president of the kyrgyzstan regional government and one of the most respected men in iraq and in my view, one of the finest, called for a continued presence of u.s. troops saying iraqi security forces are still not prepared to secure protection for iraq. perhaps significantly, the inspector general for iraq reconstruction, mr. stewart bowen, just recently reported -- and i quote -- "iraq remains an extraordinary dangerous -- extraordinarily dangerous place to work. it is less safe, in my judgment, than 12 months ago." buttressing his conclusion was the fact that june was the deadliest month for u.s. troops in two years. by the way, we continue to hear these quotes from various

administration officials about absence a request from the iraqis, it's difficult to settle on any one thing, victoria newland stated that the iraqis have -- if they come forward with a request, we could consider it. that's aconsuming that it's only in iraq's national interest to have additional troops there. nits america's national security interests not to lose iraq after the sacrifice of some 4,500 brave, young americans. and the consequences, the consequences of failure are obvious. and who is it that opposes the continued presence of the u.s. troops most vociferously, strenuously, and sometimes in a very subversive way? iran and the sawedderrists want

the united states out. it's not a matter of iraqi national security interests. it's a matter of american national security interests. what does 3,000 troops do? i don't know what 3,000 troops do but i know that they're required to have certain force protection numbers which would be significant and then how many troops would be left to carry out the mission of protecting united states civilians, contractors, and personnel who remain there. i guess you can sum this up, this decision making process best, and i quote from a "new york times" article, called "plan would keep small force in iraq past deadline." "a senior american military officer --" a senior senior mily

officer at this point seemed to be driven more than by the troop numbers than the missions they could accomplish, exactly the opposite of how military planners ideally like to operate. quote, i think we're doing this thing backwards, the officer said, quote, we should be talking about what missions we want to do and then decide how many troops we'll need." i can assure my colleagues that is the view of the majority of members of the military, many of whom who have multiple tours in iraq, that that is their view of this process that we are going through. i would point out that my friend, senator graham, senator lieberman, who are coming, and i have been to iraq on many, many occasions. since the initial -- since the initial invasion we have had the

opportunity to watch the brave young americans serve and sacrifice. we have had the ability to see as the initial military success deteriorated into a situation of chaos, beginning with the looting and unrest in baghdad to the very unfortunate decisions that were made in the early period after the victory in iraq. and we watched, we watched a situation where many of our military leaders, but also those who are now in the administration, say that if we employed a surge, it would fail. the president of the united states, the vice president of the united states, the secretary of state, the president's national security advisor, all of them said the surge would fail.

was doomed to failure. and the fact is, the surge succeeded, and the fact is that we now have an iraq that has an opportunity to be a free and independent country, but maybe more importantly, one that would never pose a threat to the united states of america. and most importantly, a chance for the iraqi people to enjoy the fruits of the sacrifice that thousands and thousands and thousands of iraq yis have made on their behalf -- iraqis have made on their behalf and approximately 4,500 brave young americans have. the senator from south carolina and the senator from connecticut and i recall meeting with military leaders in 2006 where we were told everything was going fine. the senator from connecticut and

the senator from south carolina and i recall meeting with a colonel, the british colonel in basra who told us unless we turn things around, that we were doomed to failure. and we remember the summer of 2007 when we were lonely voices along with that of general petraeus and other great leaders in saying the surge could and must succeed. and i'll leave it up to historians to decide whether our venture into iraq was a good one or a bad one, whether the sacrifice of young americans' lives was worth it, whether a stable and democratic iraq which can be the result of our involvement there was the right or wrong thing to do. but what we should not do and in deference to those who have served and sacrificed we must

not do, is make a decision which would put all of that sacrifice and all that was gained by it in jeopardy, in jeopardy because of our failure to carry out the fundamental requirement of contributing to iraqi security in this very difficult transition time. so i would ask my friend from south carolina to start with perhaps he remembers when we went to baghdad, i believe it was 2007, and went downtown with general petraeus and were mocked and made fun of in the media as i came back and said that things had improved in iraq. perhaps the senator from south carolina recalls when we had that almost triumphant visit in downtown fallujah, a conflict

that was won with great cost in american blood and treasure. perhaps the senator from south carolina recalls going into downtown baghdad and going to a bakery in an environment not of complete security but dramatically improved. all of it was purchased, all of it was purchased by the expenditure of america's most precious asset, young americans' blood. and now -- and now we place all of that at great risk, and the decisions, i say with respect, made by the same people who said that the surge couldn't succeed. so i urge, i urge the administration and the president to reconsider what apparently is a decision and listen to our military leaders once, and

employ sufficient number of troops to provide the iraqis with, as barzani said, sufficient number of troops to secure -- as he said, iraq security forces are still not prepared to secure protections for iraq. by ask my colleague from south carolina and connecticut, aren't there plans, aren't there plans for us to have large amount of american civilians there, contractors, to protect them? probably the most expensive form that we could do rather than american troops. is it not a flawed -- a flawed strategy to not have enough american troops there to ensure that the lives of americans who are serving there in various capacities are protected? mr. graham: if i may try to respond to the senator's question, the answer is yes but you don't have to believe me or

senator mccain. our ambassador to iraq told us in june when he was getting confirmed all civilian movements are accompanied by american forces to some ex tent, a mixture of iraqi and american forces. we're about to bass the baton from the department of defense to the department of state. the civilian-military partnership formed over the last decade is working very well and the future of iraq is in iraqis' hands but they do need our help and as senator mccain said, we're helping ourselves. so in june --, june 24, 2010, i asked general odinero where are we at in terms of iraq? how would you evaluate our situation? since this is football season -- mr. mccain: that was a hearing. mr. graham: yes, a hearing for confirmation for general austin. he said we're inside the 10 yard line. this is football season. most americans can understand that's great progress and he said we have four downs. first and 10 on the 10 with four

downs and he felt good that we could get it into the end zone. getting it into the end zone is going to require a follow-on presence in 2012. having said that, i know most americans want our troops to come home, include me into that group. we're going to go from 50,000 to zero at the end of this year if something new doesn't happen. i'm confident the iraqis want our continued presence in a reasoned way. what do they need that we can provide? intelligence gathering. we have the best intelligence gathering capability of anyone in the world and helps the iraqis stay ahead of h.r. enemies. this are their enemies? the iranians are trying to de stabilize the young democracy. ambassador jeffords said we need to get it right. show me an example where two democracies went to war. there's really not any. if we could take a dictatorship, saddam hussein's dictatorship and replace it with

representative government that's a huge advancement of our national security interest over time. so what do the iraqis need militarily? dhoant have the mature air force. so general austin said it would be in our interest not only to sell them planes, f-16's but actually train them how to use those airplanes. they have an infant navy, to patrol their coast to protect them against threats there. so nits our interest only to train and develop the iraqi police and army but make sure our civilians who are going to help build this democracy can travel without fear and without unnecessary casualties because the iranians are going to try to undercut us at every turn and that means targeting american forces left hin. what else do they need? counterterrorism. al qaeda, other groups, other radical groups are going to try to come back into iraq and destabilize what we've done. we've seen some signs of that. we've had 60 al qaeda types

released from american custody to iraqi custody and some of them are back out on the streets. so a counterterrorism footprint would be smarpt. vice presidented by send right about this. a c.t. footprint in afghanistan and iraq makes sense. when you add up all these missions, intelligence gathering, training, embed embedding, force protection -- mr. mccain: are you leaving out the necessity for the piecekeeping in the american -- between the kurdish areas? mr. graham: that's a very good point and that's exactly where i was going to take this. that requires a footprint of thousands. we don't need 25,000 but i think 10,000 when you add it up is probably the bare minimum to do this the because the commander who is policing the kurdish-arab dispute boundary line in the northern part of iraq, they've come up with a very novel approach and i want to give the administration credit and the military credit.

they've taken the basically kurdish militia, integrated them with iraqi national security forces and american forces to form companies, eventually go to brigades where they'll get to know each other, work together as a team and i think any neutral observer would tell you that our presence has prevented a shooting conflict in the past and that's what president barzany is -- barzani is worried about. that's 5,000 he said. he said we will need 5,000 troops here for a while to make sure this new concept of jointness develops over time. so when you add the whole package up, you're somewhere around 10,000 plus, and to the administration, not only is bipartisan desired in national security, i think it's required. we can look back and pat each other on the back or blame each other about iraq. that's not what i'm trying to do. we are where we are and we're in a pretty decent place. to the point that the iranians are going nuts.

they're trying to undercut iraqis' national development because their biggest nightmares have a representative democracy on their border. that will incite the people in iran to ask for more freedom. so please to the obama administration, don't make the same mistakes at the end that the bush administration made in the beginning. and i can say with some credibility that i argued against my own political party infrastructure that senator mccain and lieberman and others, we want there enough to know it was not a few dead enders. that the model to change iraq wasn't working. it was general petraeus' model that was adopted to president bush's credit. that was a hard decision for president bush. the war was incredibly unpopular. people were frustrated. it seems as if it was a lost cause. president bush went against what was the political tide at the

moment, and i'm glad he did. so i would ask president obama to consider the long-term national security interests of the united states and do what senator mccain suggested, not what he suggested, what our military suggested. define missions. is it important to have some support to intelligence gathering? i would say yes. training the army, air force, navy, i would say yes. having some presence to protect our civilians who are going to be the largest groups, i would say overwhelmingly yes. and does it make sense to have some american military support in the kurdish-arab dispute areas? overwhelmingly yes. and we will stand by you. and i think most americans are frustrateed and war weary, but they don't want to lose. we're very close to changing iraq by helping the iraqi people. we can't change iraq, only they can. they want to. you talk about the deaths of americans and it breaks your heart. for every american that's died, there has probably been 10

iraqis. this hasn't been easy for people in iraq. that's why i never lost faith. what kept me going with iraq and afghanistan is i have been there enough to know that there are people in those countries that want the same thing for their children as most people in this body want for theirs. to be a judge in america, you can get criticized, it's a tough job. you can lose your life in iraq and afghanistan. i have personally met people who decided to step up to the plate, be lawyers, be judges, be policemen who have gotten killed, and they knew what was coming their way, and it is in our national security interests to help this infant democracy -- and that's what it is. corruption still abounds. there are tons of problems in iraq, but they are on the right trajectory. so i'm asking the administration listen to your commanders. 25,000 -- in my view, i'm not commander, but i can understand why the president would say that's a bridge too far. i know what the generals have recommended. it goes from the mid teens to the mid 20's, but somewhere north of 10, given my

understanding of iraq i think will work. and i know we're probing -- broke, but the one thing i can tell you we can't afford after all this investment is to lose. the price and cost of losing in iraq now would be devastating for years to come. if we did not see this thing through, who would help us in the future push back against extremism, knowing that america left at a time when you were asking them to stay? i am confident sunnies, shias and kurds want us there in reasonable numbers to make sure they can have the help they need to get this right. so the decision apparently has not been made yet. i am urging the administration to look at the missions, be reasonable, understand that you can't give the military all they want all the time, and this is the commander in chief's decision. he is a good man. it is his call. but the one thing i offer and i think the three of us offer in these very difficult times when america is under siege here at

home is to be supportive voices for the idea we can't retreat and become fortress america. look what happened when a few people from afghanistan and far away places for less than $1 million, what happen okay they wreaked on our country, and this sunday is the tenth anniversary. i am hopeful that as we get to the tenth anniversary we can look back and say that we have defended america in a bipartisan way, and it's not just luck that's preventing us from being attacked. the president deserves a lot of credit for going after bin laden, he deserves a lot of credit for adding troops into afghanistan when people are ready to come home from there. i would just urge this administration to listen to our military leaders and finish this right. it would be a tragedy upon a tragedy for us to be inside the 10-yard line and fumble at a time when we can score a touchdown not only for our

national security but for fundamental change in the middle east. if we get it right in iraq, the arab spring is going to get the support that it needs and deserves. if we fail in iraq, it would be just repeating history's mistakes. the bush administration did change. thank god they did because they did not get it right early on. we're so close to the end now. let's be cautious. let's be reasonable. let's err on the side of making sure we can sustain what we have all fought for. and i tell you this. history will judge everybody well, including president obama, and that would be okay with me if we can take saddam hussein's dictatorship, turn it into a representative government that would be aligned with us and voices of moderation for the rest of the 21st century. senator lieberman, i'd like to get his thoughts. it's one thing for me to talk

about this in south carolina, but even in south carolina, a very red state, people are war weary, and they are not excited about having to stay in iraq in 2012, but i think they will listen to reason. but during the darkest days of this effort in iraq, senator mccain went the road less traveled by saying we need more at a time when the polls said everybody is ready to come home. and i don't question anybody's patriotism. i mean, it was a hard call, it was a tough fight, there were no easy answers, but i'm glad we chose to do what we did. i'm glad president bush adjusted. but senator lieberman, above all of us, quite frankly, literally risked his political career because he health that what happened in iraq mattered to the united states. and joe, you were right. i just want to thank you on behalf of all those who served in iraq for giving them the time and the resources to prove that we could get it right. so i would like, if you don't

mind, sharing your thoughts with the body about how we should finish iraq. mr. lieberman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair and thank my friend from south carolina for his generous words. obviously, what turned the tide in iraq was a vision, a commanding vision by general petraeus about what had to happen to succeed with a new counterterrorism strategy and tremendous support from the men and women of the american military, a generation that volunteered, that stepped up to the call, that really rightfully should be called america's new greatest generation. they are an inspiration to us. of course we lost a lot of them there. and the iraqi military fought hard and now increasingly has shown its capability to -- to

defend its own nation, which is what we had hoped and prayed and fought for. so my friends from arizona and south carolina had the same reaction i did yesterday, and we began to talk to each other by the end of the day as we came back to washington to what was originally a fox news story that the decision had been made in the administration to go down to 3,000 troops, and we reacted that way because it was lower than any number we had ever heard from anybody we had confidence in about what was necessary to secure all that we have gained and all the iraqis have gained. now, the papers today reported as a fact. secretary panetta says no decision has been made. i hope not because in these matters, the -- i understand

there is politics in iraq as well as here, but what's got to be cut at the top of the list was what's best for our national security and of course for the iraqis what's best for their national security, and to me if the number is right -- and it's really only going to be 3,000 more there after the end of this year, i don't see how we can feel confident that we can protect what we have spent a lot of american lives, a lot of iraqi lives, a lot of our national treasure and theirs securing, and i don't see how we can hope to avoid a kind of -- well, really a possible return to civil war, particularly on the fault lines that my friends have mentioned between the kurdish areas and the arab

areas. and this is a decision ultimately for the president, and i want to say this about doing the right thing. the president obviously took a position for a withdrawal of american troops from iraq during the campaign of 2008. i think there were a lot of his supporters who felt, who hoped, who dreamed that pretty much the day -- we're hearing a lot about day one these days. another day one after the next election. but i think a lot of president obama's supporters expected that on day one of his administration, he would begin a full withdrawal from iraq. to his great, great credit, he did not do that because i think he understood that he had a goal which was to pull our troops out of iraq but that america had an interest and he as president had to protect that interest and not losing in iraq, not letting it fall apart and not letting us

