politics. >> okay folks, if you can up the level on general haloutz's microphone, we'd appreciate it. please continue. >> so anyhow, i would say that we have to be careful with the publicity done before election in order to be alert to and someone will do after election. it's not always 100% correlated. >> okay, last question. if you initiate that i think we all here in washington recognized as being related, but we very rarely talk about in terms of the actual relationship. syria and how it plays calculus. obviously theory that is enormous issue for israel all by itself, but there's also a very important connection to the iranian regime. i was hoping to intercept the background, take us through a little bit how israel is thinking how hot the leadership is thinking about syria, the threats, opportunities there and now it is related to this iranian issue we've been talking about. >> well, the known chain of iran, syria, lebanon, hezbollah is not one and i believe that once the syrian bloc is going to be taken from this world, from this chain it will influence romantically over the iranians strikes in the middle east while their ability to use their proxy and hezbollah real-time or by remote whenever they want will change hezbollah on the situation lebanon without seeing them on a daily basis. although based on the replacement it is a completely different replacement. one thing should be sad, that iran is the only sheer country in the world and hezbollah is a shia organization and a multi-religion country like lebanon. as it looks now, most of those who are protesting and this serious regime, sunnis. so in this respect, i believe there is now way in, but when the machine is placed we see something mail. it's going to be better, the same or worse than any place that gives you at least 3% a chance for better. and i am looking for this 3% as an option and there's high chance, by the way. there's lots of reasons for 3%. anyhow, it is connected to the entire uranium problem because if you release the food stamp in syria, partially in lebanon will reconsider the position. i don't know if that will reflect the nuclear program, but it will do something to the iranian leadership and they will have to reshape their policy and diplomacy. to what extent? god knows, allah knows. >> very good. let's open things up to the audience. if you raise your hand, i will call on people and pairs, actually maybe wilco with trios. i want to get a lot of people in. so we'll take three at a time if everyone could identify their name and affiliation so general haloutz knows where you're from and then please ask a question, single question as opposed to a statement where you inflict your voice at the end. >> thank you, ken. general haloutz, i am from the cards to the newspaper and a question to you, general is the media ran and nuclear program is spread over thousands of site across the country that is three times of iraq. that would require a sustained bombing that will go on and the weeks, but perhaps months. today the capability to go that alone? thank you, mr. chairman. >> my name is how fond i was born in tehran. i am very happy that the persian empire gave a free pass to your ancestors to come to iran and your grandfather to shira. that's the land of love. [laughter] the question is this, do we have 7 million people in the world right now, the population since january 2012. and the middle they distort the portion may be 300 million or a small portion of what the world population is. but how could we as a kind of minority population kind of form to big events after all if a war happens in that area will affect 7 billion people. could we not all of us be able to sit face to face and see what is hurting us or what is 18 nice and then come up to some kind of a solution, which every human looking for, which is pursuit of happiness and freedom and providing for their children. thank you. >> will go right to this gentleman here in the turquoise shirt. >> thanks. i might pass back. my question is your talking about the importance of mobilizing iranian citizens against the regime. we thought recently that wasn't quite so affect kids and iranian protest i'm wondering how you think we may build to resolve against the government if it is successful this time. >> why do we take some responses? >> the iranians learned the lessons of the iraq is and yeah, iran is a huge country, very nice country and it was a very interesting terrain and the iranian are doing all their efforts to spread their program located in very difficult place is frowned attacker quality. i didn't speak about israel. i spoke about use of force. and i say that one of the things that use of force, just in case. remember, i am not pushing anyone that attacks iran today and even not tomorrow. use of force by all those who are interested in preventing iran. i think that all those had the ability to do it. regarding face-to-face, yeah, our faces ready. the question is that it faces ready to sit around the table and to discuss everything. you know, when you're coming into the discussion, it could even take. the question is what someone has to offer in order to give and what they want in order to take. that's the problem in the middle east for us there's no reason to enter the same room. if we want to discuss seriously. it is not a secret if we were sitting and we are sitting, with many of our neighbors around the table. we had few achievements, disagreement with egypt and find disagreement with jourdan in the future -- the near future if the palestinians closer together what the israelis and will appeal reach agreement. things have come and gone, but in this place the iranians, not because we had any direct conflict, just to remind ourselves that 34 years ago under the shock, the relation between israel and iran were the best in the middle east. okay? we were altering many, many a dvds. and this the wheel of history still works, maybe the future will bring us better news. so far it looks that the gap is huge. we need the intermediaries. regarding the iranian people. you know, but some pain beyond my knowledge and beyond my expertise. we saw last year or year ago -- a little over a year but the iranian opposition tried to do something. but there was too little and they didn't have enough energy to keep the momentum. i don't know if that all but the assistant or help that they would get, that they receive. i don't know. no doubt there are forces in advance that are active, the attitude of the current regime. i think iran as i remember was on the way to be a more western oriented country, more open liberal country and everything full text very sharp and 78. i believe -- i'm optimistic. i believe the future will change. i don't know how much to take. total control of iran and that was in the past. we see it now from 78. it will go back to the history of iran, will say that it's happened. clerics, religion people controlled the country. >> will go with marker. >> marker water from the "pbs newshour." today, prime minister netanyahu said those who refuse to draw a red line to iran don't have the moral right to put a red light to israel. why do you think he is demanding publicly that president obama sent a red line to iran and are you saying you think that's a mistake? >> trudy rubin, the "philadelphia inquirer." follow it onto marcus question, i would like to ask you what you feel the predominate feeling is inside the israeli security about what is the real nature of the threat that iran presents to israel. the prime minister has produced an apocalyptic terms and the rhetoric makes it easy to adopt that position. the iranian intent is to a breakup capacity and they couldn't dare to hit israel because they destroyed our solemn, 2 million palestinians and ensure that part of their country was abbreviated. how do you think the predominate feeling among security experts within israel tends to be one way or the other? >> in previous cases, those on the iranian past decade than with other threats reportedly dealt with by israel, we've never seen this kind of discord we've seen in the past year. what do you think it is that it's changed? we hear so many voices coming out of israel, discussing not only politics and decisions mentioned, the possible decisions, but the security aspects during the operation. what is changed in three years ago with the iranian question is also paramount in your experience? >> three great questions. what changed? three years. three years time with use and this time they made a progress. and you know, what do you rate the answer is looking for the policy of locking on the edge was a successful policy for the last 10 years. they did 10 years of doing and doing and doing. and in the end, they were complete. so that's the reason why the voices is higher. as saying that is another story. i'm not sure to criticize my prime minister. i'm saying that very loud and clear. he's my prime minister and his decision will impact me as others and regardless of five quote for him or not, the israeli prime minister was elected in a democratic way and as long as the city and its chair, he has the right to take the decisions and to implement. no doubt the iranian case is very unique one. i say what i think about redlines. end of quote in this won't make a survey about redlines policy, go find out that in the world there may be one example of red line that was successful. maybe even in this case i'm not sure. from the israeli side face a choice to the red line and twice we feel that the redline. with the red one to lebanon and through 2000 we didn't act accordingly i would put a kind of redline when we withdraw from gaza, the disengagement from gaza. breadline is rad. the day after the colors changed, red becomes pink and pink becomes white. i think as i said, i'm not criticizing my prime minister because he is my prime minister, but i am criticizing breadline policies. i think the redline, to ask them to put the redline to the end is something not large. and the famous republican say when you have a shoot, shoot. don't put redlines if you have any intention. i do not think -- by the way, redlines can be save and close tool. call the other side and say look, you know the balance of force. you know what can happen. if you go to aa, b., c. because when things are done publicly, we are human beings. the fact that someone is the leader doesn't change human care bears. on the contrary in some cases it increases. and if you are drawing redlines the washington paths were the nbc or cnn, the other side will be first of all insulted. they will react emotionally and not rationally. we are looking at the brain of those people. [inaudible] >> hayek and james k. bell, national journal magazine here thanks for doing this. you mentioned you are disappointed the issues of u.s. were caught up in politics than i've seen that for a degree. i am curious whether you think the israeli leadership, because we can blame our politicians. i'm curious why you think the israeli leadership has some blame in not. and do you worry that if this is allowed to go unchecked that it will affect the nation nature and character of our relationship? >> let's try in the back. is that michael may be with their hand up? >> michael adler from the wilson center. thank you for coming. you spoke about importance of the u.s.