in critical areas, alzheimer's, lou gerhig's disease, cancer, at a time we know that research and innovation are critical for america's success, why would the house republican budget cut back to dramatically in areas that we know would pay off? i think they made some poor choices. that's why i support the senate democratic approach, $10 billion in cuts, but preserving in education, working trainer, education research, innovation, and infrastructure, the investments we need at this moment in our history with the recession that we face and 13 million americans out of work. that, to me, is why the difference is so stark and contrast. president mcconnell -- pardon me, senator mcconnell spoke with the president and said that he needed to show more leadership. i know where the president is on this. he wants us to reach an agreement in terms of the -- the decisions which we need to make to move us toward a balanced

budget. but we need to do in a thoughtful way. first, coming out of this recession making america's workforce stronger for the future, helping small businesses create jobs and investing in

department's fiscal year 2012 proposal. live coverage here on c-span3. >> we'll come to order.

the committee is meeting to hear testimony from secretary janet thnapolitano relating to the 20 security for homeland security. i would advise the secretary's office notified us in advance that she has a commitment to be at the white house and must leave the hearing before noon and in fairness to the secretary, she has rearranged her schedule to be here today because we had to cancel out two weeks ago when we had the whole series of votes. secretary, thank you for being here and we'll certainly have the hearing done in time for you to be at the white house. today's hearing is, as i said, to address the president's 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 not an illegal alien, however it would make no difference because they would not put a hold on them anyway. this is due to funding problems because i.c.e. does not have enough beds to act on the reported aliens. the court process takes 18 months to determine whether or not that person is indeed an illegal alien. this would require more cells, prosecutors, clerks and attorneys and no one would fund what it actually costs to deport all the illegal aliens. the local sheriff's 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 maybe what's here. would you kindly comment on that and give some perspective? >> well, yes, representative, and i would kind of like to know which sheriff we're talking about. i think i actually do know. 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 vary, but estimates vary from between 8-12 million people who are in this country illegally. 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 that the number one priority is for those who are convicted of crimes. that's why the president's

budget expands what's called secure communities and puts it in the jails of our country which are operated by the sheriffs and the prisons 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 us to do. now, i don't know whether this particular sheriff has a jail where a secure communities is not yet installed. if it is, it's something we could get that information from and work with him on. that's probably the easiest way to deal with his base concern. >> thank you for your response.

you know, i've come to this body as an entrepreneur, business owner, first time elected official. 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 that like every organization, it could 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 you 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 -- everyone carried with them their committees. none of the committees were

reorganized really to match the new department. so the end result is we report to 108 committees of the congress, the overwhelming ma jorltd of those are committees and subcommittees of the house. in the 111th congress, we testified 280 times. 140 times with component heads who had to come down and testify. we provided 3,900 briefings to congress, and we are required to file something around 425 written reports a year. it's a huge manpower 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 where the secretary, the ranking member and the secretary agree 100%. it's absolutely disgraceful. the gentle lady from new york, my colleague, ms. clark. >> mr. chairman, how are we doing questions? mr. davis was here, i was here, several members. it seems like we're getting out of order. >> mr. chairman, no problem. i yield. >> fine. >> ms. davis, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you madam secretary for being here and for your testimony. i also want to express the sentiments conveyed by my

colleagues in reference to the imminent danger that all of our personnel involved in homeland security and other aspects of government face on a daily basis, and so we appreciate their services. there has been a great deal of progress in relationship to surface transportation, but i also think that buses still remain pretty easy easy targets. what funded options do you think might help sustain our security for this sector of transportation? >> well, representative, that's something -- because buses are operated p ed primarily at the municipal level, you would find funding for that. there are transit security grants, but also other sorts of grants that can be used for

transportation security. so you would find those prima primarily under fema and the grant programs there. >> i noticed that the transportation security grant program has been reduced to $200 million below the current levels. does vhs, has a way, any thoughts about how you can help again with the security needs of this type of 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. it will reduce overhead in terms of how many applications they have to submit.