suffer the loss we would to our credibility and strength around the world. my friends and i travel a lot together. we have been in places far away from iraq. asia, for instance, where when it was uncertain about whether we were going to stick to it in iraq, we heard from our allies in asia real concern. they said, you know, iraq is far from here, but if america -- we depend on american strength and credibility for our security and freedom in asia, in the asia pacific region. if you are seen to be weak and lame and not up to the fight in iraq, it's going to compromise our freedom. well, the president to his credit i think understood all that and put us on a slow path to withdrawal, but i don't think anybody would fault the president if -- and i think the expectation has been that we have achieved so much that we could leave a core group there

to continue to train the iraqi military so they reach their full potential, to be there to assist them in a counterterrorism fight because that's essentially what's going on in iraq now. the war is basically over, but the extremists, the shia militia, some remnants of al qaeda are carrying out terrorist attacks, and those are the explosive, literally explosive high visibility attacks. we have special capacities in the u.s. military to work with the iraqi military to prevent and counter those terrorist attacks. and then the final part of the mission really has to be to protect the american personnel there, civilian personnel. i don't know what that number will be. at one point when we were -- we already have the largest -- mr. mccain: could i ask my friend? mr. lieberman: i yield. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous

consent for an additional seven minutes past 12:30. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank my friend. at one point, somebody indicated to us when we were in baghdad that the american embassy, which is already the largest u.s. embassy in the world in terms of personnel, would go up, could go up as high as 20,000. it could be that high. those are a lot of civilians committed to working in the country that we need to have forces there to protect. so we're all coming to the floor today to appeal to secretary panetta, to the president. it would be shortsighted. if it's really going to be 3,000 and only 3,000 and frankly we're not going to tuck some away in those civilian personnel numbers in the embassy or somewhere else, covert operators, if it's really only 3,000, they are not going to be able to do the job that needs to be done, and not only that, they are going to send a message of weakness, lack of resolve, anxiousness to get

out to the iraqis' enemies and ours in the region, and that particularly includes iran. so i -- i join my colleagues. we have been together on this for a long time. i don't want us to squander what we have won, and we will, i'm afraid, if we only leave 3,000 american troops there. mr. mccain: could i -- could i ask my colleague, you know, that -- no events in history are exactly similar, but i think we learned in lebanon and again in somalia that forces that are too small and don't have sufficient force protection -- and i'm not saying they are exact parallels, but certainly it puts whoever is there, whether they be military or civilian, in some kind of danger. and as the progress that has been made -- and it has been significant progress, a country that's really never known

democracy, but we have now turkish attacks on the p.k.k. up in the kurdish area. we have continued tensions in the areas that the senator from south carolina referred to, which at one point, i believe, last june almost came to exchange of hostility between the peshmurga and the others. and there's always increased iranian influence in basra and there continues to be the export of arms and i.e.d.'s from iran into iraq. they have no air force. they have no ability to protect their airspace. isn't it true that their counterintelligence is really dependent on our technical assistance, which means personnel? and so the argument seems to be that if we want this experiment to succeed, we shouldn't put it

in unnecessary jeopardy. mr. graham: by discuss just add if i may, the 3,000 number doesn't allow the missions that are obvious to most everybody who has looked at iraq to be performed in a successful manner. that's the bottom line. that's why no one has thrown ou thousand before. can you do it about 10,000? i think that's really pushing the nfl. but the kurdish-arab boundary dispute almost went hot and this plan we've come up to integrate the peshmurga, the iraqi security forces with americans will continue over time. 5,000 is what the american commander said he need. we have a plan to wind down that number, it's going to take a while. but when it comes to iran, i would tell you by not want our american civilians to be without some american military support given what i know is coming to iraq from iran.

mr. mccain: could i mention one fundamental here. the question is, is it in the united states' national security interest to have this 10,000 plus american troops carrying out the missions we just described or is it not? is it is,, then it's pure sophistry to say we would only consider this if the iraqis requested it. if we are waiting for the iraqis to request it, then it means that it doesn't matter whether the united states is there or not. i think the three of us and others, including general odi wrench no, general petraeus, the most respected military and civilian leadership, that is in our national interests. so the way this should have happen is the united states and the iraqis sitting down together and making once coming to an agreement, making a joint aunemployment that it is in

both -- aunemployment that it is in both countries' national security interests. if it is not, we shouldn't send one single american there, not one. mr. graham: if the senator would yield for a second, that's a very good point. we've been asking to by both administrations, the iraqis have a political problem, that's not lost upon us. most people in most countries don't want hundreds of thousands of troops, foreign troops roaming around their country forever. so the iraqis have been up front with us. we want to continue the partnership, but it needs to be at a smaller level and they're absolutely right. i don't buy one moment there is a movement in iraq saying we will take 3,000, not one soldier more. i think what's going on here is there is as senator mccain suggested, a number drives the missions, not the missions drive the number and at the end of the day, this 3,000 doesn't get any of the essential jobs done, it leaves the 3,000

exposed, it leaves the thousands of civil yaps without the help they need, leaves the iraqi military in the lurch. there is no up side to this. by just end with this the thought: let's get the missions identified and resource them in an adequate way and i think the country will really around the president because i can't think of too many americans who would want our people to be in harm's way unnecessarily if you leave one, you have some obligation to the one. if you left up with, you'd be doing that person a disservice. leave enough so we can get it right, and that number is far beyond 3,000. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i want to say in response to something mr. mccain said to me. i heard somebody say to me if we're not going to leave the job, we might as well not leave anybody there. of course we don't want that to happen. there's a couple of alterp differences here, one is that

the 3,000 is not the number and hopefully we'll have clarification on that and it's more than that because in all our trips to iraq talking to repeated teams of leadership, never has there been anyone who said we needed less than 10,000 american troops there to do this job. it may be -- i want to repeat this -- that there's a kind of sleight of hand here and that maybe it's 3,000 here and there's going to be a few more thousand tucked into the civilian work force at the embassy and a few more, some more in special operating covert operators. but i think if that's the game plan here, it's a mistake. we ought to say exactly how many troops we're leaving there, it gives confidence to our allies in the are region, particularly in iraq, and it will unsettle our enemies, particularly in iran. dr. ken pollack, has a piece on

the national security there, concerned about the small number of troops left there and agrees there may somebody iraqis who might be pushing for a smaller post-2011 force with a limited set of missions but dr. pollack said and i quote this would be a bad deal for the iraqi people and for the united states. our troops would be reduced to spectators as various iraqi groups employ violence against one another. moreover, if we have troops in iraq but do nothing to stop bloodshed there it would be seen as proof of washington's complicity. if american forces cannot enforce the rules of the game, they should not be in iraq, period. lest they are portrayed as contributing to the deficit reduction of the country. end quote. that's just what we're saying. and the final point, dr. pollack argues that the united states if this is in response giving the benefit of the doubt for a moment to iraqi

political concerns, that the u.s. has the leverage to avoid this dangerous outcome and he writes, and i quote him directly, "america has the goods to bargain. the question is whether washington will." and that's the question i believe that my colleagues from arizona and south carolina are asking today, will we bargain with our iraqi allies, if this is the problem, to be able to work with them for another chapter to secure all we've gained together up until now. mr. mccain: i appreciate your indulgence and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

>> the homeland security committee held a hearing this morning focusing on the challenges facing the homeland security department. officials from the government accountability office and dhs discuss successes and reforms since the 9/11 attacks. this is an hour and 40 minutes. [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

>> unfortunately we're having technical difficulties in our coverage of this homeland security committee hearing that was held this morning. we are working to correct the problem. [no audio] >> that nine 9/11 was probably preventable. and as i look back and i think of all we have done to respond to our failures on that day, i think if another group of terrorists attempted a similar

attack on the united states today we would prevent it. and that, of course, gives me great comfort and a sense of great gratitude for all that's been done by so many people in our government and, state and local governments to work together to make sure we were better security at home home that we were in 9/11. we put into place measures that reorganize and reform our government to prevent another terrorist attack on the u.s. i know that there's some in this 10th anniversary look back that are saying that we overreacted to 9/11, that it was, in fact, not just a substantive overreaction, but and expensive overreaction. i don't agree. the most extraordinary bottom line reality today is as a look back over the 10 years, as we all know, thank god, and thanks to avoid has worked so hard, there has not been another mass

casualty terrorist attack on the united states by violent islamists since 9/11. i don't think anybody would have predicted that on 9/12. but that, we can say that today, not because our enemies stop trying. they tried over and over and over again. but fortunately our defenses, our intelligence, all the things we've done really have made as more secure. and, frankly, a couple of times just to remind us that we continue to work to do, we were just plain lucky, as the two glaring cases of the detroit bomber on christmas day on the airplane, and the times square bomber, both of whose weapons, explosive systems didn't go off. if they had i think we would be looking back with a different sense of this 10 years.

but overall, no question in my mind, we have been spared another catastrophic terrorist attack like the one on 9/11, not just as a matter of luck or coincidence, but because of a lot of things, a lot of people did. i'm very proud of the role members of this committee across party lines played back then and continue to play in creating these organizations and supporting them. the first of course was the cabinet level department of homeland security which was greater to lead our efforts to prevent terrorist attacks in the united states, and i believe dhs has significantly contributed to our increased national safety. i'm grateful that report that gao has issued today to our committee, as we move toward 9/11/11, essentially agrees with it. and it's a positive report on the work of the department of homeland security.

it points to some work yet to be done and i think will agree with that. including people at the department at by the fact is that 10 years ago, no single agency and no single official were designated to lead the federal government's efforts to prevent terrorism, or for that matter, to adequately marshal the resources of the federal government to respond to natural disasters, not just terrorist disasters. today there is clarity about who is in charge, and that's the secretary of the department of homeland security, and whose efforts should be coordinating to prepare, respond to and recover from disasters. and that's made a tremendous difference. i'm going to put the rest of my statement in the record because i want to hear the witnesses. i simply want to thank deputy

secretary jane holl lute who is with us today and the comptroller general of the u.s., both to hear dhs is own evaluation of these 10 years, and the comptroller general's on behalf of gao. i repeat, i am heartened that the report that gao is issuing today concludes that overall the department of homeland security has implemented most of its key missions, and achieved most of its important roles, creating a foundation that will allow the department to continue to move aggressively towards its full potential. so we appreciate that very much and look forward to the testimony of eyewitnesses. thank you. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, let me thank you for holding today's hearing, to

review the first eight years of the department of homeland security, whose final mission is to protect our nation, and our people. after the attacks of september 11, 2001, president bush established the white house office of homeland security. and soon concluded that the nation needed a more unified homeland security structure. we envisioned a department that would secure our borders, improve the security of transportation, and critical infrastructures, nailed homeland security intelligence from multiple sources, and worked with first responders and law enforcement to deter, detect, prepare for, and respond to terrorist plots.

the laws establishing the department of homeland security was enacted in november of 2002. 22 entities, and approximately 180,000 employees, were merged into dhs. not only was the new department's mission a challenge, but so was simply unifying its e-mail systems. over the past eight years, they gao has repeatedly played the department on its high-risk list. they gao has issued approximately 1500 recommendations, and dhs has adopted only about half of them, although others are in progress. this july, dhs issued a self-administered report card, noting considerable progress in

achieving the goals set out nearly a decade ago, to strengthen our security. when it comes to our homeland security, however, we are only as strong as our weakest link. this week as the chairman has indicated, we will commemorate the worst attack ever on the united states. in doing so, we must ask ourselves some fundamental questions. are we safer, or are we just safer from the tactics terrorists have already tried? i think the answer is yes to both questions. we are far safer than we were on september 10, 2001, but terrorists continue to probe our vulnerabilities and attempt to exploit gaps in our security. we also face increasing threats

from homegrown terrorists already within our borders. today, they gao concludes that more than eight years after its creation and 10 years after september 11, dhs has indeed made significant strides in protecting our nation, but has yet to reach its full potential. the examples are many. tsa have strengthened their line passenger prescreening, yet a young man recently was able to fly across country without a valid government id and with an expired boarding pass that was not even issued in his name. at the other extreme, it troubles many americans to seek tsa screeners putting the very young and the very elderly through intrusive and in many cases unnecessary pat downs. although dhs has bolstered the

security of u.s. borders and identification documents, to iraqi refugees associated with al qaeda were recently arrested in kentucky. how a known bomb maker whose fingerprints we have had on file for some time was able to enter our country on humanitarian grounds remains an unanswered and extremely troubling question. are there other iraqi nationals granted asylum who were involved in attacking our troops? the fact is we don't know. we still await clear answers from the administration, which must do more to ensure that all relevant databases are used so that we do not let terrorists and criminals into our country,

much less grant them asylum. i am pleased that the gao found that our chemicals facilities and seaports are safer, both priorities of mind and of this committee. they gao indicates that dhs should make improvements in how it shares and manages cyber threat information. this is a key goal of comprehensive cybersecurity legislation that chairman lieberman, senator carper, and i have co-authored. the department has also had its fair share, and then some, of management problems. failures and expensive procurements have cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and delayed a much-needed technology. now, merging 22 agencies and nearly 180,000 employees is always going to be a challenge.

