quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

host: first of all, as you put together this series, what did you learn? guest: there are high lels of radio activity and that the type of drilling produces a lot of waste. some are struggling how to handle that waste and figure out

how to proit. those states are pennsylvania and new york. guest: pennsylvania is pbably a ground zero of it. there's a lot of drilling going

host: the country skram bells to tack into this century's gold rush for natural gas. guest: so fraking is used to get the well to start produci gas.

it's been around for a long time. there's been great advancements to help expand drilling how to handle the water that ces up. that water comes up from the well. what we looked at closely are levels of radio activity in waste water, what is going on to

keep the public safe from it. 13 states using this technique. hydrofracking. 13 states are using this method. there are federal regulations administered by the epa and state regulations. can the epa overrule any other regulations when it comes to this? it varies. most of the regulation of drilling is done at a state

we follow it through the shoage treatment plants and we found further downstream that some

of that discussion took place earlier this week on e floor of the house. dealing with the issue you spelled out, which is the eation of jobs. here's the jobs debate. natural gas usage i a very important transition strategy as we look at our energy needs going into the future. whether transportation fuel, electricity generation. those taxes proposed by the administration will put a lot of these gas companies out of business and keep in mind, 97% of the gas used -- natural gas used in this country is produced here in this country by these small companies. .

a given rig will employ 65 people on one rig. so a company that has, let's sa they have to cut back 50 rigs, do the math. you're talking 3,000-plus jo. these are -- mr. akin: the very thing we should be encouraging becae we're so dependent on foreign guest: it does burn cleaner than coal there is a real push to wean the

country from oil. that goes to our earlier point. the series of stories that the epa does not have a way to fully dilute. what we found is that there is research from the industry itself as well as from the epa. do the rivers dite it to make these things safe.

this story is also getting attention. natural gas derived from fracking. guest: the only discussion to step up monitoring. those plans to test more often. there's a national study going on right now here is some of

that information as we listen to jaclyn joining us from girly, louisiana. good morning. caller: i'd like to ask a estion. you all were for the fracking, is that the "new york times" editorial position? thank you. guest: i work for the news side of the paper. all i can respond to is the questions about what we found in .

the risks you point out has seen a sharp increase in drilling which is roughly 71,000 active gas wells up from 36,000 up from 11 years ago. that's why these questions are coming. good moing. >> mostly an american. coming up to pennsylvania where it all started that's why i

don't understand where we get these people on the proam about drilling in this country. i called my representatives fice mr. thompson hoping to assure me of all this fracking going on in texas. some have a famous name, what they are using besides water to take this gas out. they wouldn't answer. you didn't majority leader. mr. reid: notice that the absence of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, thank you very much. i have a longer statement that i'll give after we finish this colloquy here. yesterday afternoon at 4:00 we met back here in the vice president's office. it was a very fine meeting.

vice president biden was there, my friend, the republican leader, the speaker, and the -- the majority -- the minority leader of the house of representatives. it's hard for me to get this term down since this change in house leadership. anyway, mcconnell, reid, boehner and pelosi were there with vice president biden. and we spent about an hour there and the arrangement was that we would have a vote on h.r. 1 sometime this next week and also a vote on the bill that we just laid down, which is our alternative as to what we think should be done with the economy. now, i know, mr. president, that -- that our bill, because it's a -- it's the way we have to do things around here, it's a long bill and i'm sure there -- the minority wants to spend some time looking at that. but one way or the other we'll either do it with an agreement

or we'll do it through my filing of different procedural motions and get to a point next week where we will vote on h.r. 1, which we democrats want to do and we'll vote on the bill -- what's the number? what is the number of the bill that we have at the desk. the amendment? mr. reidanyway, it's been here a while and i need -- whatever the number is, it's the democratic alternative that senator inouye has laid down. mr. president, we believe, and i'm confident that the speaker feels the same way, that the thing that we should do is vote on h.r. 1, which we've had calls for voting on that for more than a week now. i've had statements to the press -- from the press why doesn't reid setup a vote on h.r. 1. and that's what we're doing.

we'll either do that with a consent the agreement with the republican leader or a procedural motion that i'll file later today. the amendment to that is numbered 149 and that senator inouye's cuts of som some $51 billion from what the president's budget was. and to move the process forward, i think that this is the place to start. we have some confidence that we'll get -- we'll get the votes on our bill that we'll move this matter forward. but, regardless, if h.r. 1 doesn't pass, and it won't pass, and if ours doesn't pass, we at least know where we stand, mr. president, to move this ball down the road a little further. the speaker said that that would allow the negotiations to start and i think i'm paraphrasing, but i think that's what he said. and that's what all of us in the room decided to do yesterday. today i seek society those two

votes for tuesday an. one vote on passing h.r. 1 as it came over from the house and we would, after that, we would have a vote on passing the alternative, which is the chairman inouye has drafted and it's amendment number 149. and once we got that, it would seem to be a fair proposition to move forward. as i said, mr. president, i know that my friend, the republican leader, has scheduling problem, and i understand that. i would like to have come here earlier today, and so would he, but we weren't able to do that. i will give a full, more explanatory statement in a few minutes. right now, what i do, mr. president, is i ask consent that upon disposition of s. 23, which is this -- the patent bill, the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 14, h.r. 1, the defense appropriation long-term -- that

senator reid be recognized -- reid of nevada be recognized to offer a substitute amendment, the text of which is at the desk. that there be four hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or the designees, upon the disposition of -- let me read that again, mr. president. sorry about that. there will be four hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or designees prior to vote in relation to the substitute amendment. upon disposition of the substitute amendment the senate proceed to a vote on passage of h.r. 1 as amended if amended with no intervening action or debate and no motion be in order to the substitute amendment. that the substitute of the amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold, that h.r. 1 if it does not achieve 60 votes, -- affirmative votes, it that we return to it -- return it to the calendar. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: reserving the

right to object. for the short time i'm going to object at least for today. we received this 350-page amendment at 11:45. we need to have a chance over the weekend to take a look what the our friends have offered here and it could well be that by monday we will conclude this proposal that -- that the majority leader has laid out as the best way to go forward. we'll continue to talk about that over the weekend, but for the -- for today, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask consent upon disposition of s. 23, the patent bill, the senate proceed to h.r. 1, the defense appropriation long-term continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: for the same reason, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 14, h.r. 1.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 14, h.r. 1, an act to make an appropriations for department of defense and other departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i have a cloture motion that's at the desk and i would ask that the clerk are report that. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 14, h.r. 1, an act to make appropriations for the department of defense and other department and agencies of the government for fiscal year ending september 30, 2011 signed by 17 senators as follows, reid of nevada, inouye, nelson of

florida, whitehouse, conrad, begich, udall of new mexico, casey, shaheen, klobuchar, cardin, boxer, franken, feinstein and bingeham. mr. reid: i ask that the mandatory quorum call under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now withdraw my potion to -- my motion to proceed. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. mr. reid: mr. president, when an american family sits in the churchillen at their table and sorts through their finances, as they often do, partisan politics don't figure into that equation. when the families we represent calculate their own budgets when they add up the cost of gas and groceries, tuition in some instances, and other necessities, they care more about the bottomlines than news headlines. when a family desperately counts the dwindling number of weeks

when the unemployment insurance runs out, that family doesn't have time to keep track of who scored the political points. when you have to make the tough decisions going into any budget those decisions have to be practical, not political. we often tell ourselves and our colleagues that we should be as responsible as the american people. as their representatives, we must be sympathetic to the challenges outside this chamber and we need to come quickly to a resolution that benefits them before we worry about whether it benefits us. as careful as we must be not to waste the american people's money, we must be just as mindful not to waste their time. regrettably, though, the budget debate has turned into a political exercise. and i'm sorry to say, mr. president, not much more. that's counterproductive. we need to be as serious as the challenge before us.

i'm much more concerned with actually keeping our country running and investing smartly in our future than in this political game that we see. when they wake up in the morning, the american people want to send their children to a good school and then go to a good job and, mr. president, now they're saying a job. they want their families to come home to a safe neighborhood at night. they want to go to sleep knowing our country is safe from those who want to do us harm. they don't care about who gets credit. they don't care who thought of how best to do it. they just want us to do it. the time really thousand then for political -- now for political posturing should be over. we setup a procedure. it was agreed on in the vice president's office to get this h.r. 1 out of the way. everyone knows it's not going pass. it's a very very difficult, bad piece of legislation.

we'll get rid of that. we will do what we think is responsible and cut spending b by $51 billion and not have all of those mean-spirited riders that are attached to h.r. 1 that on their own couldn't pass anything over here, mr. president. it is a mad rush to see who could do the most essential amendment. bring it over here in the day -- in the light of day, refer it to a committee, have a hearing on it, and once that was done, none of it would come to the floor with rare exception. they weren't willing to do that. so the time for pragmatism is overdue also. so this is what the senate's going to do. we're going to vote early on democrats plan and the republican plan. let the american he people see

which is the better of the two. everyone will have a chance to be on record supporting whichever they use to do. whichever plan. let me talk briefly about the per are its of each of -- the merits of each of these plans and what they will do. first of all, h.r. 1, which will go down in history as one of the worst piece of legislation ever drafted in this congress. first, this reckless republican plan that the tea party has pushed through the house, that irresponsible proposal slashes investments, cuts jobs and sacrifices security an education. yes -- and education. yes, it cuts a lot of money today, but america would lose so much tomorrow because these cuts are made arbitrarily without regard to the consequences. that's why leading independent economists agree it would slow growth and cost jobs. the day before yesterday on national public radio they had

more than 300 economists who were saying with one voice, don't do this. we can't be blinded by the big numbers in the house republican plan. we have to scrutinize how they cut $63 billion, and the truth is that it adds up to to $61 billion through a significant subtraction of programs the american people don't want to lose. it slashes more than $1 billion from social security, security, $1 billion, which means half a million seniors who paid into social security their entire lives and now are eligible for it wouldn't be able to get the benefits promised to them. there is nobody to process the claims. it cuts $700 million from education, which means a million disadvantaged students could lose funding and more than 10,000 teachers, aides and school staffs would lose their

jobs. it would even take $200,000 -- i'm sorry, 200,000 children, i'm sorry, mr. president, out of the head start program. what's the head start program? these are not just words. they're programs to educate the poorest of the poor children. it's worked out well. try to find somebody that criticizes the head start program. these little boys and girls have no alternative, and it's worked out well because the parents are involved. they're going to eliminate 200,000 children from this wonderful program of head start. the republican h.r. 1 closes poison control centers and cuts cuts $100 million from food safety inspections. that means the food we eat could be both less safe and more expensive, and that's really a lose, lose proposition. it cuts $750 million from

renewable energy investments. the reason that's so important, mr. president, is these investments are incentives for people to do these kinds of jobs. you can drive from my home in searchlight, nevada, 36 miles, you get about to the 31-mile mark, you look off to the left and there is a million solar panels being installed there, a million solar panels, producing huge amounts of electricity, summer and winter in what we call the great dry lake. that was done because of these programs. so we don't have to be holden to the middle east tyrants there who are shipping us oil. it cuts three quarters of a billion dollars from renewable energy investments which will cost us jobs, threaten our energy independence and delay the day america lives and works in a clean energy economy. it cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from border security, port security, federal emergency management agency.

when an emergency comes up, we need to be able to respond to that. even republican congressmen are said and are admitting it's not so smart to pittsburgh much pennies on the backs of our national security first responders. in my conference room right across the hall, one of the shriver boys came in to see me. the shriver family has done so much for our country. the eldest shriver who just died was head of the peace corps, but their -- probably their number one mark has been how they've worked with children, young men and women with challenges. physical challenges, emotional challenges, and they brought a young men and women, some are not so young anymore to see me,

with some of the great programs that are being cut in h.r. 1. the help special olympics, the best buddy program is another one. and shriver told me that he brought a member of the house of representatives, an elected member of the house of representatives who voted for h.r. 1, and he said how could you do that? how could you do that? you have a child with down's syndrome. her response? oh, i didn't know it was in the bill. i didn't know it was in the bill. i've just talked, mr. president, h.r. 1, i don't know how many pages -- madam clerk, how many pages in h.r. 1? mr. president, could you tell me how many pages in h.r. 1? the presiding officer: 382

pages. mr. reid: 382 pages. well, mr. president, i have only talked about enough to take up a couple three pages, but it is full of the same kind of stuff that i've talked about here today, stuff that is not fair and mean-spirited. we all want to cut. i represent the state of nevada. we're in a deep economic problem. we know, though, we have to cut things here. the presiding officer from the state of connecticut, we are -- we are both members of the democratic party. we have supported these programs because it's the right thing to do. we recognize there is going to have to be cuts made, but we have to do them with a scalpel, not a meat cleaver. and to have someone say well, i didn't know it was in the bill. eliminating, cutting drastically a program for people who have

challenges, emotional, mental, physical challenges, i didn't know it was in the bill, well, there are a lot of that same kind of stuff in this bill, h.r. 1. that's why it's going to be defeated here. and i say, mr. president, to my friends, the republicans, i can't imagine that you will all vote for this. we've got to move beyond partisan politics and do what is right, and i don't know how many, but not all republicans will vote for that, and i have been -- i have been castigated in the press, why doesn't reid allow a vote on it? let's have a vote on it, i'm willing to move to that, but i couldn't do that. i had to file cloture on it to move to proceed to it. they wouldn't even let me do that. but we're going to get to it because i -- we know how the -- i know the procedures around here. i can get to this bill and i can do it next week. but i just talked about the tip of the iceberg with this mean-spirited h.r. 1. federal reserve chairman

bernanke said these cuts -- and there are many more like them that i have already said are there -- will cost a significant number of jobs. mark zandi, the chief economist at moody's and formerly the chief economic advisor for john mccain, has said h.r. 1 will cost our country 700,000 jobs. that cuts place -- those cuts place far too heavy a burden on working families, low-income children and seniors, and it asks for little, if any, sacrifice for those who rake in unnecessary taxpayer-funded subsidies they don't need. that's no way to recover. oil and gas subsidies. the former head of chevron oil said we don't need them, we're doing fine. mr. president, i have been very helpful to my foreign state senators. i have -- i have helped them

work their way through droughts and floods and all kinds of things to make sure i understand how important agriculture is, but very, very few times in the history of our country has commodity prices been so high, been so high. don't you think they could take a little nick, a little nick rather than take it away from head start programs, programs like that? our plan, mr. president, a matter that was filed today by senator inouye, senator inouye is a very sensitive, good man. i don't need to recount who he is. one of the most famous men in the history of our country. been in congress a long time, but we always remember that this man is a hero, not only on the battlefields of italy where he lost his arm, was badly injured

and as a result of his heroic actions there received a congressional medal of honor, but he's a hero here in the legislative halls also. one of the leaders in the watergate hearings and the many other things he's done over the years to become a hero here in addition to the battlefields. it's his amendment. and that's why democrats have a different plan, the inouye plan, one that represents our different priorities. supported by the president of the united states. we know that we have to make cuts. i've said that here this morning several times. we also know that when we cut, we have to cut in a way that strengthens our economy, not weakens it. we have to look carefully at the quality of these cuts, not get blinded by the quantity of the cuts. i've said before we can lose a lot of weight, you, i, anybody

in this room if you cut off your arms and your legs. you have accomplished the purpose, you've lost a lot of weight, but no doctor would recommend it, and that's what they have done with h.r. 1. no -- no well-reasoned economist would recommend it. our plan cuts $51 billion from president obama's budget, but in a much more responsible way. we're eliminating redundancies, ending unnecessary bureaucratic programs, cutting funding for earmarks. mr. president, we've agreed to cut funding for earmarks. i don't like that. i've told the president of the united states i don't like it. i believe that we're giving up too much power to the president in getting rid of those earmarks. we have obligations to do congressionally directed funding. but i have agreed, like all of us over here, to accept that. remember, mr. president, earmarks -- when you have a budget of $10 -- and you have

.2% goes to congressionally directed funding, it's still the same amount of money. it's just that the president didn't determine where that money is going to be spent, congress had a say in it. but i -- we have, we have agreed, we have agreed. we have got earmarks in here. billions of dollars that are going to go toward cutting the deficit, and i have agreed to accept that. ending unnecessary bureaucratic programs, cutting funding for other things. mr. president, i -- i commend my friend, dr. coburn, the senator from oklahoma. he got a g.a.o. report that shows all kind of redundancies, overlapping. those are places we can cut money. let's do it. our plan recognizes that we're not in competition to determine who can cut the most without regard for the consequences. rather, we need to cooperate to figure out where we can cut the smartest. well, the house-passed plan is based on ideology, we believe ours is based on reality.

