was booming with contracts. they needed everything from a a-z which tells you the the provision under which the country suffered and all of this was being done in very much a helter-skelter way. ..

>> about how to go and create the projects underway on the eve of the crisis and bring them back online or whatever. i think that's going to be a very intensive undertaking, but at the end of the day, i think that companies from around the world will have a good opportunity to contribute to the building of this new libya. >> thank you very much ambassador, we appreciate you sharing your time. i know it's a busy period for you. please join me in welcoming --

[applause] >> in 1844, henry clay ran for president of the united states and lost, but he changed political history. he's one of the 14 men featured in the contenders. this week, henry clay's kentucky home friday at 8 eastern. >> in a few moments, a hearing on the challenges facing the homeland security department.

>> a new report by the government accountability office says the homeland security department completed half of the recommendations made by federal auditors since the department was organized in 2003, but significant security gaps remain. officials from the gao and dhs testify before the senate homeland security committee chaired by joe lieberman of connecticut. this is little more than an hour and a half. >> good morning. hearing will come to order. thanks to our witnesses for being here. in four days, we will

commemorate the 10th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 and mourn anew for the nearly 3,000 lives lost that day at the world trade center, the pentagon, and on flight 93 which is as we know crashed into a field in pennsylvania, but we have already quite appropriately begun and will continue, i'm sure, through september 11th, a look back at september 11th to both understand with the clarity of hindsight what that day meant in american history and to evaluate what our government particularly, and our people have done since that time. there's no question that although i think we knew it then, we can certainly look back and say now that we understand that on that day, we were drawn into a war which is increasingly global. i hate to use the term "world

war," but it's a war fought by violent islamic extremists against most of the rest of the world including most of the muslim world, and that day, that brutal attack in my own opinion in the clarity of hindsight that, in fact, bin laden declared war in 1998 in statements he's made, and they've attacked us before then. it really began that day, and in the days and months following 9/11, we in government set out with an urgent determination to reform the systems that had failed us. i think the more we knew about how september 1 1*9 happened -- september 11th happened particularly by lee hamilton, we learned a lot more. i came to the conclusion one

will be able to know with certainty that 9/11 was probably preventable, and as i look back and i think of all we've 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 are better secured here at home than we were on 9/11/01. we put into place measures that reorganized and reformed our government to prevent another terrorist attack on the u.s.. i know that there's some in this 10th anniversary look back saying that we overreacted to 9/11, that we -- that it was, in

fact, not just overreaction, but an expensive overreaction. well, i don't agree. the most extraordinary bottom line reality today is as we look back over the 10 years as we all know, thank god, and thanks to everybody who worked so hard, there has not been another mass casualty terrorist attack on the united states by violent islamists. i don't think anybody would have predicted that on 9/12/01, but we can see that today not because our enemies stopped trying. they tried over and over and over again, but z fortunately our defenses, our intelligence, all the things we've done really have made us more secure, and frankly, a couple of times just to remind us that we continue to

have work to do. we were just plain lucky as in the two glaring cases of the detroit bomber on christmas day on the airplane, and the times square bombers, both of whose explosives did not go off. if they had, we would be looking back with a different sense of this ten years, but overall, no question in my mind, we've 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 new organizations and supporting them. the first, of course, was the cabinet level department of homeland security which we created to lead the efforts to prevent terrorist attacks within the united states, and i believe

dhs has significantly contributed to our increased national safety. i'm grateful that the report that gao issued today to our committee as we move toward a 9/11/11, essentially agrees with that, 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 we'd all agree with that including people at the department, but the fact is that ten 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 who adequately marshall 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, the department of homeland security, and who

should -- whose efforts that secretary 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 lou from dhs with us today and gene dodaro, controller general of the u.s., both to here dhs's own evaluation of these ten years, and the controller general's on behalf of gao, and i repeat -- i'm hartened that the report that gao issued today that overall the department of homeland security implemented most of its key missions and io chiefed most of -- achieved most of its important

goals allowing the creation of the department to continue to move aggressively towards its full potential. we appreciate that very much and look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 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 vital mission is to protect our nation and our people. after the attacks of september 11th, 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 infrastructure, meld homeland security intelligence from multiple sources, and work with first responders and law enforcement to detour, detect, prepare for, and respond to terrorist plots. the laws establishing the department of homeland security was enacted in november of 2002. twenty-two entities sent approximately 180 employees were merged into dhs. not only was the new didn't's mission a challenge, but so was simply unifying its e-mail systems. over the past eight years, the gao has repeatedly placed the department on its high-risk

list. the 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 for the tactics terrorists have already

tried? i think the answer is yes to both questions. we are far safer than we were on september 10th, 2001, but terrorists continue to probe our vulnerabilities and attempt to exploit gaps in our security. we also face increasing threats from home grown terrorists already within our borders. today the gao concludes that more than eight years after its creation and ten years after september 11th, dhs has indeed made significant strides in protecting our nation, but has yet to reach its full potential. the examples are many. tsa strengthed airline passenger prescreening, yet a young man recently was able to fly across

country without a valid government id and expired boarding pass that was not even issued in his name. at the other extreme it troubles americans to see screenerrings putting the very young and elderly through intrusive and in many cases unnecessary patdowns. although dhs has bolstered the security, two iraqi refugees associated with al 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 row maps 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 data bases 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 chemical facilities and sea ports are safer. both priorities of mine and this committee. the gao indicates that dhs should make improvements in how it shares and manages cyberthreat information. this is the 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 caused taxpayers billions of dollars and delayed 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, it's employees -- its employees and headquarters should not remain spread over 70 buildings and 40 sites. the lack of a consolidated headquarters inhilts communication -- inhibits communication, 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 cuts and improve coordination. as this committee will soon consider a reauthorization of the department, it's important to discuss what experts inside and outside dhs believe has and has not worked. we must answer the 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 ten years ago, but we must be tenacious in anticipating the changing tactics of terrorists. as the successful decade long search for 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 gao's report with the comptroller general today, and i look forward to hearing from deputy secretary lute on how dhs can better fulfill its mission. thank you. >> thank you very much for that statement, senator collins. deputy lute, welcome back. how long have you been at the department now?

>> two and a half years. >> two yaf years -- two and a half years you've been on the scene, and in the previous years you were an informed observer? >> yes, sir. and 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 from the range of threats that we face. mr. chairman, you have my full written statement. i request to be entered into the record. >> without ob section. >> i'd like to highlight some of that statement here this morning, but first, mr. chairman, i'd like to strike a note of remembrance of the lives and memory of those who were lost on 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, in

the core belief 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 other members of the committee in your steadfast support of the efforts we've been undertaking in homeland security. i'd like to thank our many partners in the effort to ensure the safety, security, and resilience of our nation. dhs plays an essential role in that effort, but we ri lie on strong -- rely on strong partnerships throughout government, law enforcement, private industry, and with the public. we view homeland security as a whole community enterprise, and we're fortunate to have strong partners to help us meet our mission. as i mentioned, congress is an essential partner, and particularly this committee, played an extraordinary role in equipping dhs and other institutions with the resources necessary to carry out programs to secure our country. you have carried forward the

bipartisan spirit that marked the days after 9/11 and you held us accountable to maintain that spirit and achieve our missions. in the spirit of accountability, we are also very thankful for the hard work of our partners in gao, and i say that sincerely. along with dhs's office of the inspector general, gao has add audited and reported on the work of the department, and their work informed us as we mature and grow as an organization. as we approach the important anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we are thankful to mr. chairman for the commitment of the american people. since 9/11, countless americans stepped up whether in our military in afghanistan, iraq, or in other posts overseas, in our federal agencies including the department of homeland security, in our states, cities, tribal communities, and elsewhere as first responders and law officials engage with citizens. i take pride, mr. chairman, as you know, with my service in the

dwriets army -- united states army, but i'm proud of my service as a member of the department of homeland security. great progress has been made at department and around the country since the department was created in 2003. we are a more capable and stronger nation today. we detect threats sooner with better information and make adjustments quickly based on realtime intelligence. today, we know more about those who seek to enter the country, the level of risks they pose, and what is needed to prevent potential threats from reaching our shores. our borders are stronger, enhanced by more personnel, 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 engorsed to common sense priorities we set which are to identify a renne move criminals that are a threat to the american people.

at the same time, we strengthened our processes and systems for providing legal immigration and prevention services while protecting and ensuring the integrity of the system. we have a framework for our cybersystems and critical infrastructure. as part of the effort, we enhanced our ability to protect government networks through better detection, reporting measures. we have shared protection, and we broadened our partnership with the private sector to protect the critical infrastructure and establish a new regulatory framework to protect high-risk chemical facilities. we built a ready and resill yept nation able to confront major disasters and emergencies in our states, cities, and communities. we've helped line responders be more equipped, better trained, and better unified under a new frame work and command system as you noted. we improved emergency

communications and provided capacity building grants to support our nation's first responders. the response in ongoing recovery efforts from hurricane irene is just the most recent testament to the robust capabilities you helped us build. we continue to integrate the department of homeland security advancing work that began eight years ago to fashion our enterprise and engage a full set of partners in the protection of our nation. finally, the department's comiment to civil ieghts, the values of liberty, fairness, equality under the law are embodied under the program's activities. while we have been making much progress, mr. chairman, we know we have to continue to improve. as the threat e valves, so do we. today, then, 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's more work to be done. i look forward to discussing with this 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. now we'll go to the honorable gene dodaro, general comptroller of the u.s., and i note for the record that he's accompanied by cathleen berrick, the director of homeland security and justice issues at gao. good morning, and plead prees. >> good morning, mr. chairman, senator colin, senator akaka. pleased to be here to disas gao -- discuss gao's report on various security issues, progress, and remaining issues and challenges since the 9/11 event. our report reflecting a summary of the work that we've done over the last decade and it also reflects the constructive approach we tried to take in making recommendations to offer improvements and suggestions to

the department, and we're pleased with the didn't's response, although many things as smart collins mentioned are still in progress and need to be implemented, but generally, i think we've had a good dialogue, and it's inhainsed their -- enhanced their operations. on the bottom line of our report, as everybody's noted in the opening comments, is that, you know, 5 lot of progress has been made since 9/11. that's clearly been demonstrated, but there's work remaining to address gaps and weaknesses that will enable dhs to reach its full potential. now, in the progress side of the ledger, we have secure flight in place, not a check against terrorist watch lists of incoming passengers. we've got work forces screening work forces, deployed 460 airports across the country. we have a biometric entry system now in place it to be able to check those people entering our borders over time.