if dhs is to become a truly unified department, its employees and headquarters should not remain spread over 70 billions and 40 sites. the lack of a consolidated headquarters inhibits communications, coordination and cooperation among dhs components. and i know the administration is working hard to consolidate the headquarters. i also believe that there are efficiencies that can be gained by consolidating offices at the regional level, a recommendation made by former homeland security secretary tom ridge. we should take a look at consolidating field office locations to reduce costs and improve coordination. as this committee will soon consider a reauthorization of the department, it's important

to discuss what experts inside and outside of dhs believe has and has not worked. we must answer the fundamental question of whether or not we are safer, because of the creation of dhs. as has been noted often, the terrorists only have to get it right once. dhs and its partners have to be right every single time, or we will suffer the devastating consequences of a terrorist attack. we are much safer than we were 10 years ago, but we must be tenacious in anticipating the changing tactics of terrorists. as the successful decade-long search for osama bin laden

proved, america's resolve is a powerful weapon against those who would seek to destroy our way of life. mr. chairman, i appreciate the opportunity to review the gao's report with the comptroller general today, and look forward to hearing from deputy secretary lute on how dhs can better fulfill its mission. ehank you. statement, senator collins. secretary lute, welcome back. so, how long have you been at the department now? >> over two and half years. >> right. to two and a half years you've been on the scene, and the previous years you are and informed observer? >> yes, sir. thank you, chairman lieberman and ranking member collins, distinguished members of the committee for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the department's progress in keeping our nation

safe in the range of threats that we face. mr. chairman, yet michael written statement. i requested be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> i would like to highlight some of that statement here this morning, but first, mr. chairman, i would like to strike a note of remembrance of the lives in memory of those who were lost on nine 9/11 in 2001. i was in new york city that day. i will never forget it. none of us will ever forget where we were, how we felt, and how we came together as a nation determined in our resolve to never let that happen again. determined in the conviction come into court believe that this country can protect itself. and nowhere has that commitment been stronger than in this committee, mr. chairman, with you and certainly senator collins and the other members of the committee, in your steadfast support for the efforts we have been undertaking and homeland security. i would like to thank our many partners in the effort to ensure the safety and security of resilience of our nation, dhs

plays a central role in that effort but we rely on strong partnerships throughout all levels of government, law enforcement, private industry, and with the public. we do homeland security as a whole of community enterprise, and we are fortunate to have strong partners to help us meet our mission. as i mentioned, congress is an essential partner, particularly this committee has played an extraordinary role in creating and equipping dhs and the other institutions with the authorities and resources necessary to carry out programs to secure our country. you have carried for the bipartisan spirit that marked the days after 9/11, and you always help us accountable to maintain that spirit and achieve our mission. in the spirit of accountability we're also very thankful for the hard work of our partners in gao, and i say that sincerely. along with dhs's office of inspector general, gao is audited and reported on the work of the department and their work

has helped inform us as we mature and grow as an organization. as we approach this important anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we are thankful, mr. chairman, to the commitment of the american people. since 9/11 countless americans have stepped up, whether in our military in afghanistan, iraq, our other posts overseas come in a federal agencies, including the department of homeland security, in our states, cities, tribal communities, and elsewhere as first responders, law enforcement officials, as engaged citizens. i take great pride as you know in my service to the united states army for the first half of my adult life. but i'm equally proud of my service as a member of the department of homeland security. great progress has been made at the department and around the country since the department was was greeted in 2003. we are a more capable nation and a stronger nation. we can detect threats and with better information and make adjustment more quickly based on real-time intelligence.

today we know more about those who seek to enter our country, the levels of risk they might pose and what is needed to present -- prevent threat from reaching our shores. our borders are stronger enhance the more personal, technology and infrastructure, as well as with stronger partnerships with states, cities, border communities, and our international partners around the world, especially in canada and mexico. our immigration laws while in need of reform are being enforced according to commonsense priorities that we have said, which are to identify and remove criminals and those who are a threat to the american people. at the same time with strengthen our processes and systems for providing legal immigration benefits and services while ensuring the security and integrity of our immigration system. we have also greeted a framework for ensuring our cyber systems, networks and our critical infrastructure. where none previously existed as part of this effort we enhanced our ability to protect federal government networks through

better protection, recording and countermeasures. we think it's cyber users at all levels, public and private, in our shared protection and we have broadened our partnership with the private sector to protect our critical infrastructure and establish a new radio toward framework to protect high-risk chemical facilities. we have built a more regular and resilient nation that is able to confront major disasters and emergencies in our states, cities and communities. we've help front-line responders become more equipped, better trained, and more unified under a new national response framework and command system, as you have noted. we've improved emergency communications and will provide capacity building grants to support our nation's first responders. the response that ongoing recovery efforts from hurricane irene is just most recent testament to the robust capabilities that you have helped us through. we continue to integrate the department of homeland security, advancing the work that began more than eight years ago to refashion our homeland security enterprise and engage a full set

of partners in the protection of our nation. finally the department's commitment to civil rights, the thighs of liberties, fairness, equality under the law, are embodied in all of the department's programs and activities. while we have been making much progress, mr. chairman, we know we must continue to improve. as the threat against us continues to evolve, so do we. today it is an important opportunity to talk about some of our progress which gao notes in its report, and also to address some of the areas where there is more work to be done. i look forward to discussing this with you today so that we may build upon the foundation of security in place to address our future challenges, and with this committee's partnership and support, continue to protect our nation, our citizens, our freedom and our way of life. thank you very much. >> thank you, secretary lute. that will be -- i know for the record that mr. dodaro

accompanied by cathleen berrick who is the director of homeland security and justice issues that gao. good morning and please proceed. >> good morning, mr. chairman, senator collins but i'm pleased to be here today to discuss gao's report on the various homeland security issues, progress and remain issues and challenges since the 9/11 event. our report reflects a summary of the work that we've done over the last decade, and it also reflects the constructive approach we try to take in making recommendations to offer improvements and suggestions to the department. we are pleased with the department's response, although many things as senator collins mentioned are still in progress and need to be implemented. that generally i think we've had a good dialogue and its enhanced their operations. the bottom line of our record, as everyone has noted in your opening comments is that a lot of progress has been made since

9/11, and it's only been demonstrated, but there's work remaining to address gaps and weaknesses that will enable dhs to reach its full potential. now, on the progress side of the ledger we have secure flight in place, not a check against terrorist watch list and incoming passengers. we've got workforce is, 2.460 commercial airports across the country. we have a biometric entry system now in place to be able to check those people entering our borders over time. deputy secretaryished, put more luke mention. at the ports and along the borders getting resources, equipment and infrastructure in place over time. there's also the border peace and security program that's been put in place to have dhs work

along with state department and screening these applications at certain locations overseas. and we also put in an electronic authorization program for those entering under the visa waiver program that's now in place. there's also been a range of plans and assessments that have been done on maritime security surface transportation, rail, mass transit, that have been laid an important foundation for assessment of risk. also pleased that the cybersecurity's been given increased emphasis and the national infrastructure program, and as the deputy secretary pointed out, fema has issued national response framework and associated documents with that to address emergency preparedness. now, on the work remaining site, there's a number of significant issues that i'd like to highlight a few this morning. one is the needs the continuous improvement in the processes and

technologies used screening at airports including coming up with a plan to ensure that the equipment screening, checked baggage, meets the current requirements for detecting explosive devices. secondly, while we haven't -- have a very effective security system we don't have an exit system in place. i know this is a very difficult task, but the overt state issued a significant. the estimates between four and 5 million people have been made in that area. of course, as we know, fight of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 had overstayed issues. this is something that's a big challenge, but needs to be addressed going forward. we also think that the visa security program can be expanded so that dhs is working with state department on all critical high-risk areas, whether they are deployed abroad in countries

or working remotely here in the united states. but that program has a lot of potential for being strengthened. there also needs to be a practical approach to screening cargo containers before they come to the united states. dhs has some important programs underway. of course, there's the requirement for the 100% screening requirement, but there's questions about feasibility being able to do that but we need a practical approach to address the issue. also, senator collins as you mentioned, cybersecurity area we've noted that there's a need for more timely and actionable alerts to the private sector and others so they can take action over time. also, we believe fema needs to continue to work to develop some metrics and a methodology to assess jurisdictions preparedness. i think the roles have articulated, but there's really not a clear assessment of

preparedness at various jurisdictions levels get. there's also a need to effectively implement the global nuclear detection architecture, and to strengthen the abilities to detect biological agents. now, underpinning a lot of these issues is the ability at dhs to continue to work with those partners, and as deputy secretary lute mention, dhs has established those relationships. they need to continue to develop and mature, and i think they need, some cases, to meet the expectations of those partners as well. one area is in the cyber area that i mentioned, but there's also a fundamental need to continue to evolve and improve the department's management processes. this is the core of why they are on our high-risk list, as the need to develop those management infrastructure processes, both in the acquisition area in

particular, and also the development and testing of technologies before they are deployed, and also improperly accounting and property management every. i'm very please, i've had meetings with deputy secretary united states. i've talked to secretary napolitano and 13. i know they are committed to addressing these high-risk issues. they have developed a number of plants. we have an ongoing constructive dialogue to try to be as specific as possible to make recommendations to strengthen these management areas, and i think that we look forward to continuing that dialogue as they make improvements going forward. finally, i would note that another theme that we've identified is the need for continued risk based approach to these areas. and also, figuring out what works well and what departments have been doing and what's not working so well. and we've had an ongoing dialogue encouraged by this

committee on performance measures to judge dhs's performance and departments develop a number of measures and they are preparing a plan to be released shortly to talk about those issues. but i think it's terribly important as we enter this period of budget austerity, dealing with our deficit and debt issues, to really work hard to make sure that we are making the right investments and of using risk-based approaches, expanding things that are working well, and we are operating as efficiently as possible. because as all of us know, the resources won't be as abundant likely in the next, in the coming years as they have been to date. so with that, that concludes my opening statement. kathy and i will be happy to answer questions that you have about the gao were. thank you very much for your time and attention this morning. >> thank you.

those were good statements to set the groundwork. we will do seven minute rounds, so questions. let me begin with your last point, gene, and the whole question of management is not too fascinating really as it is to discuss individual programs successes, failures. but just to put in context, what we really tried to do in creating the department of homeland security was to take a lot of agencies and departments of our federal government that touched on homeland security and disaster response, and bring them together with the end of making the whole greater than the sum of the ports, to sure that the dots were all connected, et cetera, et cetera. and i think that was a worthy goal and we've achieved a lot of that. but in doing that we created a very large department, over 200,000 employees, more than 22

agencies, and federal employees that is, 200,000, and, therefore, created a very large management challenge. and the comptroller general mentions two things particularly that is contract oversight and new technologies. but to the extent that you can, let me ask you both to comment on the overall management, which is to say, what kind of progress have we made in eight years of the department's history to really bland these 22 agencies together, not that they were never all intended to become homogenized, but they were intended to work together, i think was the previous secretary, videos the current one, said to aim at dhs is to make sure that every one of the component agencies is speaking the same language in their own dialect, our own accent.

not speaking ethnically but in terms of their agency. gene, let me ask you to begin. how do you evaluate that part of the management record at dhs? >> well, i think clearly the intent of having a lot of synergies with having this collection of departments in place has been evolving and taking place. we pointed out in the past, for example, there were difficulties in coordination among many of those agencies, particularly in the law-enforcement area when they were separate energies before and had some management problems, when they were merged into dhs, and so that was one of the reasons that we put them on the high-risk list when they were formed. so i think there's been some progress in this area, and i think the framework for that progress has been in a lot of cases the plans that have been developed and required to coordination that are laying out clearly defined roles and responsibility. this is a really important

issue, not just within the department but across the federal government because they're so me players involved. and if you look at many of our recommendations that go to clarify roles and responsibilities, writing down, having procedures, and working through communication vehicles to work both within the department and across the department. so i'd say it's a work in progress, but there's been definite improvements that have been made, but there's again, attention to this area is constantly needed because of the changing threats and the changing capabilities. and after secretary lute response i'll ask you cathy has any thing else i'm sure she will add. >> secretary lute? >> thanks, mr. chairman, and thanks, jeanne, for the. i would say the first thing, mr. chairman, that we have been able to reflect is the common narrative that now exist across the 22 agencies, over the life

of the department. everyone has heard of homeland security, and people were not always sure what it meant. we are now very sure what it means. inspired and helped by the work of this committee. it means the effort to build a self secure resilient place for the american way of life can thrive. what does it take to do that? it requires we prevent terrorism, we secure our borders, we enforce our immigration laws, we ensure our cybersecurity and we build national resilience. everyone in homeland security can find themselves in these missions and in this purpose. so with the first instance, near rating out the story that was originally intended these years ago when the department was first conceived and formed and having all of the agencies relate to work that they have been doing, that they continue to do, in the context of those missions and that overarching vision. what we have to do over the course of time building on the work of those who have gone before us is continue to operate, homeland security's overwhelmingly and operating agency. every single day.

sort of the build the plane while flying it is -- gao points that out in its report. it's a huge challenge. and so the question for us as a department is how do we add value in this overarching structure in the day-to-day management of those operations? and we've done everything as gene mentioned from improve planning across the range of threats that we face, improving our information gathering and sharing across the enterprise, equipping the entire enterprise with the information that it needs, working on that front, developing the ability to do risk assessments and address threats, vulnerabilities and consequences, to mobilize the assets of the department across agencies when operations require it, as we often do in disaster response. and to work increasingly on those crosscutting areas, whether it's aviation planning for acquisition, whether it's common fitting, establishing a single point and resource to use

for the entire department across the range of getting needs that we have. and other areas like this. acquisition improving and strengthening which this committee knows well the work that we've undertaken under the undersecretary of management. so the three key areas that this committee has a right to expect the department can perform in, can we execute our missions? can we run ourselves? and can we account for the resources that have been entrusted to us in each of these areas as the gao report makes clear and the numerous ig reports as well, the department has made progress. >> thank you. do you want to enter anything? >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman that i was in the area of management the most progress has actually been in the establishment of plans. for example, if you look at acquisition management, dhs has a pretty rigorous policy in place that governs oversight of acquisition programs. very similar and infrastructure area, and affect dhs has efforts under way to improve it. i think the areas where they

need to focus, there's three primary areas. one is making sure that they have the resources in place to implement those plans. if you look across the range of the plans and our management areas, they find together resources is the number one constraint to implement them. i think the second a they should focus on is having oversight mechanisms in place to make sure that they are executing those plans as designed. we've identified a number of these areas and logistic acquisition management as an example, dhs, a number of times routinely has not followed that guidance. they haven't had the executive level oversight over major acquisition programs, have a development cost estimates in accordance with the own guidance. so they'd have those oversight mechanisms. and then finally i would say it's demonstrating progress and delivering mission capabilities that they can sustain over time. and this is where we're getting at these major acquisition

programs, being able to show they can feel these programs, because schedule and performance expectations and have an infrastructure to continue to be able to do that. >> thanks for that answer. i make two comments briefly in response. the first is on the research. i think it's a very important point. and for management, and particularly where in the middle of it right now, because we go through the process of trying to get back some kind of fiscal bows in our federal government and we're squeezing and squeezing. it's a real temptation to take money out of the management accounts of a department like dhs, because the management accounts have inherent advocates for them, hopefully we are. in other words, the programs all have constituents. the programs are the department. the management really doesn't in that sense, and the danger is

that you will get the management and the end result will be the programs will be run very well. so i think that's up to us but that's something we've got to do. the second is, thinking senator collins and i had this conversation once we were some months into the obama administration, but we are observing together that there was a kind of market test of the coherence of the department of homeland security. because at the beginning of a new administration, which was the first new administration since the department had been created, if that would have been the moment for a constituent agencies within the department to have tried a breakout, legislatively, or with a new administration, there was a little bit of a worry, not widespread and very short-lived about fema coming out of the department. so i think it was said, both the

first two secretaries and now secretary napolitano and yourself, have created a coherence to the department. in a fairly short time. at least to the extent that nobody try to get out, and you doesn't agencies that are, and i don't mean just because they couldn't standing in the department. i me because a lot of them have the constituencies of their own, and a certain amount of political muscle around here, but none of them, neither through the administration or congress tried to break we. and i think that says that for them the department is working, working as an entity. may be helping them do their job better. and maybe one thing that happened after 9/11 is that the kind of turf protection that went on before was impossible to defend after a disaster, an

attack like 9/11. and i think perhaps it's an attitude now that, you know, we better work together because god forbid something happens. we don't want the press or the congress to come at us and say, hey, you were just being parochial and not sharing information, or not cooperating with another agency, the federal government, and that's why this attack occurred. so anyway, long story to say although we have not reached the ultimate destination here, as the gao reminds us, we've come a long way in the right direction. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. dodaro, the gao has studied dhs extensively, report after report, recommendations after recommendation. so, i want to ask you a fundamental question, a question that we are going to be asked as we seek to reauthorize the

department this year. and that is, has it worked? has it made us safer as a nation? was it a good idea to bring all 22 agencies together, in terms of improving our security? what is gao's assessment in answer to that very fundamental question? >> well, i think, you know, we are definitely better prepared as a nation to address these issues. and to the extent we are better prepared, we are safer in that regard. although we need to be vigilant, we need to be alert, we need to evolve to changes. i think in terms of bringing the 22 agencies together, there are a lot of different organizational models that could have been used. that was one that was chosen to our focus has been making sure that model worked as effectively and as efficiently as possible. i think there were synergies to be gained, and i think there --

they are beginning to gel and develop over time, and so the benefits of putting those agencies together are becoming clear. i think. and with regard to the progress, i'd say the department in our view, as reflected in our report, in the missionary, they've made considerable progress. the management areas that underpin some of the developments really need additional work to be implemented properly, to help the mission, whether it's developing and acquiring new technology or looking at cost effectiveness issues and measures over time. so i think i addressed all parts of your questions, but senator collins, those are very good questions, but that's our response. >> thank you. secretary lute. i want to turn to the management challenges that both the comptroller general and ms.

