vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the ayes are 45, the

nays are 52. the motion to proceed to the consideration of s.j. res. 25 is not agreed to. the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:45 a.m. on friday, september 9, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, there will be no roll call votes during friday's session. the next roll call vote will be on monday, september 12, no earlier than 5:30 p.m. mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it

adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:45 a.m. tomorrow.

>> 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 c-span's new weekly series the contenders, henry clay and his kentucky home, friday at 8 eastern. >> now the u.s. security since the 9/11 attacks. we'll hear from tom ridge and former commissioner. mr. hamilton along with fellow koa-chair, tom cain, published a report card on the national security, ten years after 9/11. peter king of new york chairs the homeland security hearing.

>> good morning, the meeting on homeland security will come to eared, and the committee is ready today to hear testimony assessing the status of homeland security on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the september 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. the chair wishes to remind our guests today that demonstrations from the audience and the use of signs and t-shirts or verbal outbursts are against the rules of the house. we thank you for the cooperation in maintaining order and the proper decorum. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. i welcome everybody to the hearing today and i especially thank the witnesses for being here today. chairman lee, lee hamilton, who had a truely outstanding career in the united states congress, as chairman of the foreign affairs committee, foreign committee, a person who person son mid the best of congress and

served as co-chairman on the 9/11 commission, and somehow we always get him to come back. he has amazing stamina and dedication, lee, great to see you here again today. i understand he's running late to travel today, but also secretary tom ridge will be testifying today. tom ridge was the first secretary of homeland security. prior to that, he served as governor of pennsylvania, and served six terms in the house of representatives, and our third witness this morning is the honorable eugene dedaro. all of us have personal stories from september 11th. in my own case, lost 150 constituents and friends on that date. you can go to other districts where there's many, if not more, and i know we've worked with family members of the 9/11 victims, but it's important that

we not be bogged down just in grief, that we look forward, and that was really what i think our country did starting on september 12th, 2001. one never forgets september 11, do all we can to the families of those murdered that day, but also to all that we possibly can to make sure that these attacks are never replicateed. we have not been attacked in the country for 10 years, and this goes to other administrations and the obama administration. this is one issue which is probably as close to being bipartisan as possible. obviously, there are some philosophical differences and policy differences we have, but the fact is certainly when i was

chairman before and then ranking member and as chairman now, i always believe had the excellent working relationship with ranking member thompson as we tried to find commonground and try to minimize the differences between us. there's been other actions taken beside the creation department of the homeland security. there's the director of national intelligence, and, of course, this committee itself was set up in response to the attacks of september 11 which probably goes to one of the areas where congress' not done what it was supposed to do by what was recommended of the 9/11 commission, which is to consolidate jurisdiction within this committee as much as possible. there's still over 90 or 100 or whatever number we want to use, subcommittees, committees, and commissions that the department of homeland security has to report to. this is not a turf battle. this is the fact we send mixed messages to the department. we are sending mixed signals as

far as what congressments in the area -- congress wants in homeland security, and this fragmentation to me is inviting, if not disastrous. certainly it's preventing law enforcement and intelligence agencies from doing the jobs to the maximum by sending so many mixed signals. again, this is an area where ranking member thompson and i fully agree. it's an area where secretary ridge, secretary napolitano fully agree, and just as i said, overall, our policies have been bipartisan both in congress and the executive level, and also the failure to consolidate jurisdiction has been a bipartisan failure, and we have to do all that we can to bring that to consolidation about, and others in the area of grants

which has been spread to other areas that need them the most, and i give credit for -- the work that was done, and not trying to draft back into duty, but congressman frank wolf and i are reconstituting the commission ten years after. other areas to move forward and allocate to police, firefighters, first responders. no one wants to go through another september 11th where there's a lack of communication, inability to communicate, and ten years later, we have not taken action. i'd like to acknowledge to the

audience chief johnson and story county from iowa who were in the forefront of fighting for the deblock which is absolutely essential. the leadership is devra davis stated because of bin laden and all those who oppose terrorism. at the same time, and now we

have al-qaeda attempts to recruit in our country and attempting to recruit people under the radar screen so as we have scored successes in one area, the enemy is adopting, and we have to continue to adapt along with it. as we approach this weekend, it's important to think back on how horrible that day was and told ourselves we would not allow that to happen again. the further we get from 9/11, the horror in the people's recessed memories, but the further it's behind us, the more we, i believe, invite another attack whether it's in congress as far as cuts we make to homeland security, whether it's media who agent like the struggle is over, or just the american people who is very

understand baling, wants to put this in the rearview mirror, but the fact is, the enemy is there, just as dedicated before, it's weakened, but adapting. we have to stand as one to do all we can to make sure that 9/11 never again repeats itself so with that, i want to thank all the witnesses for joining us here today, and i'm privileged to yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. tompson. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and most of what you said i agree with, and as you said, we clearly have had a wonderful and positive relationship as we have differences from time to time. i'd also like to welcome our newest member on the democratic side to the committee, so we now have a full complement, and we look forward to the debate. >> welcome you also, thank you.

>> mr. chairman, today we meet to hear testimony on the nation's progress in bringing about safety, security, and resiliency against terrorism since the attacks of 9/11, but before we look back, i want to acknowledge and remember all the firefighters, police officers, and on-air people who lost their lives that tuesday morning. remembering those who died must inspire us to make this nation better and safer. mr. chairman, there's no doubt that the events of september 11, 2001, brought about fundamental changes to this nation. the events of this morning changed just about everything we know about aviation security, information sharing, and fast response and recovery. overtime, this government changed policies and practices. the american people have changed their expectations. today, most people regard many new security issues as a

reasonable price for security, but as we enter the second 9/11 decade, we must begin to question the price we pay. between 2004 and 2010, the department spent nearly $300 billion to secure our nation. several initiatives have improved our security and eliminated many vulnerabilities we once faced. increases in the number of border patrol officers, the establishment of secure flight, and u.s. visit, the revitalization of fema, and new attention to securing chemical and bilogical materials all improved our security posture. all of these things have been good and necessary, but as we reflect on the past 10 years, we cannot pretend that progress has been steady and unimpeded. many pointed to the growth in homeland security spending and reliance on outside contractors at the beginning of homeland

security industrial complex which may undermind our security in the long run. i cannot isolate the cause for this incredible increase in spending, nor can i deny that congress' has the inability to consolidate jurisdiction is a contributing factor. the splintering of jurisdiction fractured every aspect of the didn't's operation and decreased its ability to operate effectively and efficiently. the inability of congress to provide the department with one strong and steady hand created opportunities for the network of using consultants who we may call the beltway bandits. i hope that the chairman works with the leadership to ensure that these jurisdictional hurdles are overcome as chairman already said in the opening comments, there's enough blame on both sides to go for this jurisdictional hoer rases that we in this case.

this committee mors pursue jurisdiction of the department. mr. chairman, as we were called on 9/11, we must remember that the terrorist attacks of that day caused us to fight a new kind of war. the war on terrorism has not only been waged in information and iraq, but it has also been fought on our shores. a recent study reports that nearly 200 terrorism cases have been brought in u.s. courts since 9/11. nine out of ten of those cases have ended in convictions. we should be proud of our success in engaging threats here at home, but our work in securing the nation must also assure our rights and freedoms. the 9/11 commission understood this necessity and recommended a privacy and civil liberties oversight board. today, that board is still not functional. i hope my colleagues will join me in requesting that appointments be made to this board immediately so as i

consider our progress since 9/11, i would call it a mixed bag. we made strides, but still have miles to go before we can rest. i yield back. >> thank you, ranking member tompson and members of the committee are reminded opening statements mob published for the record, and i also ask unanimous concept to insert the 10th anniversary report card, the recommendations prepared by the bipartisan policy center, national security preparedness group. without objection, so ordered, and now we'll -- secretary ridge, good to see you, very good. joined by secretary ridge. first witness this morning as i mentioned is lee hamilton, long time distinguished member of congress, vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, former

president of the national center for scholars and true gentleman in every sense of the word, and if anyone served in congress and served his nation in a bipartisan and patriotic way, it's lee hamilton. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent my statement be put in full in the record. >> without objection. >> ranking members, mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear with you today. this committee provided outstanding and enduring support for the implementation of the 9/11 commission recommendations. we are most appreciative of the leadership and its members for your support. by doing so, you're helping ensure that our nation takes the difficult steps necessary to confront the terrorist threat and to protect the american people. today, i'm appearing in my capacity as a co-chair, the bipartisan policy centers preparedness group which is a

successor to the 9/11 commission through the nspg, governor chain, who could not be here this morning, governor ridge and i together with a bipartisan group of security experts monitor the implementation of the 9/11 commission's recommendations and address emerging national security issues. it is a very special pleasure, of course, to appear with governor tom ridge as well as the comptroller general before you this morning. last week we released a important on the commission's recommendations. the good news is that substantial progress has been made in fulfilling many of the recommendations. among these is the transformation of the intelligence community in breaking down barriers and information sharing. however, the unfulfilled recommendations in the report indicate we're not as secure as we could or should be.

