Those are important elements of what you bring to this. We have seen a lot of value. We have used at the department of Homeland Security some of we have used at the department of Homeland Security, both in my tenure and that of my successors, we have used your studies in the areas of demonstrating economic value of Immigration Reform and how it has a real impact in a positive way on our economy. I know here in california, the armor algorithms have been used for smart randomization of checkpoints. It is an efficient use of resources. In terms of the application of grant funding, we relied upon some of the work done it here in terms of maximizing the value of how grants artistry did so they how grants are distributed so whatare done based on manages risk and not what is politically expedient or looks good to the layperson or where it seems to satisfy some kind of intuition. We know that the efficient use of resources is in fact one of the pillars of Homeland Security security. Back in 2007, when i spoke and made reference to the fact the time of 9 11, shortly thereafter, Osama Bin Laden himself argued to his adherents that by causing a huge amount of economic damage and forcing a huge expenditure of money by the west in response to an attack that was basically funded with 500,000, he was really leveraging economic power to damage and destroy the west. That was a clear message that if we did not construct a Homeland Security enterprise that was rigorous and economically based in a way that would not actually destroy our economy, we would each conceding to bin laden and we would be conceding to bin laden and his followers a victory. I was in our mind in 2007 when i came here to speak, and i know that your leadership role in pursuing this philosophy is still a very important part of what the department of Homeland Security hopes for and expects from the centers of excellence. So now i would argue that we need this even more than ever and first though, as i mentioned we are in tough budget times. , that means that the pool for money that becomes available becomes even stronger, that competing demands become more urgent, and that brings me to the second point. The reality is the public needs to understand that in fact we are not wasting money on Homeland Security phantoms, but there is rigor and logic and data to support what we do. I will be honest with you. We live in a time now where some of the public support for Homeland Security has diminished. In some ways that is to be expected. If you think about it, theres now a generation of people, many of whom are going to school here, for whom 9 11 is really not a vivid memory. A were children when happened. They were children when it happened. Quiteo not remember with an acute recollection what it was like that day as it unfolded. That means the natural emotional support for preventing it from happening again is not quite there. Beyond that, theres a greater skepticism for government, and were struggling with the legacy of a difficult economic crisis, all of which suggests there other problems and concerns that have to be addressed. As one more than ever in a world that is why more than ever in a world in which i think we do have increasing danger the ability not only to conduct research and analysis, but to explain it in a way that is clear becomes a foundation of being able to continue to build on Homeland Security successes we have had. The successes themselves are part of the challenges we face. No one would have believed in the weeks and months after 9 11 and we would not have another really major attack on the United States. We have had some close calls. I was reminded, talking to a reporter recently, and i mentioned the august 2006 airline bomb plot, where the al qaeda adherents in britain had the plans to blow up about a dozen airliners going from heathrow to north america. The reporter does not know what i was talking about. That told me that a lot of time has passed and people have forgotten a lot, and we need to explain to them that we have not had an attack does not mean that we have no threat, it means that we have used the kind of innovation and knowledge that you brought to the table in order to prevent attacks. That becomes a little bit of a problem in terms of sustaining support. What do we face Going Forward and where do we need to be looking for solutions and innovation in the next 10 years . Well, i will point to three things. No doubt you could find 30 more. We have the eve falling here is where i think we have evolving challenges that we need to consider. The first is what i call al qaeda 2. 0. You might call it 3. 0, the next evolution of al qaeda as a terrorist organization. It is quite true that the core of al qaeda, the original cadre that was responsible for 9 11, has largely been eliminated. Either they have been killed as in the case of bin laden or have been captured. That does not mean al qaeda has gone away. Either they have been killed as in the case of bin laden or have been captured. That does not mean al qaeda has gone away. What we are seeing is a new thaton that is now has now passed the size can become more of a franchise operation, and has spread around the world. Their strategies may be different. They may no longer look for the in 9 11 orent like Something Like the august 2006 airline plot. They may be looking for multiple smaller events against softer targets. We saw that in mumbai in 2008. We saw attempts to carry out attacks like that in times square and in the new york subway over the last several years. You seen a couple