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 i should add that in view of the excellent work of the 9/11

commission and we are not trying to draft lee hamilton beckoned to duty but we have introduced to reconstitute the 9/11 commission ten years after. other areas where i believe we have to move forward. one certainly is on spectrum and the block. has to be communication specifically allocated to police, firefighters, first responders. no one wants to go through what happened on september 11th where there was lack of communication and inability to communicate and get ten years later we are not taking action. in that regard unlike chief god of the nypd and the fire chief of north las vegas, chief johnson, the west association, farrell -- cheryl fitzgerald were on the forefront of fighting for d block which i

believe is essential. we made putts progress against al qaeda over the last ten years. we cannot become complacent. no dow al qaeda's central has been tremendously weak and. their leadership has been devastated. beginning with osama bin laden which was a tremendous victory for the united states and all those who practice terrorism. al qaeda has adapted its methods. it has more fat and metastasized. we know logger faced just al qaeda central which i believe we would be -- difficult for them to attack the united states the way they did on september 11th but now we have al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and iraq and alshabaab and it's tempting to recruited our country which changes the nature of the struggle bringing people under the radar screen. we have successes in one area

but the enemy is adapting and we have to adapt along with it. as we approach this weekend of september 11th is important for all of us to think back on horrible that they once and told ourselves we would never let it happen again. my concern is the further we get from september 11th the more the war fades into the recesses of memory and it is human nature to try to put it behind us but the further we put it behind us the more we invite another attack. congress as far as the cuts we are making to homeland security whether it is the media which somehow in many ways the struggle was over but does the american people is very understandable. want to put this in their rearview mirror. the fact is the enemy is still there and as dedicated as it was before to weaken but it is adapting. we need to do this in a bipartisan way to do all we can to make sure 9/11 never again repeat itself.

with that, want to thank all the witnesses for joining us today and yield to the ranking member for mississippi, mr. thompson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. most of what you said i agree with. as you said we clearly have had a wonderful and positive relationship and we have switched shares from time to time. i would also like to welcome our newest member, on the democratic side, janice hahn to the committee. we now have a full complement and look forward to the debate. welcome you also. 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 people who lost their lives that morning, remembering those who died to make this nation better and safer. mr. chairman, there is no doubt the events of september 11th, 2001, brought about fundamental changes to this nation. the events of that morning changed everything we know about aviation, security, information sharing and the disaster response and recovery. overtime this government has changed its policies and practices. the american people have changed their expectation. today most people regard many new security measures 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

2004-2010 the department spent free hundred billion dollars 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, establishment of secure flights and the revitalization of fema and the new attention to securing chemical and biological materials have all improved our security posture. all of these things have been good and necessary. but as we reflect on the past ten years we cannot pretend progress has been steady and unimpeded. many have pointed to growth in homeland security spending and reliance on outside contractors as the beginning of homeland security industrial complex which may undermine our security in the long run. i cannot isolate the cause for this incredible increase in spending, nor can i deny congress's in ability to consolidate jurisdiction to the

contributing factor. the splintering of jurisdiction tractors every aspect of the department's operation and decrease its ability to operate effectively and efficiently. the inability of congress to provide the department with one strong and steady hand has created opportunities for the network of consultants we may call the beltway bens. our hope the chairman will work with the leadership to ensure that these jurisdictional hurdles are overcome. as the chairman said his opening comments there's enough blame on both sides to go through jurisdiction morass that we face. this committee must pursue strict legislative and oversight jurisdiction of the department. as we recall 9/11 we must remember is that the terrorist attacks of that day have caused us to fight a new kind of war. the war on terrorism has not only been waged in afghanistan

and iraq but have also been fought on our shores. a recent study reported that nearly 200 terrorism cases have been brought in u.s. courts since september 11th. nine of ten of those cases have ended in conviction. we should be proud of our success in engaging threats at home but our work in securing the nation must also pursue our rights and freedoms. the 9/11 commission understood this necessity and recommended privacy and civil liberties oversight board. today that board is still nonfunctional. i hope my colleagues will join me in requesting that appointments be made to this board immediately. as i consider our progress since 9/11 i will call it a mixed bag. we made strides but have miles to go before we can arrest. i yield back. >> thank you, ranking member