i'll cover several now and allow ridge to discuss the others. unity of effort for the many actors at a disaster seen is critical because a well coordinated response saves many lives. our nation was not fully prepared for the size and complexity of the 9/11 attacks or for that matter, hurricane katrina. many metropolitan areas where multiple agencies respond to a disaster still have not solved the problem of who is in charge. dhs and state and local governments have to work together to resolve gaps in establishing roll roles and responsibilities, conducting disaster planning, and exercising those plans. a unity of command, knowing who is in charge, is a no-brainer in terms of what must be done to respond to a disaster, and it is a source of high frustration to me, and i think other members of

the commission that we have not yet resolved that problem satisfactorily across the nation although some communities have made considerable progress. secondly, the civil liberties and executive power. i spent a good day yesterday listening in good part to the extraordinary capabilities that we have today in government to surveil people and to keep track of what they're doing. i've had that briefing before and i'm impressed over again. if you have not had the opportunity of what the capabilities are today and what they will be ten years from today, i urge you -- taking whatever steps you can -- to get that briefing. we recommended in the 9/11 commission that a privacy and civil liberties board should be

addressed to monitor civil liberty concerns across the government. you will not fail to be impressed by the potential of government and individuals now to intrude into the lives of ordinary people. although legislation was enacted to establish this board, it's been dormant more more than three years. to date, only two of the boards five members have been nominated by the president, a chairman has not been selected, the remaining three should be appointed immediately. next, the director of national intelligence, the establishment of the director of national intelligence and the national counterterrorism center 20 coordinate the activities of the intelligence community represented major progress and intelligence reform; however, there's some ambiguity about the

dni's authority over budget and personnel, and there's been four dnis in six years. further clarity about that role is needed, and that clarity can come from either additional legislation or by action of the president with repeated declarations from him that the dni is the unequivocal heard of the intelligence community with regard to budget, personnel, and other matters. next, standardized secure id's. 18 of the 19 9/11 hijackers obtained 30 state of issued ids amongst them enabling them to more easily board plain -- planes on that dreadful morning of 9/11. therefore, we recommended that the federal government set standards for the sources of identification. 2008, dhs issued detailed regulations setting standards for driver's license issuing. however, the state's compliance with the regulations has been delayed until 2013.

that delay in compliance creates vulnerabilities and makes us less safe. no further delay should be authorized, and instead from my point of view at least, the deadline should be accelerated. next, transportation security. with significant federal funding, tsa deployed large numbers of enhanced screening equipment in explosive detection. unfortunately, explosive detection technology lacks reliability and lags in its capability to automatically identify concealed weapons and explosives. dhs must improve the way it sets screening technology requirements, works with the private sector to develop this equipment, and tests it in the field. finally, with regard to standards for terrorist detention -- i know this is not within the jurisdiction of the committee, but it's an important matter -- for too long we delayed resolving the important

problem of recon silling the rule of law of detaining alleged terrorists, no doubt who they attempt to do the nation harm. there must be a law, comprehensive approach for how to handle detainees and protect the american people. to conclude, while we have done much since the attacks ten years ago, we are safer than we were that day, all of us, i think, there is still much more to do. political leadership from both parties and at all levels of government should renew their focus on completing implementation of the 9/11 commission recommendations. thank you. >> thank you, chairman hamilton. the next witness is an old friend of people in the congress. i had the privilege of serving with tom ridge when a member as congress, became an outstanding governor of the state of pennsylvania, and was present at

the creation when president bush appointed him to be the first assistant to the president of homeland security. he's a unique perspective on this being there from the start an monitored the develop over the department and of the homeland security mechanisms in the country over the past ten years. tom was a college graduate, law stay tuned, drafted, served in vat nawm, received the bronze star, and truly outstanding member of congress, and, again, like chairman hamilton, dedicated to his country and on this issue in particular. it's an hoer nor to have you here today, and you are recognized. >> thank you chairman, ranking members, and members of the committee -- [inaudible] i join my colleagues in thanking my colleagues to express my appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you today as we

reflect upon the nation's security efforts ten years after the attacks of 9/11/01, and frankly as we consider the priorities for the future. i'm very pleased to be joined today at the witness table by someone you recognize. we all recognize as a great patriot, lee hamilton, and obviously we recognize the service and contribution -- >> pull the mrch close. i'm having a hard time. now it's fine. thank you very much. >> i recognize the service of comptroller gene dodaro, who bring distinguished credentials and significant points of view to our conversation today. as i look back over the last 10 years, it is abun adaptly clear that america was, is, and will always be an undeniably resilient country. in the decades' time, we strengthened intelligence assets

and partnered with allies and friends, captures and killed terrorists, destroyed safe havens in afghanistan and around the globe. we set up a new department, the department of homeland security, and repositioned as the country embraced an e motionally charged, but i think strategically driven, national mission. we improved preparedness and response kates and established layers of security throughout our aviation system. we embedded new technologies and security measures throughout both the private and public sectors. individual citizens, i believe, are more prepared and they are certainly more aware. with public and private sector leadership in investment, we are more secure, but we remain a target nonetheless. over the course of 10 years, the threat remains strong and continues to change. we have twharted some attacks,

but others have simply failed. what makes some uncomfortable, we must acknowledge no matter how hard we try, another attack is likely. the responsibility is on us then to understand there's more to do and that luck is not a strategy. as we close one as a rule inert, we should anticipate the terrorist adapts and seeks out another and be ready for that. we must view security as an ongoing process, not an end point, a deliberative process, not a breathless reaction to all conceivable threats 1 required at all times. terrorists do not rest, so neither can we. we wear wristwatches. they have time. a number of security measures await our attention. we have strengthened information

sharing in this country and among allies and friends, but we still saw an attempted christmas day bomber come close to his goals doo to an information not being shared. i, for one, also believe that the failure to share information and the failure to act led to the horrible tragedy associated with the deaths of the people at fort hood. we need to create a culture of intelligence sharing where everyone feels empowered to hit the send button to share more, not less. we bolstered communication technologies burks -- but an inoperateble communication system remains undelivered. if the tragedy of 9/11, the specific recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and the sustained pleas of police, firemen, and emergency service personnels cannot generate federal support for such a network, what will it take? ladies and gentlemen, what will

it take? we have instituted an entry system to validate who comes into the country, but have not created an exit system that ensures the same visitor leave and do not exploit an unfinished system. it is likely, therefore, we have people among us overstaying their visas. where are they now? what are they doing? why are they here? respect the way i say this -- the issue of congressional oversight is a 9/11 recommendation that also goes unanswered. ..

but we all know this threat would remain long after the man was killed. 10 years is not a lot of time, but it is enough time to know in the next 10 years to fight will be with us. it will go on, but so will we, as a stronger and more secure

country, as the resilient in freedom loving people we have always been a designation that will always remind you those the last one september day. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, secretary ridge. our next witness is to keep everybody on this. attorney general gene dodaro come within more than 30 year record of achievement. he served more than nine years as chief operating officer at gao and with that i look forward to your testimony and it's a perspective we don't always hear, so i search and look forward to you this morning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member thompson, members of the committee, very pleased to be here today to discuss gao's view on homeland security issues. it's a privilege to appear with hamilton and bridge this morning. we issued a report of the work we have done over the past

decade, looking to homeland security issues. we've made over 1500 recommendations during that period of time. with adopted a constructive approach and try to do our part to help about quest to make our homeland more secure. the department has reacted favorably to implementations and is adopted many and many have not been fully implemented. they bought a message of our report was progress indeed has been made since 9/11, but much work remains on gadson weakness is that the department needs to address in order to reach its full potential. on the progress site, when secure flight. we've assisted out to check against terrorist watch lists on passenger lists. we have a visa entry biometrics system as governor ridge mentioned, to track people coming into the country. we have a visa security program

come over dhs is now working with department of state officials in the process of determining who gets a visa in order to come into the country. there's also what automated verification authorization system for the visa waiver countries, where pieces aren't needed, that checked if they counted. we toasted resources at ports of entry, equipment and infrastructure they are and that the borders across the country. i'm also pleased there's been greater emphasis on cybersecurity in the national infrastructure plan in fema has issued national response framework and documents to ensure emergency preparedness and better clarity of goals and responsibilities. on the work remaining side, first to point to the fact that we need to continuously improve the processes and technologies for screening at the airport,

particularly including a plan to bring the equipment for screening checked baggage up to current levels for detecting explosive devices. secondly, i would echo the comments of my colleagues in that we need an exit system for this country. over stage remains a significant problem. estimate to between four and 5 million people and if we all recall, five of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 had overstayed their visas. so having an exit strategy is important. his great opportunities to expand the visa border security program. dhs is not working with the state department on all critical high-risk issues previously done by placing additional people overseas are perhaps remotely working within the united states. so that's an important issue as well. there's also a task to provide more timely and actionable

threat and alerts on cybersecurity issues to the private sector and others and help them dealing with a growing problem of cybersecurity intrusions. there's also a need for fema to come up with the metrics assess it to assess capabilities and readiness of jurisdictions. we have framework and guidelines , but we've yet to have any objective assessment of readiness and preparedness levels across the country. also, you need to effectively implement the global nuclear detection strategy and we've made some recommendations in this area. there's a need to strengthen efforts to detect biological agents and threats to our country. lastly, i would point to a report, highlighting the need for the department to improve

their management systems and infrastructure to help support these very important missions. problems that have been occurring in the acquisition area. it's been a number of failed acquisition attempts. a lot of money is at stake to about 40% of the budget is on acquisitions and that means to be improved, along with development and testing of technologies before they're deployed. so the financial management systems need to be strengthened to properly account for funds available. they're one of of the few departments that are unable to pass a clean audit opinion. going forward in the austere budget environment, it's important that we make the most efficient use out of the monies and manage wisely. this concludes my opening statement. i look forward to answering questions. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you controllers general