berrick have mentioned today. particularly in the area of procurement. i mentioned in my opening statement that there had been a string of procurement failures. it spans both administrations. it has cost the taxpayers literally billions of dollars. and equally troubling, it's delay the deployment of much-needed technology and equipment. he is just a partial list. t. h. -- ths determines that the explosives trace detectors, that puffers machines that we saw for a while at the airport did not work in a real-world environment. they worked fine in the lab but not at the airports. there was the advanced portal, which dnd element to deploy before proper testing and evaluation had been completed.

there have been two major consolidated financial data system failures. that emerged to system, $52 million was spent before the project was canceled. the transformation and systems consolidation project was abandoned this year in may. after multiple protest and gao ruling against dhs, a lot of money spent, and this one in particular is very frustrating to me because senator mccaskill and i repeatedly wrote to secretary napolitano. we received written personal assurances that the task initiative was critical. it was on track. we were assured the soundness of the programs lifecycles cost estimates. and yet it's abandoned.

the sbinet program canceled by the administration after programmatic failure. even the coast guard, one of my favorite adcs in london, very well run, had extraordinary problems for a while with its deepwater programs because of a failed lead system integrator relationship with the government. in july of this year the dhs ig issued a report that found that the apartment had not leveraged its collective buying power across the department, and thus was paying literally billions more than needed, than it needed to. that's not a great record in the area of procurement. so, my question to you is, what is the department doing to better define requirements up front, which is one of the major

problems, to ensure real-world testing and evaluation? and to ensure that we don't have these string of failures continue into the future. >> senator, as you know and i testified before this committee before uncertain acquisitions, this has been an area where we have been working diligently to improve our record and our practice. we have canceled nonperforming programs. that's true. and we have had other challenges in our procurement process but we have addressed them. in looking copperheads of it at the acquisition process and tailoring a program and planning within that process that meets the needs of the department, which largely although not exclusively resides in the service, the acquisition of services and important technologies to facilitate our operations at the border and at

airports and across the homeland security enterprise. we work in three key areas in the area of procurement. first, on requirements. let me use, for example, aviation requirements. i now chair a committee composed of members across the department, principally with cbp and the coast guard to look at our aviation assets and are aviation fleet, leading toward the reestablish of a joint requirements board so that we can sensibly prioritize what we need in terms of air fleets, the air solutions that are not only the most economical but the most effective operationally first and foremost. we have improved the process of cost estimates that has often been demoed procurement at every stage. net on the acquisition of items in particular but the sustainability costs which are intrinsic to understand the lifecycle of those acquisitions as well. and we've taken a number of steps to strengthen our procurement workforce, you're familiar -- very for me with

nostalgia a two-part wide training program under our head of procurement, enhancing our internship program. we recently have 60 graduates of the program and we are training more, and establishing an acquisition corps for our senior personnel so that they understand their responsibility in the acquisition process. importantly in this regard, and something i also know that you and i are interested income is the intersection of the operators with the procurers. it makes actually no sense to go down a path along tortured path of procurement without having another sensibility introduce every step of the way. do we know what we need? are we considering alternatives for what operation we worked? and a we testing it in an operational environment? all of these are areas where we have made strong improvements and will continue to do so. >> is this an area, mr. comptroller general, where the department has to show more progress and control before gao

will remove the department from its high-risk list? >> yes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator collins, thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing, important hearing, updating us on the progress and implementing the department of homeland security. this is especially significant as we reflect on the last 10 years, since the terrible events that led to the department's creation. my subcommittee has held several hearings on efforts to reform and improve management of dhs, which is vital to executing its mission here the department has made a great deal of progress,

but as we've heard from gao, the important work is not yet finished. again, mr. chairman, thank you for this hearing, and i will have a few questions of you, ms. lute. and i would like to ask general dodaro also, i'd like to hear your thoughts on this issue as well. as you know, the entire federal government, including dhs, has experienced and will continue to face budget reductions. this has caused delays in consolidating dhs's headquarters and forced reductions in the management directory. please discuss the challenges dhs faces and effectively

executing its mission to protect the nation in this budget environment. >> thank you, senator. we are all facing those challenges. we have articulated though that within the budget guidelines, as articulated by the president, the priority for us of course are the five missionaries that we see as essential to homeland security. repenting another terrorist attack such as we saw on 9/11, that is job one for us. ..

we will also continue to prioritize the integration of the department and the management of the department. there are some, no one on this committee, i'm proud to say, has ever suggested that somehow the management has suffered. we are one department. the entire department is operational, and we will continue to prioritize our ability to execute our mission to run ourselves and to account for the resources we are given. >> thank you. i would like to hear from you on this as well. this gao report is based on observations over the past several years at d.h. yes. in the last year the department's budgetary outlook has dramatically changed.

based on your work, are you concerned that budgetary challenges will reverse any of the recent management progress at dhs? >> i think it largely depends on how dhs can implement its mission in the most cost-effective manner. i . out several areas i think are critical. one is in the acquisition area, about 40 percent of the department's budget. so it is very important that the acquisitions be carried out according to their plans. as jeanne outlined, they have a lot of efforts underway to try to improve that acquisition. it is very important in that i t area, for example, right now 46 projects and a little over $3 billion in need of significant management attention according to their approach. secondly, i think they need to use the assessments that they

have done on a risc based approach to make sure that they are integrated into the plan. beginning to do that more and more, but in order to be cost-effective you have to use your risk assessment more effectively. thirdly, as i pointed out in my opening statement, the performance measures, what is working and what is not working is critical if you're going to target your resources on areas that are in need of greater improvement or to make sure that your financing things that are producing the right types of results in those areas. lastly, the financial management systems are still in need of reform. and if you're going to operate in a cost-effective manner, you need good accounting and good management processes. all of those things can help them deal in a more cost-effective manner. critical in this time of budgetary challenges. >> thank you. dhs has committed to an powering

the agricultural mission of bp with the structure and authorities at all levels necessary for success. i am concerned that unless we fully accomplish this important goal, all efforts to safeguard american agriculture will continue to fall short. in my home state of the invasive species have the potential to cause economic and environmental catastrophe. i plan to introduce a bill to reinforce the efforts of dhs to strengthen agricultural inspections. my question to you is, will you commit to work with congress to make sure see dp is fully

empowered and held accountable for effective agriculture inspection? >> i will, senator. >> thank you very much. last year the department released its high risk management strategy, which i think is an important step further dhs to come off the high risk list. however, gao reports that this plan has not been fully implemented. my question is, what more needs to be done to implement the high risk strategy, and are there any values preventing implementation? >> thank you, senator. we have made getting ourselves off of the rest a priority from a management point of view. very pleased to say we have been working closely with the team to

identify what we actually need to do. gao has given us a detailed view on what it takes to get off of the high risk list, and we have responded with an equally detailed plan for executing those steps. we have been working closely together. so i think we are on track. we have issued one report on progress. we will issue another in december, and we are going to continue to march along this track until we succeed. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. good morning. >> thank you. thank you for having this hearing today, and i appreciate all of our witnesses being here. let me start, if i may, with you, secretary. according to gao one reason dhs has missed opportunities to optimize performance across its missions is a lack of reliable

performance information or assessment of existing information. that concerns me. how has dhs tried to address this problem? what are you doing to try to fix it? >> it concerns me as well, senator, and we have made an identifying metrics a priority for us. we have been working, as i mentioned, with gao on a range of areas to improve processes so that we can have a fact-based understanding of how we are executing and the affect our operations are having. this is across the mission areas and components within dhs. and so including very pragmatic metrics for understanding the effectiveness of our emergency response in vienna, border protection, ice, cis and immigration services and tsa.

>> also, since you mentioned different parts of your mission, let me ask about fema. what are you all doing to improve financial management practices pat fema? >> the administrator is very committed to this, as am i., and we are looking across the range of operations fema engages with both on the prepared this and response sides. and i share, for example, a department wide task force to look at the administration of grants, for example, to streamline processes, improve accountability, and, frankly, improve the overall performance of the grant program as well. but across fema the commitment of management is the commitment that we have in the department's for responsive, timely, effective accountability for the resources that have been given to us in the context of delivery

of the affected operations. >> is gao compatible with the progress being made on financial management? >> basically we remain concerned about financial management. you know, we look across the federal government's, and there are only four agencies right now that are not able to obtain a clean opinion on their consolidate financial statements. dhs and the department of defense are two of the largest in the list of four. there have been a couple efforts to try to get an integrated financial management system in. most of the problems are in the coast guard area, property accountability at tsa. so i think the department is trying to get a good plan together in that area. we are going to be evaluating that to see if they make the necessary improvements, but it is one of the critical areas and

reasons for why they are on the high-risk list. we will continue to give them advice on how to move forward and fix the problems. >> let me ask this. since it is a relatively new department, it seems to me when it got started there would have a chance, a clean slate. the operations down the way they should be and not inherit a lot of issues and challenges from the other agencies and areas that existed before they were brought under the umbrella. is it because they didn't set it up the right way? tell us what the origin of this problem is. >> the origin started, and i'll have kathy elaborate if she would like, but basically they inherited the 22 departments. a lot of them had their own definitions and requirements and systems and methods. so while it presented an opportunity to start fresh, it also presented a challenge because you did inherit a lot of the problems and concerns.

we had mentioned early on in our report reflects more progress in the mission and management area. over time we were concerned about management from day one. we put them on the high-risk list the day they started operations in 2003, and we have always advocated for more management oversight. eventually the undersecretary for management position was created, and that position is now filled. so i think, senator, there was an opportunity. in the early days there was not enough focus on taking advantage, but they also inherited a lot of problems and a lot of challenges. they're working their way through those still. >> do you have a comment? >> thank you. in addition to inheriting legacy problems from different components, just by the nature that these are disparate systems among the components that are not integrated together is a

challenge in and of itself because the systems cannot speak to each other and at the department level senior leaders don't have the ready access to financial information that they otherwise would have with an integrated financial management system. i think it is both the inheriting existing problems and also just the fact that these are disparate systems that don't work well together. >> are they accurately trying to address and fix those problems? >> they are trying to do that through the development of the integrated financial system. a couple of attempts that they have not been successful at so far, but they are working toward that as their goal. >> how much money does that cost to try to integrate a financial system? >> over a billion dollars has been devoted. >> already? >> yes. >> ms. >> the only thing i would add is that is one component. we have made steady progress toward the goal of a clean audit, which is anyone's aspiration. we have gone from the over 18

reportable conditions down to six. we are on track to make even further progress this year and look to do so. >> thank you. that's all i have. >> thank you. senator. >> thank you. welcome. it is good to see you. three questions. the first with a clean audit. and the second with put a clean audit and the third with a clean audit. feel pretty well. let me just ask, are you encouraged by the progress being reported by the deputy secretary? should we be encouraged? >> yes. i think basically the department is committed to trying to make progress in this area. as has been mentioned, the number of witnesses are coming down, but they still have some challenges. they have set some aggressive targets to my belief, for giving

an opinion on a consolidated balance sheet for 2011 and to try to get an unqualified opinion or clean opinion by 2014. i think those are aggressive targets. those will be the benchmarks as to whether they are successful and not. they are focused on it, but they they really need to focus on improving their systems, underlying systems as well. recover from a couple of efforts that have resulted in success. >> successful and that. one department as an allied air. >> one major department would be the department of defense. >> as an aside, have you had a chance to meet? the early part of august with the secretary panetta who indicated that the idea of waiting until 2017 to reach that goal and then maybe hearing from some of these folks that is,

they won't make that goal. what he said to me, the same thing. i would like to meet that goal rather than sliding it further. sometimes it is good to have somebody with the committee chairman. was he go in be chief of staff? he has done it all. i welcome member to these issues. very much welcome. >> yesterday we were -- and other hearing. as you may know, some of you folks were here. the issue, the path forward on the postal service and how we help them help themselves get back on track. i describe the situation as dire, but not without hope. one of the questions that is before us, and i know it is not the subject of this hearing, but i want to ask what you are here. the reason to believe that the postal service has overpaid its obligation into the civil service retirement system to the

ten as 50, maybe $75 billion over paid the amount that they hope to the federal employee retirement system by maybe $7 million or so. we had yesterday one witness along with a group have done independent audits to determine what is the validity of the overpayment and has there really been an overpayment. the postal service alleges. both said, yes, we think there has been an overpayment from at least 50 to as much as $75 billion. the administration is not buying that yet, and discussion, the head of opium was here to talk about that. we asked the witness from gao if it would be willing to come in and look at the records to find out whether or not they are valid. we need that kind of direction. the good housekeeping stamp of

approval from gao would be helpful as we try to the move the postal service to dig out of the whole therein and return to profitability. is that something you could help us with, we would be most grateful. >> definitely, senator. we will be able to do that. we have an actuary, chief actuary gao that will be integral to figuring out the status. we will do that. i understand the testing, and we will deliver that. as you know, the postal service is also on our high risk list because of the financial condition situation. we would be happy to do that. >> thank you. i don't know. my first three questions have already been addressed. i will turn to the fourth. cyber security. a lot of interest. with the help of staff i have done good work. it is hard to get anything passed around here, but we have