thompson and other members of the committee. savings may be submitted for the record and i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the tenth anniversary report card for the 9/11 commission recommendations, there for the bipartisan colleagues in the national security prepared this group. without objection, is so ordered. secretary tom ridge. first witness this morning as i mentioned is lee hamilton, long time distinguished member of congress, vice-chairman of the 9/11 commission, president of the woodrow wilson international center for scholars. true gentleman in every sense of the word. if anyone surge in congress and served his nation in a bipartisan patriotic way it was lee hamilton. >> thank you very much. i ask unanimous consent that my statement be put in full into

the record. >> without objection. >> members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear with you today. this committee has 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 are helping ensure that our nation takes the difficult steps necessary to confront the terrorist threat and to protect the american people. today i am appearing in my capacity as co-chair of the bipartisan policy center's national security preparedness' group which is a successor to the 9/11 commission. governor king who could not be this morning, governor tom ridge and die with a bipartisan group of national security experts monitor the implementation of the 9/11 commissioner's

recommendations for in addressing emerging national security issues. is a very special pleasure to appear with governor tom ridge as well as the comptroller general of -- before you this morning. last week we released a report on implementation of the 9/11 commission's recommendations. the good news is that substantial progress has been made in fulfilling many of the recommendations. among these important we is the transformation of the intelligence community in breaking down barriers and information sharing. however the unfulfilled recommendations in our report indicate that we are not as secure as we could or should be. i will cover several of them now and allow tom ridge to discuss the others. first, unity of effort. unity of effort for the many actors in a disaster scene is critical because a welker were related 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 were multiple agencies respond to disaster. still have not solved the problem of who is in charge. dhs and state and local governments have to resolve gaps in establishing rules in responsibilities conducting catastrophic disaster planning and exercising those plans. a unity of command, knowing who's in charge is a no-brainer in terms of what must be done to respond to a disaster. it is a source of high frustration to me and other members of the commission that we have not yet resolve that problem satisfactorily across the nation all those 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 survey people and keep track of what they are doing. i have had that briefing before but i must say every time i have it i am impressed over again. if you have not had the opportunity to hear what our capable abilities are today and what they will be five years or ten years from the day, i urge you taking whatever steps you can to get that briefing. we recommend in the 9/11 commission that a privacy and civil liberties board should be established to address and monitor privacy and civil liberties 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 has been dormant for more than three years. to dates only two of the board's 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, establishment of the director of national intelligence and national counterterrorism center to coordinate activities of the intelligence community leaders the represented major progress in intelligence reform. however there's some ambiguity about their authority over budget and personnel and there have been four dnis in six years. more clarity could come from additional legislation or by action of the president with

repeated declarations from him that the dni is the leader of the intelligence committee regarding budget personnel and other matters. secure ids. 18 of the 9911 hijackers obtained 30 state issued ids among them that enable them to more easily board planes on that dreadful morning of 911. therefore we recommended that the federal government set standards for the issuance of sources of identification. in 2008 they issue detailed regulations, setting standards for drivers license issuers. however the states' compliance with regulations has been delayed until 2013. that delay in compliance creates fulmer abilities and makes us less safe. no further delay should be authorized. instead from my point of view the deadline should be accelerated. next, transportation security. with significant federal

funding, tsa has deployed equipment for explosives detection. unfortunately explosives detection technology wax reliability and lags in its capability to automatically identify concealed weapons and explosives. dhs must improve technology requirements working with the private sector to develop this equipment and test it in the field. with regard to standards for terrorist -- this is not within the jurisdiction of this committee but is an important matter. for too long our nation's political leadership has delayed resolving the difficult problem of reconciling the rule of law with indefinitely detaining alleged terrorists some of whom would no doubt attempt to do the nation grievous harm. congress and the president must enact a law, comprehensive approach for how to handle these detainee's grounded in the

principles of fairness, due process and protecting 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 agree there's much more to do. political leadership from both parties and at all levels of the government should renew their focus on completing implementation of the 9/11 commission recommendations. thank you. >> thank you, chairman hamilton. our next witness is an old friend of many people in the congress had the privilege of serving. tom ridge when he was a member of the congress went on to become an outstanding governor of the state of pennsylvania and truly was present at the creation when president bush appointed him as first assistant to the homeland security and first secretary of the department of homeland security. he has a unique perspective on this having been there at the start and being able to monitor this development from the department and the homeland security mechanisms in this