-israeli alliance. at what point would israel step away from that? in other words, how much discord could there be if israel felt it had to react if the united states is saying don't act. and the gentleman here in the pink. >> thank you. from carnegie. i'm wondering if you could talk about the slew of issues that the strike could be possible october surprise is in the upcoming presidential elections this year. >> an october surprise for the american presidential elections. surprise for barack. >> regarding the relation. i say that i will say it again. the importance of the relation, but good relation between the american people and the american administration is the israeli administration is on the highest importance of israel. now i don't think that the blame should be put on one side. incline me to hide. it is falling from the three that she climbed on. there is a way to reduce the pension and the way of insight to mature people, discussed it openly and agree on what we agree and disagree on what we disagree. even in good relations, there are some disagreements. and disagreements are not causa turned up all the good relations that do exist in other areas. we have to conserve between different establishments and i think in some areas the relations are excellent. some areas, namely the political era suffers from decoration and council declaration here and there appeared some of them are serving the internal politics of the country. some of them are serving the cases so. even though i think that the mutual interest of disciplines are stronger than the dispute between the small gaps or cracks in the wall of good relation. once again, i don't think that the words to be used to blame this side in this percentage in the other side on the other% of the whole hundred. one time when sybase. all the responsibility and the other side is carry the responsibility of those seismic mistakes. they should've been saved. it said publicly and openly and strong -- two strong. october -- i don't know what kind of surprise someone would expect in october. my surprise in october is my wife will ask me to go do vacation. that's the only surprise that i'm going to face. no other surprise to my knowledge. you know, surprises are surprises even if you know that they're going to happen. my personal assessment is based on no real-time information and not only people. my feeling is no one will surprise no one near future. it is the feeling, not a knowledge. the feeling based on knowing the systems and how the decisions are taken in, et cetera, et cetera. but god knows. >> will take it down here to the gentleman in the blue. >> hi, joe guggenheim, just an individual citizen. as you said, general, there's always a little disputes as to what the actual facts are with the iranian nuclear program. besides i understand, the u.s. government is saying that everything that's been done so by baby raimi and his consistent with just peaceful uses and they have not made any decision or taken any steps towards nuclear weapons. in that regard also, the supreme leader, the ayatollah has said that it would be a fatwa for iran to have a nuclear bomb and a person or send to happen. how do you evaluate that? had you think it might affect negotiations? >> i think we meant a long time ago. i admire your good deft handling of the domestic handling. they're very tricky right now and i agree with you totally. if we only stop talking about this issue, and be a lot easier to deal with it. but that's not going to work in either country. so let me ask you this question. she knew a margin 10 years from now, after perhaps a war with iran, perhaps not come a lot of other things we can imagine right now. can you imagine israel and the united states relationship having deteriorated to the point where we are still friends, we have links, but we no longer can in any sense be called allies. >> thanks very much. and garrett mitchell and i write the mitchell report. the way to raise the subject site he off-topic and the were you may have covered before i got here 30 minutes late next having spent an hour and a half for tens of thousands of my best friends to meeting this morning. and the question is this, it appears as though the near term and medium-term results of the arab awakening, as it's called here is that the islamists will become the primary players and politics in those countries surrounding you. and my question is first in the israeli perspective and second from the american days. do you view that as a positive, negative or somewhere in between. >> general. >> i cannot imagine it 10 years years -- [inaudible] >> can you speak up a little bit? >> have a lot to do with that. and of course, the american side as well. but i can't imagine because in my view it's a strategic asset. it's not only on the material side of it. so i don't want to think about such development. and i'll be aware that we are taking away the direction and do everything possible to shift it back to the right place because it's very important that biondo says that any material aspects. that's first. you know, the fact that the islamic world concerned right now with 1.25 billion people. the non-fact. and we have to get used to it and we had defined the golden path to live with this the fact. most of them -- most of them want to live like us. we may find islamists among all of us. we don't have to go to iran to sign. we can go to oklahoma or jerusalem or to the west to find excellence. the problem is not with the religion. the problem is with the ambition is of the leadership of this country is. some of them were to impose their beliefs on the rest of the world. some of them. and we have to fight those. and i think that there is a way. i don't think there is no way to live together in a peaceful way. you know, we talk about muslims taking over. we have many examples and countries worldwide. they are not one unit. they are clued in this religion, but they are not one unit. a different origin from different culture, the indonesian and the indians who are muslims, the chinese are muslims. okay, there are many christians worldwide, but there is no point unit. we can even have different languages, et cetera, et cetera. it is not right name. it's encouraging to find the right way how to deal with those different nations. we are facing a different team because when the religion and political ambitions are combined , that creates a problem for us. and i will say no and it will reset whatever ops. israel is not yet accepted in the middle east. it is not yet accepted in the middle east and that's the reason why we have to be stronger, the reason why we have to fight any sign of changing the balances. once would be accepted and embraced by her neighborhood had it will be a completely different story. now, about the american standpoint regarding the opinions of what they're doing with nuclear. excuse me, i never even the establishments of the iranians have nuclear military and parallel to the other. and regarding fatwa, i really respect the carron and i read it. but they're a fatwa was an anti-fox was. depends who is the ayatollah, who wrote the fatwa. the fatwa and the contrary of another one. one is living in a jet and one is living in iran. they are not fully correlated regarding the five to live. they are writing, but i'm not sure their internet being what they are writing and address into the rest of the believers that will be able to react. so i don't rely on the spot twice. i rely on action. when you see it, you can believe it. when you read it, it's not enough. >> okay, let's take for quick questions and i'll ask them to be brief so we can get some brief answers and wrap things up. marvin first. >> marvin calhoun, at perkins. you fast the iran question many, many times. i'm still not quite sure i understand the rhythm of hearing others. do you trust the united states to do the right thing? >> yes. >> you do, okay. >> the gentleman in the beige shirt right there, well taken. >> thank you for your speech. i am from the expatriate organization, and he shall dwell in my question is that syria. he said the thought of the regime happening would be a major blow to iran, but there's only a 33% chance it will work in our favor. would you say about increasing support the opposition to increase the chance woodwork paper in the u.s.-israel? >> increasing -- >> increasing support for the opposition specially arab support for the syrian opposition. >> right here in the lavender shirt. >> by name is alex, merkin for the russian service of the boys in america and in general the questions are to the role of russia. how do you characterize the motivation for the russian government to block the resolutions? i mean, the whole complex of facts regarding iran and syria. thank you. >> the leader here in black has also been reading. >> thank you, general. following his question i would like to ask what you see the role of china admits they've sanctioned. >> wedowee takes a brief answers on that. >> okay, there is a very short and i say yes and i'm still what yes. one thing that i want to add to it because it was too short and to be polite. i say that yes, but it shouldn't be done secretly. it shouldn't be discussed with the other side. to build the confidence that tcs is i believe a real threat. it's not something that should be done behind closed doors. you have to rebuild the confidence that the israelis. but personally, i believe that's an american i believe is what they're going to do. syria -- you know, there is a big question who is leading the syrian revolution? there are many forces over there. i am not recognized innovator. there are groups, some of them are very exclusive regarding the 33% chance of each because they were imported from some friend afghanistan, iraq. i don't know whether they are preparing for everyone or for rest. the traditional opposition in europe than in france and they are not aware. i don't know the power that goes to be equipped and supported by the west, by the americans, by the french are not the original opposition because they are the fighters. the original opposition -- i don't know if they are fighting. the foreign ministry of the revolution. so i have no accommodation in this respect. i don't think that the direct involvement, direct involvement of the west will help solve the situation. on the other hand, saudi arabia, qatar, turkey are involved in this campaign and i think the day can do the right job and they know better who are the leading forces. and they can do better once they are aligned with the western community. with europe and with the u.s. russia and china. i think from my point of view russia and china has a major role. vis-à-vis the iranian case. the russian foreign minister is harming the russian economy. well, we face -- i lost my words. i don't know how it's harming the russian economy. i think that