tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 11, 2013 8:00pm-1:01am EDT
well taken. we -- i n't think that think that's a component well taken. i also don't think that we as a country, are seen as leaders. , we are thentry harbingers of what happens next. we are willing to participate in a polite effort to end this and importantat it's leadership. it opens up an opportunity for us on a diplomatic front that did not exist until yesterday. >> thank you. up, the september 11 memorial ceremony in washington. common committee on national security threats. the national constitution center.
>> good morning. scripture, we learn of the miracle of restoration. have made me see many troubles and calamities will revive me again. from the depths of the earth, you will bring me up again and increase my greatness and comfort me again. secretary hagel and general members of our armed all, thend most of
survivors to bear the wounds of that day and the families of those we lost, it is an honor to be with you again and to remember the tragedy of 12 septembers ago and honor the greatness of all of those who responded. to stand with those who still grieve. providing them with some member -- some measure of comfort. today, we pause and we pray to give humble thanks. nation, forand as a that wength and grace, have been revived again and have been given strength to keep going. we pray for the memory of all those taken from us nearly 3000 -- us, nearly 3000 innocent souls.
thehearts still ache for futures that were snatched away and the lives that might have been. the parents who would have known the joys of being grandparents. the fathers and mothers would know the pride of a child's graduation. the sons and daughters who would have grown and been married and blessed with children of the round. ier own. young men and women looking ahead in the matching the mark they would have made on the world. mark --ching the imagining the mark they would have made on the world. lost in thelies here and now is now internal.
the pride that you carry in your hearts and love that will never die. have aned ones everlasting place in america's heart and we pray for you and your families, who of known , fromdepths of loss and the moments that we have shared, i am amazed that so many argue are able to live yourself up and laugh again. your lies are the greatest tribute to those who have been lost. their legacy shines on and you. you smile like him. when you toss your hair like her. foster scholarships and service projects that bear the names of those lost. when you make a better world.
when you join the firehouse or put on the uniform. when you devote yourself to a cause that is greater than yourself, just like they did, that is a testimony to them. you of taught us all that there is no trouble that we cannot indoor and no calamity that we cannot endure. diplomats to serve in dangerous posts, as we saw in benghazi. intelligence professionals, andn unseen, our men women in uniform. topay solemn tribute patriots who have given their full measures. military and civilians. we see their legacies in the friendships that they forged, the innocent lives they saved, and the comrades in afghanistan andcompleted the mission
will end this war. this is the path we have traveled together and these of the wounds that continue to heal. -- this is the faith in god and each other that carries us through and restores us. -- we summon this every time we come to hold ground. in pennsylvania field. where the towers once stood. here, in such moments of grace, we are relieved. we are reaffirmed in the values that guide us. let us have the strength to face the threats that endure. different though they may be from 12 years ago. are those whore would strike our citizens, we will stay vigilant and defend our nation. well force is necessary, force
alone cannot build the road we seek. we recommit to the partnerships that deepens trust and allows more people to live in dignity and prosperity. let us have the confidence in the values that make us americans. we must never lose these. shining liberties make us the beginning of the world. a rich diversity makes us stronger and a unity and commitment to one another that we sustain on this national day of service and remembrance. above all, let us have the courage, like the survivors and families are today, to carry on, no matter how dark it is or how difficult it is. me see manye made troubles and calamities, will revive me again. from the depths of the earth, you will bring me up again.
>> in addition to events at the white house, the president took heart in the national day of service and spent an hour hacking meals at the food and friends charity in washington dc. members in congress gathered to on your best to honor the people who died in the attacks and to sing god bless america -- to honor the people who died in the attacks and to sing god bless america. >> to mark the 12th anniversary , inhe attack on america lieu of formal remarks, i would writtenread a poem before a joint session of congress in lower manhattan after the attacks. the names.
awake in the i lay palm of the night. a soft rain came in on a breeze. when i saw the silver glaze on the windows, i started with acumen. baxter. names falling into place. as droplets fell to the dark. names printed on the ceiling of the night. names slipping around the watery bend. 26 willows on the bank of a stream. in the morning, i walked out barefoot amongst thousands of flour -- flowers. heavy would do, like the eyes of tears. each had a name. ishikawa, jenkins. names written in the air and
stitched into the cloth of the day. and name under a photograph taped to a mailbox. med onto a shirt. spelled out on storefront windows. i say the syllables as attorney corner. kelly angeli. -- abnd lee. medina, o'connor. -- a thicke tangle tangle. schubert, torres, upton. names written in the pale sky. names rising in the updraft amid buildings. names silent in stone.
cried out behind a door. names blown over the earth and out to see. , the lastnight swallows lift the words. a woman by a window put a match to a candle. the names outlined in the rose clouds, waterford, wallace. the ones unfound. minsky -- zaminksy. sky.amin a blue name needles into the skin. names of citizens and workers. the quick son. the alphabet of names in a green field. names in the small tracks of birds. names lifted from a hat.
balanced on the tip of the tongue. names wheeled into the dim wheelhouse of memory. so many names. is so little room in the walls of the heart. recognizes the yoho.eman, mr. >> thank you. today, i will take a moment to reflect on the fateful event. 2001, at the trade center, the pentagon, the field of pennsylvania and benghazi. let's always are member the resilience and strength of the greatest nation on earth. there are moments at times where we cease to be republicans and democrats. politics and punditry may --
melt away. divisions close and differences fade. we come together as americans, regardless of race, creed or religion. occasions.be on those days, our nation comes together and that is what makes our nation great and unique. not only do we come together to celebrate in triumph, we stand together in tragedy. it is in the face of adversity when our resilience is truly tested. as americans, time and time again, we have passed that test. through out the course of those days, heroes have won into buildings and stormed the cockpit. ran into burning industries -- embassies. that is the true america. not partisan gridlock. not tension-building punditry. not gotcha games or smoke and
mirrors legislation. monumental unity. usa the country's first and everything else is second. as we tackle the challenges ahead, i ask people to remember the spirit of that day and do what is right for america, not for one party over another. the heroes did what they did because it was the right thing to do. it was the american thing to do. americans, regardless of who they voted for, feel the consequences of our decisions each and every day. today, of all days, let's remember to put our country first and act is true representatives for all the people. thank you. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> yes, the world is changing. no, we cannot control every event.
america remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs and i intend to keep it that way. talkingresident is about us as the indispensable nation. what does he want americans to contemplate? >> what he wants americans to contemplate is that we do not want to win wars. we have the best military in the world and we spend more on our military than the rest of the world put together. we do not know how to win wars. therems, to me, that ought to be a serious national conservation -- conversation about where does the fault lie? is it our politicians? is it that our generals are inept? that, by its fact very nature, war is unpredictable. to roll the is
dice. you might win and you might not. >> more with retired colonel and rinsing professor, andrew base vich. should -- bace >> harry reid withdrew consideration for authorization on a military strike in syria. this is in response to recent depomed moves. -- diplomatic moves. senator reed discuss this on the senate floor. >> the president told the nation postpone the use of force in sera. -- syria. and, to pursue a diplomatic plan to see if that works. tomorrow, in geneva, said her kerry -- isator
meeting with, what is his name, sorrycretary of russia -- about that. the secretary of state or suze importantursues these diplomatic discussions and we'll be watching this closely. if there's any indication that they are not serious or they're being used as employee to delay delay, we will give the president the authority to hold the assad regime accountable for the pain and suffering he caused to the chemical weapons. republicantime, the leader and i agree that we turned back to the efficiency bill. portman, and the chairman of the
committee have talked to me many times over more than a year about this legislation. wehink it is important that move forward on this legislation. and, as the agreement indicates, so was not to -- so as not to interfere with diplomatic conversation, we will consider no amendments on the bill regarding syria or the use of force. we look forward to considering amendments on issues that are domestic in nature and passing this important piece of legislation. i asked for unanimous consent thatthe motion proceed and there be no minutes or motions
relative to syria. will be divided between the two leaders. i think it would be appropriate that we have this time, statements from the germans -- rmans and sponsors of this legislation. , at that time,at -- how long you need restatement? -- for your statement. >> 20 minutes. >> we will give senator murkowski the same. >> we need 15 mr. portman. fore need 15 minutes portman. when that time expires, that
will be the case. the next 30 -- 70 minutes? indicated -- >> is their objections? -- there objections? >> without objections, so ordered. the clerk will report the bill. >> we will have more live coverage of the senate tomorrow. also today, senators on the homeland committee held a hearing looking into national security threats and intelligence gathering. , theheard from tom ridge former ranking member on the intelligence committee. this is 2.5 hours.
>> welcome one and all. today marks the 12th anniversary reminded of this to the hour and minute. day.poignant day and a sad but, a day that is not without hope. a day for reflection. a day where we lost a lot of americans. he brought about a sense of unity that we do not often see in this town and this country. in the wake of a terrible tragedy. there'll be a moment of silence later. i'm going to ask us to start with a hearing -- a moment of silence. then, i will introduce our
witnesses. if you just pause for a moment of silence please. [moment of silence] >> thank you. one of the things that our chapman -- chaplain encourages to do is to pray for risk -- wisdom. that is a good thing to remember on this day. this anniversary provides us with the opportunity to think about the efforts that we have taken to secure our country since that fateful day. as well as the challenges that we have. we have a remarkable group of witnesses that will share their thoughts on what we have accomplished since 9/11 and the future of homeland security.
we are delighted. thank you so much for joining us. and, for your story service. the department of homeland security turned 10 years old. the department can do a better job. we cannot forget about the remarkable progress made in keeping us safe. in my view doubt that we are safer than we were 10 years ago, in spite of greater threats to our nation. i want to take a couple of minutes to highlight some of the more significant accomplishments, if i could. we have enhanced aviation security. we have an intelligence-driven system that screens passengers against national security databases. responses to
disasters. we saw the fruits of these efforts following the boston marathon bombing and the natural disaster that struck my part of the country, including hurricane sandy will stop with increased security to our nation's borders and we have built up cybersecurity capabilities through working with these private sector. we are mitigating the growing number of cyber attacks. is there room for more improvement? i would say, you bet there is. that is true in this venue. canway that the department improve is by doing a better job preparing for tomorrow's threats today. we do a good job fighting the
last war and preparing for the last attack was stopped to secure our homeland, we must dissipate the next line of attack. 10 years ago, relatively few people were talking about cybersecurity. today, would you hardly go a day without reading about a cyber attack in the news. attacks, weo the need a department of homeland security that is ready to adapt when necessary. sometimes, we need using common sense. if a program is not working, we should not keep going. we must work smarter with our limited resources to get better results for the same amount of money. coburn and i are holding this hearing. it has been suggested that we focus on reauthorization of the
department of homeland security. maybe a good way to do that is -- issk is through a year through a year-long series of hearings. department so the we can learn from instances where the department succeeded and where it comes up short. this information will help us focus our scarce resources on what works. we conduct our review process, will be looking to make sure the department is more agile and capable. this review will allow us to strengthen our defenses. very sophisticated and agile threats. thingsthe most important we can do is to come together to pass cybersecurity legislation. this is a comprehensive policy
and approach. the threat is too great and the consequences of inaction are too severe to do nothing. a copperheads of cyber security policy has not been -- a comprehensive cyber security policy has not been easy. but, we have been working to get across the goal to ge line this year. we have seen parties come together to pass apprehensive immigration reform in the senate. i don't support everything and that bill. not agree witho everything either. i believe that the approach we took in the senate is referable to the immigration system. it undermines the economic security. their own passed
version of immigration reform and we can go to conference to make a better. we will get the legislation that our country needs. we remember 9/11 and we discussed the challenges. we must seek to recapture the spirit of unity that prevailed ago.ears -- 12 years we need that to make the department of homeland security stronger and our nation stronger going forward into the future. i look forward to working with dr. coburn and our colleagues. he is always faithful and inelligence and -- intelligence. we will figure out do this job and do a better. let me turn over to dr. coburn. >> thank you. i have a statement that led to place on the record.
-- i would like to place on the record. >> one of the editorials in the new york times talked about the lack of focus. the focus on lots of committees rather than single committees of jurisdiction. i noticed difficult for homeland all the to answer questions. that is one of the things we ought to change. the frustration is that we cannot get answers. i'm sure is not intentional. sometimes it is. we are asking for so much information all the time. people will ever boys that homeland security cannot do their job -- who have responsibilities at homeland security cannot do their job. the other concern i have with homeland security is that it has turned into an all-hazards agency. it has abandoned risk-based policies.
is,ing money where risk rather than where risk isn't. the politicians in washington are accounting for that. , therepening statement are a large number of areas where we are incompetent. metrics or thehe effectiveness. we have not held the hearings that are necessary to straighten that out. i would welcome all panelists. thank you for your service in multiple areas for our country. i hope that you can give us some wisdom. i've been through your testimonies. i hope you can give us some wisdom to help streamline and not undermine the goal and the long-term changes that need to be made in homeland security to get us back to a risk-based agency. rather than a grab bag of political benefits agency.
is final point i would make the transparency is important. have,fficult job that you governor ridge, in terms of bringing all these agencies together, we have had good homeland security directors. and secretaries. the idea that you can effectively manage this, and we have all the data that says that we are not effectively managing will hear some great ideas on how you change the structures. make, is point i will that we have 15 of the top 17 positions at homeland security open. to my knowledge, we only have two pending nominees. i may be wrong on that. that is my guess. i think we have to. leadership matters.
it is important when it comes to come pushing the goals that lead to a compilation with homeland security. >> i would just note -- that we need to accomplish with homeland security. work hope is that we can before that time and be in a position to conclude. to adjourn briefly and comeback and-a-half our. an hour. -- in a half all right. i want to briefly introduce our first -- not so briefly the first witness. tom ridge and i came to the house together in 1982. 30 years ago today we were both in our mid 20's. maybe early 20's.
but we ended up serving on the we served in the vietnam war together. he had a real distinction. just a hero. and very modest about it. we ended up on the banking committee together. i think in the 102nd congress we ended up leading the banking committee, we had a subcommittee on economic stabilization and people said to me, tom, in the past years, what did you accomplish in those two years that you and top ridge led that committee? we lead the foundation for the longest running economic expansion in the history of the country. we stepped down from our responsibilities. in 1993 we were on our way to eight glorious years. he went on to become after that become governor of pennsylvania. our neighbor to the north. and first secretary of the department of homeland security. since stepping down as governor, he's not only led the department, but he's also served as chairman of the national security task force at the chamber of commerce and on
boards of the institute of defense analysis, the center for studies of the presidency and congress and chairman of the national organization on disability. meanwhile, he travels the world as head of his firm, ridge global, and any other number of entities. somewhere along the line he convinced a woman named michelle marry him. they have two wonderful kids that we've been privileged to know, leslie and tommy. delighted to see you and thank you for your friendship and extraordinary serve service to our country. next, jane harman, former congresswoman from california, 36th district. during her tenure in the house of representatives, congresswoman harman distinguished herself as one of the top national security voices in the house servicing on the house armed services committee, intelligence, and homeland security committees. she's also one of the principal authors of the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004. congresswoman harman serves as director of the woodrow wilson center. also member of the external advisory board for the
department of defense, c.i.a. and does a million other things. so it's great to see you. we welcome you warmly. our next witness is one with facial hair. i wouldn't have recognized you had i not known it was you and you were coming today but it's great to see you. and you are a hero in this country, the hero in the coast guard and department of homeland security. enormous respect and affection to you as you know. thank you. i wish you as well as i understand executive at booz allen hamilton. and the admiral recovered from hurricane katrina. after the first couple of weeks, the initial response was the
deepwater horizon oil spill and for that service and a million other things that you've done and continue to do, we welcome you. i want to thank your family for allowing you to serve our country. and last witness, -- are you partner -- i understand you have a book out. author of a book. i love the title "skating on stilts: why we aren't stopping tomorrow's terrorism.? in his position, mr. baker established the department's policy office. he led successful negotiations with foreign governments over data sharing, privacy and visas. established a secure visa-free travel plan. what years did you serve in the bush administration? thank you for that. and i want to thank, again, all of you for being here. your entire statements will be made part of the record.
feel free to testify. we'll lead off with governor ridge. i want to say to senator, nice to see you. welcome. it's a pleasure. our senator from new jersey, great addition to this committee and to this body. governor. congressman. >> thank you to my former colleague and my friend, it's a great pleasure to appear before you. senator coburn, as you say, let me associate myself with the gentleman's remarks with regard to a risk-based approach, with regard to consolidating the incredible labyrinth of jurisdictional maze that the secretary and his or her department have to continually respond to up here on the hill. i mean, one of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission and 10 years later that one and the other recommendation they made with regard to a broadband public safety network, that's 10 years in the making.