we've also established, put more resources as deputy secretary lute mentioned, at the ports, and along the borders giving resources, equipment, and infrastructure in place over time. there's also the border visa security program that's been put in place to have dhs work along with the state department and screening visa applications at certain locations overseas, and we also have put in 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, transportation, rail, mass transit, that laid an important foundation for assessments of risk. also pleased that the cybersecurity's been given increased emphasis in the

national infrastructure program, and as the deputy secretary pointed out, fema's issued a national response frame work and associated documents with that to address emergency preparedness. now, on the work remaining side, there's a number of significant issues and i'd like to highlight a few this morning. one is there needs to be continuous improvement in the processes and technologies used at screening in airports including coming up with a plan to ensure that the equipment screening check baggage meets the current requirements for detecting explosive devices. secondly, while we have a very effective entry system, we still don't have an exit system in place, and i know this is a very difficult task, but the overstays issue is significant. the estimates of, you know, between 4-5 million people have been made in that area. of course, as we know, 5 of the

19 hijackers on 9/11 had overstay issues. this is something that's a big challenge but needs to be address 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 are also needs to be a practical approach to screening cargo and 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 its feasibility on being able to do that, but we need a practical approach on that issue. senator collins, as you mentioned in the cybersecurity area, we noted there's a need for more timely and actionable

alerts to the private sector and others so they can take action overtime. also, we believe fema needs to continue to work to develop metrics and methodology and roles have been articulated, but there's not a clear assessment of preparedness at various jurisdiction levels yet. there's a need to effectively implement the global nuclear detection architecture and to strengthen the abilities to detect bilogical wages. now, underpinning a lot of these issues is the ability of dhs to continue to work with its partners, and as deputy secretary lute mentioned, dhs has established those relationships. they need to continue to develop and mature, and i think in some cases they need to meet the expectations of those partners as well.

one area's in the cyber area that i mentioned, and -- 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 a need to develop those management infrastructure processes, both in the acquisition area and in particular and also the develop and testing of technologies before they are deployed, and also in properly counting the financial management area. i'm very pleased i've had meetings with deputy secretary lute and talked with secretary napolitano and the teams. we developed a number of plans, had an ongoing constructive dialogue to be as specific as possible and make recommendations to stengthen these management area, 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 base approach to the areas, and also figuring out what works well from what the didn't's been doing and what's -- department's been doing and what's not working so well, and we've had an ongoing dialogue encouraged by this committee and judging the performance and measures and there's 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 in dealing with our deficit and et issues to really work hard to make sure that we're making the right investments and using risk based approaches or expanding things that work well and operate as

efficiently as possible because as all of us know, resources won't be as abundant likely in the coming year z as they have been to date. with that, concludes my opening statement. cathy and i will be happy to answer questions you have about the gao work, and thank you very much for your time and attention this morning. >> thank you. those were two good statements to set the ground work. we'll do seven minute rounds of 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 it in context, what we really tried to do in creating the department of homeland securitifuls 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 parts to make sure the dots were all accountanted, ect., ect., but in doing -- and i think that was a worthy goal and achieved a lot on that, but in doing that, we created a very large department over 200,000 employers, 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 generally 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 the eight years of the department's history to really

blend these 22 agencies together, not that they were all ever intended to become homogenized, but they were intended to work together. i think it was the previous secretary, maybe the current one, that said the aim of the dhs is to make sure all the component agencies are speaking the same language in their own dialect or and accent, not speaking ethnically, but speaking in terms of their agency. gene, let me ask you to begin. how do you evaluate that part of the management record of the dhs? >> well, i think clearly the intent of having a lot of synergies, having those collection of departments in place, has been evolving and taking place. we pointed out in the past, for example, that there were difficulties in coordination among many of those agencies, particularly in the law enforcement area when they were separate agencies before, and

they had management problems when they were merged into dhs, and that was one of the reasons that we put them on the high-risk list when they were formed, so i think that there's been some progress in that area, and i think the frame work for that progress has been in a lot of cases the plans that have been developed and required of coordination that are laying out and clearly defining roles and responsibilities. i mean, this is a really important issue, not just within the department, but across the federal government because there's so many players involved, and if you look at many of our recommendations, they go to clarifying roles, responsibilities, writing them u down, having written procedures and working through communication vehicles to work both within the department and across departments, 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 depp -- deputy responds, i'll ask if kathleen has questions. >> thank you. i'd say the first thing we've been able to reflect is the common narrative that now exists across the 22 agencies. >> right. >> over the life of the department. everyone has heard of homeland security, and people were not always sure what it meant. we're sure now what it means inspired by the help and work of this committee. it means the effort to build a safe, secure, resilient place where the american life can thrive. what's it take to do that? preventing terrorism, secure borders, enforce immigration laws, ensure cybersecurity and build national resilience. everyone in homeland security can find themselves in these missions and in this purpose so when the first instance, narrating out the story originally intended these years

ago when the department was conceived and formed and having all the agencies relate the work they have been doing, that they continue to do in the context of those missions and that overarching vision. what we've had to do over the course of time, again, building on the work of those who have gone before us, is take -- is continue to operate. homeland security is overwhelmingly an operating agency every single day, building the plane while flying it metaphor is apt here. it's pointed out in the report here, it's a huge challenge. the question for us in the department is how to add value in the overarching structure in the day-to-day management of those operations, and we've done everything from improved 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 it needs, working on that front, developing the ability to do risk assessments that 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 cross-cutting areas whether it's aviation planning for acquisition, whether it's common vetting, establishing a single point and resource to use for the entire department across the range of vetting needs that we have, and other areas like this. acquisition improvement and strengthening which this committee knows well the work we've undertaken under the secretary of managements so in the three key areas this committee has the right to expect the department can perform in. can we execute our missions? can we run ourselves? 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, department has made progress. >> thank you.

>> do you have anything? >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman. in the area of management, the most progress has absolutely been in the establishment of plans. >> right. >> for example, if you look at acquisition management, dhs has a rigorous policy in place jorching oversight of programs, very similar in the information technology area, and, in fact, dhs has efforts underway to improve that. i think the areas where they need to focus there's three primary areas. one is making sure they have the resources in place to implement those plans. if you look across the range of dhs's plans and their management areas, they fight available resources 1 the number one constraint to implementing them. the second area to focus on is having oversight mechanisms in place to make sure they're executing the plans as designed. we've identified a number of these areas, and i'll take acquisition management as an example. dhs and a number of times routinely has not followed that

guidance. they have not had the executive level oversight over a major acquisition program, have not developed cost estimates in accordance with their own guidance. they need the oversight mechanisms. finally i'd say it's demonstrating progress and delivering mission capabilities that they can sustain over time, and this is where we get at the major acquisition programs, being able to show they can field these programs at expectations and have an infrastructure to continue to be able to do that. >> thanks for that answer. i'll make two comments briefly in response. the first is on the research. i think that's a very important point, and for management, and particularly we're in the middle of it right now as we begin -- we go through process of trying to get back towards some fiscal balance in our federal government, and we're squeezing and squeezing. it is a -- it's a real

temptation to take money out of the management accounts at the department of dhs because the management accounts have inherit advocates for them. hopefully, we are. in other words, the programs all have constituencies, the programs of the department. the management really doesn't in that sense, and the danger is that it will gut the management and, of course, the end result will be that the programs will not work well. that's up to us, but that's something we got to do. the second is, senator collins and i will this conversation once we were some months into the obama administration. we were observing together that there was a kind of market test of the coherence of the new 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 constituent agencies within the department to have tried to break out legislatively or with the new administration, there was a little bit of a blurry -- not widespread and very short lived about fema coming out of the department, so i think that said that both the first two secretaries and now secretary napolitano and yourself created a o herns to the csh coherence to the department in a short time, at least to the extent nobody tried to get out, and you have some agencies there, and i don't mean because they couldn't stand being in the department, but because a lot of them have big constituencies of their own, and a certain amount of political muscle around here, but none of them either through the administration or through congress tried to break away, and i think that says that for

them, the department is working as an entity, maybe 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 there's an attitude now that, you know, we better work together, go god forbid something happens, we don't want the press or the congress to come at us and say, heir, you were -- hey, you were just being parochial and not sharing information or not cooperating with another agency of the federal government, and that's why this attack occurred, so, anyway, long story to say that we've not reached the ultimate destination here as 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, recommendation after recommendation, so i want to ask you a fundamental question, a question that we're going to be asked as we seek to reauthorize the department this year, that is has it worked? has it made us safer as a nation? was it a good idea to bring all 2 # 2 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, with are definitely better prepared as a nation to address these issues, and to the extent we're

better prepare, we are safer in that regard, although we need to be individual lent, alert, and evolve with changes. in bringing the 22 agencies together, there's a lot of different organizational models that could have been used. that's one that was chose p. our focus has been on making sure that model works as efficiently and effectively as poll. i think there's synergies to be gained, and i think they are beginning to jell and develop overtime, and so the benefits of putting those agencies together is becoming clear i think. in regard to the progress, i'd say that the department in our view, and this is reflected in our report, and the in addition their is -- missionary is they made progress. the imaginary is there's additional work to be implemented properly to help the missions whether it's developing and acquiring new technology or

looking at cost effectiveness issues and measures over time so i think i'd addressed all parts of your questions, senator collins, those are 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 mrs. berrick have mentioned today particularly in the area of procurement. i mentioned in my opening statement that there have been a string of procurement failures. it spans both administrations. it's cost the taxpayers literally billions of dollars, and equally drabbling, it's delayed the deployment of much needed technology and equipment. here's just a partial list. tsa determined that the explosive trace detector, the

puffers machines we saw for awhile 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 spectrascopic portal that was removed before proper testing and evaluation has been completed. there's been two major consolidation programs. the $52 million was spent before the project was canceled. the transformation and systems consolidation project was abandoned this year in may after multiple protests and gao ruling against dhs, a lot of money spent, and this one in particular's 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, that the -- we were assured of the soundness of the program's life cycle cost estimates, and yet it's abandoned. the fbi net program canceled by the administration after failures. even the coast guard, one of my favorite agencies and one that's very well run, had extraordinary problems for awhile with its deep water program because of a failed lead system integrator relationship with the government. in july of this year, the dhsig issued a report that found that the department 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've testified before this committee before on certain acquisitions, this has been an area where we have been working dill gently to improve our -- diligently to improve our practice. we have been performing and have

had challenges in the procurement process, but we addressed them by looking comprehensively 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, at airports, and across the homeland security enterprise. we worked in three key areas of procurement. one is aviation requirements. i now chair a committee composed of members across the department, principally with cbp and the coast guard to look at aviation assets and our aviation fleet leading towards the establishment of the joint board to sensibly prioritize what we need in terms of air fleets and seek the air solutions that are not only the most economical, but the most effective

operationally first and foremost. we improved the performance of cost estimates that often bedevils procurements at every stage, not only the acquisition of items in particular, but the stainability costs which are intrinsic to understanding the life cycle of those acquisitions as well, and we've taken a number of steps to strengthen the procurement work force. you're very familiar with the establishing department wide acquisition training program under our head of procurement. you know, enhancing our internship program. we recently had 60 graduates of that program, and we are training more, and establishing an acquisition core for our senior personnel so they understand their responsibilities in the acquisition process. importantly in this regard, and something i also know you have interest in is the intersection of the operators with the procurers. it makes no sense to go down a long tortured path of

procurement without sensibility introduced every step of the way. do we know what we need? are we considering alternatives? are we testing it in an operational environment? we have made improved in these areas and will continue to do so. >> is this an area, comptroller general, where we have to show more control before gao will remove the department from its high-risk list? >> yes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks, senator collins. senator akaka, good morning. >> thank you very much, purchase, for holding this -- very much, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing, important hearing on updating us on the progress of implementing the department of homeland security. this is especially significant as we reflect on the last ten

years since the terrible events that led to the departments creation. my subcommittee held several hearings on efforts to improve management of dhs which is vital to executing its mission. the dispt has made a great deal of progress, but as we have 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 here. ms. lute and i'd like to ask general dedaro 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 cost reductions in management directory. please discuss the challenges dhs faces in effectively executing its mission to protect the nation in this budget environment. >> thank you, senator. we're all facing those challenges. we have arctic articulated though within the budget guidelined articulated by the president, the priority for us, of course, of the five missions as we see as essential to homeland security. preventing another terrorist attack such as we saw on 9/11. that is job one for us. we do it every day. we'll continue to prioritize that within our budgetary

guidelines. securing our boarders, again, we have achieved a significant progress in securing our border, and we will continue to emphasize that. enforcing immigration laws, conveying benefits appropriately as well, building our cybercapacity is essential, developing cybersecurity for the nation, and building the nation's resilience as well to face all risks and hazards. we'll continue to prioritize these and continue to integrate the department and management of the department. there's some, no one on this committee i'm proud to say, ever suggested that somehow the management is separate and apart from the line or program functions. we are one and we'll continue to execute missions, to run ourselves, anding the for the resources we're given.

>> thank you. general, i'd like to hear you on this as well, and this gao report is based on observations over the past several years at dhs, but 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 this recent management progress at dhs? >> i think it largely depends on how dhs can implement its mission and in a most cost effective manner. i pointed out several areas critical to that. one is in the acquisition area, about 40% of the department's budget, and so it's very important that the acquisitions be carried out according to their plans as jane outlined.

they've got a lot of efforts underway to try to improve that acquisition, and i think it's very important, and in the i.t. area for example now there's projects over $3 billion that are in need of significant management attention according to their i.t. dash board approach. .. approach -- dashboard approach and the to insure they are integrated into the plans. more are beginning to do that and more and more, but in order to be cost-effective, you have to use your risk assessment more effectively. third, as i pointed out in my opening statement, the performance measures, what's working, what isn't working as critical of you were going to target your resources on the erie as needed in greater improvement or make sure that your financing things for producing the right types of results in those areas.

lastly, the financial management systems are still in need of reform and if you are going to operate within the cost-effective manner, you need a good economy and good process these. so i think all of those things can help them deal in a more cost-effective manner and they will be critical in this period of budgetary challenges. >> the dhs is committed to solomon the agricultural mission of cpb with the leadership structure and the authorities that all levels necessary for success. i am concerned, concerned that if we fully accomplish this important goal, our efforts in the safeguard american agriculture will continue to fall short.

.. charnel inspection. my question to you is will you commit to work to congress to make sure that cbp is fully empowered and held accountable for the effective agricultural inspection? >> why well, senator.or. very much.u last year the department released its high risk management strategy, which i think is an important step for the dhs to come off a high risk list. however they report that wim

hasn't been fully implemented. my question is what more needs to be done to implement the high-risk strategy and are there any barriers preventing any areas preventing implementation implementation? >> thank you, senator. we have made getting ourselves out the high-risk list a priority from a management point of view and am pleased to say we have been working closely with gene dodaro and kathleen. gao has given us a detailed view on what it takes to get off the high-risk os x we have responded with an equally detailed plan for executing those steps and we've been working very closely together. so i think we are on track reprieve issued one report on our progress in june of this year. will issue another in december of this year and we are going to get tenure to march along this track until we succeed.

>> thank you are a match. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator akaka. senator pryor. >> thank you very much. i appreciate all of our witnesses being here. let me thank with you, secretary lute. according to the gao, one reason they have messed opportunities to optimize across its missions is a lack of reliable performance information or assessment of existing information. that concerns me, so how has dhs tried to address this problem? where you are doing to try to fix it? >> we have made identifying commonsense metrics to progress a priority for us. we have been working, as i mentioned, with gao across a range of areas to improve business intelligence processes so we can have a fact-based understanding of how we are

executing in the effect their operations are having. this is across the missionary sent across the components within dhs. and so, including very pragmatic matcher ask for understanding the effectiveness of our emergency response and feedback, border protection and i.c.e. and tsa as well. >> also, since you mention different parts of your mission, let me ask about fema. what are you all doing to improve financial management practices at seamount clerk >> so, administrator lute that seem that engages on the preparedness side and the response site. and my chair, for example, a

departmentwide task force to look at the administration of grants, for example come to streamline processes, include accountability and frankly improved the overall performance of the current program as well. but across the maximum payment of management is the commitment we have in that apartment for responses, timely, effective accountability for resources given to us. in the context of the liberty of effective operations. >> if mr. dodaro, it's gao comfortable with the progress theme that is making on its financial management? >> basically we remain concerned about financial management. we look across the federal government and there are only four agencies rate out that are not able to have a clean opinion on the consolidated financial statements and dhs and dod are

two of the largest ones in the list of four. there've been a couple at first or try to an integrated financial management system in. most of the problems are in the coast guard area and property accountability and tsa. so i think the department is trying to get a good plan together in that area. we are going to be evaluating not to see if they make the necessary improvements. but it is one of the critical areas and reasons for why they are in a high risk list. we will continue to give them advice on how to move forward and fix problems. >> let me ask this since it's a relatively new department. you know, seemed to me like i started a few years ago they had a chance of clean slate, all the operations with the way it should be done and not inherit a lot of issues and challenges from the other agencies in areas that existed before the tape right under the umbrella.

is it because they didn't set it up the right way? tell us that the origin of the problem is. >> well, the origins started -- i'll ask kathy to elaborate issue today, but basically they inherited to 22 departments. a lot of them have 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 in harriet a lot of problems and concerns. we have mentioned early on and i report reflects that they made more progress than the missionaries and in the management area. over time we were concerned about management from day one. we put them on higher sedalia started operations in 2003. we always advocated for more management oversight and eventually the management position was created in the position is now filled. and so, i think, senator there

was an opportunity in the early days. there wasn't enough focus on taking advantage of the opportunity, but they inherited a lot of problems and challenges, so they are working their way through those still. >> ms. berrick commented a comment? >> sure coming thank you, senator. just by the nature of the these are systems among the components that aren't integrated together is a challenge in and of itself because the systems can't speak to each other and that apartment above all, senior leadership does not access to financial information they otherwise would have with an integrated financial management system. i think it's both inheriting from existing problems and also the fact desire to spare systems that don't work well together. >> are they actively trying to address and fix those problems? >> they're trying to do that to the financial management system. i've had a couple attempts that

have not been successful so far, but are working towards that is their goal. >> how much money does not cause to try to integrate the financial system? >> over a billion dollars has been devoted to that. >> already? >> yes. >> senator, the only thing i would add is that is one component. we have made steady progress towards the goal of a clean audit, which is anyone's aspiration. we have gone from over 18 reportable conditions down to six and we are on track to make even further progress this year and like to do so. >> thank you, mr. chairman. that's all he has. >> senator carper. >> thanks to our witnesses. i have three questions. the first window with a clean not a to toe with the clean audit and a third toe with a clean audit. so it sounds like we plowed the field pretty well.

