could you just clarify the statement in terms of your statement that it is not out of control down there? >> oh, absolutely. first, and i will give you the full talk that i gave at utep. but the border, thanks in part of bipartisan efforts of the congress, has more manpower, technology, and infrastructure than ever before. and the numbers in terms of seizures that need to go up are going up and the numbers in terms of illegal immigration are going way down. and the communities that are along the border, san diego, nogales, el paso and so forth are among, in terms of violent crime statistics, are among the safest in the united states. and so what i was saying at that -- from whichtime quoted in part was to the cartels in mexico, don't bring your violence you're doing in juarez, et cetera, over into the united

states. you'll be met with an overwhelming response. it is true that there are crimes on this side of the border, the murder of a rancher in arizona is one example. but it is inaccurate to extrapolate from that to say that the entire border is out of control. with respect to the 44% number, i think it's important to recognize that operational control is a very narrow term of art in border patrol lingo. basically, it is restricted to where you have individual agents located. it does not take into account infrastructure, it does not take into account technology, which is a force multiplier, as you know. so i think it would be inaccurate to take from that number or that phrase to say, well, that means the other

percentage of the border, 56%, is out of control. that would not be accurate. >> gentleman's time has expired. the gentle lady from california, miss sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you both of you for being before us again. secretary napolitano, i am still worried about this whole issue of overstays with respect to visas. in particular because i belong to a couple groups that deal with the europeans, and as you know, the european union is having a difficult time understanding why we accept some and not some others on a visa waiver. so i'm very -- i would like to know two things. first, can you discuss the security measures with respect to somebody being able to come from a country where there is a visa waiver going on and how that might be infiltrated by someone like al qaeda to get people over here. and secondly, what progress are we making on the exit part of

u.s. visit? >> well, in terms of visa waiver, what we have is esta. and what esta does is give us advanced information on someone traveling to the u.s. from a visa waiver -- >> is it working? have we seen any places where someone like some cell group might be, in fact, coming in that particular way? >> it is -- well, that -- let me just say that it is working in terms of smoothly identifying individuals coming across and you know, we deal with so many passengers every day, and so from a systemic point of view, it is working. however, i think it's important to say that there's no system, no matter how well working, is a 100% guarantee that someone will not be able, ultimately, to infiltrate it. it may be somebody about whom we have no advance information, it

may be somebody who has managed to steal an identity of someone else. this is, unfortunately, a business in which we cannot give guarantees. what we can do and what we are doing is maximizing our ability to catch somebody ahead of time. and minimize the risk that they will be infiltrated. and in terms of visa overstays, in addition to u.s. exit, let me just suggest that one of the most effective investments the congress can make is in i.c.e. investigative agents, because they are the ones that really find the visa overstays and get them into proceedings. so one of the things we are looking at doing as we move forward in the budget process is being able to staff i.c.e. appropriately in that regard. >> you were talking earlier in answer to one of my colleague's questions that you believe that all of technology that we've

been using at the border with respect to mexico is a force multiplier. the entire time that i was the chair of board of the border subcommittee, we would get both gao and border patrol saying they didn't know if some of this technology was actually going to require that we have more people or that we actually get that savings that we intuitively think should come from that. do we have any -- do you have any studies, do you have new numbers, do you have something that is showing that relationship? because the entire time that i was the chair, which was for about three years, i could never, you know, it was intuiti intuitive, but we have on record people saying maybe it doesn't lower the amount of body power that we need. >> well, you still need manpower. i mean, technology is no substitute for manpower. but you're never going to have enough money to put a border patrol agent every 100 yards along the thousands of miles of border. so you have to have technology and infrastructure.

that's a three-legged stool as part of a system. and then you have to have interior enforcement inside the country to back that up. one of the reasons that i stopped the sbi net program was so that we could redeploy those moneys into technologies that we know work. that we know are force multipliers. that enable, for example, a small forward operating base near the tahoena nation in arizona to be at the turn and be able to cover a larger distance than otherwise they would be able to do. >> and lastly, and this would be to our other guest, i represent a very large arab muslim community in our nation. have the second largest of community mosque, if you will. and we've had a lot of situations with fbi probes and local infiltration, et cetera. what are the safeguards that we now have in place so we aren't

sending people into mosques and trying to elicit proactively somebody to create some sort of terrorist attack? >> well, congresswoman, i want to be a bit careful, because although i'm familiar with them, i'm certainly no expert on the fbi, domestic intelligence operating guidelines and the attorney general guidelines. what i can tell you is the fbi, approved by the attorney general, has very strict guidelines on the level of intrusiveness and what they can do based on specific information about individuals not having radical thoughts, but moving to action, which would be terrorist action. and one of the key requirements is that no investigations can be predicated on the exercise of first amendment rights. there always has to be additional evidence on which to predicate an investigation that would then lead to some of the tools that you reference. >> has that always been the

case? because we have documented cases, of course, even out in the press and out in the public, where the fact of the matter was there was instigation of these things within the mosques by our own undercover -- >> i can tell you that the current attorney general guidelines were developed during the end of the bush administration and ultimately approved under the obama administration and signed by the current attorney general. the key piece here, if i may, is that you have to -- obviously, there are going to be places where you have to do law enforcement investigations. in my view, you have to have a balanced approach of not just those law enforcement investigations, but you have to engage with those communities with other non-law enforcement elements of the u.s. government to make sure this is not an adversarial situation. in fact, this is a partnership. and as you know well, many of our tips to uncover active terrorist plots here in the united states have come from the muslim community.

so we have to make quite clear that the communities are part of the solution and not part of the problem. and you do that through using a variety of tools, not just law enforcement. >> time of the gentlelady has expired. dr. brown of georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, director, i appreciate y'all being here today. i have several pressing questions for both of you. and in the limited amount of time, it will allow for only one or two. and i trust that you'll send a prompt response to my written questions. and my first question is for both of you, but i would like maybe director to give me a written response, but i would like to address this particularly here in this hearing, to secretary. most terrorist experts believe that given the list of incidents of homegrown radicals, lone wolfs and trained terrorist recruits, the u.s. is now a little different from europe in terms of having a domestic terrorist problem involving immigrant as well as indigent

muslim. however, in 2010, the obama administration announced it intended to remove religious terms such as "islamic extremism" from the national security strategy. moreover, in the 2010 speech at the center for strategic and international studies, the deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism, john brennan, stated that the administration would not, quote, describe our enemy as jihadist or islamist. do you believe that by disregarding the ideological factor behind the recent rise in domestic and international terrorism, namely by islamic extremism, the administration is inhibiting our ability to address and combat this dangerous trend? >> representative, without

having seen john brennan's speech or having recently reviewed the national security strategy, let me, if i might, respond to that in writing. i would venture to say that what the concern was in addition to islamist terrorism or islamist-inspired terrorism we not overlook other types of extremism that can, windeed, be homegrown, and that we have experience with as i described to representative thompson. but as our testimony here today indicates, we understand full well that islamist-inspired, al qaeda-inspired, however you want to call it, terrorism, be it coming from abroad or now being homegrown, is part and parcel of the security picture that we now have to deal with in the united states. >> well, i'd appreciate that

written response. i went through a security tsa not along ago, and i went through it, there was a guy who followed me, very obviously was of arabian or middle eastern decent. both of us were not patted down, there was a grandma that followed me, there was a small child with her and they were patted down. i have yet to see a grandma try to bomb any u.s. facility with chemicals in her bloomers. so i think we need to focus on those that want to do us harm. >> representative, if i might respond to that, because that is a common complaint -- >> i saw it myself. >> i know. and let me just suggest, first of all, that when we add random screening to whatever we are doing, it has to be truly random. otherwise you use tlose the val unpredictable.

and separately, i would love to have you briefed in a classified setting that when we set firm rules about we won't set this kind of person or that kind of person, that our adversaries, they know those rules and they attempt to train and get around them. >> thank you. and i'd appreciate that briefing. we've got to focus on those people who are going to do us harm. and this administration and your department has seemed to be very adverse to focusing on those entities that want to do us harm and have even at times back when your spokesman came and testified before this committee would not even describe that ft. hood massacre as a terrorist threat and talked about an alleged attack. i think this is unconscionable. we've got to focus on those people who want to harm us. and the people who want to harm us are not grandmas and it's not

little children. it's the islamic extremists. there are others, and i want to look into those too, but your own department has described people who are pro-life, who are pro-gun, who believe in the constitution and military personnel as being potential terrorists. now, come on. give me a break. we do need to focus on the folks that want to harm us and i encourage you to maybe take a step back and look and see how we can focus on those people who want to harm us and we've got to profile these folks. y'all have not been willing to do so in my opinion. and i hope that you will look at this issue, because i think it's absolutely critical for the safety of our nation and for the american citizens. i'll submit the other questions for written comment. and thank you both for being here. >> mr. chairman, may i make a

response to that? >> yes. >> first of all, representative, the hundreds of thousands of men and women in my department, they come to work every day to protect the american people. the writing or the document i think you're referencing was something that was actually drafted at the end of the bush administration and issued by mistake at the beginning of this administration. and i would point out that we just established that in the hassan matter, he is a terrorist and he was an active duty military individual. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from new york, my colleague, mr. higgins. new member, good to have you aboard. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. madame secretary, the peace bridge connects my area to southern ontario. it's the busiest crossing at the northern border and a vital asset to western new york and to the country and of profound

national security importance. we are advancing a project to reduce congestion at the peace bridge by building a new span and customs facilities. but our progress has been slowed in part due to ambiguous and sometimes conflicting communications from the department of homeland security. specifically, confusion exists about whether the project would include preclearance, a shared border management strategy, that would locate the american customs plaza on the canadian side of the bridge. on august 20th of 2009, you wrote to me that preclearance was not possible because it would require the united states accept a lower level of security at the peace bridge than at any other u.s. port of entry or require canada to accept actions contrary to its charter of rights and freedoms. mr. chairman, i would like to enter that letter into the record. >> without objection. >> yet in response to recent

media inquiries on the issue, we need to clear from department of homeland security clarity on this issue in order for this important project to proceed. so can you please tell us, does the position of the department of homeland security remain consistent with your letter, that due to security and constitutional obstacles that cannot be overcome, the peace bridge project will not include locateding the american customs facilities in canada. is it your position the department of homeland security will not reopen negotiations on preclearance at the peace bridge, and that the preclearance proposal is, for the purposes of this project, dead? >> representative, i will be very clear. we have looked into preclearance on the canadian side.

we cannot do it. the position has not changed. when and if the bridge and the facilities are expanded on the u.s. side, we are fully prepared to provide the staffing and support for that on the u.s. side. we understand the importance of the span for trade and tourism and so forth, but we are not going to be able to resolve the preclearance issues in canada. >> all right. i yield back. thank you. >> gentle lady from michigan, miss miller. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think i'll follow up a bit of my colleague from new york who raised sort of a northern border issue. if i could talk about secretary and director, and first of all, thank you both for coming and we appreciate your service to the nation, sincerely. we have a lot of people on the committee that town the southern border, and believe me, i'm not minimizing. i realize the challenges we have on the southern border in facing our nation, but i do think sometimes we forgot about the northern border.

of one must have colleagues said there was 44% of control on the southern border. according to the gao report that came out last week, we have less than 2% under operational control of our 4,000 mile with our wonderful, wonderful trading partner, our biggest trading partner is not mexico, it's canada by a huge, huge margin. and as you mentioned the peace bridge in buffalo, which is, we've always thought, the third busiest crossing, i think the first in passenger, but in my district and my colleague from detroit mr. clark, where he has the ambassador bridge, the busiest commercial artery on the northern tier, and the blue water bridge in my district is the second busiest border crossing. and we were very concerned about what the gao said about essentially no operational control for all practical purposes along the northern border. and i would like to address that

a bit. because as we think about our wonderful trading partner, our neighbors of canada, there are several islamic extremist terrorist groups that are represented there, as you're well aware. and i thought it was interesting with the gao report coming out on the heels of that, president obama and prime minister harper came out with the u.s./canadian agreement, which was a wonderful step forward, they're going to put this working group together, but talking about some of the unique challenges along our border, how we can have sharing of intelligence, et cetera, et cetera. and so from a high-tech perspective of the kinds of resources that i think are necessary along the -- obviously, we're not going to build a 4,000-mile-long fence along the northern border. so certainly the kind of technology we feed to be utilizing there, as well as low tech, k-9s. there are about 60 k-9s, as i understand it, at el paso.

