right way. i also sat on the appropriations committee and there are prioriti priorities. one thing of the costs are in the area of technology. i represent n.s.a. there is a lot of technology and we always have to keep,with other countries that are using technology against us. we have to stay ahead of the curve. another issue is space. one of the main reasons we are the most powerful country in the in the world and have freedom and liberty is because we control the skies. when sputnik came out years ago the concern was russia with control the skies. we put a man on the moon and as a result of research that put us on a level that we were experts in the field and continue to be but we're starting to slip. china is budget money into improve their military and space program. they are going to go to the moon again and talking about partnering with russia. satellites help us take pictures and a lot of what we do. we have to be prepared. i don't know what the gentleman was talking about, we are working with people and continue to spend money. we take this seriously and we have experts who give us information and we make decisions on budgeting and policy. host: this is not the direct purview but in the event of terrorist attack one thing this country has not done is build a first responders system. we have seen the broadband prupl to allow agencies to talk to each other. why are we not further along? >> i think there was disagreement of who owns it and how we should distribute it. i believe the first responder community should have a first bite at that apple and we have to change on the broadband to give tell the ability to have abscess. they need the bandwidth to do what they have to do. i think there have been disagreements about how we do it and how we get it moving. host: are you happy about that? guest: no. i think it is taking too long and we will have to get better at it. budget constraints in the states and local municipalities is adding to the frustration. it is an investment and that is probably going to take longer than we need. it has gotten been it was. it is not where it needs to be. host: baltimore city, maryland. republican. caller: hello. one thing i would like to find out is dutch change his mind about the dream act. i know this is a little bit off, but it has to do with maryland. right now in maryland they are trying to bring that back. they don't want to check on the illega illegals. as you can tell, i'm not from this country and i came the legal way. he said something before about the border with mexico and drugs. one of the biggest problems is not just the drugs, it is the illegals coming in. i know, being from that area, some people say there are a lot of people trying to come in through the border and all you have to do is listen to the way they speak. some are very quiet and don't want to say anything because they don't know spanish. guest: immigration is clearly an issue we have to deal with. we need to protect our borders. we have to deal with the issue of illegal immigration, no question. i feel very strongly we need to use our resources to not only deal with the issues we talked about with mexico but have a plan. with respect to the dream act, you have a situation where you have illegal immigrants and they have children in the united states or come to the united states when they were young. we have to find formulas to start to make a difference as it relates to immigration. this was a situation that would give an incentive for the children to go to college or the military that would be a requirement to have them come to citizenship. we have these individuals that are out there and they could be productive americans paying taxes. but immigration has to be dealt with. wove it come together and start taking the next step to develop formulas to solve the problem. if you are here illegally you are committing a crime. if we took every police officer in this country and had them deal with the issue of immigration they would not be able to handle the people here illegally but also it with take them away from the jobs they are doing in crime, rape, burglary and whatever. so it is an issue we have not dealt with. host: dennis lane asks on twitter please ask if corporations are collecting information that is turned over to the government that is prohibited for the government to collect on their own? guest: there is no information that is collected anywhere that doesn't have due process attached to it. you have to have due process to get any information. as an f.b.i. agent if i wanted to find out who rented a car and fill the blank of a car rental corporation i would have to show,with a subpoena. it is no different with any type of information. host: including the telephone companies and phone calls you make? guest: if you are going to collect information you need a subpoena to do it. if the government is compelling somebody to do something they have to have a subpoena or a court order. host: next caller is abdullah watching in minneapolis. independent. caller: thank you so much. my question is about home grown terrorists. and the role islam plays when incidents of terrorism happens. first of all, i would like to state that i'm a muslim and i'm very much embarrassed and affected by what these evil guys do anywhere around the world, including the united states. however, when you watch tv and incidents of terrorism are discussed, you will find that people are painting all of us with a broad brush and blaming islam on it or -- and when you go to airports, you are easily picked on from the line. when people hear your accent or suspect you of being a muslim you are easily picked on. i would like to know what the chairman and ranking member think of this. host: michigan has a big arab american community so there are concerns about that. guest: we don't have any concerns about an arab american community in michigan. we are proud of the contributions they make. when we talk about home grown, our biggest concern on home grown terrorism is radicalization. what we hope to do is involve imams from all over the country in starting to speak out and help those muslims who are being radicalized and pull them back to the faith of peace. our problem is that the people who understand american culture is using the things he knows about american culture to get into the heads of the individuals and pull them through a radicalization process that leads them to be willing to commit acts of violence. the way we stop that in the united states is have cooperation from muslims and communities and arab communities and we have a lot of christian arabs in michigan