let me just ask your comptroller general. are you in charge by the progress being reported by deputy secretary lute? >> yes. i think the sickly the department is committed to trying tunic progress in this area. as jane mentioned, the material weaknesses are coming down, but they still have some challenges. they've said some aggressive targets for giving an opinion on the consolidated balance sheet for 2011 and to try to get an -- clean opinion by 2014. i think those are aggressive targets and those will be the benchmarks as to whether they are successful or not. but they are focused on it. what they really need to continue to focus on improving their systems, underlying systems as well and recover from a couple efforts to have resulted in success. >> if you are successful in

that, really one department as an outlier. is that correct? >> one major department is the department of defense. >> to her colleagues, had a chance to meet in the early part of august with secretary panetta, who indicated the idea of waiting until 2017 to reach that goal, audit financials and may be hearing from some of the folks that they were probably going to be able to make that goal. what he said to me in a conversation is at the meet that goal rather than have to slide further on. sometimes it is good to have somebody with his -- was he an omb chief of staff? i mean, he's done it all. he brings a real commitment to these issues, which is very much welcome. yesterday, mr. dodaro, you may know, some of you folks are here. the issue was on the postal

service and how do we hope them help themselves get back on track? i described the situation as dire, but not without hope. one of the questions that is not the subject of this hearing, but i want to ask while you are here. there is reason to believe the postal service has overpaid its obligation in the civil service retirement system to the tune of $75 billion over time and overpaid they are -- the amount that they owe to the federal employee retirement system by maybe $700 million or so. we had yesterday one of the witnesses from seagull, segal company on it along with independent audits to determine what is the validity of the overpayment has really been overpayment. i think the postal service alleges that those segal company

and hate groups that we think there's an overpayment from at least 50 billion to as much of $75 billion. the administration is not finite yet. we had some discussion. they were here to talk about that and we asked the witness from gao if gao would be willing to take a look at the work that has been done by the two independent auditors to find out whether they are valid. we need that kind of direction. if you will, a good housing stamp of approval from gao would be helpful as we try to know if and not the postal service take out of the hole they are in and return to profitability is. is that something you can help with? could be most grateful. >> definitely, senator. we'll be able to do that. we are the chief actuary if gao that would be a little figure out that status and we will do that. i understand the tasking work and will deliver that. as you know, the postal service is on our high-risk list because

of financial condition situations. we be happy to do that. >> thanks very much. i don't know. since my first three questions have been addressed, i'll turn to the fourth and 90 cybersecurity, initiatives under collins and i am the chairman have a whole lot of interest and done with the help of our staff have done some good work. it's hard to get anything passed around here. we have done good work. the administration has done good work on this front. over the last 10 years, secretary lute, as you know, we witness an evolving terrorist threat that's required the department and other agencies to constantly be thinking about tomorrow's threat appeared i like to say as a naval flight officer, work at it fighting glassware. were not always good at preparing to fight the next war. in my view, this is very likely -- could very well likely

be the next war. on the cybersecurity front. nowhere is this more evident than in the world of cybersecurity on the wordpress can change almost daily, almost weekly without a lot of notice. gao has noticed much of the good director or department is undertaking in this area. it's also -- gao has stated that homeland security needs to better secure internet connections at federal agencies and more thoroughly share cybersecurity information with the private secretary. none of secretary, i understand that department of homeland security has an einstein because federal agencies detect and prevent cyberintrusion. i will ask you if you will discuss the steps that the department of homeland security to integrate public site kind and across the government to much additional authority resources for staffing. you need to be more effective. my colleagues here know i like

to quote albert einstein from time to time his onset among other things in adversity lies opportunity and we have plenty of adversity in the world. this hopefully some opportunity as well. maybe einstein can be part of that. would you proceed? >> thanks very much, senator. there certainly opportunity here. the department, this is an area that i've been spending a lot of my time as we have in the department. we have called it as one of the five essentials of homeland security, which is ensuring cybersecurity. we can all agree the status quo is not acceptable. there are intrusions and threads we have to address. cyberspace is an environment that offers certainly to change that. ours is one that security worry of smart machines and smart users by networks that identify threats, hopefully before they occur, to prevent them and

cultivate the community intensity of hygiene is pervasive throughout the united states and indeed throughout the internet because we are so interconnected. einstein specifically is a program we have come as you know, designed to prevent intrusions. where 84%. but the federal agency and offices have a number of things they have to do as well to bring their traffic behind einstein to ensure that they are taking advantage of this technology and we are working with them. in fact, i attended a meeting at the president's management council consists of department deputies and operating and spoke to them about what they can do to ensure that their agencies are taking steps necessary to organize their traffic behind the protections. there's other things to do as well. what's on your network's class i

was information traveling? today have access? appropriate levels of access and controls? there's a whole. those measures that is perhaps a way to think of it. it is only a part of the puzzle necessary to ensure cybersecurity. for also working closely with the department of defense and with industry and our vision is to have an environment of distributed security that utilizes all of the assets of his country and protect them ourselves. >> the last part of my question was what additional resources for staffing and you need in the department to be even more effective on this front? >> the president's budget that was submitted reflex specifics in a number of those areas. we can address this in the standalone if you would like caregroup also been working with

omb and a legislative proposal sent to the hill regarding ways to strengthen our ability to fulfill our cybersecurity mission. >> all right, good. thanks, mr. chairman. >> thanks, senator carper. we'll do a second round of up to seven minutes apiece. thanks 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 allergy section. you know, our hope had been a lot of us on this committee or in the armed services committee, that we can develop an end for homeland security something like darpa and the department of defense. over the time that the department overall it does appear to to meet at the smt acknowledge has been below what our hopes were. my impression is that it's doing better now. and i wonder if either of you

would like to comment on that. >> i think i say at the outset assigns a technology is a key part of the department. our ability to innovate, to make use of and solutions, not just a particular piece of technology is the task we have given to smt. it is very able leadership, who is integrated into every aspect of our mission performance, working directly with components to ensure we have a system approach and making best use of technology within the context of an overall system solution. we also had a very robust cooperation with the other department, notably obviously the department of defense, looking to learn from them on such things as tunnel type allergy and smt is critical and important to this, remains a priority for us in the leadership of the department for the secretary.

>> ms. barrack, have you had any overview of s. nt and what is your sense of it now? >> i would agree with your characterization that they have been making progress in the snt area. i would agree there is a framework in place right now for the office to be successful. they put in additional policies, created units within snt throughout the department that i think will strengthen the foundation of that office enables some successes. two areas i would mention that i think the continued focus. when its resources. for example, looking at the test and evaluation function of snt, we found they were low in terms of resources and its inhibited the average they could perform at the components and supporting their testing efforts.

i think the second area that could require focus and snt as coordination within the department. we found sometimes snt would pursue a technologies without effectively coordinating with the end-users of those technologies to make sure what they were developing or meeting needs. a quick example is the cars program being designed to shield nuclear material and cargo and vehicles. dhs decided to stop that program after learning that snt is working on a system that wasn't going to fit within primary inspection lanes. i think that is an example of the internal coordination. >> another is a so-called virtual fence. my impression is there wasn't much interaction with customs and border protection in the development of that. >> we did site that is a concern.

cdp's input on operationally howard was working, challenges they were facing wasn't always fully considered and decisions made related to the program. >> okay, that's when we'll want to keep an eye on because it has tremendous potential post to avoid the kinds of problems cited in terms of a new type knowledge he been introduced. in the second of course is more affirmative, which is to -- as we've seen with darpa to leverage federal money with private innovation and knowledge premiership to create allergies that will more effectively protect our homeland and also hopefully as in darpa's case of remarkable spinoffs into a commercial application that will create economic activity. let me ask you, madam secretary, about something a little different, which is the

increasing concern and all of us in homeland security have had in recent years about homegrown terrorism comes self radicalized, particularly the own rules so-called. i know that the administration, mr. brandon put out a report recently. senator collins and i frankly were overall disappointed either report. we have our continuing concern about guerrilla dance refusal of the administration to use the term violent islamic extremism as opposed to violent extremism. i what to focus on a different aspect. we also didn't see in the report a clear allocation or designation of authority. in other words, who is in charge? a lot of different departments should be involved and interact in affirmatively with the muslim

american community to gain their assistance in education and noticing the lone wolf -- potential lone wolf behavior, coordinating law enforcement education, et cetera. i'm at the national counterterrorism center interestingly has been doing some of that. i can't say that we had that kind of function in mind. it does seem to me the white house i suppose is a natural overview, which might suggest that it could oversee the response or prevention of homegrown terrorism. so much in the white house now. i wonder whether this isn't some david dhs should begin to play a more active role in. i want to give you an opportunity as we look back at this decade and four to the next and seeing homegrown terrorism rising as a threat once you

think about dhs put the record here but it might do in the years ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we certainly have been playing a very active role in what was announced emphasizes three things. first, we need to understand more about what generates a set and how promulgates within communities. secondly, we need to engage communities are part of bears that isolate and an engaging understand them. create pathways of dialogue and understanding no breach. third and equally as important, if not more so we strengthen the hand of law enforcement to be able to stop violent extremism in its tracks. this is on bin laden for that may prevent crimes all the time quite effectively and equip them with information and tools they need to address this major crisis well. for the department works closely with the department of justice, fbi, and ec, white house and

other agencies. we need is a smoker. i meet with counterparts on exactly this question about how in each of these areas, in terms of understanding the threat, sharing information and command breaking down beers that isolate committees and strengthening the hand of law enforcement we are doing every day to address this. >> to me those are the right coast. who would you say is in charge now of the effort on behalf of the government? >> under president's leadership, so much of the work is in homeland security. >> that i understand. but again, there has to be someone in charge to keep driving it. did you say it's in the national security council? >> i was paydays. it is a working system. i meet with my counterparts in the department of justice and fbi and an ctc regularly on the subject. there's enormous work going on in each of those strengths. >> i thank you. senator collins.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to emphasize that the chairman has said. strategy produced by the white house does not clearly assign responsibility to an individual who we can hold accountable, his progress we can measure and they still don't hear that from you. you keep talking about when they're together, all these agencies involved. that is not adequate. we need to have a leader of this effort and i hope you will relay 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 have 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 type allergy so we are not just relying on the crawl on a television screen, the emergency alert that comes across, sent many people are not going to have television fund. instead, using phones, social networking sites, using it tools more likely to reach more whole.

secretary lute first. >> thank you, senator. the public alert system now reaches 70% of the population. we have a number of initiatives in play, particularly anger they can progress to senior, rolling out a commercial mobile alert system 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 they know that in a crisis, particularly, information is a commodity and is essential to having informed individuals incapable communities. >> does gao have anything to add to that? >> we have not looked at this issue, senator collins. it is an important issue i know we are dealing with ourselves

and communicating around results. we be happy to take a look at this in the future. >> thank you. secretary lute, want to talk to you about an issue that they did to the homegrown terrorism threat and that is the insider threat, certainly a major assign case was an extent of the insider threat. in a report was released by gao earlier this year, gao took a look at the twix program, transportation worker identification credential used for asset to our seaports and its findings were disturbing in terms from the insider threat. first, gao found that tsa is background checking process is not even designed to detect

fraud in other words, gao found it would be easier to it taine a card with fraudulent documents than a drivers license. that is very disturbing. fatcat, 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 indefinite time, even if there is subsequent information or conviction or something that would cause the twic card to be revoked one would hope. what steps has dhs taken to remedy these critical flaws in that twic program? >> senator, we share the concerns i know it is when we

have to stay constantly vigilant. this involves not only those of us in the federal government, but also 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 they have been get in. twic covers 2 million workers in way of running number of pilots to ensure we can strengthen the system with respect to not only technology, but reliability of the system. in this regard, the ongoing check is something they are looking at departmentwide because as we've learned, for example, in the case of abdulmutallab on the 12/25 attend, do we have to have other credential holders. i'd shared interdepartmental examination of a common setting platform to bring together all of firefighting capabilities and

deploy event in real time to get full check been also working with agencies to ensure we have requirements fully on hand to prevent fraud and other abuses. the mac that reminds me of the bowling green, kentucky case, where two suspects have been arrested, one of whom's fingerprints allegedly worked 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 your letter with a number of detailed questions, since the information provided at the hearing, where we explored this issue, proved to be an accurate. when do you anticipate the department will complete its review of how in the world this could've happened, that an

individual whose fingerprints were on ieds used to attack our soldiers in iraq was granted asylum in the lab to be a resident of this country? >> we expect that shortly, senator. importantly, we've taken a number of steps to ensure that can't happen again. we've expanded databases, working closely with dod to take advantage of the databases of individuals they hold. again, this is part of our common setting examination to strengthen the system overall. >> 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, they gao has also examined. and by gao found echoed the conclusions of our investigation

and that is that there was poor cooperation between dhs and the department of health and human services and instead saying that the cbr and risk in particular is of great concern that the bio watch program, under the bio watch program, a threat might not be identified in total more than a day after its release. what is being done to improve coordination between dhs and hhs in this area? and also edwin gearan to the paid the next generation, and more sensitive bio watch system will be diploid? >> thank you, senator. again here, we think that we

make progress continually with other agencies in this regard and for example, does affect to integrate information for early warning and response on possible attacks and pandemics in the biosphere as well. as you know, the work we've done, for example, on the global nuclear detection architecture is generating work on an implementation plan to further develop our cooperation with other agencies in identifying threats to the homeland and responsibilities for early action to defeat those guys. so when jen three, specifically to answer your question, this is a priority for the department, when we make continued progress toward and we believe that will substantially reduce the response time inherent in the detection of a dangerous pathogens and alerting appropriate responses. >> but when? what is the timetable? >> so, i can get back with you,

senator on the specifics of akamai but this is a program we have in place and a priority for the pertinent. >> is good chairman would indulge me, one final question on the kentucky case, which really deserves me. can you ensure today that department has reviewed the bios of every iraqi national who was admitted under that program to ensure there is popper bedding, 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 you have asked. >> thank you. mr. chairman. >> i want to ask one more brief

question about the saint elizabeth campus project. the last time i looked at the stats, the department and they talked about its management and coordination was spread through 70 buildings and of course that is what motivated the plan to coordinate and collect as many of those has occurred on the same elizabeth's campus. i know the next building, if i'm not mistaken, would be to bring the 10 operations centers of the department together there. so, we're in touch reggie terry times. the president laid in his budget. the senate appropriations homeland security has cut them down to a third were about -- has appropriated the third of what the president asked for and the houses had all the money out for same elizabeth's. how important -- how bad will

that be for improved management of the department isu secretary. i don't know whether they've done this or it's even possible, but is it possible to make a judgment, ms. berrick of the cost effect of this is not building -- i don't know whether it's possible to evaluate the department being spread out as to his budget, but go ahead, secretary. >> as you know, it's important there is wisdom in consolidating to reduce transaction time and engagement, but also to facilitate coordination, dialogue sharing as well. we remain committed about that view that this is an important step in the development and evolution of the department. >> anything else, gene? >> there would be challenges in trying to come up with the exact quantification you are calling

for. one of the things they could do is look at the department's business case for the consolidation and offer our thoughts on that. >> i'd welcome that if you could. >> sure. >> thanks to the three of you for being here. overall, obviously we have almost parental or possessive interest in this department because we are privileged to be there to help in its creation. so we would like to think it is solved. i do think both the record and the independent valuations over the years in the summer you offer here as we approach the commemoration of 9/11 as the department of homeland security has made a difference. again, it is not an accident we haven't had a major attack on us succeed. do we have more work to do? of course we do. i would also say, one of the mentioned that a different kind

of country after 9/11 would have become much more like a police state. i suppose people feel at different times somebody's civil liberties are compromised. overall, our record is remarkable. i say that also to say that in the country is big, open and free as we are and we want to remain as free as we are, will never achieve 100% security. but where is the better -- a lot more towards that goal that we should always aspire to the goal on 9/11. it is exit 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 colleagues and other depart thence, department of defense, intelligence, and ctc, et cetera. it's gratitude and confidence that both gao and this committee

will continue to push you to get as close to a 100% as it possibly can. >> to it to have anything? that experiments. again, thank you. the hearing is adjourned. [applause] [inaudible

defense secretary leon panetta reportedly is supporting a plan to keep about 3,000 troops in iraq pounced the winstrol deadline. today on the senate floor arizona senator john mccain argued that more troops are needed to maintain a stable self-governing iraq. of a ranking member of the armed services committee was joined by homeland security committee chairman joe lieberman and south carolina senator lindsey graham.

estimate yesterday we learned from the media reports that the obama administration has made a. decision to sharply reduce thes number of u.s. forces that it is proposing for the post 2011ith security agreement with iraq to roughly 3,000 troops. that media report has not been contradicted by yet by anyone ia the administration so one has to assume that that is the interaction with which americaim is headedma. 3,000 troops is lower than withd the commanders has repeatedly be told us to read on multiple trips to iraq that what we needed to support the iraq inter stability and secure the naturae interest the nation's are a

sacrificing so much to achieve. our military leaders on the ground in iraq told us that in order to achieve the goal whichi is a stable softer running iraq puts a partner in fighting terrorism and extremism in the e immediancte post 2011 force tha presence that is significantly higher than 3,000 troops. heycontinue to hear that the t haven't asked for a new agreement. the fact is generally are august the political bloc reached agreement to beginations w where visions with the u.s. in the new security agreement and this week the president of the z kurdistan regional government and one of the most respected men in iraq in my view one of the finest of called for the continued presence of u.s. troops saying iraqi security forces are stille not prepared to secure

protection for a iraq. perhaps significantly the inspector general for iraq reconstruction mr. stewart bowen just recently reported, and i dn quote, iraq remains an extraordinary, extraordinarilyss dangerous place to work. it is was safe then 12 months ago and the conclusion of that 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 the wouldn't say request from, the iraqi side is difficult to settle on any one thing but the new england state to that the iraqi if they come forward with a request, we would consider it.

that is assuming that it's only in iraq's not to have additional troops what is in america'ste national security interest not e to lose iraq at the sacrifice oe some 4500 brave young americanse and the consequences, the consequences of failure and who continues the u.s. troops more vociferously and sometimes in a very subversive way iran and the separatists, iran and the separatists want the unitednaals states of.ects. it's not a matter of the iraqi national security interests it'n a matter of the american national security interest. >> i know that they are requiree

to have a certain force wch woud protection numbers which woulday be significant in the then how many would carry out the mission of civilians protecting united l civilians, contractors and sum s decision making process best and i quote from "the new york times" article it plan that keeps small force in iraq deadline. quote, a senior american military officer said ther at planning at this point seemed td be german more by theri troop a, numbers than the missions they could accomplish the opposite of how the military planners ineally like to operate.th quote, ig think we are doing ths backwards, the officer said.

quote, we need to talk about what missions we want to do and then decide how many troops we y will need. is the view of the majority of members of the military, many of whom have multiple tours in iraq if that is their view of the process that we are going through., senator i would point out my friend, are senator gramm and senatorave lieberman who are coming and i have been to iraq on manynvas occasions. w since the initial invasion, we've had the opportunity to hae watch them service and sacrifice we've had the ability to see as the initial military success of deteriorated into a situation of

chaos beginning with the unrests in baghdad to the unfortunate decisions that were made in the early period after the victory in iraq and we watched the in situation of the leaders but also those who are in the say administration say that if weth employed a surgeon would fail. the president of the united states, the vice president, the secretary of state, the president's national security adviser said that it would fail and was doing the failure. the fact is the surge succeed at iraq that has an opportunity tot be a freeze and independentver s country but maybe more to

importantly one that wouldn't pose a threat to the united states of america. most importantly, a chance for the iraqi people to enjoy theths fruits of the sacrifice that thousands and thousands of iraqis have made on theirn tir behalf, and approximately 4,500 brave young americans have.senao the senator from south carolina and connecticut and i recall les meeting with military leaders ig 2006 where we were told that everything was going fine. and the senator from connecticut ani the center from south carolina i and i recall meeting with a us british colonel who told us on . less we turn things around the we were doing a failure and remember the summer of 2007 wheh

we were lonely voices with that petraeus of general petraeus and generald odierno in saving the surge could and must succeed and i orll leave it up to thehist historians to decide whether one they will venture into iraq or heth the sacrifice is stillcan t space iraq can be the result of that involvement there was the indifference to those who served in sacrifice we must not do. to make a decision which wouldhs put all of that sacrifice and all that was gained by it inlure jeopardy, jeopardy because our failure to carry out the fundamental requirement of s contributing to theec iraqi

security in this very difficultn transition time. so i would ask my friend from peaps iuth carolina to start with perhaps he remembers when wet went to baghdad by the leader was in 2007 and when downtown with a general petraeus and pood made fun of in the media and ii. came back and said things had improved in iraq. recls whe perhaps the senator from south m carolina recalls when we had almost a triumphant visit and wn the conflict that was one with great cost to the american debth and treasurys. perhaps the senator from south g carolina recalls pulling into downtown a diner dat to a bakery and environment out of completeo security that dramaticallyed, al improved all of it was purchased

young americans did and now we place all of that at great risk and the decisions of respect to the same people who said the urge couldn't succeed. so i urge the administration ann ece president to reconsider whad apparently is a decision and listen to the military leaderso and in play in troops to provide the iraqi is with sufficient number of troops and the iraq security forces are not there tp secure protectionsro for iraq.so

and i would ask my colleague connecticut aren't their plans o for us to have a large amount of th? american civilians, contractors to most protect them?that probably the most expensive for. that we can do better than f american troops?wed is it not a full strategy to not have enough american troops there to ensure the lives ofious americans who are serving in various capacities protected? >> if i may try to respond the es rnswer is you don't have tonswe believe me or senator mccain.e ambassador jefferies who's likeo the ambassador to iraq told us back in june to confirm the t copyright american forces to tht iraqi american forces and we are about to pass the time to in that part of defense to the board of state. the civilian partnership that'st