there are zero at the blue water bridge and maybe one at the ambassador bridge. so, believe me, i'm not minimizing what's happening on the southern border, but for everything to be going on the southern border at the expense of the northern border, i think we need to have a bit of a balance. even the uav missions, which i am heavily an advocate of now with a ground mission at corpus christi, and i know we do have one along the more northern part of our border, but i think in the detroit, certainly michigan, new york sector having those kinds of -- we need those kinds of technologies, off the shelf hardware, essentially, that's worked extremely well in theater that the taxpayers have already paid for that we can utilize along the northern border, so i just raise this as a concern and perhaps when we think about threats from abroad, et cetera, they're not all going to come on a plane from amsterdam. and of course, as the terrorists think to cripple our nation, and they think about doing it

economically, just to use the blue water again as an example, at that as it comes into the u.s., that is a genesis for i-69, i-94, two of the most major trade routes that we have. and as my colleague talked about, what we consider to be reverse inspection. that's another thing we've been trying to advocate for. could we have reverse inspection, so that we are inspecting things before they start coming across our major infrastructure as well. and so i raise some of these questions. i'm not sure who i'm directing them all to. >> i think they're mine. mike's going like this. >> thanks, secretary. >> i'll be brief, mr. chairman. first of all, again, on the gao report, i encourage the committee, the term operational control is a very narrow form of art. and it does not reflect the infrastructure and technology and all the other things that happen at the border. so it should not be used as a

substitute for an overall border strategy. one of the most significant things that has happened in the last month, quite frankly, or even in the last year, was prime minister harper and president obama signing the shared security strategy, border strategy between our two countries. it is our number one trading partner. canada is now beginning to do or conducting some of the same kinds of things around its perimeter that we used to be concerned about coming across inland on the border. we'll be working more in light of this shared vision statement on an integrated northern border strategy. indeed, we have prepared one. it is in review right now at the omb, because as you recognize, representative, borders are law enforcement jurisdictions and you've got to protect the borders from that regard, but

they are also huge trade jurisdictions. and you've got to be able to move the legitimate trade and commerce. we are very much in favor of looking at ways to preclear certain things before they -- cargo, for example, before it gets to the border so that we can relieve the pressure on the lines and the technology for being able to do that kind of thing gets better all the time. and so that's one of the things we'll be, i'm sure, working on and implementing over the coming months and years. >> thank you. i know my time's expired, but i would also point out, in regards to the tides list, without quantifying it, there are much higher hits. much higher. >> congressman, i'd just say, i've been working extremely closely, going up to ottawa since 2005. it is a very different set of challenges on that border, but it is one that we are acutely

engaged on with the canadians who are an excellent partner in information sharing and the like. so although we talk about it less than the southern border, quite often, i don't want to leave anyone with the impression that it is not a very high priority for us and the canadians. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> on the other side of the aisle, one of the more enthusiastic new members, mr. clark. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you for calling this meeting. thank you, secretary napolitano, director leiter. you know, i want to make sure i address you directly but i speak into this mic. >> that's okay. we're good. >> i want to thank chair miller for outlining the importance of the busiest international border crossing in north america, which is in the city of detroit. and also the fact that we have a large airport, which is an international hub.

this makes this area a big, at high risk of attack and also high impact, in case of a natural disaster or other emergency. in the event of such an emergency, it will be local police, local firefighters, our local emergency medical providers that will be the first to respond. my concern, though, is with the security of those first responders. and i realize that this department cannot be the local law enforcement or first responders. last week i visited a police precinct in detroit, which a few hours earlier had been attacked by a lone gunman who tried to kill virtually every officer in that precinct. to find out that that precinct needed a metal detector that

would have cost $5,000, but because of the city's budget restraints, couldn't afford that. and i am aware of that many of the grant programs are awarded on a competitive basis or based by formula. there are some districts, some areas that will get resources, some that won't. in your written testimony, madame secretary, you rightfully say that homeland security starts here with hometown security. what types of resources in addition to the grants are available to protect our first responders so they can be in a good position to protect our citizens in case of an attack or other emergency? >> representative, i would suggest in addition to the grants, some of which are formula driven, others of which are based on analysis of risk and threat, one of the -- or two

of the things that are of direct assistance to our first responders are, a, training. that's why as we do our countering violent extremism curricula, we are testing it with representatives of the chiefs' association, the sheriffs' associations, and others who would have to implement this on the ground. and the second is information sharing. so that they have maximum access to actionable intelligence. now, the latter probably would not help much in the case of a lone wolf gunman. and i'll ask director leiter of his comments on that. but the lone wolf situation is almost impossible to prevent from a law enforcement perspective. so when you deal with the first responders, you deal with maybe early tips that somebody is getting ready to come in and then the ability to respond very

effectively. and that's s.w.a.t. training and equipment and the like. >> congressman, what i would tell you is immediately after the mumbai attacks in november of 2008, we started working with dhs and fbi to look at the techniques that were used in india and how u.s. law enforcement and homeland security would be able to respond. out of that, we created a scenario that's been used in chicago and other cities by the local authorities in conjunction with the federal authorities to see what kind of response could be brought. and recently, we combined with fema and we now have a program for each of, i think, it's the eight fema sectors. the last one, the first one was run in philadelphia just several weeks ago. involved over 300 people, including the philadelphia police chief, dhs, fema, fbi. again, running through a scenario like mumbai with multiple shooters. because you're absolutely right, it's going to be the detroit police or the philadelphia police that are there first. how do they respond? what specialized tools can the

u.s. government bring to bear? and certainly be happy to work, i think it's sheriff bucharred to get that training to detroit. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate the opportunity to be with you here today. i've noticed that the gentlewoman from california has departed. but i did want to take a moment on the record to express my regret that i will not have the opportunity to work so directly with her, having been given the opportunity to chair the subcommittee on counterterrorism and it would have created that chance. i think i spoke to my staff, it's a little bit like finally making it to the yankees and realizing that they just traded away derek jeter. but i'm very grateful for your

presence here today and for helping us set the table. let me ask both madame secretary and director leiter, i came on to this issue just five days after september 11th, like many of each of us did in different capacities as an united states attorney. but we're sitting here now ten years later. we've done a lot. we've done a lot right. and i think the greatest marker of what we've done right is the incredible record of safety on the american homeland in that ten-year period. but we've also spent a lot of money. as you said, madame secretary, we've had hundreds of thousands of people deployed in this. we've done a lot right. what are we doing now to begin to look back at what we're doing and say, hey, where are we going wrong, where are we creating redundan redundancies? what is our process ten years

later for asking tough questions about whether we could be doing something better. or if we're doing something, that, you know, the institution keeps move forward because it's there, but maybe it's not the best expenditure of dollars, making tough choices. >> i'll take that one first. we are always asking those hard questions. and i begin every morning with an intel briefing and i think my briefers would tell you, it begins with hard questions. why, where, how, what could have been done to prevent, what's needed, et cetera. with respect to those dollars, we all appreciate the fiscal discipline needed by our department, even though it's security and everybody says they want to protect security, we still have a duty to really protect dollars and use them in the wisest possible fashion. so everything from procurement

reform that we have undertaken, acquisition management, which sounds really government-ise, but i'll tell you, it's those kind of things that help find projects before they get too far along that are not really going to work or be value added to the process. and then the third thing -- and we've literally found hundreds of millions of dollars that we have built into our budgets now of cost avoidances using some of those plain old management techniques. lastly, i think that our ability and just the -- and i've seen it just over the last two years, the increasing integration and leveraging of the data resources that nctc has with its pursuit teams, with our incredible data resources that we collect on the customs and the tsa side and the ability to leverage those resources together is a homeland

security kind of architecture that we just plain didn't have before and allows us to make maximum use of the dollars that we do get. but i'll ask the director if he has anything to -- >> congressman, i have three quick points. but i'll open with the fact that the yankees have traded a lot of greats, but they keep on winning, so -- but much to my chagrin. >> i share the director's chagrin. >> the mets keep making a lot of trades and not winning. three quick points, congressman. first, the amount of change that already goes on is really quite incredible miss sanchez asked about visa waiver program. the way in which we screen esta travelers today compared to how we screened them a year ago is radically different. so it really has not been a steady state in the first place. there have been lots and twists and turns unless you're kind of in the counterterrorism trenches, you don't necessarily know that's going on.

second, we, of course, try to learn lessons from our failures, but we also do a lot of gaming to try to figure out what the next attack will be and how we have to shape things. now, that's an imperfect science and you'll end up going down some wrong paths. but as i said to congressman clarke about gaming here domestically of a mumbai-style attack. when you look at that, do we have the right resources, do we have the right communications? the third is, congressman, the nctc has a statutory responsibility to do net assessments and that is looking both at the change enemy, our u.s. capabilities with and the changed global environment, including here in the united states. and we provide that annual net assessment along with targeted net assessments to the white house. and we also work closely with the office of management and budget to try to look across all

of these expenditures and see which one is being the most effective. i will tell you that is a huge challenge, because simply identifying which satisfies part of a counterterrorism purpose, as you can imagine, is very difficult. the department of homeland security is a perfect example. it's not just counterterrorism, it's smuggling, drugs, all of these pieces. so trying to parse this out remains a challenge, but ones that we have made some good progress on. >> i agree with the -- i'm not looking at it just from, although in this day and age, we are paying particular attention to how the dollars are spent, but at what point in time do we reach a tipping point? while i ascribe to the belief that we're doing the right things, when you hear people say, hey, when i have to walk through an airport screener and make the decision about whether i'm groped or photographed, are we going too far along? we keep pushing.

i went to that u.p.s. terminal and the impact of trying to push off further and further the screening of the packages, at some point it's going to have an impact on their ability to do business. where do we make those analyses that are tough choices, but we say, hey, maybe we're overcongressmove overcompensating to try to create some sense of safety or is it necessary? >> the time of the gentleman has expired but you can answer the question. >> thank you, congressman. first, with respect to the aits and the pat-downs, it was very interesting, but between thanksgiving and christmas, that heavy travel season, fewer than 1% of travelers opted out of using the aits. and as you may have seen, we're now piloting the new software that will be even less invasive and allow us to do even fewer pat-downs. but the plain fact of the matter is we do that from a security and intelligence perspective, and just looking at what abdulmutallab did going into

detroit in christmas of '09, we know they try to hire non-based explosives to get on a plane, and we know that aviation, be it cargo or passenger, continues to be a target. so that is something we have to deal, the tsa administrator, who is the former deputy director of the fbi, that has to deal with on a daily basis. we're working with u.p.s. and fedex and the other major shippers on how we secure cargo and we're moving toward kind of a trusted shipper regime so that cargo can can move and we can meet the needs of realtime inventory. and that is part of the global cargo supply chain initiative i was describing earlier. and they are part and parcel of how we are devising that strategy. so we're not just sitting here as the government figuring this out. we've got the private sector, who has to move those planes and move that cargo helping us. >> and congressman, i'll simply

add. i think almost everything we do in counterterrorism, there is a second order of fact. and if we increase screening, that's going to affect people's perceptions. if we increase investigations domestically, that's going to affect a community. and we have to build into those required and necessary preventative steps additional programs to address the second order of facts, so you're not worsening the situation inadvertently. again, that applies to screening, that applies to homegrown extremism, it applies to overseas efforts. >> gentle lady from the virginia islands. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome and thank you for the tremendous job you're doing with these challenges the country faces. my first question is to both of you. i want to focus on another part of the southern border that i don't think gets enough attention. as the representative from the

u.s. virgin islands, i'm always afraid not enough attention is being paid to the caribbean, in either assessing the risk or building strong partnerships that we need in that region. so do you feel comfortable that the partner and center are seeking and getting adequate information from the caribbean and even from south and central america, where there are countries there that are friendly with areas in the world that have radical islamicic extremism, or are there any efforts, for example, to prevent radicalization, reduce the likelihood of radicalization or to help the governments in those country s countries to strengthen their capabilities to do so? >> representative, i have, myself asked somewhat similar questions, in part because of the increase in special interest aliens we're seeing get up to the mexican border. what are the roots, how are they

getting across? it's a terrorism issue, it can be a human trafficking issue, a drug trafficking issue. >> all of it. >> all of the above. in this open setting, i would prefer not to give more of a detailed answer, except to say that i share your concern to make sure we not lose sight of this part of the world as we plan our protection strategies. and we'd be happy to sit with you in a classified setting to give you more information. >> thank. >> representative, i would largely say the same thing. i think there actually are some interesting pieces that i can't go into in an open setting with a particular focus to radicalization and movement of travelers and we do spend significant time on the caribbean. i will also tell you, there has been good cooperation in the past. for example, i believe it was 2007, the cricket world cup that was held in the caribbean, and that provided an opportunity to help the region develop more

effective screening of travelers. and of course, more towards south america, we have ongoing concerns about the influence of terrorists -- state sponsors of terrorism in that region and their presence. >> thank you. i've also been away from the committee for a while, but while i was here before i did put a lot of pressure on the then secretary to beef up the office of health affairs and to make sure that lines of authority and response were clear between them and the department of health and human services and that they worked seamlessly together. given your response to the question about biological threats, what role does this office play and are they adequately staffed, resourced, and placed to be effective? >> we're working very closely with the department of health and human services on a number

of scenarios, pandemic planning being one, but also medical countermeasures in the light of were there to be a biologic attack. and we have been working with them on protocols, who would do what, when, and where. do we have the surge capacity to handle if there were to be a, say, anthrax attack. we've been tabletopping some of these things. so, representative, the work between our departments, i think, has been very good. i'm not able right now at table to say, do they have enough resources? all i can say is that we believe the biologic threat is real and we believe it is something that we need to keep maturing our efforts about. >> thank. and director leiter, from some of the reeding that i did in preparation for this, it seems that there's still some turf battles and disalignment, i guess i would call it, regarding