of successful attacks, including an attack as a lone wolf at fort hood. A much moreing with difficult strategy to deal with, perhaps with lower body count, but with lower signatures and therefore different kind of thought processes. Frankly, terrorism that is much more Community Based and requires much more state and local intelligence and awareness to identify incipient threats that are not going to be revealed because of spies and satellites that are somewhere over waziristan. In addition to that change in strategy, we are seeing new platforms from which terrorists can mount attacks. We have known for some time that yemen now is a center of bomb making. We have had some sophisticated efforts to try to get bombs into the United States. There was the underwear bomber, and then there was the effort to goingmbs in printers ever to be placed on cargo planes. Technologicalthat ability of the terrorists refined through years of creating improvised expose of devices will continue to remain a threat, and not only do we see this problem in yemen, but we have seen a spread of al qaeda into mali, niger, similar affiliated groups in nigeria. These pose a threat to american interests overseas, but also create possible launching point for attacks against us here in the United States. To two other areas we need be thinking about as we go forward. First, we look at pakistan. Pakistan itself struggles with the taliban, and there are certainly forces within pakistan that have sometimes aided and abetted and supported terrorist groups. We saw that with respect to the 2008. Attack in what is particularly concerning as pakistans struggles in some ways as a state with weak governments is the fact that it is a nuclear state. And therefore, one has to at least aat possibility at some point that Nuclear Capability could get into the hands of either toernment that was hostile the United States for some segment or part of the government that wanted to use those weapons in a destructive way against the United States. That means we cannot simply rest on what we have done so far in dealing with a Nuclear Threat dndo capability. We need to think about a threat that could become quite real in the next 10 years. Another area we have to watch closely is syria. Some of you will remember in the 1990s, chechnya was a recruiting and Training Ground for extremist radicals who came from europe, learned how to fight, and then went back to france and germany and other places and carried on the terrorist struggle over there. Or recently, we saw some somali toricans go to some only somalia. We made cases against them because they were plenty to carry the fight into the United States. There is now a fairly significant number of westerners who are going to syria to fight. Some of those will come back to the west. They will come back to europe and United States. They will have learned new techniques, tactics. Perhaps some of them will have evolved some experience with typical weapons. The ability to deal with these kinds of threats and these kinds of weapons of mass a structured and how do we identify these people and how do we track them these are going to be the analytic challenges for the next 10 years. Besides aler areas qaeda i would like to at least put on the horizon for you to think about. One is the issue of what i call the Insider Threat or violence from within. I do not know if i am imagining this, but it seems there is a significant uptick in the number of instances where individuals, not affiliated with an International Terrorist group, but motivated either by some kind of idiosyncratic ideology or i some grievance had quickly resorted to weapons or bombs to try to kill innocent civilians and tragically not in frugally in schools. We have seen that time and again. Weve also seen efforts to attack our Critical Infrastructure a few months ago. Ttack i powera station in california. There is not a public examination of the cause of that. It shows a sophisticated level of violence and a threat from within against a major part of Critical Infrastructure. Moreover, the episode of edward snowden, which is not a violent episode, but reflects a very substantial trail betrayal by suggests that we are now facing what is increasingly being described as the Insider Threat. People who do not have a record of criminal activity, you cannot necessarily connect them up to a terrorist cell overseas, but they are dedicating themselves within either a government enterprise or a private enterprise to actually do damage and the tray betray their obligations, either by revealing information or should not be revealed or committing acts of sabotagefrom within or Critical Infrastructure or cyber systems. How do we determine which insiders are a threat . How do we reconfigure our system for clearing people so that we are not simply replaying what we did in the cold war, but we are looking at how we detect the kind of Insider Threats that we face in the 21st century . Monitor whatage to goes on in an increasingly collocated world where data moves and all different places so we can allow people to exchange information, but not downloaded and sent it where it should not be . I would suggest the Insider Threat, whether it results in aolence or simply in compromise of sensitive information, is going to be an area of Homeland Security that is going to require increasing research, not just for the government him up but for commercial and private enterprises as well. Theyre going to be interested in knowing how they can balance protecting against the threatening insider with