dodaro. my first question would be to secretary ridge and hamilton. i'm on this committee, the intelligence committee and i haven't figured out what the role of the director of national intelligence is. i don't mean that in a sarcastic way. he seems to be no defined role. if anything comes position is weakening. chairman hamilton, he mentioned that they take action to firm up responsibilities. we tried to have the race firm that we in general petraeus. i don't see much likelihood you'll see this president or any president in the immediate future coming back on the powers of the cia. as a practical matter, where do we stand with the dni? >> i think it's very important to understand where we were before 9/11. at that time, you had the so-called leader of the intelligence community, director

of the cia, who didn't have power over the budget and most of the personnel in the intelligence community. so all of the cia nurse focused on the cia and not the other 14 or 15 elements of the intelligence community. our principal recommendation in the 9/11 commission report is that you had to get away from stove piping information from conduct human agency and the basis of need to know and can do the agency on responsibility to share because we lost lives because we did not connect the dots. we did not share information. we recommended that you needed someone overseeing the entire intelligence community with considerable power, with respect to personnel budget. he passed a law saying that the

direct or of national intelligence that power, but in the same landwehr was wordage that kind of weakened the power so you may get some unambiguous. so the director four and six years in that job. the direct heirs have performed very well. it's a test spot, even with the statutory power because you are dealing with very big players in any administration. secretary of defense cia air. regardless of statutory powers he may have come enough to exercise power with a great deal of diplomacy and discussion in order to make it work affect lee. personalities are very, very important. i think the dni has done tremendously good work enforcing, if i may use the

word, sharing of information. do a better example of what tom ridge referred to, removal of osama bin laden, when we had a marvelous example of sharing of information, coordination, integration, military civilian components of our government. so i think mr. chairman, the dni is a work in progress. i think several of them have made very significant progress over a period of time. we are not there yet. you do not have the seamless sharing of information that you would like to have, but it seems to me, it's a lot of progress has been made. but a personal preference would see a lot in a bid, making it unambiguously clear that this man is in charge because somebody has to knock heads to be blunt about it, within the intelligence community, to get them to coordinate and integrate

their activities. i think almost the same thing could be accomplished if the president made very, very clear repeatedly, his support for the dni. i think president bush and president obama have both done that, but not as forcefully and repeatedly as they think the job requires. so it work in progress. a lot of progress made, still a lot to do in improving intelligence sharing and the government. >> secretary ridge come anything to add to that? >> one brief comment. i appreciate lee hamilton did on that and i share it. the role of the dni if you look at lucy might eat to coordinate activity. well, this might be attempting

to courtenay activities between agencies that the mine site and are led by strong personalities. so the extent we should could clarify with great specificity the role of the dni is strictly oversight. does he have budgetary control? is one thing to control or at least had the opportunity to coordinate a dvd, but it would be well stated if you want to get somebody's attention, you control the purse strings. the men who have served us as dni had done a remarkable job. it's a difficult task given the institutional mindset about the agencies of which the oversight responsibility and coordination accountability. and i was not privy to some conversations that the dni's have had with respect to the intelligence community leaders. it's difficult to them and acting secretary, as congressman hamilton has pointed out, further clarification of greater

specificity as to the church might be helpful. >> my time is running out for her. i would like to ask important questions of chairman hamilton as secretary ridge. do you just synthesize a few at the import of radio interoperability and i respect term? >> well, look, this is another no-brainer. did people but the responsibility at the scene of the disaster must have the ability to communicate with one another. not just verbally, but exchanging all kinds of data and information that can be helpful to the first responder. this is a source of enormous frustration why we can't solve this problem 10 years after the fact. i know there are two bills pending in the congress. the commander of ground. you can argue it flat.

i don't want to get into that this morning. it's less important which approach of these is taken minutes to get it done. we cannot permit delay of this. we lost lives that 9/11 could be lost lives that katrina because we were not able to get good communication. one thing you know when you study these disaster events is that communications under the best of circumstances are going to sail. it's a chaotic situation. but going into the event, you want to have the best communications you can. so my plea to you is get this thing resolved. i think it's an urgent question and shame on us, shame on us if we have not solved that problem in the next disaster strikes. >> secretary ridge. >> once again, i find myself

doing that the hip with lee hamilton. but it simply, ladies and gentlemen, detect elegy exists. where is the portable will to get it done? by the way, there are competing measures before the house and the senate. but i look to you this. policemen and firemen and emergency responders what you do make a choice. all they want is a system. the opportunity to get voice and data and video over the broad band and not just in response to a terrorist attack, but a natural disaster or horrible accident or incident. what if we do for this country, although it's an investment taste upon the reality of associate with 9/11 would dramatically improve public safety across the board. as i repeat again, it's not a matter of technology that

exists. it's in order to execute on the recommendation of the 9/11 commission. >> i recommend that i introduce to your. that's excellent leadership. >> i think -- think the number. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. hamilton, jurisdiction is the heart and soul of committee's ability to get this done. as you know, that's an issue. we try when democrats are in charge. we shy when republicans are in charge to get the jurisdiction of the committee. in her testimony as well as

secretary ridge's is again another one of those no-brainers for us not to get done. can you just put up team time, repeat how important consolidated jurisdiction is? >> well, you think both the chairman a new, mr. thompson, have articulated it well in your opening statements. i don't know how many cities in such committees are now involved. i think close to 100 oversight and both houses and oversight of the dhs. governor ridge, secretary ridge can speak to that better than i. but it is an enormous burden to put on a secretary to come running up here for a second time, sport and as that is an

chu azzarello all the questions and reports so that the fragmented jurisdiction becomes a real hindrance to their respective performance of the department of dhs and they have enough problems without an additional one here. now, i serve on every congressional reform after we had in this congress during my years in the congress and i think our results were less than spectacular. but i know something about how difficult it is to change jurisdictions. i think what has to be done here is for members of congress and particularly the leadership of the congress to recognize that in setting up these jurisdictions, they are not just moving boxes around to placate members of their caucus. they are dealing with the lives

of the american people. and the jurisdiction, and integrated jurisdiction of the oversight committees is essential to the effect of performance of the homeland security depart name. >> mr. secretary, do you want take a shot at it? >> well, thank you, congressman. i can remember proudly and happily the 12 years i served in the congress of the united states. an essay sitting at this level are probably enjoy asking questions more than answering them, but that's another story of enjoying the conversation were having today. i remember a time time again with colleagues on both sides of the outcome a walking to get a vote and we be scampering from the committee to subcommittee and we would all lament. wheresoever schedule. we don't get a chance to spend an hour to an committee because there's so much jurisdiction that's been shared and there are

too many people to stay focused on one or two committees because the diversity in assignments is worthy of her wording, even on members of congress. and i believe that the department, still evolving, still trying to integrate the business line for maladies associated with procurement reform and budget reform and finance and h.r. and i.t. and you still have the responsibility to develop and execute on policies. your partnership come in the partnership of the congress of the united states, the strategic heart mayorship is absolutely essential to the success of the department and enhancing the security of the united states is in the hands if you can compress the number of committees and subcommittees so that there is a certain level of web-based

expertise among a smaller group of members, of house and senate members that will oversee the department. again, that responsibility falls to the leadership and i would be hopeful one of these days we can create the true strategic relationship and partnership by integrating some of these committees so there is not as much oversight. i can recall in my own experience, we were conducting war in afghanistan and iraq and i appeared before the house and senate more often than secretary rumsfeld did. but that's not just yours truly. that's the undersecretary and to be secretary. and by the way, everybody takes their responsibility to a beer before you seriously. there are boards and we sit in front of our colleagues and ask questions you might anticipate and then obviously there's questions for the record. would be a much stronger

strategic partner if you would consolidate the jurisdiction and i think the dhs can regardless of the administration and he's in charge could benefit from it and certainly appreciated. >> thank you very much. mr. dodaro, we have a question about resilient spending. you lucked out with the department is doing well and what they need to improve on. but there are some people who say we spent over billions dollars in dhs. can we look at that investment and say that is a level of security that we can reach, that won't guarantee that nothing bad will happen, but we need to also prepare the public for when something bad happens, how we come back as a nation, whether

it's a county, city or state. have you looked at that issue from an investment of dollars in point in seeing whether we should be also preparing for something to happen? >> we basically look at the concept of resiliency and the fact that it needed to be built better into the planning efforts of the department, along with the response plan. we focused a lot on the initial recovery from an event -- excuse me i got it backwards. the initial response, but the recovery efforts have been ones that take longer and still go on over a period of time. as we looked at it conceptually. we haven't, i don't believe, look at how many dollars go into that area versus the other area. but we have looked at are the investments made over the years and i do think the depart and greatly needs to expand its capabilities to make those investments were wisely and

prudently. we've made many recommendations. they've developed better plants, but they have to implement plans to make sure whatever investments they make, whether it is for the initial response to recovery or resiliency for going to provide a good return on investment for the american people. i think they have had some major problems right now i'm the i.t. portfolio. our 466 projects every $3 billion in needed serious management attention back to run accounts of the board. so this is a broad-based problem. it's not just one focused on resilient they. >> well, the point i'm trying to get at is, do we continue to throw good money at the situations or is there a point where we have to come up from policy standpoint, prepare this country to be able to come back

after the occurrence, notwithstanding doing the best job you can, i think the resiliency aspect of the depart and is something we need to put front and center because every situation that occurs, historically we throw millions and sometimes billions of dollars after the christmas day bombing incidents, we thought machines for afterwards that people already said they would not detect other items that we already know that will be coming through airports. so is that a good many? >> basically, i agree there is a need to make more prudent investments. we've said many times that reports the technologies need to be tested and environments before they are deployed and

we've made many recommendations to make sure that they strength in the ability to do that. there is the initial, you know, the action that people want to do something quickly. we have suggested they need to put better processes in place to make sure whatever they do and they make those investments they actually work and get us. so i agree completely with you. i know we've made many recommendations. i think the department is trying to improve their acquisition process is an investment policies and we are going to stay focused on the issue to help make sure that they do. you know, we have been managing the transfer of department of homeland security that we keep for the congress. one of the main reasons it's on the high risk list is because the management pack says support these provisions have it been implemented using best practices. >> thank you.