lines of authority and some stovepiping within the intelligence community, which would be very, you know, dangerous if it does exist. so where is the communication and integration and the collaboration? is it where it needs to be in the intelligence community? >> like every government official, i will say, it's good, it can always get better. but now i do want to give you some perspective. i've been doing this since 2004. and where we are today, it is night and day. and secretary napolitano and i sit on what is called the counterterrorism resource counsel, which is chaired by george clapper, it includes bob mueller, the director of the fbi, the director of cia. and we have met every two weeks to delve in as senior leaders for hours on end about how we can integrate our missions better. that is night and day from where we were in 2004 and 2005, and

frankly, it's night and day from where we were in 2009. so i think there are always some tensions when organizations are trying to do the right thing and think they're trying to do the right thing and someone else disagrees. not all that tension is bad. on the terrorism issue, i think -- i have never seen it better integrated than it is today. and just one other point about integration, you mentioned the health and human services, we are integrated with them and dhs. they are in charge of refugee resettlement. and they play a critical role in helping us work with new immigrant communities to reduce the likelihood of radicalization. again, that sort of partnership between the counterterrorism community and an organization that is responsible for refugee resettlement, four years ago, never existed at all. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle. >> thank you for being here and

giving us your testimony on a very important subject. madame secretary, while i was reading your testimony and listening to your opening statement, the one thing i was a little puzzled and it surprised me was the lack of emphasis on the southern border and how we're going to continue to protect the southern border. and the reason that i was a little surprised by that is because the rise in the escalation of violence between the drug cartels and the mexican government as they continue to try to tamp down on the various drug cartels that are really ravaging the various areas along our southern border. so the reason -- and that was the reason i was surprised. was it left out of there just because do you think we have operational control of the southern border, or was it just not part of this particular testimony? >> well, thank you, representative. it was not emphasized in this testimony, because i didn't think it was within the scope of this particular hearing. i will send you the speech i gave in el paso about a week and

a half ago, specifically to the southwest border. and in the major point i made there, a major point, was that while we are working with mexico on the unprecedented level of violence there, as the cartels fight for territory, separate, terrible crimes aside, and there have been some, but we have not seen systemically that violence come across the border. and i've said, don't bring that across our border into the united states. we will respond very, very vigorously. and the communities along the border themselves, you can talk to mayor sanders in san diego or the mayor of el paso and others, and they will say themselves, they are from a safety standpoint among the safest in the country. we want to keep it that way. and then lastly, you referenced operational control. i think you're the third member

now. and as i've said before and i'll say again, that is a very narrow term of art in border patrol lingo and doesn't, and should not be construed as kind of an overall assessment of what's happening at the border. >> okay. i understand that. and you mentioned el paso, you mentioned yuma, you mentioned san diego. these are areas where the border patrol agents have been actually beefed up and we actually have barriers and these are the areas that have actually had the expenses put down there. and we've seen the apprehensions and you stated in your statement over in el paso about the apprehensions going down. but do you know how many illegal immigrants have crossed the border, the southern border in the last two years or year? >> well, it is an estimate. it used to be the estimate was that we were catching one in three. i think the commissioner would testify if he were here today is that we're catching a much higher percentage. and it's a combination of

things, of the congress, of what it has invested in this border. the manpower, the technology, the infrastructure. the area that is my top focus down there is the tucson sector. we do have some fencing in nogales, as you know, but we are continuing to basically surge manpower and technology into that sector to shut it down. >> well, and from that, if you look at what has been happening, where the national guard troops are going to be taken out, starting june through august, is that correct? >> well, their current term ends in, i believe, june. i don't know that a decision has been made as to whether they will continue or not. and that will be an interagency process with the department of defense and also the white house involvement. >> now, when we talk about statistics, and statistics can always be skewed a different way, how well do you think that it actually represents what's going on in the southern border when most of the statistics revolve around apprehension and

not a really good understanding of what's going on in the rural parts of the border, where there's not as much enforcement and a lot of rancher sand the like are getting inundated from what the reports that they give with drug smugglers and human smugglers across their properties? >> yeah, i think you're talking about the rural areas of the tucson sector, and as i said before, that's where we'll really flooding ours now to shut some of that down. and we are in constant touch through my office with the sheriffs along the entire border. the sheriffs tend to have the non, you know, the rural areas, because they have areas outside of municipalities. and we're working directly with them. on where we need to put resources, what they need. for example, one of the needs they had last year was help paying overtime and we did move overtime money. representative miller's not here, so i think we can say it, from the northern border down to

the southern border to help cover some of that overtime. we keep looking for efforts like that, but i can guarantee you, representative, that this is something that gets daily attention at the department. >> thank you, madame secretary. >> gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. >> welcome aboard. >> thank you, secretary napolitano for being here. i'm a new member, but i'm coming from a decade of law enforcement experience, dealing with a lot of these issues as a prosecutor. and in fact, one of my last cases just a few months ago dealt with an issue that really called into very serious question the issues of aviation and transportation security. it's the situation -- security to deal with issues. and the 100% you had in november for successfully checking

everyone that's on the watch list and making sure on inbound u.s. travels as well as within the country that they're checked. but in my case, it wasn't involving a person that had a ticket. it wasn't even involving a person that had a false identification. what occurred in that case is a young man, 16-year-old young man from north carolina had stowed himself into the wheel well of that plane. and it departed from charlotte and his body was found in milton, massachusetts, when the landing gear of that plane was coming. and despite the tragedy of losing a young man like that, it raised enormous questions about tarmac security. his video never showed up with investigations, to my knowledge, in the airport. or it didn't even show up near the perimeter. so what really, i'm concerned about, is what is being done by

homeland security for safety on the tarmac that's vital for our aviation security and what other agencies are you working with in that respect? because if it wasn't this young man that just stowed himself for his own reasons, if that had been a person with more nefarious motivation, think of what would have happened to that 737 commercial airliner or any of the other airliners that were there at that time. it really raised enormous concerns about aviation safety and i would like you to address what's being done on the tarmac as well. >> well, a couple of things. one is, i'm going to ask tsa to respond directly to your question, representative. the question of who controls what part of the airport, it's a combination. we work with the local airport authority on the areas of -- and we set standards and requirements for things like the

perimeter. they are to carry out those standards and requirements. clearly, if somebody, a 16-year-old, is able to circumvent those standards and requirements and get into the wheel well of a plane, there has been a breakdown. and so i can't, sitting here, tell you what the after-action analysis was as to how that happened and what corrective action has been taken, but i can share with you that i suspect that already has occurred and we'll get it to you. >> i appreciate that. mr. leiter, were you aware of this incident at all and, you know, really the concern is not just which agency is catching the ball at a certain time, it's there has to be a seamless way for the agencies to deal with this locally. or all the invasive procedures are there that when you're getting a ticket are for naught. >> congress pann, i wasman, i wt only through the press reports.

it took some time to figure out that he was first stowed away in the plane when the body was first found. what we have been concerned about for quite some time, not just here in the united states, but overseas is the insider threat to aviation. those individuals who even if they're not sneaking in, have credentials either to restricted areas of an airport or work for an airline, understand the watch listing procedures, understand the screening procedures. and i know dhs and nctc work together with the airline industry to discuss those vulnerabilitie vulnerabilities, screen individuals, and the like. but we'll certainly continue to work with secretary napolitano on this case to see whether or not there is a broader perimeter issue. >> i would welcome that information. and i can speak for myself and i think for the members of the committee that this is an area that we'll work with you on, because this raises really serious questions, not just in the boston area, but also in the charlotte area. in the charlotte area, yeah, right. >> thank you. >> gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is

recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and secretary napolitano, thank you for being here and director leiter. last night, the house fell short of the votes necessary to extend certain parts of the patriot act. and could you just comment on that, please, the ramifications if those provisions are not extended? >> congressman, as i've testified before, several years ago when this was up, the patriot act remains a very important tool, especially with respect from my perspective, to have the patriot act expire would be extremely problematic. >> i share the view, i have a deep concern about abuse of these powers and i would like to know and my constituents would like to know what specific

practical steps are being taken to properly balance the tension that exists between our freedom and our security. if you could unpack that a bit, i would appreciate it. >> absolutely. it's a more than reasonable concern. there are authorities and protections. there are three provisions. the business record provisions, the lone wolf and roving wire. first of all, in almost all cases there are very, very similar tools being used in the criminal context. in all the provisions, there's a rigorous oversight within the executive branch and the foreign intelligence court. in the case of business records, a showing has to be provided to the court of the appropriateness of the order. they then can do oversight of those records and the like. i think this is in the words of

ronald reagan, trust and verified. it's trusting they will do it right an verifying we are doing it right. >> are there examples within the department where you have identified an abuse where an employee abused his or her power and you have taken action? >> congressman, i apologize, i am not quite the right witness for that. i really have to defer to the department of justice. i know in other contexts, nttc has had situations where u.s. personal information was not protected to the way we expect it to and are required. we discipline those individuals and submitted the findings to the department of justice. so -- >> that's a fair answer. i have the privilege of representing virginia second district, home to a beautiful port, entrance to the chesapeake

bay. port security is a great concern to me. again, it wasn't listed in the opening statement as a high-level concern. please address where on the order of threat assessment does port security come in. >> i'll take that one representative. >> thank you. >> again, it was not in the statement because of the title of the hearing and the scope of the hearing. port security is keenly important for a number of reasons. our ports, around our ports where we have chemical facilities, the safety of containers bringing cargo into the united states and how they are handled. the ability of the coast guard to protect the ports. they service the captains of the ports. we have major initiatives urnds way in all of those areas and in

particular, we are working globally on the security of the supply chain which really, with the international maritime organization because that affects how cargo is brought across the seas and into the united states. >> thank you. i yield back. >> gentleman's time expired. i want to add, it's been closely watched for at least five years for now on the issue of port security. it's a major, major issue. it will be addressed, i can asha sh sure you of that. the gentle lady from california. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you madam secretary and director leiter. i think you have the toughest jobs around. it's easy for us to sit here and poke holes, but you always have

to be anticipating where the next threat is coming from. we have got a system where, if i understand it correctly, the visa waiver program could easily accommodate a terrorist to come to this country. i realize that we probably have it because we have comedy between our countries and the like. i worry about the lack of exit tracking of visas and i worry also about cargo surveillance. i had a briefing last week in my district from local mechanics concerned of the repair work being done offshore now. they showed me pictures in el

salvad salvador. show your id as you come in. there's no tracking. you could have phony id, no one would know. you could anticipate there are lots of holes still out there. that al qaeda and a number of other terrorists are seeing those same holes. from your perspectives, each of you, what do you think is the biggest hole we have to close? >> well, representative, thank you for your kind words. i have gotten out of the business of ranking because it is -- it's fluid, it evolves and changes based on the current intel. it requires us to react to what has occurred and to be thinking ahead with respect to the situation you referenced in el salvador. one of the things that

illustrates is the absolute importance of good intel gathering and sharing. not just within the united states, but abroad. when something is significant as trying to infiltrate a pord and get something like a radioactive or bilogic weapon inside a cargo container, say for example, our ability to know ahead of time to be tipped off and know what to look for in october as with the air cargo planes, absolutely critical. as we move forward, strengthening those intelligence gathering relationships is also important. >> congresswoman, also thank you. secretary napolitano has a harder job than i do. i'm loathed to actually give you what the greatest vulnerabilities are. i know that al qaeda and other

terrorists are listening to what we are saying. i don't want them to know what i think are our greatest vulnerabilities. happy to talk to you about it in a closed setting. what i will say is we have to look at our greatest vulnerabilities in terms of likelihood and consequences. there are lots of things that happen where we could have weakenses. the consequences along that angle might not be that significant. we have to balance the most common attack and most likely attack with the one that has the greatest consequences. in that respect, the chairman raised chemical, bilogical, nuclear weapons. i don't think that is remostly the most likely avenue or al qaeda or al qaeda inspired terrorists to attack the country. the consequences would be so great, we have to invest significant resources to guard against them. >> to follow up on the el

salvador issue should we be requiring american airlines not american airlines but american airlines to make sure they have strong kinds of security systems in place when they are doing the work offshore? it appears they do not and we don't require them to. >> representative, i need to know more about the el salvador situation but as i testified earlier, we are requiring 100% screening of all in-bound at high-risk cargo on a passenger plane. those are terms that would -- that meet or require certain levels be met. we work with the american flag carriers on those. they are part of the system even

from international ports. >> congresswoman, i will add, if i could, the challenge you identify is unique neither to el salvador or aviation. this counterterrorism effort is a global effort. it's why we spend so much time on aviation security, port security, intelligence, information sharing. we are reliant on our partners doing what we think needs to be done to keep the homeland safe. >> time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman and madam secretary. thank you for being here today. i wanted to first after thank the gentleman from the virginia tide water for mentioning the patriot act to ensure our constitutional rights as americans aren't trampled. i consider myself a tea party congressman. many of my colleagues here in