done good work. the administration has done good work on this front. over the last ten years, as you know, we witnessed an evolving the threat that has required the department, your department and other agencies to constantly be thinking about tomorrows threat. i'd like to say we are pretty good at three fighting the last war and not always good at looking at the horizon and preparing to fight the next war. the idea that this could very well likely be the next war. on the cyber security front. nowhere is this more evident than the world of seven security where threats can change almost daily and weekly without a whole lot of notice. gao has noted much of the good work that your department has undertaken in this area. gao has also stated that homeland security needs to better secure internet connections at federal agencies and more pirelli shares cyber

security information with the private secretary. madam secretary, i understand that the department of homeland security has a program called einstein that is helping federal agencies detect and prevent cyber intrusion. i would ask you to discuss the steps the department of homeland security is taking to integrate programs like einstein across the government and what additional authorities, resources, or staffing you need to be more effective. my colleagues, i like to "albert einstein from time to time who once said, in a diversity lies opportunity. we have plenty of adversity in the world. hopefully some opportunity as well. maybe this can be part of that. but you proceed. >> thank you very much, senator. there certainly is opportunity. the department -- and this is an area where i have been spending a lot of my time lately, as we

have. we have called it out as one of the five essential missions of homeland security. we can all agree that the status quo is not acceptable. there are intrusions, threats that we have to address. cyberspace is an environment where offense winds, and we have to change that. our vision is one of distributed security where we have smart machines and users supported by intelligent networks that identified threats, hopefully before they occur, that prevent them, and that cultivate a community and sensibility of cyber hygiene that is pervasive throughout the united states and indeed throughout the internet because we are so interconnected. einstein specifically is a program we have, as you know, which is designed to prevent intrusions. 84 percent deployed in terms of capability right now. federal agencies and offices have a number of things that they have to do as well to bring

their traffic behind einstein to ensure they take advantage of the deployment of this technology, and we are working with them. i had a meeting -- i attended a meeting that consisted of all the department deputies and chief operating officers. i spoke to them about how what they can do to ensure that their agencies are taking the steps necessary to organize their traffic behind the einstein protections. there are other things as well what is on your network? how is a permission traveling? who is using? do they have the appropriate levels of access? there is a pyramid of measures that is, perhaps, one way to think of it. on top of which is einstein, only a part of the puzzle necessary to insure security. also working closely with the department of defense and industries. again, our vision is to have an environment of distributed security at utilizes all of the

assets of this country in protecting ourselves in cyberspace. >> if i could, the last part of my question was what additional resources were staffing you need, additional authorities to be more effective. >> that budget that was submitted reflects specifics and a number of those areas. we can address this in a stand alone, if you would like. we have also been working with omb, and there has been a proposal sent to the hill regarding ways to strengthen our ability. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. we will do a second round up to seven minutes apiece. thank you for hanging in there with us. i wanted to ask you about a particular part of the department that the committee was anxious in the creation of the department to put in, and that is the science and

technology section. you know, our hope had been, a lot of this happen to be on the armed services committee, that we could develop within and four homeland security something like darpa. over the time of the department of overall it has appeared to me that the scientific technology has been below what our hopes were. my impression is that it is doing better now. i wonder if either of you would like to comment on that. >> at a guy would say at the outset that science and technology is a key part of the department. our ability to innovate and make use of end to end solutions, not just the particular piece of technology is a task that was given. it has very able leaders. integrating every aspect of our

mission performance working directly with components to ensure we have a systems approach and are making best use of technology within the context of an overall systems solution. we also have a very robust cooperation with the other departments, notably the department of defense, looking to learn on such things as tunnel technology. critical and important and remains a priority and certainly for the secretary. >> have you had any overview of s and t? what is your sense of it? >> i would agree that they have been slower in making progress in the s&t area. i would agree that there is a framework in place right now, i think, for the office to be successful. they put in additional policies, created additional units within s&t to support efforts like test

and evaluation brought the department that i think will strengthen the foundation of that office and able some successes. two areas i would mention related to s&t that need continued focus is resources. we did work looking at the test and evaluation function of s&t and found that they were low in terms of resources and it inhibited the out reached that they could perfect -- perform with components and supporting testing efforts. the second area that could require focus in s&t is coordination within the department. we found that sometimes s&t would be pursuing technology without effectively coordinating with that end users of those technologies to make sure that what they were developing were meeting needs. a quick example is the cars program that was being designed to detect shielded nuclear material and cargo in vehicles.

dhs ultimately decided to stop that program after learning that s&t was working on developing a system that was not going to fit within primary inspection lanes. i think that is an example of the internal coordination. >> another one is the so-called virtual assurance. my impression is that there wasn't much interaction with customs and border protection in the development of that. >> we did find that as a concern. cbp input on operationally how it was working, challenges they were facing was not always fully considered, at least in decisions that were made related to the program. >> okay. that is one area i want to keep an eye on because it has tremendous potential both to avoid the kind of problems that were cited in terms of new technologies being introduced. the second, of course, is more affirmative which is to, as we

have seen with darpa, to leverage fadel -- federal money with private innovation an opera aria shipped to create new technologies that will more effectively protect our homeland and also, hopefully, as in the case of darpa, have remarkable spinoffs into the commercial applications that will create a lot of economic activity. ..

>> to use the term violence extremism. but i want to focus on a different aspect of it. we also didn't see in the report a clear allocation or designation of authority. in other words, who's in charge, in a lot of different departments should be involved in interacting affirmatively with the muslim-american community to gain their assistance and education and noticing the lone wolf, potential global behavior, coordinating a lot of the law enforcement education, et cetera. i know the national counterterrorism center interestingly has been doing some of that. i can't say since that originated this committee, we had that kind of function in mine. it does seem to me, i don't, the

white house i suppose has a natural overview which might suggest that it should oversee the response or the prevention of homegrown terrorism. but has so much that is in the white house now. i wonder whether this is something that dhs should begin to play a more active role in. i just wanted to give you an opportunity, as never look back at this decade, for to the next decade and seeing homegrown terrorism rising as a threat, what you think about dhs's record here and what it might do in the years ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we certainly have been playing a very active role, the presidents policies that will now emphasizes three things. first, we need to understand more about what generates this threat and how it promulgates into the community. secondly, we need to engage communities more, break down barriers that isolate them and

engaged and understand them, create pathways of dialogue and understanding and outraged. third, equally as important, if not more so, strengthened the hand of law enforcement to be able to stop violent extremism in its tracks. this is something law enforcement, they prevent crimes all the time quite effectively and we need to equip them with information and tools that they need to address this nature of crime as well. so the department worked very closely with the department of justice, the fbi, the white house and other agencies. we meet regularly on this. we meet as a smoker. i meet with my counterparts on exactly this question about how in each of these areas in terms of understand the threat, sharing information, breaking down barriers that isolate communities and strengthened the hand of law enforcement, we are doing every day to a dress this threat. >> to me those are the right goals. so who would you say is in charge now of that effort our behalf of the federal

government? >> under the leadership of the present of the white house, this is coming together but the work is distributed as so much is in homeland security. >> that i understand but again there has to be somebody who is in charge to keep driving it. so would you say it's a national security council? >> i would say that it is. it is a working system. again, i meet with my counterparts in the department of justice and the fbi and nctc regularly on the subject. there's work going on in each of those. >> we will come back to the. i think you. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to reemphasize what the chairman just said. the strategy produced by the white house does not clearly a sign the responsibility to an individual who we can hold accountable, whose progress we can measure. and i still don't hear that from you. you keep talking about well, we work together, there are all these agencies involved.

that's not adequate. we need to have a leader of this effort, and i hope you will relate that. we are continuing to push on that as well. i want to switch to some other issues in my remaining time. the recent hurricanes and natural disasters in this country have reminded us of the importance of ensuring that people are notified as quickly as possible when a natural disaster is looming. early warning can make a huge difference in saving lives and property, and that's why i've been working hard on a bill that would strengthen the nation's public alert and warning system. i would like to ask your assessment, and gao may have

something to add on this as well, as far as where are we in using smart technology, so that we are not just relying on the crawl, on a television screen, the emergency alert that comes across, since many people are not going to of televisions on? but instead, we are using phones, we are using social networking sites, we are using tools that are more likely to reach more people. >> thank you, senator. the public alert and warning system now currently reaches about 78% of the population. we have a number of initiatives in play, particularly aimed at making progress this year, rolling out the commercial mobile alert system, for example, in new york and d.c., and having the first ever national level test of the

emergency alert system as well. so we are absolutely committed to making use of modern technology, social media, to give people accurate and timely information. because we know that in a crisis, particularly, information is a commodity and its essential to inform individuals and capable communities. >> doesn't gao have anything to add to that? >> we have not looked at this issue, senator collins. it's certainly an important issue and i know we are dealing with it ourselves and communicate our own results our own reports so it's important that emergencies, we be happy to take a look at this in the future. >> thank you. secretary lute, i want to talk to you about an issue that is related to the homegrown terrorism threat. and that is the insider threat. certainly the major hasan? was an example of the insider threat. in a report that was released by

gao earlier this year, gao took a look at the twig program, the transportation worker identification credential that is used for access to our seaports. and its findings were disturbing us in terms of protecting us from the insider threat. first, gao found that tsa's background checking process is not even designed to detect fraud. in other words, gao found that would be easier to obtain a twic card with fraudulent documents and a driver's license. that is very disturbing. second, gao criticized the process is not providing an ongoing check. in other words, once the worker

receives a twic card, he or she has that twic card for an in depth time, even if there's a subsequent information or conviction, or something that would cause a twic card to be revoked, one would hope. what steps has the dhs taken to remedy these critical flaws in the twic program? >> senator, we share the concern about the insider threats, and though that is when we have to stay constantly vigilant year and this involves not only those of us in the federal government but also, for example, in our critical infrastructure, having programs in place in the private sector so we know who is working in these facilities, and that they are trustworthy for the responsibilities that they been given. twic covers about 2 million workers and we have run a number of pilots to ensure that we can

strengthen the system with respect to not only the technology but the reliability of the system, end to end. in this regard, the ongoing check is something we're looking at depart wide. because as we've learned, for example, in the case of abdulmutallab on the 1225 bombing attempt, that we have to have an ongoing check of these holders, for example, and other credential holders. and i chair and intradepartmental examination of a common fitting platform to bring together all of our bedding capabilities, and he can deploy them in real time to give agriculture and to ensure we have the requirements, fully enhance prevent fraud and other abuses. >> in that regard, that reminds me of the bowling green, kentucky, case, where two suspects have been arrested. one of those fingerprints allegedly were in a database.

that should have been checked before the individual was granted asylum, and admitted to this country. the chairman and i have read you a letter with a number of detailed questions since the information that was provided at the hearing will be explored this issue proved to be inaccurate. wing do you anticipate that the department will complete its review? of how in the world this could happen, that an individual whose fingerprints were on ie keys used to attack our soldiers in iraq, was granted asylum and a loud to be a resident of this country. >> we expect that shortly, but importantly we have taken a number of steps to ensure that that can't happen again. we have expanded out engagement of databases, working closely with dod to take a finish of the databases of individuals that

they hold it and again, this is part of our common vetting examination to strengthen the system over all. finally, i want to ask you about the department's progress in dealing with chemical biological, radiological and nuclear threats. this is an issue that we have held several hearings on in the past that gao has also examined. and what gao found, to act with the conclusions, investigations, that there was poor cooperation between dhs and the department of health and human services in assessing the risk. in particular, it is of great concern that the bio watch program, under the bio watch program, a threat agent may not be identified until more than a

day after it is released. what is being done to improve coordination between dhs and hhs in this area? and also, when do you anticipate that the next generation, a more sensitive bio watch system, will be deployed? >> thank you, senator. again, here we think that we make progress continually with the other agencies in this regard, and for example, it does effectively integrate the information of art and warning and response on multiple attacks or pandemics in the biosphere as well. as you know, the work that we have done, for example, on the domestic -- on the global nuclear architecture is generating work on implementation plan to further develop our cooperation with other agencies in identifying

threats to the homeland and responsibility for early action to defeat those threats. so, on 103 specifically to answer your question, this is a party for the department. one that we are making continual progress toward and we believe that it will substantially reduce the response time in the detection of dangerous pathogens into learning appropriate responses. >> but when? what's the timetable? >> so, i can get back with you, senator, on the specifics of that, but this is a program we have in place, and as a priority for the department. >> if the chairman would indulge me just one final question on the kentucky case, which really disturbs me. can you assure us today that the department has reviewed the files of every iraqi national

who was admitted under that program to ensure that there was proper vetting, including matching fingerprints with databases in possession of the department of defense? >> it is my understanding that every person under the program has been vetted. i will confirm that it complies with the question as you have asked it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks. i just want to ask one more brief question. it's about the saint elizabeth campus project. the last time i looked at the stats, the department, and we talked about its management and coordination, was spread through 70 buildings and 40 sites in the national capital region. and, of course, that's what motivated the plan to coordinate and collect as many of those as we could on the saint elizabeth

campus. i know the next building, if i'm not mistaken, the next step would be to bring the 10 operations centers of the department together. so, we are in tough budgetary times. president delayed some of the projects in his budget. the senator appropriations homeland security i think has cut about a third, or down to about a third, has appropriated a third of what the president asked for, and the house has cut all the money out for saint elizabeth's. how important, how bad will that be for the improved management of the department? i would ask you, secretary. and i don't know if you've done this or if it's even possible, but gene, is it possible to make a judgment, ms. berrick, about the cost effectiveness of not building -- i don't know whether it's possible to evaluate what caused the department being spread out as to its budget, but go ahead, secretary.