>> thank you, ranking member. i recognize the gentlelady, ms. miller for 10 minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the witnesses and your service to the nation. a quick observation before asked the question i'll pick up on sending secretary ridge said when you talk about the christmas day bomber and the lack of sharing information. this particular incident has fallen off the radar screen. but it sure has announced for a security area. it's crazy watching the skies go to the federal court system. he's not representing himself. you know, we had to give him his miranda rights, send and to the university of michigan and here's this guy who, in my mind, should've been tried as an enemy or military tribunal and it makes me mad. i know you're a vietnam veteran. i'm pretty sure when you're in vietnam looking at the enemy come you didn't think about giving them the miranda rights

or what have you been letting them go through the federal court system. we are facing a different kind of enemy. every time i look at the poster on the back, showing the twin towers, i think about these cockroaches, these murderers commit these terrorist after us now. that particular day, back i saw the battlefield in an asymmetrical term and battlefield in his mind that davis unseat 198 and the northwest flight. i think it's outrageous that this administration does not treat these terrorists as enemy combatants. that is what they are. we need to have a clear view of the animal rear facing for going for going to be successful in securing borders and securing our homeland. i'd like to ask a question. i'm going to pick up on the visa issue that both the secretary and mr. dodaro mentioned as well. i am the chair of the

subcommittee. my ranking member mr. cuellar and i will have a hearing on the entire visa situation which is a great consternation, pointed out in the consultation, continues to be of great consternation. it has been advanced that about half of all the illegal aliens that are in our country actually did not come here across the border. ..

is you could flush a i haven't read all of her 15 recommend asians yet. in regard to the visa is there anything you can tell us. >> yes, first i mentioned the visa security program and this is where dhs is working the state department in the initial screening before the visas are given. right now, there is only i think about -- they are not fully deployed in all high risk areas and i can provide the statistics for the record but our basic.there is that having dhs work more with the state department can enhance that initial screening process and that is particularly important because of this overstay issue and it will take us a while to be able to deal with that issue. so we think dhs can either be deployed in order to work with the state department but also to work with remotely her to work

with them to screen them and communicate electronically. the main point there is that all high risk country should he covered and can be covered. right now they are not covered. also on the visa waiver countries, the electronic notification system, that is working fairly well in about 90% of the people are authorized using the electric system. but 2% or not and that is over 600,000 people, so we have made a recommendation to the department to figure out why they were allowed thinner why the electronic notification did not work harper lee in that area. and then there is the exit system strategy. there have been a lot of pilots that have an provided satisfactory answers. that is one of the things i want us to do more work on to see if we can help identify some means to do this. it is a huge issue but it is very important. until we have all three of those

initial screening the countries that are not in the visa -- required to have a visa or visa waiver and those that are on a visa waiver and have an exit system you won't have a complete system of protection. >> could i just add in response -- look at biometric exit system is required today by law. it is in the law. dhs will tell you that it costs too much to implement. if that is the case then they should come back to the congress and give us a plan as to how they are going to do with it in ascii for the money. but like anything that is complex the thing to do here under the present circumstances is to face it, and that might take a period of a few years. you can start with the vast majority of travelers who go by air and you can have a biometric exit system today incorporated

into our current airline operations without much difficulty. very similar to the way that you get a -- and a reservation situation. you can do it with one fingerprint per passenger. so what i'm saying is that it is a tough problem and it is not easy and it isn't expensive. but the law is the law and it is vitally important to the security of the country that we have a biometric exit system. if you can't do it all at once which you probably cannot, at the very least we ought to phase it in. the canadian border you are right in there at the canadian border, you could make that land border and exit of the united states and new technology could play a role in making exit a reality there at a reasonable cost. i want to see us move ahead on this. >> thank you very much.

>> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for your service to our country and for being before us today. i wanted to comment a little bit on the whole issue of jurisdiction because you all have no problem with us up here wanting to solidify the jurisdiction of this committee, and it is very frustrating on our part to put so much time and effort into understanding the issue that the department is dealing with and doing our oversight to it, to try to go along and draft legislation and to try to pass it, passing it out of committee in many cases and then having it signed because it does have another jurisdiction and it has got to go to another committee and they never take it up or they really never take it up. so when you look at the actual legislation that comes out of this committee it has been very

little in the five, six or seven years we have been around now because we are signing by those jurisdictional issue so anything you can do to continue to soar to push the congress to get it all in one place or at lease in less than the 88 subcommittees and committees both on the senate on the side that i last counted that have some piece of jurisdiction would be important for us here to be able to actually follow through on a lot of the work that we do. i am also very concerned with the u.s. visit program. for mr. choir i was the chairman when the democrats controlled the maritime border committee and that was a very big issue for us and in fact when secretary napolitano was before our committee this year, i asked her specifically about the exit part of the u.s. visit program and she said a sickly that the department was not going to continue to work on that exit

peace and instead would prefer to put money into ice and that there was really no way -- the department stopped working on the backend of that, so in a minute if you could give a comment to that, what do you think that is wise or whether we should continue with my good friend mr. hamilton said at lease began to implement it in the airport situation. i also want to ask you about the program if any of you are familiar with it. that is the transportation worker identification card and in particular may be to our secretary over there. because we have had so many problems putting this together. it is a biometric card. it is a card that is supposed to be read by a reader. there are no readers yet and it is a big problem in particular

for people -- for workers who have to go every day and you have to take time away. do you think a mail-in system to review a -- we are almost coming on the fifth year of the renewal of this twit card for our workers and they will be facing some of the same problems they face five years ago when we started into this program of how do i get it, where do i go? do i have to drive two hours and as you know right now it is a flash card rather than a reader card so if you could comment on that. the last and is the issue of the continuity of the congress. in particular as it relates to the house of representatives. we really have done nothing to insure, and as you know in the house of representatives, if something should happen to a majority of us, there would need to be special elections in order to put someone forward and be able to constitute the house back, and that might eat a

laborious process. if you could comment at all to whether the congress or this how should really be concerned about doing something about the continuity of the congress? and any of you who would like to. >> i will start on the twit card, and i would be happy to submit our report on this card for the record. we find a lot of control problems with the card in terms of how dhs enrolls people to use the card. the fact that they don't require updates and whether people still need the card or not. we actually had undercover investigators gain access to forge fake cards and false documents so there is a lot of control problems in order to make it work effectively under the current program. we have made a number of recommendations and i will submit that report for the record. with regard to trying to address

the overstay issue with i.c.e. resources, you know basically that would be helpful but that is really not going to address the problem in our opinion. i.c.e. basically has about 1000 cases a year where they identify oversights -- overstays and that is compared with estimates of 45 million people in the country, so i think the exit system is very important and needs to be implemented, whether it is in phases or not. the volume is too big and it is always more difficult to find people after they are here than to make sure you know when they are leaving. so those are my comments on those two issues. >> on the continuity of congress question, i have not looked at that in great detail but obviously you ought to -- we ought to be very sympathetic to

that. the airplane they came down in pennsylvania we think was headed for the capitol building and had it struck at the right time and in the right place you could have had a high number of casualties among members of congress. so i think it is a serious matter and a few years back probably not so serious but becoming more serious, and the technology that is becoming increasingly available to the terrorists, including anthrax and we saw the effort to acquire castor beans for the production of this resin, a very toxic poison. those kinds of things could strike on capitol hill very quickly, so i'm quite sympathetic to efforts, and i don't know the detail of the continuity in the congress. on a committee jurisdiction question, i wrestled with that

one. it seems to me that if it is going to be done, has to be done at the beginning of the session, and because that is when you consider the structure of the congress and it has to be done by a bipartisan agreement among the leadership. it could not be possibly done by the leadership of a single party. the perspective that has to be taken is that this is a national security matter. the lives of americans are at stake. on the basis of the quality of oversight of the congress, and this is not a matter of placating members of your party caucus. this is a national security matter. now we all know that the leadership wrestles with an awful lot of problems and they tend to solve those problems and my experience would be on the basis of their caucus.

the leaders report to the caucus and follow the will of the caucus. i have suggested to the executive ranch and incidentally the executive branch is enormously frustrated by this, really frustrated. the director of intelligence of dhs and governor ridge has expressed that very well. i suggested the other days to some of the executive branch people that maybe what should be done is to put together a kind of a super committee if you would of past national security people, who have great stature, republican and democrat, and go to the leadership prior to the beginning of the new congress and just try to explain to them how important this matter is,

that this is really critical for the national security of the united states. all of them would say that, have no doubt about it because i have talked to all of them. trying to get the leadership to see this problem in terms of a national security problem rather than helping particular members retain jurisdiction of the dhs. it is a very tough problem and i am very open to other suggestions on it but maybe this is worth a crack. bipartisan leadership action will be necessary to get it done. >> thank you. the next person in line of questions is congressman walberg and congressman marino has been called back to his district. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much. i appreciated. mr. dodaro being a former prosecutor and district

attorney, u.s. attorney, attorney, know the importance of trying to be able to communicate with agencies, whether it is a terrorist attack, whether it is an automobile accident or a drug raid and i am all for coming up with a system and implementing whereby if we needed to, someone in pennsylvania could be talking to someone in florida via some type of direct communication. have you ever calculated or estimated what the cost of something like that would be because i know in my area of northeastern and north-central pennsylvania, the mountains cause a great many problems so we are probably talking about satellite. do you have any idea what that would cost us? >> as a pennsylvania native myself understand the mountains. very good. i don't believe we have.