the freshman class feel the same way. so, during the course of getting to this office, we were questioned a lot about certain things that united states were doing with regard to patriotic americans who may label themselves as tea party folks. who peacefully assemble and petition the government for the first amendment rights we have. i'm concerned and they are concerned in south carolina about a report of april 2009 from your department titled right wing extremism and political climate feeling resurgence in recruitment. i understand the house passed a resolution of inquiry in the last congress and this committee held hears on it. to my knowledge, that document has never been retracted or corrected. the question for you today is does your department consider military veterans or groups

dedicated as single issues a threat to homeland security and a higher risk to engage in activity? >> i think that's for me. as i said earlier, that was a report that was begun under the prior administration and issued by mistake by our department before it had been properly edited. now, to the point, of course we don't consider patriotic americans to be terrorism threats. of course, we work closely with our military. my department, we have now -- we have had aggressive hiring within military and veterans coming back. we have almost 50,000 veterans in my department, not to mention active duty coast guards. we are reliant independent. >> thank you for that. >> there you go. now i think a larger point is that as we do our work, we

cannot categorize by ethnicity or religion or any of those sorts of things. we have to make decisions based on intelligence and intelligence sharing and risk about particular individuals. that's the way that we have directed it be done in our department. that is what's required under the united states constitution. while the fbi is not here today, and the department of justice is not here, they have very strict standards in that regard. >> what can you do or what steps have you taken to ensure this type of reporting as demonstrated doesn't happen again? because in my opinion, we have targeted a group in that report and we never retracted that. i don't want that to happen again. >> that report is no longer

available. congressman, i would simply say i have been the secretary for almost two years since then and you have not seen a similar report come out of the department. >> thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. gentle lady from california. >> yes, thank you so much mr. chairman and thank you to the two witnesses here today. always your frankness and efforts to work with the community. when there's been much discussion on the house in terms of reducing budgets back to 2008 levels. madam secretary, i would like to hear your opinion, if that goes into effect, how would it impact your department and what would you specifically see might need to be cut since we are not provided that direction. >> well, that is a very difficult question to answer. but, this congress in a bipartisan way has been building

this department. it put 22 some odd agencies together. it gave us the most varied group of missions of any department. they touch directly on the safety and security of the american people. they have asked us to protect our ports. they have asked us to protect our borders. they have asked us to protect our communities against terrorists international or home grown and the cyber world. we have been building to meet those missions. that's what we do. so, we are going to be and the president is going to be very careful of his requests. you are under the same fiscal disciplines as other departments. there are places we can eliminate redundancies and we are looking for those. to simply take a big old thing and sago back to 2008 without

understanding operational impacts for this kind of work, would probably not be what i would advise from a budget tear standpoint. >> thank you for that comment. i think it's helpful to us all. my second question is we have several trade agreements on the horizon, korea is here. soon, columbia and panama is coming. you have heard several questions to do with the ports. when we asked the question when you first became secretary about implementing the 9/11 recommendations to do that we have to redo these agreements. how involved have you been with the trade agreements on the table, if at all. if you have, do you see the possibility of us implementing these 9/11 recommendations with those trading partners? >> i have not been personally involved in negotiating the

trade agreements. we will have to get back with you whether individuals in the department may have been. so, i'm just going to have to leave my answer at that for now. >> okay. in particular, korea is a great concern. it's my understanding it is coming. we want to make sure any future agreements that he is in line step with you for what we need to achieve for the committee. my second question, in this committee, we will be having an upcoming hearing about looking at the potential radicalization of muslims in this country. as i just heard your response, your department, you don't evaluate based on race, religion and so on, you are basing your decisions on intelligence. if that's the case, what percentage, if you have one, could you say appears in terms

of people we need to be concerned about? would you say 50% muslim? would you say 50% -- if you could give us kind of a general idea. >> it is a absolutely tiny percentage of the u.s.-muslim population and the global islamic population are those we are concerned with at the counterterrorism center. if you look at the numbers, they are significant in the number we have. in terms of the muslim population, it's minute. >> thank you. with my remaining 49 seconds, i have been doing work and continuity of government. the department has done an amazing job of coordinating various agencies and being prepared. the last ones ready are us as elected officials. madam secretary, i plan on working with your folks to

explore how to better prepare as elected officials. we have to step forward when the disaster occurs. we need to know who to call and how to be helpful and not a hindrance in the process. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. seasoning thank you mr. chairman. at the risk of being redundant, i'm the fifth or sixth person to express concern over the 44% operational control number. i think you have done an admirable job defining that as a term of art. what i would like to ask is let's take the word operation out of there and define the term control as to what the average american would say. what control do you think we have over the borders now? >> i think, in terms of

manpower, technology, infrastructure, we have effective control over the great majority of both borders. particularly at the ports. then we are using manpower in new technologies to help us between the ports. it is a project that is never ending. we are relentless in it. we recognize, when you are a country as large as ours with the land borders we have, that you are never going to seal those borders. that's an unrealistic expectation. i would say on my top priority in terms of effective control is the tucson sector of the southwest border. >> you also mentioned you didn't feel like some of the violence from mexico is spilling over into the united states or crime.

just as a personal side, i would like to take issue with that. i really do believe that what we have got is a very effective distribution of narcotics coming in and used by terrorists to bring in the tools of terrorist trade. the easy accessibility to drugs in this country means we don't have the level of control we would like to hope. >> indeed. one of the things that -- all i will say in open setting is that we have, for some time, been thinking ahead about what would happen if say al qaeda were to unite with one of the drug cartels. i'll leave it at that. >> if i could add, one of the things we posted december 2009

in looking at other avenues, we invented several d.e.a. analysts trying to make sure the narcotics information was being shared. >> great. jumping over to the tsa and i realize this is probably outside the scope of this hearing or something we might want to take in a more classified environment, but where are we with respect to implementing a trusted travel program that might mitigate the impact of law-abiding americans of having to undergo these intrusive tsa searches. my 21-year-old daughter had a false positive on a body scanner and was subjected to a search that rises to sexual assault in most states. it seems like a way to pay for itself by user fees to alleviate

that burden on at least the people that chose to take advantage of it. >> absolutely. we are moving as swiftly as we can. trusted shippers and travelers. we have well over 100,000 americans signed up for trusted air programs like global entry. i would be happy to sign your daughter up, by the way. i think that's the way to go. we need to have some way to effectively separate passengers and cargo that we need to pay specific attention to from those we don't. we will always have to do random searches. unpredictability has to be a tool in the tool box. we have to look toward a system where we have better ways to tear and focus on who needs to go through what kind of screening or what needs to go through what kind of screening. >> do you think it might be a

cost effective way to use global entry for cost effective flights. a cost effective way to implement it? >> we are looking at that now as possibility. >> thank you. >> the gentle lady from texas. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i'm grateful for this hearing. welcome secretary and director leiter for what i think is an important discussion. let me lay a premise for a series of questions quickly. the people of mexico, many of us live on the border view them as our friend. i do believe there is a war going on. it's a drug war. it's a violent war. it's smuggling. it is a war. when you have two young teenage boys, high school leave to cross

the border for what is perceived as an innocent activity at this this juncture and wind up dead and you can count thousand that is died, we have a vicious and violent war. my first question i'm going to ask is as we look to the border, is the homeland security department and customs and border patrol protection as the agency able to decipher the and i think the flow of undocumented individuals coming across the border is coming down. to that kind of war versus individuals who have come to reunite with family members whether you agree or disagree to come to work. has the administration worked away from immigration and border security as being partners and

trying to fix the problem for us? th that's the first question. the other is to compliment tsa for the progress it's made. i am a propon ent of ensuring our rail is safe and i hope the administration will look at the legislation we had last year that did not move and i'm hoping to work with this majority and committee to work on it again, hr 2200. republican members of this committee joined in. aviation seems to be the most attractive target. in your perspective, are we where we need to be in aviation security and can you tell me that we are not going to go through the battle of 2001, which is to expand privatization of airport secure. i think we are being responsible and made progress.

we have a new and enriched democracy with diverse persons of many different faith. i'll ask the question i think has been answered before on dealing with our friends of the muslim faith. specifically madam secretary, and i'll provide you with a letter. he was a family person and had a religious visa approved. shortly there after, it was disapproved and that person was deported. once deported, it's a complicated process, leaving a family destitute. we can't imagine the circumstances. i think it's harsh. i ask the broader question as to how we address the religious visas and are we going to see the muslim community unfairly

targeted? they have a right to their faith as well. we are aware we must be diligent. lastly, i would be interested in an answer on this is about our cultural competency and the reach in that department to be diverse and whether or not we have a diverse leadership, which would be under your leadership, director leiter. >> representative, let me take some of those in order and we can respond more fully. >> secretary, keep the answers short. we have three or four minutes. >> i'll try to keep it short. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> tsa privatization, the

administrator chose not to expand it for a number of reasons, some security related and some cost related. he has announced that policy. as you know, the administrator is the former deputy director. with respect to the mexican border and the drug war in mexico, we are highly cog any sent of the deaths in mexico particularly in the northern states of mexico. we are working closely with the caldron administration on that. we have individuals in mexico themselves working on these issues. we are being very, very vigilant about that war. i will say it again, do not bring that war into the united states. we need to work with mexico to end the war. the administration is committed to immigration reform.

>> that includes comprehensive and border security? >> indeed. lastly, with respect to the particular case of the religious visa that you referenced, why don't i get that from you and i'll respond in writing. >> and the cultural issue including the muslims. >> i will be happy to -- why don't i respond to that in writing. >> can i raise a question to you. i would appreciate to have a classified briefing on the border as it relates to the drug cartels or the pourousness created and the distinction. that is my perspective separating out undocumented persons coming. >> i will work on that. there's bipartisan interest in that, i believe. >> thank you. thank you very much.

>> time is expired. the gentleman from missouri. you are up next, if you want. okay. i will yield to -- not yield, yeah, the gentleman from florida. >> madam secretary, we have previously discussed the importance of visa security program and the need to expand the security units to additional high-risk areas around the world. i understand the dhs for fiscal year 2012 from the office of management and budget does not propose additional funding and reconsiders what the personnel receive for the purpose. i find this recommendation troubling. the personnel deported overseas to high risk posts are uniquely qualified to review the

applications and identify individuals that might be attempting to enter the united states to do us harm. did you agree with the omb recommendation, with the visa security program? >> if i might, representative, the budget request is not yet out. it will be out on monday. my first hearing is next thursday, yes, next thursday. i think, if i might ask your fore barns for a response at that time. >> okay. i would like to keep in touch with you on this. >> duly noted. >> thank you. one more question. as you are aware, terrorists involved in 1993 and 2001 world trade center attacks entered the united states on student visas, later violating their terms. they have been concerned there are problems in the issue

process. how concerned are you about to fraudulent use of student visas or any visas for that matter? >> do you want me to take it? >> we look at all kinds of visas. you are right. there is a history with student visas. there's an ongoing interest in student visas. we have built in extra protections from student visas with monitoring the countries that sponsor those students. >> i would like to get to you. i have recommendations of my own as well. >> very happy to do that. >> thank you very much. gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. we heard several points about our port security. as we talk about trade deals, i guess my question to you madam

secretary is that, is there a way to evaluate or enform us, for example of south korea and their port security? our security is based on how well they do their job over there. as these trade agreements come up and are negotiated, i think it's very important for people like my district, which has the port of new orleans and the trade down there. is there a way to get some information on that? >> congressman, yes. we will respond to you in writing on that. i know one of our six international locations for our maritime cargo is scanning technology was in the republic of korea. we will get information to you. >> second, watching what

happened down in louisiana with the bp incident, how safe are our rigs? give me an assessment on, for example, our loop, which supplies a lot of stuff for the rest of the country. looking at how long it would take to get it back up or stop the flow, how safe are our rig that is are off the coast of all the gulf states? >> i have been on the loop and met with those individuals and there are extensive security precautions taken around that area. so, there are no guarantees in this business. i think the director and i would both agree on that. do i think they are taking all reasonable security precautions? i think they are.