there's some legislation a long way from execution, so i really appreciate your words in those regards and other members of the committee, it's a pleasure to spend this morning with you on this historic day and important day. i appear before you in a wonderful personal capacity as a private citizen as well as the chairman of the u.s. chamber of commerce's national security task force. the task force is responsible for the development and implementation of the chamber's homeland and international security policies. frankly, it's a voice for businesses across america. it certainly informs my perspective on many issues, but it doesn't dictate it because my work is strictly voluntary. i'm happy to advocate when we share them. i welcome the opportunity to appear here to examine the ways which we can secure america's future. since we have limited tied, i'd ask permission to revise and extend my remarks. before i begin, i want to on this anniversary acknowledge the
families that lost loved ones on september 11. we all know where we were. i had the opportunity to visit shanksville a couple hours after that plane went down. so the reason we're here is to work together and to do our best to ensure that such events do not happen again and that other families don't have to suffer like the families of our 9/11 heroes. with your indulgence, i'd like to make a few general observations first and what i believe is a cross-cutting issue that both d.h.s. and the broader federal government has faced in the past and has the potential to complicate our security forevermore. first of all, briefly, it's becoming clears that members of this body is attempting to pass some immigration reform. i think it's relevant. d.h.s. components can be expected to play a significant role in implementing these reforms. my position is that the time has come, the time has come to grant status to those who wish to enter our country legally, to work lawfully, to pay taxes and deal with the issue that we
talked about for 10 years and that is the undocumented individuals who are here. i think we can be done. i hope this congress does it. but i also think congress has to balance this responsibility with providing adequate resources to the department of homeland security in order to affect the outcomes that the broader american public want to achieve. we can talk about reaching consensus in washington, but unless any reforms are resourced appropriately, d.h.s. components will be saddled with an impossible mission in the critical area of border security. i'm not going to discuss my deep and abiding concern about the number of critical senior level vacancies at d.h.s. it's been addressed. it's disconcerting that an agency that's perceived by our government, united states
government, to be as important as i believe it is, to have 15 vacancies or whatever the number it is at any time. and these have lasted for quite sometime. you are aware of it. i just urge the administration to fill the vacancies quickly and the senate in a judicious manner and timely manner to exercise the responsibilities and fill these vacancies. let me discuss the challenge of information sharing which i think goes to the heart of the homeland security's responsibility. we don't generate intelligence. we are assigned from the enabling legislation to share it in a defensive -- provide whatever defensive measures we need to protect america. information sharing is an issue that's been with us since 9/11 and cuts across a range of challenges that have and will continue to confront the dedicated men and women of d.h.s. we all know the nature of the terrorist threat has changed as we've seen in iraq, afghanistan and today in syria. our enemy is no longer just al
qaeda but like-minded organizations and nation states that are willing to ally themselves in order to harm their common enemy, the united states. in my opinion, this will require the intelligence community to work with one another than ever before. congress in its oversight role should ensure that d.h.s. specifically remain plugged in to the federal intelligence communities horizontal, across the board. for if intelligence indicates a physical or cybersecurity threat against the homeland, d.h.s., by enabling legislation, is the agencies required to work with our partners along the vertical, required to work with the state and locals, required to work with the private sector. that's embedded in the enabling legislation. further, we should ensure that the great progress that's been made for information sharing with our state and local partners such as the establishment of fusion centers, continues to be nurtured. no discussion of the d.h.s. threat environment or about
information sharing can be complete without discussing cybersecurity in greater detail. there's no part of our national economy, infrastructure or social fabric that is not in some way connected to the internet backbone. our critical power and communications, transportation, product supply chains and financial systems. and d.h.s. owns many of these sector-specific relationships. let's face it, the cyberthreat is not new emerging. in fact, when i was secretary, in 2003 a full decade ago, the first u.s. national strategy to secure cyberspace was released. greater awareness of this threat may be emerging, but the threat itself has been with us and will be with us for the rest of our lives. as first secretary of homeland security, i have a particular perspective on this issue. we learned after 9/11 and we learned after katrina and keep learning after all these incidents that information and coordination sharing could have been better, and some people
refer to a digital cyber pearl harbor. at least in that instance, historians will say, we had no notice of the emerging threat. i don't think this is a cyber pearl harbor. we have noticed and it's not an emerging threat. it's a constant and ever- changing dynamic threat. and so i'm more inclined to say it may end up being a cyber katrina where we had notice but we weren't as prepared as we should have been until thad allen and began to address the situation that he confronted on the ground. i've got several more pages of testimony. i see my time is running out. i hope we get to this area in the q&a. at the end of the day, the sharing of information between the u.s. government and the private sector, specifically, and i can refer to the enabling
legislation that says that d.h.s. has a very significant legislative role, it's absolutely critical. and not in a prescriptive form. it cannot be in a prescriptive form. there are many regulations. in fact, the president's executive order asking this to set the standards is something that we all welcome and we engage but we hopefully give it a chance to work and assure that the private sector is involved and engaged because it's that kind of collaboration that's absolutely essential. and you're never going to defeat the cyberenemy, whether it's a nation state, organized crime, any organization by having the private sector check the compliance box. we did all that congress wanted us to do. that's inadequate. it's grossly ineffective. it has to be timely and continual information sharing horizontally with the federal
government with the d.h.s. and down to the state and locals and particularly down to the private sector. the federal government relies on the private sector in order to function. as i said before, we have some lessons to be learned about the inadequacy of what of the federal government is doing to protect its own information. i think it would be helpful not only when we repair that but make sure we facilitate the day- to-day engagement in information sharing with the private sector. i thank my colleagues who are on the panel, distinguished patriots as well for the opportunity to peer with them. i thank the chairman and the committee for the opportunity to share these remarks this morning. >> thank you for those remarks very, very much. congresswoman harman, please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i think every member of this committee knows, i have great affection for this committee. i work very closely with your prior management during eight years on the house homeland committee and another eight years, some of them overlapping, on the house intelligence committee. later today at the invitation of
colorado governor, i'm flying to denver where senator lieberman and i are appearing on a 9/11 panel in denver this evening. >> i hope you'll give him my best. >> i shall. as my youngest daughter would say, your former ranking member, susan collins, is one of my besties. we stayed good close friends and we work together on the intelligence reform law of 2004. i also have great affection for all of us testifying before you today. worked very closely with everyone on this panel on homeland topics. and we continue to stick together, which i think is a good thing. 12 years ago today as the towers were falling and the pentagon fire was burning, i was walking toward the u.s. capitol. my destination was the intelligence committee rooms in the capitol dome, the place most consider was the intended target of the plane that went down in shanksville.
my staff called to alert me that the capitol had just been closed as were the house and senate office buildings. so most of congress, including me, milled around the lawn in front of the capitol. there was no evacuation plan. we had no road map for response. part of the solution which some of us recommended was to create a dedicated homeland security function. and that function we thought should be in the white house and tom ridge became its first coordinator. along the way the white house proposed a much more ambitious concept, and in order to get this function as part of law, we embraced that concept. then there became the department of homeland security. now, in its 10th year, i'm proud of my role as one of the department's founding mothers,
and i think we should acknowledge today the thousands of d.h.s. employees who serve us daily, around the country and the world. as we speak, customs and border patrol agents are in megaports like the port of due pie and they're screening u.s.-bound cargo for dangerous weapons and material. investigation agents are in diplomatic posts everywhere in the world and they're reviewing suspicious visas. and t.s.a. screeners are depriving al qaeda and other terror groups of the ability to turn more aircraft into weapons, a tactic we know they are continuing to attempt. today, as tom ridge said, d.h.s. remains a work in progress, but the efforts of its people are its backbone and our backbone. we have a safer country because of them. a year ago i testified here, and i noted some of the things that were going well at d.h.s., but i also noted challenges. and they include an anemic intelligence function, something tom ridge just touched on, the need for d.h.s. to focus more on its relationships with critical infrastructure owners and operators, something that's now happening because the cyberthreat is increasing.
and, as mentioned by you, mr. chairman, the failure of congress to reorganize its committee structure. today, as you mentioned, there is a very good op-ed in "the new york times" -- i buy the print edition, i want you to know, by tom kean and lee hamilton. lee preceded me as president and c.e.o. of the wilson center and we served as colleagues many decades ago in the house. i don't want to touch on all of this, but het me just briefly scope the good news and bad news since last year. bad news, we failed to thwart the boston marathon bombing. an exponential increase in cyberattacks, edward snowden and one part of al qaeda is in the boonies in yemen.
there is good news. one, information sharing is improving. i know there's much to continue. second, resilience. we showed resilience after boston, in particular, after the boston marathon bombing. and common sense is emerging in the way we approach homeland security, and to senator coburn's point, i think there's more support and there should be for a risk-based approach. collaboration with the private sector on cyber, that is happening, and credit should go to the -- i guess she's just retired -- to the secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, for personally working on this issue. and we are getting ahead of let me just touch on these very briefly, because my time's running out too. information sharing, tom ridge talked about it. but the committee should take credit for the fact and the department should that homeland
security grant money was critical. according to the boston p.d., it helped make sure that the city was trained to share information rapidly during the emergency. d.h.s. also participated in something called the multiagency coordination center, the macc, that was operational before and during the bombing and it was critical once the bombs exploded. resilience. a very important factor in our country's ability not to be terrorized. it's not that we won't -- if we fail to be terrorized, then the terrorists lose. the agency distributed almost $11 million to boston, just to pick boston, through its uasi the money was used. it upgraded 5,000 portable radios for first responders, install a communication center inside the boston tea and
conduct two city-wide simulator disasters. this is a very good news story. similarly, in hurricane sandy, which went fairly well, fema activated in advance a national response coordination center which was critical in terms of preventing more damage and speeding the recovery. collaboration with the private sector on cyber. d.h.s. will never own the cyber mission but it is responsible for a central piece, which is critical infrastructure protection, and in the past year d.h.s. has tracked and responded to nearly -- get this number -- 200,000 cyber incidents, a 68% increase from a year before. we will never get a handle on this. as janet napolitano said about six weeks ago, she said that's happening. kudos to the department. finally, getting ahead of privacy concerns. the department itself has a
privacy and civil liberties office. that office has trained many in the fusion centers, 68 out of 78 fusion centers have received some training. there's enormous complaint out in the boonies about the invasion of privacy and it's important we do two things. one is protect the american people and two is to protect the american people's privacy. it's not a zero sum game. it can be handled with proper training and finally, the administration has fully populated the privacy and civil liberties oversight board which was created by the 2004 law and which was never functioning until may and that should be helpful too. let me just conclude by saying d.h.s. will continue to face difficult challenges, including al qaeda's enormous ability to evolve, the rise of lone wolf terrorists, the constant increase in the type and sophistication of cyberattacks, especially the risk of exploits in software and privacy issues. but most attempts to attack
understand since 9/11 have been thwarted for which thousands of selfless d.h.s. people deserve our thanks and so do our former secretaries of homeland security, starting with governor ridge over here. and so do members of this committee. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> congresswoman, thank you so much. admiral allen, your whole statement will again be made part of the statement. please summarize as you see fit. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator coburn, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. like secretary ridge, for the record, i'm not representing any particular entity. i'd note, however, that the op- ed piece that was published by lee hamilton and tom keane was part of an aspen sponsored part of the department of homeland security and i'm part of that task force, as part of the disclosure.
i'm pleased to be comrades jane harman and stu baker. these are people i've worked with over the years and consider them friend and role models. glad to be here with them. it's hard not to sit here this morning and not recall the events of 12 years ago. and what's transpired since the interim. i was the coast guard on 9/11, and what happened that day was something i never thought i'd see and that is a coast guard cutter off manhattan with the guns uncovered. it was a chilling sight. we closed the port of new york. we closed the potomac river north of the woodrow wilson bridge and resupplied ground zero because there was problem getting vehicles in and out. this was a consequence event for the coast guard as well. and i, like the members of the panel here, passed on our best regards to the families who were impacted by that terrible event. i have testified before this committee on several occasions since my retirement, and in each of the testimonies, including today, i've done a retrospect of where the department is at.
i will say i was the chief of staff at the coast guard when the department was established and led the transition out of d.t.o. into the department of homeland security. i've spoken over the years on many occasions on the conditions which the department was formed which was bureaucratic light speed in a little over three months. in association of trying to bring that all together, including it was in the middle of an appropriations year, it was between sessions of congress. i think secretary ridge was confirmed the day before he became secretary if i remember correctly. that's a lot of stuff going on at the same time but i think we have to move beyond the aggregation of entities that came within the department and try to get beyond that. you can talk about that as a means for why the department kind of is the way it is. but i think 10 years later we have to actually sit down and say what is going on here and where do we need to go? i need to associate myself with the remarks made by secretary ridge and jane harman. they talked about the what. i'd like to talk about the how, because ultimately we need to,
moving into the future, how to tackle these problems and the best way to do this. the occurring theme you're hearing is information sharing. because information sharing is the precursor to unity of effort and more integrated operations at the "in depth." not only in mission execution but in mission support. all the back room operations that actually enable folks who put boarding teams on, have t.s.a. inspectors screening people and that's h.r. operations and so forth. i'd like to talk in general about the border, resiliency, counterterrorism, law enforcement and cybersecurity. as been previously referred to. regarding the border, there's a lot of talk right now about the southwest border in relation to comprehensive immigration reform. while we move forward and define what the policy is going to be and what's going on with the number of illegal immigrants in the country right now, i think we need to remember we have a border that's very complex and goes well beyond what i would call a geographically and
described borer. it's a functional border which includes the analysis of data and the movement of cargo that are never touched by human hands but are virtually carried out and we have to carry out our functions as a sovereign government in a global common in a variety of ways including air, land, cyber, sea. as we look at border security, i'd urge the committee to understand it's a combination of functions and it's a system of systems and it can't be reduced to oversimplistic fixes like fences or more border patrol agents. we have to figure out what is the nature of the problem and what is the best way to deal with with all the tools we have available. including the aggregation of data on all border functions into a fused picture that senior leaders can take a look at. i'm talking about all the different license plate reader programs, passenger information, information on private arrivals of aircraft and vessels and so forth, bringing that together and putting that where there can be coherent analysis.
and i think sensory information is incredibly important. we need to build an architecture that allows us to do it so we can understand how to react to them on the border. we need to visualize that for our leaders so they can understand what we'll call a common operating picture and that in turn can be discussed with folks here in the congress regarding oversight. and i think we need to look at along the southwest border, not every part of the border is the same, and boots on the ground and fences are not the way to control the border. we need to look at areas where say there was no traffic and conversations i've had with some folks in the department using satellite imagery and going back and taking several runs at a time and if there are no movements, you can pretty much say that's a low-risk area and start concentrating on where there is a risk involved there. i think in that way we can probably do a better job of how we're managing the border. congresswoman harman talked about national resiliency.
i think it's extremely important and important because we need to look at it way beyond natural disasters and what fema does for i living inside the department. am in favor of risk assessments, focused on the most likely and consequence events that occur, easterly natural or man built. and that is population densities and risk they present and we need to figure out how to look at building codes, land use, going beyond current floodplain legislation and regulations associated with that and try and look at the behaviors that need to be influenced to change how we think and act at a local level. i think we need to improve our incident management doctrine. hspd-5 is a general framework for the secretary to manage incidents. but frankly when you have these large complex incidents it's very hard to subordinate one cabinet to another in a very overarching way, especially in complex events.
i think it's extremely important. if you look at the possibility that we could have a combination of events that starts with a cyberattack that gets into industrial control systems that produces a consequence kinetic effect, all of a sudden you have fema, mppd, the f.b.i. to the ncgi, a.t.f., and you have the overall management, we don't have a clear doctrine on how to move forward on that. and finally we need integrated national operation center for homeland security. the national response coordination center at fema is an excellent operation for what they do. the coast guard has an operation center. one of the big challenges in the absence of being able to consolidate on a campus of st. elizabeth is the inability to coordinate an operation center there to be able to coordinate and direct operations. i have some other points but i
see my time is up. i'll submit that to the record. i'll be glad to answer questions. >> thank you. you got a lot in in five minutes. that was a lot of wisdom. mr. baker, please proceed. welcome. >> thank you, chairman carper, ranking member coburn, members of the committee. it's really an honor to be here with members of the committee and members of a panel, all of us made promises to ourselves and to the country 12 years ago that it's a pleasure to be here to have an opportunity to continue and rededicate myself and the rest of the panel to those promises. there have been a lot of achievements in those 12 years, and d.h.s. has contributed to many of them. it has many successes that we've heard about from other panel members that couldn't have been
possible without the department. it also has some failings that i think you are talking about addressing quite directly. the idea of reducing the number of committees that provide disjointed oversight to portions of the department would be an excellent approach as would be building the equivalent of the defense department's office of the secretary of defense. we've had three great leaders of the department who, when they are focused on a problem, have made the entire department sit sing like a chorus. but when they've had problems that they can't spend one day a week on or one meeting a week on, the components tend to drift off. there's no institutional mechanism for keeping the department in tune and on the same tune when the secretary is pulled off or the deputy secretary is pulled off in
another direction. so finding ways to build the office of policy, the office of management into effective managers of many of those second tier issues would be very valuable. i want to talk mainly about an issue where i think most opportunity for progress is offered, and that is in cyber. this is a terrible crisis. we are not solving it. we are falling behind. many of the ideas that have been proposed are rather divisive. but it seems to me there are at least three issues that the department of homeland security could contribute to that may form a basis for less divisive solutions. what seems to be clear is that while we are falling farther behind we have also learned that we have more information about
the people who are attacking us than we actually expected to have five years ago. we know what their girlfriends look like. we know what blogs they write. they are no more able to secure their communications than we have been able to secure our networks. and in that offers some opportunity for actually bringing deterrence to bear, not simply defense. we cannot defend ourselves out of this cyber crisis. that's like telling people that we're going to solve the street crime problem by making pedestrians by better body armor. that's not the solution. we have to find a way to actually capture or deter or punish the people who are attacking us. how do we do that? it seems to me that one of the ways that we do that, law enforcement's very familiar with the idea of deterring and punishing attackers, but
prosecuting the people who are attacking us, many of them overseas, many of them associated with governments, is probably not the most effective measure. what we need is new ways of bringing sanctions to bear on the people that we can actually identify, and d.h.s. can lead that. if we use the law enforcement capabilities that the department has at i.c.e., at the secret service, integrate them into a smaller group, maybe on an experimental basis, with mppd and the defense capabilities and the understanding of the attacks, we could gather much more intelligence about these people and then bring to bear new forms of sanctions. again, something that d.h.s. can take a lead in developing. many of the companies that support these hackers, that hire them after they finish their service for government, the universities that train them
need and want visas to come to the united states. i don't know why we are giving them visas if we know who they are. we should find a way to come up with sanctions of that sort, or frankly sanctions of the sort that treasury uses today to deal with conflict diamond merchants or the russian officials who oppress the human rights of one. we have attacks on human rights right here in the united states. cyberattacks on tibetan activists and the like, we should be treating those attacks on human rights that occur in the united states every bit as seriously as we treat the russian government's abuses inside russia. and again, d.h.s. could be authorized to go looking for ways to bring those sanctions to
bear. and then finally, with the private sector, it seems to me the private sector knows more about the attackers inside their networks than we will ever know. they are more motivated to find the attackers and to pursue the attackers who end up as their competitors, which is often the case. what's being stolen is competitive information. it must be fed to the competitors, and those competitors are operating in our markets. and if we can gather that intelligence and close that loop, we can bring to bear criminal and other penalties on the beneficiaries of these attacks. that is not something we're doing now because there is not enough integration between the people who have the resources and the incentive to do that, individual companies who are under attack, and the law enforcement agencies that are
totally swamped by the nature of the task. if we gave, if we experimented with giving the companies that are under attack more authority to investigate their attackers under the guidance and supervision of the government, we could make more cases and impose more sanctions on people who are attacking us. so those are three pretty concrete ideas, plenty more in our testimony which i will ask that you read into the record. thank you. >> your full testimony will be made part of the record. thank you very, very much for your testimony today. i want to return to a comment, dr. coburn, several of you, governor ridge, and the issue -- i call it -- it's not just d.h.s., it's not just the department of homeland security. we have too many vacancies throughout the federal government. the administration released an extensive list of nominees. we welcome that. one or two are in this department. we are looking for -- senator johnson knows we are looking for an i.g. we need someone to fill that position in this department and
a bunch of other i.g. positions that are vacant. this is a shared responsibility. the administration has the responsibility and give us names of excellent people, honorable people, hardworking people. we have an obligation to hold hearings, vet those nominees and with the extent they do a good job, move them promptly. the administration needs to do their job. we need to do our job. we'll keep focused on that. governor ridge and i wore different uniforms, he in the army, me in the navy. there was a popular movie called "five easy pieces." if those of you remember, jake nicholson. great movie. i think a comprehensive -- a comprehensive cybersecurity policy is not five easy pieces but maybe six. i want to mention them and then i want to ask a question each of you about one of those. one of the pieces -- critical infrastructure.