and making sure that grants that remain are broad enough to include local decisions. if that's where they want to put security money, they can put it into the bus system, whatever. >> i think we've made a tremendous amount of progress in this area, but i note that the president's request of funding calls for an increase in bdo agents that will bring us up to over 3,000. what's the human rights and private rights protections are we dealing with in order to assure that these individuals are not -- that's right. not racially profiling or ethnically. >> yes. i think this is very important. given the -- a very important

constitutional safeguards americans have. but our bdo program has been developed with internal oversight, the training has been reviewed and approved. we're constantly looking at what best practices, are so that we do not fall into the trap of profiling, which by the way, does not give -- you want to do intelligence based, you want to be looking for tactics, techniques and behaviors, not t ethnicity or race. >> do you support the decision not to expand the stp program for private airport screeners and do you think this is good for security?

>> i think administrator vestal who was 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 talking about privatization of the screening population. secondary, the studies that have been -- you know, they still have to meet tsa requirements in terms of what they do. they are more expensive than simply maintaining it within the tsa structure and that's been issue and thirdly, it's important to recognize that when you privatize, you still have unions. several of the privatized workforces are indeed also unionized. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman and i

yield back. >> the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. >> no, you don't. thank you very much. >> 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. would you please further explain the value of having dhs placed overseas and expand on some of the work done by dhs officials in afghanistan and other countries around the world? >> homeland security has a footprint that is around the world. we have a about two dozen employees in afghanistan. they are training customs and customs officers so that afghanistan can have its own

customs force and also learn how to or exchange how we operate major ports of entry like the ports between pakistan and afghanistan. 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 rio for example to help do security check ons individuals seeking visas. we have individuals around the world who are working on protecting against human trafficking into the united states. protection of our intellectual property from the united states. there's an extensive international force laid down from the department. >> so the employees that we have other there are not training themselves. they are doing the training. >> correct. >> okay. that's not how i interpreted it. you also mentioned that more

border patrol agents than ever would be employed under this budget and black hawk helicopters are becoming an effective -- the customs and border patrol have a great need of black hawk helicopters and carrying out their mission. are you aware of this and does your budget request reflect this? >> yes, but it reflects other kinds of air support besides helicopters. fixed wing support. so that we have and want to have total air coverage, particularly on the southwest border all the way from el centro through texas. >> the agents in contact with us expressing an interest, they feel that the black hawk is probably their best. i know that it's surplus

equipment and when they bought the black hawks surplus, so if we can look at that for them, i'd appreciate it. >> certainly. the black hawks have many uses. there is a great demand for black hawks by the department of defense, by others, by us. they are greatly in demand around the world. >> one other thing. small business, like mr. riggle, come with a small business background. ran my own business, 30 years. real estate broker, a title company in our district in the seventh recently had $400,000 stolen, sent to pakistan through cyber and the secret service has jurisdiction over these crimes i understand, but what they do, they came and emptied their bank account. their holding money for real estate closings.

secret service has jurisdiction over these crimes. how does the president's budget help protect our small business from these types of crime where they can empty out bank accounts, the money goes to pakistan. is in anything in the budget to help or give small businesses solace? >> first, number one, i'd have to know more about the facts to say definitively the secret service has jurisdiction, but the president's budget includes a great increase for cybersecurity on the civilian side. that means the protection on the civil side of the federal government and our intersection with we key sectors like the banking sector. in terms of how they protect they're own cyber networks. the government doesn't own the banking structure. that's owned by the banks themselves. they have their own cyber protection. we are working with them as to

what that protection entails, so let us know when they've 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. >> thank you again r for being here today and fitting us in your schedule. i have no time to yield back, but if i did, i would. >> mrs. richardson is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for coming as always and your work in this area, i think when you look at the history of the secretaries in this area has been really commendable, so thank you. i want to join in with chairman thompson in asking for the briefing on the security piece and also, i want to reference the question i asked a couple of weeks ago about everything on continuity of government. i'm not referencing agencies.

i'm talking about with elected