>> thank you. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> thank you. thank you. congressman davis. >> thank you very much. >> you are recognized. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, madam secretary, mr. leiter. thank you for being here. as new member of the committee, let me just ask if you would quickly help me sharpen my understanding of what we define and designate as being terrorism or acts of terror. >> congressman, there are numerous definitions. national counterterrorism center uses one of those, which is premeditated politically motivated violence by a nonstate actor. the key piece there, really the key piece that it comes down to

is politically motivated violence. >> madam secretary, i'm interested and concerned about the impact of illegal narcotics on life in our country. and indeed throughout the world. we know that afghanistan supplies 90% of the opium trade. there's also questions about its relationship to fund the taliban and the relationship with al qaeda. could you tell me what our goals are there from a dhs standpoint? what are we attempting to do in that region? >> well, congressman, i think a better person to address that question to would be the secretary of defense. but, what our goal is at dhs,

working with the government of afghanistan, i was just there between christmas and new years. it's to assist them in building their capacity to have control of their own borders, particu r particularly their ports. to have the trained and vetted units necessary to do that. >> if i could just add, as you know, the enforcement agent has a significant presence in afghanistan. as you say, some of the funds do go to support the taliban and could go to al qaeda if they don't already. it's an important piece to note. it highlights the moral on this front too. al qaeda and the taliban per

suing what they are viewing an islam, they are shipping heroin and opium over seas. >> it's considered by many the transportation capital of the world. we place a great deal of focus and interest on airline security, airline safety. but, i also have concern about what we are doing in relationship to truck transport, busses, the large number of people who make use of them and of course rail. could you elaborate a bit on what we are doing in those areas to make sure that there is security and safety? >> indeed, congressman. we have a whole surface transportation program and

strategy that we will make available to you. now, it's a little bit different. so much of it is controlled locally. busway systems and railway systems. chicago is fortunate. they have built now extensive security in the -- within the mu n nis pl limits. we have added so-called viper teams, which are transportation security teams. dogs and equipment in the transportation environment. >> let me thank you for much and again, as other members have done, commend you for what i think the outstanding work is that you do. i certainly look forward to

working more closely with both of you. >> thank you, sir. >> i thank you mr. chairman and yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, sir. doesn't appear anyone else is here. i thank the witnesses. thank you for your time, your valuable testimony and the members for their questions. members of the committee may have additional questions and i ask that you respond to them in writing, please. the hearing record will be held open for ten days. the committee stands adjourned. >> thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> today, another house committee holds a hearing on terrorist threats. the directer of national intelligence and the heads of the cia, fbi and national counterterrorism center and the defense intelligence agency will be testifying at a hearing of the house i intelligence committee. live coverage begins at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span2 and c-span.org. >> the patriot act, passed after the 9/11 attacks, made it easier to conduct surveillance on terrorism suspects. now, with provisions ending this month, lawmakers are trying to

renew expiring provisions. the house failed to get the two-thirds needed to pass. follow the history of the bill through today online with c-span's congressional chronicle where you can track the daily floor action in the house and senate with timelines and transcripts of every session. and find a full video archive for every member at c-span.org/congress. trouble. >> and i think that's not only one of the major challenges facing higher ed in this country, but also facing our country, and that is how we maintain a healthy lifestyle and get kids to have the strength and the judgment to say no. >> r. gerald turner is the president of southern methodist university in dallas, and sunday night he'll discuss today's college students, his school as the site of the george w. bush presidential library and his own road to smu on c-span's "q&a." >> u.s. trade representative ron kirk said on wednesday that

president obama plans to submit the u.s./south korea free trade agreement to congress in the next few weeks. he made this announcement at the house ways and means committee hearing on u.s. trade policiment the hearing also focused on issues such as trade with china and pending trade agreements with colombia and panama. this is u.s. trade representative kirk's first appearance before the house ways and means committee since being confirmed by the senate in march 2009. representative dave camp of michigan chairs the hearing. this is two hours, 20 minutes. >> we are opening the hearing on president obama's trade policy agenda. and good morning. i want to welcome everyone here and also extend a special welcome to united states trade representative ambassador ron kirk. ambassador, this is the first time you've been invited to appear before this committee, so we're looking forward to a thorough discussion of the administration's trade policy agenda, and particularly the

path you see forward on the three pending trade agreements. international trade has been a cornerstone of the united states' foreign policy for the past 60 years. we must have a robust trade agenda to insure our economic future and create u.s. jobs. while the president has often spoken about the merits of trade over the past two years, there's little to show for it. the american people are demanding more and more and deserve more from this administration when it come toss the job-creating special of our trade agreements. now, we've seen some steps in the right direction in recent months, and i appreciate your work and the president's work on the south korean agreement, but there is much more we need to do, and i fear we're ceding our influence and authority to the european union, china and countries that don't have our best interests at heart, diminishing our influence on the international economy, foreign policy and security issues. most pressing on the trade agenda are the pending agreements with colombia, panama

and south korea. as i noted, the president's leadership has helped move the south korean deal forward, but there's been no similar action with regard to the colombia and panama agreements. where is the path forward? why isn't there a clear identification of the outstanding issues, an outline of reasonable steps that must be take on the address those issue is, a time frame for resolution and a commitment to action? while the president made positive reference to completing the agreement with south korea in his state of the union address, colombia and panama were mentioned only briefly, almost as afterthoughts with no action plan, characterizing them as items that the administration intends to, and i quote, pursue. but we already have trade agreements and, ambassador, i hope you will provide clarity on what the president meant and lay out today a concrete timeline for consideration of all three agreements. and as i've said repeatedly, i'd like to see all these three agreements considered by july

1st. and, frankly, the lack of commitment on these critical job-creating agreements is hindering the rest of our trade agenda, most notably atpa and taa. the president's unwillingness to engage, especially on colombia, has ground everything to a halt, and our workers are suffering as a result. the administration's strategy makes no sense. these agreements are important to u.s. strategic and economic interests, and they will help support jobs here in the united states. 250,000 jobs according to the president's own measure. and given that our unemployment rate has been at or above 9% for the last 21 consecutive months, we must explore all possibility, all possible opportunities to sell to the world and create and support existing jobs in the united statesment i'm equally concerned that the failure to move these agreements will severely disadvantage u.s. business, workers, farmers and ranchers who now sell their products in these markets. other countries recognize the

value of these markets and are signing agreements that lower barriers for their exports and seize our opportunities. in addition to our pending trade agreements, we must focus on enforcing our rights worldwide. take china. it's now our second largest trading partner overall and our third largest export market. while china presents the potential of 1.4 billion customers for our exports, china purposefully impedes market access for u.s. services and blatantly steals the intellectual property of america's businesses. it's deeply troubling and cannot be allowed to stand. part of our strategy for addressing these issues should include resumption of our bilateral investment treaty negotiations. i strongly support the administration's efforts to promptly conclude an ambitious doha round of negotiations at the world trade organization and hope that renewed efforts over the past few months will lead to success. i also strongly support the administration's efforts to negotiate the trans-pacific partnership.

i hope the president will be able to conclude a high standard agreement when he hosts the apec leaders or in nine short months. such an agreement would show our commitment to the fast-growing asia pacific region. a robust trade agreement puts u.s. workers back on the offense. let's seize this opportunity. i look forward to hearing your testimony, ambassador kirk, on the administration's ideas on how to kick start the u.s. trade agenda. i will now yield to the ranking member, sandy levin, to make an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome, ambassador. i am disappointed that we start today's hearing without action to extend the trade adjustment assistance program scheduled to expire in just a few days. taa has been a good faith effort for nearly 50 years to assist work withers who have lost their jobs -- assist workers who have

lost their job through trade and globalization. as a result of the 2009 reforms, an additional 170,000 workers are eligible for taa which will help them secure new, good-paying job withs. starting tuesday, ten tens of thaws of displaced workers in our country will be effected, and i strenuously urge my republican colleagues not to let this vital program lapse. congressional democrats have been actively working to shape a new trade policy that is responsive to the changing dynamics of a global economy. we rejected the passive, hands-off approach of the last administration, are embracing expansion of trade in ways that assess it impact and broaden the benefits from expanded trade.

carrying out this new policy, we succeeded in pushing for the inclusion of enforceable worker rights and environmental standards beginning with their incorporation in the fta. we have fought for vigorous enforcement of basic rules and competition with our trading partners. we have insisted that trade must be a two-way street, not a one-way street in critical areas of trade. this is in sharp contrast to the approach of the last administration whose view was that trade was good in and of itself and that more trade automatically was better regardless of its terms. as president obama responded, and i quote: we just went through a decade where with we were told that it didn't matter, just keep on importing, buying stuff from other countries, and everything is going to be okay. but it was built on a house of

cards. end of quote. so the obama administration has undertaken a vital effort to implement a new and improved trade policy. for example, a commitment to the enforcement of assisting trade agreements and trade laws. that was clear from the china safeguard action on tires. and i mentioned the previous administration on four occasions refused to use that safeguard. and recent data indicate that the safeguard action has helped to make possible an increase in u.s. production and employment in u.s. tire manufacturing. the commitment to enforcement is also clear from the filing of the first case ever on labor provisions in the trade agreement with guatemala. a commitment to two-way trade was embodied in the president's insistence that we go back and change the korea free trade agreement to finally knock down

the barriers there for automotive trade which accounts for 75% of the ten billion u.s. trade deficit with korea. this would not have happened if the republicans had earlier succeeded in their insistence that flawed agreements with approved. likewise, in the case of panama the administration pushed for an agreement to address panama's status as a tax haven, and we understand panama is working to ratify and implement that agreement now. this administration has also been working on efforts started several years ago to insure that panama's labor laws comply with basic international standards and with its ft obligations. there are now important labor law changes pending before the panamanian with legislature. with regard to colombia, as we have pointed out repeatedly and as indicated consistently in the

state department reports, there are serious outstanding issues relating to the colombia fta. colombia labor laws fall short of norms, and workers struggle to exercise their rights to associate and collectively bar game. bargain. persistent problems include abusive cooperative and other forms of contracting, employers' direct negotiation with workers when unions are present and prohibitions on the right to strike. moreover, enforcement of labor laws is weak. union worker violence in colombia remains unacceptably high, if not the highest in the world. limited progress is being made in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible. additionally, reports indicate that threats against union workers and others have increased, and there's been little concrete action to date to pursue these cases. as i observed during my five-day

fact-finding trip in colombia last month, the new santos administration has now articulated a different approach from its predecessor that provides an opportunity for serious discussions between the two governments and these concerns. but we should be very clear that the burden is on the colombian government to act and address these concerns that have been made abundantly clear to them for years. the only adequate measuring stick is progress on the ground. there are other areas where i believe we can do more to change u.s. trade policy, and i go into -- and mr. camp, the chairman, has talked about china's trade-distorting policies -- and i also urge that the administration take a more assertive stance to address china's currency manipulation. and so let me just say this as i conclude. it is action on so many fronts that we are already taking.

republicans have expressed impatience with changing u.s. trade policy as they have called for us to return to the failed policies of the past and approve flawed trade agreements. so let me be clear, we will not go back. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. today we're joined by ambassador ron kirk, and prior to his work in the obama administration, ambassador kirk had a distinguished career in both the private sector and government, notably he was the mayor of dallas in which he was a strong proponent for nafta. ambassador kirk, we welcome you and look forward to your testimony. i would ask that you keep your testimony to five minutes and, mr. ambassador, your full written statement will be made part of the record, and you are recognized for five minutes. welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member levin, members of the committee.

it is, indeed, an honor for me to have an opportunity to visit with you today. in his state of the union address, president obama told america that the future is ours to win. if we rise to the challenge. to compete for and win the jobs and industries of the future, america must outinnovate, outeducate and outbuild the rest of the world. ustr is doing our part to keep america globally competitive, and our work is producing results. u.s. goods and services, exports through the first 11 months of 2010 were up $239 billion over the same time period in 2009. and we're on pace to reach president obama's national export initiative goal of doubling exports by the end of 2014. to insure that american firms continue to generate jobs and economic growth, opening global markets and be enforcing

america's trade rights must remain key components of our economic recovery effort. after extensive consultations with the business community, with labor, members of congress, in december we concluded a u.s./korea trade agreement that is better for america's auto industry and better for america's autoworkers. and it's winning -- its winning brought widespread support here in congress. to bring home its promise, which is billions of dollars in exports and tens of thousands of jobs here at home, the president will submit the u.s./korea trade agreement to congress in the next few weeks and looks forward to working with you to secure it approval this spring. but we aren't going to stop there. l with that same engagement and cooperation, we want to work to address outstanding concerns relating to the panama and colombia trade agreements. if we are successful, we will

move these forward as well. i can tell you today that the president has directed me to immediately intensify our engagement with our partners in colombia and panama with the objective of resolving the outstanding issues as soon as possible this year. and bringing those agreements to congress for consideration immediately thereafter. of -- but i must make it clear, there remain serious issues to be resolved before these agreements can be submitted for congressional consideration. and some of these issues go to our core u.s. values and interests such as the protection of labor rights. any timetable will be contingent on the successful resolution of these issues. for example, with regard to colombia it will be imperative to resolve issues regarding laws and practices impacting the protection of internationally-recognized labor rights as well as issues

concerning violence against labor leaders and the prosecution of the perpetrators. colombia and panama have begun to take important steps, and we think that's a good signal, but more remains to be done. we will be consulting closely with you and major stakeholders including labor and human rights groups throughout this process. we will not be left behind, however, as others open markets and take our market share. the president has made one thing abundantly clear, however, we not sign agreements just for agreements' sake. they must be enforceable and of the highest standard and in the interest of america's work withers, farmers, businesses and entrepreneurs. in the trans-pacific partnership, now the world's most dynamic regional trade focusing market, we are -- negotiating market, we are moving forward to unlock the asia pacific through a 21st century trade agreement.

in the doha talks, we seek an ambitious with outcome in which all countries -- including the advanced emerging nations -- provide market access commensurate with their global economic growth. and our efforts to bring russia into the world trade organization will include working with you this year to grant russia permanent normal trade relation status so that u.s. firms and workers fully men frit there -- benefit. this year the united states will host the 21 economies of the asia pacific economic cooperation forum. with them we will work to make it cheaper, easier, faster for our firms to trade in a greener regional economy, and we're doing the same with our partners in europe and throughout north america. aggressive enforcement will continue to accompany these efforts. we have kept our promise to hold our trade partners accountable

from steps to address a harmful surge of chinese tires to important wins at the wto for our aerospace and agricultural sectors to the first labor enforcement case ever brought under u.s. trade agreement. our agenda will only succeed if we make clear to the american public what is at stake in global markets, and if we keep faith with america's workers including renewing trade adjustment assistance, we're also asking congress to keep faith with some of the world's poorest economies and create american jobs by renewing the generalized system of preferences and the indian trade preferences act. and let's do so for a longer period of time than a few months. i believe, mr. chairman and members of the committee, that we can use common sense the to find common ground on trade, and i look forward to working with you, and i'll look forward to taking your questions. thank you. >> well, thank you very much,

ambassador. as i listened to your testimony, i first want to say i appreciate your comments on the south korean trade agreement. it was signed in june 2007, the world's eighth largest economy. the e.u. agreement with korea is expected to be effective july 1st, so i think your timeline of a few weeks is a very important one. in terms of the other agreements with panama having been signed in june of 2007, they've signed this tax information exchange agreement, they recently signed trade agreements with the e.u. and canada. with regard to colombia, it was signed in november of 2006 and since that time our exporters have paid over $3 billion in duties to colombia. canada will implement a trade agreement in june, the e.u. is

soon to complete. that is our largest export market in south america. so with regard to those agreements, i appreciate the language that you want to complete those by this year but, frankly, those are statements i would have expected two years ago. we are seeing other countries move forward dramatically. we are losing market share in be those countries as they develop trade relationships other places. um, we need specific, concrete steps. can you tell me what specific things or items need to occur with regard to the colombia and panama agreements that would allow the administration to move forward? >> well, first of all, mr. chairman, let me assure you we share your concern with respect to the competitive market that is developing in south america and their very aggressive efforts to sign other free trade

agreements. but we also share a very firm belief and an unshakable belief that the only way we can go forward in a manner that i think all of us would like to is that if we work together collaboratively, just as we did on the korea fta. and not just to hear from those that, frankly, want me to cut the gas line and put the pedal to the metal and go forward and not just those that are stomping on the brake and say do nothing. we've got to find a way to find common ground on some of those core values that, at least for the obama administration, we want compromise on. and we want to get them done, but we want to get them done in a way that we address underlying concerns about labor rights. this is a little bit different than korea in which, frankly, we were addressing issues of market access. what we want to do and will intensify over the next several weeks, i am sending a team to colombia next week. as you know, ranking member levin, i think, visited colombia

during the january recess, finance committee chairman baucus is going to go down. we will then meet with all the stakeholders, human rights groups and come up with a workable plan and sit down with our partners in colombia to address them. >> when you say we, are you planning to go to alcohol ya and panama as well -- colombia and panama as wellsome. >> i don't know that i'm going to go. i may go, and i may wait and see what the plans are as they evolve for the president's visit to south america later this spring. >> well, i guess my point was i that the time for generalities has passed. to say we need to continue to work forward on these, we really need specifics. and if there are -- and we need an action plan of benchmarks that we can meet to move this forward. i think these have languished long enough, and really far too long. and to the extent you can shed light on any specific item withs, i think we'd be all

enlightened. >> well, i want to do that, mr. chairman, but we're using the same approach as we did, you know, example last year when i think it was in june at the g20 forum. president obama directed our office to sit down and negotiate with our partners in south kore. we were able to do that in a reasonably efficient period of time. we want to take that same approach with respect to panama and colombia. the issues are different, as i said in colombia there are longstanding concerns in terms of the rights of workers and violence against union organizers. in be panama we've with made good progress on a number of the issues in terms of addressing some of their labor law concerns as i understand, and they have worked with our department of treasury to address the issues of their having been labeled a tax haven by oecd and moving on the tax information exchange agreement. >> with panama is there anything left for the panamanians to do? >> there are still a couple of

concerns over some recent changes to their labor law, but we have been in consultation with the panamanian government in trying to get those resolved to our satisfaction. >> all right, thank you. mr. levin may inquire. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i think that your question has helped to frame the issue. you said the time for generalities, they weren't generalities. the issues with korea were very specific. the way it was negotiated it did not assure access to the market for our automotive goods, and you worked on this. it was very specific. they were shutting us out shipping 500,000 cars a year, we were shipping 5,000. hyundai has 1500 dealerships here, i think, ford has one. and i think our -- our

automotive producers and suppliers insisted trade be a two-way street. it was very specific. in terms of -- and if you had your way -- not you, but if republicans had had their way or the bush administration, we would have approved the korea free trade agreement essentially having a major part of our economy shut out from their market when they had complete access to ours. now, as to panama, we started discussions. the issues were very specific. they related to the violation by panama of basic international standards as outlined in our state department reports and in the reports in terms of worker rights, and it was a tax haven. and we tried to work, and then they elected someone as a speaker of the house who had an arrest warrant out for him for killing an american, and those discussions stopped. it was very specific. and when it comes to colombia,

the issues -- and mr. ambassador has laid out the airs where there are issues -- areas where there are issues, and we have been discussing these for years. and the ilo and state department reports have spelled these out year after year after year. now, there's a new administration in colombia which says it now wants to address these issues that were not satisfactorily addressed by the previous administration. and now the ambassador has said that there is an effort to see if common ground can be reached. so i think there isn't a lack of specificity, there's been a lack of a willingness to work with us to resolve basic, important economic issues. let me just ask you, if i might,

mr. ambassador, about, about tpp and proceeding. you spend to table -- intend to table something next week, do you, in terms of tpp? and i think it's important we proceed, but in the right way. there'll be a tabling of some proposals next week? >> yes, there will. as you know, we've had four rounds of talks. we are moving very aggressively to meet our own goal which is aspirationally to craft a trade agreement for the 21st century with the highest standards in every area across the board. we will be meeting in chile next week for the first round of more intense negotiations, and we'll begin tabling proposals in certain, certain categories at that time. >> okay. everyone should note that most of the participants in tpp we have a trade agreement with.

it's the newcomers in terms of a trade agreement -- vietnam and now malaysia. and they raise some important issues not only in terms of worker rights, which is important, but in terms of agriculture, etc. and as we've discussed, i hope very much that before those proposals are tabled, that there'll be further consultations with this committee regarding the specifics including those relating to investment. >> we will, and we have, and i think as you know, mr. chairman, we have had the most extensionive consultations with this committee and your companion committee of jurisdiction in the senate as well as all of the stakeholders on tpp as we've ever done before. and we will continue that. but this is an opportunity in which, one, i think we're all benefited from the fact we're starting with a blank sheet of paper, so to speak. we aren't burdened by some of the arguments that have derailed some of our trade agreements in

the past. but it's an opportunity for the united states to be in the lead in crafting the architecture for what we hope will be the most advanced trade-liberalizing free trade agreement in one of the most dynamic regions of the world. >> thank you. more consultations -- thank you. >> thank you. i just want to comment that i was concerned about market access on the south korean agreement from the beginning, but that really sort of begs the question it's not really, i'm not really interested in why these agreements weren't passed two and a half years ago, i'm interested in why they're not being passed now with all that's happened. so with that, i'll recognize mr. her ger for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a timeline of key obama administration statements regarding the korea trade agreement. unfortunately, i won't have time to go through all of it in my five minutes. however, i would like to have it included in the record, and i would just touch on some

highlights. ambassador kirk, the president's 2009 trade policy agenda released in february of that year, two years ago, stated, quote: we are in the process of developing a plan of action to address the pending trade agreements in consultation with congress. we plan to establish benchmarks for progress on that colombia fta. closed quote. in april of 2009 during a speech at georgetown university school of law, you stated, quote: we're looking for new solutions to the issues that have dragged on in existing free trade agreements at the summit of the americas president obama instructed me to lead a review of the colombia agreement to deal with outstanding issues there. closed quote. now let's skip to about a year later in march of 2010, and your testimony at senate finance

hearings. you stated that the pending ftas were a priority and that ustr was working to resolve the outstanding issues so that they could move forward with the agreements. and in response to a question on the colombia fta, you stated the following quote: we are hopeful we can come to some solution with members of congress over the next several months so we can go back to colombia with specific goals. what we don't want to do is keep moving the goalpost. this agreement is almost singularly to the benefit of the united states. closed quote. moving forward a few months to july 2010, in announcing the establishment of the president's export council, the president genre it rated that the administration was working to resolve the, quote, outstanding

issues with the pending ftas with the goal of submitting them to congress, quote, as soon as possible. now in 2011 during a speech at third way, mr. ambassador, you stated, quote: we took the time to do the fta right -- korea fta right, and so we think it's important just as we've done with korea, let's not short circuit that process with panama and colombia. they are just as important to us. mr. ambassador, how much longer will the wait continue until the colombia agreement is ready for congress? it has been two year since the administration announced it plan to develop benchmarks on colombia. we waited a year, and then the administration again stated that it is working on a lift of recommendations for the

colombians. where are these recommendations, these benchmarks that the administration wants to see in place and, again, how much longer do we have to wait until the colombia agreement is ready? >> your recitation of our commitment on that, we are firm in that and, hopefully, mr. herger, it won't be much longer. we share your concern. we want to move forward on these agreements but the reality is there's a very wide -- you can tell from this committee, there's been a very wide divergence of thought as to how we ought to proceed, and the one thing president obama instructed me was to sit down with those on both sides of the aisle, stakeholders of every opinion about how we're to go forward and see if we can't find a common way forward. but we also made a firm commitment when we came into office that we didn't feel it was our responsibility just to pick up all of these trade

agreements as they were and move forward. we took the time to take a step back and take a strategic look at how we wanted trade to fit into our overall economic policy, and our number one goal -- and that's how we get this economy going and how we create jobs. and that included not only looking and examining these free trade agreements, but the work that we've done on enforcement, the work we've done to engage labor and communities and business to come up with a plan that will allow us to do as we've done with korea. and as i announced today, the president's directed us to do that same thing in the coming months with our partners with colombia and panama. as ranking member rev vin noted, we have new leadership in colombia, vice president garzon was here last week, we have met with him. there is a renewed sense of urgency on both parts, and we'll be meeting with them in the coming weeks and months to address those issues. and it is different in the case of korea because it isn't just

related to market access. it goes to some of those core values that i think many americans want congress to take into account as it relates to how we treat and respect the rights of workers. and that's an issue that at least for the obama administration we won't compromise on. >> well, mr. kirk, i appreciate that, but that sounds very much like we've been hearing for the last two years. >> and the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson is recognized. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i want to welcome my friend from dallas. too bad you weren't there, the super bowl might have been a better place to go. [laughter] >> unfortunately, i was there sliding around. [laughter] but i didn't go to the game. >> god bless ya. ambassador kirk and i have known each other for a long time. i'm glad he's finally had the opportunity to visit here on this committee. i would like the committee to know for the record he and i used to bet dinners, and he still owes me one. [laughter] now, mr. ambassador, as a former

mayor of dallas, i know you're well aware of the benefits of trade in that area, i'm sure you know the dallas area is the ninth largest metropolitan exporter in the united states. 2008 alone almost $7 billion to both nafta and cafta. the numbers go on and on. and three years before the u.s./australia agreement exports from texas to trail ya averaged $7 billion, an increase of 66%. before the u.s./chile agreement, texas exports to chile were declining. since the agreement, texas exports have increased by 107%. you know, those numbers just tell me that we're spinning our wheels. this agreement was signed in 2007, and this is 2011, and we still haven't finished 'em. now, i'd like to know why we're

delaying because other nations in the world are taking our place in the trade environment. and it's because you haven't been able to finish the job. and most of it, you're telling me s labor related. i would like to know your opinion on that and what you intend to do, and i'll tell you what, you get these three agreements done, you don't have to buy me a dinner. [laughter] >> thanks, sam. i've enjoyed your friendship, and we have shared a lot of plates of mexican food over the years. and it would be loathe for me to quarrel with a good friend in public, but i'm not sure who holds which last dinner. we won't make dinner contingent on these. let me say this, it is -- i was incredibly honored and humbled when president obama asked me to serve the administration in this capacity.