are we -- best protect our critical infrastructure, that's a shared responsibility as we know. another piece, information sharing. i think every one of you touched on that in your testimony. third is we call it protecting the -- federal government's networks. fourth piece is work force. governor ridge and i talked about this recently. how do we make sure that d.h.s. is able to attract and retain the kind of people they need to do their job in this arena? research and development would be a fifth piece. another one falls outside our jurisdiction but important one is data breach. how do we reach to those who breach data, it affects a lot of people's lives? that would be the six not so easy pieces that we're dealing with. i over the past couple years, the department of homeland
security has been playing an important role in protecting our federal networks and working to try to secure our crippled infrastructure. unlike the specific statutory authority that defines the f.b.i.'s, our n.s.a.'s work in this arena, the department of homeland security's authority comes really from the patchwork of presidential directives. it comes from policy memos. it comes from vaguely written laws. in fact, one way i heard it described, as far as cybercapabilities go, if the n.s.a. has a doberman, the f.b.i. has a german shepherd, then d.h.s. has a chihuahua. nothing against chihuahuas, but they need a bigger dog because this is a big fight. we need to figure out what to do. while i say d.h.s. is much further along in developing cybercapabilities, some people give the department credit for, i think we need to provide the department with clear, statutory authority to carry on their current activities so it can be
compared to something a lot stronger, a lot more formedible than a chihuahua. let me just ask each of you -- do you believe that it's important for the congress to empower the department, this department with clear and explicit statutory authority to carry out its current cyberactivities, these activities include working voluntarily with the private sector to protect against, to prepare for and recover from cyberattacks? and would a better defined statutory mission of the current cyberactivities, current cyberactivities, help to strengthen the department's cybercapabilities? governor ridge, lead it off, please. >> senator, i think the enabling legislation that created the department of homeland security and embraced in a strong bipartisan way with the house
and the senate basically set up conceptually the very idea that d.h.s. would really be at the ep center of engagement down to the epicenter of engagement down to the private and local sector. with the original intent of congress in terms of the role that d.h.s. plays. secondly, i think any gray that exists in the alignment of d.h.s.'s relationship with the private sector, particularly, probably creates a great deal of confusion. right now i think the private sector is reluctant to cooperate from any reasons even to share information because of the absence of liability protection of those sorts. i realize you aren't asking that. i think if there is a gray area that can be cleaned up and there is a direct line of responsibility -- by the way, you have the opportunity to hold them accountable that are not doing their job. you have been assigned some tasks. we don't think you're providing these very well, you can hold them accountable.
thirdly, i'd say, by the way, it would be important to do two things. one, it would be important to resource the department appropriately. look, the men and women in d.h.s. right now that are working on cyber, government generally, let's face it, probably a lot more potential lucrative opportunities out there in the private sector. we have some real patriots. they're working hard on cybersecurity matters because they believe it's their contribution to their family's security and their country's security as well. we probably going to need to look at some kind of compensation adjustment to keep some of the best and brightest with us for some time. one is enabling legislation. two i think clarity would enhance the kind of voluntary collaboration that i think is absolutely critical between the private sector and the federal government, vis-a-vis d.h.s. and if it will be a mandate they need to be properly sourced.
>> congresswoman harman, the current cyberactivities help strengthen the department's cybercapabilities? >> my answer is absolutely yes. the administration did issue an executive order last year which is somewhat helpful but it would take legislation and secretary ridge outlined a lot of the issues. there's been a difference of opinion among people up here about how robust d.h.s.'s authority has to be, but the bottom line problem is that the private sector doesn't trust d.h.s. that has been overcome to some extent by the really impressive efforts that secretary napolitano has made in the recent months to reach out for industry and there literally is a floor at the d.h.s. headquarters where the secretary and others are working together on cyberthreats. that's a good start.
i just want to add a robust endorsement to your point about swiss cheese. there are a couple of nominations that have been made by this administration, and one of the nominees i know very well much she's been nominated for undersecretary for nppd which is in charge of the cyberfunction, and i just mention her to all of you. her name is suzanne spalding. i hired her to be the staff director of the minority on the house intelligence committee, worked with her for years. before that she was executive director of the national commission on terrorism on which i served which was then chaired by jerry brimmer, as many of you know, a commission that predicted the attack on u.s. one of three commissions attention to.much
i would recommend the guy to my left as new secretary of homeland security. thank you. >> i would ask if anyone wants the nominations closed. there is no shortage. we need the administration to pick one and send us a great name. suzanne spalding, i think we have a hearing for her next week and my hope is we'll move that nomination quickly. she's an impressive nominee. admiral allen. same question, same question. >> it's a tough statement to follow but i'll try. i think there are three things we need to look at. i don't think you need to look at d.h.s. authority and isolation. the first one is the current status of fizz ma which is basically a regulatory compliance tool to try to ensure that proper information security
is being dare carried out in the federal government. they are trying to move away from a checklist mentality to include mitigation and measurement at the gateways so we actually know what's going on. that will be enhanced shortly by a dash board which will pull that information up, allowed it to be shared across the agencies. that's a phenomenal step forward but been largely done through the congressional and appropriations process where money was provided to actually go out and solicit for that work to be done. i think we need to move forward and figure out how we'll transition from fisma to continuous monitoring of our circuits and how to move that information around. secondly, as jane mentioned, the executive order on the cybersecurity and infrastructure protection has lay out a number of very important steps, a framework for the private sector that's been formed by nist right now. we need to go beyond the e.o.
regarding liability and what are the prohibitions that keep the private sector from being involved. you have the fisma revision. you got the e.o. on cyber, which is going to take legislation to completely solve that. i think both other panelists have said that. finally, what are the authorities and the jurisdictions that d.h.s. would need to do? if you put all three of those together i think you have the complete package and i think legislation is needed but it should not be separate from legislation that addresses the issues with the private sector as well. >> thank you for those comments. lastly, mr. baker, better define statutory mission of the current cyberactivities that d.h.s. helped strengthen that department's cybercapabilities? >> yes, i think in a couple of ways. first, the technology is always evolving and yet the law that we're operating under is 10 years old, at least, in many cases. authority was simply transferred. and fisma is a great example. doing security checks that would take -- occur on paper and take months to accomplish. yet, the department is now actually rolling out technology that will perform much of the fisma checks in three days. and it's important to revise the law so it takes accounts of
those capabilities and all of the security measures that are being developed in this area. i would certainly support the idea that working with the appropriators is the best way to do this. having a single unified appropriations process by the department is the saving grace for department. and the more of that that can be done the better. similarly, the second point that i'll close on is that in many cases, the authorizing legislation needs to make clear that while the national security agency has a big dog, it's an important participant. i used to work there. very supportive of it. but everyone in the country needs to be reassured that when we're talking about cybersecurity, it's d.h.s. that's setting the policy and dealing with the data, not the
national security agency. so what i would say is maybe d.h.s. doesn't need so much a bigger dog as a leash. and authorizing legislation can provide that kind of reassurance to the american people. >> thank you for those comments. how do we better honor the loss of all those lives 2 years ago 12 years ago this morning? do we join some of our colleagues on the steps of the capitol for an observance or do we better honor their lives and their loss by continuing to do our work here today? we believe the best way is for us to continue doing that. we'll continue going through the 11:00 hour and give us a chance to really drill down on some of these important issues. with that having been said, let me yield to dr. coburn. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. couple points on what i heard here today.
the homeland security budget is twice what it was when you had it. everybody knows we're resource poor right now. and the question is how do you put metrics on what homeland is doing? number one, there's 45 opened areas from o.i.g. that have not been addressed by the department of homeland security on recommendations that they essentially agree with but they've not acted on. i don't know if that's a priority problem or a resource problem. but that list is growing. second thing on fisma, bobby is a great leader at homeland security. if we had 100 bobbys, we could all sleep great at night. but the fact is fisma is going backwards according to the last o.m.b. report, not forward. so i'm hopeful, based on what you said, admiral, what you said and you, mr. baker, in terms of improving that. the other point i'd make, i
asked c.r.s. to give us what statutory authorities homeland security has. they had most of the authorities they needed for everything. as a matter of fact, when secretary ridge was secretary, he had them start all these things under these authorities. so we need to ferret out what we need to do to give increased authority. the things that i'm concerned about, first of all, we can't afford to duplicate things we're doing at n.s.a. we heard from all of you, we do need -- every time we've seen a problem since 9/11 is because of either a stovepipe or an individual judgment that was made in the wrong direction. even with boston. i mean, if you go to the intel on all that, what we know was we had some errors made by individuals and/or by process, rather than have flat, good horizontal communication that was real time.
and so tom and i -- tom carper and i don't disagree what the goals are. the question is -- the disagreement is how do you get there and how do you hold people accountable? so information sharing is the key for us to be flexible and highly responsive when it comes to threats for our country -- to our country and how we respond to that is important. jane, you said something that i think is really important. the confidence level by the public and the private sector in terms of d.h.s.'s capability to handle this is a key hurdle we have to get over. and what we have to do is we have to walk before we run. and we've been crawling, and now i think we're walking, and i would attribute some of that to the most recent secretary, but also to bobbie and her crew and what is going on there.
number two is, how do we reform congress' oversight of d.h.s. to where we limit the committees? tell me how we do that so that we can make them reactive in a positive way and not spend so much time up here on the hill but have good, clear communication and single authority coming out. we have most of the authority for homeland security, but that's not true in terms of a lot of other subcommittees. so your comments on those. i'd like each of you to address that if you could. >> i'll be happy to volunteer to begin the conversation. i must tell you, senator, that i think your frustration with the growth of the department in terms of personnel and dollars is something that i share a little bit. more is not necessarily better.
i remember my first year as secretary, well-intentioned congress on both sides of the aisle wanted to give me more money. i said before you give me more money, better take a look at it and say if we're doing an effective job with the money we already have. i think you and senator carper bring that mindset. some would be from 180,000 to 240,000. i do not know what the number is. i have no idea where the additional bodies needed. notwithstanding the increased personnel down at the border, c.b.p. and i.c.e. the failure of this institution of congress and the united states to consolidate jurisdictions so there are no end runs to protect vested interests that have been -- that have been existing in silos for a long time. i think the only answer to that is the will of this body to effect a change. so a small group of republicans and democrats in both chambers with nearly exclusive jurisdiction, you're going to
see through the process, it's a little byzantine, everybody has allies in every committee, both in authorization and appropriation levels, we really need to do that. i think if you can consolidate that responsibility, i think you can effect the kind of change you're talking about. it's amazing to me that the congress would ask two of america's great public servants lee hamilton and tom kean, to spend a year and a half, two years, take all that testimony and say we as a congress want to know how we can help the new department mature and how we can make our country safer, and two of the most obvious and needed recommendations made 10 years ago, consolidate jurisdiction and provide a public safety broadband network so police and fire and emergency responders can handle future crisis, and we're not there.
>> risk-based rather than all- hazard. >> third is risk-based. they're starting to do it at t.s.a. i mean, i'd like the preclear program. i know john has done a great job. moving in the great direction. quit arguing about a fail-safe border, security platform. you'll never make an absolutely secure border. what we want to do is reduce the risk. we have to risk manage the border. we have to risk manage commercial aviation. we have to risk manage everything across the board. i think at the end of the day, senator, if you're looking to achieve the outcomes that i think generally shared on both sides of the aisle, the commitment's that strong, i think the republican and democrat leaders in both chambers have to sit down and say enough is enough. one final antidote. and i say with respect. hill.y 12 years on the
i can't tell you how many times we've been working for a vote and leaving a subcommittee hearing and there would be lament among the members, geez, we have five or six hearings today and we have to run from here to there and everybody decries the pressure on legislators to do their job effectively in all these committees and subcommittees but nobody wants to relinquish the seat on the committee or subcommittee. may not be voluntarily relinquished. if the leaders in both chambers say, it's done. changes.king these homeland security doesn't report to 100. it will be reported to five or 10. it's done. you have to get leaders in both chambers and both parties to agree. it's at the epicenter of solving the problems you addressed. >> strong letter to follow. [laughter] >> mr. chairman, let me apologize in advance. i have to leave at 11:00 because i serve on foreign policy board to the state department which has been rescheduled three times
but it is today and the meeting with -- >> we understand.we are just delighted we are making that time count. >> 11:30. all right. so i apologize. let me just address reorganizing congress, which i think is absolutely essential and will be very difficult to do. i was in the painful discussions, maybe senator baldwin remembers back in the day about the need for more jurisdiction for the house homeland security committee and the pitch was made and people nodded and then someone from the house commerce committee stood up and said oh, no, this option of interoperable broadband network is central to our jurisdiction. so, no change.
and people in this institution on both sides earn their power through their committee positions. and giving up power in this institution is not something people will do voluntarily. so i agree with tom ridge that the leadership will have to basically require it, however. the leaders earn their powers through the loyalty of their members and making members shrink their own power is not really helpful to leaders holding power. so i don't know how the thing changes but until it changes, we won't have the robust homeland function that we should have. just one other comment as i kind of implied 10 years ago. the concept for the homeland department is more ambitious than some of us would have wished. it was the white house to put agencies and departments together. some of us thought of a more modest function between the
coordinator and the white house. but we took it because the administration was behind it. so it's a daunting task to make this thing work. at this point, i don't think we should rearrange the deck chairs in the administration. but if there is a way and maybe the members here have more power than members i have observed back in the day, if there is a way to reorganize congress to give the committee more power, i think this country will be more >> admiral, do you want to? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> as i stated earlier, i spent several days out at the annenberg foundation with lee hamilton and tom to produce the report that was set out today. my proposal would be attached to the record because there is a detailed discussion rather than
take the committee's time here. i wouldn't have served on that task force if i didn't subscribe to that. there is a subcommittee for the coast guard there. i spent four years as commandant of the coast guard without an authorization bill. fishing vessel safety to unregulated small boats and never were able to be addressed and if they were, committees would assert jurisdiction. very, very time consuming. if you look at some of the issues we haven't been able to address and some of those are in the aspen report, there is a lot of issues on the record that have been raised, the issue of security for general aviation that is another when moving forward. only other point i add to senator coburn's comments, what we are trying to do with flood insurance, it's very instructtive.
those that bear for the risk don't pay for the risk. we have an extraordinary amount of liabilities trying to pay off the claims from hurricane katrina. on the other hand, you start to let the flood insurance fees rise, you have issues with local communities. and what you have to do in the long run is get ahead of all of this and change behaviors on land code and zoning use which is a more strategic way to deal with this but you can't do this with four, five committees asserting jurisdiction over the problem. >> i fully support the idea of reducing the number of authorizing and oversight committees. let me talk about two ways we can address senator coburn's concerns about the budget and some of the other issues. it seems to me that proper authorizing legislation can set the framework for actually saving money in the budget. and i'll give you two examples
technologies that it already uses, you will end up saving money by relying on existing capabilities. and creating at the same time, reassurances for people about how that reliance will work sm the same thing, it seems to me is true if you can build a planning process, a budgeting process that uses integration, office of secretary of defense- type capabilities to say how can we reduce the budget effectively, how can we eliminate redundancies by looking at the authorizing language and if we do that, we
will be building the capabilities of what i described as the second tier so that the secretary doesn't have to sit down and get out and start ag asking about the 14th line about individual components. but that is being done by a staff that is trying to eliminate redundancies. by creating the right kind of authorizations for those central staffs, you set the framework for reducing the budget. and last tied to that, it seems to me that until it comes when we have eliminated many of the authorizing issues, one of the things that this committee can do is build a relationship with the appropriators so when the appropriators are asked about legislation that arguably is authorizing on appropriations, they know that this committee has looked at those ideas, have thought about them, has vetted language, creating authorization language that may in a pinch end up in an appropriations bill, is worth considering at least the short run until we get to the promised land.