russia and china because the superpower economy wise and to have strong power on diplomacy then. so the right combination to teacher and the other forces if they believe and they do think that they believe that for proliferation of the destruction should be stopped. if that's the case, i can't understand why they're sitting on the fence from time to time. they are sitting over the fence. one lake here, the other leg on the other side. i would like to see the russians and the chinese more proactive in this respect and i think there are, in my view that key -- the kind of key elements to convince the iranians because the relation is in china and iran and russia iran are better than the relations between israel and iran. thank you very much and i enjoyed it. [applause] >> allow me to say a word of thanks to our friends at jay street who made it possible for haloutz to appear today. this is an incredibly important moment in such a wonderful opportunity for americans or the benefit of your views come your experience and insight. so thank you earn much, general. i thank all of you. >> thank you. [applause] >> up until the battle of antietam, the the confederates were unable. because expectations in the south, even in the more it and abroad birdseye the third time would be the charm. yet when the peninsula campaign. he had won the second battle of bull run and now is invading the north, the questioning blow. when that didn't happen, there is a great sigh of relief from the north. lincoln does take it as a sign he'd been waiting for come with a picture he'd been waiting for it to the emancipation proclamation for which does transform the nature of the war and freedom as well as unions. anti-gun stance is the most important turning point of the war. .. a to and he is in and what is it i would just remind the committee and the witnesses as well, obviously, we have some pictures that remind us all of you each and every day of why this committee was informed. there will be a commemorative ceremony at 11:00 o'clock today from all the members of congress would be gathering. the house and the senate at the east staircase for the congressional remember and ceremony marking september 11, 2001. we will have opening statements and myself and the ranking member and the statements of our witnesses and we will see where we are because we will have a hard break at about 10 to 11. our witnesses today is the deputy secretary for policy and kevin mcclellan, john woods, assistant director for national security investigation i.c.e. and the deputy assistant secretary of the department of state, and the department of homeland security. eleven years ago today, 19 terrorist successfully penetrated our border. and hijacked four planes to conduct a terrible attack against nearly 3000 innocent people. that very reason is the department of homeland security's existence, and we prevent daily another attack on our soil. we should never forget what happened on that tuesday in september when so many of our fellow americans died tragically in the first responders as well. all of the victims of the tragedy. one of the ways that we can honor those who lost their lives that terrible day is to make sure an attack like that never happens again. to harden our defenses and to take into account the hard lessons that we learned that day. among the most important, was the outer ring of border security. the hijackers actually passed the united states border security, a combined total of 60 times. the relative ease with which the terrorist evaded detection, by providing fraudulent documentation and detectable false statements on visa applications, gave all statements to border applications and the failure on watch lists became missed opportunities to stop those attacks. we need to close the hole exploited by strengthening our border security. curtailing the ability of terrorists to travel to the u.s. can be one of the most effective terrorist tools. as the 9/11 commission report noted, for terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. which is a very interesting statement that i think we have. building on that key strength, we strengthen our outer ring of border security to check biometric data and visa holders against the terrorist watch lists. we have pushed our border out by checking before passengers board an airplane, at any of our ports of entry. a layered approach that increases our chances at preventing terrorist from ever coming to america. today we collect more information on foreign travelers that allow cdp through the national targeting center to use complex targeting rules which examine travel patterns and allow agents to find any problems with travel documents that might raise a red flag. programs such as the immigration advisory program and i.c.e.'s unit are critical components of our success at keeping those with terrorism links and other high-risk passengers off of planes bound for the united states. without questions we have made enormous progress. certainly come the incident of the christmas day bomber. that demonstrated that we still have some significant gaps in our system. continually, holders against the watchlist is an improvement. but we will be hearing from our witnesses today how we can further leverage the power to vest before visa is ever issued. the watchlist then processes have increased being able to keep them out of the country. but we still need to do better. we will be interested to hear again from the witnesses and how these applicants that are known to the intelligence community and how we will resolve these issues to the security advisory opinion process. unlike several of the subcommittee's previous hearings where we discussed the challenges of tracking down the delay in rolling out a reliable system that allows the department of homeland security to determine if the visa holder has departed in accordance to the terms of their visa, this hearing is focused on the front end of the visa product. we certainly believe that a viable system is vital to our national security efforts to the homeland security department and the department of state and preventing terrorist of coming to the united states in the first place. also look forward to hearing from the expense inspector general which identify challenges with u.s. visits and the multiple names associated with the same set of fingerprints. that needs to be corrected to prevent fraud and exploitation by any terrorist. contrary to what some have suggested, al qaeda, although diminished and capability, thanks to the wonderful work of the professionalism and bravery by our men and women in uniform and our allies, there are lethal enemies that we can't have in the homeland. vigilance is one of our best methods we are here today to talk about the vulnerabilities since 9/11. the chair now recognizes ranking member for his statements. >> thank you, madam chairman. i joined a chairman and my colleagues from arming those who lost their lives in september september 11, 2001. our thoughts and our prayers are with them and their families today. the 11th anniversary of this tragedy, and of course, every day our prayers are with them. one way we can honor those who died is to do our utmost to prevent terrorists from traveling to countries to do us harm. the 9/11 hijackers entered the united states via an airplane carrying visas. the attempted bomber of an airline on christmas day 2009 was a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities in the process. the department of homeland security and the department and steps that congress has taken important steps to strengthen the visa security and to prescreen air passengers traveling to the united states. the u.s. immigration and customs enforcement has expanded its visa security program under overseas embassy, providing an additional layer of security. security matters. similarly, the border protection has employed advisory program officers and strength and abilities to identified travelers bound for the united states. they also enhance the efforts of the national targeting center to combat terrorist travel. this program requires investments in personnel, technology and resources, although it is imperative that congress continue to provide dhs the funding it needs to carry out the mission. i look forward to hearing about what security enhancements have been made since the subcommittee met last year on this important issue, as well as what remains to be done. a related issue is that my understanding is that certain individuals subject for removal in the united states are often delayed due to the respective government and refusal to accept the return of the one a lot. i appreciate the delicate nature of this issue. but we must address this issue, and we, the chairman and i and the committee forward to working with you on this issue. i look forward to hearing more from the department about recommended steps for improvement. so any of you that might have any ideas about, please work with our committee. we thank the chairman miller for having this particular hearing. her leadership, and i appreciate all the witnesses for joining us here aook nd i lrward to your testimony. i yield back the balance ofmy time. >> thank you, gentlemen and the other committee members. we are reminded that any opening statements can be entered into the record. what i will do is introduce each one of the witnesses, and then we will start over here. first of all, as i mentioned, we are joined by kelly walther who serves as the screening coordination oice and she began working in the fpo in 2007 where she is currently responsible for policy and direction. she is responsible for a number of security programs and investments. mr. kevin mcaleenan is the acting commissioner of the u.s. customs and border protection where he is responsible for overseeing the anti-terrorism, immigration, trade compliance and agricultural production operations at 20 major field offices, 331 ports of entry and 70 locations in over 40 countries internationally. mr. john woods is the director of u.s. immigration and customs enforcement where he oversees national security investigations division within the division. he manages a 160 million-dollar operational budget and overseas hsi's investigation technological program, targeting transnational security threats and financial enterprises. mr. ed rahman edward ramotowski has worked as a special assistant to the secretary of state, at the u.s. embassy and in the nassau, bahamas, area as well. mr. charles edwards is the acting inspector general of the department of homeland security. he has over 20 years of experience in the federal government and has had a leadership position in at several federal agencies, including the tsa and the u.s. postal service and the united states. we now recognize kelly walther for her testimony. >> chairman miller and the ranking members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to highlight our work. we facilitate policy decisions would screening programs from planning to implementation. as the 9/11 commission pointed out, terror is one of the most powerful