>> as you know there's a wisdom and consolidating departments to reduce the transaction time and engagement, but also to facilitate coordination, dialogue information sharing as well. and we remain committed, we remain of that you that this is an important step in the development and evolution of the department. >> anything to add, gene? >> well, there certainly would be challenges to try to come up with the exact quantification. one of the things that we could do is look at the departments business case for the consolidation and offer our thoughts on that. >> i would welcome that, if you could. >> short. >> thank you. thanks to the three of you for being here. i mean, over all, obviously i'm certain, almost parental or sort of assess of interest in this department because we were privileged to be there to help

in its creation. so, we would like to think it has helped. i do think both the record and independent evaluations over the years, and the summer you've offered here as we approach the 10th commemoration of 9/11 says the department of homeland security has made a difference. and again, it's not an accident that we haven't had a major attack on us succeed. do we have more work to do? of course we do. i did also say, what if you mentioned this, that a different kind of country after 9/11 would become much more like a police state. and i suppose there are people who feel that at different times someone's civil liberties are compromised. i think overall our record is remarkable. i say that also to say that in a country as big, open and free as we are, and we want to remain always as open and free as we are, we're never going to achieve 100% security. but we've come, we are a lot

better, a lot more toward that goal, and we should always aspire to the goal that we were on 9/11. and it's thanks to the leadership of the department over these two administrations, and literally hundreds of thousands of men and women who have worked for the department. working with other, with colleagues in other departments, department of defense, intelligence, nctc, et cetera. so it's a spirit of gratitude, and confidence that both gao and this committee will continue to push to get as close to 100% as we possibly can. senator collins, and do you want to add anything? thanks very much. we will keep the record open for 15 days for additional questions and answers. again, thank you. hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> and now live to the senate floor. senators are just returning from their weekly party lunches this afternoon. they will continue working on legislation overhauling the patent system and take time to pay tribute to former oregon senator, who passed away earlier this month. women also see a resolution of disapproval over raising the debt ceiling. and now live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i was going to be recognized later on but seeing as we're in a quorum call i'll seek the floor now and -- i see the senator from oregon so i'll read to him. i was going to speak about senator hatfield.

mr. wyden: i appreciate the chairman's graciousness. i know you have a markup at 3:00 and i'd be pleased to have you go first and then we'll start. mr. leahy: i thank the senior senator from oregon. mr. president, let me speak a little bit about mark hatfield. those of house knew mark really thought the world of him. i had an opportunity to know him, to serve with him, for 23 years i served with him in the senate, and i do rise to pay tribute to mark as a dedicated public servant, a respected lawmaker. the man not only i was proud to call my friend but i think virtually everybody serving during that time, republican or democrat alike considered him a friend. he dedicated nearly his entire life to public service. he served in the u.s. navy in world war ii, he took part in the battles of iwo jima and

okinawa. he taught political science in oregon at willamette college for seven years, served in the oregon state legislature, served two terms as governor, and i remember him smiling when somebody would see him on -- in the corridors and call him governor. then he became oregon's longest serving senator. he served five terms in the u.s. senate. unfortunately --, excuse me. unfortunately, mark was one of a dying breed in politics today. he was an old fashioned senator, political moderate. he came from a brand that included names like bob stafford and george akin, both from vermont. because oregon like my state prizes independence in elected officials. he was certainly never afraid to buck his party for his opposition to the war in

vietnam, to his early support for the endangered species act, the federally protected wilderness, he showed us all he was ruled only by the people of oregon and his conscience. a true compassion for people drove many of mark's decisions. after being one of the first american servicemen to see the destruction of hiroshima following the atomic bombing he later declared his limp in the campaign to pass the 1987 nuclear weapons testing ban, one of his major accomplishments. having a father with alzheimer's disease and other members with cancer, mark became one of the strongest advocates of federal spending on research in the senate. spending eight years as chairman of the appropriations committee, mark hatfield did an amazing

amount for his good state of oregon, we now see the differences he's made. senator hatfield was always known for his courteousness. despite his independent streak, he had complete respect on both sides of the aisle. i more than once i was there, and my two colleagues from oregon would know this, when people would come up to him and call him st. mark. it is important to remember that despite the squabbling that goes on in washington these days, there are colleagues who care deeply about their colleagues and their state. on a personal note, mr. president, when i came to the senate, i was number 99 in the senate. actually there were only 99 of us in the senate because there had been a tied race in new hampshire. i was the junior-most sitting way over in the corner seat.

and several of the more senior senators reminded me how junior i was. i received a handwritten note which i still have from a senator who wrote "when i came to the senate, i was number 99. but you move up. you move up quickly in seniority. he said my door is always open to you and let me know what i can do to help." that senator was mark hatfield. we became friends from that moment. i did go to him for advance. my wife and i traveled with he and antoinette to numerous parts of the world. i can remember the laughter on the plane. we were talking about everything from children to politics to sports; whatever. what a wonderful person. he was a public servant. he was a statesman. he was a friend. i consider myself fortunate to have known him, but especially to have served with him. this senate was a better place

with mark hatfield. i yield the floor, and i thank my distinguished colleague from oregon for his courtesy. mr. wyden: mr. president, let me, before he leaves the floor -- the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. before he leaves the floor, let me thank senator leahy for those kind and gracious thoughts. i know senator hatfield was very fond of you as well. you have, i think, represented his values very well today, and i thank you for those remarks. mr. leahy: i would ask that my remarks follow the two senators from oregon. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, my home state of oregon has many towering and majestic places, such as our iconic mt. hood and our beautiful state tree, the

douglas fir. senator mark o. hatfield, who passed away on august 7, stood head and shoulders above all of them. last night the senate passed senate resolution 257, a resolution in respect of the memory of senator hatfield. this afternoon senator merkley and i, with colleagues of both parties, would like to reflect on the extraordinary legacy of our special friend, senator mark hatfield. mr. president, for me, senator hatfield's passing this summer, just as it seems that the congress has become embroiled in a never-ending series of divisive and polarizing debates

and battles, drove home that senator hatfield's approach to government is now needed more than ever in our country. senator hatfield was the great reconcileer. he was proud to be a republican with strongly-held views. yet, he was a leader who when voices were raised and doors were slammed and problems seemed beyond solution, senator mark o. hatfield was one who could bring democrats and republicans together. he'd look at all of us, smile and always start by saying, "now, colleagues," and then he would graciously and calmly lay

out how on one issue or another -- i see my friend, senator cochran, here from mississippi, who knows this so well from their work together on appropriations. it might one day be a natural resources question, might one day be a budget issue or health issue or education issue. but senator hatfield had this extraordinary ability to allow both sides to work together so that an agreement could be reached where they could secure some of the principles that they felt strongly about. they wouldn't get them all, but they would get a number of them. and that, of course, is the key to what is principled

bipartisanship. now, it was not very long ago, it seems, when senator hatfield walked me down that center aisle when i had the honor of being selected oregon's first new united states senator in almost 30 years. and i remember coming to the senate, a new senator, and watching senator hatfield at work. sometimes he would be with senator kennedy and a big flock of the senate's leading progressives. and sometimes he would shuttle over to visit with senator dole and a big group of conservatives. and somehow the public interest was addressed. and the question then becomes how did he do it? what was the hatfield approach

all about? to me, senator hatfield was religious but he was never intolerant. he was idealistic but he was never naive. he was willing to stand alone, but never one to grandstand. but it was not his public life that shaped his pwhrefp and his principles. -- his belief and his principles. those were forged in the most hellish of places: world war ii and the pacific. as a landing craft officer in the united states navy, senator hatfield witnessed firsthand the battles at iwo jima and okinawa. he was one of the first americans to see the devastating effects of the atomic bombing of hiroshima. later he served in french indo-

china where he saw economic disparities that would later lead to war in southeast asia. those images remained with him throughout his life, acting as a touchstone for his belief that the world should be a safer and more peaceful place. it was senator hatfield's belief, those beliefs that served as the foundation for his career in the senate and for his opposition to the vietnam war and to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. so senator hatfield was a major player on the national stage. at the same time he never forgot our home state or strayed very far from his approach of trying to bring people together. i see our friend, senator alexander, on the floor who's also had a lot of experience on natural resources issues. and i can tell my friends on

both sides of the aisle, that watching senator hatfield champion the need for family-wage jobs in the forest products sector while at the same time being a champion of environmental protections of wilderness areas and scenic rivers was really a classroom in the effort to come up with sound public policy. when colleagues come to our home state, they'll have an opportunity to go to the columbia river gorge, a special treasure. we had a big anniversary recently. senator merkley and i were there. that never could have happened without that unique ability of senator hatfield to bring people together. and he went into every nook and cranny of our state, communities that barely were bigger than a flyspeck. and he would make their roads better and their schools better

and their health care better again by bringing people together. so i know colleagues are waiting, and i would simply wrap up by saying that my state has lost a great son. the united states senate has lost one of its former giants. our nation has lost a man who represented honesty and decency in public service. and i will never ever forget how much senator hatfield has meant to my home state of oregon. mr. president, i would yield. i note that senator merkley is here, who's been one of senator -- served as one of senator hatfield's interns. senator alexander and senator cochran. and i think we have through the graciousness of senator reid and senator mcconnell time for all our colleagues.

i yield to senator alexander. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask my brief remarks be printed in the record following the remarks of the senator from oregon. i thank senator merkley for allowing me to go now. mark hatfield was elected to the senate in 1966. he was a distinguished class that included some prominent republicans, sort of a new wave in the republican party. in addition to governor hatfield, former two-term governor, there was charles percy of illinois, the former president of bell and howell. there was ed brock of massachusetts, the first african-american popularly elected to the united states senate. also in that republican class were cliff hanson, a prominent rancher from wyoming and a young man who was the son-in-law of the then-republican leader everett dirksen, howard h. baker jr. i hitched a ride with howard baker to washington, d.c.? that year and went to work as baker's legislative assistant in 1967

and of course had a chance to meet senator hatfield. at that time there was less space for senators even than there is today, and so new senators were put in rooms with each other. for example, senator baker and senator brooke and all their staffs were put in a single room separated only by partitions. well, they got along with that for six months, but senator hatfield didn't like it very much. after all, he had been a governor for two terms and wasn't used to being treated in that way. he was polite about it, as he always was. but soon he made a mission. he went around the senate in the capitol and he counted up all the rooms that then-senator james eastland of mississippi had taken to himself. he found 34 different rooms that were assigned to senator eastland and only half a room was assigned to hatfield. and senator hatfield then reported to the republican

conference that eastland had 34 rooms and that even apparently someone was living in one of the rooms because someone from the restaurant associates was putting a tray of food outside the door of this room in the capitol and every morning two arms would come out and bring the food in. this was senator hatfield's first report to the united states senate. i saw him about 25 years later when he was chairman of the appropriations committee, had a lot of power, and i said senator hatfield, how many rooms do you have now? he just smiled. my guess is he probably had 34. but what i remember about senator hatfield as a very young aide was how unfailingly courteous he always was to every single person. if you caught his attention, you had his full attention. it's easy to see why he was elected to the senate for 30 years. it's easy to see why he won 11 elections. of course the other reason he was so interesting, he was a

baptist. he was a libertarian. he was a great friend of billy graham. he was pro-life not just on abortion, but on the death penalty as well. he was antiwar. he was antibalanced budget. he was an interesting, independent, decent man. soy simply -- so i simply want to say from the vantage point of someone who serves today in the united states senate what an impression this man from oregon made on a 26-year-old young aide to howard baker in 1967. i remember him for his courtesy, for his decency and for his independence. i thank the chair and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that my intern, yan

pern, have the privileges of the floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i also ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. merkley: i applaud my colleague from tennessee. i appreciate him coming to make comments about his service with senator hatfield. when i was first coming to the u.s. senate, senator hatfield asked me to bring greetings to his former colleagues, and one of the first conversations i was able to have was to sit down with senator lamar alexander, who like senator hatfield, has served as a governor and embodies so many of the qualities that senator hatfield worked to cultivate. i rise today to commemorate a statesman and a mentor, senator mark o. hatfield. he took many roles: dedicated public servant, conscientious man of faith, a pioneer for new

development in the west. he was born in 1922 in dallas, oregon, a small town not far from our capital in salem to a family of modest means. his father a blacksmith, his mother a schoolteacher. when he was young, his family then actually moved to the state capital, which gave him a chance as a teenager to work as a guide in the state capitol building and to imagine returning one day as a public leader. he proceeded to study in salem and during his freshman year, events took a dramatic turn with the attack on pearl harbor in 1941. senator hatfield joined the reserves, and he accelerated his studies. he completed his degree in 1943 and joined the navy. he then proceeded as a naval officer and fought in okinawa, iwo jima, and he saw the devastating aftermath of the

atomic bomb at hiroshima, an imprint that along with his faith would cause him to struggle with the appropriate and moral use of force throughout his life in public service. in his own words, in the war's immediate aftermath, one experience made the profoundest impression on me. i was with a navy contingent who were among the first americans to enter hiroshima after the atomic bomb had been dropped. sensing in that utter devastation the full inhumanity and horror of modern war's violence, i began to question whether there could be any virtue in war. he elaborates on this process of questioning, this process of challenging in his book "conflict and conscience." he notes that in terms of the vietnam war, he concludeed -- "it did not meet christian theologians' contest for a just

war." after the war, senator hatfield went back to oregon and started a law degree, but he changed course. after a year, he decided to instead pursue a master's in public affairs, political affairs, and he went down to stanford. he completed that master's and came back to oregon. he started teaching and in short order he was running for the oregon house. in 1950, first elected at the age of 28. and then secretary of state six years later at the age of 34, and governor two years later at the age of 36. through these experiences, senator hatfield developed the ability to chart his own course, to determine and follow his own conviction. in 1964, he championed an initiative to outlaw the death penalty. that ballot measure passed and

governor hatfield then commuted the sentences of those on death row. in 1965, in july, he was the one governor at the national governors' association to vote against a resolution endorsing the vietnam war. in 1995, he proceeded to oppose the balanced budget amendment. and as the senate historian don ritchie observed -- quote -- "it was one of the most courageous votes i have ever seen. he knew he was surviving his chairmanship and his position as a senator." few knew then that senator hatfield had offered to resign. senator hatfield also worked hard to build core institutions in oregon. he was a champion of oregon health and sciences university and built it into a fabulous institution of research and learning. the mark o. hatfield school of government carries on his legacy of leadership, conveying those principles to young leaders who are dispersing throughout the

public policy arena. the marine sciences center in newport, a tremendous research facility that continues to yield benefits, including setting the foundation for the recent location of the noaa, the national oceanic and atmospheric administration's research fleet in the city of newport. he was an advocate, an intense advocate of medical research and he championed the national institute of health where a building now bears his name. and he championed the u.s. institute of peace. he felt that there are academies to study war, there should be an academy to study peace and reconciliation. in 1975, he introduced the george washington peace academy act to further the understanding of the process and state of the dimensions of peaceful peace among nations, to consider resolution of differences, to train students and to inform government leaders in the process of peaceful resolution.

and it took nine years, but this effort which began as the george washington peace academy act ended in the establishment of the u.s. institute of peace in 1984. and as my senior colleague mentioned, he championed many efforts to protect oregon's precious wilderness. one of his final projects was protect opal creek. it has been described as 6,800 acres of virgin oak growth, the largest stand remaining in western oregon. he said about this -- "it is an inspiration. it is a place of educational and spiritual renewal and exploration. to walk among the centuries-old fir hemlock cedars inspires awe and instills i think a perspective on life itself."