>> thanks, and i realize we have senator baldwin. he has gone to the observance. we have gone well beyond the five minutes as you know and i thank you for your patience. i thought it was important for us to allow this panel to answer these questions in the thoughtful way we have done. we have spent going from one place to another, in and out as you know. and this was a very helpful series of questions and responses. senator johnson is next. this is an excellent hearing and i'm pleased the way it's going. jane, we'll give you the first rights and then you can leave.
>> thank you, mr. chairman, and thanks to this panel for being here today. mr. chairman, i join everybody in remembering the families many from my state that were tragically impacted from the events of 9/11. certainly watching this in new jersey. the most recent events that we have seen that really get to the issue we are talking about today, the bombing at the boston marathon. and at the time -- and i have read this issue before when we had commercial davis and others to talk about those events. and i was serving as attorney general. i remember being in my office and learning that there were contacts as to what was going on there in my state. and i remember -- and our state police and everybody did an unbelievable job that turned that around to make everybody proud and we want to make sure ihat event doesn't occur.
and the same question, i have a time constraint. and i would like you to answer first because you have a time constraint, do you think we have the appropriate -- currently have the appropriate client among the people that are responsible for having developing and sharing the information necessary so that that information is flowing appropriately to get secretary ridge's point, we aren't overly siloed. be it from a cyber perspective, a terrorism perspective, whatever these perspectives, it is making sure the information gets to where it needs to get. and i ask you to talk about your thoughts on the current climate of the way that information is shared among the people that are responsible for sharing it. >> thank you, senator. i would give us, as i just said, an f for re-organizing congress. it is sad that congress has a
19th century structure to deal with 21st century evolving- threats against our country. but on information sharing, it is a b. it's not an a. ridge.oking at tom >> a d or a b? >> b. not an a. but the challenge was to break down silos and to create opportunities for people to actually know each other, which is one of the ways you build trust and enable information sharing. yes, there were mistakes in the boston marathon case. the tide list didn't get to the right folks and the f.b.i. didn't follow up and a little of this and a little of that. however, once the event occurred, boston -- the surrounding p.d.'s, the state of massachusetts and all of our federal law enforcement agencies and homeland came together in
almost a seamless way in using video, including people's hand- held phones, they were able to focus on them quickly. itt's why i say it's a a.-- a b. an a, before action. it was probably a c. this is improving. i want to mention that we haven't talked about and something i know a lot about based on my role on the advisory committee to the d.n.i. and some of these other intelligence places that i stay connected to, and that is the dark side of information sharing is that it enables snowden or others to get too much information and to use it for evil purposes. our goal is to build the trust and horizontal arrangements and put in safeguards so people with bad not iffs inside or outside our system can't abuse it and i
don't think we mentioned that and that is part of the challenge going forward. >> thank you. secretary ridge. >> well, i would have the great pleasure of working with congresswoman harman and grading on a higher curve than i would giving everybody a b. i'm not going to give them a grade but i'm going to address something i find troubling. going to the perception that d.h.s. didn't do its job. i remember after the detroit bomber and d.h.s. was criticized after letting the individual on the plane and secretary napolitano was taking some heat. i had to remind everybody that d.h.s. doesn't rely to provide information. and if the state department didn't give it to d.h.s. and customs and border protection, d.h.s. should not be held accountable but it seems from
time to time they were. fort hood, the f.b.i. in two different venues that hasan was e mailing the radical cleric in yemen and d.h.s. takes the hit. why didn't they do more? well, i mean, frankly, that wasn't in their spot. they have to ask why they didn't do more. with regard to boston, i don't think that the f.b.i. is on a speed dial arrangement with the kremlin and i would like to know personally how often the kremlin picks up the phone and says you have a couple of terrorists in your midst. i don't know how thorough that revelation was many within the f.b.i. i'm not faulting the f.b.i. i don't know whether or not the federal government germly including the f.b.i. took russia, the russian intelligence communication as seriously as it
should have. there may have been other agencies that should have been involved. i think the response as congresswoman harman said was not get thehs did credit. there were grants that wept out and program training that went out and done under d.h.s. but that is triage after the incident. and that's why information sharing is critically important. and to take this little step further. let's assume you break down the silos and there is better information sharing, someone has to look at classification. the easiest way for the agency to deny access to -- and i'm concerned about state, locals and private sector to say it's top secret. io one want to look at it. think somebody has to take a look at classification. i have seen a lot of things that were classified, top secret that
i know you could have shared with folks that wouldn't do harm to sources and methods and i think classification is very important particularly if we are serious about information sharing down to the state, locals and private sector. attorney generals have to know about what ision. going on in their states. i'm one of those folks you can't secure the country from inside the beltway and the alphabet agencies have to trust high- level law enforcement members in all 50 states and territories with information about what's going on in their respective states. i venture a guess that you have no idea that all the investigations went on when you were attorney general of the potential terrorism activity in your state. it is a huge mistake. people say somebody may reveal that information that was shared. we need to expand the network
with fellow americans. can't keep all that information. that's my response to that inquiry and we need to look at classification because it's overly classified which is reason not to share. you have to trust fellow americans to help keep the country safe and secure. >> i know that my experience was that -- thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, i know we are out of time. we had the opportunity to be briefed and attorney general's jurisdiction is different. mine was different. and i think to get to your point, others have made these relationships -- first time you are talking can't be after an event and talking before and having some trust and having seen somebody is invaluable once the event starts so there is no hesitation because that stuff has to get to the decision makers and to the rescuers and whomever else is involved.
i appreciate your thoults.-- thoughts. i'm over my time and i don't want to hold up senator baldwin, but i would like to hear from the other panelists, too. >> are you ok if the other panelists respond? are you ok with that? let's do that. we have a good flow.thanks. >> thank you. >> rather repeat some of the points that are valid that jane and the secretary made, let me take a different spin on this. when you look at counterterrorism and organized crime and illicit trafficking, there are growing linkages there. whether you are a terrorist or a criminal, you have to do a couple of things that are advice i believe. you have to talk, move and spend money. and every agency operates on a case doctrine on how you manage that and that case is usually confidential informants, sources that is usually at
the root of classification. they referred to that because they are trying to protect that. the problem is that our law enforcement structure in this country has evolved in this country against business lines of the bad guys, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, counterfeiting, intellectual property, all managed by a law we are dealing with illicit networks that generate cash to perpetrate their regime and you have to attack the network with a network. the greatest case for information sharing and greatest case for a more and better integration not only in the d.h.s. but domestically and internationally is to look at these challenges as network challenges and how do we move cross dealing with their business lines which means you are taking down one franchise and not the root of the problem which is how the network sells threat financing, how the money moves and how they
communicate. that is the number one cause for action on information haring in my view. >> three thoughts on this. one that i offer only tentatively because i don't know the details, but i do remember when the old star nevada brother came back from russia, he came back from the russia and we had a chance to look at his electronics and we didn't do it. my impression is we didn't do it because the f.b.i. had closed its case. and one of the questions i wonder about if d.h.s. deferred too much to the f.b.i. we have an independent responsibility to protect the united states and the fact that the f.b.i. closed its case is not necessarily a reason not to ask questions of somebody who has gotten the kinds of
intelligence reports that tsarnaev earned. second, one of the things -- >> elect me correct the facts on that. your statement is in error. it was sent to the joint terrorism task force in boston but was not related to customs and border control at kennedy. >> there were failures of information sharing that cost us something and something significant. second, we learned after boston how valuable cameras can e. they aren't valuable in stopping crime, but valuable in catching the people who carried them out. we learned that from the two bombings in london. and yet for a variety of reasons including privacy campaigns, a lot of cameras have not yet been installed in city centers. we don't need them hooked up or
don't need to be watching them but need to be recording so if something bad happens we can go back and find out what events led up to that. we should be encouraging the installation of those cameras and if people have privacy worries, we should have them continually rewrite over their hard drives as opposed to send the data anywhere. and third, on the information sharing point, i thought jane harman was exactly right. information sharing creates risks, creates snowdens and mannings, but they look a lot like the chinese hackers who have compromised computers. and same tools that help us to provide better cybersecurity and will provide us better audits and will protect as well because we will be able to tell whose accesses information
improperly. one of the things that this committee could do, that d.h.s. could do is make it clearer to the state and local entities that get grants that they can use that money for cybersecurity, audit technology that will allow them to meet all of those requirements. >> thank you. >> senator baldwin, thank you for your patience. take as much time as you ant. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member for holding this hearing. i thank our panelists and congresswoman harman for your service to our country. and i appreciate each of your sharing your analysis and appraisal of where we have come in the last 10 years and where
we still have to go. i want to focus my questions in on the larger issue of cybersecurity and incredible increase in cyberattacks that we are experiencing. and i would like if you could and start with you, mr. baker, to talk about any distinctions that we should appropriately make with regard to economic cyberattacks versus the threat of cyberterrorism where the goal might be to take out part of the power grid, for example. and i would like to focus in -- you ended your testimony a little bit with the private sector being in a position where they have more intelligence on their potential competitors, but i think you were talking about economic cyber attacks in that arena. so the question i have is, what can we do better with existing
authorities? and then the second question that i would like to hear from all of you about is, i don't know how long the journey will be until congress actually passes legislation on this topic to supplement the executive order and to respond to many of the issues that have been raised, but there has been lots of comment and secretary ridge, you talked about don't make this prescriptive or regulatory. i wonder if there is a distinction we need to make hen we talk about critical infrastructure because people depend upon that and it may be private, but it is to the public benefit without question. and should there not be some
additional obligation, some prescription, if you will, because of the level of importance of that critical infrastructure? if you don't mind, mr. baker, i would like to start with your reflection on those questions. >> there are two big worries in cyber. one is what you might call economic espionage in which all of the attacks are aimed at stealing information. and we have seen enormous amounts of that aimed at practically at everybody who might be of interest to any foreign government with any capabilities in this area and probably everybody on this panel and certainly everybody on this committee has been attacked in an effort to gather that information. that is a serious pandemic problem right now. sabotage or cyberwar, designed to break systems so they don't serve us is a very serious possibility. i'm not so sure about terrorism.
i'm not sure it has been healthy for al qaeda leaders to use the internet in the ast. but state-aided terrorism, if we actually did attack syria, i think you would have to worry that iran or hezbollah or some organization assisted by them would age in cyberattacks in the united states designed to cause failures in financial or industrial control systems and those could be very serious. all of those attacks tend to use the same basic techniques. you break into a standard commercial network and try to hop to the industrial control network that you can break and cause serious damage. and so stopping the espionage attacks, making it much more expensive to steal secrets is our first and highest priority. under existing authorities, we do have authorities to
investigate -- first, companies know a lot about who is in their network. i represent a lot of them and experts that they hire will say, oh, yeah, this is this unit of the peoples liberation army or some other criminal gang. we know by the things they're doing, and the code they are leaving behind who it is and will tell you what their tactics are going to be for the next 24 hours and what they are trying to steal and why. they know a lot just looking at the activity on their network, something that may not be available to law enforcement. what they can't do is go to the command and control septemberers being used to steal the information. you need law enforcement authorities. law enforcement doesn't have all of the background information. we need to find a way to use existing law enforcement authorities and the existing
resources and information that individual companies have to actually track those guys back home and then begin looking for reasonably creative penalties that can be applied again, using existing authorities we can deny visas for any good reason. the president and congress can impose financial sanctions on individuals who have committed this kind of crime. we have lots of authorities we have not yet used. >> i think the progress that has been made with the executive order that was timed by the president regarding cybersecurity and protection has taken a step forward. until you start dealing with the issues about proprietary data there is a hesitancy of the private sector to get on board. the conversation has been started in the last two weeks with the release of the draft, voluntary framework by nist is
going to advance that discussion further. there are some critics that have said that is too general and not detailed enough to be effective. my position is you start with a 1.0 version and go to 2.0 version and having that conversation and involving the private sector is what is needed. if you look at this problem, this is a classic case of macroeconomics and what's the inherent government role and what should the private sector be doing. and there is not a consistency in the country about where those roles are. whether the government will control that is a command and control system. i think to figure out a way to share the information that is held classified within the government and get it out to the people that need it if they are attacked and get the
information out of them and potential civil or criminal penalties associated with that. i will say this and there are a lot of people out there trying to work this problem. i have had the opportunity over the last couple of years to work with an organization in pittsburgh. it's a 501-3-c organization. and local f.b.i. office and have developed a way to create a metaphorical switzerland and capable of walking across the hall and under the protocols and building trust and so forth. we have to figure out a way for the parties to come into an area where they are free of risk, organizational risk, to provide that information and exchange it. it's not going to work. and of all the conversations i have had regarding this complex problem. the organization has come closer to figure out how that works.
and i would suggest the ommittee may want to reach out and talk to them. >> quite a bit of progress has een made since the establishment of the department with regard to addressing ybersecurity, although we have to admit in 2003 when the enabling legislation was created, there was no one, i don't think, that was as totally as concerned about -- some may have been -- the emerging threat about cybersecurity. we commercialize the internet in 1992 or 1993 and it's the backbone of everything we do. so the sensitivity and concern with regard to distinguishing between what is and economic inet and what is a defense or
offense-oriented is a legitimate one. you have nation states, you have terrorists, hackers employed by nation states, organized crime. there are multiple challenges in dealing with this. even if we can attribute, if we actually attribute who the attacker was and maybe the determination of the consequences, what do we do about it? what do we do about it? that speaks to the kind of collaboration that focuses on information sharing in a true public-private partnership with the private sector rather than compliance. with due respect to my profession, as an attorney, i don't see compliance lawyers as being the best means of assuring that we have enhanced our security in this country, because a regulation means there will be a checked block.
and you did what the federal government did what they wanted you to do. and frankly, the technology available today, offensive and defensive as we speak is changing and it will be different tomorrow and the years ahead. i think the best insurance right now is to take the embrace whether it is pat gal ager from -- gallagher from nist who said let's continue down this path of setting voluntary standards that both the federal government and the private sector agree upon and see how well they do about taking those standards and did he advising the kind of defense strategy they need before we start thinking about regulations because i'm afraid -- i'm going to say this, congress, four, five years ago, appropriately gave to d.h.s. chemical facility,
anti-terrorism standards and egs. three, four years later, there are a lot of people working hard on it. but that delegation of authority doesn't mean it was executed in the appropriate way. i'm simply saying for the time being, i think president obama said -- set it up with his executive order. we ought to let it come to fruition before we think about regulations. i might add, three or four critical sectors and i think you were alluding to them, financial services, energy, transportation. i must say from my experience, these sectors have spent and will continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars sometime on their own, sometimes in cooperation and collaboration with homeland security. but we have evolved a long way. i remember we created an
emergency response at carnegie melon because this was a problem in 2001 and 2002. we will be dealing with this forever more. forever more. i don't think we will have a regulatory compliance scheme that will keep up with a dynamic environment. my recommendation, even though i think your question is important, i think we need to let the nist standards play out and push to far more public and private collaboration. y company deals with significant private sector companies that deal with cyber issues. and one is a multinational corporation and said, we have been hacked. and they said we know. we are a tax paying group of folks, don't you think we should sit down and work together on it. focusing on collaboration and sharing rather than compliance is the best approach for the time being. >> do you want some more time? i want to preff as, -- preface,
ou mentioned pat gallagher pat galer from nist and he said every now and then witnesses showed great wisdom and in his testimony before us, he said, we'll know we're on the right track when good cybersecurity policy and good business policy are one. that's what he said. that's pretty good. pretty good advice. we have gotten a lot of good advice here as well. we also preface my next question by saying it's the anniversary of the 9/11. here we are maybe days before the u.s. could launch limited cruise missile attacks at some targets in syria. here we are knowing we are under attack, cyber front, 24/7. and we have an acting secretary of homeland security and we have an acting deputy secretary
of homeland security. and just cries out for the administration and for us to do our jobs to make sure we have in place the kind of confirmed leadership that we need capable and confirmed leadership. that having been said, let me turn to a topic i just mentioned that is on our minds and that is the potential for military action, limited military action in syria unless the country relinquishes its chemical warfare and dismantles its capability to create more chemical weapons. the prospect of using military force is a serious matter. the president visited our caucuses yesterday, the senate, both democrat and epublican. i want to ask, as we are
prepared to make whatever decisions we need to make in the days ahead in conjunction with the president, it's important to get answers to a few more questions and i would like to ask this seasoned panel of national security experts for some of your thoughts. if the president does choose to take limited military action against the assad regime, what impact do you think that might have on homeland security? what should d.h.s. be doing to preparing to prepare for potential consequences that would flow from u.s. action, even on a limited basis, against syria? mr. baker if you would like to ead off, that would be great. >> we absolutely need to
prepare here by taking on syria. we are also taking on hezbollah and iran, backers of that regime, and if they choose to try to make the united states regret the sanctions it imposes, they have very substantial capabilities. hezbollah has its own cruise missiles. and so a terrorist organization with that kind of capability certainly can develop and use cyber attacks or can send people to the united states to carry out attacks. so we would have to go on a pretty substantial alert basis. they would be biting off a lot. they're already on alert against israel and fighting in syria themselves so they may decide it's not prudent to attack. we need to be worrying about defensive capabilities and for the first time we face the risk we will have a cyber attack in
getting us to quit in engaging in military action. iran is widely blamed for a series of attacks on our inancial institutions that have been visibly punch-pulling exercises in which the attackers announce how the attack will last and what day it will happen. and obviously, they could do more and cause more damage. and again, iran having blamed us for stocks net is going to be less constrained about using that kind of weapon against the united states on behalf of an ally like syria. so we will have to up our game both physically and virtually. > thank you.