weapons we have. today, the environment is multifaceted and is imperative and it is imperative that we employ layers of security. identifying the individuals before they may reach the united states. we recognize there is no one-size-fits-all approach to security. our approach includes coordination with counterterrorism, public security authorities, the private sector, and our state, local, and private partners. we collect data to track non-threats. we utilize intelligence-based targeting rules to better identify threats. a risk-based approach is the foundation of the dhs model today and is a sophisticated form, more than ever before. dhs has been able to apply this approach across the lifecycle of a travelers journey. just prior to travel when dhs conducts reservation screening and when a person seeks to board an aircraft or vessel, physical screening, and finally, a port of entry when a traveler seeks admission to the united states. today, the visa waiver program is more robust than ever before. the international partnerships and information sharing arrangements. today we received data that we have never had access before and we now keep access on every traveler. in the last three years, we have assumed responsibility for screening for all aircraft operators. today, that is 100% of all commercial airline passengers flying into and out of the united states. approximately 2 million passengers every day. we know that implementing secure measures must be done while securing legitimate travel. includes over 1.5 million travelers. these individuals are frequent travelers and because they are known from the usually enter the united states. the project uses intelligence driven information on a risk-based approach to provide more effective screening. focusing resources on the travelers that we know the least about. while providing expedited screening and a better experience for travelers who know the most about. in the past 10 years, we have made great strides to facilitate the non-traveler, leaving us more time to identify threats. let me be clear, no visa provides carte blanche entry into the united states. dhs is constantly monitoring changes that could lead to recommendations in sporting or revocation of a visa, refusal of admission or in regards to an individual. we litigate risks that establishes measures to promote the safe movement of people and commerce and protecting civil rights and civil liberties. with this in mind, we are also delivered an efforts to provide travelers an opportunity to be heard. the inquiry program is a single point of contact for individuals, who have increased the experiences during travel. today, in response to 9/11, we have significantly adapted and enhance our ability to detect travel threats at the earliest opportunity. we do not work alone in this mission. terror screening is a multiagency and collaborative effort. more work remains to be done. i can assure you that the men and women of the department of homeland security never forget. our goal is to keep the country safe. for us it is not a job. it is a mission. thank you for this opportunity to update the committee on the progress we have made in recent years and thank you for holding this hearing. i have submitted written testimony and requested us to be made part of the record. >> thank you very much. the chair now recognizes mr. kevin mcaleenan. >> yes, that is very close. good morning. chairman miller, ranking member, despite which members of of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning that u.s. customs and efforts to disrupt terrorist travel. on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we remain vigilant and focused. as the nations unified border security agency, we are responsible for securing the borders while facilitating trade and travel that is vital to our economic health. within this broad responsibility, our priority mission is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the country. as a result of this committee support, our strong government and private sector partnerships and advances in technologies and applications of intelligence, are more capable than ever before in our efforts to identify and mitigate terrorist threats before they reach the united states. the travelers risk is assessed from the moment he or she applies for a visa or for travel authorization of the program. to address the higher risk in international environment, which remains a primary target for terrorist organizations looking to move operatives, we leverage advanced travel information from air carrier reservations. the national center or ntc uses advanced software to apply intelligence driven abilities. they will issue a noble recommendation to air carriers, preventing travel with the individual. they support the work of the immigration advisory program. to 11 airports and nine foreign countries. we work with carriers and foreign authorities to identify and address potential threats prior to boarding. in fiscal year 2009, before the christmas they attempt, we made sure that more than 500 security purposes were taken into consideration. we have made almost 4000 recommendations. a dramatic increase that has have enhanced security of our borders and international air travel. while the focus of our work has been the environment, we also are concerned about ports of entry. whether by air or land or sea, we offer further assessed in traveler risk by identity documents, conducting personal interviews, and running appropriate biometric and biographic queries against law enforcement databases. if there are any records, we activate our protocol. these protocols are aided by the fact that the national center has become a critical interagency counterterrorism resource with representatives from over a dozen department agencies, including those from i.c.e., tsa, and the u.s. coast guard. today we are assessing each stage in the travel cycle and enhance our travel response. this committee is well aware, we continue to live in a world of ever-changing threats and we must adapt and evolve to address the gaps and anticipate what abilities. we will continue to be at the forefront of the global effort against terrorism. we will work with dhs and the intelligence and law enforcement communities to meet these challenges. thank you for the opportunity to testify about her work on this anniversary. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. the chair now recognizes john woods for his testimony. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the travel and explication of our immigration system. this brings together two critical areas. national security and immigration enforcement. the importance of determining who can enter the united states and showing compliance. as you know, i have been with the security program. it serves as the agency's frontline and protecting the united states against terrorist and criminal organizations. the law enforcement advances our security initiatives. special agents are assigned as high-priority diplomatic posts worldwide. and help identify potential criminal and terrorist threats before they would have the opportunity to reach our ports of entry. we currently screen immigrant visa applications prior to issuance. support of our efforts to enhance these measures, we are committed to a process related to all immigrants prior to their immigration by the officers. this process may be used as a precursor or in conjunction with our current state an advisory opinion programs. when an alien files, it goes to the electronic application center. modernization efforts will allow i.c.e. who obtained this information directly from cam before it goes to adjudication. this process will some and hands the u.s. government terrorism effort to our border protection efforts. in addition, it is dedicated to the enforcement of nonimmigrant violation. today, the u.s. visit program and [inaudible] it allows millions of those present in the united states at any given time and identify those have overstated overstated or violated the terms of basis. support high-priority national security initiatives. based on specific intelligence. the practice identifies individuals on intelligence reporting, including international travel to specific locations and dynamic social networks. this approach of prioritization moves away from the traditional methods of identification and enhances the way that threats are identified and resolved. as we move forward, we continue to expand the enforcement efforts in the status violations. ice is analyzing buries approaches to this issue, including sharpening the focus of issues that exploit the violation of things such as overstay initiative and the targeting program. effective border security measures require broader information sharing and cooperation among agencies. on january 11, 2001, we talked about the roles and responsibilities between i.c.e. and the state of affairs and diplomatic security. this governs the day-to-day operations at u.s. embassies and abroad. it reduces duplication of efforts by both i.c.e. and the department of state by supporting overseas assignments. it brings an important element to the review process, and this relationship serves to alert officers and other u.s. personnel to potential security risks. more than a decade after the 9/11 attacks, i.c.e. has made significant progress from splitting the process and we look forward to working with the committee in the future to enhance those efforts. i want to thank you for the opportunity and i would be pleased to answer any questions you have. >> thank you, gentlemen. we now recognize edward ramotowski remapped thank you, ranking member and members of the subcommittee. as a top officer with experience in the u.s. green service, it is a solemn occasion for me to testify here today on the 11th anniversary of the september 11 attacks, and i thank you for the opportunity to update you on how we continue to improve visa security to prevent such an attack from ever taking place again. our highest priority is the safety of american citizens at home and abroad. together with our partner agencies, we build a border security system, resting on technological advances, biometric innovation, interviews, expanded data sharing, and improved sharing. we are constantly implementing and refining the screening process. this process incorporates personal interviews in most cases and multiple biographic and biometric checks, supported by a sophisticated, global information technology network. we share this data among federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. security remains our primary mission. every visa decision is a national security decision. electronic visa applications provide fraud prevention officers, as well as intelligence and law enforcement partners the opportunity to analyze an applicant's data in advance so that these partners may detect the potential non-biographical links to derogatory information. we are currently working with our partners on two major initiatives. with the law enforcement and intelligence communities and making the visa system even