country over the past ten years. tom was college graduate, serve honorably in vietnam with the bronze star and a truly outstanding member of congress and like chairman hamilton has been dedicated to his country at this issue in particular. privileged to have you here today. you are recognized. >> thank you, chairman king and ranking members of the committee. i join my colleagues in thanking my colleagues to express my appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you today and reflect on our nation's security efforts ten years after the attacks of september 11th, 2001. as we consider our priorities for the future i am pleased to be joined at the witness table

by someone you recognize and we all recognize as a great patriot, lee hamilton. obviously we recognize the service -- >> pull the microphone closer. >> thank you very much. recognize the service of comptroller general jean dodaro who each bring distinguished credential that significant points of view to our conversation today. as we look back over the last ten years it is abundantly clear that america was, is and will always be an undeniably resilient country. in the decade's time we have strengthened our intelligence assets and partner with allies and friends. we captured and killed terrorists and destroyed save 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 emotionally charged but i think strategically driven

national mission. we improve preparedness and response capabilities and established layers of security throughout our aviation system. we embedded new technologies and security measures for about both the public and private sectors. individual citizens, i believe, are more prepared and certainly more aware. with public and private sector leadership and investment we are more secure. but we remain a target nonetheless. over the course of ten years the threat remains strong and continues to change. we have thwarted some attacks, but we have also been fortunate that a few others have simply failed. what makes some uncomfortable we must acknowledge that no matter how hard we try another attack is likely. the onus is on us to understand that there is more to do and that luck is not a strategy.

as we close one vulnerability we should anticipate that terrorists will adapt and seek out another. and be ready for that. we must view security as an ongoing process, not an end point. a delivered of process, not a breathless reaction to all conceivable frets is required at all times. terrorists do not arrest so neither can we. we wear wrist watches. they have time. a number of security measures await our attention. we strengthen the information sharing in this country and among allies and friends but we saw an attempted christmas day bomber come close to his goal due to an information not being shared. i for one also believe that the failure to share information and failure to act led to the

horrible tragedy associated with the deaths of people at fort hood. we need to create a culture of intelligence sharing where everyone feels empowered. they hid the send button to share more, lot less. we bolstered communication technologies that broadband communications system remains and delivered. the tragedy of 9/11, specific recommendations of the 9/11 commission and police, firemen and emergency service personnel 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 the country but not created a negative system that ensures these same visitors leave and do not exploit a yet unfinished system. it is likely therefore we have people among us who have

overstayed their visass. where are they? what they doing? why are they here? the issue of congressional oversight is the 9/11 recommendation that goes unanswered. you heard the statistics in numbers of hearings, preparation time and so forth. what is important is these numbers have increased across the tenure of three secretaries and continue to cause significant distraction, overlap in bureaucracy, three characteristics that are counterintuitive to the urgency and focus required of national security. my hope is this issue and other concerns i have addressed will receive urgent attention and successful resolution. it is easy to cite all of vulnerabilities we have yet to address in the 9/11 recommendations we have yet to meet. the needs and wants are limitless. resources are not. we must manage the risk

carefully and judiciously. the responsibility is great and it is complex and in ten years later it doesn't get any easier. the killing of osama bin laden illustrates this point quite well. the news about bin laden have the decade of the motion but we all know the threat would remain long after the man was killed. ten years is not a lot of time. it is enough time to know that in the next ten years the fight will be with us. it will go on. but so will we. as a stronger and more secure country, as resilience and freedom loving people we have always been. as a nation that will always remember those we lost on one september day. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, next witness is a

man who keeps everybody honest, attorney general jean dodaro with a 30 year record of achievement, surge more than a nine years to the chief operating officer of the g a o. with that i look forward to your testimony and respectfully we don't always hear it. i look forward to your testimony this morning. mr. dodaro. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ville ranking member thompson and members of the committee. i am pleased to be here to talk about the ao's work on homeland security issues to work with chairman hamilton and governor tom ridge this morning. we issued a summary report of the work we have done over the past decade looking at homeland security issues. we made 1500 recommendations during that period of time. we adopt a constructive approach to do our part to help in this quest to make our homeland more secure. the department reacted favorably to our recommendations and implemented many but as yet have