admiral allen. >> let me start with the caveat. it has been several years since i sat up in the tank so i'm going to speak in general. i don't want to speak in comments that wouldn't be appropriate. in regard to cyberthreats that could be generated by this, one of the problems, we are trying to evolve these structures and we talked about them extensively here today. it's tough to talk about how you would deal with one of these things when you talk about what you need to do and haven't done yet. advanced persistent threat is discussed internationally and relates to what stewart was talking about. there are foot prints that are left regarding behaviors that go on out there that are indications of something that's going to occur and one of the things that changes need to be made and continue to be looked at in the executive order and in the standards and everything
else is we need to move to continuous monitoring and after that we need to continually be able to look at the precursor or being set for an attack. any threat situation and this one specifically, i think there ought to be a fine-tuning of our sensors of what's being talked about in social media and what type of activities are taking place. after 9/11, we talked about chatter. we have a much better capability now -- we have a mismatch in computation, spectrum and band width management. we don't utilize against these problems. in this case, we will be looking at advanced persistent threat. they had to put the mechanism in place to do it. >> i appreciate the question
and i must tell you, we have had long conversations about topics of national interest, i'm going to resist the opportunity to tell you how i think we got into this mess and how i think we ought to get out of it and answer your question exactly. it reminds me of the national security council over to what was then a small core staff between the time i was sworn in as secretary and the intervening six weeks before we opened the door on march 1, 2003, first day of the department of homeland security. couple members of the national security staff came over and said very confident at the time we are probably going into iraq. we know you don't have a department but maybe think about the potential blowback in this country and what can we do to minimize the effects. it is appropriate to play the what-ifs and then respond if the if occurs.
we have learned a lot since liberty shield. i think frankly, the state and locals are far better prepared. we know the many maligned colored-coded threat warning system, at least we know there are certain levels of security that are embedded in the federal government and even within with the state and locals and private sector, number one. number two, i think the most likely pushback would be in the cyber realm. and to that end, again, it's a great place to suggest that this is precisely where the federal government should be sharing the precursors that it may know or the addresses that it has seen as it relates to the digital incursions that we have been hit with from the syrian army, perhaps hezbollah
and the like. this is a classic example where we are more familiar with the electronic incursions directed at us from russia, from syria, et cetera, and precisely the time that that information should be shared with not just state and locals, but with the private sector. so long-term, i think we are far better prepared to respond to an attack because i think the word has been used, we are far more resilient than we were 12 years ago. this is an excellent opportunity for the federal government to share the information that the private sector would like to check -- check that information against what they see occurring on the grid, the financial institutions and transportation, et cetera, to see if they are missing something and be better prepared if there is an electronic attack or digital attack if we go into syria.
>> thank you for those thoughtful responses. governor ridge will take the color codes to his grave and the leadership we provided, i'm not so sure you can work that into your tombstone. i say why do you spend so much time on postal reform. she was kidding on postal reform on my tombstone and i thought what would be appropriate are these words, return to sender. >> it's a classic example, omething that the congress will have to deal with, i believe. we know russia and china have yberattacks as part of their warfighting strategy. this is a condition of not only military and diplomatic and business activity, international activity.
but again, where you need the public and private sector to sit down and cooperate and determine if there is an attack, what are the consequences and who is responsible for returning it to sender. all of this has to be worked out. and again it just calls for collaboration and cooperation, communication and doesn't require for a regulatory scheme where you check the compliance box and everybody feels safe after that. >> senator coburn. >> i think secretary ridge agrees with this. we spend billions on grants every year. is it your opinion that those grants ought to be risk-based rather than parochial based?
>> absolutely. >> senator coburn, following the attacks of 9/11, i was the atlantic area commander. i was concerned about the posture of our ports on the east coast and put a team together that developed port security risk assessment model. we look at impacts trading off what you would protect in a port based on risk and consequence. i remember having a conversation with secretary chertoff about implementing that at a secretarial level across the department to inform the grant programs. and we had a pretty significant impact in doing that because here was logic attached to what we did. until secretary chertoff ran into the buzzsaw called new york city and we are stinging from that adventure couple years ago. i agree with you, it ought to be risk-based and conditions-based, based on
local communities to adhere to the national incident management system. it ought to be linked on how they are making decisions on land use and reducing risk. there is every argument in the world to do that. >> one quick comment, i want to go back to the reorganization of congress and conjures up a couple of conversations we had where we are were trying to move it to risk-based. i think the department of homeland security and all of the agencies and the federal government is more susceptible to political medical willing and interference. once we got into the second year of the urban security initiatives, we had the f.b.i. talk about in the intelligence community, really assess based on the prior year's intelligence gathering and try to come up with a risk-assessment models, the cities that were impacted. given the traffic. long story short. from one year to the next, we
took several cities off because based on an analysis of the preceding year, they were no longer on the list. and human cry from congress that those who represented those communities, not deafening but fairly loud. not that we listened to it, but it ought to be risk-based and you are on something very important. but the whole system should be risk-based. >> one of the things that the president proposed is combining these grants together where you have an efficient and effective grant program where you set metrics, transparency to it, you are following up and if they are not following what the grant was for, you jerk the money. so that we actually saved money by son doll dating the grant programs and -- consolidating the grant programs and have more money to go where the risk is and follow up with the money where the grant was for. they got a cold shoulder in
congress and i got a cold shoulder when our committee marked up that we are doing things on parochial than risk-based. any recommendations on how we can accomplish that -- i don't know whether you agree with the president's recommendation of consolidating these grants and using them on a risk-based process. any recommendations, one, on how we do that? and two, whether we should do it? > one, without knowing the recommendation, it's very consistent with my thinking as to -- after 10 years of maturity and 10 years of growth, growth hasn't met with becoming more efficient and effective. homeland security is about risk management and resiliencey and
the dollars out the door are based on some kind of assessment and would be well to bring that philosophy to everything they do as well as the approach in terms of appropriating dollars to these rant programs. you might want to allow for -- i'm going to speak -- be interested in my friend and colleague, that had allen. i'm not sure we have done enough with port risk, maritime risk. some of those may be two or three verticals and identify he greatest risk which would be the maritime industry and more on there. there are duplication of programs and oversight and everything out the door needs
to be risk managed at this point. >> there was a port security grant program as well. and i would like to attack the larger issue that you raised. i was prone to support request for grants in areas where i saw that there was not only recognition of risk but a commonality of purpose and regional approaches and we saw some areas, one of them is houston where they came together and created a regional entity which they consolidated all their requirements that came in for a grant program. when you do that, that behavior ought to be encouraged. whatever you put in place and this will be a lousy meta for, but it's going to have a wall around it to be executed like the brac program. it's executed or it's not executed. and i don't know how you structure that in law but you are going to have a way to ecide how it's going to be done, the criteria are established and the decisions
are made, it's either up or down and can't be picked apart. the issues, i just -- i saw secretary chertoff get wire brushed up here, the political buzzsaw in new york. not to say that new york oesn't have problems, but that was a very, very difficult time for us in the department. >> i think admiral allen raises the point that is worth thinking about in terms of how much -- of your personal credibility and time you would invest in that because even after you've built a pretty good risk system for grants, politics will not disappear and that risk system whatever it is is going to get distorted by the kind of politics that secretary chertoff encountered and others have. and so you may at the end of the day end up with a less mechanical system, but not one in which the politics have been eliminated.
and at that point, it's possibly, you will ask yourself, how much did i achieve by introducing this risk concept. i believe in it, but in practice, i'm not sure that it works out as well as one imagine. >> thank you. my comment on that, is you need a backbone of the person who is running the agency and take the heat, but do what's right for the country. when we have a bear cat garden of pumpkin festival in keene new hampshire and say what can we do to protect cybersecurity or advance, what else could be done? we are dividing up the pie and we are -- this country can't afford to do that. we don't have the pleasure of doing that. the next homeland security director -- secretary, that's going to be one of the equal
fikes i'm looking for, are you ready to take on the fight to do what is best for the country nd not what's best for the politicians. >> i think it would make the next secretary and future secretaries, backbone would be essential, but nice to have the nstitution that applies so much pressure, change in their jurisdiction so the fact that you can apply pressure institutionalized, they are institutional-wide. you have a necessary oversight, it would be a heck of a lot of pressure if the decisions -- the legislative decisions that the secretary is obliged to follow is reduced rather substantially and therefore held accountable to senators coburn and carper.
>> could i make one quick comment? there are a lot of different grants out there. i saw senator coburn making strong statements after the tornadoes in moore, oklahoma and respecting the earlier statement by jane harman in the passage of the emergency supplemental following hurricane sandy there were amendments to the stafford act that created more leeway and flexibility for local governments to deal with debris removal, where there was an economic incentive for them to do what was best for them and preserve the funds and allow them for another use. there may be some utility in looking at what we were able to do. and i realize that was an unusual way to america the stafford act. but there may be insight to gain how you can empower local communities with an economic incentive for them to do what is right and build off a concept like that.
and i congratulate everyone on that piece of legislation, by the way. >> it was back in march dr. coburn and i held a hearing to examine the progress that has been made and some of the challenges that still remain within the management of the department of homeland security. i'm sure that all of you are aware of the latest high risk report from g.a.o. that the department had made considerable progress in integrating its components, moving toward -- actually having auditable financials. but the overall management of the department remains on g.a.o.'s high risk list. and i have been real impressed by the efforts of the department's leadership to address these management issues. with the changing of the guard,
impending changing of the guard at the top of the department, there are still a bunch of questions about how the department can sustain and build upon the work of secretary napolitano and i hasten to add deputy secretary. what do you view as the most urgent steps that the department should take to develop strong management institutions and practices? institutions and practices? institutions and practices? nstitutions and practices? to further develop those practices? and are there any legislative steps that come to mind that those of us who serve on this committee and colleagues ought to strengthen the tools and institution that is the secretary needs to manage the department? and the last quick question, you were there i think when we coast ribbon on the new
guard headquarters, were you there? >> i was not. >> that was a special day. i wish you could have joined us. how does the consolidation of the headquarters at st. elizabeth's play into improvepls? if you could take a swing at those? >> i'm familiar with the report, not the contents of the report with regard to management. i've often said that the department of homeland security from the get go had two responsibilities thatted the to deal with similar tainsly, one build a safety security platform. the other was the business line integration. it is a business, it is a budget that's doubled. have you a couple thousand
employees. one of the regrets and it's something you couldn't do anything about is if you were going to merg 20 plus agencies with multiple missions and budget requirements in the private sector, you would have at least had a year or so by the time you got all the approvals because homeland security is about mergers acquisitions and startups and the management around those things for the past ten years hasn't dramatically improved. i frankly don't have an answer. i think we've had some really good people there trying to get those things done but absent buy inin some of the management changes and strukeuring they might recommend, that is buy inby the congress it's difficult to make reforms. it's not just indem i can to
homeland security. i truly believe there are still silos within that agency that have to be merged and it can only be done with legislative oversight and direction. i like the notion of consolidating. i hope you find money to build out st. elizabeths because as secretary when we would have meetings with the five or six muse cue lar agencies. there were basically five or six that provided most of the employees and the rest were bits and pieces from the other units of government. and toe try to pull you're leadership together a couple of times a week taking them from their offices and bringing them over to is it down a couple of tismse a week was not a good use of time. we had to ability to develop a
good relationship. there is tremendous opportunities for different pieces of homeland security and it's been demonstrated with working with the coast guard and ice, you have better management if you have the chief leaders interacting on a day-to-day basis rather than piece mill. you get better management if the restructuring that's been recommended by some of us from the outside in department of homeland security is put into law. >> thank you. >> this is an area i have a great passion about so don't feel bad ability cutting me off. let me hit a couple of these issues. one of the things that happened when the department was created was we aggregated the authorities and jurisdictions from the department. one of the things that's been insidious for over ten yirse is
that we took the appropriation structure from the legacy department and moved them to a single committee. parrability me between personnel cost and operating cost and capital cost. and because of that you can't compare and trade off on where you want to make investments. i have said in several hearings you got to get down to blocking and tackling if you are going to take on the management issues in the department. and you have to standardize the appropriations structure so there is compability. the congress cannot make good decisions unless there is transparency across the department. that is better insight on how you are spending your money. they got a qualified on their audit this last year. the coast guard got a qualified
opinion. it needs to move forward but you are talking about the integration of i.t. systems, financial systems. there are three major financial platforms used in the department right now. there is a look at shared services and maybe a better way to do this. all of that has to come on the table. we have to look at integrating this enterprise and make it run efficiently like you would in a corporation. i was the come dant when we made the decision to move. and all i said was i can support this, i'm behind it. i just don't want to go there without the secretary. and i'll leave it at that. the issue with the federal building funds. there are issues with how this project has been funded. issues with the district of columbia planning entities. but the overriding imperative to have a central operations center from which the secretary
can operate and make decisions is a primary need in this department. a national operations center absolute imperative moving forward. >> thank you. you controlled those passions pretty well. >> i certainly agree with admiral allen. they say in washington that where you stand depends on where you is it and i do think that if d.h.s. sits together they are likely to stand together much better than they do today. and so to the extent that we can get everybody in one place, we're much better off. i too am a little reluctant to make suggestions for changing the details of management in the department that i left a few years ago. i think that there are probably some opportunities with respect
to the homeland security review to turn that from an exercise in which we look at some very interesting and difficult issues into something that turns our budget into a multiyear thoughtful priority driven exercise rather than something in which we say how much do we have and what can we cut. and to the extent that authorizing legislation can move it in the direction of actually influencing budget decisions, i think that would be an effective way of dealing with the looming crisis we have with respect to appropriations for everybody and making sure that the cuts are much smarter than they otherwise would be. >> thank you. before we wrap it up, let me telegraph my final pitch and sometimes we have a hearing like this. i like to invite our witnesses to just give a brief closing
statement, a couple of thoughts you want to pull together or under line a few things and leave those for us. i would welcome. i think we would welcome that. let me yield to dr. co-burn for any last comments. >> mr. baker do you want to give us a closing thought or two before we wrap it up? >> yes. nothing has made me prouder or caused me more frustration than my service at the department of homeland security. i am deeply fond of the institution and i believe that it's making a major contribution to the security of all americans. it has changed our approach to the border in way that is nothing else could have and that has paid dividends in almost every terrorist incident that has been planned or aunched against us since 9/11.
we need the department but we need it to be better and we need to be more organized, more consolidated, more coordinated. that's the biggest challenge that the department faces. we've gotten by with three great leaders but we can't count on personality driven unification forever. e need to institution lies it. it's a big challenge. but it's a challenge that you have the sword i'm sure of everyone on this panel to accomplish. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. chairman, in regard to some of the mission areas we've talked about today, cyber security and so forth, a lot of that is going to necessary involve the congress to do that. i is it on the advisory board
so i'm aware of the risk areas. jeanne and i have talked about this before. i believe when it comes to the internal management of the department of homeland security there are adequate authorities in the department to operate. i think there needs to be a serious discussion about conditions of employment related to mission support activities and functional integration in the department for the next leadership team moving in. those ought to be clear and enforceable in the budget and they ought to be laid out with metrix attached. i do not believe any legislation is needed to take care of the management improvements that the department could implement immediately. >> thank you. >> governor rich. >> we look back on those days when there was -- look back on those days when there was considerable debate in this town as to whether or not we
actually needed a department of homeland security. i remember my friend on my side of the aisle said we were creating a brand new bureaucracy of 189,000 people and i hopefully reminded them these aren't new jobs, we're just going to consolidate units of government that historically had missions of protecting our borders. and gaining knowledge about the people and the goods that come across our borders. long needed in the 21st century world when the interdidn't si of information sharing for law enforcement purposes and interdidn't si of countries with regard to security is a part of our daily lives and how we're going to live. we are interdependent. ut i think congress did a wise thing. the didn't has evolved and matured. i'm reminded of a phone call after i was announced to be the
secretary of department of homeland security. a couple of decades we saw a smaller aggregation responsibility that is created nasa. he said decades later i still see the vess tajs of culture insilos in this entity and this organization. so i don't think we should be surprised that we haven't made as much progress as we all think we need. we're not as efficient as we need to be. i don't think anything is wrong with the management structure. i do think there needs to be efforts to oversee the oversight of that structure to hold both the congress and the department far more accountable for the out comes we want. at the end of the day i think you've touched on some important issues and i'm proud to spend time with these panelists. it's about risk managed approach. i would hope you can resolve these issues.
i realize again i roaneically enough the issues i just raised aren't necessarily all within the exclusive purview of this committee which speaks to one of the challenge that is the congress has. at the end of the day i'm proud to have been the first secretary. i believe they've made progress. i'm not convinced because it's bigger it's better i don't think it has. i think it's the well meaning intentions to make us safer and secure. it has the collaboration and oversight with the congress that i think is essential. at the end of the day the mission is the same in the department of homeland security, make our country safe and secure, do it in a way that is consistent with the constitution and the rule of law and the big challenge associated with that has been with us since 2003. but with the snowden revelations and the impact of
the digital world and cyber world that challenge to maintain the privacy of individuals and the protebs of these rights under the constitution becomes more complicated for this commilt tee and the congress of the united states. and i look forward to future invitations to share my views. i thank you very much. >> it is we who thank you. we thank you for this day. we thank you for your preparation for this day and for this conversation. and for your continued service to our country. i have a closing statement i'm going to submit for the record. i'll just say this is -- i think some remarkable progress has been made in the ten years that has passed. >> thank you for that leadership as this department was launched and for your great leadership as well. this is as much progress as may have been made, there is
clearly more to do. it's not a time to rest. i like to say everything i do, i know i can do better. and the same is true in terms of protecting our homeland. we leave here knowing that on this very special day we've learned a lot of lessons and i think we've taken a lot of appropriate steps to secure our nation. but obviously there is a whole lot more that we can do. doctor gave me a good idea earlier this year and that is to do a top to bottom review of the department. he said this is an appropriate time to start that process. what you've done today in laying out for us, it's a bang quet of knowledge of great ideas. we thank you for all of that. we thank our staffs for pulling
this hearing together. y'all have done a great job. the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until september 26 at 5k p.m. for the submission of statements and any questions for the record. again our thanks and our thoughts and prayers for those who lives we remembered today. god bless. thanks. we're adjourned. >> on c-span tonight former secretary of state hillary clinton accepts an award from the national constitution center. then 9/11 memorial neents washington. and the senate homeland security committee looks at national security threats. >> tomorrow we'll bring you coverage of the intelligence and national security alieans
summit with congressman mike rogers. the chairman and ranking member of the house intelligence committee. other speakers will include director of national intelligence and defense intelligence agency director. watch it live on c-span 3. also on c-span 3 a senate health subcommittee hearing on funding for dental care in the u.s. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> it was different than earlier presidential homes because it was never a commercial venture. hat edith wanted was basically to off set the expense of living there. grains did raise hey, that they could feed their horses and reduce the cost of having horses here. they did have a lovely guard
than produced everything from corn to straw berries. they had eight different kinds of grapes, they had strawberry and blueberry fields. but the idea was to feed the idea was to feed the family and the staff. >> visit our website c- span.org/firstladies. we continue our series live next monday as we look at first lady helen taft. >> the senate has delay consideration of an action on syria while the white house seeks a diplomatic solution. jay carney was asked about these developments at a daily briefing. is there some kind of tangible process on the diplomatic process?
>> i do not have a timeline to give to you. inwill take some time developing a plan for securing syria's chemical weapons and verifying their location and putting them on international control. secretary kerry is leaving for geneva, as you know. he will be meeting with his russian counterpart. they will discuss this matter. experts, awill bring team of delegation to evaluate pathsoposal and assess forward. i expect this will take some time. we are not interested in delaying tactics. we believe it is important to hold assad accountable.
the president has made clear all along the potential use of limited carry -- military strike is in response to assad's use of chemical weapons. to involven effort the u.s. militarily directly in the syrian civil war. it was not designed to precipitate the regime change. it is around the question of chemical weapons. piles can be secured and removed from his possession absent of military force, that would be a good thing. in talking to experts, this is something that could take months and even years to carry out. don't you need to give some kind of firmer timetable for when you need to see process or else it
will just grind out. initiative has been presented only in recent days. we are deploying the secretary of state to meet with his russian counterpart in geneva. these discussions will take place. there are discussions in new york and at the united nations around framing a un security council resolution on this issue and the removal from assad's control of his chemical weapons stock. -- stockpile. i do not want to suggest we are interested in a delay or avoiding accountability. .here are steps in this process a verifiable way to secure weapon and removed them from assad's control, hopefully to destroy them.
it would take some time. the implementation of it could begin odyssey before its completion. it would be irresponsible not to explore this potential diplomatic solution on this serious matter. >> former secretary of state -- hillarylly clinton commented on the use of chemical weapons. she was in philadelphia to accept a liberty medal. we've also hear from the constitution center's chairman jeb bush. this is an hour. [applause] thank you. welcome and good evening, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for joining us on the
spectacular occasion. this is the 25th anniversary of the liberty medal and also the 10th anniversary of the national constitution center. i could not even more thrilled to be leading this extraordinary institution in the years ahead. centerional constitution is the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the united states constitution on a nonpartisan basis. we are proud that our chair is governor jeb bush. we are also proud to our past chair that has included george w. bush and bill clinton. the are past recipients of liberty medal. medal ceremony that we celebrate tonight exemplifies
that tradition. acrossdividuals from perspectives that have furthered the constitutional values of liberty and equality around the globe. have three goals for fulfilling our congressional mission. peoplethe museum, we the , the national headquarters for civic education. our three goals can be summarized in three words -- vis it, learn, debate. as the museum of we the people, starting next year, we will instruct internet to set new gallery of freedom to display one of the 12 original copies of the bill of rights. it will be the foundation for her years of education and debate on the meaning of the bill of rights to coincide with its anniversary.
as a center for civic education, we illuminate the history and contemporary meaning. we convene constitutional conversations among people of all ages. as america's town hall, we are the only institution in the world brings together all sides of the constitutional debate that affect american lives every day. events the town hall here in philadelphia, on the web , on the radio, and on television. we hope that each of you will come to think of the national constitution center as a place you can come to hear all sides of any constitutional question and make up your own mind. at the national constitution center, we focus not on political debate, but constitutional debate. we are honored to present the liberty medal tonight to secretary hilary clinton. [applause]
we are here to celebrate secretary clinton's lifetime of active citizenship and her exemplary commitment to furthering the constitutional ideals of liberty and equality. in particular, among her many achievements thomas secretary clinton has made the rights of women and girls a global priority. she has championed freedom of speech on the internet. we are looking forward to her thoughts today on how america can't uphold those values in the future. ladies and gentlemen, i am you thato introduce to 2013 liberty medal recipient, former secretary of state hillary clinton. [applause]
>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the chairman of the national constitution center board of trustees, governor jeb bush. [applause] >> thank you all very much. i'm delighted to welcome you to this wonderful museum and the ceremony recognizing hillary clinton for her lifelong career in public service. we have had a bit more media for a liberty event. there is a lot happening right around the world. secretary clinton is out of office and so am i. expect sure what people
will happen tonight. [laughter] we come from different political parties and disagree on a few things, though we agree on the wisdom of the american people, especially those of iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina. [laughter] clinton mighttary be in des moines next week. do not wear the metal there, met him secretary -- madame secretary. tonk you for the hard work the museum to make this event a success and their devotion to this great institution. greetings from the entire bush family, especially my dad, who also served as chairman. he thanks you. [applause] for the good
wishes for his help and wants to let you know he has plenty of technicolor socks. do not send any more. we are drawn here today by a common purpose -- to support and respect our constitution and elevate it among a new generation of americans and to return it to the center and the core of our political life. the reason we share this purpose is because we have seen in our own life the power and value of the constitution as our north star to guide us as a nation. no matter the issues of everyday, the challenges we face, there might be differences of opinion of what the constitution means, but there is no disagreement that the constitution has the final word. there has never been a more lasting or in during or resilient -- enduring or blueprint and the
constitution. it has guided us through change. america lead the world in technology in building our economy. trauma of warhe and terrorism, we have seen this in our lives. we marked the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. lovedose who have lost ones that day, tomorrow will be a day of deep pain. we were all tested that day. we never lost our loyalty to the constitution, its protection and its freedoms. america has undergone many chapters, and many trials, aims the founders could not have imagined. because edition remains as relevant as ever. theings clarity to complexity of modern america. the constitution is one of america's great strengths. the promise is what brings so
many americans to our shores. immigrants seek what the constitution promises. to be an american is not a one- way street. a self-governing people. it requires all of us to understand how our system of government is supposed to work. when the nation calls upon us to serve and defend the republic, it is this reason the constitution must be the foundation of civic education. the constitution explains how we must govern and it explains why we govern. america stands alone as the world's indispensable nation not because of our military might, though that is critical. not because of our economic power. we are indispensable because of the idea that is at the heart of our constitution.
that freedom depends on the right and responsive release of individual citizens. not on the good graces of a king or even a president. reagan depends on individuals, each of us. -- freedom depends on individuals, each of us. this was a liberal idea in the 18th century. it is dangerously becoming and ignored one in the 21st. today we celebrate that idea and recognize the efforts of our honor read to promote it. we recognize the commitment of someone who has devoted her life to outlook service. thank you to both the secretary clinton and to president clinton. thank you for your service to our country. we are united by our love of the country and public service. i believe that is the central goal of the constitution. god bless you all. thank you for coming. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, please
welcome abc news anchor and correspondent, elizabeth vargas. [applause] ♪ >> good evening. it is a real pleasure and honor to be here tonight to emcee the liberty medal award. secure women strive to liberty for people. given all the momentous things happening in the world even as we speak, all of that makes it an honor to be here tonight. throughout the course of this hour, we will learn much more about secretary clinton and her commitment to human rights, liberty, and equality. there going to learn about foundation of secretary
clinton's commitment to public service and how it was built in her home town of illinois. >> you might say hillary clinton's service began at age 12. >> organizing the kids and raising nickels and dimes. >> at 13, she went to work for the richard nixon camp. she looked for evidence of voter fraud. >> we had to go from apartment to apartment to verify that the person that was registered was living there. >> healy was an active member of the young republicans and later a goldwater girl. was an active member of the young republicans and later a goldwater girl. >> she majored in political science and served as president of the young republicans. her views change with the tumultuous times. ,> the civil rights movement
college students were questioning everything. >> she was trying, as we all were, to make sense of the world. >> hillary interned with the house republican conference in washington and attended the republican convention in miami. she also went to the democratic convention in chicago after hearing of a police crackdown on antiwar protesters. >> the crayons -- the chaos, the mayhem. watershed they were a for both of us. went her junior year, she from a goldwater girl to a rational and > -- >> she went on to yale law school and she could use the law to champion change for women and girls. she took a job as a children's defense fund and child advocacy
work for bono. >> the first time i heard of hillary clinton was in a list of the nations most prominent lawyers in the late 1980s. she was listed because of her work with the children's defense fund. >> at yale, she also met bill clinton and followed him to arkansas where she became the first beam a partner of a prestigious rose law firm. she focused on childhood education and literacy. >> she was a leader from the beginning. she brought that leadership into her role as first lady of arkansas and as first lady of the united states. >> she was the first first lady lady to be elected twice to the u.s. senate. she was not a show horse.
try to understand the issues. she worked across party lines. she is interested in getting things done. [applause] >> madam secretary was just saying, look at all of that hair. [laughter] here are a few things you should know about secretary clinton. in the late 19 80s, she chaired the american bar association commission on women in the profession. to rein in gender bias in the field. as first lady of arkansas, should push for statewide education reform. speaking of educational pioneers, please welcome the president of the university of pennsylvania and national cost edition center trustee. -- national constitution center
trustee. [applause] you all. thank you, elizabeth. great to see all of you here tonight. as a member of the national constitution board, i have the honor of chairing the committee that selected this year's liberty belles recipient -- bel l's recipient. our constitution was signed in 1787 just across the mall from your. it took until the 19th amendment -- from here. it took until the 19th amendment to allow women the right to vote. let's hear it. [applause] when i was a child, it would has -- it would have been unthinkable to imagine a woman on a president of the university of pennsylvania, let alone
secretary of state of the united states. many of us cannot wait to celebrate -- the first woman president of the united states. [cheers and applause] throughout her first four decades of public service, secretary clinton has been a trailblazer, expanding opportunities for we the people. she has been a voice for all those who have been afraid or unable to speak. for freedom,trong she has inspired others to lead as well, to expand their education, to cultivate their unique talents and to find their own voices.
[applause] >> both emphasize that being a woman should not limit choices in life. >> i think the culture of our family, a liberal mom with a conservative dad, it contributed to thinking on both sides. -- a youthinging minister took hillary and her friends to hear martin luther king speak. >> reverend jones gave us the opportunity to go up and shake cans with him. it was a tremendous experience. >> when hillary went off to will llesey college, she was interested in the students. what is possible? of studentdent
government, she worked with the administration to update campus life. >> the rules were you have to be in by midnight. if we left campus, we had to sign off where we were going with a telephone number. a young man can only be on our dormitories -- in our dormitories on sundays. >> hillary also conveys administration to approve more people of color. >> hillary clinton was a game changer. what makes her unique is that she worked within the system. then 1969, hillary became first student to deliver a commencement speech. she would follow a senator. >> the senator of massachusetts gave a pretty robust sense of then-president nixon, and that included the still ongoing war in vietnam. >> it hit the wrong cord for all of us. >> hillary departed from her
prepared comments and gave an on the fly comments. she got a standing ovation from the class. those sitting on the stage were aghast. >> she was on the front page of life magazine. >> with one speech, she became a voice of her generation. >> ever since then, she has not stopped. it has become a larger stage. [applause] gentlemen, lee's welcome the mayor of the city of philadelphia, the honorable michael a. nutter. [applause] everyone.ening let me acknowledge what is obvious.
experiencing the freedom of speech. that is a good thing in the u.s. we get to have that. [applause] is an incredible honor to be able to talk about my friend, hillary clinton. i will maintain the appropriate protocol. friendship that has developed over 20 plus years. i was in the late 1980s when was following a little-known governor who was tearing up trouble thinking about things in . very different way i have a great honor to work with him and work with his wife. paying attention to her career forell, great advocacy women's rights and children's rights.
i looked and i think about that in our declaration that all men are created equal. secretary clinton made a decision a long time ago to prove the point that all women are created more than equal. [applause] there with anyut significant other, you know exactly what i'm talking about. her work, her commitment, she is smart, but always wanting to listen and better understand an issue. she is a friend. she is a champion. done.kes to get the news -- things done. dy toas the first first la be elected to the senate. i expect she will break another barrier in four years and she will be the first first lady to
come back as president of the united states of america. [applause] i assume she will take resident clinton along with her. [laughter] excited here in philadelphia. secretary clinton, there is tremendous amount of love and support for you. .e cherish this friendship we appreciate all that you do. danes.ct to see great congratulations on winning the 2013 liberty medal right here in the place of freedom and democracy. congratulations. [applause] >> thank you, mayor.
as first lady of the united states, hillary clinton spearheaded a number of initiatives to improve the lives of children across the country. for example, she established the children's health insurance togram and early head start support kids in those crucial first three years of their lives . she led bipartisan efforts to approve the adoption and foster care systems and teen pregnancies. she has continued that approach. that is how she met our next speaker. [applause] ♪ as a media adviser and communications strategist, i had the honor of working with national and international leaders come including george w. bush and senator mccain.
i've also spent a better part of my career fighting for education reform at various -- i connected with an organization that ensures a level playing field so today's kids can build a brighter future. ehrlich clinton expressed an interest in what we were doing -- hillary clinton expressed an interest in what we were doing. fail, a program that would give children the ingredients they need to develop in the first five years of life by promoting new research in and earlylopment learning and early health and working with parents and communities to improve the lives of young children. i'm a proud republican and secretary clinton is a proud
democrat. we are working together to improve education. this kind of productive bipartisan collaboration is a reason i helped cofound no la bels. her steadfast dedication embodies this bipartisan spirit. thank you. [applause] thank you. hillarytary of state, clinton took a stand for our next speaker. a woman was working as a journalist in iran when she was arrested in 2009 and falsely accused of spying for the u.s. she was sentenced to eight years in prison. outcry and global diplomatic efforts of then
secretary of state hillary clinton. please welcome roxana. [applause] ♪ be easyerica, it it can to take for granted the constitutional rights you enjoy every day. the freedom of religion, assembly, the right to a speedy and public trial. as a journalist, the freedom of speech and of the press. in 2009, my freedom was taken from me. i have moved to iran to work as a foreign correspondent. npr, abcports for radio, bbc, and fox news. i also started writing a book about iranian society.
one morning in january 2009, four intelligence agents came to my apartment and forced me from it and lock me up in solitary confinement in a tottori is risen -- in a notorious prison. weeks passed before family and friends knew where i was. in the meantime, i was interrogated and threatened with , even20 years in prison execution. i felt helpless and afraid. age --ly, i found her found courage. other prisoners were really pursuing their human rights. strangers, and political leaders were calling for my freedom. they included secretary clinton.
she spoke with passion and strength and used greater diplomacy to reach out to a country that has no diplomatic ties with the u.s. i felt humbled and empowered. not have toi do stand up for justice by myself anymore -- i realized i did not have to stand up for justice by myself anymore. [applause] thank you. when i return to the u.s., i had the opportunity to thank her in person for her efforts on my behalf. i remember i felt deeply touched when she told me she had felt concerned for me like any mother would. as a human rights advocate, i drew inspiration from her lifelong commitment to improve the lives of women and children around the world.
journalist, i'm inspired by her dedication and giving a voice to people who stories need to be told. she has traveled the globe. [applause] she has traveled to more countries than any first lady before her. virtually everywhere she went, she signed the light on issues impacting women and children. shined a light-- on issues impacting women and children. >> she represented that u.s. at a u.n. conference in beijing. >> it is time to break the silence. >> addressing delegations for
more than 180 countries, she touched off a litany -- domestic violence, rape as a tactic of war. >> she claimed that wonderful phrase human rights are women's rights. her words in beijing reverberated worldwide. delegationon after rose to their feet. it was extraordinary. >> in the wake of the beijing clintonthen first lady established an initiative to promote the advancement of women as a u.s. foreign policy goal. agenda andn on the made it a centerpiece of all that we did. >> hillary clinton continue practicing her diplomacy. the most trouble secretary in u.s. history.
countries. covering nearly one million miles and holding an estimated 1700 meetings with global leaders. , concise. smart >> she pushed for the creation of an ambassador for global women's issues. she has also pursued having women in peace negotiations. you onlyrth should have the guys with guns negotiate the peace? >> she launched the women and public service project. >> you can see the progress we are making. toit is an organization boost the number of women in government positions. >> i was inspired by her. >> we are very lucky to have her as a friend who will stand by
us. >> as america's top of the map, she has bush relationship hasding -- diplomat, she pushed relationship building. >> saving lives in making people's lives better. [applause] >> now it is time for the presentation of that liberty medal award. please welcome back the national constitution center president by ceo, jeffrey rosen joined hillary rodham clinton. [applause] ♪
>> ladies and gentlemen, the 2013 liberty medal recipient hillary rodham clinton. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. oh. it is wonderful to be back in philadelphia. at this magnificent institution, i am honored and overwhelmed by this extraordinary event. k all who haven .poken and the kind words award and forthis
being in a line of greatest awardees, nelson mandela, so many others for whom i have long admired. i want to say thank you to everyone who spoke in person or in the video. i appreciate greatly what they have done with me and taught me in how we work together and inspiration that they had been to me. i want to say thank you to my friend, mayor nutter, for hosting us. beautiful city. i also want to acknowledge the governor and attorney general and my longtime friend who did so much as mayor and then governor to create this center right where it along. [applause] i want to say a special thank you to governor bush and to apply his commitment to the
national constitution center. this is not the first time that a clinton and a bush have shared this stage. 2006 --you a member in remember in 2006, my husband and jed's father were jointly honored for their work on behalf of tsunami victims in south east asia and residents of the gulf coast after katrina. calld 42 as a sometimes are the classic art couple of american politics. couple of american politics. barbara sometimes refers to bill as adopted black sheep son.
i know bill loves it. he has great admiration and affection for 41 and all that they have been together. and i are not just renewing an american tradition of bipartisanship, we are keeping a family tradition as well. [applause] we also share something that is far more important than any of our political differences. we both love this country. we believe in the wisdom of our founders and the constitution. think about this -- the mission of the national constitution center is to illuminate constitutional ideals and inspire active citizenship.
what a great nation and a challenge to all of us. what an opportunity to honor that patrons who met right here agohiladelphia many years and all those men and women from later generations who worked to make that vision real. they knew that in a democracy, citizens cannot sit on the sidelines. we have to get into the arena as tony roosevelt -- teddy roosevelt called it and participate in that debate that shapes our countries future. sometimes it can get pretty noisy. that is the american way. it is natural and right in a democracy for us to debate and for us to disagree. it is what distinguishes us from
authoritarian societies where defense is forbidden. in our country today, we are once again in the middle of some big, noisy debates. what are the demands of america's global leadership in a changing world? how do we respond when international rules of the road are violated? how do we provide all of security and liberty at home and faces its ownera questions and has to fashion its own answers. we are no different. the president will address the nation shortly about the assad regime and the human use of chemical weapons against men, women, and children. that is at the heart of our global order and demand a strong response from the international
community led by the u.s. this debate is good for our democracy. as our founders knew, a fervent arguments are the lifeblood of self-government. how could a republican -- republic last its citizens did not have issues -- opinions of the issues of the day or were too intimidated to express them? the delegates at the cost to -- at theonvention constitutional convention did -- talked about fears of excessive executive powers. these are many of you off picking steering and were wary about national armies. he had also seen from the articles of confederation failed to provide a unified foreign policy. putting banner racing -- aspirations for unity and sovereignty at risk.
as benjamin franklin said, we must indeed all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately. in the federalist papers, teams madison argued that america that united with a handful of troops or without a single soldier exhibits a more for bidding ambition -- forbidding admission -- ambition. president washington stressed the importance of national unity in his farewell address and warned us against interested groups and internal rivalries. to be sure, we have had plenty inmoments of partisan combat our past, including some that make our current squabbles sound
downright delight. even had to fight a civil war to prevent the union from splitting apart. ods, we our darkest peri have been blessed with leaders who would our nation first above partisan advantage. president lincoln, every public and, takes a southern democrat to be his running mate. to beo asked his rival his secretary of state. imagine that. [laughter] oddthere is another great couple who i particularly admire and arge marshall republican from michigan who shared the foreign relations committee after world war ii. when the senator first heard about the treatments administration plan for rebuilding war-ravaged europe, he was deeply skeptical.
why should american taxpayers who have sacrificed so much shoulder the responsibility for helping former adversaries like germany and japan? my father was looking so handsome in his uniform had the navy toer small. he felt exactly the same way. so did many other americans. hero who the war served as secretary of state and secretary of defense and sat down. he listened respectfully to all of his arguments. when the general explained why america's future security and prosperity depended on having allies who would share our , andest and buy our goods even more part only that america had a responsibility to lead the world. he appealed to his patriotism
and asked for his help. this would only work if it was truly a bipartisan, national effort. most vocal, pre- became a champion of the marshall plan and deserves a share of the credit for its eventual success. the senator and the secretary have many more to secrete and. and debated strategy tactics for hours on end. it was always in pursuit of shared goals. hehe banner berg put it -- indispensable to unity. the goal is to put national security ahead of partisan advantage. those are wise words for today and for every day. as secretary of state, traveling
around the globe, i saw firsthand how american unity leads to strength, but discord leads to perceived weakness. the world watches carefully the decisions that we make in washington. sometimes they watch more in our than we even do weest moments of any era, achieve great things approved by a model of democracy that inspires people everywhere. when we let partisanship override citizenship, when we fail to make congress on the challenges facing our people here at home, our standing in the world suffers. two other quick points about this concept of act of citizenship. of course, i cannot celebrate good vision of our founding
fathers about also saying a few words about our founding mothers. know, when the cost to sharon was first adopted, i would not have qualified as a , neither would president obama for mayor nutter or many other americans. there has been a struggle to expand citizenship to more and more people. that has been a source of our dynamism and renewal for america. then decades after that collation of independence was signed in philadelphia, 100 citizens signed a new declaration in a place of seneca we holdw york saying these truths to be self evidence. there are men and women who are created equal. frederick douglas to attend and, a former slave in the great --
and great abolitionist describe the participants at seneca falls as few in number, moderate and resources, and very little known in the world. to commend wes was a firm commitment that we were in the right and a firm faith that the right must ultimately her veil. it has been 155 years in seneca falls. still on our way to that more perfect union. as our nation grows more diverse and our world becomes more interconnected and interdependent, the full participation and active citizenship of all of our people is a source of such strength, as well as a moral imperative. only if we stay true to our founding hopes and values,
america's democracy is not a birthright, nor is our global leadership. it must be earned and preserved by every generation. tomorrow we will pause to remember the worst attack on our country since pearl harbor. it has been a dozen years since terrorists killed thousands of innocent americans in new york, washington, and here in pennsylvania. i will always remember walking through lower manhattan on the day after those attacks as a senator representing the people of that great state. it was like a scene out of dante's inferno. the air was acrid. the thick smoke made it hard to read or see. reathe or see. a firefighter would be covered soot. --
they carried undocking spirit of a wounded nation on their tired shoulders. safe and strong in a dangerous world, we will have to rely on a foundation that has served us for more than two centuries. the values enshrined in our founding documents. and kurds- was done and service of our citizens. let me end where i began with jeb's dad. h.w. bushdent george in hise oath of office, inaugural address that day, president bush offered a timeless wisdom of saint augustine's. things, unity, and
important things, diversity, in all things, generosity. i want to thank the national constitution center for the great honor you have given me today and for safeguarding the ideals of our founders. we remain in their debt and now in yours. thank you all. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause] ♪
♪ except the freaks who suspect they could never love anyone ♪ ♪ [applause] much. -- thank you so much. and gentlemen, good night, and thank you for attending the national constitution center's 2013 liberty medal ceremony. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
acceptance of a russian proposal to turn over control of their chemical weapons to the international community. our first guest is congressman gregory meeks of new york, a member of the foreign affairs committee. and we will hear from representative chris gibson of new york, a military veteran and a member of the armed services committee. "washington journal" is live every morning at of and :00 eastern on c-span. -- at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> yes, the world is changing. know, we cannot control every event. but america remains the one indispensable nation and world affairs, and as long as i'm president, i intend to keep it that way. >> when the president is talking about, we are the indispensable nation, what he doesn't want us to talk about and americans to contemplate is we do not know how to win wars. any measureirtually the best military in the world.
we certainly spend more on our military than basically the rest of the world put together. but we do not know how to win wars. it seems to me that there really ought to be a very serious national conversation to ask, why is that the case? where is the fault line? is it our politicians are too stupid? is it our generals are inept? is it the size of the forces are too small? or is it, and this is my believe, the fact that by its very nature, war is unpredictable? to go to war is to roll the dice. you might win. you might not. >> more with retired army colonel in princeton history assessor andrew bacevich sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> ceremonies marking the 12th anniversary of the nine will -- 9/11 attacks were held in new york city, shanksville, pennsylvania, and here in washington. the president and first lady
>> good morning. learn of thee, we miracle of restoration. you who have made me see many willles and calamities revive me again. from the depths, you will bring me up again. you will increase my greatness and comfort me again. secretary hagel, general dempsey, members of our armed , thes, and most of all survivors who bear the wounds of that day and the families of those we lost, it is an honor to be with you here again to remember the tragedy 12 septembers ago, to honor the
greatness of all who responded, to stand with those who still grieve, and to provide them some measure of comfort once more. together, we pause and we pray as we give humble thanks, families and as a nation, for the strength and grace that from the depths of our despair has brought us up again, has revived strength has given us to keep on. we pray for the memory for all those taken from us, nearly 3000 innocent souls. our hearts still ache for the futures snatched away, the lives that might have been. parents who would have known the joy of being grandparents, the fathers and mothers who would have known the pride of a
child's graduation, the sons and daughters who would have grown, maybe married, blessed with children of their own, those beautiful boys and girls just beginning to find their way who today would have been teenagers, and young men and women looking ahead, imagining the mark they would make on the world -- they left this earth, they slipped from our grasp, but it was written what the heart has once owned and had, it shall never lose. lie your families have lost in -- while your families have lost in the love will never die. your loved ones have an everlasting place in america's heart. the familiesou,
who have known the awful depths of loss, and the quiet moments we have spent together and from the stories you have shared -- i'm amazed at the will you have summoned in your lives to live and laugh again. , yourore than memorials lives are the greatest tribute to those that we lost, for their legacy shines on in you. orn you smile just like him you toss your hair just like her, when you foster scholarships and service projects that bear the name of those we lost and make a better world, when you join the firehouse or you put on the uniform or you devote yourself to a cause greater than yourself , just like they did, that is a testimony to them. resilience, you taught us all there is no trouble we cannot endure, and there is no calamity we cannot overcome.
we pray for all of those who step forward in those years, diplomats who served in dangerous posts, as we saw this day last year in benghazi, intelligence professionals, often unseen and unheralded who protect us in every way, our men and women in uniform who defend this country that we love. today we remember not only those -- thatd september september day, but we pay tribute more than 1600 patriots who have given their full measure of service, military and civilians. we see the legacy of the friendships they forged, the attacks prevented, the innocent lives they saved, and their areades in afghanistan completing the mission and will have helped to end this war. this is the path we have traveled together. these are the wounds that continue to heal. god andthe faith in
each other that carries us through, that restores us, that we summon each more -- once more each time we come to the hollowed grounds beside this building or in a pennsylvania field or where the towers once stood. here, in such moments of grace, we are renewed. it is here that we referred the values and virtues that must guide us. let us have the strength to face threats that indoor -- that endure. thoselong as there are that will strike our citizens, we will stand vigilant in defend our nation. -- vigilant and defend our nation. while force at at times less -- while force at times is , we should recommit ourselves to partnerships and progress that deepens trust and allows more people to live in dignity, prosperity, and freedom. let us have the confidence in the values that make us
americans, which we must never lose. the shining liberties that make us a begin the world -- a begin to the world. the rich diversity that makes us stronger. the unity and commitment to one another that we sustain on this national day of service and remembrance. above all, let us have the courage like the survivors and family here today to carry on no matter how dark the night or how difficult the day. made me see many troubles and calamities will revive me again, and from the depths of the earth, you will bring me up again. you will increase my greatness, and you will comfort me again. may god bless the memory of those that we lost. may he comfort you and your families. may god bless these united states of america. [applause]
meals at a food charity in northwest washington dc -- northwest washington, d.c. later, members of congress gathered on the steps of the capital to honor people who died in the 9/11 attacks. floor, new jersey a column inwrote honor of the 9/11 victims. honor of the 9/11 victims. >> i rise to mark the 12th anniversary of the attack on america, september 11, 2001. in lieu of formal remarks, i would like to read the names, a poem written by billy collins that was read before a joint
session of congress in lower manhattan just after the attacks. the names -- yesterday, i lay awake in the palm of the night. a soft rain still in on helped by any breeze. when i saw the silver glaze on the windows, i started with ackerman. and calla broke, davis and everly, names falling too place as droplets fell the dark. names printed on the ceiling of the night, names slipping around a watery bend. 26 willows on the banks of the stream. in the morning, i walked out barefoot among thousands of flowers, heavy with do like the eyes of tears. each had a name. i inscribed on a yellow petal, then gonzales and haan.
jenkins, names written in the air and is stitched into the cloth of the day. a name under a photograph taped to a mailbox, a monogram on a torn shirt. i see it spelled out in storefront windows and on the bright unfurled awnings of the city. i say the syllables as i turn a corner, kelly and lee. and o'connor.la, when i peer into the woods, i see a thick tangle where the letters are hidden, as in a puzzle concocted for children. quiggly in quickly -- the twigs of an ash. bows of anthe ancient maple. sky, written in the pale
names rising in the updraft amid stonengs, names silent in or cried out behind the door. names blown over the earth and out to sea. evening, a woman by a window puts a match to a candle. the names outlined on the rose wallace.atercore and let x stand for the ones unfound. then young and ziminski. names etched on the head of the pen. one name spanning a bridge, another undergoing a tunnel. a blue name needled into the skin. names of citizens, workers, mothers and fathers, the bright eyed daughter, the quick son,
the alphabet of names in a green field. names in the small tracks of birds. names lifted from a hat or balanced on the tip of a tongue. names in the dim warehouse of memory. so many names. there is barely room on the walls of the heart. i yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho, for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. today on september 11, i want to take a moment to reflect on that on the day of 2001 world trade center, the pentagon , the fields of pennsylvania, and again in benghazi in 2012. i asked that we always remember the resilience and the strength of the greatest nation on earth.
there are moments in time when we cease to be republicans and democrats. politics and punditry melt away. divisions close and differences fade. we come together as americans regardless of race, creed, or religion. 11, 2001, and again in 2012 was and will always be such an occasion. on those days, our nation came together. that is what makes our nation great and unique. not only do we come together to celebrate in triumph, but we stand together in tragedy. it is in the face of adversity when our resilience is truly americans, time and time again, throughout history, we have passed that test. throughout the course of those days, heroes ran into buildings and stormed a cockpit, went into burning embassies. they donated clothes off their back. that, mr. speaker, is the true america.
not partisan gridlock. not tension building punditry. not smoke and mirrors legislation. the rallying cry of that day was simple, but monumental in meaning. usa. country was first, and everything else was second. as we tackle the monumental challenges that lie ahead, i asked my colleagues to remember the spirit of that day, to do what is right for america, not for one party over another. the heroes of that they did with they did not because of any political party but because it was simply the right thing to do. it was the american thing to do. americans, regardless of who they voted for, feel the consequences of our decisions each and every day. today of all days, let us all remember to put our country first and act as true representatives for the will of all the people. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> 15 years ago, book tv made
its debut on c-span 2. and money.ath, these are the three main human concerns. we are all keen students of love. we are fascinated by every aspect of the matter in theory and practice. maybe not quite as much as ken starr. >> since then, we brought you the top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. more than 9000 authors have appeared on book tv, including presidents. >> i wanted to give the reader a chance to understand the process by which i made decisions, the environment in which i made decisions, the people i listen to as i made decisions. attempt to an rewrite history. it is not an attempt to fashion a legacy. it is an attempt to be a part of the historical narrative. >> also supreme court justices. >> every single justice on the
love has a passion and a for the constitution and our country that is equal to mine. then you know, that if you accept that as an operating truth, which it is, you understand that you can disagree. >> and nobel prize winners. >> that, for me, what was interesting is negotiation of a moral position. do no harm. love somebody. respect yourself. do work you respect. all of that is reduced and simplified. the philosophers have spent their lifetimes trying to imagine what it is like to live a moral life, what morality is, what existence is, what responsibility is. >> we visited book fairs and festivals around the country. the annualis live at
l.a. times festival of books on the campus of ucla in west los angeles. >> there is our signature programming, "in-depth." --if you say to a child to in any school in the country, once upon a time, a child will stop and pause. now you better have more to say after that. but that phrase is still magical. "afterwords." >> my father's job had been to be press attaché in belgrade. my mother wanted me to be born in prague where her mother was and said, i was born in prague, and then we moved back to belgrade. and my father was recalled in 1938. he was in czechoslovakia when the nazis marched in on march 13, 1939. >> since 1998, book tv has shown
over 40,000 hours of programming, and it is the only national television network devoted exclusively to nonfiction books. throughout the fall, we are marking 15 years of book tv on c-span 2. >>'s senate majority leader harry reid today withdrew consideration of a resolution that would authorize a military strike on syria. this was in response to recent diplomatic moves to secure syria's chemical weapons. senator reid discussed these developments on the senate floor. >> as the president told the the presidentght, has asked congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of and pursueria instead of diplomatic path and see if that works. in geneva,ometime, withtary kerry will meet
the foreign secretary of russia. about that.rry turn awayt for us to from the steering resolution as the secretary of state important diplomatic discussions. we will be watching the negotiations very closely. if there is any indication they are not serious or they are being used as a ploy to delay, congress stands ready to return to that syria resolution to give the president the authority to hold the assad regime for the pain and suffering and death that he caused with those chemical weapons. meantime, the republican leader and i have agreed that the senate will return to work on the energy efficiency bill. portman, and the chairman of the committee have
talked to me many times over more than a year to move this legislation forward. i think it is appropriate that rather than sitting here and trying to do nothing, we should move forward on this legislation. so as not to interfere with the geomet discussions going on, we have agreed the senate will consider no amendments on the energy efficiency bill relative to syria or the use of force. i talked to a number of republican senators, and that is certainly fine with them. we look forward to considering amendments on issues that are domestic in nature and passing this important piece of legislation. i ask unanimous consent that the motion to proceed to the bill be agreed to, that there be no amendments or motions ordered relative to syria or the use of
military force during the consideration of this legislation. the time until 6:00 tonight be designated between the two leaders. i think it would be appropriate that we have statements from the chairman, ranking member, widen and murkowski, and senator shaheen and portman who sponsor this legislation -- sponsored this legislation. -- how hope at that time long do you need for your statement? >> 20 minutes. >> we will give murkowski the same. 15 minutes for shaheen. 15 minutes for portman. when that time expires, we will see if we can have some amendments. so, that would be the case.