more secure. in addition to these checks, the department screens against dhs and the cia databases and uses facial recognition technology to check applicants against the watchlist of photos obtained from the applicant photos and validated database. we design our systems to facilitate comprehensive sharing. we cooperate with law enforcement and benefit from their capabilities and resources. this is most evident in the continuous betting the visa holders so that derogatory information is probably reviewed in the visa revoked informative by a dedicated revocation unit on 24/7 basis. more than a thousand pieces have been revoked under the program 2010. officers are also thoroughly trained prior to making visa decisions. each officer completes our course, which has a strong emphasis on border security and fraud prevention, and includes in-depth training on interviews and name checking techniques. officers also receive continuing education in all of these disciplines throughout their careers. on your next trip abroad, i would encourage you and all members of the committee to visit the complex sections of the u.s. embassy to observe how are dedicated personnel are carrying out border security responsibilities. the distinguished members of the committee and have a unique layered approach to border security in which each agency applies its particular strengths and expertise, best serving our border security and general, while furthering u.s. interests in legitimate travel and the exchange of ideas. the united states must protect and advance all of these interests to guarantee long-term security. thank you again for the opportunity to appear today and i'm here to answer your questions. >> thank you, gentlemen, the chair recognizes edward ramotowski for his testimony. >> good morning. thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding border security to detect and deter terrorist. i will present the results of the past year on this topic. specifically, we look at resources and coordination amongst dhs agencies to screen foreign nationals and protect the border. to identify potentially fraudulent attempt to enter the united states and tsa implementation of the secure flight program. the infrastructure for securing our borders. the department of state and components like cbp, tsa, and i.c.e. make vital contributions to border security. in addition, other federal, state and local entities play critical roles in this layered strategy. however, technology for research deficiencies and coordination presents significant challenges. for example, they have access as many as 17 different systems to ratify it foreign nationals and make admission decisions. some components have made progress in streamlining their system. however, some of those devices used by some officers and border patrol agents can you to lack adequate bandwidth and technology. this can hinder officers attempted to fingerprint aliens and immigrants. in addition, long-standing mission overlaps and inadequate information sharing in the eyes on trent i.c.e. agents at the northern border have sometimes led to duplication of efforts and concerns over officer safety. the department comes up with five of the eight recommendations and has implemented actions to address our findings. dhs has even taken actions to close two of the three recommendations in which it did not concur and expect a final recommendation to be closed next month. it is designed to collect and analyze foreign nationals biographic and biometric data and provide timely accurate information to border enforcement officials -- it was recorded in the database, sometimes as many as 14 different names and dates of birth. the vast majority of this data is due to data entry errors. however, u.s. officials unable to quantify how many of those inconsistencies came from individuals purposefully presenting fraudulent information of the border. a number of instances with individuals having derogatory information, biographic information to officers in an attempt to enter the united states. these individuals were not flag in the database. it concurred with recommendations to improve procedures to identify these people. another is the tsa flight program. the matching of passenger names against the watchlist. if the passenger information matches, they must, the tsa, complete a review of that information. the boarding pass cannot be printed unless they provide information to the operator and tsa. they also may require additional screening at a secure checkpoint . it has resulted in more consistent processes. this sometimes disrupted by aircraft operated system outages. in some instances, aircraft operators have allowed inhibited individuals to board the aircraft in response to the recommendations, the tsa has taken steps to address these issues. madam chair, this concludes my prepared remarks and i thank you again for the opportunity by this committee and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you all very much. i certainly appreciate your service to the country, first of all. one of the things that i think we all learned from the 9/11 commission recommendation, there were a number of excellent recommendations. in our office, we use it all the time. we are constantly referencing it on various points. certainly one of the things that has always stuck in my mind is that we need to move from the need to know to the need to share information. when we talk about visa overstays or problems with the visa application progress that we have had in our nation, we recognize that we have made unbelievable positive strides forward. since 9/11 in our process. there is always room for improvement, i suppose, and i think, particularly so, i mentioned about the christmas day bomber in my opening remarks. but with the kind of set that we face, we are looking at a battlefield in a different set of objects than we have ever had before. we see the battlefield in a very asymmetrical way. certainly, the christmas day bomber was on that northwest flight. that was the battlefield for him. and i know that we had a problem in the visa application process because of a spelling error. subsequently, since that time, we have had tremendous strides forward, i think in our visa processes. we are doing initial application checks. the replication process has significantly increased since that time as well, all to the good. i guess my question would be, how would hope we would not have happened in the future, as he would think about again in the snow and the need to share, how cooperation is happening with the department of state, the cbp, etc. >> the inner agency conducted a complete review following 1225 and 2009. and took several significant steps in the event. one of our largest would be the robust interagency process to revive the criteria for nomination to the watchlist to close the gap. we also have 100% vetting of all commercial airline passengers today. and also on a recurring basis. the predeparture program pushes back the vetting of passengers before they board a plane. as an international effort, working with our partners, we work with the civil aviation organization looking at a global framework for how we look at aviation security. that remark was supported by nearly 190 countries. cbc that in the inner agency as well as our partners, we continue to be aggressive. we will not stop until we prevent terrorist attacks in the united states. >> very good. does anyone else have any follow up on that? >> yes, i would just like to add that we have significantly strengthened our procedures, which is the method of reporting individuals for watchlist in. at the time of the 12, 20 -- december 25, 2009 incident -- we have changed that. the department also has to watch for valid visas, and will be revoked if we are asked to. >> i appreciate that. thank you, thank you very much. >> just a quick statement. because if as you know, we will be cutting the committee down because we have the 9/11 remembrance at the capitol steps and we don't want to be late for that. let me just say, we have to do everything possible to make sure that we don't let another group or individual attack back in 2001. at the same time, we have to make sure that we don't let the pendulum swing over to the other side when we restrict our own freedom in their own economic freedom that we have to find that balance between security and making sure that the legitimate trade of people coming into the united states are coming in. i would ask that as you look at that come you look at a couple of things. one is the efficiency that you are all looking out and finding ways to get more efficient. you know, still providing security but the efficiency. people coming in. and the other thing is to keep in mind a couple of years ago, just two years ago he passed the modernization of the performance at that we had here in the congress. if you're not familiar with that, i would ask you to look at that. as time goes on, we are going to be looking at more of the performance and not measuring activities but measuring the results. what do we get for 1 dollar. what does the taxpayer get back. if you are looking at a great job you're doing, we look at the efficiency, trying to find the balance in the work that you are doing. i know some of you are all law enforcement and i have a brother who was a border sheriff down there on the border and understand law enforcement is so important to us. at the same time, keeping in mind that you still have an impact on business and tourism and the people that are trying to do the legitimate trade over here. so i would ask you, and again, i would only ask you please keep that in mind. i salute all the men and women doing the job and i think the cbp in the inspector general and all the folks working together. don't lose sight in maximizing the taxpayer's dollars. finding the balance and security and if we do that from i think our country will remain secure and prosperous and free. thank you so much from and against all of you, i will thank you for what you and your men than women do. thank you so much. >> thank you, ranking member, we thank all the ranking members for being here. my colleague has said we have a remembrance germany on the steps of the capitol in a very few short minutes. i think that will serve to focus all of our attention on what happened that terrible day 11 years ago. and the enemies of freedom attacked our nation. and they really tried to get us to retreat from freedom. and not, they failed miserably. we have seen in last 11 years, the sons and daughters of america rise up and defend a liberty and freedom and democracy. and what is happening even here today with his hearing is a very vivid demonstration of every american to make sure that we always advance the cause of freedom, not only here in the united states domestically, but certainly a society that takes that message across the globe and we intend to continue to do so. as i say, they failed miserably and today's a way for us to certainly commemorate those innocent americans were murdered by these cowardly terrorists, and we all have unity