in and, frankly, sam, you know, there are a lot of people who were a little bit skeptical of me coming from dallas for the reasons you articulated. we believe in trade. we understand it. we've seen the impact of it in our city and our state. texas is the number one exporting state in the country, so you don't need to convince me how important these agreements would be to our economy. but when i raised my hand and took that oath, i agreed to be united states' trade representative for the entire country. and like congressmen over here, my wife is from detroit. and so i brought with me not just our passion for exports that we have in texas, but i also brought with me the concern and frustration of all of my in of-laws in detroit and cleveland and pittsburgh who when i showed up and told them i was going to be the trade representative thought i was a two-headed monster because they believe they haven't benefited from trade. and so what we have committed ourselves to doing is trying to find that common ground was the only way -- because the only way we can go forward in a way that

allows our farmers and ranchers and manufacturers in states that want us to go is we have to keep faith with the rest of america that wants to know we have a trade policy that works for everybody and not just for some of us. you know i like african prove verbs, and one of my favorites is pretty simple. it says you should take no comfort from the whole in my end of the boat. and the problem of too much of our trade debate is in places sometimes like texas or florida or washington, we just look at our heads and say, poor pittsburgh, poor or carolinas, poor detroit. and we aren't going to get there. that's why these agreements were stalled. i don't have to tell you there are strong differences on this committee whether we go forward or not. what we have been doing is trying to not only craft trade policy that allows us to have open, fair access to these markets, address that asemitry we have with many of them, but also help us us restore the

american public's faith that we can create jobs here. that's what we did successfully, i think, with korea, and that's what we're doing with panama and colombia. >> it will create jobs, right, but how about getting it done? all three of 'em. can you tell us you'll do that? >> i can do it if i can get this committee to come together and agree that just as important as it is to open up markets, it's equally important to make sure we keep faith with america's workers, and we don't compromise on our core values of standing up for workers' rights. if we can come together on that, we can do anything. we did it on korea, we need to do it on panama and colombia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. stark is recognized. >> i yield to mr. mcdermott. >> mr. mcdermott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, ambassador. good to see you here. i would just on a historical note, i would point out to the members of the committee they want specifics. in five days the taa program

ends. 150,000 american workers will be ending their trade adjustment assistance. now, if you're serious, it was on the calendar yesterday. you took it off the calendar. it's not on the calendar today. this is wednesday. is it going to be on thursday or friday and be passed through the senate by monday? so that 150,000 workers in this country do not lose their assistance? if you're serious about trade and you want to make be it all about somebody else out there and ignore the people in the united states -- the workers -- you're going to have a tough time. but let me move to another issue because i think there are other things besides colombia and panama. how are we going to work and move forward on intellectual property protection in china?

how are we going to keep the focus on this issue in china? i know when the chinese were here, the piracy of business software -- they continue to be long on promises, very short on performance. finish -- it practically didn't come up when president hu was here, and it doesn't appear the chinese are stepping up i to address the massive piracy which is underway in their enterprises, including the state-owned enterprises which put u.s. companies at a competitive disadvantage. and it seems to me that the chinese are very clever in how they have moved around. but the chinese audit authority has the ability to track how much money in the china procurement system is being spent. that's helpful, but it doesn't end the piracy. they don't check as to whether the software used in their

government is legal or not. now, what's the plan? what do we need to do to help you enforce the good words that come out of beijing? we'd like -- they're nice word, i appreciate 'em. but we'd like to have some help from you about how we can help enforce that. >> the issue of piracy and copyrighting of america's intellectual goods and work product is one of our key concerns at ustr, it's a key component of our enforcement efforts, and it's a key part of our dialogue with china. and i would, i would only add one correction, perhaps, to your introduction of this subject. this issue did come up in president hu's visit with president obama. he addressed it directly. as you know, we recently concluded the joint commission on commerce and trade which

secretary locke and i talk the lead in december. we did get a commitment from the government of china to begin to address more rigorously the absence of using legitimate software in their government procurement. during president hu's visit, we got two additional important commitments. one, they're going to provide money for it. the chinese have said they were going to do it a number of times, but they doesn't give their governments and subgovernments any resources to purchase legitimate software. for the first time, they've committed to do that. and secondly, we did get them to make a commitment to audit that. but as you know, our engagement with china is important, it's complex, and there's the reason that we have regular engagements with china through the jcct as well as strategic economic dialogue. and we will be as vigilant as you say the chinese are crafty in pressing them to make sure they honor and respect american

intellectual property and copyrights because that is an extraordinary opportunity for our industries to grow into that market. >> i would like to, also, just -- thank you, i appreciate that. and if there's things that we could do, i hope you'll let us know because i think this committee would be interested in trying to support the ustr in their enforcement efforts. we know that peru passed during the bush administration, the free trade agreement, after the agreement made in may 10th by mr. rangel and mr. levin with the president and ustr in that administration. you're about to table something in chile, and i hope that you tonight weaken the things that were agreed upon in that may 10th agreement that made possible the peru agreement. particularly, the access to medications. i think that's one of the issues that kind of slips under the table. we think of environment, and we talk about labor, but sometimes the access to medication

provision in there gets lost. and i hope that that will be a part of what you table on, on monday when you get to chile. >> if you could just respond briefly because time has expired. >> i don't know that we are to that point we're tabling on -- for us the value of our administration, the may 10th agreement represents a good, sound bipartisan agreement among democrats and republicans, and that's certainly something that we're going to reach for in every one of our agreements. now, we have the opportunity from what we've learned over the last seven years that there are some areas that weren't addressed like indigenous innovation and state-owned enterprises. but that is something that we're using as sort of, you know, something we're striving for certainly in something as aspirational as we hope to achieve through the trans-pacific partnership. >> all right, thank you. the chairman of the subcommittee, mr. brady s recognized. >> thank you. i'd like to ask consent to

insert my statement for the record. >> without objection. >> thank you, chairman. the way you build bipartisan support is by shining a light on this job-producing issue, and house republicans, especially this committee, are going to conduct a very focused trade agenda focused on three areas, on finding new customers and opening new markets in a level playing field for american workers and companies, secondly, resisting protectionism both here and abroad so we can tear down barriers for american producers and companies, and thirdly, working both within the united states and with our trading partners to find innovative ways to move goods and services faster, better and cheaper around this world. your present stand, ambassador, we think is key to those goals, and we look forward to you as a partner in all of those. we will be just a willing partner, but an insistent partner moving forward on trade. i appreciate, one, your openness

and willingness to consult and listen and talk about all these issues these past two years. i congratulate you on a successful improvement of south korea free trade agreement. very much applaud the joining of the trans-pacific partnership. i think that's key to both job production, setting a state of the art agreement and getting us directly into china's backyard in that growing market. three points i hope you'll take with you today. from this committee. one, you know, the time is up for colombia and panama. they have not only done all that we have asked, they have gone far beyond it. signing the original agreement with the united states, the contract with us, then they amended it at the direction of democrat members and republican members in a bipartisan may 10th agreement. both agreed to improve labor

standard, improve environmental standards, improve intellectual property right standard, a whole host of demands that had been levied upon them, and they did it. then both went beyond that. in panama the treaty addressing more labor issues, they have done everything we've asked of them. it's time for panama. colombia has done the same spending a decade improving their rule of law, they labor rights, creating peace where there was violence. they, too, have been waiting to jump, frankly, to meet our demands so that we can be actual trading partners, and i think it's embarrassing that we've not moved forward on them. so i hope you will, you will understand this isn't about -- these free trade agreements need to be submitted within the first six months. it's not about embarrassing any party or the white house, it's about making sure america doesn't further embarrass itself by turning it back on our

trading partners and our workers in the meantime. the second point is that russia, indeed, i think there are tremendous benefits to moving them into a rules-based global system, and i applaud your work in that area. but as a priority, i think it's important to know that there is virtually no chance that russia pntr will be moved ahead of panama and colombia. i think it's critical that those be signed by the president before we take that up. russia's progress can be measured in months. panama and colombia's efforts can be measured in years and years, and they deserve movement now. final point. the administration's looking at reorganization of trade and exporting efforts. i think that's very important. but ustr is unique. it's a very lean, entrepreneurial, very nimble agency in a economy worldwide

that requires all that. i'm not interested in moving, turning ustr from a cougar into a hippo on trade issues. stay nimble, you'll get great support from all of us. i'd like your comments on those points and as well on tpp as a, as a job opportunity looking forward. i know you're working hard on that. can you, can you address any of those issues? >> yes. and i'm aware of the time constraints, mr. chairman. just let me say, congressman paradety, we very much look forward to working with you and your leadership on the subcommittee. being from houston, understanding the importance of that port, the one thing i would tell you in tpp -- also with our partners in north america -- we really are looking at the logistics side of all of these, those nonbarriers to make it easier, cheaper to move those goods around. so that's a big parking lot of what we're doing on that -- part of what we're doing on that. i hear your concerns and those of members of both sides on panama and colombia.

i assure you, we're ready to get started, we want to try to get those resolved. with respect to ustr, i am exceptionally privileged to lead, i think, an agency that provides the best bang for the buck to the american taxpayers. there are only 230 of us, we do an extraordinary service in negotiating agreement, enno, sirring america's rights -- enforcing america's rights, and that does make our work special, and we want to keep that. but at the same time, having been in business you and i know if you don't examine how you do what you do every three, four, five years, you're losing ground. so we welcome this review under the president's commission, but we'll also make sure that we don't lose what makes ustr special and our ability to help go out and create jobs with what we do. >> as a fellow texan, thank you very much. [laughter] >> thank you. mr. nuñes is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. kirk, welcome to the committee. >> thank you. >> hear virtually earn on this

side of the aisle ask you about specifics as it relates to colombia and panama. and we still haven't heard any specifics. mr., the ranking member, mr. levin, mentioned that these specifics do exist although we still don't know what they are. we have, i did hear you specifically say you mentioned something when mr. johnson was questioning you, you mentioned the communities of pittsburgh, detroit and the carolinas as not benefiting from trade, so i thought that was getting close to specifics, and i just wondered how do those communities not benefit from the colombian or panama trade agreements? >> well, first of all, if i said that, i misspoke myself. i think all americans been fit from trade because, first of all, every family fits when -- pen fits when we make it easier and cheaper to put food on the table, when we make it easier to provide the most advanced electronics to help kids with

their education. but there are communities, and i know you won't find it a surprise, surprise, that feel like our trade policy has not operated to their benefit, that they've been harmed more than they've been helped. and it's a very broad brush. you get west of the mississippi live, most of the members that i talk to -- democrat or republican -- are wants me to move forward. you get into the rust belt, and there's a little more cynicism about it, and it isn't just that. our concern is an overwhelming majority of americans now disagree with the proposition that trade has been good for us. >> right, but when it comes specifically to panama and colombia, those countries have access into our market, and we do not have access into their market. we would under these trade agreements if they were advanced. >> that's correct. >> so, you know, if that's true, then why don't we -- i mean, all we want are specifics. i think all colombia and panama are, specifically, what do you want us to do? they've met the, they've gone

beyond the labor chapter in the andean trade preference act, they've explicitly incorporated the international labor organization declaration into this, into this agreement. so i'm just -- all we want are specifics as to what are, what is the obama administration asking colombia and panama to do before the president will submit these trade agreements to be approved by the congress? >> let me make it plain. there are different elements involved in panama and colombia. they are not the same. with respect to colombia, it is decided, we are decidedly focusing on the issue of labor rights, the violence against workers. there has been some progress, and, obviously, some of your reading from perhaps different hymn books, but i would say there is a fairly strong divergence of thought on this committee and among a number of our stakeholders how much colombia has progress they have

made in putting in be place the necessary changes to their labor law to just provide those basic rights to organize. we're not asking them to mirror our rules here in the united states. and to strengthen their judiciary and law enforcement to bring those that have perpetrated this violence to justice. we want to take advantage, again, of the fact-finding mission of your ranking member. again, chairman baucus is going to go down. we're sending a team. we're going to do everything we can to expedite that, mr. nuñes, so we can agree -- >> mr. ambassador, aren't these matters that are outside the confines of the trade agreement that was signed on may 10, 2007? >> in many cases they are, but i think they are issues that the american public believed are sacrosanct for us. again, the reason i gave you that recitation about my experience around the country, part of the american public's

frustration, the biggest thing i've heard is, one, nobody else plays by the rules but us. it wasn't just china. they felt like our trading partners weren't playing by the rules, and we wouldn't stand up and address our rights. but the other thing is people's concern that we'll sign an agreement with anybody. we don't care how they treat their workers or if it creates an unlevel playing field, and that's why we think it's important to address that. not just to find a way to go forward, but to begin to give americans confidence that trade works for us. we can create jobs here, and we aren't creating incentives to just move production to another country that may not respect the rights of those workers. >> well, i know that president obama's going to go down to south america, he's going to visit brazil. and i just think, you know, before we go -- you know, and i don't have a problem with him going to brazil. i think it's a positive stop. but, you know, with colombia still sitting out there, and he's going to that hemisphere

and for that trade agreement to be sitting out there, i just don't know what credibility the president will have or the administration will have when we still have pending trade agreements from 2007 and we're operating outside of the confines of those trade agreements asking for things that, quite frankly, mr. ambassador, go outside of all the rules of engagement on these, making these trade agreements. and i will submit i want to thank you, ambassador, and i will submit, mr. chairman, for the record a e question on the mexico trucking issue. >> all right. thank you. mr. mcdermott is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. stark, for giving me another five minutes. i would like to go on with the question of china. section 301, the green technologies issue. there was a letter from us 178 democrats and three republicans asking you to look into what was going on there in terms of their green technology and wind

turbines. and it's my understanding you've decided to file a case on the wind turbine issue, and we're very much pleased by all of that. and you said in doing that that you lacked the tools and the resources to uncover all the evidence within the statutory time frame. tell us what you need to make it possible for you to do this in other areas and in a more timely fashion because we want to work hand in glove with you to make these things work for our workers, for our economy. >> well, first of all, and we do appreciate your letter. as you know, a 301 petition was filed last fall regarding china's industrial policies in a number of the energy areas. there were five different complaints alleged. the good news is we were able to successfully resolve the overwhelming majority of those by directly engaging and confronting china through our office at ustr, but also through