the senators will be recognized for the next 70 minutes. indicated, this is for debate only. >> is there objection? without objection, so ordered. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the motion to proceed is agreed to. the clerk will report the bill. live will have more coverage of the senate tomorrow on c-span 2. also today, senators on the homeland security committee held a hearing looking at national security threats and intelligence gathering. they heard from former security -- homeland security secretary tom ridge and former ranking member on the house intelligence committee jane harman. this is two and a half hours. >> welcome for this important
hearing. today marks the 12th anniversary of 9/11. today i was reminded 12 years ago exactly to the minute an hour of what was going on in our lives. it is a very poignant day and sad day. a day that is not without hope. , not onlyreflection did that we lost a lot of our fellow americans, but a day that brought with it a sense of unity that we don't often see in this town and in this country. there is going to be a moment of silence a bit later. i'm going to ask us to start this hearing with a moment of silence. then i will introduce our witnesses and make some statements and begin. if you will pause now for a moment of silence, please.
thank you. one of the things that our he always encourages us to pray for wisdom each and every one of us in our own way. that is probably a good thing for us to remember under the state. this anniversary also provides us with an important opportunity to think about all the efforts we have taken to secure our country since that fateful day. as well as the challenges that lie ahead. with us today, we have a remarkable group of witnesses. they will share their thoughts and council on what we have --omplished and smile at him since 9/11 and the future homeland security. we are delighted that you have come. thank you so much for joining us and for your service to our
country. the department of homeland security turned 10 years old. while i'm sure we can all agree that the department can do a better job in certain areas, we should not forget about the remarkable progress that has been made in keeping america safer since tom ridge helped open the door of that new department, low those many years ago. , in my view,oubt that we are safer today than we were 10 years ago, in spite of greater threats to our nation and to our well-being. i'm going to take a couple minutes to highlight some of the more significant, attachments, if i could. we have enhanced aviation security through a more risk- intelligence-driven system that screens passengers against national security data basses -- databases. we have improved our preparedness for and our ability to respond to disasters while cutting red tape at the federal level.
we saw the fruits of these efforts in the response following the boston marathon bombings and also the national disasters that struck my part of the country, including hurricane sandy. we have increased the security of our nation's borders with historic levels of manpower and resources. we built up cybersecurity capabilities to work with the private sector and federal government agencies in preparing for and responding to and mitigating against the ever- growing number of cyber attacks. is there still room for improvement? i would say, you bet there is. one of my favorite sayings is, the road to improvement is always under construction. that is true in this venue as well. one way the department can improve is by doing a better job of preparing for tomorrow's threats today. we do a pretty good job in this country. to secure our homeland, we must do an even better job in
anticipating the next kind of attack we will face. ago, relatively few people were even talking about or thinking about cybersecurity. dayy, we can hardly go a without reading about a cyber attack or hearing about a cyber attack. ofrespond to the challenge ever-changing threats, we need a department of homeland security that is flexible and ready to adapt when necessary. sometimes, we just need to use some common sense. if a program is not working, we should not keep throwing money after it. rather, we must work smarter with limited resources and find ways to get ever better results for less money or for the same amount. that is why dr. coburn and i are holding this hearing and a series of others. we should focus on reauthorization of the department of homeland security. maybe a good way to do that would be to do a year-long series of hearings that are
relevant to the department and its functions. this is one of those hearings. top to bottomhis review of the department so we can learn from instances where the department succeeded and where it comes up short. this information will help us to better focus our scarce resources on what works. as the committee conducts this review, we will be working to ensure the department is making decisions,uisition developing more agile and capable workforces, and improving its financial management systems. this review will also look at how we can strengthen their defenses of our homeland against a very sophisticated and highly agile threats. one of the most important things we can do to improve homeland security is to come together to pass cybersecurity legislation, either in pieces or stitched together as a comprehensive approach for our country. the threat is too great.
the consequences of inaction are too severe to do nothing. enacting a thoughtful, comprehensive cyber security policy has not been easy, but we have a shared responsibility, both democrats and republicans, government and industry, to get this legislation across the goal line and into the end zone hopefully this year. thelready saw many of different parties that have come together to pass comprehensive immigration reform in the senate a few months ago. i do not agree with everything in that bill. my colleague here, dr. coburn, i suspect, senator johnson, they do not agree with everything either, but i believe the approach we're taking in the senate is vastly preferable to our current immigration system and the failings which undermine our national and economic security. it is my hope that the house will pass its own version of immigration reform so we can go to conference, make it even better, and pass the kind of legislation that our country needs. as we remember 9/11, and we
discussed the challenges that lie ahead, we must seek to recapture that spirit of unity that prevailed 12 years ago today. toneed that if we are going succeed in making not just the department of homeland security stronger in the next 10 years, but our nation stronger going forward into the future. i look forward to working with dr. coburn, with our colleagues, even senator johnson over here who is so good at coming to our hearings. he always asks good questions. we look forward to working with the administration, our witnesses, and other folks who are going to help us how to do this job better. the let me turn it over to dr. coburn. >> thank you, senator carper. i have a statement i will place in the record. i have a lot of concerns with homeland security. one of the editorials in the "new york times" today talked
about the lack of focus on multiple committees -- the focus on multiple committees instead of single committees and jurisdictions. i know it is difficult for homeland security to answer all the questions from the 88 committees and subcommittees they have to answer to. that is one of the things we ought to think about changing. our frustrations our we can never get answers. i'm sure it does not always intentional that we do not get answers. sometimes it is. it is because we are asking so much information all the time for people who have response ability of homeland security, they cannot do their job, because they are busy answering that -- answering questions from embers of congress. the other concern i have is the homeland -- the agency has turned into an all hazards agency. policies, toased put money where risk is, rather than where risk isn't.
the politicians in washington have very much accounted for that. in my opening statement that i will put in the record, there are large -- are a large number of areas where we are incompetent. whether it is in terms of either metrics or effectiveness, and we have not held the hearings that are necessary to straighten that out. i would welcome all of our panelists. thank you for your service in multiple areas for our country. i hope that you can give us some wisdom through your testimony on how to streamline and not the goal of long-term changes that need to be made in homeland security to get us back to a risk-based agency instead of a grab bag of political benefits agency. is final point i would make
that transparency is important. have,fficult job you governor ridge, in terms of bringing all these agencies together -- we have had a good homeland security directors and secretaries, but the idea that you can effectively manage this -- we have all the data to say we are not effectively managing it -- my hope is we will hear some great ideas on how you change the structure. the final point i would make, we have 15 open -- 15 of the top 17 positions at homeland security open, and to my knowledge, we only have two nominees pending in that area. i may be wrong on that, but that is my desperate think we have to. leadership matters. positionsple in instead of acting people in positions is very different in
terms of a cognition the goals that need to be accomplished at homeland security. i welcome you and thank you and look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, dr. coburn. be a:00, there is going to gathering of members of congress on the east steps of the capital for and observance. my hope is we can work right up to that time, and hopefully we will be in a position to conclude, to adjourn. to adjournay ask you fairly briefly and come back in a half an hour. hopefully that can be done. i know at least one of you has a tight schedule. i want to briefly introduce our first -- not so briefly the first witness. tom ridge and i came to the house together in 1982. 30 years ago today we were both in our mid 20's. maybe early 20's. but we ended up serving on the-- we served in the
vietnam war together. he had a real distinction. just a hero. and very modest about it. we ended up on the banking committee together. i think in the 102nd congress we ended up leading the banking committee, we had a subcommittee on economic stabilization and people said to me, tom, in the past years, what did you accomplish in those two years that you and top ridge led that committee? we lead the foundation for the longest running economic expansion in the history of the country. we stepped down from our responsibilities. in 1993, we were on our way to eight glorious years. he went on to become after that become governor of pennsylvania. our neighbor to the north. and first secretary of the department of homeland security. since stepping down as governor, he's not only led the department, but he's also served as chairman of the national security task force at the chamber of commerce and on boards of the institute of defense analysis, the center for studies of the presidency and congress and chairman of the national organization on disability.
meanwhile, he travels the world as head of his firm, ridge global, and any other number of entities. somewhere along the line he convinced a woman named michelle marry him. they have two wonderful kids that we've been privileged to know, leslie and tommy. delighted to see you and thank you for your friendship and extraordinary serve service to our country. next, jane harman, former congresswoman from california, 36th district. during her tenure in the house of representatives, congresswoman harman distinguished herself as one of the top national security voices in the house servicing on the house armed services committee, intelligence, and homeland security committees. she's also one of the principal authors of the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004. congresswoman harman serves as director of the woodrow wilson center. also member of the external advisory board for the department of defense, c.i.a. and does a million other things.
so it's great to see you. we welcome you warmly. our next witness is one with facial hair. i wouldn't have recognized you had i not known it was you and you were coming today but it's great to see you. and you are a hero in this country, the hero in the coast guard and department of homeland security. enormous respect and affection to you as you know. thank you. i wish you as well as i understand executive at booz allen hamilton. and the admiral recovered from -- led thekatrina. recovery from hurricane katrina. after the first couple of weeks, the initial response was the deepwater horizon oil spill and for that service and a million other things that you've done
and continue to do, we welcome you. i want to thank your family for allowing you to serve our country. and last witness, -- are you partner -- i understand you have a book out. author of a book. i love the title "skating on stilts: why we aren't stopping tomorrow's terrorism." in his position, mr. baker established the department's policy office. he led successful negotiations with foreign governments over data sharing, privacy and visas. established a secure visa-free travel plan. what years did you serve in the bush administration? thank you for that. and i want to thank, again, all of you for being here. your entire statements will be made part of the record. feel free to testify. we'll lead off with governor ridge. i want to say to senator, nice to see you.
welcome. it's a pleasure. our senator from new jersey, great addition to this committee and to this body. governor. congressman. >> thank you to my former colleague and my friend, it's a great pleasure to appear before you. senator coburn, as you say, let me associate myself with the gentleman's remarks with regard to a risk-based approach, with regard to consolidating the incredible labyrinth of jurisdictional maze that the secretary and his or her department have to continually respond to up here on the hill. i mean, one of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and 10 years later that one and the other recommendation they made with regard to a broadband public safety network, that's 10 years in the making. there's some legislation a long way from execution, so i really appreciate your words in those regards and other members of the committee, it's a pleasure to spend this morning with you on this historic day and important
day. i appear before you in a wonderful personal capacity as a private citizen as well as the chairman of the u.s. chamber of commerce's national security task force. the task force is responsible for the development and implementation of the chamber's homeland and international security policies. frankly, it's a voice for businesses across america. it certainly informs my perspective on many issues, but it doesn't dictate it because my work is strictly voluntary. i'm happy to advocate when we share them. i welcome the opportunity to appear here to examine the ways which we can secure america's future. since we have limited tied, i'd ask permission to revise and extend my remarks. before i begin, i want to on this anniversary acknowledge the families that lost loved ones on september 11. we all know where we were.
i had the opportunity to visit shanksville a couple hours after that plane went down. so the reason we're here is to work together and to do our best to ensure that such events do not happen again and that other families don't have to suffer like the families of our 9/11 heroes. with your indulgence, i'd like to make a few general observations first and what i believe is a cross-cutting issue that both d.h.s. and the broader federal government has faced in the past and has the potential to complicate our security forevermore. first of all, briefly, it's becoming clears that members of this body is attempting to pass some immigration reform. i think it's relevant. d.h.s. components can be expected to play a significant role in implementing these reforms. my position is that the time has come, the time has come to grant status to those who wish to enter our country legally, to work lawfully, to pay taxes and deal with the issue that we talked about for 10 years and that is the undocumented
individuals who are here. i think we can be done. i hope this congress does it. but i also think congress has to balance this responsibility with providing adequate resources to the department of homeland security in order to affect the outcomes that the broader american public want to achieve. we can talk about reaching consensus in washington, but unless any reforms are resourced appropriately, d.h.s. components will be saddled with an impossible mission in the critical area of border security. i'm not going to discuss my deep and abiding concern about the number of critical senior level vacancies at d.h.s. it's been addressed. it's disconcerting that an agency that's perceived by our government, united states government, to be as important as i believe it is, to have 15 vacancies or whatever the number it is at any time. and these have lasted for quite sometime.
you are aware of it. i just urge the administration to fill the vacancies quickly and the senate in a judicious manner and timely manner to exercise the responsibilities and fill these vacancies. let me discuss the challenge of information sharing which i think goes to the heart of the homeland security's responsibility. we don't generate intelligence. we are assigned from the enabling legislation to share it in a defensive -- provide whatever defensive measures we need to protect america. information sharing is an issue that's been with us since 9/11 and cuts across a range of challenges that have and will continue to confront the dedicated men and women of d.h.s. we all know the nature of the terrorist threat has changed as we've seen in iraq, afghanistan and today in syria. our enemy is no longer just al qaeda but like-minded organizations and nation states that are willing to ally themselves in order to harm their common enemy, the united states.
in my opinion, this will require the intelligence community to work with one another than ever before. congress in its oversight role should ensure that d.h.s. specifically remain plugged in to the federal intelligence communities horizontal, across the board. for if intelligence indicates a physical or cybersecurity threat against the homeland, d.h.s., by enabling legislation, is the agencies required to work with our partners along the vertical, required to work with the state and locals, required to work with the private sector. that's embedded in the enabling legislation. further, we should ensure that the great progress that's been made for information sharing with our state and local partners such as the establishment of fusion centers, continues to be nurtured. no discussion of the d.h.s. threat environment or about information sharing can be complete without discussing cybersecurity in greater detail. there's no part of our national economy, infrastructure or social fabric that is not in
some way connected to the internet backbone. our critical power and communications, transportation, product supply chains and financial systems. and d.h.s. owns many of these sector-specific relationships. let's face it, the cyberthreat is not new emerging. in fact, when i was secretary, in 2003 a full decade ago, the first u.s. national strategy to secure cyberspace was released. greater awareness of this threat may be emerging, but the threat itself has been with us and will be with us for the rest of our lives. as first secretary of homeland security, i have a particular perspective on this issue. we learned after 9/11 and we learned after katrina and keep learning after all these incidents that information and coordination sharing could have been better, and some people refer to a digital cyber pearl harbor.
at least in that instance, historians will say, we had no notice of the emerging threat. i don't think this is a cyber pearl harbor. we have noticed and it's not an emerging threat. it's a constant and ever- changing dynamic threat. and so i'm more inclined to say it may end up being a cyber katrina where we had notice but we weren't as prepared as we should have been until thad allen and began to address the situation that he confronted on the ground. i've got several more pages of testimony. i see my time is running out. i hope we get to this area in the q&a. at the end of the day, the sharing of information between the u.s. government and the private sector, specifically, and i can refer to the enabling legislation that says that d.h.s. has a very significant legislative role, it's absolutely critical. and not in a prescriptive form. it cannot be in a prescriptive
form. there are many regulations. in fact, the president's executive order asking this to set the standards is something that we all welcome and we engage but we hopefully give it a chance to work and assure that the private sector is involved and engaged because it's that kind of collaboration that's absolutely essential. and you're never going to defeat the cyberenemy, whether it's a nation state, organized crime, any organization by having the private sector check the compliance box. we did all that congress wanted us to do. that's inadequate. it's grossly ineffective. it has to be timely and continual information sharing horizontally with the federal government with the d.h.s. and down to the state and locals and particularly down to the private sector. the federal government relies on the private sector in order to
function. as i said before, we have some lessons to be learned about the inadequacy of what of the federal government is doing to protect its own information. i think it would be helpful not only when we repair that but i think it would be helpful not only when we repair that but make sure we facilitate the day- to-day engagement in information sharing with the private sector. i thank my colleagues who are on the panel, distinguished patriots as well for the opportunity to peer with them. i thank the chairman and the committee for the opportunity to share these remarks this morning. >> thank you for those remarks very, very much. congresswoman harman, please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i think every member of this committee knows, i have great affection for this committee. i work very closely with your prior management during eight years on the house homeland committee and another eight years, some of them overlapping, on the house intelligence committee. later today at the invitation of colorado governor, i'm flying to