of purpose to make sure that we do protect our homeland and harden our defenses and i appreciate all the witnesses being here today. with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. >> watch and engage with c-span as her campaign coverage continues towards election day. and the presidential candidates prepare to face off in 390 minute october debates. wednesday, october 3, and tuesday, october 16 in a town hall meeting. in the final debate, monday, the 22nd, questions will ship to foreign policy. that is from lynn university in florida. also, watch the vice presidential candidates debate on thursday, the 11th, from center college in danville, kentucky. we will also cover key house and senate races looking at the control of congress. follow our coverage on c-span, c-span radio and online c-span.org. the former deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism was our guest on "washington journal" on tuesday. juan carlos zarate will be our guest. this is 45 minutes. >> juan carlos zarate, the former deputy security adviser from 2005 to 2009, our guest this morning, talking about 11 years ago. where were you that day? in the bush administration? >> i was in the bush administration. i was a career prosecutor. about three weeks before that shifted, i was working on international money laundering issues. on that day, i was watching and horrified on the tv what was happening in new york. i could see the smoke rising from the pentagon from my office as they were evacuated. i went with the treasury leadership at the time and the under-secretary to the secret service headquarters. and i remember much like this, looking out of the sky and wondering when the next plane was coming and what it hit the capital. it was interactive for most people. >> your b changed on that day? >> absolutely. i had been a prosecutor working cases. but i shifted to look at some of those issues. the largely to look at things like money laundering and customs and things like that. but, on 9/11, everything changed. certainly, the mission of the treasury department and the state has changed dramatically. president bush said that we will use every element of national power and we will go after the money and go after the fingers who fund al qaeda, and that became the treasury's mission. i was fortunate to be part of the team that helped form not against campaign terror. >> what were you trying to do at that moment? how successful were you? >> the first thing people have to get their arms around is what is the problem. i think that most people tend to forget how little the government knew and understood about al qaeda's capabilities. there certainly were people looking at this before 9/11. i was privileged to be a part to look at things. there really wasn't a deep understanding of what al qaeda was. much of this was figuring out what is this enemy capable of and what is it looking like. figuring out the tools we have to bring to bear to affect the problem. we started executive powers of the president to do that. we used law enforcement to go after material support to terrorist groups. we developed the patriot act which was focused on the anti-money laundering regime, knowing your customer rules, the due diligence rules, for the insurance community, there is a whole suite of activity, not to mention the diplomatic activity around the world that went along with it. >> host: today he will be in the ceremony reflecting the plane that went down in pennsylvania. does this reflect? >> part of that depends on how you see about al qaeda. it is something we have spent the last decade really destroying. the core leadership is diminished. that is when you hear secretary leon panetta talk about it. the strategic defeat the aymen al-zawahiri network that we knew was really on it's last its last legs. the problem is the al qaeda movement of 2012 is very different. it is metastasize. we have had the rise of the al qaeda affiliates groups in yemen, somalia, north africa, really gaining some momentum and are starting to look like insurgency. they controlled parts of northern mali and we have a different aspect that looked very different from 2001. which is why administration officials are very cautious. >> host: certainly after mr. leon panetta took over,. >> guest: i think what he is talking about is the core al qaeda that we once knew, the organization that drove this extremist violence terrorist group that was confronted, it is largely on its last leg. it was hard and diminish that he was thinking about changing the very name of the organization and have a list of alternate names. but it reflected a movement that was very much on the claim from that standpoint. the problem is you have groups that have tried to attack other groups, for example, the taliban, which sponsored the attempted attack in times square. most people think that that is okay. that was actually the taliban hosni mubarak is that different from the haqqani network? >> guest: it is different. we have to call that what you have with the afghan taliban and the number of affiliate in groups that try to form part of those networks. and you mentioned that a common network. that is one of the official terrorist organizations and has been behind this and those lethal attacks against our troops and afghan security forces. >> host: as we talk about aymen al-zawahiri, the president is now arriving to the memorial service there. just behind the trees, he is making his way to the memorial service of the laying of the wreath with the president and first lady. we can bring you a little bit of that as well. the president and the first lady secretary leon panetta as well. talking about the state of al qaeda here today. is al qaeda winning or losing? >> guest: there is no question. they have lost the core elements of their movement. the ability to drive the price. but the brand itself and the ideology has lost credibility and what is important is it has lost credibility in the heart of its constituency. a broader movement on behalf of all muslims. the reality is when confronted with the reality of al qaeda, some sunni communities have actually rejected al qaeda. it was significant because you see it in other places, you see it in the debates were some of these al qaeda figures and others coming from iraq, starting to actually come again some of the other opposition figures and syria. i think one of the interesting dynamics we will see in the coming years is a battle between islam and muslim. he talked about this years ago, but it has really come into play now with these revolutions and the realities of muslims themselves and muslim communities that are having to be in this environment. >> host: is america still the target? >> guest: yes and no. it was always al qaeda's and aymen al-zawahiri's vision. it was a strategic innovation along with aymen al-zawahiri. their goal was to go out to the united states. they said the day after the problems to deal with the issues, the issues that we worry about, you can't fight these local enemies and you have to fight the enemies behind all of this. behind all this is the united states. that is what has driven al qaeda's core mission since it formed in the mid-90s. the reality is with the death of bin laden and the does management of the core, they have to worry about their own products regionally, that affected in the u.s. and it is much less a focus of these groups that are largely worried about their own survival and well-being. >> august 27, 2011, yesterday we get the news. yemen attacks, drone attacks, a drone attack in the mm content yemen area. who is the head of al qaeda. >> what you have is a bit of confusion. which is understandable because you have an al qaeda movement that is metastasizing. you have franchising. the report yesterday is that that branch is killed. but it underscores the fact that you do need to diminish al qaeda's core leadership. i think doing that in western pakistan has been credibly effective. it was amplified by president obama and the reality is you have these regional groups that are operating. some of which are gaining momentum this is a different al qaeda and different movement. >> 2052 we want to hear from all of you. what are your thoughts on this as we mark the 11th anniversary of the september 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. where are we vulnerable? >> well, i think as you listen to this today, there are two vulnerabilities. one is the regional groups that i have talked about. they find a way of actually hitting the united states. they have tried. the underwear bomber, there are a couple of creative issues. one who is a master bomb maker and still has the al qaeda dna in it and some counter terrorism officials are worried about that. the second thing they are worried about what they call the loan will. those individuals who are inspired by the ideology to mobilize and kill fellow citizens, and you have seen a number of those, the fbi has worked very well to disrupt. and i think officials, we could have those not on the radar screen. the times square bomber was not on anyone's radar screen when he emerged that day with his attempted car bomb. so we have to be concerned. those individuals trained themselves. >> we show this earlier. it is from the beginning of the month. the haqqani a network as a terrorist group. what is the greater? >> the threat is that this is a group that is not only amplified in the pakistan afghanistan region, but is the core of many of the worst attacks and instabilities in afghanistan. attacking u.s. troops and coalition troops and afghan security services. and the problem here, and the reason there is a long debate -- a two-year long debate about this is that the network forms part of a network of intelligence services and relies on and keeps in contact with to influence what happened in afghanistan. this is one of the major forms in the relationship between pakistan. how do you treat a group like this? from the u.s. perspective, this is an enemy group. from pakistani perspective, it is a group to be dealt with and managed and handled. they have not seen eye to eye on this. what this designation does is a forces that debate out into the open. and it really starts the debate here in the coming weeks. whether or not we start to consider pakistan a state sponsor. the nationstate of supporting that group. perhaps pakistan should be so designated. that debate will emerge in light of this designation. >> what this also might do is decrease the money flow into the haqqani a network. >> that's exactly right. a lot of folks that were driving this designation one of the effects of what a terrorist organization does. it adds a regal barrier to doing business with are having any commercial activity with any elements of the haqqani a network. a very good analysis that has been done recently that demonstrates a common network today. people at the pentagon and elsewhere will this designation so that the treasury department, along with the intelligence community can start to go after the economic notes to start strangling them from the outside. .. by diplomacy going to banks and financial institutions to say, do you know who is doing business in your bank? let me show you. folks like danny glasser have done it masterfully. there are major tools like freezing assets that the treasury can do. >> when you track the money, when you follow the money, does it allow dow locate where the people are? gail: absolutely. the financial trails don't lie. they lead you to where the connectivity is to where the networks lie and perhapses where the leadership is. and in is something that -- always a trade-off we dealt with in the bush administration, certainly, do you reveal something, do you do something publicly or keep quiet so you can follow it. glois i would like to start out saying we i do not support terrorism or the terrorist. there is a truth that keeps getting swept under the rug when george h. bush fought desert storm starts battle of iraq, he put troops in saab, saudi arabia after the war was over, he didn't bring the troops home bin laden sometime after that has been quoted as saying that he told america they need to get the troops out of there. they look another us as infidel on the land. >> caller: it's a good question. as a key motivation, and aid logical motivation for the movement you see that if you look at statements from bin laden. you see over time they use particular themes and issues. they used that as an advantage. the one thing i would say is i don't think we give terrorist a heck leer veto over what we do or should be around the world. i do think we need to be sensitive about how our action impact the environment. i don't think we give al-qaeda and bin laden the veto where we poot troops. >> caller: hello? host: good morning. >> caller: i'd like to ask you guest, she is -- he is overlooking the danger of what islam calls peaceful jihad, which is taking place in our country right now. for example, they had enough influence to lead the effort to take dodd out of the democratic [inaudible] the muslims were in the lead wanting to take him out of the democrat pipe form. guest: well, i don't know what was going on with the platform. i can't speak to that. you raise an interesting issue, one of the questions that has been front and center for the u.s. one of the key questions, how do you affect the ideology behind al-qaeda it's not just a terrorist movement. it's the way they think about the world. the they are at war. sark the vanguard and the defender of all muslims. and you seen sort of that radical thought embedded in a lot of the really a callized cases we have seen people trying to attack others. i think there's an interesting question how you deal with that. i always thought within and i think, it's important keep in mind that a lot of those aid logical battles battles are hangedded best within muslim communities. the best counter is the counter offensive by muslims who have a grassroots counter movement that really able to articulate the view of the world whether it's a violent or peaceful jihad, why it's not worthy of a 21st century community. and so i think that's why you're going to start seeing a lot of the battles internally. one thing i would say is we have a lot of muslim-americans in the u.s. government who are extreme patriots. people i worked with and relied on. we should be proud of every american who has worked to attack al-qaeda including muslim-american. host: ran on twitter says what metrics can american people use in order to assess progress in al-qaeda war? >> what a great question. we would debate this internally a lot and had a series of high level meetings asking the question. what are the metrics to determine whether or not we're winning. should we be doing something differently? i think the core question is does al-qaeda and the affiliate and the group have the ability to global reach? can they inspire individuals to attack abroad? do they have plots under way. do they have organization or funding that allows them to hit the united states in a way that is relevant? i think that's important. one thing to keep in mind, one thing like al-qaeda did with the soviet union, looks to the battle now as a questions to whether or not they can brument and bleed the united states. can they force us to overextent. can they bleed us in to conflict? i think that's an important dimension of this top can we modulate our reaction and work such that al-qaeda is on the death row but at the same time we're not overreacting? >> we'll go miami florida next. doug los an independent there. >> caller: yes. how are you? good morning guest: good morning. >> caller: i want to say that i think president obama has kept americans safer than any president in the last fifty years. [inaudible] he seemed to want to say that george bush would contribute just as to touch keep us safe during president obama's administration as anybody. and that's false because george bush's administration there was also an anthrax attack associated with 9/11. [inaudible] minimizing of president obama great job as commander in chief, and protecting americans both here and abroad. it should be commend bid the media, and the people [inaudible] who come on the show. guest: i'm happy to agree and disagree. i think no doubt the obama administration has done good work on counter terrorism. as soon as i left government, one of the things i argued you're going do to see fundamental continuity. in the counter terrorism policy. over 0 time had had evolved. it was because you had same kinds of threats that new president was going have to face the last president was going have to safe. it you had a lot of the same individuals running it as you did under the bush administration. there has been fundamental continue knewty. and for the obama administration they have been aggressive in going after al-qaeda. not just in pakistan and afghanistan but also in yemen and somali. you can have seen it globally. one thing, the bush administration did enormous things both institutionally and disrupting plots and making it safer. you can go back and look at the plots disrupted. the august 2006 arm plot which would have been disastrous al-qaeda plotting to bring down sten flights over the atlantic. it was brought down because the cooperation of the british service and the u.s. service. and the anthrax attack was not connected to al qaeda just a clarification. >> caller: good morning. host: good morning. >> caller: i want to wish you welcome back. do you want to make an announcement. >> host: thank you. i appreciate that. it's good to be back. >> caller: all right -- [inaudible] the bush administration was focus oond state enemy as opposed to al-qaeda or a demonstrate actor. and does the information with totally ignored had there been sock acknowledge if it was credible, we could have perhaps avoided 9/11. even the attackers were going to -- [inaudible] before the attack but the information was absorbed through the cia. guest: it's a good piece. i recommend folks tread. the one thing i would do is ask people to put it in cob text and read the 9/11 commission report. what the report concluded was that not only the bush administration, but the clinton administration before it there was a failure of imagination. that's the bottom line. there was a failure to conceive the group, a small group of terrorist band in the hinter hinterlands of afghanistan in kandahar and afghanistan could actually attack the united states in the homeland. and in many ways we were still caught in the framework of seeing our greatest national security threats coming from nation states. without a doubt. i think 9/11 was a wake-up call, not the threat of al-qaeda but to the ability of demonstrate actors to be able to present real national security risk. i would say look, we had a decade where we didn't take al-qaeda as seriously as we should have. there were times in the prior administration, in the clinton administration, we knew where bin laden was and decisions were made not to go after him. we didn't spond, frankly, to the terrorist attacks emerges. it was prosecutor in the october of 2000, there was no response from the u.s. government that. all of this demonstrating, i think a lack of imagination or focus on a growing threat from al-qaeda that hit us dramatically right in the face on 9/11. host: donna, republican in new york city. >> caller: good morning. the guy stole part of my thunder taughting the coal attack and we didn't do anything about it. we might have, and we didn't know it. so that's -- let's hope that was the case. what i was saying i'm one of the angry americans that i'm just -- i'm just tired of this kiss the muslim for bombing us, kiss the muslim for making it hard for us to live our daily lives. it is because the news media are scaring us to death, we're listening to you scaring us to death. why don't we just take what we have now before they get it and turn them in to a factory over there? it's well within our capability to do it. and i think that's what is going to have to be. they're not going to have stop. they've been doing it for 2,000 years. host: what's your reaction? guest: i hope i'm not scaring anybody on the fine morning. we have offensive measures measures in place. the quo of islam, i think one of the things i'm proud of the of the bush administration is the distinct between the threat posed by al-qaeda and the adherence and islam itself. and president bush days after 9/11 visited the washington mosque just a few miles from here to make that statement clear. that muslim-americans are part of the society, they're a part of the fabric. the islam itself is not a problem. it's one of the world's great religion, and that we're at war not with muslims at large, but with a particular faction that seeks to co-op the religious for their reason. i was proud president bush put the qur'an in the white house, named the first envoy from the collection of countries islamic countries. and visits 50th anniversary the washington center again, which people tend to forget. i think we need to be careful about branding a religion versus branding the violence. i wouldn't -- that's a gray area we need to be clear a about. host: why do terrorist hate us? can we answer that question? guest, you know, people have written about this. i think al-qaeda has been clear as to why they hate us. they see us as the head of the snake. the leader of the global movement that is oppressing muslims that is supporting a postchick regime or has in the past. the mubarak regime, the gadhafi. it's clear why al-qaeda hate us. why terrorist or other groups see the u.s. as a target, i think it has to do with the more of the fact we're the soul superpower. we are around the world and we are seen as the vanguard of globalization and international disaition which is in some ways amp theatrical to groups in the agenda. >> caller: can you hear me? host: yeah. >> caller: you know, the gentleman sounds great right now. i recall the term islamic fascism going around. i recall a lot of things that were coming out of this -- [inaudible] about muslims that somehow we were looking at 1.3 billion muslims. we were