not been fully implemented. the bottom line message of our report was progress has been made since 9/11 but much work remains on gaps and weaknesses that the department needs to address in order to reach its full potential. in the progress side i point to several areas. we have a system to check against terrorist watch lists on passenger list. we have a visa entry biometrics system as tom ridge mentioned that tracks people coming into the country. we have a visa security program where dhs is working with department and state officials in the process of determining who gets a visa in order to come in to the country. there is also an automated verification, authorization system for visa waiver countries where a visas aren't needed but

are checked as we come in. we bolstered resources at ports of entry and equipment and infrastructure at the borders across the country. i am also pleased there has been greater emphasis on cybersecurity and the national infrastructure plan and fema has issued national response framework and documents to in short emergency preparedness and better clarity of roles and responsibilities. on the work remaining side, first i would 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 of to current levels for detecting explosives devices. secondly i would echo the comments of my colleague and we need an exit system for this country.

over stays remain a significant problem. estimates are between four and five billion people and that is -- we were called five of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 had overstayed their visass. having an exit strategy is important. there is great opportunity to expand the voice of border security program and dhs is not yet working on all critical high-risk issues. this could be done by placing additional people overseas or perhaps remotely working within the united states. that is an important issue as well. there's also the task to provide more timely and actionable frets and alerts on cybersecurity issues to the private sector and others and help them deal with the growing problem of cybersecurity and intrusion. there's also a need for fema to come up with metrics and

assessment to assess capabilities and readiness of individual jurisdictions. we have framework and guidelines but we have yet to have any objective assessments of readiness or preparedness levels across the country. also there is a need to effectively implement a global nuclear detection strategy. been made some recommendations in this area and there is a need to strengthen our efforts to detect biological agents and frets to our country. lastly i would point to our report highlighting the need for the department to improve their management systems and infrastructure to support these very important missions. a problem that has been occurring in the acquisition area has been a number of failed acquisition attempts. a lot of money at stake. 40% of the department's budget is on acquisitions and that needs to be improved along with

development and testing of technology before they are deployed. also financial management systems need to be strengthened to properly account for the funds available. they're one of the few departments unable to pass a clean audit opinion. going forward in the austere budget environment it is important we make the best and most efficient use out of money we manage wisely. this concludes my opening statement. i look forward to answering questions. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman dodaro. my first question is to secretary ridge and chairman hamilton. among this committee the intelligence committee, i haven't figured out what the role of the director of national intelligence is. i don't mean that in a sarcastic way. under two administration there seems to be no defined role.

the position seems to be weakening. you mentioned it may take action by a president to firm up his responsibilities. i would say by a president to firm up his responsibilities. i would say the effect we had two heavyweights illegally on panetta and general david petraeus i don't see much likelihood that this president or any president will be cutting back on the powers of the cia and giving more to be the and i. where do we stand? >> it is 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. all of the cia directors 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 was that you had to get away from stove pce cing information, conducting an agency on the basis of need to know and conducted the agency on the basis of responsibility to share because we lost lives becibse we did not connect the dots for share information. we recommended that you needed someone overseeing the entire intelligence communiigen with considerable power. with respect to personnel and budget. you passed a law saying that the director of national intelligence had that power but in the same law there was worded that weakened the pnt wer so th you made it somewhat ambiguous. sony directors have had a tough time in that job. i think that the directors have

performed very well. they have been very able people. it is a tough spot even with statutory pnt wer becibse you'r dealing with very big players in any administration. secretary of defense and cia director. cia air. regardless of statutory powers he may have come enough to you have to exercise that pnt w with diplomacy and discretion in order to make it work effectively. personalities are very important. dni has done tremendously good work and forcing the sharing of information.

several of them have made very significant progress over a peri im of time. we are not there yet. you do not have the seamless sharing of information you would like to have but it seems to me a lot of progress has been made. my personal preference would be to see a law enacted making its unambiguous clear that this man is in charge becibse someone has to knock heads within the intelligence community to get them to coordinate and integrate their activities. i think almost the same thing could be accomplibased if the president made very clear repeatedly his support for the d dnit mapresidt mat ma dni. president bush and president ob thaa have done that but not as forcefully and repeatedly as i

think theors ob requires. so work in progress. a lot of progress made and the lot to do in improving ng 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 activi sharing in the government. >> agencies that are led by strong personalities. so the extent that we could clarify with great specificity of the role of the dni. does he have budgetary control? the part opportunity to