i know we have done a lot of work looking at the development standards to ensure the interoperable communications would take place. i will go back and check. if we have anything i will give it to you but i can't think of anything off the top of my head where we have done the calculation that you are requesting. it would be an interesting exercise. >> this is one area where i am leading in the direction of, you would pay for itself 10 times over. but thank you. i appreciate that. >> the cbo has made estimates on this and it is expensive and there isn't any doubt about it. do you put it the block network construction in place as the estimates from between 11 and $24 billion that i have seen. now, you are going to have to do all you can of course to control costs. the option of some of the spectrum can be used.

i know that is a very complicated and difficult matter, but like all tough decisions in government is a matter of priorities here, and the capacity of the first responders to talk with one another is so important. it seems to me that costs have to be worked out. it is a very high priority. we lose hundreds of lives because of this. i have experienced that myself. >> congressmen if i might add being familiar with pennsylvania myself i dare say it would be a long time i suspect before we have the kind of technology that will reach into every community in every state. i suspect as good as the wireless is and as good as the technology and the dramatic improvements within the private sector on a regular basis to expand the reach, but i don't think we have to make a perfect enemy of the good. i think it is like the homeland

security, you manage the risk. would u2 to manage the risk? in this instance you save yourselves what do we do to bring the maximum bass communication capability with existing technology to as many people, communities and the state as we can. it arctics this. i think it would be the infrastructure technology we have 290 or 95% of americans. i think we ought to move as quickly as possible. >> congressman hamilton and governor ridge, this final question. there has been some talk among colleagues, among people out in the field that, do you think at this point there should he at least a discussion as to combining the department of homeland security and the department with another department? would there be any efficiency and matt?

for example, defense? >> creating a new department of government is arduous work. and once you have created it to work is just beginning in a sense. i was around here when we created the department of energy back in 1976 and sometimes i wonder whether we have got an integrated department there even today. dhs has had very good leadership. tom ridge is a good example of that. >> that was not my intent at all. let me make that clear. >> look, what was 22 agencies or something like that were brought together, it is now has a budget of $50 billion or whatever the figure is, and if you suddenly moved to a new reorganization, i

would be quite skeptical of that at this time. i think the focus at this point should be on getting the dhs to work and to work much better because when you reorganize the major department of government and the federal government you have really got a formidable task on your hands. >> governor i have eight seconds. >> i recall the days where we try to identify the units of government that we would pull together to aggregate them to create the department of homeland security and there was much discussion as to other entities would we voted are not. i believe that the congress and working in the executive branch at that time assimilated the right number and the right rooms. the congress has been looking for day -- but all those reports like a lot of others have gathered dust. so i think we need to remind ourselves that most of these were men and women working and existing agencies and the

assimilation process continues. we also need to remind ourselves that the condition of homeland security will wear your customers and border protection, fema, the secret service, immigration and customs enforcement, coast guard, they'll have traditional missions as well and on top of those missions we layered on additional responsibility to homeland security, so i think he want to integrate anything to make homeland security more effective and more efficient, it is a national security issue. you don't need to integrate it to anything else. you just really need to integrate committee oversight so congress can become a strategic partner that dhs needs. >> gentleman thank you. and chairman thank you. >> the gentlelady from texas ms. jackson-lee is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much and i believe it is appropriate during the days

prior to the tenth anniversary that conjures emotions amongst many of us is to really cites the patriotism of the three witnesses and the value that they have given to the necessity of securing the homeland. i pay tribute to each of you and your own responsibility and the way you let in thank you so very much for that service. i want to acknowledge as well my chairman and ranking member because they are accurate that we have worked together. the one thing that we have not done on this committee is challenged members to patriotism. we have disagreed on policy but we have not challenged the patriotism. i consider each of the members and myself a patriot and i am so grateful that even though we

critique studies, that the 9/11 commission will find its place in history along with secretary ridge who had to feel your way after the aftermath of 9/11 but the 9/11 commission report congressman hamilton, will be a book that we will continue to learn from. i think it is important to join the legislation of this -- [inaudible] and i believe that it would be important for us to make two commitments. one, 10 years later, we should have the ability to communicate amongst the first responders and of course, it anyone that is addressing a natural disaster. the second commitment is the

combination of jurisdiction if you will, combining so that we have an efficiency of scale. i would like to thank our first responders but to add to that our rescuers because there are those who came unlabeled at the world tower and in pennsylvania obviously there was devastation and a lack of possibility of anyone who had survived. no one knew that in the powers and there were a lot of those who were discovered and found, and let me thank all of those individuals and if i might say, i hope may maybe in these next hours the new york celebration will find a way to add our first responders and add those who may not have been able to find space. a big pa system and put them all up in manhattan and i think it

would all be happy. the reason why he laid the groundwork is because i don't think there is a more and important task than what we have before us. i wanted to probe mr. hamilton the comment he made about the inability to detect explosives and the comment in our memorandum that says aviation and airport still remain vulnerable. can you expand on your point about the inability to detect explosives and my belief that this is still aviation airports are still one of the more attractive targets for terrorism? >> i think a lot of effort has been made in the area of technology to develop a device that can detect immediately various kinds of explosives that may be hidden on your body or in your body. and this is a problem that

receives 9/11. this too has been a great concern that over the years and having spent a lot of money and having a lot of i guess very evil scientist looking into it, we have not succeeded yet. the gao i think has issued a report on this and i am sure the general may want to comment. but i think we have to accelerate this effort as best we can, and get our act together, because this is a huge vulnerability. in our air traffic system today. the detroit incident has already been referred to her, but i think dhs really has to bear down on this. secretary ridge may be able to comment on it as well -- to develop the technology to the point that we can make the

detection of all kinds of explosives. all of us recognize the vulnerability. >> let me thank you for your service and have these questions if i might mr. chairman to let secretary ridge. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. answer the question. >> if i could put these questions on the record, let me just ask this question. >> i want to ask the question beyond the five minutes. >> it falls under my committee. >> the gentlelady can ask questions but they won't be answered. >> if you would comment in the course of answering the one about the explosion, the value of the passenger fee for security and not privatizing tsa? >> i would ask if the answer could be given in writing to that question. >> thank you mr. chairman and i thank the panels for being here today and for your service. being a new member on the

cybersecurity subcommittee, it has been an eye-opener for me beyond just my normal thought that the light switch works when i turn it on and off, and the computer screen comes on. i have the necessary protections on my computer that i can purchase for various things. as i have gotten into this committee it has been amazing to think about what has to be done in an age when a small cell can spend very little money to purchase resources that can break into and in fact can destroy our infrastructure very quickly, thinking of cms energy in my district and detroit edison and going through some of the processes that they do, amazing processes, to deal with these cyber attacks that come in on a regular basis. and then hearing talk about rum

our own government level of the need to have a public private partnership and in dealing with these concerns for our energy infrastructure, our computer communications infrastructure. i guess my question along this line specifically to governor ridge and congressman hamilton, what is the best way to address this threat to our critical in per structure from those who don't even need to set a foot on our land and also what can be done to improve this partnership, this public-private partnership that everybody talks about but at this point in time at least to my understanding doesn't seem to be implemented to a great degree yet and is always seemingly below, performing below expectations? any solutions to this that you could address government --

governor ridge? >> first of all, i think the administration has clearly begun the discussion with a piece of legislation that has invited a great deal of scrutiny and some criticism and as i've been participating in a couple of public forums it is pretty clear that at least initially they understand that it is something that they actually needs to engage in the private sector in and the discussion as i said standards and the like so i think you have got a long way to go. ..

in unelected capacities. we attract lawyers, signed case, cyberexperts. make no mistake about it. the great capacity of knowledge and information on this issue lies outside of government. if there was ever an issue where republican and democrats, both of whom talk frequently about public private sector collaboration come if there was ever an issue where you might want to think of some of your standards and regulations around a track to end up biting and creating a true public either part or ship can we bring in a series of x-rays to work and

then collaborate systemwide this would be the issue. this is the issue that i think puts itself to the kind of holistic collaboration between all the expertise you have in the very, a lot with well-intentioned experts within the federal government. one final comment. when i try to attract just advisory board, nonpaying, to assist decorated terry of homeland security to deal with several issues, the requirements for the public site are in the kind of information they have to share with the congress or regulators discourage a lot of well at tension people to participate in the riser report. and i understand excreting, but on this issue and other issues, we have to get it on the mindset

that people with the expertise and a private set her cardhouse seems to simply feather their own vast to work and collaboration with the congress of the united states. on this issue, perhaps the enemy. but at some point in time would have to trust americans to help america. and when you create regulatory barriers and impediments to well-intentioned people who went to disney executives, gillette executives to participate on a day-to-day basis, i think we really frustrate the value of the true public private sector collaboration. and this is what i think really needs to be done and needs to be met now. >> thank you. >> i appreciate the question. they think we are beginning in the nation to seriously good address it, but were only beginning to. you're quite right to point out

the vulnerability. we are exceedingly vulnerable to cyberattack in this country, both in government and in the private sector because the premise that are controlled so that the infrastructure. secondly, when you have an attack, it's difficult to know where it comes from and it is very hard to hold someone for something to teach, some state responsible. not impossible, but not always easily done. having said that, one of the things i think we need to do is make very clear that a warning briley, an attack on this country's infrastructure by cyberattack, we will take exceedingly serious and we will respond. we will respond in the most appropriate way possible. we can't predict exactly how