suggesting that somehow they had an influence overall the individuals when that was not the case, and particularly going forward with regard to how they prosecuted this particular war, and how everything was con flatted. there was no weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection between saddam hussein and bin laden. in fact those individuals had different types of philosophy in term of their religious philosophy. bin laden was a more religious individual, and saddam hussein was not. it was a lot of things that were going on in the bush administration that really was made them a accessory to the movement the al-qaeda movement increased their numbers. host: okay, robert. guest: it's a fair point and question, robert. i think the reality of abu ghraib prison it was a disastrous moment for the u.s. it was not directed by the president or anybody i'm aware of. created huge image problems. guantanamo huge question. part of the reason in 2006, the president bush, that is, said that guantanamo had to be closed. there's no question there are episodes and issues related to our policy that were uncomfortable and that certainly appeared in some quarters we were targeting muslim or much countries. but i would say, look, the reality is that the message from the prior administration and the obama administration we have a common enemy in al-qaeda, not just to the united states but to human kind around the world and in particular to muslim majority communities. that's a movement and a group that needs to be confronted, and isolated that has been consistent, and whether or not our policies, you know, represent that. that's a different question. you had the quran burning in afghanistan. i continue think that's something the obama administration wanted to have happen, these things happen. they tend to temper and shape the environment in ways that aren't help pfl swrep to keep repeating we're not at war for the religion. host: a few more minutes. we hope to get a few more phone calls. bill an independent in pennsylvania. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. guest: good morning. >> caller: i wonder about this -- i think it's important because the npaa is very disturbing and we saw a lot of people coming from the different people that have terrorist in them. that if they have a passport, they can come over here. we worry about people in mexico coming up to -- [inaudible] i don't understand how we don't have immigration reform and also, why don't we come up with the draft who say they are patriots particularly the leader -- [inaudible] that's where we get trouble. guest: i think, bill, one of the things you have seen over the last eleven years now is the fact that we have built up an intelligence structure, someone saying, you know, violated civil liberty. i would argue it's the contrary. it along with the vetting process that allows us to be better about understanding who is coming in to the country and who we are allowing in. it's not perfect by any stretch. it's robust and it's working, i think, in many respects. immigration reform, i'm not an expert on immigration reform. i think it needs to happen. i think we need have an open society, and i think one of the balances we've had over the last ten years when what is the balance between an open society and protecting the shore of the united states. that has to be constantly reconfigured and reevaluated. >> host: all right the house of representatives are about to go in. sara, can you make it quick? >> caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. guest: hi. >> caller: my question is, [inaudible] he can understand why 9/11 has failed. well, you know, in our foundation of our constitution, george washington, abraham lincoln and ronald reagan stated we need [inaudible] host: unfrntdly i have to leave it there. thank you for being on the washington journal this morning. guest: thank you, cigarette that. the teacher strike in chicago is in the third day. out facebook page we ask if teachers should be allowed to strike. we heard yes, they have a right to strike. without union teachers could be fired for anything. and cash wrote that if teachers want to be considered professionals they should not be allowed to strike. visit facebook.com/c-span. we'll have more about that and comments on washington journal. charles chasesly of iowa. he'll talk about the farm bill and other issues including the economy and the upcoming election. we hear from tim ryan on the presidential election and the economy. and later jim ?ieder of bloomberg news on president obama's pledge to promote a green revolution. washington journal started at 8:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. in four weeks the first of the presidential debates live on c-span. watch and engage. coming up next, republican senator tom coburn on the federal budget. then the 9/11 me me memorial ceremony held in new york. university of virginia president talks about cheating in college classrooms. oklahoma republican senator tom coburn predicted today a downgrade of the u.s. credit rating. a former member of the simpson bowls commission. he's not worried about so the called fiscal cliff. the series of tax increases and budget cuts scheduled to take effect? january. he focused instead on the financial health of medicare saying the only way to save the program is to change it. he made the remarks are rip pen society. the birthplace of the republican party in wisconsin. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] good morning. thank you for coming out this morning. for those who i have not member i'm president of the great organization called the rip pen society. as you know, we are a public policy organization that was founded in 1962, by congress other than tom. we take our name from a town in wisconsin where the republican party was born over 1 her years ago in rip pen. we're created on the values of abraham lincoln. the society with the first major organization to support the civil right act. and in the early '70s they made the mark for calling for trade with china. one of the main goals of the organization is to promote the idea and principal we believe our party and our nation great. these ideas, of course, are keeping america secure, taxes low, and the federal -- and having a federal government that is not only smaller but smarter and more accountable to the people. we do this in a number of ways and this breakfast is one of those. but before i begin, i'd like to take a moment to reflect upon the event of eleven years ago that changed all of our lives as we know it. would you please join me in a moment of silence to remember those who lost their lives on 9/11, and to those who have sacrificed and continued to risk their lives in defense of our nation today. thank you very much. if you have an opportunity go to new york city and you decide to go to ground zero. make sure you do one thing, you have to have ticket so you can go online to do that. it's about crowd control. the number of folks that go to new york and decide they want, you have to have tickets. so please make sure that you do that. it's a great, great opportunity. and it's one of the moment most moving thing have done as late. there are a number of individuals i like to recognize before we start our program. for secretary of transportation the honorable jim. jim? [applause] [applause] the former undersecretary of the department of energy bud albright. bud? [applause] and from the office of congressman tom plats chief of staff scott miller. scott? [applause] thank you for being with us. family i'd like to call your attention to the next upcoming event on thursday, september 20th we'll be hosting a breakfast with senator bob of tennessee who will be discussing the financial reform legislation and other items being considered. please note that will be on the other side capital at the -- [inaudible conversations] so i hope you can join us for that. as for the morning breakfast, we're fortunate to be joined by a physician, and author, and most importantly a fiscal conservative in the senate who is leading the effort to fight our nation's mountingsing debt. to introduce hymn it's my marry agree lee. [applause] [applause] good morning. it is my absolute pleasure to introduce senator tom coburn the two-term senator from oklahoma. in an era today of what seems an opulent culture of spending in washington, few have done more to restore fiscal restrains than senator coburn. from an early age he understand the value of a dollar and was able to help grow the small-family owned business in to one of national prominence. before eventually entering medical school. upon coming to washington, this business man turned physician successfully used his time in office to provide fiscally responsible solutions in an era lacking, i would say such common sense accountability. in fact, during the first term in the senate, no other senator introduced more amendment to bills to fight wasteful spending earning him the reputation of an ardent government watchdog and a crusader for spending transparent sei. the self-imposed term limit in office reenforced his commitment to private sector solution. it's becoming a valuable symbol. to that end, he continues to practice medicine today on a probone know basis. this morning he will be discussing the recent book "the debt bomb" a bold plan to stop washington from bankrupting america. and is outlook for long-term fiscal solutions. i would add that senator coburn has met with the member of my organization representing the broad spectrum of health care and he's offered to us very innovative, health policy solutions that will not only improve the quality of health care but help contain cost. the senator is currently a member of the senate finance committee and comes before us today at the very unique position to discuss that looming fiscal cliff. so although the congressional, [inaudible conversations] says he wears the look a badge of honor

Related Keywords

Jerusalem ,Israel General ,Israel ,Qatar ,Alaska ,United States ,Brazil ,Turkey ,China ,Syria ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Bahamas ,The ,Mexico ,India ,Egypt ,Tehran ,Iran ,Iowa ,Vienna ,Wien ,Austria ,Chicago ,Illinois ,New York ,Canada ,Germany ,Afghanistan ,Philadelphia ,Pennsylvania ,Florida ,Virginia ,Wisconsin ,Indonesia ,Lebanon ,As Iran ,Az Arbayjan E Sharqi ,Washington Center ,Pakistan ,United Kingdom ,Oklahoma ,Tennessee ,Iraq ,Mali ,Town Hall ,Gaza ,Saudi Arabia ,Lynn University ,Danville ,Somalia ,Yemen ,Nassau ,New Providence ,France ,Americans ,America ,Egyptians ,Indonesian ,Pakistani ,Iranians ,Turks ,Iranian ,Afghan ,Israelis ,French ,British ,Israeli ,Somali ,Russians ,American ,Canadian ,Chinese ,Russian ,Saudis ,Soviet ,Syrian ,Charles Edwards ,James K Bell ,Ronald Reagan ,Marvin Calhoun ,Danny Glasser ,George Bush ,Scott Miller ,Rahman Edward ,Kevin Mcclellan John ,George H Bush ,Abu Ghraib ,Tom Coburn ,Mahmoud Abbas ,Abraham Lincoln ,Garrett Mitchell ,Juan Carlos Zarate ,Al Qaeda ,Kelly Walther ,Michael Adler ,Hosni Mubarak ,Joe Guggenheim ,Tim Ryan ,Trudy Rubin ,