coordinate activities that is well stated. if you want to get somebody's attention you control the purse strings. the men who served dni have done a good job. it is a great task given the institutional mindset of the activities where there is oversight responsibility and coordination responsibility and not privy to some of the conversations dni has had to community leaders but it is difficult to them as congressman lee hamilton pointed out. further clarification as to who is in charge might be helpful. >> i would like to ask three important questions about chairman hamilton and secretary ridge. something we agree on. can you emphasize the importance of radio interoperable eddie and

communications spectrum? >> this is another no-brainer. the responsibility of the scene of a disaster must have the ability to communicate with one another and 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 to me why we can't solve this problem ten years after the fact. their two bills pending in congress. you can argue with around. i don't want to get into that this morning. it is less important which of these approaches is taken than it is to get it done. we cannot permit the lay of this. we lost lives on 9/11. we lost lives in katrina because we were not able to get good

communication. one thing you know and use the tv's disaster events is communications under the best circumstances are going to fail. it is a chaotic situation. but going into the event you want to have the best communication you can. so my plea to you is get this thing resolved. is an urgent question and shame on us, shame on us if we have not solved that problem when the next disaster strikes. >> once again i find myself joined at the head with lee hamilton. put it simply, the technology exists. where's the political will to get it done? by the way, there are competing measures before the house and the senate but i will say this. police men and firemen,

emergency responders want you to make a choice. the opportunity to get voice and data and video over broadband. not just in response to a terrorist attack but a natural disaster or a horrible accident, what it would do for this country. it is an investment based on the reality and horror and tragedy associated with 9/11 would dramatically improve public safety across the board. i repeat again it is not a matter of technology. somebody tries to bring together the political will to execute that commitment and recommendation of the 9/11 commission. >> i commend the chairman and ranking member for the building introduced here. that is excellent leadership. >> i thank you for indulgence. recognized for as much time as

you want. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hamilton, jurisdiction is the heart and soul of committees's ability to get things done. as you know, that is an issue. we try when democrats were in charge. we try with the public in charge. the jurisdiction of the committee is consolidated. and your testimony as well as secretary ridge's both indicated that it is another one of those no-brainers for us not to get done. can you just for the umpteenth time repeat how important

consolidated jurisdiction is? >> both the chairman and you have articulated it very well in your opening statements. i don't know how many committees and subcommittees are involved. i think close to a hundred in both houses in 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 all the time, as important as that is on vacation, to answer all the questions and reports so that the fragmented jurisdiction becomes a hindrance to the effective performance of the department of dhs. they have enough problems without an additional one here.

i served on every congressional reform effort 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 oversight committees is essential to the effective performance of the homeland

security department. >> mr. secretary, you want to take a shot? >> thank you. i can remember proudly and happily the 12 years i served in the congress of the united states, sitting down at this level i probably enjoy asking questions more than answering them blood that is another story. this conversation we're having today -- i remember time and time again with colleagues on both sides of the aisle walking over to get a vote and scampering from a committee or subcommittee and we would all lament we are so over schedule and don't spend an hour in committee because you have so much jurisdiction that has been shared and nobody really -- there are not many people that focus on one or two committees because the diversity of assignments is a burden even on the members of congress. and i believe that the department still evolving, still

trying to innovate the business line formalities associated with procurement reform and budget reform and finance and h r and it and you have the responsibility to develop policies, your partnership. the partnership of the congress of the united states, the strategic partnership is essential to the success of the department and enhancing security of the united states is enhanced if you can compress the number of committees and subcommittees so there's a certain level of broadbased expertise among a smaller group of members of house and senate members to oversee continued evolution of the department. so i would begin that responsibility following the leadership and hopeful that the hopeful that one of these days we create a true strategic

relationship in partnership by integrating some of these committees so there's not as much oversight. i can recall in my own experience we were conducting the war in afghanistan and iraq and i appeared before the house and senate more than secretary rumsfeld did. the undersecretary and deputy secretary and everybody takes their responsibility to appear before you seriously. there are briefing books and boards that we sit in front of our colleagues and ask questions we might anticipate from you and questions for the record. would be a much stronger strategic partner if you consolidate the jurisdiction. i think dhs regardless of administration with the benefit in -- certainly appreciate it. >> thank you very much. mr. dodaro, there is a question about resilience and spending.