been formed has been taken veryi well and the future of iraq is h ur the iraqi stance but they doo need our help and we are helping ourselves.e 24, so in june asked general odiernt in terms of iraq how would you evaluate our situation and this, was a hearing for confirmation for the general lost and he saii we are inside the 10-yard line.l of all this is football season. i c think most americans cane fr understand the progress and he said we have foregrounds so thea first in ten of them were for down and he felt good we couldgg get it on the enso and by a getting it in the enso will require the presence in 2012.am 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. there's really not any. there's really not any. dictatorship, saddam hussein's and replace it with representative government, that is a huge attachment of our national security interest overe time. force. militarily? plane it would be in our s,interest nt only to sell them playing with,e but actually train them how to use the airplanes.gainst

they haven't entered navy to t patrol their coast and heprreotn them against threats they are. po so it is in our interest notou only to train and develop thehe iraqi police and army, but to make sure our civilians are going to help build thislp new democracy can travel withouto fear and without unnecessary and casualties because iranians will try to undercut us at every tury and that means targeting american forces left behind.radl counter terrorism. to try al qaeda, other groups, otheraba radical groups will try to come back into iraq and destabilize the wave down.m americanustody we've had 60 al qaeda tiesthem a released fromre b american custy and some are back out on therpt. streets. sosi counterterrorism separate would be rig smart. vice president is right about this. t when you add up all thesemissios missions,, intelligence emb gathering, training, embedding,m

forcebeddin protection.out the c >> havasu senator, are you leaving out necessity tacekeeping? >> that's a very good point and that's exactly where i want to take that this. that requires a footprint of thousands. we don't need 25,000, but is think 10,000 new ad it is the bare minimum to do this because the commander who is policing l the kurdish areain of dispute boundary line and the northern o part of iraq have come up with a novelive approach.re got to give the administration credit they've taken kirchrity marcos, basically kurdish melissa, integrated them with iraqi national security forces and american forces to form companies eventually go to poor think together as a team in a mutual observer would tell you that oud

president and the curt has has t prevented a shooting complex in the back of medicine at about. president karzai me is worried about in kurdish areas. to so he said people need 5000 troops here for a while to make sure this new concept detroit this develops over time. so we do have the whole package at, you're somewhere around 10,000 plus. not only is bipartisanship desire to national think it's required.r we can let back and pat each to other on the back.re i that's not nwhat i'm trying to. do.to the p oi are where we are and when a pretty decent place.ey're to the appointee the readings are going nuts. they are trying to undercut ther iraqi's national development because their biggest nightmare onheir is to have a representative for democracy on their portrait that incite their own people to ask for more freedom.same so please come into the obama tministration, don't make the same mistakes at the end thatani

the bush administration made in iai can say with some credibiliy today argued against my own political party infrastructurewt that senator mccain and lieberman and others went there enough enders. the whole security footprint was not sufficient in the model to ' change iraq wasn't working.esid this should look petraeus is betrays his model adopted. it was her decision. the world is incredibly frurate. unpopular. pressure and bush went against e the political tide in glad he did. i would ask president obama that to consider the long-term national security interest of s, mccain suggested, the five nations. is it important to have supports intelligence gathering?

i would say yes.our having some presence to protectp our civilians will be the largest groups overwhelmingly e yes.some amen militar does it make sense to have k american military support in the kurdish arab dispute areas?cans overwhelmingly coming at us. we will stand by you. most americans are frustrated and worried, but they don't want to loose. we are very close to change in y iraq.the has for every american that type, hb and i spent iraqee is. lost this hasn't been easy for people in iraq.enough what kept t me going because i'e been there enough to know thaten their people in those countries that want the same for their children as most people in this buddy want for for theirs. to be a judge in america, you can get criticized.he

i have personally met people whe decided to step up to the platen the lawyers, judges, policemen, who have gotten killed. r nati they knew what was coming theirt way. it is national security interest to help us invent democracy. corruption still abounds. tons of problems in iraq, but on the right tree. your sign us in the administration, m in my view, and not a commander, but i can understand why the president would say that's too far. recommended.omewhere augustine made teens torstandinq mid-twenties. somewhere north of 10, given mye understanding of iraq, i think will work. and i know we're broke. t the one thing i can tell you't r can't afford after all this investment is to lose.n the price and cost of losing now would be devastating for years if we thdid not see this feed through, who would help us pushm

back against extremism knowing america left it a tie when you're asking them to stay? i am confident sunnis, shia andn kurds want is fair and reasonable numbers to make sure they have the help they need to gethey this right.e so, the decision apparently has not been made yet. the i am urging the administrations, to look at the admissions committeee reasonable can can' understand you can't get thes military all they want all theod time. this is the commander-in-chief's decision. he's a good man. it is his the one thing i think the three of us offer in these difficult times when america is under siege at home is to be bec supportive voices for the idea we can't retreat and become fortress america. look what happened when a few people from afghanistan in faraway places for less than a o million dollars, what havoc thea wreaked in our country and

disseminate the 10th can anniversary. i am hopeful as we get to the 10th anniversary we cannot back and say we have defended america in a bipartisan way and it's not just luck preventing ud from being attacked.roops he deserves a lot of credit fora having troops inre afghanistan. i registered just administration to listen to her military ght. rate. aand finish this it would be a tragedy upon a tragedy for us to be inside the 10-yard line and fumble at a s time when weco can score atal touchdown not only for nationale security, but for fundamental change in the mideast. spring i if we get it right in iraq come in the arab will get the support that it needs and deserves. if we fail in iraq, it would be just repeating history's did mistakes. the bush administration did

change. on. i thought they did because they did not get it right early on. we are so close to the end now.' let's be cautious. let's be reasonable.re we let's air on the side of making sure we can sustain the realwelg history will judge everybody welcome including president obama and that would be okay with me if we can take saddam hussein stick leadership, turnwn it into a representative government that would be linedot with us in voices of moderation for the rest of the 21sthoughts. century.hi senator liebengrman, a for day h his thoughts. it's one thing for me to talk s about this in south carolina, but even in south carolina, a very bad state, people were weary and they're not excitedstn about having to stand 2012, but i think the listen to reason. during the darkest days of thisr tfort in iraq, senator mccainie

went to look ress traveled to say we need more, when the polls say everybody's ready to come,he home. no i don't questions anyone's petrie to them. it's a hard call, test site with no easy answers, but i'm glad we chose to do what welad presidenl the president pushed adjusted. senator lieberman above all ofbe this quite frankly felt that would happen in iraq mattered to the native state and joe, you'rt right. an how to thank you on behalf of tt all those who served for giving him the time and resources to prove it to get it ready. we so it might come if you don't mind sharing your thoughts at the body about how we should finish iraq.caroli for >> mr. president. g >> cement are from connecticut. >> i think the chair and think my friend from south carolina for his generous words. obviously what turned the tide

commanding vision by general to petraeus about what had to happen to succeed with a new counterterrorism strategy and t tremendous support from the men and women of the americanthe military, a generation that that 'slunteered, that stepped up toa the call, that rightfully should begr called america's new generation. of course, we lost a lot of thet there. the iraqi military thought hard and now increasingly has shown it capability to defend its owna nation, which is what we hadnd hoped and prayed in software. so my friends from arizona and south carolina had the same hiaction i yesterday did yesters began to chat to each other byor the end of the dayig speaking bt

to washington to what was originally a fox news story that the decision had been made for the administration to go down to 3000 troops and we reacted thatr any number we'd never heard froy anyone which complements and about what was necessary to secure all that we have keen to. know the iraqis have gained. now the papers today with word it isas a fact. no secretary panetta says no decision has been made. ias hope not because in these iq matters -- i understand there's politics in iraq as well as here, but what is got to be put at the top of the list is whatnu is best for ourrse nationaliraqs security and of course for the iraqis, what's best for their national security. right

and to me, if the number is right and it's really only going to be 3000 t more there after th end of this year, i don't see w how we feel confident that we lt can protect what we spent a lot of america mice, iraqi lives, ad national treasure and dares sit caring. and i don't see how we can hopea to avoid it really possible lins return to civil war, my particularly on the fault liness my friends have mentioned between thend kurdish areas and the arab areas. want t this is a decision ultimately for the president. i want to say this without doinn the right thing.erican the president obviously took a position for withdrawal of lot american troops from iraq in the campaign of 2008.reamed tha pre

their allotted supporters whodai hope to drink that pretty much the day -- another day one. supt i think a lot of president obams supporters expected on day one of his administration he wouldq. eat in a withdrawal from iraq. to his great, great credit he did not do that because it she a understood the idea to call amea which was to pull our troops oun of iraq, that america had an interest and he has president had to protect act and notlosi losingng i in iraq, not lettingg fall apart not that he must credibility and strength aroundt the world, my friends and iy travel a lot together. we've been in places far away un from iraq, asia for instance, when it was uncertain whether or going to stick to it in iraq, we heard from our allies in asia.

realty turned.e, they said iraq is far from here, if america -- we depend onfree american strength and credibility for our security and freedom indo asia, if he would't seen weak and lame, thethatnd p preutsident to his credit put us on a slow path to withdraw. pres but i don't think anybody would fault if -- the president and ie the expert patient has been that we've achieved so much that we could leave a core group fair te continue to train the iraqithere military's so they reach theircn full potential, to be there to assist them in a counterterrorism fight because that's essentially what's going on in iraq now. the words basically over, but o

the extremists commit to shiaint militias, remnants of al qaeda are carrying out terroristexplo, attacks in this area but really the explosive attacks. to we have special capacities in the u.s. military to prevent ant counter those terrorist attacks. in the final part of the mission really has to be to protect thet american personnel there --nt wn civilian personnel. i don't know what that number will be.he at one point -- we heard he had the largest >> i ask unanimous consent for r seven minutes past 1230 club.th >> without objection. >> i think my friend. i >> at one point someone indicated the american industryg country nbc, which is the hargest in the world in terms ot personnel could go up as high as