as well. that community needs to help law enforcement identify individuals who are going through this process and stand up more often than they do to speak against what is this radicalization process. guest: clearly home grown terrorism is a great concern. it is very difficult from and it intelligence point of view when you have an individual, american individual who has been radicalized. how this is occurring and what our information shows is that the internet, the social network, is where a lot of this occurs. the one has been attempted to make this happen. as far as the issue of problems with the muslim community and the fact they have been discriminated against, it is unfortunate the acts of a few affect everyone. the best way to do this is develop relationships with the communities and individuals and working with the leadership in the muslim community to say that the koran doesn't say you want to kill people. so we have to be aware of the home grown terrorists and that is where the community itself and other people, if they see an individual that looks as if he or she is going the wrong way and could try to be a suicide bomber, we need help from americans also. host: another question of preservation of rights. the person says why did the n.s.a. put fiber y's at every major switching station in the u.s.? guest: if you are compelling someone to get information you have to have the third-party adjudication. there is no instance where you don't have to have it. host: so the n.s.a. is not spying on all information. guest: they have to do it through a court order or a subpoena. guest: and there are systems of checks and balances. we have systems, we have congress, inspector generals. there is -- we also have the justice department that oversees these. host: i want to show a statement from yesterday. >> i want to welcome dutch ruppersberger as the new ranking member. he has a solid record and he will serve the committee and country well. dutch is also a friend. i look forward to working with him to foster the bipartisan energy to lead the committee to our oversight responsibilities and to keep america safe. guest: dutch wants us to run that again. host: i wanted to play that because i have seen two interviews where you emphasize this bipartisanship and you don't want the committee to be political. will you talk about those themes and why they are important and how you want to run things? . when the committee was founded in the 1970's it was supposed to be a quiet, thoughtful committee that dealt with the very difficult decisions and policies and over sigsight responsibilit. the 17 agencies that we have that are supposed to collect information to keep america safe. it is a huge responsibility. most of the issues that we deal with should be bipartisan if n nonpa partisan -- in nonpartisan. it has become highly charged and political and i think it has done a disservice to america's oversight of the intelligence community. if they don't take the committee seriously they are going to do things that they should not be doing. it is our job to make sure they don't do that. by the way, if they need resources to do the job they need to do we are supposed to be there. so we have had a lot of conversations about this. there are going to be times when we disagree and policy issues where we disagree and we will do that in a way that is respectful and civil and we are going to move on to the next set of issues. that is our pledge to even other and our responsibility to be that interface between america and americans to do the business of the intelligence community that they can't see and know about. host: and have concerns about. guest: absolutely. and they should have concerns. host: let me ask you, congress is getting a rap for how partisan it has become. we see it on a regular basis. do you think members can check those feelings? guest: we better have. the stakes are too high. this is one thing we should have learned the last election. people are sick and tired of the partisan politics that were occurring in congress. this committee is a committee that is very important because we are dealing with national security and people's civil rights and talking about a lot of money. when you talk about space and cyber security and everything. i think that chairman rogers and i both have had experience in law enforcement. we tease about it because i tell him that i was the prosecutor and you were the f.b.i. act and the prosecutor is supposed to control and yet he reminds me he is now the majority so he is going to win most of the votes. notwithstanding that, we have committed to each other we are going to disagree on issues. i know people on my side have issues with the patriot act. we will debate them and hopefully come to a conclusion in the best interest of our country. if you look at what has happened on the committee and it has gotten way too political, we have not been able to pass a budget in six years. that is inexcusable. we are supposed to be the experts. we are having the hearings. we are supposed to over ssee al the agencies that deal in intelligence. we have not been able to agree on a budget or get one passed. that means the appropriators make the final decision. that is inexcusable. i feel strongly about working together. we will work together. a lot of what we do in life is about relationships and trust. we have committed to make sure this is a bipartisan committee that will do the best we can to protect our country. host: we have a tweet. not only does national security have to be bipartisan it has to listen to opposing voices. do you intend to bring critics of the agency before the committee? guest: we have. there are a lot of members who are critics of the agencies. both dutch and i have been critical of the agencies when we think they are wrong. our job is not to be shells for the agency. we have done no service to them if we do that. but we've people come in who have problems and concerns with the agencies. as we said over time and as we have said individually to the agency directors, we are going to be critical when we ned to be. we will be supportive where we can be. our job is not to be yes men to the community. if we do that, i think both of us would consider that a failure. they don't do everything right and when they do we will be there. host: our last call is sullivan, missou missouri. mark. caller: i just turned down my phone. host: go ahead. caller: thanks for c-span. host: we have a bad questiconne. caller: first of all the two leaders you have there, about every other word out of their mouth is 9/11. why don't they bring up the 