you look at what the department is doing well and what they need to improve on. but some people say we invested several hundred billion dollars in dhs. can we look at that investment and say there's a level of security that we can reach that won't guaranteed 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 is county, city or state. have you looked at that issue from an investment of dollar standpoint and seeing whether we should be preparing for something to happen? >> we looked at the concept of resiliency and that it needed to be built better into the

planning efforts of the department along with the response plan. we focus a lot on the initial recovery -- i got it backwards. the initial response. but the recovery efforts have been one that takes longer and still go on over a period of time. we looked at it conceptually. we have not looked at it in terms of how many dollars go into that area versus another area. what we have looked at is a lot of the investments that have been made over the years and i do think the department really needs to expand the capabilities to make those investments more wisely and prudently. we made a recommendation that they developed a better plan but have to implement those plans to make sure whatever investments they are making whether it is for initial response or recovery or resiliency are going to provide a good return on the investment of the american people and i think they have had

some major problems on their portfolio. there are 46 projects. over $3 billion in need of serious management attention by their own accounts on the board. this is a broad based problem, not just one that is focused on resiliency. >> the point i want to get at is do we continue to throw good money after situations or is there a point where we have to from a policy standpoint prepare this country to be able to come back after an occurrence notwithstanding doing the best job you can, a i think resiliency aspect of the department is something we need to put front and center because

every situation that occurs historically we throw millions of dollars after it. the christmas day bombing, we bought machines for afterwards that people already said they would not detect. other items we already know that will be coming through airports. is that good money? >> by agree there's a need to make more prudent investments. we said many times in our reports that the technologies need to be tested and operating the fireman before they are deployed and we made many recommendations to strengthen their ability to do that. there is the initial reaction that people want to do something quickly. we suggested they need to put better processes in place to make sure whatever they do when they make those investments

would actually work in practice. i agree completely with you. we have made many recommendations. i think the department is trying to improve. their acquisition process and investment policy, we are going to stay focused on that issue to make sure that they do. transforming and implementing the department of homeland security on our high risk list, one of the main reasons it is on the risk list is because these management practices support these provisions haven't been implemented using best practices. >> thank you. are recognized the gentlelady from michigan, miss miller for five minute. >> i appreciate the witnesses coming today and air service to this nation. a quick observation before i ask my question that the, on something secretary ridge said about the christmas day bomber. the lack of sharing information.

this particular incident has fallen off of the national radar screen but hasn't for us in the detroit area. it is crazy watching this guy goes through the federal court system. he is now representing himself. we had to give him his miranda rights. the best place in the nation, here is this guy who in the mind should have been tried as a city combatant in gitmo or a military tribunal. your a vietnam veteran and my husband as well. i'm sure when you were in vietnam looking at the enemy you didn't think about giving him the brand rights and letting them go through the federal court system. we are facing a different kind of enemy and every time i look a poster on the back showing the twin towers i think about these cockroaches, these murderers, these terrorists that are after us. that particular day, fat guy saw

the battlefield in asymmetrical terms and the battlefield in his mind was 19 a on that northwest flight. it is 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 enemy we are facing if we're going to be successful in securing our borders and securing our homeland. i would like to ask a question to the cup on the visa issue that both the secretary and mr. dodaro mentioned as well. i am the chair of the border subcommittee, ranking member mr. cuellar and i were going jaffa hearing focusing on this piece a situation which is of great consternation and was pointed out in the 9/11 commission recommendation. continues to be something of great consternation. it has been advanced that about

half of the illegal aliens in our country actually did not come here across the border. they are here because they have overstayed their visass. as was mentioned four of the nine terrorists on 9/11 were here unexpired visas. the department of homeland security has a backlog of 757,000 expired visass that have been overstated. i know you mentioned about the entrant vehicles we had but the exit strategy, the exit program we have is for lacking and there has been a lot of talk about the expense whether it is biometric or iras scan or whatever we would do but perhaps you could flesh out. i have read all of your 1500 recommendations yet. in regard to the visa is there anything you could tell us? >> yes. first i mentioned the visa security program and this is

where dhs is working with the state department in the initial screening before the visas are given. right now they are not fully deployed in all high risk areas. i can provide the statistics for the record but our basic point is having dhs work more with the state department can enhance the initial screening process and that is particularly important because of the overstay issue. it takes a while to deal with that issue. so we think dhs can be deployed to work with the state department but also can work with -- remote we hear to work with them to screen them and communicate electronically. the main point is all high-risk countries should be 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. 98% of people are authorized by the electric system but 2% are not. that is over 600,000 people. so those are trying to and we made a recommendation to the department to figure out why they were allowed to enter even though the electronic notification did not work properly in that area. then there is the exit system and strategy and there have been a number of pilots in the past that they have provided satisfactory answers. that is one of the things we want to do more work on to help identify some means to do this, is a huge issue but very important. until we have all three of those in countries that are required to have a visa waiver and have an exit system. we won't have a complete system of protection. >> could i just that in response, a biometric exit

system is required today by law. it is in the law. dhs will tell you it costs too much to implement. if that is the case they should come back to congress and give as a plan as to how they are going to deal with it and ask for the money. but like anything that is complex the thing to do under present circumstances is to phase it in and that might take a period of a few years. you can start with the vast majority of travelers who go by the air and you can have a biometric exit system today incorporated into our current airline operations without much difficulty similar to getting a seat upgraded reservations situation. you can do it with one finger print per passenger. so what i am saying is it is a tough problem. is not easy.

it is expensive. but the law is the law. 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 next stop at the canadian border you are right up there at the canadian border, you could make that land border entry into canada and exit into the united states and new technology could play a role in making exit a reality at a reasonable cost. i want to see us move ahead on this. >> thank you very much. >> the gentlelady from california, miss sanchez for five minute. >> thank you for your service for the country and being before us today. i want to comment a little bit on the issue of jurisdiction. you 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 issues the department is dealing with and doing our oversight to try to go along and drafting legislation and trying to pass it up in many cases and this having it stymied because it doesn't have another jurisdiction. it has to go to another committee and they never take it up or they really never taken up. when you look at the actual legislation that comes out of this committee it has been very little in five or six or seven years because we are standing by those jurisdictional issues. anything to continue to sort of push the congress to get it all in one place released less than the 88 subcommittees on the senate and on this side that are

last count that have some peace of jurisdiction would be important for us here to be able to actually follow through on the work we do. also i am concerned with the u.s. visit program. before mr. cuellar i was the chairman -- the chairman of the maritime border committee. that was a very big issue for us and when secretary janet napolitano was before the committee this year i asked her specifically about the exit parts of the u.s. visit program and she said basically the department was not going to continue to work on that exit peace and instead would prefer to put money into ice. the department stopped working on the back end of that. if you could give a comment

whether that is wise or whether as my good friend mr. hamilton said to at least begin to implement it in the airport situation. i also want to ask about the twit program, transportation worker identification card. are secretary over there. we have had so many problems putting this together. there are no leaders yet. it is a big problem in particular for people -- for workers who have to take time away. do you think a mailing system to renew, we are all those coming on the fifth year of the renewal for many of our workers and they

will be facing the same problems as five years ago when we started into this program of how do i get it and where do i go and do i have to drive two hours to pick up and as you know right now is a flash card rather is an air reader card. the continuity of the congress, particularly as it relates to the house of representative we have done nothing to ensure and as you know in the house of representatives if something should happen to majority of us is there would need to the special elections in order to put someone forward and be able to constitute the house back and that might be a laborious process. if you could comment at all whether the congress or this house should be concerned about the continuity of the congress. .. 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. .. then the different agencies have their own cyber responsibilities and commitments. the second challenge i think we have in the digital world is attribution. we're getting better at, but then accountability. what's our strategy once we identify a perpetrator, how do we hold them accountable? that is worthy of a separate and independent discussion. and then finally, you know, i have enormous regard for the men and women who serve their government in unelected capacities. we attract lawyers and scientists and cyber experts. but make no mistake about it,

the great capacity of knowledge and information on this issueout lies outside of government. and if there was ever an issue where republicans and democratsh both of whom talk frequentlyra aboutts public/private sectorly collaboration, if there was eveu an issue where you might want to think of some of an issue wheret want to think of some your 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 >> wherever people gather in large numbers, that's obvious.el you protect iconic symbols and so forth. u protect iconic symbod 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 to keep me and our constituencies. 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