not ideology but reality. these are decisions about real money that solve real problems that affect real lives. our budget affirms our determination that we have to also reflect our values. we see our modestly recovering economy, the day's news about employers who are hiring at the fastest rate and a year where the national unemployment rate fell nearly to a two-year low. you can't squander that cautiously by eliminating 700,000 jobs. this is cautiously optimistic news of counterproductive cuts. so, mr. president, i hope that when we have these votes next week, h.r. 1 will be -- it will be -- people will run from that, run from that. people who vote for that won't take all their legislative life and afterwards trying to live

down having voted for that stuff, but this is what each senator will vote for or against next week. those votes, like all our votes, are about choices. what i have just outlined is what these choices represent. not to spoil the surprise, but we all know how this vote will turn out. we know neither will reach the president's desk as written. republicans likely won't vote for ours. i hope they do. now, if it were a simple majority vote, we would win that, but republicans have established a different standard, 60 votes. we accept that. so we'll end up back at square one without consensus, without a budget for the rest of this fiscal year and without assurance that we can keep the country running. so once these votes are behind us and everyone's voice is heard, i hope each senator and member of congress will find renewed motivation to do what we needed to do since the beginning, come together, negotiate in good faith, negotiate, working on consensus,

compromise, legislation is the art of compromise. legislation is not the -- who can flex our muscles the biggest and the longest and the hardest. legislation is the art of compromise, working out things for the american people. we have to acknowledge that the answer that will allow us to move forward lies somewhere between our two positions perhaps, and we have to recognize that digging in one's heels threatens our fiscal footing. one side stubbornly demands victory, everyone loses. that goes for both parties in both chambers. this negotiation will not happen in the media, and a solution cannot be found with extreme rhetoric, idealistic idealism. it will happen when we sit down and have an adult conversation about what our country and our constituents need. that is the only word in the exercise. how we create a foundation for the future, how we articulate our priorities to our citizens and states across the country and our allies and adversaries

around the world. it's not political. it's among the most practical things to do. and, mr. president, there is no dispute on 53 democrats. we are willing to cut. we've cut $51 billion from our president's budget. and as we talked about, we're willing to do more, but we're not willing to do this with a meat ax. we want to do it the right way. we want to take a scalpel and be very careful that we don't affect people's lives. and we want, mr. president, when it's over with, we don't want someone saying well, i didn't know that was in the bill, even though it affects that person personally as anything could be. when we talk about where to invest and what to cut, everyone is concerned about the budget's bottom line. when we talk about how we can get there, here is the bottom line of the negotiation process. yes, we have to make tough choices, but that's what leadership is really all about.

and it's true that no one here will get everything he or she wants. my friend, the presiding officer, was a long-time attorney general of one of our our -- i was going to say most famous states, but one of the original states who was noted for his fairness, and if a attorney general or a lawyer is known for fairness, that person is known to be willing to compromise. it's what it's all b. it's the same in the law -- it's what it's all about. it's the same in the law as it is here in this united states senate. when we talk about how we can get there, bottom line is negotiation. we have to make tough choices. but that's, i repeat, what leadership's all about. today, mr. president, marks 150 years since abraham lincoln took his first oath of office as the president of our country, whose very existence at the time was

in question. like the incomplete nation he had just sworn to lead, this great capitol believe was unfinished. as he addressed the nation for the first time as president, president lincoln stood on the east front of the capitol, a building under cranes and scaffolding that represented growth and uncertainty at the same time. 150 years later, the threats we face are nowhere near as dire as the civil war lincoln's america was about to endure. but his words that afternoon are useful to us to hear this afternoon, for we are again at a moment of peril in our country. and again, we will sink our swim together. as lincoln closed that inaugural address 150 years ago today, he reminded a divided nation that -- quote -- "we are not enemies but friends. though passion may have strained it, it must not break our bonds of affection." that's the end of the quote. lincoln then famously called on us to recall the better angels

of our nation -- those were his words. if we listen to his critical lesson in leadership at this critical moment in history, we will secure in our time a stronger future for this great nation we call america. mr. president, i have a unanimous consent request for a committee to meet during today' session of the senate. it's been approved by both me and senator mcconnell. i ask unanimous consent that this request be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid reid: h.r.4 is at the k due for its second reading, i'm told. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the bill for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 4, an act to repeal the expansion of information reporting requirements for payments of $600 or more to corporations and for other purposes. mr. reid: i object to any further proceedings at this time, mr. president. the presiding officer: the objection having been heard,

placed on the calendar. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until monday, 2:00 p.m., march 7. following the prayer and pledge of the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, there be a period of morning business until 4:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. at 4:30, the senate proceed to executive session as provided urn the previous order. finally, the filing deadline for second-degree amendments to s. 23 be 5:00 p.m. monday, march 7. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: senators should expect a series of three roll call votes to begin at 5:30 on monday evening. the first two votes will be on confirmation of judicial nominations. the third vote will be on cloture to the america invents act. mr. president, if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

senate stands adjourned until

>> live pictures from the state department this afternoon where we are standing by for that briefing with p.j. crowley set for 1:30 that are new. reporters will talk about the president's comments with muammar gadhafi in the situation in the country. is that a plaintiff in the u.s. millet terry to ask potentially rapidly in libya at the. c-span 2 that are 1:30 eastern. until then, journalists and political analyst at the salt lake club discussed the dumping them egypt, libya and the middle east. contact with the foreign media's coverage of the antigovernment protest in the role of the son of libyan leader muammar gadhafi. this is about 90you minutes.stii

>> sir, your name? t >> what is your take on theuld u humanity -- can i ask you tohe hold the mic closer? there's a fallout if sanctions are put in place? please remember in iraq, in december 50,000 children died during the sanction period while it was put in place. your take on both. followed from the violence, as for the sanctions. >> thank you. >> who'd like to start up? what is your fear of what the humanitarian impact would be for the sanks -- sanctions or indeed just ongoing violence? >> honestly, i don't think it's anyone like to advocate for like sanctions affecting the people. no, i don't think. now all of the debate, it's about like no-fly zone. it's still the issue itself that's highly debatable because it's not just you are going to

ask gadhafi kindly, would you mind don't fly your make, you know? it's not like this. you need to launch attacks. the situation is highly debatable. i would like to add something. what's they reach gadhafi is false, it's something like 15 or 20% are domestic. the air force capacity. because since the problems start, one the major european countries, they would draw all of their technical stuff. one the major like airplanes. and they have started -- they are still struggling with others like even the russians make. they have a lot of problems in terms of technical stuff. it's the idea of no-fly zone, maybe it will clear, and help the libyans, but i know it's like a conflict like this start

everybody to be like national -- international conflict. maybe it will send like just a clear signal to colonel gadhafi to make -- for him to behave. but just regarding the humanitarian issue, i think it was planned a couple of weeks ago, there's a huge lack of food supply, especially in the eastern part of the country and western cities as well. i believe it was planned, you know? to create a war situation obvious a civil war situation. and now a lot of countries, include qatar, and they are involved in food. the libyans, we've never been in this situation. usually, we used to see it in the news. now libya themselves starts to be a recipient of aid and medicine. it's painful.

myself, i can't feel it. i think this is the situation. st libyans are in need for the national aid, unfortunately to say that. >> richard, are you in favor of the no-fly zone? >> under certain conditions, first it has to have legitimacy. you could get legitimacy from a united nations security council resolution, or if that was not going to pass, you could as in other humanitarian interventions, obtain legitimacy through regional consultation, and through the receipt or there wouldn't be anything formal of a sense or a request that the libyans under pressure inside libya want intervention. >> but it cannot be a british-american effort? that would be wrong? >> it would make much more sense if it was a spanish-italian effort. they are in the front line of this issue. it's their world supplies, for example, that's at the greatest

risk. it's their immigration problem rather more than the uk. maybe the u.s. and uk would play a part. i think people who advocate armed humanitarian intervention need to think quite widely about the kind of coalition that would be put together. >> yes, you had a question in the back. >> i'm maria, i'm a postgraduate student at the african studies. i've been very much following what's been happening in the past month, being from the middle east myself as well, and of course, it's very interesting. and my question is on something that i've been thinking about is the definition of how al-jazeera is defining the professionalism, so to say. the western ethics of journalism, and i put western between two quotations. i wanted to know your upon about how al-jazeera is kind of playing with the idea of

distance, the emotional distance. it's not like any other channel. when you watch specific, you can use egypt and libya and tunisia, and i you feel like you are part of the news. al-jazeera has redefined the concept of coverage in the last events. and the other question is what do you think about the exclusion of the al-jazeera to the exclusion that gadhafi gave to abc, and nbc, i think. >> abc, bbc. thank you. my bosses maybe watching this. >> i'm not going to take too long just because the subject matter is libya. i don't want to think i'm promoting al-jazeera and promoting or defending it. we did pride ourselves for a long time of being a voice of

the south, and the voice of the people. we have an hour program that people phone in and speak endlessly in the morning and so forth. has it been an emotional moment? of course. imagine this was the french television after the second world war, or the british television after the second world war. this is probably the biggest moment in recent history in this region. imagine someone like gadhafi for 40 some years. the generation of libyans have lived under him. for young journalist, and young people in the arab world were for a young channel like al-jazeera, having it all, or living and being in the midst of all of . >> with a live match the state department with spokesman p.j. crowley.

>> skywest to accentuate the word briefly today. the briefing hasn't started yet. [laughter] i mean, we have to formally banged the gavel and declared this in session. so let's do that. we will bang the collateral and declare this in session. good afternoon and welcome to the department of state. a couple of things. we can start out with just a brief tribute today we are saying goodbye to two very good friends within the state department. you know, press officer ginny stopped in hemisphere affairs bureau is leaving washington shortly. she's been a great supporter of many of you through the last couple of years. she will be reassigned to

portugal as a cultural affairs officer. we'll all have to find a reason to go to portugal and cover cultural affairs they are, but certainly think ginny stopped, an outstanding price outstanding press officer on behalf of archer of venezuela and a great friend and colleague as far as dnc as well. likewise sure that the secretary will bid farewell to assistant secretary, rich firma who has been a tremendous friend and colleague to all of us for the past couple of years. most recently, rich help the secretary both in her recent testimony last week. in fact, today supposed to be his last day. he is extending it to next week when the secretary does one more hearing on the hill. but he certainly helped shepherd the effort throughout the executive branch that last year that led to the ratification of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. so we will bid a fond for well to our friend, rich firma.

the secretary this morning had a bilateral meeting with the minister of foreign affairs and religions, renée castro of costa rica. she thanked foreign minister castro for his leadership in the region and working to enhance citizen safety and promote economic development, innovation, science and technology and ensure environmental sustainability. they discuss closer collaboration to the region for those of you who saw the press availability afterward strikes not only working issues of strength and multilateral organizations within the hemisphere, but to work multilaterally and bilaterally on the issue of citizen safety. turning to europe, the united states remains gravely concerned over the continuing postelection crack down by the government of belarus on civil society independent media and the political opposition.

through its ongoing detentions, trials and harsh persian sentences the government is creating new political prisons. we have urged the unconditional release of those detained in the crackdown without trials and the creation of states for the free expression of political views, development of civil society and the ability of citizens to expand their contact with open society. for example, there were nine presidential candidates for office. two of them were in jail. seven have been charged under these trichotomy and actions by the government of belarus. they are simply unacceptable. turning to the middle east, the united states today as an instrument to join international renewable agency or irena, becoming its 63rd member. it was formed in 2009 in response to the growing international interest in the adoption of renewable energy

technologies to meet the challenges of sustained economic growth and security and climate change. arena's mission is to support to greater renewable energy use by the adoption of optimal policies, business practices and technologies. today 148 countries are arena the signatories. as i mentioned, the united states is 63rd to ratify the statute. the arena is headquartered in the united arab emirates. as the secretary mentioned this morning with regard to libya and tunisia, the two c-130 military transport have limited incher back on the tunisia delivering humanitarian supplies for international development. each aircraft carry three pallets of aid supplies, including blankets, rolls of plastic sheeting and water

containers and those supplies have been offloaded and are now heading for the border between libya and tunisia. as we've observed during the course of the last 24 hours, flows have appeared to slow somewhat although that situation could easily change our estimate for the estimate for migration to 200,000 people of those roughly 108,000 have repatriated this fire. there is an international air lift in progress, which has significantly helped in using the crisis caused by the influx of migrants into tunisia. these c-130 aircraft today are carrying humanitarian supplies. we anticipate that tomorrow they will return and participate in the flow of migrants from tunisia back to egypt.

>> they are libyans who have repatriated -- >> no, these are third party nationals. these are all third-party nationals who, as we've said, the estimate is there could be as many as 1st million country nationals working in libya and many of those are still in the process of making their way out of the country. >> they were concerned that one reason is they were prevented from crossing the border by guards. i'm wondering if the u.s. has any -- >> we've had that same concern. as we mentioned yesterday, we've seen a dramatic drop-off in people at the border that we share the concern that perhaps there are some security elements that they are inhibiting this flow. we are looking at that. i don't know that we have yet seen any specific evidence but

that remains an issue. [inaudible] >> -- lake chad in other places. are you urging the countries -- some don't have the passport. >> in fact, it is a tribute to both egypt and tunisia that notwithstanding their own transitions in each country they have been able to affect the ability work with the international community and broadly speaking manage this tremendous influx between out of libya in both directions on the international community including the united dates is prepared to help them. but we think the situation on both sides of the border is a remarkable tribute to both countries. >> there are many indian nationals in libya.

are they offering to help in any way? >> i'm not specific of any help, but what we have been doing for the past couple of weeks is sharing information broadly across the international community where chartering aircraft up to a week ago, we are opening seeds for a countries who are able to get their citizens to either the ship dock for the airport. and likewise in the succeeding week we have been working with other countries as well in a small number of cases we've been able to put americans on board, ships and aircraft that are the been feel libya. i'm not aware of any specific request, but this is something we are cooperating us that just began. >> could you cite some light on those working in the remote

oilfield. and what is the status? >> well, we have -- we have evacuated a very significant number of people and we have, as a government, but also private companies have also made their own arrangements to take employees out. i don't know that at this point we are aware of any u.s. citizen sewers to in libya who have not made a choice to stay. but we remain open and continue to work with anyone who is contacting us are seeking assistance or leaping libya. there are something approaching perhaps 6000 people in libya who are dual nationals. u.s. citizens as well as having libyans the ds and and it is

just from a practical standpoint more difficult in most cases since libya does not recognize dual citizenship. anybody in libya who is a dual national has to leave using a libyan passport. >> you are not aware of any the international oil companies that keep their employees hunker down. >> i'm not aware of any significant people that are still in libya who have not found réseau. >> -- the taliban and places and trying to capture and using the copter. how do you view the clashes? >> we continue to watch the situation very closely inside libya and we do know that there is ongoing clash between elements that are still

supporting are sympathetic with the gadhafi regime and are now in opposition. as the secretary indicated this morning we continued to a value which options as to how the international community might influence the situation inside libya. planning continues to provide the president with a range of options. we remain in discussions with allies including nato about the possible actions. but as she did again, we affirmed that the best solution for libya is from colonel gadhafi to cease its attacks against his people and to step down. >> -- the no-fly zone. >> no update. we continue to have that option under active review. >> what is between the white house and state department on

wednesday and the defense department on the other. obama said yesterday about a full range of options. you're talking about a full range of options, but the military seems that we need to choke up loose talk. >> i don't see any -- i don't see any daylight between the state and peered with the secretary of state rightly says and emphasized yesterday as we are developing a range of options and no action has been taken off the table. as secretary of defense gates reminded, but you have to understand the implications of establishing a no-fly zone. it's not an thing you can do with the snap of a finger. there are implications for this. there are costs for this. , but that didn't preclude that

this could well develop into an option that we have to seriously consider as things go forward. >> as discussions to lease between the counterparts in the defense department that transpired today. >> i'm not aware of any conversations today. we continue to have an interagency process where we had an ongoing basis of value we get them in libya and continue to develop the options of the president has requested. >> p.j., what is your opinion of these rebels that have taken up arms against the libyan government? does the libyan government have the right to defend itself against these particular people that have taken arms against them? do you consider him attacking unarmed civilians or is there on the beginnings of a civil war in the country where he isn't title ii defend himself and his forces against those who up arms?

>> well, the fact that the government has turned, you know, lethal overwhelming force against its population is obviously of great concern to us and we think is delegitimized colonel gadhafi as a leader for libya. we have called for him to step down. we are gravely concerned about the ongoing violence and obviously there is a risk that this violence could deepen into something like a civil war. we want to do everything we can to avoid that happening. and again, the best solution here is for colonel gadhafi to give up the fight, step aside and opened the door for new leadership in libya. >> yeah, he understand that, but

the question is he is -- i'm not talking about unarmed civilians, which clearly i would understand to have an issue against him attacking unarmed civilians and people on the street. i am talking about armed rebels that are fighting the government and government forces. does he -- what is your opinion on this military action? is the senate devore? is this some kind of civil war? or do you consider it part of the same thing? >> the u.n. security council resolution passed just about a week ago, made clear that the violence needs to stop. >> on both sides? >> at least that is something we of this post from the outside of these developments across the region. if you go back to the principles that we have enunciated throughout this, you know, these issues should be resolved through dialogue, not through violence. but it has been colonel gadhafi

who is chosen to fight to those who have stood up in opposition to him. and he and those about to bear the responsibility and the u.n. security council resolution make clear there will be accountability based on the actions that have been taken. he could very well have opened the same kind of dialogue with his people that were seen in bahrain, oman and other countries. he chose to turn his weapons on his people and he will be responsible and accountable for those actions. >> but now, this is in answering the question, though. if you're using that argument, you were saying in egypt or tunisia or bahrain or anywhere where those governments have used force against the people, that those people are entitled to use force against them. so are you saying that these rebels in libya -- and while you set it in other countries come

you haven't specifically been in libya that you would urge both sides to exercise restraint. are you saying these libyan rebels are entitled to carry arms against gadhafi are not classics like it is difficult for me to sit here and characterize what might be happening in one corner to another corner. it was the libyan regime that turned its guns to the people. it is the people of libya that are force to defend themselves in light of the oppression that the libyan regime has carried on, not just a military forces, but by these mercenaries that are in the employment of colonel gadhafi. but you know, there was and remains the opportunity for dialogue. it is colonel gadhafi that first chose to claim that the unrest occurring in libya is because the population is drugged.

and then he has claimed that it is all about al qaeda. ultimately it is all about him and the people are standing up and demanding a new day in libya and they are titled to that today. >> how can you say there is room for dialogue and in the same breath he has to go? you are not giving him any faith in that dialogue. >> well, we think she has cost a line and the actions he has chosen to take over the past two or three weeks. and as we look at the situation, you know, we want to see as the secretary and the president has said, would like to see genuine reform. and it is clear to us that gadhafi is not interested in reform. >> the dialogue you are proposing would be between them? >> i am saying there was that opportunity, but nowadays gadhafi who was chosen to deepen the violence against his people and that is why the secretary

and the president and others have clearly called for gadhafi to go. >> so there isn't any room for dialogue? >> i think there is room for dialogue to facilitate gadhafi is departure from the scene. >> just to be clear, something you're saying is these rebels are entitled to take arms against gadhafi? >> they'll come into using one terminology -- there is a political opposition that has developed. >> outbreak. there is clearly political opposition that has developed in libya and there was the opportunity for dialogue involving colonel gadhafi. i think we're likely pass that point. at this point, the dialogue needs to be between those who want to see a brighter future for libya, a democratic future for libya. in an orchard to see that happen

as we said it's time for colonel gadhafi to step aside. >> -- need to have a legitimate right to self-defense. one. and two -- >> there are rights and there are responsibilities. you know, gadhafi has been a rogue dictator were for decades. and based on what he has done, and turning those weapons against his people rather than engaging them, you know, we believe he is worth it at the right to leave libya. [inaudible] they are asking the united states to provide them with some kind of ammunition. are you ready to work with them or disregard? >> right now we're focused on the humanitarian implications of what is occurring in libya. they may well be the case they are too many weapons in libya

already. you know, we want to see this peacefully resolved. we want to see the violence and bloodshed stopped. we are evaluating a range of options as things develop. but at this point our preference would be to see a peaceful resolution of this. and that is why we have called clearly for gadhafi to step aside. >> as being the most likely step that will lead to an end to the current violence. >> i'm not ruling in or anything out. we are quite aware that people have called for arms weaponry, though we have made no judgments on those things, but right now we would prefer to see this resolved in the best way to resolve this is through gadhafi's departure. >> does anybody know their political identity? >> you are talking about rebels that has implications. i'm talking about the emergence

of a genuine political opposition. there were people who were standing up. they are a range of figures, tribal figures, military figures, businessmen who are saying that they want to see a different system emerge in libya. we are reaching out to as many of those figures that we can to both understand what is happening now and understand how we can be most helped in bringing this current situation to a successful and peaceful resolution. but they are a wide-ranging group. but we see signs that they are beginning to organize and coalesce and we will be watching and communicating with them and trying to find appropriate ways to be hopeful. >> is there a tangible for the rebels? >> any, in our conversations there appears to be an emergent

structure. but again, this is something that is still in its nation stages. >> the gadhafi government said today the point is a replacement for the u.n. ambassador who were not in a couple weeks ago over dr. trekkie. my question is, have you heard anything from them regarding the ambassador in washington? >> which is not anything official. >> i mean, libya has the ability to talk to us. >> secondly, i'm dr. trekkie, would there be any issue in him coming to new york to the united nations? and income if you accept his credentials as a libyan envoy to the u.n. -- >> that is the first step. we are official responsibilities in supporting the united nations. there are agreements that type that the port, but the first step in this process is for

libya to authentically and authoritatively to declare their representatives are in this country. >> p.j., as far as options are concerned, mr. gadhafi is not listening to the united nations. one, do you consider him still the president or ruler of libya? and two, how long -- how long will these options go because you want to avoid before more deaths occur in libya. >> this is something we watch closely. it's a dangerous situation. mr. gadhafi is responsible for what is happening in libya today and we in the international community will hold them accountable. >> at what point is it deemed a humanitarian crisis that the president that he's considering all options, military, nonmilitary.

at what point people are in their own words he said that gadhafi is unleashed the lethal overwhelming force. so what point hasn't deteriorated? >> that is a question that defies an easy answer. we continue to watch the situation closely. we are concerned about what is happening and as the situation evolves, we will see the options that the president calls for developing fully and make decisions as appropriate, working collectively with the international community and others in the middle east. >> is there a benchmark? >> you know, we are watching in developing and we are prepared to act and respond as appropriate. >> is gadhafi winning right now? since the government -- your government has no real plans on what is the next step to raise the pressure on him.

the protests are making it further. >> i would say what we want to see is the people of libya and they went with gadhafi's departure. >> what about the two c-130 sativum untranslated unloaded. will there be any more c-130s in the united states? >> these are european-based c-130s. as they sat at the beginning, today we are delivering humanitarian supplies. i believe tomorrow they will be back on the ground of tunisia prepared to move citizen, egyptian citizens or others out of tunisia. >> there continues to be a flow. >> at, we are -- we remain concerned about this flow of people, even if it has eased from levels of earlier this week. the conditions there are still arduous. it's cold at night. these people are exposed to the elements we want to get them back to their home countries and

air lift, particularly in the case a very significant number of these people are egyptians have remained a major focus. but obviously we are working with other embassies and as people come to the border and identified themselves as citizens of a particular country, iom and hco are working with united states and others will look for ways to ensure safe passage. >> "the new york times" this week -- [inaudible] after that meeting, was there any chance to recall ambassador boswell that called the roadside and having a relationship with him? >> i know of no plans. ambassador pascual and his

mission have done and are doing work and to support our mexican partners in addressing mexico's security challenges and issues within our bilateral relationship. >> mr. called around mentioned yesterday's to the u.s. due to the status of ambassador said they were very trained. what can you say about the relationship, saying the relationship is not very good with the ambassador? >> look, we understand the challenges we have with mexico are difficult. it is putting stress on mexico and on the united states. we are working hard with mexico on security issues that are of great concern to both of us. we record is the extraordinary burden that this has placed on mexican institutions, which is

why we have the marriage initiative to help for mexico in every way we can. as the president said yesterday, we have -- we are doing more on our side of the border. we have to keep up the pressure on these international criminal organizations on our side of the border as well as helping mexico and others in the region. we are doing that. these are hard, you know, difficult challenges, and ambassador pascual is working a thought to believe under difficult conditions to manage our bilateral relationship in to help deliver the kind of assistance to mexico we pledged. >> did you discuss the issue in the beginning quite >> it doesn't sound as if the issue of the mexicans have a policy or anything like that. it sounds like a specifically personal to ambassador pascual.

.. >> as a possible due to this lack of --

>> look, i've given you the u.s. perspective. i can't speak for president calderón and i do not know, you know, do not know that he was the subject of a discussion yesterday. >> but is it wise even when the president, he has a good relationship with the president. >> but, you know, we have ambassadors around the world who serve our interests. and in doing so we believe that that serves the interest of the country in the region. to which they are assigned. and as i read that story yesterday, i believe resident col de romme raise the issue of wikileaks. and we fully understand that the revelation of some of these cables have created tensions and whether not that exist in mexico and other countries as well. we are determined to work through whatever tensions have

been created by the emergence of these cables. that said, you know, without speaking about any cable, but these cables show broadly speaking is u.s. diplomats serving in difficult circumstances all around the world, addressing the common challenges that we have with our partners around the world and solving problems. that is what ambassador pascual and his team is doing in mexico city or that is other ambassadors at our embassies are doing every single day. and he and his team are absolutely serving the united states interest, and we think the interest of mexico in the region as well. >> you withdrew the ambassador from libya before this whole thing with libya happened. you withdrew the ambassador because of the wikileaks revelations. he was considered to not be able -- to do his job in the country. >> that's not the reason. >> what is the reason?

>> that's not the reason we moved him. >> are you sure about that? >> i am sure about that. we brought back the ambassador for consultations because we have genuine concerns about his security. >> but it was related to the wikileaks cable. >> i'm just saying, just saying, then right now the ambassador is on the job. working hard to understand fully what's happening in libya, and to see we can do to help the people of libya see a better tomorrow. [inaudible] >> yes. >> you have any concern that the mixing government -- that they refuse to work? >> again, i've given you our perspectives. >> change subject. the palestinian-israeli, to have

an answer on the status? >> no. i have asked the question. i've not received received an answer yet. >> on that, have you read or received anything by one of the palestinian negotiators? >> i have not. >> that says the united states is not to be trusted and has been lying to achieve the goals stated in the number one declaration? >> what you say about that? >> we are doing what? >> he said that, of course, you're not advancing the cause of peace and your lying. quote unquote. >> i have not seen those specific comment. all i can show you is what the policy of the united states and the obama administration is. we continue our efforts to pursue comprehensive peace in

the middle east. we are squarely focused on trying to help the israelis and the palestinians achieve a framework agreement and ultimately a two-state solution. we are strong advocates of a viable palestinian state, and where strong advocates of the state of israel that can live in peace and security with its neighbors. we are determined to continue this effort, and the best way that the parties can advance this process is to return to direct negotiations. that's what we're trying to do a. >> but he said that in the context of on their own. would you support that? >> again, our view is that the only way to resolve core issues is through direct negotiations, and any other efforts are sideshows that we don't think we'll be successful.

[inaudible] >> we do not believe that will be a successful strategy. >> regarding the peace process, senator mitchell went to the region. >> we had david jesse in the region. i believe he had meetings with palestinian officials. we expect that meetings in the coming days with israeli officials. we haven't stopped what we're doing. you may not see -- and may not be evident every single day, but we continue to work with the parties to try to know the existing differences. we understand that they exist. we understand this is going to be hard. but just because there are fewer formal meetings than might have been the case six months ago, it doesn't mean that we are still not determined to tryto move this process forward. >> is senator mitchell still

working on -- >> everything. [inaudible] >> i'll check that. we will take that question. >> there are reports that the state department recommended the minority be given -- in the weeks he before he was assassinated. can you affirm that? >> i will not comment on it other than to say we shared our genuine concerns about his security, but beyond that i will not comment. >> can use any effort that you would have recommended at the very least were held up by any stacks in any bilateral relationships of? >> i would not die that to the case of mr. davis. we were quite aware that he had received multiple death threats. we were concerned about his security, as we would be for any government official or prominent individual, subject to those death threats. and we encouraged the government

of pakistan to do everything possible to provide for his security. but beyond that we will not comment. and he tragically, his general was today. the ambassador and other members of the embassy staff attended. [inaudible] >> they're now saying they will bring no charges unless u.s., the doctor that we have heard. where does this case continue now as the relations are concerned according to my colleague, what they're saying swapping with one of the pakistani nationals. >> okay. i mean, as we explained yesterday there are court proceedings that are continuing. we look forward to a march 14

high court hearing, and we hope that we continue to work with the government of pakistan and hope to resolve this as quickly as we can. >> david? >> you don't believe the pakistan government is enough to protect him? >> again, you know, i'm not going to comment on the security as the secretary, and others have made clear. this is a great tragedy for pakistan and we remain concerned about issues related to tolerance in that country. >> your statement yesterday on the uranium enrichment program. you said the u.n. security council reaction, but you didn't say like -- [inaudible] doesn't mean you have toned down what you are seeking for?

you have a set of facial position of which are seeking to specifically? >> what i said was we are consulting actively within the security council, and as mr. ryan horn said, one of the possible outcomes of that consultation could be a presidential statement. >> and another thing, why does it come at this point in time that you suddenly started raising this? does it do anything to do with chinese government taking, sitting as the chairman? >> you know, i don't know that there's any particular timing of it. we simply made clear that we continue to focus on full implementation of u.n. security council resolutions. we want to see north korea undertake all of its international obligations, and we've made clear that in our view of denuclearization of the

korean peninsula, that has to take into account that uranium enrichment program. that is the position of the united states and that's something we continue to talk to others about. >> what about china? have -- >> have we talk to china about this program? yes. >> chinese nuclear envoy said in an interview that nobody wants to put preconditions. what is your response to? >> well, we want to see any dialogue be constructive. so, you know, i'm not sure you call a precondition. we just want to make sure that there's a firm understanding among all of the parties, at an expectation that progress can be made it and as we've said, one of our indicators to demonstrate that it will be fruitful to have

these kinds of conversations would be a series as an purpose, they demonstrated success of purpose by north korea, and one way to demonstrate that would be to improve and reduce the tensions that currently exist between north and south korea. >> one more on north korea. south korea high level intelligence official told lawmakers that kim jong-il has been officially invited by china. we don't know when. are you concerned about report? >> i don't know why we be concerned about reports are north korean leaders go to china all the time. >> but it is kim jong-un and not kim jong-il. >> i understood what you said. >> supporting an initiative to suspend iran's u.n. human rights council? >> there has been a great deal of discussion within the u.n.

human rights council about iran's abysmal human rights record. i don't know at any, any specific plans for suspension at this point. >> do you -- >> again, i don't know if there's any initiative to put forward at this time. >> p.j.,. [inaudible] is the united states or the state department anyway involved in the preservation or the prevention of living of equities and egyptian museum's? >> i don't know at any -- i just can't say that there's been any specific discussions with egypt on this subject. i would say that our approach

here, in the case of egypt and in the ongoing efforts that we have done with the international community to reserve assets of egypt, we are taking steps to preserve assets for the people of egypt, for the people of libya, for others, and we sort of think that these are, these are cultural assets that belong to the egyptian people. they should be protected, but i'm not specifically aware of, you know, the concern for theft of antiquities at this point. [inaudible] >> we have diplomats in the courtroom observing the ongoing legal process. i haven't gotten any readout yet. >> i was wondering if you could update, if they continue to be

protest their obvious. if these government falls, will that have any impact on the u.s. pursued in the arabian peninsula? >> is a presumption behind your question. the president remains president of yemen. he has in fact open up a dialogue with his opposition. there's some fairly public negotiating going on, but this is exactly the kind of give-and-take that we believe is necessary so that governments can be seen as responding to the will of the people. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry, what? [inaudible] >> there have been some fresh reports of protesters killed in the embassy there, trying to verify those reports. we have been monitoring the

clashes between pro-government and antigovernment, you know, protesters. been going on for sometime. as we've made clear, even as we support dialogue between governments and opposition figures, we want to see these efforts done peacefully. and in the pursuit of more responsible and representative government, violence needs to stop. [inaudible] >> one of the greatest concerns to national security within the united states in yemen right now. where does that unrest impact the concern? it is something the u.s. is worried about? >> i'm not sure i get the link between the hill and dash that what concerns are they? i'm a spokesman for the executive branch, not the legislative branch. >> i am well aware of that.

i think it's fairly obvious what i'm asking. the united states obvious he has a concern in yemen that has been prioritized by a number of officials -- >> yemen is a very important country to the united states. >> but what impact does this unrest have on that security concern? >> well, they are not mutually exclusive. in other words, there is a genuine security concern in yemen that is a concern for yemen and for the united states. in the last handful of terrorist attempts in the united states, they have links back to you and directly or indirectly. so we are working with yemen, and had been for some time to improve its terrorism capabilities. and we are cooperating fully. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> hold on. this is fascinating.

[inaudible] >> that said, you know, part of the solution, part of the solution to yemen is more effective governance, a broader economy, greater opportunity for people who live in yemen so that they would choose, you know, constructive pursuits and not extremism. these two things go hand in hand. >> there have been reports over the past few days about the possibility of establishing a cow than diplomatic office in turkey, and i just wonder what your position might be on that. >> a what? >> a talibans representation -- >> who would establish that? >> well, probably the turks might allow it to happen. >> i don't know anything about that. >> do we have any position on at? >> i don't know anything about it. >> a quick one on -- the

ambassador of india, where students are asking the state department, negotiations will not happen. what is our view of? >> i think the focus right now on issues regarding how, what happens for students are not implicated in the ongoing investigation, those are matters under active discussion within the department of homeland security. >> e.g., i want to know what's happening with the ambassador of venezuela. is there any news of? >> no. have a nice weekend. [inaudible]

>> yesterday homeland security secretary janet napolitano said the u.s. will seek to extradite and prosecute the capture drug cartels subjects are accused of killing an immigration and customs enforcement agent last month in mexico. her remarks came at a hearing look at president obama's 20 till budget request for her department. new york republican peter king chairs this evening. it's about two hours. >> this meeting will come to order.live cerag the committee is meeting today to your secretary of second very janet napolitano but into the presence fiscal year 20 till budget record for the department of homeland security. i would advise members of theg secretary's office has notified us in advance that she is a commitment to be at the white house and she must leave before noon. and in fairness to the secretary she has rearranged her schedule at t here today because would

you cancel out two weeks ago and read the whole series of votes on the floor all day. secretary, i want to thank yousd for adjusting the schedule for us and we'll sort have been done in time for you.ertain today's hearing is as i said, to address the president's budgetis for 2012, and anytime of the pr budget for 2012 and in a time of budget restraint and cuts to be made and actually commend the secretary for putting forth the budget that i believe while obviously we have certain disagreements with it is very much on target and trying to accommodate the need for cuts and also protect our nation. we saw just again last week the importance of this and saw the arrest of the saudi arabia national in texas. this was another reminder of how

serious the threat to our nation is. secretary, in your appearance here on february 9th, you said our nation is at its highest level of terrorist threats since september 11, 2001. that's why to me we have to always equate homeland security with national security and whatever money can be saved as far as programs and grants, et cetera, would be offset immediately if we see a successful attack launched in the united states apart from the tragic loss of human life, the devastating impact on our economy would be there as well. i'm not going to make a full five minute statement because i think it's important to get on. in view of the threats against the country and the deficit crisis we face, if you would in the course of your testimony specifically address why you made certain cuts, why you have kept certain programs going forward as they are, how you think that does accommodate the threats that we face. for instance, you and i

discussed the issue of dirty bomb attacks over the years and i certainly commend the secretary concluding the securing the cities initiative in the budget which will affect cities across our nation. also a concern i do have though is the cuts made as far as border protection p your budget, also in the republican budget. so i'm not trying to make a partisan issue here. do you think considering the importance we've attached to border security in recent years whether or not there is sufficient funding in your budget to secure the border and go forward with some of the significant improvements that have been made under your watch? also, the whole issue of the saudi national who was arrested last week, do you feel more should be done with visa analysis? i know the state department is involved in that but also is obviously department of homeland security involved as well. with the large numbers of foreign students in our country

and we do try to encourage that but at the same time should there be more of a level of scrutiny when coming into the country to avoid the situations we saw last week? and in closing we have to express our thoughts and prayers of the i.c.e. agent murdered, killed several weeks ago as well as his partner. i want you to know on both sides of the aisle the committee obviously our thoughts and prayers go out to them. i look forward to the testimony today. as i said, i know the tough job you have. whether or not we always agree there's no doubt of your commitment. i think the good faith effort in this budget is an honest effort. with that i yield back the balance of my time and recognize the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. today as you know we're here to

receive testimony from secretary napolitano about the dhs budget request for fiscal year 2012. while keenly interested in the programs and plans that the secretary has in minds for the next fiscal year, there are two potentially devastating developments outside this budget request that demands attention. first, there is the matter of the fiscal year 2011 budget. the 112th congress has not produced any of the 12 appropriations bills needed to fund the government. instead, to keep the government operating, the house leadership has chosen to kick the can down the road with continuing resolution after continuing resolution. hr-1 as approved by the house would reduce funding for the department of homeland security by $1.1 billion, or 3% in the middle of the fiscal year. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have consistently

emphasized the business community's need for predictability and certainty. yet this same principle does not seem to extend to the public sector and the operations of governing. surely dhs has a right to expect some predictability and certainty as it pursues its counterterrorism and homeland security's activities. turning to my second concern, there's a very real threat that the funding for dhs operations for the next fiscal year 2012 will plunge to 2006 levels. my staff provided analysis for how dhs's fiscal year 2012 budget would be negatively impacted by hr-408, the bill put forward by the republican study committee. the picture it presents is potentially devastating to the department. dhs's budget would be cut by

$10.7 billion. this proposal would mean that customs and border protection would lose $3 billion. over 8,200 border patrol agents or 2, 800 cdp officers would have to go. so much for operational control. it would also require that the federal air marshal's budget be cut by 20%, jeopardizing the security of the flying public. our efforts to address one of the nation's greatest threats, cyber attacks, from rogue nations, terrorists and lone wolf actors would be severely hampered also. mmpd, the home of dhs's cyber security operations, would be cut by $275 million. the coast guard, which protects our nation's waterways, rescues boaters in distress and was the first to respond to the deepwater horizon oil spill, will have to eliminate over

2,700 positions. the list goes on and on. i invite those who have an interest in this analysis to go to my committee's website. madam secretary, we all have a stake at dhs getting the resources it needs to keep the homeland security. the president also recognizes the importance of dhs's role. even in these austere budget times dhs will receive a slight increase in the president's budget. that said i have questions about the proposal to make significant cuts for first responder grants. i also want to hear from you have about the proposed cuts in university programs. before i yield back, i'd like to note for the record my deep concern that hr-1, the continuing resolution, approved by the house could create the kind of budgetary sinkhole that

will swallow many of the quality proposals that you are here to present. i yield back. >> thank the ranking member. madam secretary, i want to thank you again for being here with us. this is your third year of service as secretary of homeland security. it probably seems like 300 at times. but it is good to have you back and i recognize secretary napolitano. >> thank you, mr. chairman, representative thompson and members of the committee p first of all, i appreciate the flexibility of your schedule with this hearing this morning. president calder yonl of mexico will be at the white house at noon and that's what causes the schedule jam. so very grateful for your flexibility. i too will be somewhat brief in my opening comments in order to reserve or save time for the members' questions. but i think it's fair to say that the demands on the department have never been

greater. this is especially true as we remember those at the department who have given their lives in service to our mission, including most recently border patrol agent bryan terry and i.c.e. agent jaime sappata. mexico is leading the investigation into the death of agent zapata. we're supporting them through a joint task force that the attorney general and i anounged two weeks ago. recently mexican authorities announced they have apprehended some of the alleged killers of agent zapata and we are conducting a number of operations in the united states relate sld to the drug cart els from mexico. but i can speak for the entire administration when i say we're not only saddened by the loss of an agent. we're outraged by this act of violence against an officer of the united states. and make no mistake, justice will be brought to those involved. we owe nothing less to the

memory of agent zapata and to those who are still on the job in mexico. now, the loss of these brave agents is a stark reminder of the sacrifices made by the men and women of dhs every day. it also strengthens our resolve to continue to do everything in our power to protect against, mitigate and respond to threats and to make our nation more resilient. today's threat picture features adversaries who evolved quickly and are determined to strike us here at home, from the aviation system and the global supply chain to surface transportation to critical infrastructure to our cyber networks. president obama's fy-'12 budget for the department allows us to continue to meet these evolving threats and challenges by prioritizing our essential operational requirements. while reflecting an unprecedented commitment to fiscal discipline that maximizes the effectiveness of every dollar we receive.

reflecting the current fiscal environment and building the fy 2012 budget all dhs components identified savings associated with the department's 33 efficiency review initiatives and we cut administration and overhead, including my office's budget, by over $800 million. we also delayed construction of fema at the new dhs headquarters at st. elizabeth's and deferred a number of office co-locations. that accounts, mr. chairman, for some of the numbers at i.c.e. that make it look like that budget is going down. that is almost all related to building, building maintenance and not having office co-locations that we otherwise would have. now, my written statement includes a comprehensive list of the operational priorities in the budget. today i will only highlight a few. preventing terrorism and enhancing security was the founding mission of the department. it remains our top priority

today. this budget safeguards transportation modes through a layered detection system, including the deployment of additional transportation security officers, behavioral detection officers, k-9 teams and expanding watch list vetting through the secure flight program and enhancing screening and targeting of international travelers before they board u.s.-bound flights through the immigration advisory program. this budget also strengthens surface transportation security by supporting 12 new visible intermodal prevention and response, otherwise known as viper teams which conduct operation sltion throughout the transportation sector to prevent potential terrorist activity. the request also provides funding for securing the cities program, to protect our highest risk cities from a radiological or nuclear attack and makes a

significant investment in the national bio and agra defense facility that provides enhangsed diagnostic capabilities to protect our country from foreign animal and emerging diseases. and the request expands support for the national network of state and local fusion centers to provide local law enforcement with the tools to address threats to our communities. now, to secure and manage our borders, the request continues the administration's historic border security efforts by supporting 21,370 border patrol agents and 21,186 u.s. customs and border protection officers, both all-time highs. this budget also includes 242 million dollars for the continued deployment of proven, effective surveillance technology along the highest trafficked areas of the southwest border to better meet the operational requirements of

our agents on the front lines. for the northern border, this budget request supports investments in technology tailored to the maritime and cold weather environment. and for our nation's maritime borders, this budget includes funding to continue the essential national security cutter program and makes historic investments to recapitalize the coast guard's aging assets including six fast response cutters and 40 response boats. this budget also continues the department's focus on smart and effective enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. while streamlining and facilitating the legal immigration process. building on our record over the past two years, the department will continue to prioritize the identification and removal of criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety and target employers who knowingly and repeatedly break the law. this request enables i.c.e. to

fund 33,400 detention beds, remove over 200,000 criminal aliens and deploy secure communities to 96% of all jurisdictions nationally in fy 2012 while promoting compliance with work site related laws through criminal prosecution of egregious employers, form i-9 inspections and continued expansion and enhangsment of e. verify and funds immigration efforts including programs supporting english language and citizenship education and continues the detention reform efforts currently under way. now, to safeguard and secure cyberspace, this budget increases resources to identify and reduce vulnerabilities to our nation's key cyber networks. the request includes significant investments to expedite the employment of einstein 3, to prevent and detect intrusions on government computer systems,

increase federal network security and continue to develop a robust cyber security workforce. now, to ensure resilience to disasters, the budget request focuses on moving resources out of washington, d.c., and into the hands of state and local responders. by sustaining federal funding for state and local preparedness grants, providing over $3.8 billion in fiscal year 2012. this funding includes $670 million for assistance to firefighter grants. and that includes $420 million to hire an estimated 2300 laidoff firefighters and veteran first responders. to lead and support security efforts this budget expands the coast guard's operational capacity by funding 50,682 military and civilian positions and establishing the coast guard's first incident

management response team -- assistance team -- excuse me -- which will be deployed rapidly to exploit incidents of nationa its kind effort by the department through the quadrennial homeland security review and associated bottom up review to align our resources with a comprehensive strategy to ensure a safe, secure and resilient homeland while making an unprecedented commitment to fiscal discipline. chairman king and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to present some testimony to you. i have a more complete statement that i ask be included in the record and i'm happy to answer your questions. >> thank you, madam secretary. the issues seem to evolve week by week. last week, was the the alda saer case in texas which shows we still have vulnerabilities in

the student visa program. following the 9/11 attacks, we passed the program to deploy secure to hire visa posts. the requires the dhs personnel be assigned to saudi arabia. can you describe for us the role that dhs plays in analyzing the visa applications, how and if that overlaps the state department and are there any lessons learned from last week? is there anything that could be prevented in the future as far as addressing our visa procedures? >> mr. chairman, i think that case is a good news story. i'll tell you why. first of all, the individual involved entered the country first time on a student visa, attended college, went back to saudi arabia, and then was issued a second student visa. there was, to my knowledge, no

derogatory information discovered either by dhs or the state department in connection with that. returned to the united states. i.c.e., what i.c.e. does with students who are here on these kinds of visas is it monitors them on a continuing basis, and through that monitoring, discovered a suspicious activity report of unusual banking activity by this individual. it notified the fbi. the fbi and i.c.e. then pursued an investigation and of course that led to ultimately the arrest of the individual involved. i think what the case illustrates is the need to have a layered approach here. at any one time, you may not have derogatory information about an individual. it may develop subsequently. so what we have been working on and developing in our country is we want students to come from

other lands. there's a huge benefit for the united states in that. we also need to attend to our security concerns. this kind of layered approach allows us to do that. >> without discussing the details of the case, because obviously, it's -- the case is still proceeding, but was he found because of what i.c.e. detected with the questionable bank transactions or was it because of the person in the chemical supplier company notified the fbi that he was asking to have the material sent to his home? >> my understanding is that the first notice to the fbi was from i.c.e., from the sar report. >> would that have been sufficient, do you think? i'm not trying to find fault. can there be any lessons learned from this? what could be possible also is i.c.e. did learn of this, something was done but there was not sufficient follow-through because my understanding was, if you had gotten the fen no, the

bomb would have been ready to go. i.c.e. made the initial discovery, still he was in a position to possibly launch an attack. >> i think that illustrates why you have to have many layers in the homeland security arena. it's why the see something-say something campaign has been instituted by the department to go national, because we want individuals and companies, particularly those that run things like chemical plants to know if they see something unusual, they need to report it as well. it increases the likelihood that we will pick up something before an act can be completed. so we give credit there. we give credit to i.c.e. we give credit to the fbi. they all ultimately were converging on one individual. >> you may have violated chairman longman's copyright on layer. he started using that term awhile ago. just one final question on

deblock. in light of the president's announcement that he supports the allocation the d-block, do you anticipate your department getting involved in that effort and doing all that can be done to work with congress and the administration to get it through? >> yes. yes. in fact, we were -- the dhs and the department of justice were heavily involved in the decision to stop the auction of the d-block and reserve it for public safety. we anticipate being involved on an ongoing basis. >> ha there been continuing controversy in congress. right now, i think we are getting closer to getting the votes we might need. senator rockefeller, senator lieberman. any assistance you can give to us. i recognize the gentleman from mississippi. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. madam secretary, recently, gao released its high risk list.

once again, many of the processes of integration and transformation at dhs have been identified. in light of this budget, the new initiatives that you are putting forward, will you be able to address some of those issues that gao highlighted? >> yes, mr. chairman, the gao report, it was -- it had good and bad. it had good in the sense that it recognized a number of the transformational management activities that have been under way over the past years as we work to integrate these 22 agencies into one large department. it also pointed out, as you note, some other areas where we need to put in some continued effort. i believe that those efforts will continue under the president's budget. i will say that if the hcr that

was passed by the house becomes effectively the fy-12 budget as well, that is going to have some impacts on the department both on front line operations but also on the management side. >> let's take maritime cargo. as you know, congress some time ago passed 100% screening mandate and there have been issues around it. you testified last year that you couldn't meet it. some of us are convinced that it was a congressional mandate and we want to know how and what you plan to do to address this congressional mandate that's obviously you won't be able to

meet. >> yes, representative thompson and i could give you a very, very long answer, but let me try to keep it brief. first of all, i think the mandate was constructed at a time before we had really a mature understanding of what that meant and what the possibilities were or were not in that regard. one of the things that's happened over the past eight years as we have developed a much more mature understanding of what homeland security means and how we link with national security and with issues around the world. and what sounds easy and foolproof in the end turns out to be neither easy nor foolproof. that is really what's happened with that requirement. so what we are doing is working on an entire global cargo security initiative that involves the international

maritime organization. it involves the international aviation organization. it involves the world customs organization. really dealing with the point of time from which a good enters the global stream of commerce to the time it reaches its end user and different things along that entire chain that need to be done to make sure that cargo remains secure, is secure at the outset, remains secure through the stream of commerce. we would be happy to brief you in greater detail on that work. >> well, i really would like to have it, because it was not congress passing the mandate. we didn't say to the department look at it, tell us what you think. i think part of the discomfort for some of us is that if congress decides, in its wisdom to say do it, then we expect the agencies to follow the congressional mandate.

obviously, that was not followed. i know you inherited part of it, but nonetheless, the mandate's there. >> the statute also provides, however, that the secretary can extend the time. as we have been doing that, we've been keeping the committee briefed and we will keep you briefed, representative thompson. >> that's fine. i think ultimately, by extending the time, i think the scanning mandate would be something that some of us would expect to be followed. i yield back. >> thank you, member thompson. i'll recognize members of the committee for five minutes for questions. as i said at the beginning, the secretary has to leave before noon, i would ask the members observe the five minute rule and not go over in accordance with the committee rules, i plan to recognize members who were present at the start of the hearing by seniority on the

committee. recognize the gentleman from california. >> i thank the chairman. i hope that caution wasn't just directed at me. i will try to stay within the five minutes. first of all, madam secretary, i want to thank you for going forward with things such as see something-say something. i think that makes a good deal of sense and gets us in a cooperative venture, if you will, with the citizens of this country. i think we need to go forward. the context in which you are appearing here today is set really by the chief of the -- the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff last year who said the greatest threat to security is our fiscal irresponsibility. he told us even from his vantage point, we have to get our fiscal house in order. that puts con statements on all of us, democrat, republican or legislative branch.

i want to applaud you with your answer with the last question, with respect to the 100% cargo screening or scanning. we need to do with a what works. we need to use the layered approach. the height of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. if you run into bumps on the road in doing 100% cargo screening, the idea that you are going with the layered approach with the entire supply chain makes eminent sense, at least to this member and i thank you for it. i would like to ask you a question in these tough budget times about a couple of the priorities you have set. one for which i would applaud you is your fiscal year 12 request for cyber security it. appe appears to be the largest increase in the category of nppd. i think that makes emanate sense. maybe you can tell us exactly why you had that as a priority.

on the other hand, i had a concern on the customs and border patrol where it appears in the 2012 budget justification documents that your border patrol plans to only maintain the current 1,007 miles under control for the rest of fiscal year 2011 and 2012. on the one hand i think there's an appropriate emphasis given to cyber security. on the other hand, it doesn't appear, at least from my reading of your budget documents a similar stress on the area of border control. maybe you can talk to those two things, please. >> well, yes. with respect to cyber, we have identified that as one of the five key mission areas of the department. one of the things i've tried to do as the secretary is to take all the myriad agencies, departments, whatever, that were merged into dhs with all of the hundreds of missions that they have, but to consolidate into

five major mission areas. we have identified cyber. the point of fact is that between dhs and dod, we possess 95% of the cyber responsibilities in the united states government. we need to protect the civilian side of the federal networks from attack. we need to accelerate the deployment of ieinstein 3 which is the program we're using to do that. there are a whole other host of activities we need to undertake including increasing our cyber workforce. this is a key need of the department and the federal government at large as to have more cyber competent individuals working for us. opm, office of personnel management has given us direct hire authority. we're actively going out, going to your state to try to recruit individuals to come into the public service and to help us out. with respect to the border. i think you're referring to a gao report on operational control. i think what your question

presumes is that a, that report is correct, and b, that the president's budget is not the most aggressive in history with respect to the border. as i've explained before, operational control is used and referred to in that gao report as a very narrow term of art. it doesn't include, for example, force multipliers like all the technology and infrastructure that's been deployed to the border. if the president's budget is adopted, we will have more border patrol agents at the border than at any time in our nation's history. they will be accompanied, however, by a technology laydown that will greatly expand their ability to make great use of their man hours and as you also know, the president has also sent the national guard to the southwest border. in contrast, however, i must say that i'm very troubled by the house concurrent resolution for

11, particularly if it becomes the basis for the 12 budget, because it does not fully protect those expansions in cvp and i.c.e. in all of their operations that we have seen under the president's budget. i would ask the house as it gets us hopefully out of continuing resolution land and into a real budget for fy-11 and looks at fy-12 that we reexamine those priorities. >> the gentle lady from california? >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you madam secretary for being before us again. there are several issues i want to ask you about. the first one is about the urban area security initiative grants which you know are to do basically mutual benefit for regions of the united states. i know that in 2012, you've

increased the president's budget 33 million, but the republicans cut out 67 million from the program during the cr debate these past two weeks. can you explain to me how detrimental it is to, if you think the uatsi program is something we should have, or how detrimental it is, if -- two weeks ago they cut 87 million from it. if we continue to see those sorts of cuts, what that would do with your local partnerships that you're trying to do from a terrorist or natural disaster situation. >> representative sanchez, the house concurrent resolution, as i understand it actually ends up cutting a billion dollars from fema grants.

that's troublesome in a number of areas. i think it reflects perhaps a different philosophy of what grants are for. what these grants are for are to make sure we have a homeland security architecture that works. that means states and lowali y localalities have to have certain bases of operation. i mentioned fusion centers in my opening statement. what these are are a network of 72 centers. they are relatively new, only a few years old. most of the things in the department are relatively new. what they are designed to be are federal, state, local co-located entities where information, intelligence from washington, d.c. at the secret and above level can be transmitted as well as trends and tactics, techniques, things that we are seeing as well as realtime threat information so it can get

quickly out to the country and also so we can receive information back about tactics and trends and things they see. let me give you a practical example. the zauzzy case. he was an individual who was participating in a plot to come into the new york subways and blow up the subways. he was going to use explosives that used a lot of hydrogen peroxide as part of the basis for those. one of the things you can do to a fusion center is immediately go out and look around the country for unusually large purchases of that material by individuals who normally don't purchase it. so the fusion centers really become a way to share intel across the country and come back. part of our budget allows us to place our own intelligence analysts in the fusion centers, which is a way also to increase that capability around the country outside of the beltway.

these grants serve a lot of different purposes and they begin, however, with the philosophy that we need a comprehensive homeland security architecture at the state and local level. >> thank you ms. secretary. i believe obviously working with my local, state, as well as the federal agencies that protect areas like orange county, where we have disneyland and some of the largest entertainment venues where we're 25 minutes drive away from the port of los angeles and long beach. the list goes on and on. let me ask you about the u.s. visit program, because the last time you were before us, i asked you about that. i see that in the present budget, the program has been cut by 19%. of course, i'm very interested about this visa overstay issue, which has a lot of implications like with visa waiver programs

and of course when we saw the 9/11 people, a lot of the terrorists overstayed their visa. my question is if we're cutting the moneys to visa -- to the visit program, how are we going to get this exit piece done with respect to the u.s. visit program? >> well, that again probably requires a longer answer than i have time right here, but let me just respectfully suggest that again, we'll provide you with some supplemental information, but a biometric exit program for a country like the united states where you have air, sea and huge land borders, is going to be extraordinarily expensive to accomplish. and our view is that at this point in time, that is something that we could better accomplish right now in terms of detecting

or picking up overstays by making sure that i.c.e. is properly funded to go ahead and pick up people. you have to look, i think at i.c.e. and u.s. visit and identify all of those things together. >> time has expired. the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers will be followed by ms. jackson lee, ms. mccaul. >> thank you, mr. chairman and secretary, thank you for being here. i always look forward to having your feedback. recently, i had chief fisher in here from my subcommittee, and was -- we had a problem in coming up with the definition that dhs is using for determining whether or not they've secured the southwest border. the term is defined in the law, operational control is defined as being the prevention of all unlawful entries into the united states, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful

aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics and other contraband. when we asked chief fisher to define operational control, he had the department's definition which was different. why don't you all use the definition that's set out in federal law? >> well, representative, i think you'll find throughout federal law different definitions of different things where security is concerned. what we are concerned about is making sure the border regions, both northern and southern are safe and secure. we have some key concerns there. we've been making a lot of progress, as you know. the president has put more resources on the border, the southwest border than at any time in our nation's past, numbers that need to go up, are going up are going down. we want to continue that progress. i would say that the house concur enlts resolution, by the way, again, if that's what we have to live under is very problematic in that regard.

>> i understand. i do want to point out that i'm talking about the secure fence act of 2006. that is a pretty specific federal statute that deals with that definition. it seems to me that the department ought to be adhering to that definition when trying to determine whether or not they've actually achieved operational control. another thing. i.c.e., as you know, i've talked to you in the past about my concerns that we have not adequately funded i.c.e. to increase the number of i.c.e. agents in the field, particularly when you look at what we've done with cvp, there's been no significant increase in i.c.e. agents. but recently -- early this week, i met with some i.c.e. folks about the detention of people here in the country that are found to be illegal. and was surprised to find if somebody in alabama is detained, we have two jails in north alabama where they're held until they can be taken into new

orleans for a hearing. which is the closest emigration judge. my question is, why don't we have an immigration judge in alabama, because just the transportation cost alone are just unbelievable? to that end, i've spoken with chairman adderholt. he and i are going to try to work to get an immigration judge in alabama and we're going to work with lamar smith, to that end. my question is would you support that? >> we certainly would look at that, because you're right to identify the transportation costs and delay, because then you take an agent off the line to do the transportation. i think your question also illustrates when you're talking about immigration, we really go from cvp and i.c.e. to justice. it's a system.

from a jurisdictional standpoint, there's a break. this committee looks all the way up to apprehension and detention and everything else is over on the justice side of the ledger. that's where the judges would be found. >> i'm going to work to that end. i would like for you to be supportive in that effort to the extent you can be. >> thank you. >> finally, my staff and i have been engaged with tsa using cr funds for the procurement of canine funds? are you on board with procuring those assets? >> we are, but i will tell you that as we look at the fy-11 hcr, it has a big cut for canine teams. that also is problematic. as we look at what our fy-11 budget ought to be and fy-12, i think you and i both agree that canines should be maximized.

>> thank you very much. i yield back. >> the gentle lady from texas. >> i thank you both and the ranking member. m madam secretary, let me thank you for your service and the department of homeland security for their service. we interact with your team every day of our lives of the and recognize that you are on the front line. i would almost say that we are all working to put ourselves out of business but we realize the challenges that we're facing. let me quickly lay the groundwork for my questions and just, first of all, thank you for the 2012 budget and your commitment to federal air marshals surge after the christmas day bombing incident. i join, my good friend from alabama. we are canine team supporters and hope that we can work against hr-1, i want to work against it in terms of those

potential cuts. i believe you were questioned extensively about the passenger security fee. i think most americans would accept that fee. every time i'm traveling through airports, i see a sense of comfort in recognition that they are being secured by the enhanced services that they see. i am concerned, as i notice the hr-1 just jumped from your budget 2012 to hr-1 and saw you would actually lose under this budget some 50% in technology, tactical communications on the border security, you would lose some 800 positions under border security and what disturbs me is the ait machines, you would lose a number of them. i'm concerned about that and i wish to ask these questions if i might. i'm just going to ask them and yield to you. the hr-1, $1.1 billion in reduction, i would like an impact from you losing that

money in our present state, i think most people don't realize this is to finish out what you had already committed to. also, do you support the position of mr. pistol on ssp? and i'm reminded of how we were rushing around after 9/11 to find out what happened. i also would appreciate, i asked you a question in your last meeting with us about the minority personnel, whether you have achieved human services officer that looks at that and looks at procurement and lastly, this is an issue that has struck me. i am a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. you might want to comment on maybe how that would even save us money, but i would like to know how i.c.e. might interface and be of help to local law enforcement. i have lost two alleged

criminals. one drunk driver killed two teenagers and one ultimately committed suicide under 15 because she thought she should have died in the accident. that person was allowed to go home. they left for nepal. the last three or four days, a woman who has nigerian relatives was a caretaker for seven babies, four died in a fire. the allegation is she left the home and went shopping and these babies died. she was not picked up and she left for nigeria. it seems to me that maybe our local enforcement could interact with i.c.e., and say we have suspicions can you hold this person. but if i could get in a discussion on that. we're outraged. t nepal person has not been found. i appreciate your commentary. might i add my sympathies to mr. zapata and his partner and

we have to do better for our i.c.e. officers overseas. madam? >> with respect to cooperation between i.c.e. and local law enforcement, i think a key tool is our secure communities program. if they make an arrest, a localality makes an arrest and they have secure jails, when the fingerprints are run, they are run against the immigration date bases to determine legal presence. if an individual is not legally present, there's a transfer to i.c.e. after whatever criminal punishment merited is carried out. that is why the budget continues funding into fy-12 for secure communities. we would be almost 100% complete by the end of fy-12. with respect to hiring and diversity in hiring, we have been aggressively moving in that

direction, from ses and above positions, we have increased diversity hires by you 17.5% over the last year, which is a significant increase, and the percentage of overall employees who are members of ethnic minorities or who add to our diversity is well over -- i think i have an actual number. we've gone from 38% to 40.6% in the last -- from january '09 to december 2010. so we're really moving aggressively on both of those fronts, the ses and the other positions within the department. >> the billion dollars out of hr-1 that you're losing? >> as i mentioned before, it will mean, because we're halfway through the fiscal year. hr-1, you almost have to

multiply everything times two from a management perspective. i'm not sure everybody understands that, because we're already halfway into the year, that's what the practical impact is. but it will cut the number of ait machines we were intending to deploy by half. it will cut the number of portable explosive trace detection machines by half. it will cut the number of canine teams by almost two-thirds. i think it will result in longer wait times in airports for passengers. it will cut funding for 250 i.c.e. agents along the southwest border. it will reduce the fema grants. i've already commented to that. it cuts science and technology research by 50%. if i might comment to that, people are always asking me, you know, when are we going to be able to keep our shoes on and take bottles of water on the planes and so forth? well, that's the kind of technology and science research that snt funds.

those would be cut dramatically under hr-1. >> gentlemen from texas, mr. mccaul is recognized? >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, thank you very much for being here today. i want to express my sympathy to the family of agent zapata as i know you do as well and the survival of agent abala is nothing short of a miracle given what happened down there. i think it was an intentional ambush, a bit of a game changer that they are targeting our guys down there, u.s. law enforcement. 83 rounds fired from this ak-47, and first, i want to thank you to the good work to ap prehend those suspects down there. the two agents were american

diplomats, they have a u.s. diplomatic tag. i saw reports of the mexican army seem to be reporting what the zetas were saying in terms of mistaken identity. what is the position of this administration with respect to the claim that this was mistaken identity? >> representative mccaul, thank you for your expressions and your support on this matter. i think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the actual evidence that will come in. this obviously is a matter that is being prosecuted. my understanding is that it will be prosecuted in the united states, but again, those are decisions that are yet to come. >> and i appreciate that, but just on my own behalf, i'll take the eyewitness account of our agent over the zetas who have been apprehended any day. i hope the administration will

back that eyewitness account. with respect to extradition, i'm glad you brought that up. is it the administration's position that we will be seeking extradition into the united states? >> yes. >> good news. and president calderon is in the united states. it's probably a good time to talk to him about that. before i get into the budget, one last question with respect to that shooting. i was surprised to find out that there was a 1990 agreement that prohibits our officers from carrying weapons down in mexico. things have dramatically changed since 1990. there is a war going on as you know. it seems our agents should be armed if we're going to put them down there in harm's way. would you support a revision of that agreement? >> well, i think -- let me -- the issue of agents and arming is one that is something that

probably should be discussed in a more classified setting than a public hearing. perhaps we can provide for that, mr. chairman, because it's an issue that involves not just mexico but some other countries as well. >> okay. i look forward to that as well. on the budget, i looked at the -- it has cvp decrease the border security fencing infrastructure and technology account by 300 million, from 800 million to 500 million, if what i have in front of me is correct. this is given to us by staff. do you know what happened to that account or whether the moneys have decreased? >> it's not -- no. what is happening is we're not buying spi now. spi net doesn't work. for the first -- tucson and the aho sectors, it was far enough along that we completed it, and given the topography there, it

made sense but border wide it doesn't make sense. what the budget requires or what the budget buys is $242 million of technology that the border patrol agents can actually use. it's remote video surveillance equipment, it's mobile video equipment, a whole laundry list of things that our agents can actually use right now. >> that discrepancy is an cancellation of spi net it appears. that money will still be used towards technology on the border? >> yes, there's a entire technology. >> i think that's critically important. in my state of texas, there's almost zero technology there. we took to the department of defense has been using. i think he was receptive to that idea. i commend you or i would ask that you look at deploying that type of technology all across

the southwest border. i think technology is going to be the answer down there. then of course we need the manpower to respond to it. >> indeed. >> thank you so much. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you and the ranking member for having this meeting. thank you, madam secretary for being with us. i want to extend my prayers and sympathies to the i.c.e. family, not only the immediate family but to the i.c.e. family here also. he was from brownsville, and he was stationed in loredo. what i want to do is focus on the budget. when you look at all the accounts, i believe it's about $500 million impact cut to the cpp budget, could you tell us what the continued resolution of it passing as is, what sort of impact it would have on border security operations, and again

look at all the accounts and tell us what sort of impact it would have on us? >> well, we will give you a thorough list. as i said, it basically stops our progress in its tracks. if anything, reduces our ability to move ahead. as you know, we've been adding record amounts of agents and record amounts of technology, as representative mccaul just mentioned to our border, and if anything, we're going to have to cut back. >> all right. and one of the things the american people have been saying, especially because of what's been happening across the river that we got to do more for border security, but with this $500 million cut, that stops the progress you're referring to. isn't that correct? >> yes. what we want to do is continue to add to the border. our goal, as you know, is to have a safe and secure border

zone, both for the public safety of our communities along the border, some of which you represent, but also recognizing the amount of legitimate trade and travel that needs to traverse that border. if it's not safe and secure, it will impact the commerce. that impacts jobs. there are lots of ramifications for not continuing with the president's program. >> right. i think as mr. rogers mentioned a few minutes ago, a lot of people when they talk about border security, they talk about adding the men and women in green, which is the border patrol which i support, but you got to have i.c.e. agents, other agents, men and women in blue which are the ones that guard our bridges, ports of entry, which are so important. and those are the areas especially trying to find the right border security with the right legitimate and balance of trade and tourism which is so important. loredo is the largest port. that's why the men and women are

so important to us. i agree with mr. rogers we got to find the balance. in my opinion, the $600 million we added last year which was probably the largest infusion of cash will be taken back by cutting at least $500 million from the cvb budget from all the advances we're trying to do. >> representative, if hr-1 becomes the basis for the fy 12 budget, that's really the concern, because it will not annualize all of the additions that congress has put down at the border. >> i think you hit it right that we're talking about seven months. it's not a full year. this is just addressing part of a remaining year which makes a greater impact. >> indeed. >> i got about a minute and 20 seconds. let me ask you what about the tension beds. hr-1 doesn't help maintain the 33,400 detention beds we need.

when we catch somebody here without the proper documentation, we can't catch them and release them. we got to detain them before we send them off. how does that head the detention bed needs that we have? >> again, we think we need 33,400 detention beds. we don't need 33,400 every day. it fluctuates a little bit. we think you need to have a constant presence of 33,400 to support the removal of all the individuals we seek to remove from the country this year and next year. in a way we're caught, because if you fund the detention beds at 33,400 and the officers necessary to guard those beds, the cuts can come out of one place. that means the officers that are out in the field. i don't think either makes sense. you got to have the officers in the field and you have to have the officers in the detention

center. >> i got 11 seconds. just real quickly, last time you were in loredo, you said it would be a good idea to have a fusion center in loredo. we don't have one and we ask you to consider having a fusion center there. thank you very much, chairman. >> three seconds over. gentleman from minnesota, mr. pratt. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i too want to extend appreciation for all the homeland security officers and their families for what they do on a daily basis. i actually had homeland security credentials as a federal flight deck program when we started that program. that was many years ago, but thank you very much for all the homeland security for what they do on a daily basis. i agree with you very much and appreciate you working with this cr. unfortunately, you're at the tail end of this whip.

it's been going back and forth and i appreciate you as a manager being able to work through this. i'll also assure you that this congress, the 112th will provide a budget for you that will be able to give you stability to make sure that you can make those critical decisions that you need to make in the future, ensuring we get the right money to the right missions to protect the homeland and people within the united states. thank you very much for that. one of the things i did want to ask you about is just recently -- >> i'm going to write that down, by the way. >> you betcha. i want to make sure -- i just had a couple questions with regard to just recently you went over to afghanistan. >> yes. >> you were thinking about deploying agents over in afghanistan. can you expand upon that and why you think it'sness? >> yes, what we're doing. we have about 25 total over there right now, but what we are engaged in is basically a training capacity building on the customs side with

afghanistan so that they can develop their own custom service, particularly at their big lamp ports like a port between afghanistan and pakistan, governing who goes back and forth but the ability to collect customs revenues so they have some revenue for their government to exist upon as we continue to convert from a military to civilian presence. >> thank you for that. i take it it is a creditical mission as well. thank you for that. also, being an airline pilot, i took a look at the aviation passenger security fee. you're planning to increase that by a buck 50 for reimbursement. in the reports that i read, that's basically to fund tsa costs that have risen by like 400%. >> that's true. >> can you tell me why we have had such a dramatic increase in cost in the tsa? >> because the threat to aviation has increased and also

because the amount of security we have to supply now in airports and aviation is a very layered approach. it means behavior detection officers, canine, explosive detection equipment, it means the conversion from magna tom r tommers to the personnel. what's happened with the fee is the fee has never been increased. it was established in 2002 and has never been increased at all. it doesn't cover -- it was intended to cover the cost of security for aviation. when it was enacted, that was congress' intent. because the fee habit gone up, we have a huge gap, it's about a $600 million gap between what we will pay for security in the aviation environment in '12 and fees. we believe it's time for congress in this fiscal environment, we will work with the authorizing committees, like

this one, work with the appropriations committees, but it is time to increase that fee. >> so you're saying basically the fees are going towards personnel and capital investment? would that be a fair statement? >> yes. >> the other thing is being a former federal flight deck officer, where do you see the federal flight deck officer program? i know it's under tsa. do you consider that a vital portion in our layered defense in terrorism for aircraft? >> yes. >> that was a great answer. i appreciate that? >> i'm trying to help the committee with time. >> i you appreciate it, with my 51 seconds left, i will yield, sir. >> in the 45 seconds i have, on a serious matter, especially in view of the shootings in germany yesterday, does dhs have any information whether this was a lone wolf attack or a link to al qaeda or any other organization?

>> let me just say that i think that matter is under investigation and with lead by german authorities because it occurred in germany. any information about that should be released in a classified setting. >> if you could let us know any data or information, we would really appreciate that? >> yes. >> thank you, madam secretary. the gentleman from michigan, mr. clark. >> thank you, mr. chairman, secretary naup tapolitano, i th you for your knowledge for handling the threats our country is facing and considering proposals from people like us in the legislature. my concerns are about the security of the detroit sector border in particular and about the northern border. i've got three questions. my first is about the president's 2012 proposal and it's regarding the recent canada vision agreement that was entered into between the u.s.

and canada and if you had thoughts on how that agreement could better supplement security in the northern border? >> well, i think that agreement is a landmark agreement for a number of reasons, but one of them is because it recognizes the need to have a perimeter security around canada so that we begin utilizing some of the same criteria for who can enter canada as they enter the united states, as we begin to understand the need to exchange information about travelers and the like. that will have an impact on the actual physical border such as the border at detroit because we will have the ability, i think, to have equivalent information and equivalent standards and the like. that will facilitate, i believe, the legitimate trade and travel that needs to be able to cross, particularly at the detroit area.

>> thank you, secretary. my other two questions go to the impact that the house pass a continuing resolution would have on border security, as i mentioned to you before, the detroit sector is the busiest international border of crossing. huge population center, international airport, large regional water system and because of our declining state and local revenue, our first responders really don't have the capacity to protect us, and in my opinion, i believe that sector warrants a tier one consideration rather than the current tier one status. i appreciate your willingness to listen to me earlier this month on that issue. one concern i have in the house passed cr is that it limits the urban area security initiative funding to the top 25 urban centers, and do you think this restriction will impact your

department's ability to protect urban areas? >> well, i think the intent of that provision is to make sure that our largest, highest risk areas do not get shorted on grant moneys and without commenting on that, let me just say overall, hr-1 by cutting almost a billion dollars out of the grant process, it's going to affect everybody. you're going up and down the list of cities, so without commenting further on the amendment that was passed, again, nobody will escape unscathed, if that budget remains the budget. >> thank you. my last question deals with the border security fencing infrastructure and technology

account that's within cvp. the current cr made a huge cut to that. what type of impact would that have on the security of the detroit sector border, if you have any opinion on that? >> i don't know that i've broken it out sector by sector to that level of detail, but it would certainly limit our ability to invest in new technology. i think a number of members on both sides have recognized you can't do this job with manpower alone. we need to be able to deploy the best available technology that our agents can use in the field. >> thank you, secretary. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and secretary napolitano, thank you very much for your testimony today. i would like to just share with you a comment that was made to me by a local sheriff and just get your perspective on it. he commented that the sheriff's

office was required by law to notify i.c.e. every time that they have an illegal immigrant, very rarely does i.c.e. respond back, if they are or are >> this is due to funding problems since i.c.e. does not have enough bed to act on the reported aliens. the court takes months to determine whether or not that person is indeed an illegal aliens, it requires more cells, prosecutors, clerks, attorney, and no one would fund what it cost. the local sheriffs office does not have the resources to do i.c.e.'s job. i've learned in life there are always two sides and there's more to this than what's here. would you kindly comment on that and give some perspective? >> well, yes, representative. i'd like to know which sheriff we're talking about. i think i actually do know. >> okay. >> but in any event, we work

very closely with the sheriffs and police chiefs around the country. one of the key challenges we have is, you know, estimates rare. but estimates vary from between 8 to 12 million people who are in this country illegal. the plain fact of the matter is that if you look at the cost of removing an individual, you can -- the congress has funded the removal of about 400,000 a year. we have prioritized in that 400,000 to say the number one priority is for those who are convicted of crimes. that's why the president's budget expands what's called a secure communities and puts it in the jails of our country, which are operated by the sheriffs and the prisons of the country which are operated by state bureau prisons. because that is a way to make sure that those that are committing crimes, in addition to being in the country illegally, are being removed

through the immigration process. so in that 400,000, last year we removed over 200,000 who were criminal aliens, which was a record number by a large percentage. that's what secure communities enables united states to do. now i don't know whether this particular sheriff has a jail or secure community, just not yet installed. if it is, it's something that we could get that information from and work with him on. but that's probably the easiest way to deal with his base concerns. >> okay. thank you for your response. you know, i've come to this body as a entrepreneur of business owner, first time elected official, and i've been struck by frankly the tangled web of reporting relationships and the complexity of the committee structure and the organizational chart of the house. i'm sure like every organization, it can be refined and improved upon.

would you kindly give us your perspective on the number of committees that oversee homeland security and how that might be streamlined? >> well, i appreciate that question. this is something the chairman and i have discussed, if oversight is a blessing, i guess you could say dhs is particularly blessed. when we were created, what happened was a number of departments were merged into dhs, and we all carried with us -- everyone carried with them their committees. none the committees were reorganized, really to match the new department. the end result is we report to 108 committees of the congress. the overwhelming majority of those are committees and subcommittees of the house. in the 111th congress, we testified 285 times, 140 times were component heads who had to

come down and testify. we provided 3900 briefings to the congress, to the 111th congress, 3900, wednesday -- and we are required to fire 425 written reports a year. it's a huge man power drain on the department. we would like to take some of those resources and put them into operations, particularly given the fiscal environment we are in and we will support any effort by the committee to help us achieve that goal. >> thank you. i would want to join you in that effort. i believe the committee generally would. thank you for your testimony. i yield back. >> i can safely say this is one issue with the secretary, ranking member, and i agree 1,000%. it's disgraceful the system that we have. my colleague ms. clarke. >> mr. chair, how are we doing

questions? >> hold on a moment. >> mr. davis was here, several members, seems like we are getting out of order. >> voluntary. >> mr. chairman, no problem, i yield these. >> okay. we'll go to ms. davis. ms. davis, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you madam secretary for being here and your testimony. i also want to express the sentiments conveyed by my colleagues in reference to the imminent danger that all of the personnel involved in homeland security and other aspects of the government face on a daily basis. we appreciate your services. there has been a great deal of progress in relationship to surface transportation. but i also think that buses

still remain pretty easy targets. what funding options do you think might help sustain our security for this sector of transportation? >> well, representative, that funding because buses are operated primarily, you know, at the municipal level, you would find funding for that. there are transit security grant, but there are also ulase grants and other sorts of grants that can be used for transportation and security. you would find those, you know, primarily under fema and primarily under the grant programs there. >> i noticed that the transportation security grant program has been reduced to $200 billion below the current levels. does dhs have a way, or do you have any thoughts about how you

can help again with the security needs of this tightened public transportation in local areas? >> what we have recommended, congressman, is that the number of grant programs under fema be consolidated from 17 to 9. that will reduce overhead at fema, which is where we put our grants, it will reduce overhead in localities in terms of how many applications they have to submit, and making sure that the grants that remain are broad enough to include local decisions if that's where they want to put their security money, they can put it into say the bus system, the subway, wherever. >> i also think we've made a tremendous amount of progress in

the area. i note the president's requested funding calls for an increase in agents that will bring us up to over 3,000. what can the private rights protections are we dealing with in order to assure that these individuals are not -- >> profiling. >> that's right. are not racially profiling, or ethnically. >> yes. i think that's very important, given the cost, it's a very important constitutional safeguards that americans have. our program has been developed with personal oversight by our own civil rights component and our own office of privacy component. the training has been reviewed and approved. we are constantly looking at what best practices are. so that we can do not fall into

the trap of profiling, which by the way, does not give, you know, you want to do intelligence-based, you want to be looking for tactics, you want to be looking for techniques, and behaviors, not ethnicity or race when you are really providing security. >> thank you. and finally, do you support the psa administrative's decision not to expand the spp program for private airport screeners and do you think this is good for security? >> i think administrator who, of course, was a former deputy director of the fbi has made the right call here. for several reasons. one, is he wants to maintain flexibility to surge resources when he needs to. and there are issues there when you are talking about privatization of the screening

population. secondly, the studies that have been -- you know, they still have to meet tsa requirements in terms of what they do. so it's not like there's different screening requirements. they are more expensive than simply maintaining it within the tsa structure, and that's an issue. and thirdly, i think it's important to recognize that even when you privatize, you still have unions. several of the privatized work forces are indeed also unionized. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman from missouri, mr. long is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. did you need me to yield a minute? >> no, you don't. thank you very much. >> okay. they told me earlier. thank you, secretary, for being here. back in december, you announced that additional dhs officers were being sent to afghanistan to assist in border control and customs, and would you please

further explain of value of having dhs employees overseas and expand on some of the work being done by dhs officials in afghanistan and other countries around the world? >> yes. this is actually one of the things one recognized that homeland security actually has a footprint that is around the world. as i explained a little bit earlier, we have a -- about two dozen employees in afghanistan. they are training customs, and customs officers so that afghanistan can have it's own customs force, and also learn how to, or exchange best how we operate major ports of entry like the ports between pakistan and afghanistan. but we also have employees around the world at international airports where there are last points of departure for the united states, we have immigration officials at embassies around the world, such

as riad for individuals seeking security checks on visa, we have individuals around the world who are working on protecting against human trafficking into the united states, our protection of our intellectual property from the united states, there's actually quite an extensive international force lay down from the department. >> so the employees that we have over there are not training themselves. they are doing the training. >> correct. >> okay. that's not how i interpreted it. you also mention that more border patrol agents than ever would be employeed -- employed under this budget. and it's black box in the customs and border control have a great need for black ops helicopters and carrying out their missions. are you aware of this?

does your budget reflect this? >> yes, it reflects other kinds of air support as well as fixed -- as well as helicopters, also fixed-wing support, uav support in the fy 12 budget so that we have and want to have total air coverage, particularly on the west border all the way from al centro through texas. >> the agents expressed an interest. they feel the blackhawk is probably their best. i know it's surplus equipment. if we can look at that for them, i'd appreciate it. >> absolutely. and the blackhawks have many us. there's a great demand by the department of defense and others.

they are greatly in demand around the world. >> one other thing. small business. i got with a small business background, not a political background. i ran my own business 30 years, which was real estate broker. a title company in our district in the 7th recently had $400,000 stolen and sent to pakistan through cyber and the secret service has jurisdiction over these crimes, i understand. but what they did effectively, they came and emptied their bank account which was not their money. they are holding money for real estate closing, secret service, as i said, has jurisdiction over the crimes. how does the president's budget help protect our small business from these types of crimes where they can come in and empty out bank accounts, the money goes to pakistan, secret service has jurisdiction, is there anything in the budget to help or give small businesses solace? >> i'd have to know -- first,

number one, i'd have to know more about the facts. but the president's budget includes a great increase for cybersecurity on the civilian side. that means the protection of the civilian side of the federal government and our intersection with key sectors like the banking sector in the united states in terms of how they protect their own cyber networks. because realize that the government, you know, doesn't own the banking structure. that's owned by the banks themselves. they have their own cyber protection, what we are doing is working with them as to what that protection entails. we are working with them to let us know when they have been hacked into and funds have been stolen and issues like that. so the president's budget greatly increases the amount available to us for cyber protection generally. >> okay. thank you for being here today. fitting us into your schedule. i have no time to yield back.

if i did, i would. >> ms. richardson is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madame secretary, and chairman, your work has been -- i think when you look at history of the secretaries in this area has been commendable. thank you. i want to join in with chairman thompson in asking for the briefing on the cargo inspection and security piece. and also i want to reference a question that i asked seems like a couple of weeks ago when you were here last on the briefing continuity of government. when i say continuity of government, i'm talking about elected officials and how we respond and assist if and when a disaster occurs. thirdly, i want to commend you. i have observed one of the new cost guard cutter response vehicles. there was an oil spill in my district last week. i saw the 45 and the ability to navigate from side to side, the ability to stop on a dime, i

mean it just seemed like we are finally getting to the point where we can be as good as the bad guys. so congrats on that effort. my questions are as follows: number one, i want to talk about the trade agreements. i asked you last time had your department had an opportunity to work with ambassador curt to see if we can engage some of these cargo screening issues. because last time when i asked you the question about two years ago, you said the reason why we couldn't deploy it is because we needed the global cooperation. my question is with the impending trade agreements, have you had an opportunity to work with ambassador curt to make sure we can resolve the issues. >> today i have not been involved with ambassador kirk. >> when can i expect that? >> let me look into it. we'll get back to you as soon as possible. >> thank you. my second question has to do with the reviewing of allocations of program. it's my understanding from the

ports in my area that the tier one level has changed from five cities to ten. that has a lot to do with the significance in drops of funding. i just wanted to ask if you would consider relooking at that and seeing why has the change occurs? i think one the great things about your department was you viewed things based upon their merit and their significance, and not getting into the political, you know, fights we might have here in washington. if you could review that and get back, that would be helpful. >> yes. >> thank you. number three, i wanted to talk about cargo inspection. one of my colleagues says the layered effect and all of that. i admit it's a personal issue. it's reflective of my district. i would venture to argue that if in terms of traveling by air, we use the same systems, you look on the computer, you are checking, you know, who the people are, and all of that, but everyone isn't just simply walking through the airport. you still have a layer of

inspection that occurred at the airport that we all have to go through. so i want to echo my concerns as the chairman did that i'm just really concerned of where we are and i realize the chatter doesn't raise to the level as you are dealing with aviation. i get all of that. but all we need is one problem, and suddenly things will change. so you were quoted as saying that you are looking to extent the deadline so july 2014. do you honestly see implementing the program, or do you think you are going to keep kicking the can down the road? >> i'm hoping we can purr suede the congress that the statutory requirement is not the best way, and there are better ways and we are engaged in those. but even given the existing statute, given that we would have to have agreements with 700 plus different ports, given the configuration of reports around

the world, given the expense of some of the equipment that is associated by only focusing on what happens at the ports as opposed to the entire supply chain, by focusing on one area we really don't fully get to the goal, i think we all share, which is to make sure that material entering the united states is safe. and so i think that this is going to have to be an area where we continue to work with the congress, work with the committee, moving forward. >> okay. i'm going to be really quick. because i have one last question. would you be open then to at least working with us? since i've been here in the last three years, it seems like we're at the same point. you say i want to do the way i've been doing it. we express other concerns. what i would like to say can we get together in a working session and kind of talk about what our concerns and maybe come to a compromise instead of us just kicking the football back and forth? >> yeah, i think -- i know we've briefed the committee multiple times on what we are going on

cargo. we would be happy as always to work with the committee. >> okay. mr. chairman, could i have an additional 30 seconds. >> 30 seconds to the lady. >> madame secretary, as i mentioned, there was a oil spill in my district. i was not notified by dhs or anyone. i read it in the newspaper. what i would like to talk about as i said is continuity of government of what -- i'm willing to work with you. this is a passion of mine that i see as a huge weakness from hurricane katrina and so many other areas. i still don't think we have mastered how do we engage this end of the rail in the disasters. so i would like to work with you on that. >> the gentleman lady's time is expired. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mrs. napolitano, thank you for coming back before this committee. i reviewed in the written

statement that you gave us, the 6th identify department homeland security missions, and i appreciate you breaking that out for us. last month this committee had the opportunity to discuss the border situation, the southern border situation mainly with chief fisher. and at that time, i read the definition of operate of control from the security fence act of 2006 in which congress defined operational control as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the united states, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband. this definition has brought more to the forefront with the understanding that hezbollah is in cahoots with the cartel. i'm concerned they are using smuggling routes of the cartel to bring whatever into this country. the data says that only 44% of the southwest border is under operational control. we see that arizona is suing the

federal government. your home state. earlier, chief fisher had stated they had acceptable level of operational control. and i stated to him, acceptable level of operational control to the american people means that we control who enters this country. on february 11th, a arizona sheriff, 34-year law enforcement of veteran larry deber said i can't stand publicly and endorse part of this. he was talking about the southwest area. i can't stand up side by side that say that border is safe and secure when it's not. this came only a few days after the u.s. customs of border protection commissioner al bergeron came to meet to discuss border security. deber stated the president's administration was seeking to sell the brief that the border

is safe and secure as part of a publicity campaign. those are his words. my question for you this morning is just a further understanding of what chief fisher and this administration and your office means when they talk about operational control. >> well, representative, as i've said many times, what we want to have is a safe and secure border zone from san diego to brownsville. no one is more familiar with the arizona border than i am. i have worked that border as a prosecutor, as a governor, and now as the secretary since 1993. so i have a lot of years of experience with that border. there are disagreements among the sheriffs along the border, by the way. not all of the sheriffs are in agreement with sheriff deber, who i have worked with for many years. here's the point that i think is so important. the point is that we have a pathway forward on that border

that includes man power, it includes technology, it includes infrastructure. it's a combination of all three of those things. it also includes effective interior enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. because the big driver of illegal immigration across that border is the opportunity to work in the united states, make a wage, and send it back to another country, primarily mexico right now. so that's what the pathway forward is. that's what the plan to build up has been. that's why the president has put more border patrol agents in his budget than any time in our nation's history. that's why he's put more funding into technology. that's why he's put more funding into i.c.e. that's why he has supported the largest deployment of technology to the southwest border in our nation's history. that's the pathway forward. that is the plan. unfortunately, the hr1 that passed here countertickets --

counterdicts that plan of the resources available at the border. i would respectfully ask this committee to look at the continuing budget resolution with those priorities in mind. but i think we all share the same goal. and the goal is to have a safe and secure border. the goal is to have a border through which legitimate travel and trade can go back and forth. we have huge land ports of entry along that border. mexico is the number one or two trading partner of i think 23 of our states. so that needs to be facilitated, even as we increase the man power and equipment lay down between the ports. >> well, i think our goal is the same as securing the border to determine what comes in here. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the time of the gentleman has

expired. mr. keating is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today, madame secretary. we had the aftermath of the 16-year-old who's body was found in eastern massachusetts of the direct line of 737 commercial flight that on the way to logan. mr.tisdell breeched, took off with the airport. to date, there's been no video surveillance that surfaced that could detail how mr. tisdale was able to breech. :there may be a perimeter and air field access

vulnerableties in other airports as well. this week, charlotte police department released a public version of their investigation. indeed, the police department's investigation, the local police department's investigation concluded there's the need to strengthen security in many respects. i'm glad this airport, a major hub working with t srsa to implement these new security measures and i'm sure you agree that if there's a security breakdown from one airport, particularly a hub, that countless airports and cities are vulnerable. i had four questions i'd like to pose. the first, i'd like to make sure if possible that the members of this committee are briefed on the classified police department report they have issued. can you agree to work with our committee in that respect? >> yes, it is a matter that is still under investigation. that particular -- how that breach occurred.

so i'm not at liberty to discuss in a public setting. but we'll explore how we go about sharing that. >> my understanding is that the local police investigation is complete from local officials. could you share that local police report with this committee? >> let me look into this. that was not my understanding, so let me look into that. >> thank you. ranking thompson and myself asked tsa to conduct its own investigation into this matter now that the tsa has the report from the police department, when will tsa commence that investigation? >> i believe that tsa is -- their investigation is underway and in addition, you know, we learn from all these incidents. every time there's a breach of whatever type, it is something we say okay, what happened here.

is it repetition? what needs to happen systemically? you're right to point out the hub nature. it is something that reminds us you know, perimeter, which as you know, the tsa doesn't control. it has standards that airports are supposed to abide by with respect to perimeters. we're looking at all that afresh in light of this incident. any kind of incident. >> let me try for the sake of time -- all the way along, i have a greater sense of urgency when a breach of this nature occurs that could threaten not only this airport, then i suppose many other people it seems, but to me, i'm a bit dumbfounded that that sense of urgency has resulted in quicker action. i have had the chance on my own

to and with some assistance, to look at some minimum standards, which i will not discuss because it's not great to discuss publicly what some of the minimum standards are at airports. but looking at those, i'm not satisfied. i don't think the public would be satisfied if they knew what those minimum standards are. my question to you is given the minimum standards and the fact you just expressed there's another jurisdiction involved in implementing that, what can we give you for authority if necessary to make sure there's a seamless approach to making sure those prerimeter and tarmac ares are secure as they should be? because my view of what happened in charlotte clearly indicates there's a major breach. in a bank robbery, you can go

back after someone did it and get evidence. there's no sign in the videotape that they can even locate how he did it, yet he did. so i see a major problem and we want to work with you as a committee to see if we can give you more authority, if necessary, more resources if that's necessary. but to me, this is a profound danger to the traveling public where the barrage at the gate, that's fine. we expect that. but you look out the window and the tarmac and frankly, i don't feel safe when i'm take ago plane. >> time has expired. in consultation with the ranking member to have obvious consent limited to three minutes, the secretary can make it to the white house for a meeting with the president of mexico. >> we will work with the committee on this. >> thank you. >> time limit is not three minutes. gentleman from florida. >> thank you. i appreciate it. thank you. getting back to the student visa issue, describe the enhanced

monitoring capabilities of sevis 2 as opposed to one. the system has been delays and not deplayed. schedule to be deployed last year. when do you think this will be implemented and what is i.c.e. doing to monitor these individuals? >> i'll get back to you on the exact timeline, but as i mentioned earlier at this hearing, i.c.e. is able to monitor for suspicious activity and bank accounts and the like. that is indeed one of the ways in which this individual was detected. >> what is the current level of coordination information sharing between dhs and the state

department recording student visa issuance and why didn't the president actually the budget's flat on the visa security units. and i know we've identified, i think there are 17 that are in place. i know we have close to 70. why is this not a priority of this administration? >> well, all issues of security are a priority and all have a sense of urgency about them in reference to the prior question. i think we put i.c.e. individuals into embassies upon agreement with the state department as to where they should go and we have requested funding for where we have agreements. >> okay. thank you. i'll yield back in the interest of time. thank you. >> thank you. and ms. clark is now recognized again.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman and so good to see you, secretary napolitano. thank you for your forthrightness in response to a very challenging budget. i'm sitting here just thinking of some of what our concerns are almost diametrically opposed to what has come forth in the cr and it's interesting to hear the conversation. but i have a question about cybersecurity. the national division is planning to deploy five enstein monitors that should be used to detect intrusions on computer systems. if the resolution is adopted by congress and you don't receive your requested funds for 2011, how would it affect this much need needed prugt and the request for 36 million? >> it will cause significant delay, representative. i think for the deployment of

einstein three, we would see that move back at least two or three years in terms of our ability to deploy it. so and talk about an area where there's urgency, the cyber area has real urgency associated with it. we hope we can work with the congress to revisit that issue. >> that's an area of concerning that floats below the radar for whatever reasons and it's been the take i guess, my father would say, to feel it before we realize how much of a priority it is. >> i want to move quickly to interoperaablety. the whole question of the deblock spectrum. there seems to be dualing opinions around the spectrum and i see that you and the president

have been focused on reserving in support of the reallocation of the deblock to public safety. can you elaborate the level of involvement the committee has had and how you envision fiscal year 2012 budget helping the department of the office of emergency communications safety networks? this is a key area in light of what we've seen and witnessed during the 9/11 terrorist event and hurricane katrina. >> yes, representative, we've been very involved since the edition was announced they wanted to auction off the deblock. we said, wait, there's a public safety issue involved here.

i believe we will all be working with the congress on the changes needed for that. >> in closing, under the continuing resolution would lose $20 million for the acquisition this fiscal year. i'm coming around to the issue of securing the cities and how this would impact securing the city. can you share that with us? >> yes, the budget would affect both of those things as i noted in my opening statement, we have asked for money in the fy12 budget to not only continue to securing the cities, but to add to it. >> securing the cities is protected, i believe, we can discuss that with secretary before and we will -- >> yes, i was referring to the other -- but it is true that in

the fy12 budget, securing is city is sustained and we want to add another city to it. >> mr. quail. >> thank you for coming. there's been a lot of talk i think in this, with the budget about the cr that just went through the house and will be going through the senate and coming back probably, but one of the focuses in both the media and here has been what effects it is going to have on securing the southwest border. i just wanted to give a little lay of the land on how this is going. my look at it is going to be adding more agents, not decreasing agents. is increased funds by $147.9 million over what it was for fiscal year ten, an increase to what 11 was. it also provides $550 million for fencing infrastructure and

technology, $58.8 million for i.c.e. to maintain border hires. also $60 million for operation stone garden, the same as fiscal year 10. now, in going forward with the cr and the fiscal 12, what in terms of priorities, do you think that we should be focusing on for the southwest border? is it more technology, more border patrol agents? which do you think is more important in that regard? >> first of all, i think there's a lot of -- i really can't agree with the lay down you gave of the facts in terms of how they really affect funding sprt southwest border and president quyale will be glad to get with you after this hearing because time is precious, but even

senator kyle put out an article on how it affects the laydown for immigration enforcement. i think there's some bipartisan disquiet there. it's not a good border budget. it's not a good immigration budget and we believe strongly that to keep moving in the direction we're moving is the right thing. the numbers that need to change are going in the right direction and particularly in arizona. we need more manpower, technology and more funding for infrastructure put in the right places and the right kind of infrastructure. it's hard to say well, one, two and three, it's all of the above because it's a system. then you need to back that system up with enforcement in the interior of the country, which is primarily i.c.e. when you have that in place, you begin to see the dramatic impacts you've been seeing over the past several years. >> thank you very much. i yield back.

>> the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond, is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and madam secretary. we're having an issue in louisiana that i think rises to a homeland security issue. you talk about dredging of the mississippi river and about all the ships that come through with petrol chemicals and so forth. one of those ran aground and we have a leak and it falls under your agency in terms of the response. are you at all involved in making sure our ports are dredged to a safe leavitt at least to their authorized level so don't have that and our pilots had to issue a warning and memorandum to their pilots,

not to traverse the river at nightti nighttime. wait till high water because of a fear of running aground and having a spill. so, i know that agencies don't talk to each other, but that is a big concern of mine. have you paid any attention to that? >> i'm not personally familiar with that particular issue, but i can say that the coast guard works very directly with the shipping industry, with those involved. we have the captains of the ports for example and with the army corp. of engineers. >> the other thing i would like to add especially as states start to deal with major budget problems, especially louisiana and we deal with our own problems up here, the grants for emergency preparedness, event planning. if we see a reduction in those grants, is it possible that we

create a more general pool so that the local emergency offices can better utilize or prioritize what they need to use the grants for? >> well, that's one of the reasons why we've recommended consolidated the current list of 17 into nine. to give locality some more flexibility, to reduce the number of grant applications and the paper work they have to submit. it was something we asked for last year, we're asking for it again in the fy12 budget. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. chairman of the committee, for three minutes. >> thank you. thank you for your extensive preparation. i among many in washington in the last 48 hours have been with

those who have been sort of dog earring the most recent report from gao. it was a pretty tough challenge in many parts fs of the government as we look at the issue of homeland security. they were looking at the fragmentation among government programs, but a particular area, the area of bioterrorism and i quote from the appointees oversea $6.8 million related to bioterrorism. it says at one point, there's tho broad integrated national strategy that encompasses all stakeholders with responsibleties. this is on the front end, with respect to systemically identifying risks, assessing resources needed to address that risk and then prioritizing and

a al kating that. then says there is no national plan to coordinate federal, state and local efforts following a bio terror event and the united states lacks the technical and operational capabilities required for an adequate response. that's a tough accusation for all of us who share a concern about this issue. i know you represent just one of the multiple agencies, but this is a big challenge. how do we begin to look at this incredible problem? this is a canary in a coal mine in my mind right now. how do we begin to look at the issue of a national strategy and get that focal point, go across the multiple agencies, but not only be better with our resources in terms of fiscally responsible, but deal with the issue of appropriate response? >> first of all, if i might suggest something for the

committee to consider. i don't think it's overall helpful for gao reports that are allegedly pointing out alleged vulnerableties to put out in an unclassified format. i think that's a problem and i've referenced it several times. i would respectfully ask the congress to really look at that for obvious reasons. secondly, the issue, i believe, t very comp rated because you're quite correct. it does cross multiple agenciea. you've got hhs, us, the dod, some smaller agencies, all of which have a piece of this. we have been working primarily with hhs on trying to create or construct a pathway forward at the interagency level where bio is concerned. what i would like to do is have

some of the people directly involved with that brief you in a classified setting. >> that would be great. a great opportunity to begin try to work on something, whether we like it or not, that's out there now in public and we're going to be asked about. thank you. >> the gentleman from texas. >> thank you very much. i'd like to personally thank you for being in brownsville attending memorial mass for agent zapat. my agency has continued to be in contact with the family and let them know you would be here today and ask if they had any questions for you. they sent a list of 17. that definitely points out the fact it's a family dedicated to law enforcement. mr. mccall has asked a couple of them and a couple are in details that aren't appropriate for the scope of this meeting, but the one i don't think was asked and

i think is important we address, what concrete steps are we taking to make sure this doesn't happen again and are those steps addressed in the budget proposal put together clearly behind the scenes before this event that i consider to be an escalation on the war against drugs in our southern border? >> i think first of all, thank you for being at the service. it was very moving. the family, two other, it was five sons, i think two others are dhs employees. the father is a law enforcement official, retired now, so really a great brownsville family and great citizens of our country. moving forward, first of all, we've been working on a very sbepsive basis with the government of mexico and with

doj on not only the investigation of the shooting of the agent, but what can be done to deal with the entire organizations that are now plaguing mexico. what more can we do to assist the calderon administration and their fight against the cartels? what more do we need to do to make sure that our agents are properly supported in the field and what more can we do in the continental united states to the extent the cartels have fingertip presences here to go after them and there have been at least an open source report, that there have been a number of activities on all those fronts. >> i would urge you to stay in close communication with the family. their law enforcement agency said we'll work with you and have the curiosity that only a law enforcement family might have. don't have a lot of time left.

the budget indicates there's no funding in the request for uavs that have been found to be effective on the border. is there a reason for that omission? >> i believe let me clarify that for you. i believe there's funding for two more uavs at the porder and we have the capability to traverse the entire border by uav, so we've greatly expanding that capability. >> i'm out of time. i have more questions, we'll probably follow up at a future point in time. >> thank you. >> secretary, thank you very much for your time. i wish you good luck at the white house with the president of the united states and the president of mexico and members of the committee may have additional questions. ask if they could respond to you in writing and you would respond to them. the record will be open for ten days. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

president obama is currently wrapping up remarks on u.s. education policy at a miami florida high school. he is joined by education secretary arne duncan and former governor jeb bush. you can see that live right now on c-span and you can also see it again tonight at 8:00 p.m.. here is a look at our primetime lineup here on c-span2.

>> the senate wrapped up legislative work for the week earlier today, but the chamber returns on monday to continue debate on a bill that changes procedures for issuing federal patents. that legislation also creates a formula for adding up damages in patent lawsuits.

a vote to limit debate is scheduled for monday afternoon as well as votes on three judicial nominations. at the completion of the patent bill sometime next week the senate is then expected to take test votes on two bills dealing with temporary 2011 federal spending. current funding for the government expires friday, march 18. follow the senate life here on c-span2. next, the head of the environmental protection agency, lisa jackson. she urged congress not to cut your agency's budget at a house hearing this week. a big part of the hearing also centered around the epa's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the clean air act. from earlier this week, this is three hours. >> the hearing will come to order. good morning and welcome to the third meeting in the first

budget hearing of the 2012 season for the subcommittee on interior environment related agencies. i'm pleased to take out the 2012 debate with the environmental protection agency whose programs of funding are of great interest to the subcommittee. as we begin to focus on her work for the fiscal year 2012 what we continue to finish the 2012 budget. the overspending has gone on too long and now it's time to tighten our belts. difficult decisions await the subcommittee and the appropriations committee in general. the house did the necessary first steps to move in a fiscally responsible direction by asking $100 billion discretionary spending. the package included 4.4 billion in cuts from agencies funded through the subcommittee of which $3 billion came out of the epa budget. we did so in large part rates reducing the clean water and

drinking water state revolving funds by almost 2 billion in order to return those programs to the 2008 funding levels. in 2009, the srs received $6 billion in stimulus funding equivalent to a five year, equivalent to five years of appropriations at the 2008 level. i think we can all agree that a five-year funding is a huge influx for any program to absorb. i race is not because i'm opposed to the purpose of the srs but as the clearest example in this bill of too much too fast which could be the mantra for the epa whether we are talking about spending or regulation. the house full-year cr also cut 303 million from the geographic programs including 225 million from the great lakes restoration initiative. this is another program that has struggles to place funding on a project within a year following a staggering sevenfold increase in 2010. the cr also cut 68 million in climate change funding and targeted reductions to epa's

air, water and policy offices which continue to develop what i believe to be job-killing regulations. we also put a policy to legislate regulation on a number of policy issues including greenhouse gases and navigable waterways. it should be up to congress not the administration to determine whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases but the litany of overreaching regulations does not stop there. jobs in this industry under attack i.v. oil and gas industry has been unable to obtain air permits to work in the outer continental shelf of alaska and agriculture is under attack and the epa considers whether not to regulate farm dust. the coal industry which is great importance to chairman rogers is under attack on multiple fronts whether cho wes may be labeled as we store whether company may be able to use existing permits to work in appalachia and keep mines open. we put hold on all these regulations in the house passed the cr in order to relieve the burden on industry and to give

our authorizers the opportunity to address these issues in a more comprehensive fashion this year. epa's 2012 budget request provides a $.973 billion, a 12.9% decrease from the 2010 enacted level. generally speaking the epa 2000 budget is balanced on the backs of states and state grants a been reduced by 22% blood epa operations and research budgets have received only a two to 4% reduction in order to reduce spending by 1.3 billion from current levels. the 2012 budget cuts, 947 million from the state or from the clean water and drinking state revolving funds, 112 -- 125 million from the great great lakes restoration and initiative, 70 million for the superfund program which claimed that the most toxic hazardous waste sites eliminates 179 million for earmarks as every administration does. this is not a blueprint for reducing debt reduction that the

american people and republicans are demanding. in stark contrast to cut more spending out of the srs than the house passed full-year cr that has been proposed in your entire 2012 budget. the demand for 2012 a simple. spend less and regulate less. are the more question the rationale for some of the 2012 proposals most notably eliminating the diesel emissions reductions grants to retrofit old diesel engines while proposing a new start program to regulate greenhouse gases. i'm not sure it make sense to eliminate a grant program with clear proven quantifiable benefits in favor of new programs with no demonstrated benefits. i'm also not sure that it makes sense to eliminate a grant program with rod bipartisan support in the support of the states and industry in favor of climate change initiatives that you know are most likely dead on arrival in the house. as my good friend and colleague mr. tauber said on the floor during the cr debate the program is a win-win so either the president is playing politics with a budget or is further

illustrates the epa simply out of touch. we have a number of issues that i know all members are interested in discussing with you today, so i will save additional remarks for questions following her testimony and i yield to our distinguished ranking member. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i really appreciate your commitment to the important programs that are contained in this bill. and i certainly want to welcome administrator jackson and the chief financial officer for epa. you represent the best of our civil service and i don't take that lightly. i mean it and it is a high compliment. the agency has worked so hard on behalf of all of the american citizens to protect the nation's environment and public health and for that, you certainly deserve the praise of all and the appreciation of all

americans. epa's budget request though is $9 billion, $1.3 billion or 13% below fiscal year 2010. and below current continued resolution levels. that is too low. while i understand that the budget request aims to reflect the fiscal constraints, all agencies must operate on, i am troubled that most of epa's reduction comes at the expense of the clean water and safe drinking water state revolving funds as the chairman has reference. they were collectively reduced by $947 million or 27%. these are prudent investments that help maintain the infrastructure that makes clean and healthy water available to all americans, which we have all taken for granted. i guess when most governors have claimed that the federal stimulus money was wasteful

spending, then they won't object to a reduction in these important grant programs. wouldn't you think? although i am not sure that is going to be the case. i suspect most of the governors are hoping that will take all the heat and yet provide all that money for them, but if we don't, i don't see how they come up with it. when i had the privilege of chairing the subcommittee last year, i suspect at the behest of local and state governments, members from both sides of the aisle, and another chairman is aware of that, they requested more than 1200 projects just in fiscal year 2010 for water and wastewater infrastructure. that source of funding has now dried up. it is gone. so you make the cuts to the state revolving funds a much larger issue for state and local

governments. with reduction in the federal commitment, i don't know who tackles these problems. certainly individuals can can't do it unless they want to start, you know, digging wells in their backyard and we go back to our houses or something. the state and local governments don't have the money themselves, but this is our national plumbing system, and like our home plumbing, it doesn't get noticed until it backs up and makes a mess. cutting billions from clean water and safe water drinking programs is it knowing a problem that will require much more expensive investments and upgrades to our water sources down the line. while the appropriations committee has the authority and the duty to exercise congress's constitutional role in providing funds to the executive branch, the appropriation bills have become ground zero for contentious policy debates. i asked the distinguished

gentleman from kentucky if he remembered that quaint phrase, this is out of order because of legislating up reparations bill. i didn't get a full response but i know he is fully aware of that issue. the full-year continuing resolution we call h.r. 1 and included 22 amendments that were hostile to the epa and other government agencies current work on climate change, wetlands, air toxins renewable fuel standards and mountaintop mining. and most of them were adopted on the house floor. beyond this, several were included in the base bill. one would stop the epa from updating rules or guidance pertaining to the definition of u.s. waters that will perpetuate delays and permits and land-use decisions. we are hearing from a number of people the private sector saying look this is not helpful. we need to have clarity. we need to know what is appropriate or not. a lot of the builders are saying we can't move forward until we have clarification and thus

permits that allow us to do our work. the epa needs to be allowed to carry out the laws that the congress and the courts have authorized them to carry out. the bush of administrations epa administrator as well as you ms. jackson, determined to greenhouse gas emissions do in fact endanger the health of our citizens. ms. jackson, you have done your job and you have actually issued an endangerment finding and thus you are now required as we know to regulate these harmful emissions. the law requires you to. if congress no longer wants certain pollutants cleaned up to improve america's health and congress should change the underlying law, not simply stop funding epa. otherwise epa is violating the law by not enforcing it. actually if you want to cut costs in this country, then you should allow the clean air act to do its job. a report released tuesday by epa estimates that the benefits of

reducing fine particle and ground-level ozone pollution under the 1990 clean air act amendments will reach $2 trillion in 2020. while saving 230,000 people from early death in that year alone. 230,000 people in one year will live longer because the clean air act. it is still my hope that this committee will refrain from controversial policy writers and lead these issues to the authorizing committees where they belong so that we can return to the bipartisanship that has defined the appropriations committee in previous years. i'm glad we have been joined by mr. dicks. i know he feel strongly about this as i do. on. on the side of the aisle we are going to continue to try to her sue that tradition, because it is time we started enacting our appropriation bills. we understand that the more we work together, the better chance these bills have in moving forward in the senate and getting signed into law by the president. administrator jackson, we all

look forward to receiving your testimony and again thank you for your leadership. thank you is a chairman. >> thank you. we are also joined today by chairman of the full of progressions committee chairman rogers and i thank him for taking the time to contribute to this important conversation. mr. rogers do you have an opening statement? >> thank you mr. chairman and congratulations by the way on your elevation to this great post. i know you will do a great job. this is truly a historic time. i don't need to remind us that the nation has found itself at a crossroads. the 112th congress has been solely focused on reining in out-of-control spending, getting our economy back on track and putting americans back to work. it is all about jobs. i reiterate, getting our economy back on track to create jobs and provide opportunity. with unemployment still hovering around 10% under this

administration, this is unquestionably our top priority is a country and our chief responsibility as legislators, policymakers and yes administrators. chairman simpson alluded to some of our concerns about your 9 billion-dollar budget submission. the epa's third largest in history. while we are borrowing 42 cents on every dollar we spend, we are borrowing 42 cents on every dollar of the 9 billion that you are asking for. that staggering figure is in and of itself disconcerting. but i have to tell you for the record that i'm not confident that the budget year of our defending today are frankly your agency's actions in the last two years. align with the report and goals of reading jobs and opportunity in fact. i believe you have been a great inference.

the epa is headed in the wrong direction. with an aggressive and overzealous regulatory agenda that far exceeds the authority of this congress that you have been given. and i think we have a responsibility to rein you in. the committee on oversight and government reform recently released a report identifying over 60 regulatory actions recently taken by the epa that could have negative impacts on job creation, 60 different ones. i have to wonder whether you are taking heed of the presidents january 21 executive order to account for the cumulative costs of regulations, because epa is running absolutely roughshod over our country's small businesses. the very engines that propel our

economy forward and provide most of the jobs. and you have hit every sector of economy, agriculture, manufacturing, construction, transportation and the lifeblood of my region of the country, appalachian coal-mining. wrongheaded greenhouse gas regulations, so-called guidance on surface mining, the retroactive veto of a coal permit that has undergone more than a decade of environmental review, reopening a long-standing definition of "fill material." that could have devastating impacts on the mining sector nationwide. they all represent constitutionally dubious legislation by regulation. i think you have exceeded your authority by far. a number of these matters are being adjudicated by the courts even as we speak.

we have corresponded to you on a number of these topics that you are aware that my people feel like epa has taken dead aim at an industry that sustains 20,000 high-paying jobs in my state of kentucky, and supplies the fuel to power 50% of our nation at a low cost. our speaker in recent weeks has reiterated the need for adult conversations about the fiscal challenges that confront the country and i hope that is what we can accomplish here today, and adult conversation. i thank the chairman. >> thank you chairman. the ranking member of the full committee, the former chairman of the subcommittee and congressman dicks is also here today and i know these issues

remain a good interested in. do you have an opening statement? >> yes i do. thank you mr. chairman and i congratulate you on becoming chairman and being from the northwest and know you will be be -- we will work hard together to get some positive things done. want to welcome administrator jackson and are prevented. the epa's chief financial officer. in fiscal year 2000 this committee provided you with the largest budget in epa history. your current budget request of a .9 billion is a reduction of 13% and reflects the fiscal restraints we find ourselves in today. i am glad to see it minister jackson submitted a reasonable low budget request that will allow essential cleanup and monitoring. that is in stark contrast to the long-term continuing resolution approved by the house two weeks ago, h.r. 1. babil qaeda epa by nearly 30% and includes 22 environmental writers to defund epa and other government agencies to goodies

ranging from limiting greenhouse gases to reducing water pollution and those were done without any hearings. they were just put into this all legislative language that has a negative i think impact. i am also pleased at the request includes language started by this committee that allows the use of clean water state revolving funds for loan forgiveness and other affordability tools, green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or other environmentally innovative activities. i do however have concerns about this budget request, but not as much as i do with h.r. 1. my biggest concern is that we are shifting the problems of today for bigger problems tomorrow. we talk about saddling our children with debt. that concerns me greatly but by cutting these important environmental infrastructure programs like the drinking water and wastewater revolving funds, we are saddling future generations with deferred maintenance costs and a crumbling infrastructure that

will cost more to fix than if we did it now. christine todd wittman, the republican governor of new jersey, when she was administrator of the epa, said we have a 688 billion-dollar backlog on wastewater treatment facilities. and you know, a group of scientists look at all the things that happened in civilization and what had made the greatest difference in health to the world. it was wastewater treatment facilities, clean water. you think about africa and you know, i think what we have -- the united states -- i was on the staff up here when richard nixon was president of the united states and we passed the clean water act, the clean air act, the m. bar embraer made a protection act, the national environmental policy act and all of those things were passed

bipartisan and a signed by a republican president. and the country is better today because of environmental protection than it was 40 years ago. remember when we have these rivers on fire? think of how terrible those things were, and now we have turn this thing around. and i think what you are doing on climate change is absolutely essential. some people are just turning their head away from scientific reality and just saying it isn't going to happen. they are saying they care about their grandchildren's future. if we don't deal with climate change, if we don't deal with ocean acidification, the world is going to be a disastrous place and 50 to 100 years. and to say this doesn't exist is just preposterous. i made the best scientists in the world have said there are phenomenons going on. our committee held hearings.

we asked them, can you give us the park service and the fish and wildlife service and the usgs, all these agencies, can you tell us on the ground, can you see manifestations of global warming already? and they said yes. the fire seasons are longer. the oceans are rising. i mean, we are having more droughts, more bug infestation because of this. >> we are watching what is happening in the arctic. i mean i don't know how people don't understand the importance of these issues and addressing these issues. and i am not -- i'm going to fight every step of the way against efforts to weaken and take back the environmental improvements we have made starting with richard nixon and the congress, back in the 60s and 70s when people worked on a bipartisan basis and cared about the environment.

these riders have got to go, and we are going to fight them to the end. and. and i hope -- don't he intimidated. you are doing your job and you have to do it under the law and the supreme court said you had to do certain things. and don't be intimidated. do your job. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. appreciate that and began thank you for being here this morning administrator jackson and we look forward to your proposed 2012 budget and after those warm welcoming remarks from all of us, the floor is yours. [laughter] >> thank you mr. chairman and good morning to you ranking member moran and members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting me to testify about president obama's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the environmental protection agency. congress enacted the clean air act, the clean water act and

america's other bedrock environmental protection laws on a broadly bipartisan basis. it did so to protect american children and adults from pollution that otherwise would make her life shorter, less healthy and less prosperous. did so to make the air and drinking water and america's communities clean enough to attract new employers. it did so to enable america's local governments to revitalize abandoned and polluted industrial sites. it did so to safeguard the pastime of america's 40 million anglers. it did so to protect the farms his irrigation makes up a third of america's surface freshwater withdrawals and it did so to preserve the livelihood of fishermen and america's in great waters such as the chesapeake bay and the gulf of mexico. >> and don't forget puget sound. [laughter] >> and the great lakes. congress gave epa the responsibility of implementing and enforcing those laws and beecher congress appropriate the money that makes epa's implementation and enforcement work possible.

as head of the epa i'm accountable for ensuring that we squeeze every drop of public health protection out of every dollar we are given so i support the tough cuts and the in the president's proposed budget. but i am equally accountable for pointing out when cuts become detrimental to public health. without adequate funding to epa would be unable to implement or enforce the laws that protect americans health lapan as leibowitz and pastimes. polluters would dump contaminants into the air come into rivers and onto the ground. toxic -- underground was reached drinking water supplies because ongoing work to contain them would stop. there would be no epa grant money to fix or replace broke and water treatment systems and the standards that epa has said to establish for harmful air pollutants from smokestacks and tailpipes would remain missing from a population of sources that is not static but growing. so is congress slashes the epa funding, concentrations of harmful pollutants would

increase from current levels in the places americans live, work, go to school, fish, hike and hunt. the result would be more smith schools and workdays, more heart attacks, more cancer cases, more preib mature deaths and more polluted waters. needless to say i fervently request and deeply appreciate continued bipartisan support in congress for funding the essential work that keeps american children and adults safe from uncontrolled amounts of harmful pollution being dumped into the water they drink in the air they breathe. president obama believes that our federal government must spend less money. decreasing federal spending is no longer just a prudent choice. it is now in unavoidable necessity. accordingly the president has proposed to cut epa's annual budget nearly 13% from its current level. that cut goes beyond eliminating redundancies. we have made difficult, even painful choices. we have done so however in a

careful way that preserves epa's ability to carry out its core responsibilities to protect the health and well-being of america's children, adults and communities. in reviewing the budget request for more than two weeks so i will not march the role of the details. rather i would like to provide a few examples of the difficult choices we have made while preserving fundamental safeguards. this request provides $2.5 billion, a decrease of $947 million for the clean water and drinking water state revolving fund. huger your budgets for the srs will adjust taking into account payments to the funds. epa community water system will build on past successes while working towards the fiscal year 2012 goal of ensuring that over 90% of the population served by community water systems receives drinking water that meets all applicable health standards. this budget request an additional 6.4 many dollars to conduct integrated pilot projects in several communities including disadvantaged ones to evaluate and reduce risks from

toxic air pollution to regulatory enforcement and voluntary efforts. an additional $3.7 million will improve our monitoring of toxic air pollution and our dissemination of that data to state, local and tribal governments into the public. the budget contains $350 million for programs and projects strategically chosen to target the most significant environmental problems in the great lakes ecosystem. that represents a cut of $125 million from fiscal year 2010 which was the first year of the initiative. we will implement the most important projects of the great lakes restoration and achieve visible results. with this budget 16 million-dollar investment in enhancing chemical safety initiatives, we will take action to reduce chemical risk, increase the pace of chemical hazard assessment and provide the public with greater access to information on toxic chemicals. we will use the funds to implement chemical risk reduction, address the impact on children's health and on

disadvantaged, low income and indigenous populations. thank you mr. chairman. i look forward to the subcommittee's questions. >> thank you. i appreciated in your being here today. because of interest in this, we are going to try and enforce if possible the five-minute rule. we have a timer appear and we will keep time with that so that we can have several rounds of questions if that is possible. first, let me make a general comment and question. during the debate on h.r. 1 that has been mentioned appear by just about everybody, we talked about authorizing an appropriation bill. most of these amendments were legislation that were limiting the funding to be used for certain things, which is appropriate with an appropriation bill. i also noticed after all of the criticisms about some of the underlying riders if you will that work greenhouse gas

provisions and dealing with navigable waters that i don't remember any amendments being offered by anyone to remove those from the bill. if they were of such concern to the chairman and the ranking member i would have thought maybe the ranking member of the full committee and the subcommittee, made there would have been an amendment to remove those but i didn't see any of those and i wonder why that was. i think you and i have discussed many times the concern i have about what i hear when i go homs that are trying to operate and trying to do the right thing. they don't want to pollute the air and water. but from cities, counties, state government and others about the concerns about the direction the epa has gone and i always wondered if that was just in my region or if it was across the country. i've got to tell you in all honestly i was surprised by the number of amendments that were offered that address the epa concerns from people all over rim representatives all over this country.

and i'm wondering, after that debate, and the 22 amendments, probably no other agency had that many of them instructed at them or their actions if you will, i am wondering what message he took from that? >> there has been a number of discussions, some of them on the hill, some of them outside in the countryside. i spend a lot of my time meeting with people and dealing with people around the country and i think overwhelmingly there are also some other that haven't come out yet. that is that the mac and people believe that epa plays a very valuable role in safeguarding the health of their families and their communities. >> i don't think anybody disagrees that. >> and the american people believe the clean air act and the clean water act and other things like the safe drinking water act, reported a