20,000. those are a lot of civilians committed to working in thect. country that we need 12 forcesit to protect. so we come to the floor topa appeal tone secretary panetta. it would be shortsighted. if it's really going to be 3000 only 3000 frankly we are not going to tucks them away in the civilian personnel numbers in the embassy or somewhere else co covert op readers, if it's donea really only 3000, they won't deal to do the job that needs to be done. not ofonly that, they'll send a message of weakness, lack of to resolve, anxiousness to get outy to the i iraqis enemies and ours in the region and not particularly includes iran. col so, i join myle colleagues to prevent together on this for a long time. a we i don't want us to squander wha0

we've american troops there. >> dyess mccarley? no events in history are similar, but i think we've in learned in somalia have forces that are too small and don't have sufficient force protectioa protection -- and i'm not saying there exact parallels, but certainly opposed to other is they are, but if they be military or civilian in some kind of danger. and that's the progress that's r been made and it has been significant progress, a country that's really never known known democracy.tuish a but we have no turkish attacks ontt the pkk up in the kurdishat area. we have continued tensions in rr the areas that the senator fromb south carolina referred to, last june almost came to bet

exchange of hostility between the portion of the -- >> if i may --ays incre >> and the others. there's influence in basra and i continues to be the export of arms and ied is from iran into they hav iraq.e to they have no wherefores. they have no ability to projectr air space.lly isn't it true that counterintelligence is reallype? dependent on our technical assistance, which means personnel. that if we want this experimenty to succeed, we shouldn't put in unnecessary jab or deep.ow t i would just add the 3000 membes doesn't allow missions obvious to most everybody who is the good iraq to be performed in a successful manner. the bottom line. 10,000? @do was turn up 3000 before. can you do with 10?the nfl

as we were pushing the envelope. but the kurdish area disputes almost went hot. this new plan to integrate the g iraqi security forces was then americans will pay dividends 5000 is what american founders need to conntinue to plan. down we have a plan to widen down thatnu number.ak when it comes to a man, i can nt tell you right now i would not want their american civilians to be without some americanir military support, giving what i know is coming to iraq from iran. >> can i mention onetes' natiol fundamental? the question is,inte it is in te united states national security interests to have this 10,000 mn plus american troops carryingt out missions which is described or is it not? it's if it is, then it's puref t

sophistry to say, well, we would only consider this if the iraqis requested are it.equest if we are waiting for iraqis to request it, and that means iti e doesn't matter whether the united states is there or not. i think the three of us andwrch others, including generalespectd odierno, general petraeus, including the most respected military and civilian leadership that it is in our nationalso thw interests. the way they should have happened isay te and the iraqis sitting down together and making coming to an agreement, making a joint announcement that it is in both if i countries national securityone a interests.re, if it is not, we shouldn't send one single american mayor. >> i think that's a very good we've point. we have been there enough to know we've been asked b to go to both administrations. iraqis have a political problem.

that's not lost upon us. feign most people in those countries to one hundreds of thousands of foreign troops roaming around their country forever.e the so the iraqis have been upfronts withma us. level we want to continue the partnership, but it needs to be rig smaller level and they're absolutely right.will i don't buy one moment there's e movement seemed will take 3000 not one soldier more. what is going a on here is that senator says the m mission straight member. at the end of the day, this 300s doesn't get any of the essential jobs done. at least the 3000 exposed. it leaves the iraqi military in a lurch. there's no upside to this. so i would just end with this.an let's get missions identified resource them in an adequate way

and they'll rally around the president because i can't think of too many americans who want their people to be in harms way unnecessarily if you leave one, you have some obligation. if you left one, you'd be doing that person a disservice. but even not so we can get itbe. right. that number is far beyond 3000.o >> mr. president, i want to say in response to something senatog mccain said, if we're not going to leave enough to do theo job, we might as well not leave anybody there. of course we don't want thatth t happen. one is that 3000 is not theificn number and hopefully will have clarification on that.o in all of our troops to iraq to, repeated teams of leadership, never has anyone said to us than we needed less than 10,000 troops to do this job.this --

it may be and i want to repeat n this, that there is a kind of sleight of hand here and maybe e it's 3000 here and there's going to be a few more thousand tucked into the civilian workforce atme the embassy and a few more in special operating covert mis operators. but i think if that is the gameplay in, it's a mistake. als we've got to say exactly how many troops are here because confidence to our allies in the region, particularly in iraq, utpecially in iran, now aboutnco the situation, concerned about the number of troops. who there may be some iraqis who might be pushing for a post-2011 forced to pay more than they dib but dr. pollack says this'll be a bad deal for iraqi people and for the united states.

our troops would be reduced to spec teeters to various iraqi reover groups and placemats against ont another. iraq but do nothing to stop o bloodshed there, it would be seen as proof of washington's re complicity. gam if american forces cannot enforce the rules ofe, th the game, they should not be in iraq.ortrd lest they be portrayed is considering to the destruction of the country. the final point here is dr. pollack argues in this piece that the united states, if this is in response, given the benefit of the doubt for a moment to iraqi political conference, that the u.s. has the leverage to avoid this dangerous outcome. he writes and i quote him bar directly, america has the goods to bargain. the question is whetherwashins washington will come the end of quote. and that's the question ioday,

believe my colleagues from arizona and south carolina are asking today. if this will we bargain with iraqih allies if this is the problem to be able to work with them for ul another chapter to secure all week getting together until now? >> appreciate your indulgence and yield the floor.

!

>> the u.s. ambassador to libya, gene cretz says the u.s. will not be involved in nationbuilding in libya in the u.s. recognizes libya's national transitional council. he spoke in washington for a little more than a half-hour. >> please join me in welcoming, ambassador gene cretz. >> thank you. it's a pleasure to be here. it's especially a pleasure to be

here after these last six months, which have been for all of us involved in this, very intensive and finally we have achieved some fame that very few of us that would happen so quickly. if this was bleeding from behind, i don't know those of us who are exhausted don't really see it that way. wendy mentioned a meeting in paris. i may just go back a little ways to talk about the international community's response to this crisis and then move on to several different topics that she mentioned. prior to the meeting in paris last week, i think you are all aware that there are several international meetings, starting with summits and when tim and paris and then heading on into contact group meetings in doha, rome, if united emirates and istanbul and in berlin, all of

which secretary of state clinton participated in and would certainly show the commitment of the united states to this effort. i think each of the meetings, built upon the other, and over the time. we found that we built an international sensors. number one, in support of the nato mandate. number two, in support of trying to aid the libyan opposition to the extent that he could. number three, and increasing comfort with the ntc as time went on. i remember from the first days that this had started, within two weeks of the crisis, the secretary asked me to go out and find out exactly who are these people. we had a sense of who they were. i admit some of them when i was ambassador in summer ministers, some occupied the government,

but we didn't have a sense beyond that of who they were. so i traveled to rome and cairo to meet them. and i think as time went on, the international community became more comfortable with them. as each meeting solidified a particular consensus leading up to the july 15 meeting in istanbul, in which the contract group that basically offered recognition to the ntc as well as the united states did and called upon the international community to support the ntc with funds and also congealed around the sense that gadhafi had to go. up until that time, as you know, there were several attempts trying to find a political solution. in fact, libyans were sending envoys to everybody in it and we think to try to play the one party off against the other.

and in istanbul, the contact group put its foot down and said they will no longer be a diffusion of envoys and that the effort of the international community in trying to find a political solution if one could be found would be to the u.n. special representative. so, basically that brought us to -- an effect, istanbul was a turning point in the international community theo and approach to the issue. last week in paris was really quite extraordinary. the atmosphere -- you know, some people said while the specific area that, i didn't get that sense at all. the people in the room, including several prime ministers, including the president of france, prime minister of britain and the prime minister of italy and several other high-level

officials in leaving bonking the of the u.n. and the arab league secretary general, there certainly was a sense that pride in with the international community had done over the past several months, but it was in no sense a bit dream that as such. i think everybody recognized that while the situation had reached a more positive point over these past many months, that there certainly was a lot more to do. there is no doubt that a moammar gadhafi, along with his son's safe and more testing, the most dangerous of the law, having them continue to be free anywhere in libya, much less outside of libya, posed a danger to whatever efforts the tmc was going to make in terms of establishing a new government and a new way forward for this new libyan country. so for their part, i'd think

that the paris meeting, some things are common among all the different presentations made. number one, there was a further calling of nations to recognize the tnc as the legal representative at the libyan people. but today we have approximately 65 nations now that it formally recognized the tmc, including several african nations that came in for the last few days. there was certainly a sense of pride in talking to the leadership of the dnc. the african leadership is amazed at the courage the libyan people had shown in taking to the streets and actually fighting the dictator who had suffocated

them for the past 42 years. there is a call for everybody in that room to try to do what they could individually and through the u.n. of course to unfreeze the assets, which we hope now would be made available as it copes with some very, very difficult problems in the next several weeks and months, which marked word and his colleague would trust more fully. there was also a call in each of the presentations directed at the leadership of the tnc, that they now expected them as well to uphold commitments they've made during the past several months from the start, basically with respect to observing human rights, respect to treating prisoners of war according to geneva conventions. with respect to unifying libya

because part of the problem always was a part of the can turn, that this is a very benghazi centric government and no government in libya could survive and unify the country they retained the kind of perception. there is also a sense -- an appeal to the libyan leadership that they needed to take care of these asset than when they get them to be careful with them and the international community suggested transparency in some kind of accountability so in effect that money was used for a good purpose and would be tangibly seen as time went on. for their part, most of julio and knock the julio, the two leaders of the tnc gave a very moving thanks to the international community for its

support. they were very clear that they intended to fulfill the obligations they have made with respect to human rights, treatment of prisoners, et cetera and they would do everything they could, the day heard the international community's please on these different issues that they understood them and they really didn't need to be told what they needed to do because they understood those particular problems. they also agreed and said that they would be a governing authority that would make sure that the way in which they handled these billions of dollars of assets flowing into the country would be handled in a transparent and accountable way up to international standards. i think as we look forward to the next days and weeks in terms of the interest of the united states particularly in the international community writ large, there's a few things we

want to stress. number one, we will continue the nato mission, that there is certainly a clear sense in pairs that this is not over and that the tnc continues to face problems on the security front. as they mention, especially with gadhafi and his sons still running around the country. there is certainly a very strong sense that that would continue. when the circumstances are right, the decision would be made as to what the future of nato would be of anything in libya. number two, what we would hope to promote over the next days and weeks is to welcome libya into the community of nations for it to regain its seat at the u.n. number three, that we would support the tnc in its effort to meet the needs of the libyan people. to keep things as they begin to establish themselves and make their way back into aaa day by

day, minister attorney has been mayor. we expect that prime minister to brio and moustapha will make their way back and establish themselves in the coming days in tripoli. two key things are going to be number one, establishing security and also making sure that they communitarian needs of the libyan population rates whole, writ large are fulfilled because they think there is an understanding that in order to begin to put this country back together again and i said it's not recreation. i've got a creation of a new country. what they have inherited from gadhafi is a very, very difficult and hard climb. when you think about the east-west problem come when you think about tribal problems, we ain't about minority problems, the north and south, it's really

quite a challenge that they face. like i said in several interviews, i think gadhafi was going to take the concept of divide and conquer to unprecedented heights. this is what they face. they've got to do with these issues as well as stability with petitions as well as to deal with the issues remaining from the gadhafi regime, including how to deal with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of contracts. they have said they will honor contracts, but certainly there's going to be a lot that needs to be figured out as they go forward on the economic side and also of course in getting oil greasers back online. the international community also is committed to a u.n. lead and help in the libyan people. ian martinez on the ground now with the human assessment team.

i think he's going to at some point report back to the u.n., to secretary ban ki moon in terms of what the scope and size of that u.n. mission should be. and they think at the end of the day, the final goal was that we are committed to helping the tnc pave a path to peaceful, inclusive democracy. none of us can predict what democracies are going to look like. it's probably going to be messy shr to put this country together again. they're going to have to create an ngo society and create new institutions. the commitment seems to be to a democracy of some kind and we've seen from first days of assuming authority in place like benghazi in other areas in the country, that libyans seem to have an

idea of what democracy is in the first several weeks, we saw debates taking place about what constitution is, what democracy should be. this newspapers published. we saw an ngo springing up in the hundreds. so it seems they do have a sense of what democracy is and it tnc leadership will harness out and see what makes sense within what will be the new libyan political and economic social fabric. let me say a few words about planning. i know there's been a lot of questions. certainly i received a lot and there's a lot of questions directed at what planning was done, you know, in terms of this crisis. from the start, we've had an advantage in washington because i'd made and is the team transported back on mosques and we were able to put together the state department so we exploited

that knowledge on the ground that we had. we then worked with the interagency process here to basically lay out various scenarios we thought would play out in libya, from the worst to the best. in fact, the one played out is kind of the next two worst. the worst obviously would've been a gadhafi been overthrown in tripoli and in an apocalyptic rage of some kind and pretty downbeat without resources and really doing damage to the country's infrastructure, which is not happening. the speed with which the opposition forces went into tripoli and prevented that apocalyptic scenario. we did have an idea of the issues that we would face in that the tnc would face an international community would face. by and large, after we had done

are planning within the u.s. government, we then hooked up with ian martin and beyond that to the du and then finally went to the tnc planning l., which at that time several weeks ago was in doha. i think all of us are quite pleasantly surprised that the tnc group had done an amazing amount of planning, munch among the line of what were doing. we were able to compare notes on what kinds of political issues, social issues, economic issues, messaging, all these different things we taken into account. they were able to kind of fill in each other's gaps. so i am not sure at this point we can definitively say that the planning process that we all engaged in is in fact paid dividends now. but i think there is some issues being brought to the floor now, which were considered previously

and which are being played out now. for example, on the proliferation of weapons, we all recognize this is an issue that needed to be correct date. at some point over the next few weeks, there's efforts being made to decommission malicious and to get people to turn in their weapons and to bring those militias, which had been independent during the six months, bringing them into a national security force of some kind or other. wmd you'd seen and the other weapons. you've seen a lot of turn of the news that what is happening to the sites that were under the supposed that card of gadhafi and some of the cw sites and scouts, et cetera, that are at. it also interplay needs and in their planning is well considered what needed to be done. right now we have people there

on the ground with the international community to make sure that those site are secured. on the other question, for example, other weapons that might be proliferated, they've taken the same attitude. all of the planning we had done this kind of playing itself out. we also noted that the problem of african migrants in libya could be a problem because, you know, we had predict it and i think it didn't take a genius to figure out that a lot of the wrath of libyans would be direct it against black africans who were seen as having paid part in terms of mercenary and we are now working as having received credible reports from international organizations that there has been an ongoing sense of mistreatment of some of the black africans. we are now very intensively engaged with the tnc and the

international community, including the i.e. web and u.n. to make sure we get protection and figure out a solution to bring these migrants out of harms way. we don't get is obviously a systematic approach, but it is being done by cadres had a lower level who don't have a sense of what is fair play and how do you not accuse a whole raceties that can be attributed possibly to only a few of them. so we are working carefully with them. in talking to the tnc, i think some of their priorities include number one, pursuing gadhafi. this is very important to them obviously to put them on trial. there'll be a lingering problem as long as he is free. number two, stabilization and providing security and providing

a new rule of law. they have posited the possibility of special courts for those who have committed crimes committed demilitarization militias as i've mentioned. members of the gadhafi regime is possible if they are proven not to have blood on their hands, the tnc is always looking for a way to compensate the families of martyrs who played the role in this revolution. and also to come up with a budget process that will prioritize public services, public salaries in building and upgrading infrastructure and housing utilities. so they have a massive challenge ahead of them. the united states, certainly along with the satellite will do what we can. we are not going to be engaged

in the nation were either in iraq or afghanistan. it is clear that we don't have the resources to do that in this situation does not lend itself to that. the tnc by its own statements have said they are not looking for a massive handouts for financial institutions. they are looking for training and looking for help in helping to set up the institutions that they are nowhere necessary in order for them to build their new country. so what that, i think that we've got a lot of work ahead of us. we are all looking forward to going back at some point. this is a tremendous opportunity for us to watch the bravery of people who will serve as a model for storing for hundreds of years to come that took the courage of the way through this dictator. we now have a very important

role to play in helping them, according to the needs they will play out for us in trying to help this new society. they think at the end of the day, the international community and certainly we as americans can be very proud of the role we have played in this. i think we understand our reputation in libya is very well thought of. i look forward to hopefully joining american companies get back into libya because they think they have the expertise that the libyans will need. but we will take this. the key to this is that it is going to be libyan led and we are not going to dictate the terms of how we should proceed. we will be there should they need our help. at the end of the day, maybe five or 10 years from now or even sooner we may have a conversation and be able to say there is a democracy in libya and the united states have a

role to play in it. i think where all very proud of that and certainly having worked for the last six months with the president and secretary of state can say we took the right path on this one and the concept of smart power has been a good one and we look forward to going back to libya in helping them build their new nation. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, ambassador cretz or that clear, candid and comprehensive account. ambassador cretz has agreed to take a few questions from the audience. again, let remind you this is on the record. please come to the microphone at the center and state your name and affiliation and then after very few questions, then we will continue with the rest of our

panel on the humanitarian situation in libya. thank you. >> hi, i am leah from the public international law and policy group. i was just wondering if you have any kids turns on how the international backing of the tnc might affect legitimacy going forward. >> i think by saying number one that this will be a libyan led process that we recognize that we have to be very sensitive about the position of the tnc. it is clear that the no boots on the ground was not only a rose out of a domestic imperative here in the united states, the database and that that would be a very difficult issue for the tnc. we have been very careful and i think our allied partners have been as well. and so, we understand the sensitivities in a very dear

call position because they have to really establish legitimacy and credibility with the whole population, parts of which don't know who they are, parts of which are very skeptical of them. for us to be seen as a quote, unquote western imperialist, attempting to reimpose ourselves or intervene with the very dangerous thing for them. so i don't think it's going to problem quite honestly. >> we already have quite a long line, so we'll cut the line of fire. if i could just ask you not to join the line after we compete this. >> ken meyer, world.. you have a good secretary couldn't clinton statement that a living should decide fate on their own. nato will continue involvement implants without nato the rebels will lose. just letting libya's fated outcome closer to letting

libyans decided to continue devastation of the country? >> what i meant that nato would continue with nation to present civilians. that day. >> but it is continuing to bomb? >> a big asset in the case throughout the six months or throughout the five months nato has been involved in this, they've been careful in terms of the targeting and i don't think there's been many nato mission has revered, making sure there is a no-fly zone, number two that its main mandate of protecting civilians was honored most of that time were outside time. >> jeff beaulieu, al jazeera. he mentioned during your remarks you hope to be going back soon. the other finer point on that? other countries have begun to set up their diplomatic establishments. do you know to be going back or anyone else will go back?

>> i think right now we have a small team on the ground that it's assessing the situation and as we now our mission was torched in french in its audience the faithful arab was killed in a fit of apocalyptic rage by gadhafi and his goons. so we are taking it. chris stephens has been in bed ghazi -- benghazi this whole time. as the days go on, go see an increased presence, assuming the security situation is stabilized even further and that you find facilities in which to house our people. >> on a libyan american i'm proud of being libyan and american. i would like to state the fact that without interference of the

alliance and nato, we would not have achieved getting rid of gadhafi. my question is two points. libya in 1949, the united nations, the united nations, the united nations a great rehabilitation work for a non-signatories. today the second idea. i think the united nations as the investor of the united states is to wish that the united nations play the same role of rebuilding libya politically and seeing the program of political will be there for sure. it is very much irrespective because of the 1973 revolutions. my questions to you. i was in libya. i just came last week. they're asking me who is going

to pay for the nato expenses? that has never been clearly explained in the media or in other places. the second one is in the building of the country needs to have educational systems than that is a great role for the united states to play. tell us what kinds. >> in terms of the u.n. role, i'll let my colleague, mark ward, address that because he has been hooked up with the environment for a while. since the start of the placed great faith in the u.n., certainly the secretary general and his rep the senate is of hockey from jourdan and certainly now with ian marchant, who is on the ground in libya as we speak. the question of pain for nato expenses, this has been several

congress have asked me for reimbursement. this is complex to be dealt with. there's a certain recognition that let's let the tnc get established before issues like this and others who are aware of will, any bilateral relationship civil society will certainly tend to do that. mark ward will address that is because that is the area i think we will be most affect dave and we have the most imperative that the image with respect to other potential donors as well. >> dave ottaway from the woodrow wilson center, former "washington post" middle east correspondent. i am curious how you would explain qatar's amazing role in overthrowing gadhafi. what do you think the motives were for the royal family to become so in all in so many different w