that will be. but if we can identify the perpetrator, then we'll go after them. will go after them with whatever means are necessary to wipe them out. we cannot tolerate this kind of an attack. now, the next point is next point disorganization. and here i am a little fuzzy to be blunt about it, but i think the government -- i hope the government is beginning to get its organizational structure in mind to deal with cyberattacks. the line of responsibility between nsa and dhs is not all that clear to me, but i think it's moving, although not as fast as i would like. the type knowledge he expertise on this within the government so far as i now come to rest with

the nsa. and they are developing both offensive and defensive means of dealing with a cyberattack and that needs to be encouraged. i do think, and you make the point very well in your question, that we have to strengthen dhs's ability to work with the other. my judgment is that this point on my experience is the private sector is quite an evening here. there are many people in the air who are very plugged in on this and other vulnerabilities and are taking steps to deal with it and are consulting the government. but there are also many areas in the timing to be not the huge companies that are not so plugged in. and so, i think there has to be in the art as governor ridge has suggested between the terry and the government to sharpen our

defenses. >> thank you. >> mr. cuellar is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i went to cheney mac and the ranking member for having this meeting, the work with if you have done to improve homeland security. i want to thank the witnesses, chairman hamilton county secretary ridge and the controller, thank you for all the work gao, all three of you with the information resources you provide for homeland security. let me ask you this question that has to do with aviation. in the wake of 9/11 we made sweeping changes to her aviation security that includes strengthening security measures for the two flight schools. i know all three of you mentioned a lot of progress, but it's still about more work to do. however, as recently as two weeks ago, we the situation close to my district in south texas. several were discovered receiving flight training in

south texas without the proper visas. as you recall come the 9/11 aviation flight schools in visas also. those are the three major -- there is a major reason. in this case, what there's no indication of terrorist intent on this particular case, we know the aircraft remains a highly attract a target for terrorists. it is strip leading contenders after 9/11 we have foreign nationals taking site and training in the u.s. without the requisite fretting or riverside. in fact come a few days ago the fbi and homeland security issued an al qaeda threat to small aircraft just a few days ago. just let me give you briefly the facts come in the way understanding. we depart from its core that of busting a tree at both important and so. that's how this got started. the boaters out there.

this person is taking flight lessons. he was one of several mexican foreign nationals who traveled to the valley to get the pilot's license. homeland security went up there after the fact and deported three of them because i think the problem was instead of using a proper and one student visa, because they were getting training, they were operating under a v1, b2 visitor visa. so instead of a student visa, the recent tourist visa is to get that training. eventually, saa was asked in a sad, the mexican-based company that comes are tedious to do their training was leasing the aircraft to the pilots to train. again, fao rules basically the pilot and is responsible for the aircraft itself. the issue i have after 9/11 when

you had aircraft, flight school training. you had visa issues, here we are 10 years later, what does this incident suggests that our progress in the broader issues of aviation security, visa security, 10 years after 9/11? secretary, since you were there at my friend, president bush, governor bush, you had to get right on that and then the other gentleman can answer that. >> the details were first made known to me today by your explanation on it and make thank you for the. my first reaction suggests that it points -- the incident points to the lack of a broader infrastructure associated with not the question of getting maxes theo the airports and flying lessons, but the broader

and the structure this needs to be inadequate with regard to the issuance of visas and the identification relative to the individual to get the visas, their nationality and the reason they have extended the visa. it would be problematic to me. and i don't know how to escape attention to the department of homeland security, but if there was a biometric card associated with this, they were lawfully just on a piece that i could check their tourist visa, i'm not sure if the proprietor i would've been inclined to give them flying lessons, at least not until i check with homeland security to give more background information. it speaks to a broader challenge we have. i know this is not the place to do with it all, but the broader idea of immigration reform and frankly the 21st century

infrastructure to identify and monitor duties of those who would grant the privilege of crossing our borders as guests on the visa. >> and secretary, there's only one flight school. imagine what could be happening across the nation. >> congressman, we did work in 2004, 2005, looking at flight schools in tsa over the flight school and there is need for improvement in that area and made recommendations it will be starting schools in following up in tsa's oversight over the flight schools. the other comment i have as it relates to general aviation, we have a lot of regulation of commercial airport at an state-level regulations and requirements for aviation. we just issued a report to be happy to provide for the record,

highlighting issues they are. with regard to visa, i reiterate my previous point that there is a need for the exit approach and whether or not these individuals with overstayed their visa or not. i'm not familiar as governor ridge mentioned that the details, but the system still needs to be strengthened. >> hamilton. >> every one of your phone on private aircraft, general aviation in the fall of that impressed with how convenient it is compared to the commercial airports and how easy it is. and i thought a hundred times as i've done that, boy zero boy, this is a vulnerability for us. i'm glad to see now authorities are beginning to look into the small aircraft problem because it is a hugely potential problem for us. i can't add to it the others have said.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. choir in the chair now recognizes the chairman of the terrorism subcommittee, mr. mann. >> thank you, mr. chairman for this distinguished panel and not just her presentation here today, but i would actually say at the zenith of your career, committed to these issues can each of you has taken on a remarkable role in this. and i appreciate the fact you have looked back and taken the time to analyze what hasn't been done on the recommendations who previously made. i want to focus a question with respect to that. mr. hamilton, i had the opportunity to go back and revisit a site in which a terrorist incident was averted and related to the situation in which there is a cartridge that was attempted to detonate on an air carrier plane, a ups plane.

and the after action review that i got a chance to participate in was a case study you made about the lack of somebody really being in control from the simple way for people who are trying to participate and help you are getting different demands from different agencies that the same time, same information. how do you get it right in that critical moment when as you stated, decisions are being made to be life or death choices. what we need to do to get better at the point of incident? >> you are speaking about the first responders and the unity of effort at the site? >> yes, incident command. and you identified in this report, which is not going back to that point.

>> it's critically important. i don't want to suggest that the mass been done because i think a lot of some pilot programs have been run. some attention has been given to it. but i don't think it's a resolved question. politically, it is difficult to resolve. if you have a disaster as they have any consequences come you've almost certainly have a number of contending authorities. you have a governor, a mayor, port authority and county officials. you're the president and federal officials. and politicians don't lie to address these kinds of problems ahead of time because they are difficult to deal with who's in charge. , but our whole effort was to

encourage that decision to be made in every metropolitan area if not a country. at the time of katrina, the governor of louisiana was very heavily criticized and i don't know a lot of the details of that, but she had four helicopters in her command. she needed 150. so i've come to the conclusion that if you have a major disaster in an area of multiple jurisdictions, the federal government has to come in. the reason they have to do is because they're the only ones who have the wherewithal of resources to respond. you need one. you need housing, unique food, you need hundreds of decisions have to be made fairly quickly about the response.

so i think we have to just keep encouraging local, state, federal officials to plan and exercise their plans. it's not enough to have a plan. important about a plan, but it's not enough. like the military does, and a constant of maneuvers and exercise is. he's got to have exercises in a given community. it seems to me, to get through this problem. so those are some random thoughts. >> i do want to say that we follow up on that. governor ridge, this has to be sort of a remarkable moment figure sitting here now 10 years later and you served in the congress. you were governor of the major state, pitcher on the ground floor in the beginning of the creation of an address critical agencies responding to this

issue. more significantly, you were there every day with the president, making decisions in real time. as you look back now 10 years later, what is it that still keeps you up at night about what we can be doing were doing better? is there an observation saying boy, we could do this now. this is the way that i would do it. >> someone asked me in the first couple of months actually while i was in the white house, before we then created the department of homeland security, i slept at night. i said i don't sleep much, but i sleep well. they were kind of astonished by dnc. and the answer was obvious that the duties of the date required vigilance throughout the day and evening, but i knew they were literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands americans

working in the government at all levels in the privacy are working together to make america a more secure. i still feel that way today. here are two matters they think we need to really embrace as we look at the next 10 years. first, it is a risk we have to admit to ourselves that we can only manage, we cannot disseminate. the world of the dirt, public or, we can't guarantee ultimate safety and we have to accept that. i think chairman thompson -- ranking member thompson asked about resiliency. we are coming into a time of unlimited resources, reduced resources. let's be smart, let's target them. that's not fight the last war, but let's understand they can only manage the risk. if st. john pistole and tsa start moving in a direction

where people frequently fly, do background checks. we made deals to remaining tsa can focus on people they don't know in the baggage that belongs to people they don't know. i think we have -- we should be restless about the risk. it's manageable it would be to manage very, very effectively. i still can't believe after 10 years and we talked about the infrastructure and no bread bad communication, but i still can't believe it didn't like the detroit incident in fort hood would occur. when people within government, with the federal government had information, it was substantial enough to ask. i mean, there's a lot of criticism because they weren't adequately prepared. you have to be in this day and age, the new norm of tears them come you have to be a little

less cautious. you have to act. in the ad, as i understand it for public information, that the fbi was aware that hasan was e-mailing to a radical cleric in yemen and this was an act of duty soldier who when they type to the department of defense will never know. but we did connects the dots. every once in a while thursday.com a big one. it just flashes off and on. got to act. the same thing with the father coming in to talk to the state department. we ask for human intelligence. a father comes in to tell the state department that he believes his son has been radicalized by the way, i think my son is in yemen. now come you put those pieces together a post-9/11 world and what we know about al qaeda on the arabian peninsula and someone has got to yankees he

said to come into the united states until you sorted out. this information sharing at the heart of everything we do is still probably the most difficult and challenging. and by the way, one of the most difficult and complex characteristic or quality of combating terrorism. you would think after 10 years we would eat a little less cautious. i'm not saying being politically correct, but there's some things that require action. we need to get into that mindset. >> may i suggest you visit your fusion center? we have 72 fusion centers around the country. maybe if already done it. they are mixed, very capacities, but they do bring together the right people in the area, state, local and federal. it is in that center i think where you can see what has been done and what has not been done

in a given area. i visited the fusion center in the state of indiana. i've done it in a couple other areas and i think they represent probably the best hope for giving you the kind of response you want on unity of effort in any given crisis. >> gentlelady from new york, my colleague, ms. clarke. mr. clark from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chair. my question to the entire panel is how can the department of homeland security best judge in urban areas risk of an attack based on the assessment that it uses now? i represent metropolitan detroit. we have a large international airport hub.

that airport was the destination of the plane that the christmas day bomber attempted to blow up. there is a strong likelihood that our region could be the target of another attack. now in addition to the likelihood of an attack, the department also needs to look at the consequences of an attack. metropolitan metropolitan detroit did not use that as an example. we have a large population center. we have a border that is water, that is also the busiest international border crossing in terms of trade in north america. we also have a large regional drinking water system. my concern is mini metro detroiters are at risk of being poisoned if a terrorist decides to dump a bunch of biological agents in the drinking water

system. so essentially, the gao report mentioned concerns about how the department assess risk. and a few three gentlemen have any comment on how we can improve the accuracy of the risk of threat of attack to search in urban areas like metropolitan detroit 10 years later. i people i represent are still at risk of a threat. i want to retype them the best i can. >> there's no way we could get you started to because we don't have the mind of a terrorist. but they have given us two big hands. one is they are going to do as much damage to us as they can. and the second is that they want to have symbolic target. so, every community has to sit down and analyze whether this community is most vulnerable?

and they have to prioritize those vulnerabilities. you know your community better than the dhs secretary for the president or anybody else and it is the local community that has to make the analysis of what are the target in my community and are most likely to behave given standards that the terrorists have repeatedly given to us? they want to do much damage. so do you protect where people gather in large numbers? you protect iconic symbols and so forth. but it is a question of establishing priorities within the community. so the leaders in indianapolis, indiana or detroit, michigan have to come together and say okay, we have the following facilities in the maybe 200 of them that need protection. you've got to prioritize. you can't do it all.

that's a tough decision to prioritize, but it has to be made in order to reduce the risk. there is no 100% guarantee that she's got it figured out, but that's the way you've got to do it. >> i would say that in that framework that mr. hamilton just outlined, and she just has to risk assessments by different factors. waterside dirt, transportation, et cetera and our comments have been that information in these threat assessments and risk assessments should be shared more and used more in decision-making services. so i think that's the issue in government bridge at an uncertain information. so the real challenge is how do we use information has not been connected at a national level and the regional and level. that is something we'll continue to take a look at.

>> at her now, congressman, if you're referring to the methodology associated with urban area grants for homeland security. >> yes, definitely. >> and i think that process clearly has the ball i think in a very positive way over the past eight years. i can recall since the repair after congress directed that the department create a model for that very purpose that we went through a cut will of the generations that were challenging. at the end of the day, i have no idea the evolution since i left it at the end of the day, a significant portion was based upon threat information gleaned over that. fears, not just from the fbi,

but the broader intelligence community. i can recall getting a call of disappointment from a member of congress that the city that they happen to my present was no longer viewed as potential target. and therefore, wasn't eligible tackier for the funding of the nrc the year before. it was one of the bigger challenges of homeland security. it's probably the only department or you have more political interest and engagement than anyplace else. you don't want to make those political decisions, but is subject to political influence and you want to avoid that at all costs. in this instance, why not threat assessments are in the intelligence community has the most effect of html does dollars. in my gentleman south carolina. recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and they want to personally thank you for regaining the pictures surrounded the room here to remind us of the tragic event that happened 10 years ago this weekend. i want to thank each of the gentleman on the panel today for your service to our country and your very incapacities. 20 take an opportunity because i and near the end. just think the firemen and police officers and capitol hill police are defending us and what you guys do every day. firemen and police officers and military personnel around this great band for what they do toe. thank you as for recommending 11 commission report. i've got a copy of it with me. i want to talk about that in a minute. but i've talked about this numerous times in this committee, that the 9/11 commission report has identified a number of threat to the

country and used the terms that identify those threat such as jihads 126 times, muslim brotherhood 25 pounds come off, hezbollah, califf, sharia, nme, violent extremism numerous times in the 9/11 commission report. but if we look at the fbi counterterrorism of 2008, to use the word jihad is zero times, islam is some zero times, muslim brotherhood zero times, hamas, hezbollah, al qaeda is zero times. the national intelligence strategy of 2009 uses those terms zero times. protecting the forest lessons from fort hood uses those terms zero times. i think it is important that we understand and can identify the threats of this country and discuss it openly without fear

of using those terms if that is a real threat to this country. so i would like since you guys develop the report and used those terms that than many times, mr. secretary, i'll let you start. why do you see we're not talking about her enemy or threats to this country and western anymore? >> well, first of all, i respect them truly understand the question. >> tonight please, governor. >> i appreciate the thoughtful notes that question. the more appropriate response would be the attorney general. that said, i think depending on the mindset that you want to bring to the work to combat terrorism, and it continues to be a discussion, whether they should be treated in viewed as criminal says the administration generally does and i think that is reflected in a language they use. i don't agree with it.

i did enough criminal defense work and prosecution work to appreciate the fact that most criminals they are prosecuted for defending chose not to -- prefer not to be cut and certainly didn't want to surrender their lives in their endeavor. so i do think that language probably reflects the mindset that is more appropriate to have the attorney general believes this country should deal with the terrorist once we apprehend them. i don't think there's any question in the attorney general's mind that the fundamental problem is the those within the muslim community, who would've taken a traditional religion unwrap themselves around a and distorted vision to protect the innocent killing, but it does protect to treat war as criminals. i don't share that point of

view. >> mr. hamilton. >> i believe the greatest current terrorism threat to the united states is from islamist extremists. whether or not they are part of the core of al qaeda or one of their affiliate for ideologically affiliated, david resent the greatest threat. we've also had the addition of homegrown for a. likewise the islamic extremists. and i think very important that you make a distinction between the islamist terrorists, the extremist and benign islam is. i think the country is still not very well. i still remember is that that was an excellent sample of what

we should do, i remember president bush soon after 9/11, it was a matter of days coming he went to hamas and made that point. i thought it was exactly the right thing to do because he was drawing a distinction between the extremists and the good, if you would, islam is. so i think we have to actively and aggressively counter the range of the ideologies that are violent advocate into what we can to remove them. i am not here to speak with others in regard to terminology. in the commission report via two enemies. one, al qaeda. and two, islamic extremists. and we've got quite a bit about what terminology to use. i am comfortable with the terminology we set out in that

report. >> thank you. >> thank you, gentlemen. i recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a thank all the members for their service. less than 10 months ago as a district attorney i was investigating a death of a young man, 16-year-old young man whose mutilated body showed up in the town of milton, massachusetts. our investigation took us to north carolina, where this young man had hid himself in the wheel well of a 737 commercial airliner. teachout doubted the plainness landing gear went down as he was approaching boston. damage has incited the transportation security this morning and certainly about the screening checked points and the need to click explosives there. the tsa has said that every commercial airport in the united

states receives a security assessment every year, including evaluation of access controls. in 2009, the gao when they were viewing method 87% of the nation's commercial airport had not conduct did any consequent expressions. there is so much attention on the gate and on the check point there. it seems to me we are wide open on perimeter security. and this major airport in north carolina, there have been repeated breaches of security that we are aware affair. i can imagine that air force alone. how would you assess their ability to live with perimeter security around the airport? if he put his own body and that was a while, he could've easily placed explosives they are if he a person with a tragedy.

but if a different intent? what if they put explosives in their? it seems we are focused so much on that and support netscape. what about what's going on as we look at the perimeters? can you address a series that has been? gao has commented on it, but i do see much action frankly. >> our recommendations have been more that tsa needs to detroit vulnerability assessments with the asp ei perimeter issues, but this hasn't been done in a lot of cases and we've made recommendations along those lines. the other issue is the screening of workers who have access to facilities on every kilobases and we believe that issue needs to be addressed as well. i'd be happy to provide specifics for the record. >> anyone else want to comment on not? >> i'm very pleased to hear your remarks. my general impression with you think you are right.

perimeter security is still a great vulnerability. so i would be supportive of efforts to make more inspections and bulk up our efforts have perimeter security. you know, there's so many areas of vulnerability. and we've concentrated a lot on the ones we think are the greatest risk, but others keep popping up and you put your finger on an important one. >> i think aviation to the best of my knowledge is a target area. i suspect it still comes up on the reports that the intelligence community comes up as a potential target. we should never say we've eliminated it, but the notion somewhat could hijack a plane and take a commercial airliner contributed to a missile, i

think that threat has been managed quite well. but i think we would be kidding ourselves if we didn't think aircraft generally as a target remains of vulnerability and remains a continuing interest -- a target of interest for those who bring assigned. >> what's more frightening as we went back and looked at the videotape and knowing he'd done it, they still couldn't see into it afterwards. just a quick question if you can. maybe a yes or no since my time is limited. secretary napolitano told this committee that since 9/11 she considers the current. the most dangerous since 9/11, that we are in now and it is the most heightened state. would you agree? >> certainly, more intelligence information than i do a concert time, but there is a new mention

that complicates her world and the challenges associated with the country and that's the homegrown terrorists. and the last 18 months and citizens and naturalized system s-sierra thesis. the world is a little more complicated for her and for this country. >> i am not aware of any immediate specific warnings. but of course we found in the trove of information we got from osama bin laden read their interest in doing something on the anniversary of 9/11. so i understand that our security officials have ratcheted up the security levels quite a bit for the next two days. that seems to me to be entirely approve or hit because the intent here has been expressed. it has been expressed in the information we got from osama bin laden's hideout. >> thank you, gentlemen.

the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thanks to the witnesses for being here. congressman hamilton, my question is about what your thoughts are impressed with the southern border. with the drug cartels, the continuous battles between similar chemicals cartel and the status of the bubble of violence that continues to escalate along our southern borders and sophistication of weaponry continues to it against. i was down at the port of entry and douglas, arizona. one of the things we saw the video was the night before one of the drug cartel ephesians he is was stolen or made a police vehicle right port of entry about 100 yards for a border, entered into a restaurant, unloaded 300 rounds and wounding scores of people. i want to ask you, what you think the level of threat to our homeland based on the level

being pursued by the drug cartels in mexico and how that affects our threat assessment from that area. >> well, first of all, i think the past two years and the attendant public awareness of the narco threat clearly demonstrate areas of lawlessness adjacent to our southern border that we all should be concerned about. but you know, it is just a manifestation of a threat that is six state for decades and they still haven't gotten our arms around and that is the importation of drugs. we talk about weapons of mass

destruction. long before 9/11, this country was dealing with weapons of mass destruction and was called drugs that have been coming into this from multiple sources around the world and we still haven't gotten our arms around not. my sense is again not privy to that kind of information frankly that i didn't enjoy knowing, but i was glad i was part of the group inuit and could act upon it is that there is still a greater need for us to develop the trusted relationships with our counterparts in mexico. there's probably a greater need with the matter we not trust for information sharing. and frankly, we don't have -- and i say that with great respect to friends and colleagues of mine to my work in mexico. we still don't have the decades long mature, trusted relationship with all the agencies of government within the law enforcement community

generally. so it's an enormous challenge in this country. i think were up to the challenge, but it's going to take us a long time to do with the violence, let alone simply the manifestation of the greater problem than not the importation of drugs and someone who appreciates supply. but it wouldn't become a minister was made to man. it's more complicated than arresting the supply. >> i'm not sure i cannot much. i know your experience would be much more immediate than mine. i am a long way away from the border. but i have been impressed her with a period of years how difficult this has been for this country to deal with. i think we've increased the number of regards every few years around here for a good number of years and i'm sure that's a mouthful and i know they do a lot of good work. i know we felt a sense. i don't know what the miles are,

but extended sense that it had some impact. you would know that better than i. we put into place a lot of new technology with mixed results 18. and i think all of those things have to be continued and strength than to deal with the problem. i think that that is very, very significant to the country. and we have probably not focused enough on the, those of us who taught with homeland security. that's about all i can say. i obviously agree with what government rich said. there are a lot of problems in this world that we can't all by ourselves. i don't agree can solve this by ourselves. for going to need a lot of cooperation with mexican government as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. high-heeled act. >> i recognize for this round of questions, the gentleman from california.

>> thank you are much, chairman and ranking member thompson for walking me to this committee. i look forward to representing my constituents in the 36th congressional district on this committee. you know, i can remember very well on september 11th, as we all do, where we were, what our first swear. i had just been a lot good to the city council of los angeles and mike council district includes support of los angeles and i represent over 100,000 people that just physically, you know, sit right next to the port of los angeles. and while the september 11th attacks were aviation related, my first thought was the vulnerability of the port of los angeles. 10 years later and now representing the same

constituents in congress, i am still concerned about the port of los angeles. between the ports of los angeles and long beach, we account for about 44% of the trade that comes into this country. we have about 5000 men and women who actually work on the docks on a daily basis. and i think it is our seaports that are still probably the most vulnerable entry way into this country. and while utah about how we have evolved in granting these homeland security grants to more represent threats on her and consequence. an honorable hamilton, as you said, they've given us a road map at the target would be something that does great damage and is in symbolic.

i think an attack on america's support in long beach and los angeles could create a significant impact to our national economy and our global economy. so i spent 10 years on the city council worker but my predecessor, jane harman, in approving the delhi international airport and the port of los angeles. but i'd like to know from the panel what you think we in congress should be doing, can do to improve the security at our ports. >> my judgment with feet that we've not focused enough on the port. i think the enormous vulnerability would be in the inadequate inspection of cargo

probably the major problem. i am not a to date on what has been done on that. i do recall being disappointed again at the state to fight technology with regard to detection. you have these massive amount of materials coming into the country in ships and our ability to identify dangerous materials i think is likely. at least that's my understanding that this point. i think you play an important role by bringing up the question of the full durability of the port. >> i might add, although at the time that the other about the fiscal situation in this country and dealing with the deficit and the debt, i must admit early on being very much someone who believes that during my tenure and subsequent to my tenure,

that the united states coast guard is one of the most overstressed, multitask, underappreciated institutions that this federal government and i think they are grossly, grossly and adequately funded for the multiple task they bring in their primary responsibility to this country. these men and women for years, for decades literally get pretty much was left over when it's divided amongst the rest of the agencies. they have multiple task is and they just don't -- i daresay the generals and admirals and the other branches of the service would be up here in mass. if they received as little funding on strategic needs of the coast guard does. whatever reason, there is this mindset that we can do.

i'll tell you if you want to do one day to improve maritime security in this country, go back and take a look at the coast guard's budget and bring in not just the incumbent, but the three or four that have preceded. i can recall flying in a helicopter, overseeing the g8 exercise at one time when the pilot passed me if i wanted to grab the controls. it was an infantry soldier. but i'll pretend like i'm flying like the tv commercial. and i said to the pilot. as it is this one of those helicopters as an engine failure rate that the faa would have grounded commercially and he said yes it is. one of the passengers in the backseat said to maintain the conversation? i remember going to an appeal. if opened a door for me and i've got to take advantage of it. i really do budget secretary of peel's budget decisions to the highest level.

well, i took the coast guard's budget numbers are mapped to the appeal board and i brought in a piece of steel, and no plate on one of their attorney or 30 year old ships that had been banned because it use because of the multitask vehicle or shut. so if you want to do something significant to improve maritime security, kovac engaged the coast guard the money they need to do their job more effectively. >> i would say, congressman from what done a lot of job after work on maritime security, looking at vessels, people, cargo issues. we've sounds some progress being made in this area, but difficult to determine what the degree of progress in readiness really is at the ports. also i've mentioned already the transportation worker identification card and problems associated with that. that has a lot of problems and needs to be addressed. i'm also the key issue regarding

technology and how different technologies could be used to help scan cargo and containers. and we've done work on which all provide to the committee, looking at the burgee technologies, really address that the volume of activity has to entail some technological solution. >> thank you very much. my time is up. until we are screening 100% of our cargo, i think we've got a problem. >> i will say there is a concern on this committee. the secretary takes this issue very seriously. as a practical matter, the hundreds that will be difficult, but they are proving it. we actually passed back in 2006 and i know it's been continued hence, legislation by mr. lundgren and again in a bipartisan way we realize the vulnerability. i remember when there was a

straight, billions of dollars were lost in a brief period of time. they received on in the arab quarter. so we certainly thank you. mr. kucinich is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, that you talk about the cut at the house of representatives supported and actually many colleagues here. i don't know if you are gentlemen are aware, but actually of the appropriations bill, if not week, i did not show support this, 2.7 billion was moved. that's 6% less than what was requested by the administration is specifically within customs and border protection, 89 million was cut. 1% less than trusted peer transportation security 292 million, 4% last.

coast guard, something you're just talking about. 37 million was cut. and then within fema, the most romantically cut of 1.4 billion, which was 21% less than requested. what would you say to members of congress and the senate, who despite your efforts in the report, seem to not value the services to the level that you say we need to have them, what would your response be? >> i am sorry. >> did she want to handle that? >> you are suggesting a number of cut had been made on homeland security in general. >> that's correct. i question was specifically what advice would you give to members of congress who actually support those cuts and what would you are just a few clicks of >> well i'm no expert on the budget of the homeland security department. but having said that, i would look with great skepticism by

many cuts in this area because you are dealing with homeland security. you're dealing with the protection of the lives of the american people. so budgeting is always a question of priorities and i know how difficult it is to make judgments with regard to priorities. but i'm very scared: probably would oppose cut on homeland security. >> okay, mr. dodaro, i'm going to posit nasty my second question the convicted that's about all the time we have. you know, i was really surprised with the exchange with the previous number because i'm sure the ranking member will recall the way that the current secretary twice what is her intention of implementing 100% scanning of cargo. and actually the response hasn't been supportive. in fact, there is an absolute no

intention. but i've gotten from those hearings to implement 100% screening of cargo. in fact, what the secretary has said for the record, the secretary has said they are exploring other means, which you, sir, referencing your report. for example, doing screening by paper and looking at continual shippers and things that might be of concern and really getting away from the agreement if in fact they're going to be able to do screening. first of all, i thought we needed to clarify what the current secretary has said and what so far her intentions are. sir, i'd like to ask you in regards to your report on page 114, you talk about this whole issue. my question to you would be, you said, the secretary, the administration are preparing this route toward. it doesn't look like they are going to really follow through on what the commission asks for 100% inspection.