1993 bombing of the world traede center where the p.b.i. supplied the truck and bomb they switched for a real bomb that blew them up. they killed six u.s. citizens. host: another person concerned about conspiracy. guest: that is almost impossible to answer a question like that. as a former f. pwfplt eufpb.i. e the oath to protect the united states and the constitution. for some thought that the u.s. government will kill its own citizens to promote anything is wrong. there was a trial and conviction in the 1993 bombing of the world trade center. the blind sheik went to jail and some of his associates. that has been debunk pwued wher somebody went to jail. host: thank you both for being here. i know you will be doing much of your work behind closed doors but i will invite you to come back from time to time. it is an important way to talk to the public. north carolina republican congressman patrick mchenry said wednesday that the era of the bailout is over. but that congress must not turn a blind eye or a def year to the state and local governments. these remarks came during this hearing of the house oversight and government reform subcommittee that he chaired. witnesses dhaka the fiscal condition of the states and municipalities. this is just under two hours. >> financial-services and fell out of the private and public programs. i will begin by making a in opening statement. i appreciate the witness is being here and taking the opportunity to be here. today's hearing is an opportunity to discuss growing concerns over the potential fiscal crisis looming for states and municipalities. over the past three years, we have seen a culture arise where every institution claimed it was too big to fail. and all too eager president and compliant converse kept putting taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars. our deficit has reached an all-time high end of the debt is crippling our economy. now we received about government policy and yet another way. state and municipal governments who are preparing for the aggregate budget shortfalls totaling roughly 125 billion this year are struggling under a trillion dollar burden of unfunded pension liabilities, plummeting tax revenues and unforgiving bond market but we must understand the magnitude of this problem to avoid the reactionary ad hoc decision making that fuelled the federal action of the 2008 financial crisis. this is not about one analyst. this is about the looming fiscal crisis in the states and municipalities and the lack of transparency in their pension obligations. let's be clear about this, the perfect storm is brewing. already state and municipal governments are coming to washington patting hands expecting a federal bailout like so many others. but the era of the bailout is over. that does not mean, however, congress must turn a blind eye or a death a year to the crisis unfolding in state and local government. the beauty of federalism lies in the fact the national government doesn't tell the states how to manage their own affairs at least ideally. the burden of federalism is that when one state or all 50 states are in a crisis we must work together to solve them for the good of the country. since 1990 state and local government spending has increased roughly 70% faster than inflation. the vast majority of the state now find themselves in the fiscal straitjacket caused primarily by the looming burden of paying out trillions of dollars in lucrative public-sector pension public-sector union pensions and health care benefits and the expense of taxpayers. for the last three years funding from the stimulus act has masked the severity of the state's fiscal challenges. in fact, there was $140 billion in transfers from the federal government to the states included in the stimulus. states now say that the money would help them -- more money would help them through their current rough patch. the reality, however, is that the money states received from the stimulus has in many ways made them more soft. a lot of the funding comes with, quote, maintenance of effort requirements that force the states to keep funding programs after the federal funding dries up this year. more money from washington with just delay the day of reckoning and only further complicate state fiscal situations. besides, we don't have any more money. and beyond that, the simple fact is that the government has outgrown our capacity to pay for it. there will be severe consequences for not changing the course. young teachers for shuttle college ready to give back to their communities will be told that the school districts cannot provide them with reasonable retirement benefits because they are cash strapped to pay for the benefits of others aren't. firefighters some policemen and other public servants using the reali their jobs offer no promise of rising standards of living for their family. or benefits. simply offer a different career path. in the end people will recognize that their government has failed them. but not only that, they believe the government is actively hurt them. while we have the opportunity to change that, we are responsible to try. this is why we are here today, to come to a better understanding of the crisis of the state and local government level, to assess its causes and to consider available solutions. with that in mind, this hearing on the intended to shed light on how the states arrived at the current -- how the states the right to the current predicament, what is the current extent of the fiscal distress, and what needs to be done in terms of the available solutions. my friend and colleague from california, representative devin nunes has a proposal the would require greater transparency at the point of the most urgent concern, the pension problem. i've been happy to work with him on this legislation and i look forward to hearing from both sides on any and all possible solutions, and that's why we have this great panel here today. let there be no mistake though, much is required to get our fiscal house in order not just at the state and local levels, but here in washington, d.c.. reckless spending fueled by the bottomless bargaining and a guarantee by endless bailouts is an unsustainable course. with that, i now in and recognize him drinking member mr. quigley for five minutes. >> thank you for holding this timely hearing and for your post as chairman. the record should reflect you and your staff been extraordinarily accommodating and cordial to myself and my staff. obviously the issues are too important to decide us in any light, and i also thank you come any time i take complimenting you should