continuing respect for Civil Liberties and civil rights. I think in the area of cyber, you have seen the news if youve opened the paper, now finally i think the clear recognition that be the numbermay one threat we face here in the homeland. Some of these are criminal activities that cause serious damage to our economic institutions into peoples Financial Lives and reputations. Some of them are the theft of intellectual property. Increasingly, we may see the use of cyber as a way actually to commit acts of violence. We know for example that a couple years ago saw the saudi aramco was attacked by a a group supported by iran. We know that Industrial Control Systems and other physical infrastructure that operates based on the internet is increasingly forwardable to attacks and could cause not only disruption of service, but a a lasting damage to that Critical Infrastructure. It is about to get more complicated. We are entering what is now being described as the internet of things them which is the ability to connect Smart Devices over wireless connections into the internet and control them or monitor them from remote positions. The problem is that creates vulnerabilitys through which that people can hack in. If you Pay Attention to what goes on at the black hat conference in lost vegas, there been presentations about for example the ability to hack into remotely, when his medical devices are connected wirelessly to a monitoring station. They have demonstrated your automobile can remotely he interfered with through some of capabilitiesnstar they are built into modern automobiles. This is going to become a more serious issue as more and more devices in the home, linked up to smart grids, whether it is returns that order or smoke specter or your Smoke Detector or your television. All these things will be things that can be remotely monitored and in some ways compromise. How we think about the architecture and the tradeoffs involved in an internet of things is exactly the kind of challenge i think that an institution like this ought to be looking at. There is a technical dimension about the way the internet works from an engineering standpoint, but also a social logical dimension. There is an economic dimension. This in a way that allows us to get to the value and efficiency, but without creating serious amounts of damage that were that will not only cause a loss of life, but undercutting the value proposition. Bringing together these ciplines to look at that and you probably ought to get ilawyers involved, too want to congratulate you on a terrific 10 year anniversary. A lot of great work. At the work is far from over and i know you will continue to be major contributors to the security of this country, to the Economic Health of this country, him more now from the university of Southern California terrorism center. At [applause]r. Ladies and gentlemen, please nbc4,e coanchor from colleen williams. Hi, everyone. The four we get started, i want to ask, are there any foes in here . You know what that is. Friends of erroll. [laughter] there you go. I understand you had to be an foe to get in here. The men we are about to meet on the panel today i will be brief in terms of explaining who they are. You have their bios there. It allows me more time for questions. First up we have the Research Director for International Security studies at uc san diego. His Research Interests include Economic Development and conflict. He earned his phd in economics at harvard. The newt book economics of terrorism. He has way too many publications to list, but i trust you will read along. Brian jenkins, rand Senior Adviser and the author of several books and reports and articles on terrorism. Including will terrorists go . Clear if that does not keep you up at night, i do not know what will. On the 10th anniversary of 9 11, he was involved in an effort to take stock of where we are and where we should be going. He was a paratrooper and a captain in the green berets. He says he cannot prove any of that. He promises me it is true. John miller is Deputy Director of intelligence with the new York Police Department and worked for the fbi as a national spokesperson. As a reporter and anchor for abc news, somehow he managed to connect and get an interview with Osama Bin Laden in afghanistan. He worked for cbs news across the board, including 60 minutes. Dr. Erroll sothers is the associate director of Research Transition at the department of Homeland Securitys create. Ok, that is a mouthful. That is why we call them foes. He is also a friend of erroll. He is an adjunct professor and has been here for 10 years. He is involved with security at all levels. Formerly served as the assistant chief of Homeland Security at l. A. World airport. He was an fbi special agent. And as many times as i have interviewed him, i just found out out reading his bio. Also a Swat Team Member and the santa monica Police Department officer. Bottom line if you see these , gentlemen on television talking about terrorism, you know you are getting the real deal. The experts who know what they are talking about, not like all the experts we are seeing pontificating about malaysian flight 370. [laughter] welcome. About malaysian flight 370. Welcome. The first question i really thought about when i was asked to moderate the panel is, what keeps you guys awake at night . What do you worry about . Uc san diego does not have a football team. That is because we do riskbased analysis. We are happy to watch you guys at ucla beat up on each other. That is fine. Night, thise up at mig