jcct. we did initiate consultations through the world trade organization on china's, we think, illegal subsidy of projects in the wind area. we're beginning consultations there. i am, i want to be careful in this environment in which i know at the same time this committee's meeting, your budget committee's meeting, and you are in a horribly constrained environment. and we're asking american families to tighten their belt and make decisions, and i know it's too easy sometimes for all of us to just come and say, give us more resources. having said that, we have a very strong team at ustr, but we're not all lawyers. that 223 employees is everybody from top to bottom. and if we are going to have the robust enforcement that we have committed ourselves and engaged on, one of the things we are going to be looking perhaps through this organization is how we can strengthen our resources there. because we have great legal

talent that understands the law and can prosecute cases. we are woefully short, frankly, on the investigative side. so in many cases we have to rely on the resources of other agencies. something as simple as when we take on a case with china and the tires case that congressman levin mentioned, we exhausted our translation budget in three months on one case with china. because of the amount of money we had to spend on translators. but we're working with other agencies to see if we can't address that, and we'll be happy to come back and visit with the committee on ways that we'll have the resources to make sure that we can stand up for our rights and america's workers. >> could i ask further, we've talked a little about the korean free trade agreement, and i would like to hear from you what you think the positive impacts impacts -- we were arguing or fussing about the timeline and

when will it be up here and all that. when it happens, give us an idea what you anticipate will be the positive impacts on the economy. i understand you estimate $10 billion as opposed to $1 billion in colombia, so it seems like a much bigger deal. but where's that going to happen in the economy? is. >> first, i want -- and i do appreciate -- that $10 billion number is one that the itc estimates. we don't do the economic estimates, they take that away from us. we think that's a fairly conservative number because the way we capture trade data right now is much more heavily weighted to manufacturing and exported goods. it's not as precise as it relates to services. we talked a lot about what this will do to level the playing field in the automotive sector, but this is going to be very good for all american manufacturers because we're going to see a reduction in those tariffs immediately, the elimination of most of them in the first five years, and 80% of our exports to korea in the

manufactured goods sector. for those of you from farm states, this is a great win for us. our beef exports are up 187%. we're now exporting almost $500 million worth of beef in korea. the tariffs on those are going to come down immediately. it's also going to help grains and soybeans and others. so those sectors are going to benefit as well. where we really see an opportunity for us to gain market access is in korea's service market. it's a $560 billion market that we, for the most part, have had very little penetration. for the first time, we're going to have access to that. so we think the $10 billion number is compelling, the 70,000 jobs. we actually believe that's a fairly conservative number. the other important thing, it gives us a foothold, again, in one of the most economically dynamic regions in southeast asia and strengthens what is already a very strong strategic partnership between the united states and south korea.

>> all right. thank you. mr. teaberry's recognized. >> thank you, chairman, thank you, ambassador, for your leadership, and thank you for being here today. as you may remember, i'm from ohio, one of those rust belt states that you talked ant. i know you have an ohio connection as well. quick question. the president has talked about doubling exports. can we do that without passing any additional trade agreements? >> it would be difficult. we think -- and, again, one of our passion for getting korea and the others right, mr. tiberi, is to do that. >> thank you. >> now, our exports are running at about a 17% per annum clip which is above the percent needs, but certainly if we can get colombia, panama and trans-pacific partnership done, it'll increase -- >> and increasing exports means increasing jobs, growing the economy, correct? >> yes, sir. >> in my state, in my district

there's a ton of cynicism with respect to trade. and there's a disconnect between trade and exports l flrkts -- exporting. and i appreciate your leadership. it's been absolutely fantastic. however, there's a farmer in this room from my district. his name is john davis. and he's cynical as well with respect to washington d.c. and here's why. if you sat in his farm home in the fall of 2008 during the election, you would have seen a candidate obama talk about repealing nafta, how cafta was bad, how trade has cost jobs. if you would have sat in his farmhouse during the last election in 2010, you'd have seen more money than i've ever seen spent in central ohio as well as in the cleveland market, in the cincinnati market about how trade has cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in our state. trade is the big boog myman with respect to -- boogieman with

respect to how ohio's economy has suffered. so if you're john davis sitting in this room and you want to hear about cynicism, how do we stop that cynicism when every two years in an election we have people running for office making trade the boogieman? nobody, nobody understands that you're going to -- in my state, at least, other than people who work this every day who you talk to who maybe run companies or farm like john davis that we can, for instance, by passing panama we can double agriculture exports for the united states which means, again, more healthy farmers or -- but that's the minority. it's not the majority of ohio. it's because all they see coming from leaders like president obama when he's campaigning in 2008 that trade costs jobs. that puts a tremendous amount of pressure on you and on me and

everybody else up here when we try to tell them, no, exporting and trade actually is going to grow our economy. and i think the president is disadvantaged when now he says we're going to grow the economy by exporting -- and, by the way, not talking about trade agreements -- because he is one of many who has said trade has cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. as you know, nafta is ohio's largest trading partner and has created a ton of jobs in ohio. and canada is a great ally, not just a great trading partner. so how do you as the point person who has been dealt a very difficult hand and has handled it very professionally help bridge that disconnect with the american people and the people in the rust belt that, no, trade is good, trade can be very good, trade can actually grow our economy, exports mean trade, and it can actually create more jobs

in america and create a better america for all of us and our kids? >> well, you heard mr. brady talk about my work as a mayor, and i always tried to govern myself with one, one principle, that the truth is always an option. and, unfortunately, i don't know that either one of your statements is wrong. and one thing we are doing is going to places like cleveland and going to detroit, not just going to dallas and washington and others. and talking truthfully about what the promise of trade is, but it also means, then, that we have to have a less tin ear to those that say we need help. so one of the things you do, and i agree, i think it was congressman mcdermott, we do need to pass trade adjustment l assistance, and we need to enforce our rights as we did in the tires case. and then we can get people to sit and listen and make them understand, trade can help create jobs. >> ambassador, i hope you use your leadership to help us get

colombia and pap ma across the line as -- panama across the line as well because if we are, indeed, going to double our exports, it's critical l that we pass kilometer ya and panama in the -- colombia and panama in the very near future. >> yes. >> thank you. yield back. >> thank you. mr. davis is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador kirk, before i ask you my question, i'd like to comment briefly on the japan post insurance issue which i know you're aware of which is a matter of serious concern to many of us on the committee. members of both parties are watching closely to see how the japan post privatization is handled. this issue is very important to u.s. insurance companies. i know you've worked hard to encourage japan to reform japan post in a manner consistent with its wto obligations, and i'm concerned that the privatization efforts to date may not be fully in be compliance with its commitments. mr. ambassador, we support your efforts and hope you can achieve a successful resolution to this issue soon. i'll be submitting a question

for the record pertaining to this important issue. but for my question today i'd like to come back a little closer to how many to some of the agreements that have already been touched on. i'd like to hear your thoughts on the geopolitical aspects of panama and colombia. they are key u.s. allies in central and south america where venezuela's anti-american president hugo chavez seeks to undermine u.s. interests and dominate the political landscape. panama and colombia are also key links in the north/south inter-american drug trade. we're allowing some in be latin america to question our commitment in the region. in may 2008 five former heads of the united states southern command wrote an open letter to congress strongly urging support for the free trade agreements. i'm concerned the failure to move these could precipitate a setback for u.s. influence in the region. do you share these concerns and

would you mind elaborating on them for a moment? >> let me say we have examined our relationship in latin america from every standpoint. now, i am always -- i try to be guided by the reality that the only reason the office exists is because congress mandated that there be someone that looked at these purely from sort of a commercial standpoint and not a strategic one. that's why we are no longer housed in the state department. having said that, we fully understand the strategic importance of our relationship with colombia, we applaud the work of both the uribe administration and now the santos administration in working with us on the drug interdiction areas, but that's why i think it's that much more important that we're willing to try to find bipartisan compromise to move forward on these agreement withs that stalled them in may 2008. in panama everywhere i've gone from the port of baltimore to the port of orlando is getting ready and building infrastructure here to take

advantage of the widening of the panama canal and the impact it can have on our port facility here to handle greater transshipment of goods back and forth. so, yes, we've examined all of those elements of the benefits of that, and i think it just creates a great imperative for us to come together on this other issue so we can allow these agreements to move forward. >> i guess i'd like to go to a deeper level on it. the concern that i have, and i appreciate the -- as mr. tiberi noted, you have been dealt a difficult hand in dealing with this. you understand firsthand the issues, the benefits of trade, but when we talk about raising the issues of the ilo standards, we talk about various perspectives out of concern for the colombians, let alone the panamanians. we have had their militaries come and plead with us, militaries across central america and the colombians to bring these agreements about because of their internal security issues. and labor leaders in if colombia

have come and pleaded to have us bring this forth, and those who are strong organized labor advocates in the democratic caucus have chosen to ignore the very voices that they say they're trying to help. and i guess my concern is considering colombia's more in compliance, as i understand it, with these ilo guidelines than we are, don't you think this rhetoric is a little bit -- not yours, but a little bit dissident? that we need to actually agree this needs to move forward, it needs to move forward urgently both for economic and national security concerns? >> we want to address all of the outstanding concerns. i'm not going to comment on your interpretation of the other, the democratic members of this committee's understanding of those ilo commitments. and i would say, and i appreciate mr. tiberi's concerns, but i enjoy the work that i have, and i think the president has demonstrated great courage and leadership in articulating to the american

public how we can win. we can win by having trade agreements that fairly reflect our values that open up markets, that are enforceable, and if we can work in a manner to get those done, then i think we'll get to a place that we're not having this conversation next year. but the longer we want to sit and try to decide which parties to blame for not moving it forward, that's how you end up with these agreements being stalled for four years. >> okay. >> and so i think it's time, look, let's find common ground, let's stop pointing fingers at one another and figure out a way to move these forward. >> thank you. before i recognize mr. lewis for five minutes, after mr. lewis we'll go to three minutes of questioning. i know the ambassador has to leave at 12:30, and i want to give everybody the opportunity to ask a question of you. so with that, i'll recognize mr. lewis for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. ambassador, i want to thank you for being here today. and thank you for your service. we've heard a great deal about

delay, wait. is it better to rush and get an agreement or to wait and get it right? now, mr. ambassador, you know, i am very concerned about the issue of human rights, workers' rights, environmental issues, and some of these concerns and issues are long-seeded problems in colombia. you know, it's all right to talk the talk, but sometimes we need people to walk the walk. and i'm not sure that the leaders, even the new leaders, are prepared to walk the walk. there's too many killings, too many violations of human rights,

too many people disappearing. and as you said and i agree with you, our trade agreements, our trade policies should reflect our core values. could you just elaborate in what are you going to do to see that the people in colombia do the right thing? as someone said before, the time is always right to do right, and if we don't stand for something, we'll fall for anything. >> congressman, thank you for your question, thank you for your service. you are a hero to so many of us who value and respect human rights, and we appreciate your advocacy and leadership on that. i will say what i have said to others. we think that there has to be a way for us to respect the sense

of urgency that america -- take advantage of these opportunities to conclude these free trade agreements so we can say to that farmer, here's an opportunity for you to you your business, we can say to our manufacturers. but we have to keep faith with the american people that wants us to have a trade policy that reflect those values. and so, again, my simple answer is we believe we have to be responsive to both, and we can do so. i know you have spent years studying and devoted to the issue of human rights, labor rights in colombia. i would tell you we are greatly encouraged with not only the rhetoric, but the actions we've seen of the santos administration. and that is part of what's driving the president to encourage us to intensify our negotiations. i know for some there is still an unacceptable level of violence, but we do believe not only under the current administration, but under previous administration colombia

has made great strides. we think we can build on that and work with the new administration, work with those of you on the committee on both sides and come up with path forward that allows us to address their sense of urgency, but your concerns about making sure we do so in a manner that takes care and respects the rights of those workers. >> well, thank you very much, mr. ambassador. mr. chairman, i didn't take my five minutes, i think i took about three. >> all right, thank you. mr. like cart is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. ambassador. i've enjoyed work withing with you, and you do enjoy your job, i've noticed that, and although it is a tough one, the bottom line is that we we want to sell american. and that's really the message. and i think you're delivering that message loud and clear. i'm pleased to be a part of the export council initiative with mr. tiberi and yourself and

secretary locke. and the goal, as i understand it so far in the two with meetings we've had, is to create two million job withs by doubling exports. as i've said in some previous trade hearings, we haven't done that, doubled exports, since 1995 between the period of '95 through 2007. and during that period of time we passed nine trade agreements. so one of the first questions i was going to ask is whether or not you thought that passing the korean free trade agreement or not passing would impact the doubling exports initiative, and your answer was it would be difficult. so i also want to say that i really appreciate your recognizing right up front washington state's issues as far as canada, attracting new customers into their ports and not into this port of seattle and port of tacoma. when we first visited. and the