my own connection to senator hatfield began in 1976. in the spring of that year, i went to salem to meet with gerry frank, senator hatfield's legendary chief of staff to interview for a possible summer internship in senator hatfield's d.c. office, and i will be eternally grateful to gerry frank and senator hatfield for offering me that internship. that opportunity to come to our nation's capital to see government in action. and my first responsibility was to open the mail. when you open the mail, you start to understand the dimension, the breadth of political opinion in the course of a -- and the breadth of a state. how readily did many constituents attack senator hatfield's christian state because they disagreed with him on some policy position? i opened so much mail that said

i -- my policy position is this and yours is different, so how can you be a man of christian faith? indeed, senator hatfield started his book "conflict and conscience" with just this dimension, a politicization of religion, and he puts in it a number of letters that he has received. one of those reads -- "dear mr. hatfield, your encouragement of antiwar demonstrations and the riots that have come from such demonstrations are in fact treason as they give comfort and aid to our enemies. i and a lot of other people are extremely disappointed in your performance in the senate. for you who claim to be a christian and have access to almighty god should have better understanding of human nature and the evil in the human heart." and senator hatfield talks about the challenge of being a public man of faith and working to take those principles and convert them to public policy in the

face of hostility coming from the left or the right, but it was his determination to stay that course, to continue to be a person of reneck section and depth in their purr -- reflection and depth in their pursuit of public policy. that summer he signed the tax reform act of 1976 and the great joy that i had was that it happened to come up on the floor that summer. back then before there was television in this chamber, before there was email, you would come to the floor if you were working on an issue and you would go up to the staff gallery and you would follow a debate and then you would rush down with all the other staffers to meet your senator coming out of those elevators that are just outside these double doors. and because there were lots of amendments, i got to meet with senator hatfield many times to describe the debate on the floor here and to fill in what folks back home were saying about the particular issue at hand. and then occasionally the timing

being just right, we would have a chance to walk back and forth. senator hatfield loved to walk back and forth outside in the sunshine under the trees between here and his office in the russell office building. it was observing those debates that i saw the senate at its best. an amendment from the right side of the aisle, debated and discussed and voted on an hour and a half later. an amendment from the left side of the aisle. and if you didn't know where the amendment was coming from, you might not know the spectrum. the amendments boron the issue at hand, different strategies, what would work and wouldn't work and often were bipartisan in the debate. indeed, you saw that our senators at that time, most of whom had served in world war ii together, could disagree without demonizing each other, and this is a tremendously important

facet of the senate that has been lost over the decades since. indeed, many friendly debates between republicans and democrats. my father darryl was a mechanic. he had one of these debates with his boss who owned the company. and when i was offered the internship with senator hatfield, gerry called in my father and said darryl, i win the debate because senator hatfield will work to make jeff a good republican, and my dad said no, no, gerry, i win the debate because jeff will work to make senator hatfield a good democrat. the fact is neither of us i think ever would have broached such a topic because the conversation wasn't about democrat and republican. it was about the challenges at hand and how you resolve them. it was from that summer i developed a lifelong admiration for senator hatfield and his model of public service. here is what senator hatfield had to say about public calling.

he says, and i quote, "political service must be rooted in the philosophy of a society's overall well-being. with a broad vision of how the body public serves the people, the heart of one's service in the political order must be molded by ideals, principles and values that express how we in the words of the constitution are to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." he continued, "political service must flow out of such a commitment. convictions about war and peace, about the priorities governing the expenditure of federal funds, about the mat earns of economic wealth and distribution, about the government's responsibility toward the oppressed and dispossessed, both in our land and throughout the world, about

our nation's system of law and justice and about the meaning of human liberty, these should be at the core of one's desire to seek public office." it was because of my admiration for senator hatfield that when i became speaker of the house in 2007, i called him up and asked if he would consider coming to swear me in to take the oath of office, and he readily agreed to do so. that was the last public event that my father was at before he passed away, and it was one of senator hatfield's last major public events. i so much appreciated the symbolism of the republican and the democrat coming together at that moment, sought to help guide the oregon house, the same chamber where senator hatfield

started his political career to solve oregon's problems. and it's because of my admiration for senator hatfield that when i came to this chamber i asked for senator hatfield's desk. there are 14 names carved into the desk drawer in this desk. and the 13th is senator hatfield's. and as i looked at the names, i was surprised to discover that this desk had never crossed the aisle before. and so i think it's symbolic of senator hatfield's career of public service focused on solving problems and working together across this aisle that his desk made that journey across to here now. during those walks back and forth between here and russell senate office building, senator

hatfield paused one day to pull the leaf off a ginko tree. he said jeff, this is one of the simplest of god's creations. why is it that folks can't see the beauty of god's creation in the very simplest of one of his plants? and i held that leaf tightly in my hand, determined to preserve it, and just as we got back to the office he plucked it out of my hand and said of course you don't want to carry out that leaf and diplomat have the courage at the moment to say no, i would treasure that leaf for my life and grab it back from him. but i don't have the leaf, but i take that memory of his deep personal faith and conviction. now, i was sharing this story with another intern who served with senator hatfield in 1985 and he said let me tell you about another story about a tree

and senator hatfield. now on this walk between the senate office building, the russell office building, there is a tree that senator hatfield planted. it's a meta sequoia tree. it so happened it used to grow throughout oregon millions of years ago and when people found the fossils and studied it they concluded this tree was ex tingtd until the 1940's when they found a stand of metasequoia growing in china. senator hatfield arranged to have one of these trees planted in that walk. and it so happens that in 2005 when i was senate -- house democratic leader in oregon we passed a bill that made the meta sequoia tree the fossil of oregon and we didn't know about this tree that senator hatfield this had planted. but there it is today, it is now 25 years old, it sheds its needles every winner so people think it's a fir tree that has

died. but it comes roaring back to life in the spring and now 25 years into its life it is equal to the highest of the broad leaf trees there on the grounds of the capitol. and another 25 years, hatfield tree is going to soar on these capitol grounds and in so doing it is going to represent the values that he fought for. the courage of one's conviction, the effort to get beyond the bumper sticker and into the nitty-gritty of issues and to come to a conscientious decision that will take our nation forward, the determination to be oriented to solving problems and not to the partisan divide. i have in closing -- a senator: will my colleague yield?

mr. merkley: certainly. mr. wyden: mr. leader, i ask unanimous consent the time for tributes to former senator mark hatfield be steppedded to 3:30 until my colleague can, i know senator bingaman and senator levin also wish to speak. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i ask unanimous consent my remarks on the passing of senator hatfield be printed following the remarks of the senators from oregon. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i have just one closing comment. that is this: this is a picture of the senator hatfield tree. it has my staff in front of it. we went out there on july 12, senator hatfield's birthday, taking this picture and hoping to give this to him and we didn't have a chance to do that before he passed away. but i think this tree will serve as a living reminder of all that

he championed throughout his tremendous career. we have lost a great man, and our senate and our nation are poorer for it. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: mr. ewe mr. bingaman: at the time i came to the senate, mark hatfield had already served here for 16 years. for the next 14 years we were colleagues and friends here in the senate. his retirement in 1997 was an occasion for regret on behalf of all of us who knew him and admired him. he set a very high standard for

service in the u.s. senate. he was a master of the complex spending and tax issues that are the weekly focus of most senate work. of course, in his role as chairman of the appropriations committee, he was respected and appreciated for his fair-minded consideration of requests from all senators, democrat and republican and independent. he was a model of civility and of kindness, and he took a genuine interest in the well-being of those with whom he worked, both senators and staff and really all of those who work to keep the senate functioning. he had a heartfelt commitment to seeking nonmilitary solutions to our nation's problems around the world. and his votes, including his votes against the vietnam war,

reflected that strongly held commitment. it was not in mark hatfield's nature to be a demagogue on any issue. he saw no advantage political or otherwise in twisting issues and the pandering and the posturing that afflict much of our political debate today were not part of the politics that he practiced. i considered mark both a mentor and a friend during the time he served in the senate, and when i was able to serve with him here. he has been greatly missed since his retirement from the senate, and now of course our sense of loss is even greater. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is

recognized. mr. levin: mr. president, i come to pay tribute to the life and public service of mark hatfield. mark hatfield began his lifelong career of public service in the u.s. navy during world war ii. after the war, he returned to oregon, where he served in the state house of representatives, in the state senate, as the oregon secretary of state, and eventually as governor of the state. fortunately for us, for the senate, and for the country, mark hatfield did continue his career of public service and he went on to serve five terms in the united states senate. during his time in the senate, mark hatfield repeatedly demonstrated that he possessed the courage of his convictions. we've heard that word "courage" this afternoon by the oregon senators and others as it

relates to mark hatfield and there are so many examples of that courage, including an unpopular position he took relative to the vietnam war. but in 1995, he opposed the balanced budget constitutional amendment which was then under consideration by the senate. it was a difficult position then to take as it is today. but he followed the courage of his convictions. and this is what he said about the constitutional amendment that they were debating in the senate. back in 1995. he said, quote, "a balanced budget can come only through leadership and compromise. this compromise must come from each one of us. in the end, he said, there is no easy answer and there never will be. regardless of the procedural restraint in place, where there is political will to create a

balanced budget, we will create one. where there is a will to avoid one, we will avoid it. a vote, he said, for this balanced budget constitutional amendment is not a vote for a balanced budget. it is a vote for a fig leaf." mark hatfield said it as he believed it. straight from the should --, shoulder, courageously and direct. he did so many other things. from the vantage point of the appropriations committee, senator hatfield was able to champion causes near not only to his heart but near to the hearts of so many americans. among these causes was medical research. senator hatfield was such an effective supporter of medical research that in 2005, eight years after his retirement from the senate, the national

institutes of health opened the mark hatfield clinical research center in honor of his careerlong support of medical research. and how well i personally remember as a member of the f.d.r. memorial commission how mark hatfield joined danny inouye as co-chairmen to finally lead us to build the long-overdue memorial to one of america's greatest presidents. today the senate mourns the passing of senator hatfield and how vividly those of us who had the pleasure of serving with him remember him. my wife barbara and my deepest sympathies go out to mark's wife antoinette, to their family and to their friends. as the senate honors his

extraordinary career we can all take inspiration from his willingness to join together with colleagues of both parties to achieve enduring goals. and mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. wyden: mr. president, i think we have seen in the last hour, almost, going on an hour and a half, the enormous goodwill that senator hatfield generated here in the senate, democrats and republicans alike coming to the floor. and i just wanted to wrap up with one last comment. senator hatfield did not serve alone. he was accompanied through the extraordinary public service journey that we have heard discussed today on the senate

floor by a remarkable woman, antoinette hatfield. mr. president, for those of us who knew mrs. hatfield, the only way we could sum her up was to say what a woman. whip smart, boundless energy, persistent in a way that made it clear that she was going to push hard for what was important, but always in a way that left you with a sense that she would be standing up for what's right. and almost invariably with her husband standing up for our state. my colleague in the chair, the president of the senate, senator merkley described his experiences with senator

hatfield very eloquently. we've heard that from one senator after another. but i just thought it was appropriate this afternoon as the senate and many senators knew mrs. hatfield -- and i think shared my views -- it was important to note that senator hatfield -- and he said this, my colleague will recall it at well -- could not have made the contributions to oregon without having at his side, having the good counsel, enjoying the affection of this wonderful woman antoinette hatfield and as the oregon delegation here in the senate wraps up, we simply want to acknowledge not just senator hatfield's contributions but the chance that we've had to

be with her and work -- in work situations, in personal situations and express our gratitude for all that she has done for decades now, working with her husband, working with oregonians to make oregon a better place. and this afternoon antoinette hatfield as well as her late husband has our undying gratitude. mr. president, with that i yield the floor. i would note the absence of a quorum, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: is

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that to my time postcloture be yielded back and the motion to proceed to h.r. 1249 the america invents act, there be debate only until 5:00 p.m. and at 5:00 p.m. the majority leader be recognized. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from kentucky. a senator: i ask unanimous consent the consent be modified so once we are on the bill i can offer an amendment related to the secretary of treasury and a vote on that issue be recorded. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to my friend's request. i would ask once we get on the

bill that the senator from kentucky, senator paul, be recognized for 10 minutes to explain the amendment, that i had hoped to offer and then we'll offer it at some point in the future. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request as so modified? mr. reid: i would modify my request to that effect. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. the clerk will report the bill. a senator: mr. president -- the clerk: an amendment to amendment united states code to provide for patent reform. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. we now have been into three years of a policy that is not working, joblessness is up, our debt has been downgraded,

our country is really on a precipice. and yet we continue with the same people giving the same ideas that aren't working. it's important to know how we got here. we're in the great recession now, the worst recession since the great depression. how did we get here? we got here through bad economic policy, bad monetary policy. this policy originated with timothy geithner when he was at the federal reserve in new york. it originated with bernanke, head of the federal reserve and what did we do? reappointed these people to high office. they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. i would respectfully ask at this point we have a vote, have a vote in the senate. i think the american people have already given a vote of no confidence to the secretary of treasury. i think the american investors, worldwide investors have given a vote of no confidence to the debt ceiling deal, to what's been going on.

over and over and over again we're doing the same policy. we've now appointed to be the head of the council of economic advisors someone who brought us cash for clunkers. we spent a trillion dollars, money we don't have, trying to stimulate the economy and unemployment is worse. gas prices have doubled. economic growth is anemic, if at all. we are in the process, perhaps, of sliding into another recession, and something has to be different. we can't keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. for the first time in our history, our debt has been downgraded. this came after a policy that came from the secretary of treasury and from this administration. it came from a deal that the american people and the world public, the world class of investors, judged and deemed to be inadequate. this country needs a shakeup. we need new ideas.

we need different propositions. the same propositions, the same tired old proposals are not working. we are set, during this administration, to accumulate more debt than all 43 previous presidents combined. we're accumulating debt at $40,000 a second. we're spending money at $100,000 a second. when policy doesn't work, you need new leaders. there won't be a new president until 2012 but this president could choose new advisers paws the advice he's been getting is not working. we're on the press pris of possibly going into another recession and by suggest at this point we need a new secretary of the treasury. how did we get into this problem? we got into this problem because we had a housing boom. this came from bad monetary policy. ill came from the federal reserve setting interest rates below the market rate and that

signal was transmitted into the economy and we got a housing boom and then a housing depression. we're still in the midst of a housing depression and where did that policy come from? that policy came from secretary of geithner, bernanke. what have we done? we've reappointed these people, reapproved their policies that got us into the problem in the first place. if you want our country to thrive again, you must diagnose the problem correctly before you try to fix it. because they didn't understand how we got into this recession, they also passed a whole bunch of new regulations, the dodd-frank bill makes it harder to get a home loan. in the midst of a housing depression we have heaped all these new rules on your community banks but you know what? in my state of kentucky not one bank failed. the problem was at the federal reserve, the problem is with the policy. the problem is with the people we still have running this country and advising the

president. so what i'm asking for today is a vote of no confidence on timothy geithner. i see no reason and no objective evidence that any of his policies are succeeding. so i've come to the floor today to ask for this vote, and we will continue to try to get this vote, we've introduced a resolution in favor of voting a vote of no confidence on timothy geithner and i hope this body will consider it. thank you, mr. president. and i yield back the remainder of my time. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

sproeup the senator from i will -- the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask the chair what is pending. the presiding officer: the bill h.r. 1249 is pending for debate only. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent i'd like to give a statement in tribute to senator mark hatfield in morning business and that my statement be placed in the record next to those of the senators from oregon who commenced this tribute earlier this afternoon. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i want to join my colleagues in remembering senator mark hatfield, an extraordinarily good man, a man of dignity and integrity. i didn't have the opportunity to serve with him in the senate, but he chaired the senate appropriations committee when i was a member of the house appropriations committee. sofpb times we would come -- so oftentimes we would come together in conference or on a given issue and i admired him greatly. mark hatfield was an independent man throughout his public career. he was a man of civility and deep faith, a devout evangelical christian.

he was a republican who believed that government could be a force for good. during the course of my statement here i'll read some comments by senator mark hatfield, and those who are following this should pause and reflect that his was once a major voice in the republican party. unfortunately, few, if any, voices like his can be heard today. i hope that there are those who are listening who will take heart that it is consistent with republican principles to stand for the values of mark hatfield. announcing his retirement from the senate in 1995, mark hatfield said -- and i quote -- "as a young man, i felt the call of public service and believed in the positive impact government can have on the lives of people. government service has allowed me to promote peace, protect human life, enhance education, safeguard our environment kpwraouft health care of or -- improve the health care of oregonians and guard the lives

of individuals." though i didn't have the honor of actually serving in the senate with mark hatfield, we shared a common hero. if you visited his hart office building suite and went to his conference room, there was the most amazing display of memorabilia and tributes to abraham lincoln i've seen anywhere outside of my hometown in illinois. one wall was covered with abraham lincoln paintings, photographs and member beale kwrafplt his -- and member beale kwrafplt his fascination began with the leadership lincoln provided in abolishing slavery. sometimes at night he said to a reporter i like to slip down to the lincoln memorial to meditate. it's like a cathedral, he said. people come in talking loudly, but then they go up the steps and it's amazing.

they all begin to whisper. i can recall one particular instance where mark hatfield agreed to come to my hometown of springfield, illinois. each year on february 12 we have the abraham lincoln association dinner and we invite people to come speak who are in public life or historians or academics to talk about their impressions of some aspect of the life of abraham lincoln. i remember his speech because he spoke about a man named edward dickinson baker. he served in the u.s. house of representatives as a congressman from illinois from two separate congressional districts. he then moved to oregon and became a senator from the state of oregon. he was a close friend of president abraham lincoln and he was killed early in the civil war at the battle of balls bluff. his statue is one of the oregon statues in the building here. mark hatfield came to tell the story of edward dickinson baker and the friendship with abraham

lincoln. i said there is another part of the story you might find interesting. after abraham lincoln served as congressman, he was given one term which is the agreement with the wigs back in illinois and wanted to stay on and they said you can't and so they offered him another job which he turned down before returning to springfield to practice law. that was the job to be the provincial governor of the territory of oregon. had lincoln made that decision, history might have been written differently for america. hatfield and i laughed about that and the connection between lincoln and edward dickinson baker. hatfield not only admired lincoln but studied him and the history of his life. mark odom hatfield was born in 1922. he attended a university in oregon. he ran for the body of student

president and it is the only race he lost. in world war ii mark hatfield was in okinawa and iwo jima. he was one of the first americans to enter hiroshima after the city was devastated by the first atomic bomb ever used in warfare. those experiences and his deeply held religious views had a profound influence on his belief about the use of military power. he was a lifelong foe of excessive arms buildups. he told the christian science monitor in 1982 -- quote -- "there comes a time in a nation's life when additional money spent for rockets and bombs far from strengthening national security will actually weaken national security. when there are people who are hungry and not fed, people who are cold and not clothed." mark hatfield once castigated democrats in the 1980's for not speaking up strongly enough about what he considered excessive military spending during the ronald reagan administration. he was the only senator to have

voted against the vietnam war and the persian gulf war. politics wasn't his first calling. he was a college professor, then college president. in 1956 elected to the oregon state legislature where he was instrumental in passing measures banning be racial discrimination in housing, aing decade before the government considered civil rights laws in washington. from there it was a steady climb. state senator, secretary of state. 1958 he was elected governor becoming the youngest ever in the state, reelected in 1962. he successfully ran for the senate in 1966 with a straightforward platform that included opposition to the vietnam war. in all, he spent 30 years in this body, including 8 years as chairman of the powerful senate appropriations committee. i remember him as chairman when we would have conference committees, we could always count on mark hatfield to be genteel, courteous, and

bipartisan. it was a great experience. every conference committee was a great experience. the man really exuded fairness and integrity, and that's one of the reasons why i wanted to come to the floor today and say a word about how much he meant to me. when it came to particular issues in appropriations, he focused on medical research -- very important to him -- and on efforts to eliminate poverty in the united states. in 1995, he cast an historic vote. he was the only republican to vote against a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget. his vote meant defeat for the measure because it fell one vote short for the two-thirds majority needed for passage. senator hatfield said he voted against the amendment for two reasons. because tebld it would starve -- he believed it would starve social programs and tear deep holes in america's safety net and because it exempted defense and entitlement spending from cuts. besides, he said, if congress wanted a balanced budget all it had to do was pass one.

some younger senators in his party were so angry at hatfield for having cost them this balanced budget amendment that they set out to strip him of his committee chairmanship as chairman of the senate appropriations committee. luckily that threat tph-pb materialized -- never materialized. senator mark hatfield told a reporter i've been out of step most of my political life, so what else is new. a year after the balanced budget amendment vote, the chairman of the committee and chairman hatfield's leadership went on to cut more than $22 billion in discretionary non-defense spending from the budget. he wasn't opposed to spending cuts. he didn't support a constitutional amendment. i want to offer my condolences to senator hatfield's wife antoinette, his tprer -- his partner for more than 50 years, their children and grandchildren. stand alone or come home, the advice senator hatfield's father gave him about making choice and mark hatfield lived his life by

that role. now he's gone home and we are called to celebrate the life and service of this good man. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:senator from iowa.

mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent that mandy mcclean be granted floor privacy. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: onson sunday we observed but did not celebrate labor day. i say observed because we're painfully aware there are 29 million unemployed and underemployed americans in our midst. last week the levin department of labor reported that the

economy created zero net jobs in august. a chore us are making cuts to the federal budget, something that will drain demand, reduce growth and destroy jobs. tragically too many meabs of congress refused to lynn. over the summer, they have insisted on a mindless march to immediate austerity, an approach that threatens to strangle the week economy. here inside the washington bubble some of our political leaders continue to insist the biggest issue is the budget deficit. but outside this beltway, ordinary americans are desperately concerned with a far more urge ept deficit -- the jobs deficit. mr. president, i am also concerned about a third deficit. the deficit of vision and leadership today in washington. i am disturbed by our failure to continue confront the current economic criess which a boldness and vision earlier generations summoned in times of national

challenge. smart countries, mr. president, in tough economic times do not just turn a chainsaw on themselves. instead of the current slash-and-burn approach which is being sold through fear and fatalism we need an approach that reflects the courage and determination of the american people. by all means, we must agree on necessary spending cuts and revenue increases. but we also must continue to invest in the things that will spur economic growth, create jobs, and rebuild the middle class. mr. president, i cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of restoring the middle class in america. i have given several floor speeches on this very subject, the committee that i'm praifd prifd to chair, the health, education and pensions committee, we've had hearings on what's happened in the middle class. in fact on september 1, our committee issued this report, "saving the american dream, the past, present and uncertain

future of america's middle class." mr. president, i have not asked until now but i could ask that this report be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: restoring the middle class is essential. essential to boosting demand and revitalizing our economy. it's the only way we're going to be able to restore long-term fiscal balance at the federal level. economists across the political spectrum from left to right agree that a major cause of our current economic stagnation is a chronic lack of demand. for nearly three decades workers' incomes have been stagnant, simply put, they lack the purchasing power to drive america's consumer economy. and without adequate demand businesses are reluck tapt to invest in hiring. adjusted for inflation, average hourly earnings in 1970 were $18.80 nowfer or $39,104

annually. average hourly earns in 1970. $39,104. however, by 2009, those inflation-adjusted average earnings had actually declined to $18.63 an hour or $38,750 a year. imagine that. from 1970 to 2009, average hourly earnings went down. well, you might say some he what? so what, the second chart will show you what's happening to the middle class. the rising costs. at the same time earnings have stagnated or gone down a little bit, the cost that make up the largest part of the family budget have skyrocketed, skyrocketed. here's the food budget up 2%. gas, up 18%. rent and utilities up 41%. health expenditures up 50%.

public colleges up 80%. the price of a home up 97%. the cost of a private college up 113%. no wonder, no wonder the middle class is finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. however, at the same time, let's take a look what's happening at the higher end of the income spectrum. let's see what's hatched to c.e.o. compensation during the same period of time. i said average hourly earnings have gone down. the value of the minimum wage and i will talk about that in a minute, the value of the minimum wage has gone down 19%. 19%. from 1970 to last year. but the median executive compensation -- this is the median executive compensation has gone up 430% in the same time. any surprise that people are a little upset around america that

middle-class families are kind of edgy today? edgy, sure, they're edgy. how are they going to afford to send their kid to college? how are they going to buy a new home? get out from under the ones that are already under water. providing rent, buying gasoline for their cars in rural areas where they have to drive a car to go to work or to go to school or to go to church. so mr. president, how do we boost incomes and restore people's purchasing power? well, a number of ways we need to do this. i would suggest one, to start with, we need to restore a robust right to organize unions and bargain collectively. i say that unhe bashedly. it's some no sequins denies the decline of the middle class has coincided with the decline of union membership in the united states. why is that? unions provide workers with the leverage to ensure that they

share in their company's gains through better wages and benefits and are not just providing company coaxes with even larger pay packages -- c.e.o.'s with even larger pay packages. another step to take to boost purchasing power is to increase the minimum wage. the minimum wage today is $7.25. if we raise the minimum wage to make up for what's lost to inflation over the last 40 years it would be $10.39 an hour. so as we saw here, where the average c.e.o. pay has gone up 430%, the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, adjusted would be $10.39 an hour today, it's only $7.25 an hour. so as the minimum wage has gone

down, the executive compensation has gone up 430%. a raise in the minimum wage puts money into the pockets of low-income consumers who are very likely to immediately spend it at local businesses. most importantly, of course, we have to create more jobs. but not just any jobs. but quality jobs with fair wages and real benefits that can support a family and help hard-working people build a brighter future. that's the way we'll put demand back in the economy and get the country moving again. tomorrow evening, president obama will present to congress his plan for boosting job creation and lifting the economy. i urge the president to point out that there are some things, big, national undertakings that the private sector simply is not capable of doing. at critical junctures goring back to the beginning. our republic, the federal government has stepped up to the plate. congresses and presidents have acted decisively to spur

economic growth, foster innovation, create jobs. we need that kind of bold action today. the mantra i hear from my friends on the republican side is quote, government can't create jobs. that's nonsense. smart government can create jobs. and short-sighted government can destroy jobs. for example, the brief shutdown of the federal aviation administration this summer put nearly 70,000 private sector construction employees out of work. draconian cuts proposed by house republicans to the new transportation bill would destroy an estimated 490,000 highway construction jobs and nearly 100,000 transit-related jobs. that is dysfunctional government, dysfunctional government making the problem even worse. by contrast across our history

an often visionary and bold federal government has spearheaded initiatives that have expanded private commerce, given birth to countless inventions and new industries and created tens of millions of jobs. as we all know dew diewrg the presidency of franklin roosevelt with the private sector paralyzed by the great depression, the federal government responded with anistonnishing array of initiatives to restart the economy, restore opportunity, create jobs. i still have on my wall in my office -- and i'll bet i'm the only senator today who can say this -- i have the actual contractual w.p.a. forms of my father who worked in the administration. he got a job to help feed his family. and some of the things my father worked on in w.p.a. exist today, still used by the public, still used by kids going to high school. then a lot of times people said well, that was all well and good, but that didn't stop the

depression. that was world war ii. what was world war ii but massive government infusion into the economy? by the end of the second world war, war-time investments in plants, equipment and making, tanks and airplanes and all kinds of things which we turned over to the private sector. those developments conducted a colossas like the world has never seen. president eisenhower, i'm sure a very proud republican, was also determined to move america forward. he championed one of the greatest public works projects in american history, the construction of the interstate highway system. a 1996 study of that system concluded -- and i quote -- "the interstate highway system is an engine that has driven 40 years of unprecedented prosperity and position the united states to remain the world's preeminent

power into the 21st century." this kind of visionary thinking by both democratic presidents and republican presidents is by no means a relic of the distant past. in more recent times the federal government has funded and spearheaded scientific discovery and innovation that has had profound impacts on our economy spawning scores of new industries, creating millions of high-value jobs. i'll just mention a few. specifically the defense advanced research projects agency called darpa invented the internet, making possible everything from e-mail to social networking to the worldwide web. federal researchers at the same darpa, the defense advanced research projects agency, invented the global positioning satellite system. i can remember when i first came to the congress as a house member on the house science and technology committee where we started authorizing funding for

the g.p.s. system. a lot of people at that time said no, this is not the role of the federal government. only the private sector can do it. but the private sector could not undertake that at that point in time. so the federal government put up the satellites, and the private sector took over. and we have garmins and tom-toms and all kinds of things for airplanes and boats, all made by the private sector and the private sector creating jobs because the federal government put forth the money and the investment to put that system in place. i mention nasa, a number of technological breakthroughs over the years, everything from microchips to cat staner technology. any discussion of the federal role in promoting our economy would not be complete without mentioning the national institutes of health. more than 80 awards for n.i.h.

research. you might say what's that benefited us? recently the battell government institute reported on the $3.8 million investment for the human genome project. battell estimates this federal investment of $3.8 billion in taxpayer money has produced a staggering $796 billion in economic output. in 2010 alone, this genomic revolution generated $67 billion in u.s. economic output and supported 310,000 jobs. so these are the kind of investments that's one of the best ways to reduce budget deficits. they will help many of the 29 million unemployed and underemployed get jobs and become taxpayers again. with the private sector engine, again, threatening to stall out, there is a critical role for the

federal government in creating demand and preventing a slide back into recession. the most obvious way forward with the support across the political spectrum, including the u.s. chamber of commerce, is to dramatically ramp up federal investments in infrastructure in order to boost u.s. competitiveness. the american society of civil engineers estimates that america faces a $2.2 trillion -- trillion -- infrastructure backlog, bringing this u.s. infrastructure into the 21st century would create millions of private-sector jobs, especially in the hard-hit construction industry, while modernizing the arteries and veins of commerce. as someone most recently said, think about it this way. we're still driving on ice phoufrs highways -- on eisenhower's highways and going to roosevelt's schools. it is time to do it for the next

century. there can be no economic recovery without the recovery of the middle class. and there will not be a recovery of the middle class unless and until we come to grips with the need for federal investment in education, innovation, research and infrastructure. it means restoring a level playing field with fair taxation and vibrant unions, a strong ladder of opportunity to give every american access to the middle class. mr. president, i hope that president obama will be bold like presidents of the past. i hope that he will put forward a very bold visionary, challenging -- challenging -- proposal tomorrow night to challenge us to the better natures, to the better side of our human nature, to recapture again what we've done in the past. and that way we can rebuild the middle class and put america back to work. and i believe, mr. president,

that is the only way we're going to be able to do it. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: