it seems to me we are wide open on perimeter security. and this major airport in north carolina, there have been repeated breaches of security that we are aware affair. i can imagine that air force alone. how would you assess their ability to live with perimeter security around the airport? if he put his own body and that was a while, he could've easily placed explosives they are if he a person with a tragedy. but if a different intent? what if they put explosives in their? it seems we are focused so much on that and support netscape. what about what's going on as we look at the perimeters? can you address a series that has been? gao has commented on it, but i do see much action frankly. >> our recommendations have been

more that tsa needs to detroit vulnerability assessments with the asp ei perimeter issues, but this hasn't been done in a lot of cases and we've made recommendations along those lines. the other issue is the screening of workers who have access to facilities on every kilobases and we believe that issue needs to be addressed as well. i'd be happy to provide specifics for the record. >> anyone else want to comment on not? >> i'm very pleased to hear your remarks. my general impression with you think you are right. perimeter security is still a great vulnerability. so i would be supportive of efforts to make more inspections and bulk up our efforts have perimeter security. you know, there's so many areas of vulnerability.

and we've concentrated a lot on the ones we think are the greatest risk, but others keep popping up and you put your finger on an important one. >> i think aviation to the best of my knowledge is a target area. i suspect it still comes up on the reports that the intelligence community comes up as a potential target. we should never say we've eliminated it, but the notion somewhat could hijack a plane and take a commercial airliner contributed to a missile, i think that threat has been managed quite well. but i think we would be kidding ourselves if we didn't think aircraft generally as a target remains of vulnerability and remains a continuing interest -- a target of interest for those who bring assigned.

>> what's more frightening as we went back and looked at the videotape and knowing he'd done it, they still couldn't see into it afterwards. just a quick question if you can. maybe a yes or no since my time is limited. secretary napolitano told this committee that since 9/11 she considers the current. the most dangerous since 9/11, that we are in now and it is the most heightened state. would you agree? >> certainly, more intelligence information than i do a concert time, but there is a new mention that complicates her world and the challenges associated with the country and that's the homegrown terrorists. and the last 18 months and citizens and naturalized system s-sierra thesis. the world is a little more complicated for her and for this country. >> i am not aware of any immediate specific warnings.

but of course we found in the trove of information we got from osama bin laden read their interest in doing something on the anniversary of 9/11. so i understand that our security officials have ratcheted up the security levels quite a bit for the next two days. that seems to me to be entirely approve or hit because the intent here has been expressed. it has been expressed in the information we got from osama bin laden's hideout. >> thank you, gentlemen. the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thanks to the witnesses for being here. congressman hamilton, my question is about what your thoughts are impressed with the southern border. with the drug cartels, the continuous battles between similar chemicals cartel and the

status of the bubble of violence that continues to escalate along our southern borders and sophistication of weaponry continues to it against. i was down at the port of entry and douglas, arizona. one of the things we saw the video was the night before one of the drug cartel ephesians he is was stolen or made a police vehicle right port of entry about 100 yards for a border, entered into a restaurant, unloaded 300 rounds and wounding scores of people. i want to ask you, what you think the level of threat to our homeland based on the level being pursued by the drug cartels in mexico and how that affects our threat assessment from that area. >> well, first of all, i think the past two years and the

attendant public awareness of the narco threat clearly demonstrate areas of lawlessness adjacent to our southern border that we all should be concerned about. but you know, it is just a manifestation of a threat that is six state for decades and they still haven't gotten our arms around and that is the importation of drugs. we talk about weapons of mass destruction. long before 9/11, this country was dealing with weapons of mass destruction and was called drugs that have been coming into this from multiple sources around the world and we still haven't gotten our arms around not. my sense is again not privy to that kind of information frankly that i didn't enjoy knowing, but i was glad i was part of the

group inuit and could act upon it is that there is still a greater need for us to develop the trusted relationships with our counterparts in mexico. there's probably a greater need with the matter we not trust for information sharing. and frankly, we don't have -- and i say that with great respect to friends and colleagues of mine to my work in mexico. we still don't have the decades long mature, trusted relationship with all the agencies of government within the law enforcement community generally. so it's an enormous challenge in this country. i think were up to the challenge, but it's going to take us a long time to do with the violence, let alone simply the manifestation of the greater problem than not the importation of drugs and someone who appreciates supply. but it wouldn't become a

minister was made to man. it's more complicated than arresting the supply. >> i'm not sure i cannot much. i know your experience would be much more immediate than mine. i am a long way away from the border. but i have been impressed her with a period of years how difficult this has been for this country to deal with. i think we've increased the number of regards every few years around here for a good number of years and i'm sure that's a mouthful and i know they do a lot of good work. i know we felt a sense. i don't know what the miles are, but extended sense that it had some impact. you would know that better than i. we put into place a lot of new technology with mixed results 18. and i think all of those things have to be continued and strength than to deal with the problem. i think that that is very, very significant to the country.

and we have probably not focused enough on the, those of us who taught with homeland security. that's about all i can say. i obviously agree with what government rich said. there are a lot of problems in this world that we can't all by ourselves. i don't agree can solve this by ourselves. for going to need a lot of cooperation with mexican government as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. high-heeled act. >> i recognize for this round of questions, the gentleman from california. >> thank you are much, chairman and ranking member thompson for walking me to this committee. i look forward to representing my constituents in the 36th congressional district on this committee. you know, i can remember very well on september 11th, as we all do, where we were, what our first swear.

i had just been a lot good to the city council of los angeles and mike council district includes support of los angeles and i represent over 100,000 people that just physically, you know, sit right next to the port of los angeles. and while the september 11th attacks were aviation related, my first thought was the vulnerability of the port of los angeles. 10 years later and now representing the same constituents in congress, i am still concerned about the port of los angeles. between the ports of los angeles and long beach, we account for about 44% of the trade that comes into this country. we have about 5000 men and women who actually work on the docks

on a daily basis. and i think it is our seaports that are still probably the most vulnerable entry way into this country. and while utah about how we have evolved in granting these homeland security grants to more represent threats on her and consequence. an honorable hamilton, as you said, they've given us a road map at the target would be something that does great damage and is in symbolic. i think an attack on america's support in long beach and los angeles could create a significant impact to our national economy and our global economy. so i spent 10 years on the city council worker but my predecessor, jane harman, in

approving the delhi international airport and the port of los angeles. but i'd like to know from the panel what you think we in congress should be doing, can do to improve the security at our ports. >> my judgment with feet that we've not focused enough on the port. i think the enormous vulnerability would be in the inadequate inspection of cargo probably the major problem. i am not a to date on what has been done on that. i do recall being disappointed again at the state to fight technology with regard to detection. you have these massive amount of materials coming into the country in ships and our ability

to identify dangerous materials i think is likely. at least that's my understanding that this point. i think you play an important role by bringing up the question of the full durability of the port. >> i might add, although at the time that the other about the fiscal situation in this country and dealing with the deficit and the debt, i must admit early on being very much someone who believes that during my tenure and subsequent to my tenure, that the united states coast guard is one of the most overstressed, multitask, underappreciated institutions that this federal government and i think they are grossly, grossly and adequately funded for the multiple task they bring in their primary responsibility to this country.

these men and women for years, for decades literally get pretty much was left over when it's divided amongst the rest of the agencies. they have multiple task is and they just don't -- i daresay the generals and admirals and the other branches of the service would be up here in mass. if they received as little funding on strategic needs of the coast guard does. whatever reason, there is this mindset that we can do. i'll tell you if you want to do one day to improve maritime security in this country, go back and take a look at the coast guard's budget and bring in not just the incumbent, but the three or four that have preceded. i can recall flying in a helicopter, overseeing the g8 exercise at one time when the

pilot passed me if i wanted to grab the controls. it was an infantry soldier. but i'll pretend like i'm flying like the tv commercial. and i said to the pilot. as it is this one of those helicopters as an engine failure rate that the faa would have grounded commercially and he said yes it is. one of the passengers in the backseat said to maintain the conversation? i remember going to an appeal. if opened a door for me and i've got to take advantage of it. i really do budget secretary of peel's budget decisions to the highest level. well, i took the coast guard's budget numbers are mapped to the appeal board and i brought in a piece of steel, and no plate on one of their attorney or 30 year old ships that had been banned because it use because of the multitask vehicle or shut. so if you want to do something

significant to improve maritime security, kovac engaged the coast guard the money they need to do their job more effectively. >> i would say, congressman from what done a lot of job after work on maritime security, looking at vessels, people, cargo issues. we've sounds some progress being made in this area, but difficult to determine what the degree of progress in readiness really is at the ports. also i've mentioned already the transportation worker identification card and problems associated with that. that has a lot of problems and needs to be addressed. i'm also the key issue regarding technology and how different technologies could be used to help scan cargo and containers. and we've done work on which all provide to the committee, looking at the burgee technologies, really address that the volume of activity has to entail some technological

solution. >> thank you very much. my time is up. until we are screening 100% of our cargo, i think we've got a problem. >> i will say there is a concern on this committee. the secretary takes this issue very seriously. as a practical matter, the hundreds that will be difficult, but they are proving it. we actually passed back in 2006 and i know it's been continued hence, legislation by mr. lundgren and again in a bipartisan way we realize the vulnerability. i remember when there was a straight, billions of dollars were lost in a brief period of time. they received on in the arab quarter. so we certainly thank you. mr. kucinich is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, that you talk about the cut at the house of representatives supported and actually many colleagues here. i don't know if you are gentlemen are aware, but actually of the appropriations bill, if not week, i did not show support this, 2.7 billion was moved. that's 6% less than what was requested by the administration is specifically within customs and border protection, 89 million was cut. 1% less than trusted peer transportation security 292 million, 4% last. coast guard, something you're just talking about. 37 million was cut. and then within fema, the most romantically cut of 1.4 billion, which was 21% less than requested. what would you say to members of congress and the senate, who despite your efforts in the

report, seem to not value the services to the level that you say we need to have them, what would your response be? >> i am sorry. >> did she want to handle that? >> you are suggesting a number of cut had been made on homeland security in general. >> that's correct. i question was specifically what advice would you give to members of congress who actually support those cuts and what would you are just a few clicks of >> well i'm no expert on the budget of the homeland security department. but having said that, i would look with great skepticism by many cuts in this area because you are dealing with homeland security. you're dealing with the protection of the lives of the american people. so budgeting is always a question of priorities and i know how difficult it is to make judgments with regard to priorities.

but i'm very scared: probably would oppose cut on homeland security. >> okay, mr. dodaro, i'm going to posit nasty my second question the convicted that's about all the time we have. you know, i was really surprised with the exchange with the previous number because i'm sure the ranking member will recall the way that the current secretary twice what is her intention of implementing 100% scanning of cargo. and actually the response hasn't been supportive. in fact, there is an absolute no intention. but i've gotten from those hearings to implement 100% screening of cargo. in fact, what the secretary has said for the record, the secretary has said they are exploring other means, which you, sir, referencing your report. for example, doing screening by paper and looking at continual

shippers and things that might be of concern and really getting away from the agreement if in fact they're going to be able to do screening. first of all, i thought we needed to clarify what the current secretary has said and what so far her intentions are. sir, i'd like to ask you in regards to your report on page 114, you talk about this whole issue. my question to you would be, you said, the secretary, the administration are preparing this route toward. it doesn't look like they are going to really follow through on what the commission asks for 100% inspection. could you expand more on what you planning on going further in your evaluation? ..

about reaching 100% requirements but there needs to be you know a study and alternatives to develop. >> i have got 32nd clip. mr. hamilton and mr. ridge, what do you think of the secretary not only this current secretary but the previous secretary not -- non-commitment to read meet your request and recommendation of 100% inspection of cargo? >> well, i think again i can't. >> to dan but i truly believe that literally speaking, it is probably physically impossible

to do if you really think about the volume of cargo into this country and within each one of those containers they are containers within containers and the like are cohabitants said that, i am familiar with some technology of detection that will enable i think, if it proves to be successful, enable us to get much much closer to reaching that, reaching that goal. again it is managing the risk and are there venues and ports of call around the world through which cargo might go that we want to make our best efforts to inspect all 100%? i dare say yes. it again it is managing the risk. i am still of the belief that empirically to get to 100% we encourage the research and

development in detection technology and we can get very close to it. >> i do not recall that the 9/11 commission recommended 100% screening for the reasons of of the difficulty achieving it, but we certainly supported the idea that secretary ridge has indicated and that is risk management. i think in dealing with the bulk of cargo that comes into this country on a daily basis, as a practical matter, you obviously want to improve the technology to the highest degree that you can achieve, but even after you do that, you are going to have to make judgments about cargo coming from different ports of the world and that involves a risk management decision. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from new york,

ms. higgins is recognized. >> thank you. getting back to the purpose of the hearing which was the progress made in the past 10 years and the security gap that still exist in the management and operational improvements that still are needed. last december "the washington post" reported that the top-secret world of counterterrorism has become so large, so unwieldy, so secretive that no one knows how much money it cost, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do this work. a new book out by dana priest called top-secret america, the rise of new american security state characterizes this as a terrorism industrial complex. we have 800,000 people who now hold top security clearances.

we have 51 federal organizations and military organizations that are involved in tracking the flow of money inside and out of terrorist organizations. we have 2000 private companies and 1200 organizations, intelligence agencies that are involved in counterterrorism. it seems as though this hearing and the information that has been presented by both the panel and ancillary information is very disconcerting. what the american people should have expected in the aftermath of 9/11 is the bureaucratic response is lean, muscular, transparent and effective. it seems as though what we have is a bureaucratic response that is loaded, immobile, ineffective and not doing the very things the 9/11 commission said was most important. that was to remove the barrier

that existed between federal law enforcement agencies toward the goal of sharing good informatios most effective in thwarting preempting terrorist activity. lawrence wright baas look the looming tower, recounts -- there's a passage in there, a physical fbi agent got physically sick he does after he realized what had occurred, he said the intelligence existed to stop that variants of them on 9/11. so, you know the american people have been misled. i think what we did in the aftermath of 9/11 was said we got attacked. we don't know specifically who it is. here is a bunch of money. go out and do something about it. we created a bureaucracy that is not meeting its moral and operational objective. so, i just ask all of you who

have committed yourself to try to improve the situation to comment on the information that has been presented here. >> well, i think you raise a question that probably would not have been raised a few years ago. you are of course right when you indicate the figures that show enormous expansion of homeland security activities. and we have not much focused on the matter of cost effectiveness up until this time, until fairly recently, the security people win every argument because they come in and say, if you don't do this, your vulnerability is going to be much greater. in the aftermath of 9/11, we tended not to worry too much about cost and therefore you get

an 80 billion-dollar budget for the intelligence community. i chaired the intelligence committee back a good many years ago when the budgets i think were somewhere in the range of $10 billion. i am not precise about that but roughly, so we have had an explosion of cost without any doubt about it. and the question of cost effectiveness needs to be brought much more into the debate than it has been thus far. having said that, may i go back to the point of oversight? this is why you need a congressional intelligence oversight, which is focused in my view should be in an appropriations subcommittee on intelligence and on -- as well as having effective oversight of homeland security. in effect you have a very fractured oversight of homeland security, and in effect you have

an inadequate oversight of the intelligence budget and in both areas you have had an explosion of cost. one of the recent oversight is necessary is to keep your eye on exploding cost, so i do not think members of congress can say you are innocent on this. you folks haven't done the job with regard to oversight. that is part of the answer, not the entire answer. but i like to see questions of your kind coming forward because i think we need some pushback on the explosive growth we have had in these areas. that is a fairly typical response by the american government. the increased things very rapidly on homeland security. >> reclaiming the time that i don't have mr. chaired me i make a final point? this is my concern. this is my concern. we had a hearing in his committee a couple of months ago on hezbollah.

hezbollah is committed to violent jihad. they acted a proxy for iran, syria and venezuela. the information that was presented to this committee indicated that hezbollah had a presence in north america including five cities in the united states in four cities in canada. so they have close proximity to the united states. one of those cities with toronto, 90 minutes from my hometown of buffalo new york. we had niagara falls and a huge tourist attraction. we have a project which produces the cheapest and cleanest electricity and nala the united states. we have the busiest northern border crossing for passenger vehicles and my concern is that we are so preoccupied with the spear of receipt and so emerged in it that we are not agile. we can't adjust to changes on the ground and the terrorist threat today is very different

from the one that existed 10 years ago. it is younger. it is more aggressive. it is more vicious and it is technologically savvy so we are preoccupied with this false sense of security that we built up within this bureaucracy. the terrorists are way ahead of us because they are smaller, they are mobile and they are able to move. that is a major concern that every american, regardless of whether western new yorker through this nation should be very concerned about. >> the witnesses may respond in writing. with that i recognize the gentleman from louisiana for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you ranking member and thank you for the witnesses today. in evaluating where we are today compared to where we were at would like to shift away from preventing the attack and talk a little bit about a response to a

terrorist attack, and just grading 9/11 in terms of resources provided, in terms of unified manner and money appropriated, how would you grade the u.s. government's response after the attack of 9/11 to the city of new york and to the other places that were affected? if you can rank it in terms of poor or fair or excellent how would you characterize it? >> at the time of 9/11? >> yes. >> was very poor. >> the resources provided on the ground in new york? >> there was a great deal of confusion within our government. we weren't prepared at many levels to deal with it both in terms of the emergency response and in terms of the defense of the country. multiple mistakes were made from the ticket taker at logan airport in boston to the presidents of the united states.

we in 9/11 said look we were not charged with the responsibility of accountability and we didn't get into it that we said there was a systemic failure, and that failure was literally scores, hundreds, maybe thousands of people in the country. it was a very poor response. it was a major failure of government. we fail to protect our people. >> governor? >> i think there is evidence that suggests that for years and years at least within a small group of men and women within the intelligence community, there was greater and greater sensitivity to a potential attacker nature which we were still quite unaware of the rise of these jihad is and i think the decisions made probably have -- when president bush

became president that decisions that were not made prior to the previous administration has set us up so that nearly we weren't as prepared as americans that we would be for such a catastrophic event. again, i know the 9/11 commission didn't look into that. i know individually that people at fame and everybody associated with this recovery efforts did everything they could, but this was -- i am not sure anyone's imagination was so expansive as they thought about preparing even for a potential terrorist attack that they could envision commercial airplanes being turned into missiles or that the twin towers would fall, so while we have certainly proved ourselves -- we were certainly not -- we became more aware of our vulnerabilities and we are not more vulnerable because of it. even our best days whether you

are republican or democrat in the president bush administration of the president clinton administration you could have seen even those within the intelligence committee thinking about the jihad is an extremist and a terrorist attack at that level. >> i think we need to understand that. there is a blame game that we often play but i don't pick anyone anticipated an attack at that level. >> i represent new orleans louisiana which in the aftermath of katrina the government response was very very poor in terms of getting resources they are quickly, unified command in all of those things in my question at what he is in fact the position of the house is that we have a pay-for for disaster response, how is that going to affect our response to the next big disaster or terrorist attack and if it means us coming in and cutting our cuts in order to provide funding how would that hamper the

response to a future terrorist attack? >> let me take a little extra time because i think it is a very good question here. katrina, as you look back and reflect on katrina, think there were a lot of lessons learned and they are perhaps more painfully aware than most members of congress since your constituents are in the city and the people that are responsible. there we saw i think the failure of the local and the state and the federal government to err on the side of preparation. you don't need to be a meteorologist to see that a cat 4 or five heading to a city that is 14 feet above or below sea level anyway there is plenty of blame to go around. since that time, i believe that

frankly i think right now fema has got one of the strongest and best administrators we have ever had in this country, craig fugate. we worked with him and he was running the operation down in florida. the year before katrina hit for hurricanes hit around florida and he -- i think they are far far better prepared than i have ever been before to do with a major disaster and one final comment. never in the history of the country have we worried about budget around the emergency appropriations for natural disasters and frankly in my view we shouldn't be worried about it now. i realize we have fiscal problems but the real challenge, we are all in this country and mother nature devastated communities. we may need emergency appropriations and we have to deal with it until the fiscal albums it on. >> one of the ways to look at this is the progress being made. if you look at the response of 9/11, the response of katrina and as you have said very poor. the response to the oil spill,

better. the response to irene, better. we are learning. the progress may not be as rapid as we would like that we are getting better at responding to disasters even though there are some gaps. >> thank you to the witnesses. thank you mr. chair. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. by thank the ranking member and and a i thank r. panelist. nepa the tenth anniversary of 9/11 terrorist attacks on our nation, the possibility of another attack still casts an ominous shadow over the united states. i believe that we are definitely safer, however safety is a relative term in an ever evolving threat environment against our nation and her people. these changes made in the transportation industry and in the intelligence community have

definitely prevented another successful attack to this moment. even with the death of osama bin laden we must continue our vigilant and to build out of a robust defense as well as strengthen our capacity to be resilient. on behalf of the people of the 11th congressional district of new york, i would like to express to those who lost a family member, a loved one or a friend on september 11, 2001 terrorist attack that their loss will never be forgotten and is a member of this committee and a new yorker, i would like to emphasize the importance of fully implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. we must partner with local, state and private sector partners to keep our nation safe. after witnessing first-hand the inability of first responders to communicate on september 11,

2001 and the excessive loss of life as a result, i fully support efforts that would give first responders specific portion of the spectrum known as the block for a brazilian state-of-the-art communications network. our first responders definitely need to be able to communicate with one another in times of crisis. so my question is what are your thoughts on a set aside for the dedication of the d block spectrum for first responders? the well i favor it and i am pleased to note that the chairman and ranking members here and i think a good many members of the committee's favorite. i think it is the most expeditious and the surest way to get reliability of the communication now. once you set aside the d block you are not through. there is a lot more work that has to be done. it is essential i believe to make it possible for the first

responders to talk with one another and the best way to do that is to set aside a portion of the radio spectrum, the so-called d block, directly allocate that to the first responders. i favor that. i think it is very important. i would hope that the congress would take a lead from the chairmen and ranking member this committee and get about the business of dedicating the d block and let the private sector begin embedding the technology that we need. there may be political differences but i think the first responder community is generally saying work it out. we need the technology and we need it now, so. >> thank you and my next question is about how we deal with enhanced security while at the same time preserving our

very cherished civil liberties. representative hamilton would you expand on the ideas you mentioned in your testimony regarding the civil liberties oversight lord? >> i am impressed with the capacity of government to intrude on the lives of people. i mentioned earlier in the hearing today that i had a briefing on this yesterday and it is just absolutely incredible what the sophisticated devices can do with regard to intruding on your privacy and civil liberties. now even if you take the position that under present circumstances the civil liberties and privacy are being reasonably protected, i simply don't know enough about that but for the sake of argument i say they are being reasonably protected. the history of abuse of government power is enough to give us pause here and you try

to set in force and play some kind of of counterpressure if you would, to the people who want more and more intrusive measures. i think all the members of the commission felt that you needed a robust civil liberties lord to push back and to try to protect our liberties and our core values and their privacy. i am very disappointed that we have not put such a board in place. i don't think the job is easy and i think it will be very very difficult but you need some counterpressure, some pushback to the security agency which press for more and more power, more and more ability to intrude into the lives of americans.

in many cases, at the very least, you need a rigorous oversight of that in order to protect our core values. i think it is terribly important that board be created and i haven't fully understood frankly why it has not been created but it has not and let's get about the business of getting it in functioning order. >> i would like to add very briefly to i certainty one associates with my colleagues remarked. when congress passed the enabling legislation creating the department of homeland security, in his wisdom and frankly foresight, it anticipated the challenges associated with a department that may be using information that they certainly wanted to use an appropriate a way. the congress mandated and they were the first privacy officer mandated by congress and any of

our government agency so i think that mindset, that appreciation of liberty and privacy is very much a part of how the congress thought about the agency, but i think as my colleague has pointed out you need to take that concept to the broader oversight community over the intelligence community generally. >> did you want to share anything? >> yes, setting aside the board recommendation because i think that is started and commented on, we have look at how the privacy officers and the agency's have implemented their responsibilities and dhs is doing more in this area to do these privacy assessments. our recommendations have been that they need to be embedded in all the decisions that are made when new systems are put in place to collect information and that this concern needs to be addressed up front. we think that will help further

solidify the balance between security and civil liberties protections. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. i thank the gentlelady and i yield to the gentleman from illinois mr. davis for five minutes. we have more than enough time for your questions. >> mr. chairman let me tanker you in the ranking member for holding this hearing. i also want to thank are witnesses for their expertise in this arena and also for the tremendous services that they have all provided to the country and continue to do so. i think all of us can reflect on september the 11th, 2001. i happen to have been in tel aviv, israel at the moment and of course we were there for a week because we couldn't leave. i have had the opportunity to reflect upon the tremendous

impact not only to our country and our way of life but what has happened internationally around the world. i am also reminded and i am pleased that the last few minutes we have had some discussion of budgets, of priorities, of the economy and its impact and i am always reminded of something that frederick douglass said when we talk about what we need and what we want. he would often say that you can't have the rain without the thunder and the lightning. meaning that priorities are very important and you have to determine what you are willing to give in order to get what it is that you are trying to get. we have now had almost a decade

of spending money in the homeland security arena, and my colleagues have mentioned cuts and cut backs and i guess my question as i have listened would be, what have we really learned since 9/11 about what spending works and what does not work? what seems to work best? how do we adequately prepare or make the best use of the resources that we are willing to spend, and what areas have we been most successful in and which ones perhaps we have been least successful end, and how do we prepare to the best of our ability for the future?

if each of you would just respond to that question, i would thank you very much. >> while it is a very very broad question. you can look at the response in terms of the cup being half full and the cup being half empty. we have really made a very great deal of progress i think at all levels. when you get on an airplane today you are safer than you were when you got on it prior to 9/11. i think that the sharing of information and the intelligence community is much much better than it used to be. in all aspects of preventing attack, we have made some progress. we spent the morning talking about areas where we think more progress needs to be made and that would need in your category

i think where we have been less successful. in terms of unity of effort and who is in charge of the communication problem, and many other areas that have come up today. so, i think you have to think of homeland security in terms of a work in progress. a lot of process having been made, but it takes constant effort to make the american people less secure is that we ought to be and could be. that is why oversight is terribly important. so that is a quick summary. i think we are safer today than we were but we are not as safe as we could be, and that would be my summary of where we are after 10 years. >> thank you very much.

>> i think the question highlights an issue that we have been hearing through the course of this hearing and that is the need for a much smaller group in the congress of the united states to take a far more holistic approach toward its oversight over the still relatively new agency, to set in a very thoughtful and judicious way the kinds of priorities that you need because there are plant yield wants that you need to address and the priority should even needs first. you highlight that. and a couple of areas we have decided we have aired when we thought more was better. that article that one of your colleagues referred to about the explosion of the infrastructure around the counterterrorism was a perfect example where we thought if we employed now thousands and thousands more

private-sector contractors we would be safer but in spite of the all of that we had fort hood and a few other instances where it we were lucky that things didn't happen so i think we have learned perhaps a more judicious the identification of priorities and candidly and respectfully with more aggressive oversight on the part of the congress of the united states which united states which again is very difficult to do throughout the entire legislative ranch. i think it is a very appropriate question. i am not in a position to assess a basic outcome. and balance i think congress has identified some of the most immediate needs. i do think there have been dollars that have not been expended very appropriately. i think congress along the way has lost sight of the admonition that was involved in the legislation and that has taken

commercial off-the-shelf, technology and apply it. i think we are still in a search for the perfect technology. i don't think we are going to find it at the border. i don't think we are going to find it at the airport. i think we might want to be a little bit more judicious and encouraging and review the procurement in the testing process about these technologies within the department, but i think if someone who was privileged to have served and worked in congress and worked with my colleagues during those first couple of years, i think they did a remarkable job. remember there was no architecture and there was no plan. no one was prepared for that attack and the nature of that attack and frankly what this country endured afterwards. we went from unprecedented -- to unprecedented guard. we found solidarity at the outset and we have made some

mistakes along the way but as my colleague lee hamilton has said one reason we are safer in our country is because the work the 9/11 commission accomplished. we have made a great deal of rug rats. let's not a reckless about the threat. american can manage this threat. to that and i would love to see a broader role for a smaller roof of congress in the house and senate to help to continue to build on the success and the security and effectiveness of the department. your question was very well stated and i'm sorry i gave you such a long-winded response to it. >> thank you very much. it's a congressman the other panelist to talk more broadly about this and i read we have spent a lot on addressing the aviation area and airtime security. that, all of biological and nuclear area and the cyber area needs more attention going

forward. as these threats evolve, as it relates to resource investments narrowly, think what we have learned is the cantor rush deployment of untested technologies. that has not worked effectively. there are the airports, so-called sbinet, the advanced spectroscopic radiation monitors all have failed because they haven't had adequate testing and also in the secure flight area was on the success side. i think they took the time for congress to enumerated specific areas that needed to be met including the protection of civil liberties and privacy in that system and i think that was a good effort on that site so going forward there needs to be a risk-based approach to investment decisions. funds are unlimited and also there has to be a careful application of good management

practices and testing in the technologies. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank you in the ranking member for your leadership as well as the witnesses and i've personally feel much safer now than i did then. >> thank you sue davis and let me take the witnesses. the ranking member and i were discussing the testimony. the test of knowledge and have about the subject complex issue and how unfortunately there is too often a political debate especially on the issue of homeland security. how many few sound bites there. you take a complex issue, too many people in politics saying both parties take the most complex issue and reduce it to a 102nd soundbite and while there are specific answers, as the three of you have indicated today none of this is easy all of his is complex and there are many people who are well-intentioned trying to do the right thing and actually i

want to thank you for your service especially thank you for your testimony today and now i will yield to the ranking member for any fine or marks he has. >> thank you mr. chairman and i would like to support your comments. we have a lot of people on this committee who consider themselves experts but i have not had any greater depth of knowledge resented her this morning by the three of you. that depth goes beyond your affluence and i think it is a tribute to what you do every day and i want to personally just as the chairman said thank you for your service and thank you for hopefully getting this committee where we need to be as the

committee on homeland security. your leadership in getting us there in this testimony will go a long ways towards accomplishing that and i thank you. >> thank you ranking member. in closing i would say chairman hamilton and secretary ridge, members of the committee may have additional questions and we will ask you to respond to this [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. senate is about the gavel and. they will begin with an hour of morning business and then at 11 eastern they will resume to a house bill proposing two new trade restrictions. said majority leader reid says he plans to amend the bill by adding about $7 billion in spending for fema to use, respond to natural disasters around the country. from 12:30-2:15 eastern the senate will recess for the weekly party lunches. now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, who fulfills the desires

of those who have reverence for your name, let your will be done today on capitol hill. give our senators a clear understanding of your providential purposes so that they will not deviate from your desired plan. inspire them to seek your guidance and depend on you to bring them through the myriad challenges of our time. infuse them with a spirit of reconciliation that will break down divisive walls, bringing harmony and cooperation. strengthen them for this day's journey,

as your spirit empowers them to faithfully honor you in their thoughts, words and deeds. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., september 13, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3,

of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeanne shaheen, a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i would ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: following any leader remarks, the senate will be in morning business for an hour. the majority will control the first half. the republicans will control the final half. following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.j. res. 66. this legislation is the vehicle that we need to do the fema funding. the senate will recess, as we always do, on tuesdays, from 12:30 until 2:15 for our weekly

caucus meetings. madam president, this week, the republicans sent a message to victims of devastating hurricanes, wildfires and tornadoes. that message was tough luck. last night, we tried to move forward on a measure that would grant the federal emergency management agency additional funding to help communities devastated by natural disasters. this ought to be the least political issue we have. whether to reach out a helping hand to our friends and neighbors in time of need. these unfortunate people have lost friends and loved ones, they have lost their homes, businesses and livelihoods, and they have been destroyed by acts of god. i don't see that in any way to be -- i went over this with my wife last night. she said why would you use a term like that? well, in the law, that's what

these floods, these terrible wind storms, these fires, they are acts of god. we can't plan for them. they just happen, and in the law, that's the term of art that we use. these people lost loved ones and friends and property, are under water or reduced to rubble literally. it's in our power to help them. it's an obligation we have to help them. last night, republicans overwhelmingly voted to prevent us from coming to their aid. they prevented us from getting disaster aid to american families and businesses that need it now. these unfortunate people, i repeat, don't need the help next week or next month or six months from now. they need it now. today. it's truly unthinkable republicans would waste time catering to the radical tea

party while the victims of disastersed by their time. one of the leaders of the tea party, a member of the house of representatives has said very publicly that fema, we should get rid of it. but madam president, this is not a nation that stands idly by while our femaleo americans suffer. we're a nation of action. that's what we've always been. when it is in our power to aid a fellow citizen, we always have done what it takes. we've done it without politics, without pandering, without a moment's delay. until today. this year, the united states has dealt with more than its usual share of terrible natural disasters. hurricane irene is estimated to be one of the most costly disasters ever to hit this country. it caused flooding and wind damage from florida to maine. that's a long ways. it's a huge coastline. but its damage was not with only the coastline.

interior state like vermont suffered terrible damage. hundreds of bridges, hundreds, plural, i repeat, in vermont. scores of bridges in the presiding officer's sta state of new hampshire. crops were drowned all over the northeast. rarely, rarely has this ever happened. just a few short weeks ago, an earthquake that we have not had in this part of the country for 65 years occurred. the epicenter was in virginia. it was felt by tens of millions of people in every corner of the eastern united states. and damaged buildings in richmond and closed the washington monument, the national cathedral had some of its spires damaged, it's closed now, the 9/11 celebration was to take place there, had to move it to the kennedy center. the mormon temple that we see as

we drive down the beltway, spires were knocked out, some of the spires wered knocked off that. record flooding in the mississippi and missouri rivers has cost lives and devastated farmland. to get a picture of the devastation, three million acres of farmland is under water now. this isn't rice that grows there. these are crops that need to be able to be away from that much water. it's devastated the farmland in that part of the country. in february, a massive blizzard buried the northeast -- i'm sorry, the midwest and northeast with as much as three feet of snow. paralyzing the city of chicago, and 36 people died. even now, firefighters are battling terrible wildlife that wildfires that have raged for weeks and weeks across central texas. those fires have killed people

and driven residents from their homes that they'll never see again. mr. president, in texas, 2,000 homes have been burned to the ground. since january, texas has reported -- this is not a misstatement -- 20,000 fires since january. some of the small fires developed into big fires. burning almost four million acres of land. state forest service in texas responded to 19 new fires on sunday alone, in 24 hours, almost a new fire an hour in texas. this year, president obama has issued disaster declarations in 48 states and it's only september. some states have had multiple disasters. the united states has had $10 billion disasters, we've had -- we've had ten

billion-dollar disasters already this year. it's no wonder that there is limited moneys left in fema's disaster relief fund. fema has spent about $400 million in the last two weeks alone making whole american families after hurricane irene and lee, the tax reform and the tornado -- the tropical storm and the tornado, i'm sorry, the hurricane. fema's funds are so low fema stopped rebuilding joplin, missouri, where 2 507b heap have died after the tornado. they have programs where they're rebuilding the schools and some of the public services that are so necessary. they wanted to have enough money to do the food, water and emergency housing for victims of hurricane irene so they pulled out of joplin, missouri.

and we've seen the pictures, hard to comprehend, but winds blowing almost 300 miles an hour, it just eliminates everything on the ground, any structure, eliminated. this is not some republican -- i'm sorry, some democratic idea that's come about, we need to fund fema. republican governors are desperate for money. they've seen the deficit reduction firsthand. i'm pick just two, the governor of new jersey, governor christie, said this, and i quote, "our people are suffering now and they need support now." governor mcdonald of virginia said "my concern is that we help people in need." and he responded in that way because the republican majority leader of the house said we don't -- what we need to do is make sure these emergencies are paid for by taking money from programs that are now in

existence. we cannot be held hostage in this issue to appease the tea party. hundreds of millions of dollars in disaster recovery projects are on hold. i mentioned joplin, missouri as just one example. no matter how often we wish for a crystal ball, the process of guessing how much money we'll need for natural disasters isn't perfect. we try, but this has been a very, very devastating year. each year, congress estimates how much it will cost this country to recover from inevitable storms, wildfires and floods and then reacts to what mother nature sends our way. now is the time to react. it's time to show americans as we did in the wake of september 11 that when disaster strikes the federal government will be there to help rebuild. these are very hard, personal issues. here in virginia, a suburb of washington, a 12-year-old boy was out watching it rain. he was swept off his back step

and he's dead. scores of people have been killed just with lee and irene. it's time for republicans to prove this congress, for one of the first times they're willing to put politics aside for the good of the american people. fema is an issue that is bipartisan in nature. those storms don't just hit democrats. they don't just hit republicans. they don't just hit -- the independents, they hit us all and that's why we have to react and help everybody in america because everyone has been hurt. mr. comoanl: madam president. the presiding officer: the republican leader.

mr. mcconnell: last week president obama unveiled a stimulus bill he's calling a jobs plan and yesterday the white house explained how they'd like to pay for it. the first thing to say about this plan is it's now obvious why the president left out the specifics last week. not only does it reveal the political nature of this bill, it also reinforces the growing perception that this administration isn't all that interested in economic policies that will actually work. but none of this is really news. over the past few days, press reports have made it perfectly clear that this legislation is more of a re-election plan than a jobs plan. it's an open secret which democrats all over washington have been acknowledging to reporters since the moment the president revealed it. they've said that despite the president's calls to pass this bill immediately, the real plan is to let it hang out there for

a while so democrats can use it as an issue on the campaign trail. what's more, the president knew as well as i did when he unveiled this plan that democrats in the senate had already scheduled a full slate of legislative business for the next few weeks. so unless the white house wants to admit that it has no regard for its own party's legislative business in congress, the eept call for immediate action was clearly little more than rhetorical flourish. but the speeches we good goth yesterday only reinforced the impression this was largely a political exercise. for one, they undermine the president's claim that it's a bipartisan proposal because much of what he's proposing has already been rejected on a bipartisan basis. the half a trillion-dollar tax hike the white house proposed yesterday will not only face a tough road in congress among republicans but from democrats, too.

the central tax hike included in this bill capping deductions for individuals and small businesses was already dismissed by a filibusterproof democratic-controlled senate in 2009. another idea floated by the white house yesterday, a tax on investment income has been vehemently opposed by the number three democrat in the senate, among others. and a proposal to raise taxes on the oil and gas industry was rejected as a job destroying tax hike by both democrats and republicans just a few months ago. and for good reason. since the nonpartisan congressional research service tells us it would only raise gas prices and it would also in addition to raising gas prices move jobs overseas. so claiming this bill is bipartisan may sound good if you're out there on the campaign trail, but surely the president could come up with some

proposals that both sides had not already rejected. here's how one prominent left-leaning analyst put it yesterday: "these aren't new policy ideas, he wrote, the obama administration has been looking to cap itemized deductions since the 2009 budget, nor are they bipartisan policy ideas. is the specifics we got yesterday were disappointing for another reason as well. not only have they failed to attract wide bipartisan support in the past, even if they did, enjoy bipartisan support, they wouldn't create any jobs. the president knows raising taxes is the last tinge you want to do to spur job creation. he said so himself. yet that's basically all he's proposing here, temporary stimulus to be paid for later by permanent tax hikes so that when the dust clears and the economy is no better off than it was

after the first stimulus, folks find themselves with an even bigger tax bill than today. now, the president can call this bill whatever he wants. but in reality, all he's doing is just proposing a hodgepodge of retread ideas aimed at convincing people a temporary fix is really permanent and that it will create permanent jobs and then daring republicans to vote against it. well, i think most people see through all of this. i think most americans are smarter than that. i think they know our economic challenges are more serious than this and that they roir serious long-term solutions. i think the american people realize we can do a lot better. i've talked with a lot of job creators over the past few weeks including many in eye own state. it's no secret what they need to create jobs. every one of them says the same thing and yet the president refuses to do any of it. if the president is truly interested, truly interested in growing the economy and putting

americans back to work, then he'll leave the temporary proposals and the half measures and the tax hikes aside, he'll consult with both parties and work with us on a plan that indicates he's learned something from the failures of the past two years. and which actually has a chance of attracting bipartisan support. he could start with a permanent reform of our broken tax system, reducing out-of-control federal regulations, and by passing the trade bills that have been sitting on his desk since inauguration day, 2009. all of this is doable. all of it should attract bipartisan support. and all of it would actually create jobs. now, that would be a jobs plan worthy of the seriousness of the moment. but make no mistake, what the president proposed so far is not serious. and it's not a jobs plan. after what we learned yesterday, that should be clear to everyone.

madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled by between the two leaders for their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i listened carefully to the statement made by the republican leader. i noticed for the last few days the republicans have been very quiet and calm and circumspect in their reaction to the president's speech to a joint session of congress last thursday night. the president of course came to us and said this economy needs a helping hand. we've got to step in and do something. we've got to act and act now. and he came up with a list of proposals thursday night that i think really do address what

america needs. first and foremost, to create jobs. that's the number-one priority. the president says we'll do this by creating tax incentives for small businesses in particular to hire people who have been employed and give raises to those who currently work. he knows that families are struggling across america, work force, middle-class families, many of them living paycheck to paycheck. madam president, a recent poll asked working families in america how many could come up with $2,000 in 30 days. either either from savings or borrowing to meet a medical emergency, for example. it turns out barely half of americans can do so. working families, barely half of them, could come up with $2,000. it's a reminder to many of us who have a comfortable life that the vast majority of working families struggle every single month to make ends meet. president obama understands

that, and that's why he's proposed a payroll tax cut that will put more money in the hands of working families. in illinois, it will be an average of about $1,400 a year. i wish it were more, but it's a recognition by the president that to get this economy moving again, people have to have more confidence in their own situation at home and more confidence in the future. giving working families this spending power can make that difference. the president also understands, and i'm sure the presiding officer understands as well, that many of the families that are unemployed now are desperate. i visited with many of them during the january -- pardon me, the august recess. going to the elgin work centers, to others in mchenry county. i sat down with these people who have been out of work for months, some of them years, and asked what is your day like? they come to these job centers, they sit down, they work on

their resumes, they pour through all of the want ads, they pour through all of the information about people seeking new employees and they send out their resumes as quickly as possible, and of course very few of them get any response at all. it's a desperate situation. some of them have lost their homes. some of them are seeing their kids returning back from college unable to continue their studies because dad's out of work. some of the marriages that have been involved have been strained and some have failed because of this economic hardship. the president understands that, and i hope we do, too. unemployment compensation is absolutely essential as a lifeline to these families, and the president makes that part of this package. when i hear the republican leader call these suggestions a hodgepodge, i don't think he's fair and i don't think he's just. take a look at the specifics. incentives for businesses to hire new workers, payroll tax cuts for working families, for

more spending money in hand, unemployment compensation for those who are out of work so they can survive. the president also focuses on critical people. how many of us in the last 48 hours have given a speech somewhere at home or here talking about the great first responders of 9/11. the policemen, the firefighters, the medical professionals who literally risk and -- risked and some even gave their lives in response to that national emergency. we know what's happening across america. many of these policemen and firefighters are losing their jobs, along with teachers. the president understands that, and he puts resources in to saving some of those jobs so that we can have the protection we need in our community and the teachers we need for the next generation of workers. and president obama believes and i agree that we need to invest in america. when we build america, when we build the infrastructure that will serve us in the 21st

century, we create good-paying jobs right here at home. these aren't jobs you are going to ship overseas. president obama understands that. that's why it's a major part of his proposal. we're talking about highways and bridges and airports and ports and waterways and schools. the president understands that that investment in america not only helps us today in invigorating the economy but will pay off for generations to come. madam president, there were very few lines the president gave at his speech that drew standing applause from the republican side. i felt at one point that the temperature on the republican side of the aisle, the house chamber, was 40 degrees below that on the democratic side. it was cold over there. there was one line that they finally, finally acknowledged, and that was when the president said for goodness sakes, we owe it to our veterans who have come home to put them to work, to know that 10% of those people who risked their lives for america and are now back home or in unemployment lines is

absolutely unacceptable, and president obama recognizes that in what he has called for to get this economy moving forward. i don't think the republican leader is fair in calling this a hodgepodge. i think it is a carefully constructed plan to get this economy moving forward. what really troubles the republican leader -- and i know he said as much this morning -- is that president obama pays for it. over and over again, we hear from the republican side, don't add to the deficit, pay for what you do, the president came out yesterday with his proposals for how to pay for it. and how does he pay for it? for one, he takes away the subsidy to the oil companies. a federal subsidy that comes right out of the treasury, going to oil companies across america that are raising gasoline prices to the roof and enjoying the biggest business profits in the history of the united states. isn't it time to put -- cut back on that subsidy and use those resources for the president's plan to get the economy moving

forward? and yes, the president does limit the tax deductions and credits for those in higher income categories. i just find it hard to understand why the republican position is we cannot ask those who are well off, the most comfortable people in america, to pay one penny more in taxes. their position is absolute. not one penny more in taxes for the wealthiest in america. i think that it's fair to limit the tax cuts for the wealthiest so that we can provide tax cuts for working families. that to me is sensible. it's not only morally right, it's economically right, and it troubles me when i hear the republican leader reject that out of hand. it appears that the warmth of the august sun is cooling now in september, and those who went home and heard how unhappy america is with congressional roadblocks and obstruction, they

have forgotten that lesson, they have forgotten what they heard. they're coming back now and saying once again we're going to have a faceoff and a confrontation. there is one other area i want to speak to. i know my colleague from new york will be on the floor shortly. the area i want to speak to is disaster relief. i strongary support -- strongly support the disaster relief funding bill. as americans undertake the physically and emotionally difficult task of rebuilding, cleaning up and recovering from hurricanes and flooding and even earthquakes, we must see that disaster funds are there so that they can get back to their own lives as quickly as possible. 2011 has been a record year when it comes to natural disasters. the cost of recovery from hurricane irene alone could reach $1.5 billion. in illinois, we have seen it this year, it's been tough. from chicago to cairo in the southern part of our state.

we have had blizzards and floods and tornadoes and troubles all around. our state, like most other states, has seen the damage, has felt it personally. people are trying to put their homes back together again. here's a photo which i saw in person when i visited my state earlier this spring around cairo, illinois, in the southern part of the state. it was an awful situation. we had flooding along the ohio river, which troubled, bothered the folks that lived in southern illinois as well as kentucky and adjoining states and missouri, and some of our towns like cairo were literally threatened with being inundated. they had to blow levies which -- levees which basically means open up a place for the water to flow. that flooded land in missouri and illinois. we have to be sensitive to the fact that there were real losses

there that needed to be paid for. that record flooding really slammed the southern part of our state. the devastation was felt in the entire region. the damage wasn't just there, though. i hear from people throughout the southern part of the state who are still struggling today because of this flooding. anthony miles in urbandale, illinois, is an example. flooding from the ohio river rose so high at his home that he couldn't even find his lawnmower in the front yard. all he could see was river water. in metropolis, illinois, my friend, mayor billy mcdaniel, says people are still trying to get the floodwater damage repaired in that town months later. the harrah's casino, which is a major attraction in that area, completely inundated with water and hundreds of thousands of dollars of repairs that needed to be done. now, there are some who argue that when it comes to these disasters, we can't afford to help people in america. it appears to me that the guiding principle and motto of the tea party in america is

this -- just remember, we're all in this alone. that's what we hear over and over from them. whenever we have got a problem facing us in america where we come together as a family to solve it, the tea party stands on the sidelines and says don't do it. let them fail. senator reid this morning quoted a leading tea party advocate in the house who said the federal emergency management agency should be put out of business. i wonder where he lives. i wonder if his home has been spared. i wonder if he has seen people who through no fault of their own have lost everything because of a disaster. when that happens in america, we step up and help one another. we don't get tied up in some political debate. we don't find ourselves completely stopped from stepping forward and doing the right thing, and we can't let it happen this time either. those who say that we have to cut other government programs and education, medical research, for example, to pay for

devastation, whether it's from hurricane irene or flooding or earthquakes or tornadoes, i just don't think they understand that there are critical areas of government spending that have been cut back already, and to cut them even further would jeopardize the future of this country and the well-being of many, many families. madam president, i want to show a chart here which demonstrates the amount requested by the administration over the years by different presidents for the disaster relief fund. in each and every one of these cases, regardless of whether it was a democratic administration or republican, how much of these funds do you think were offset with funds from other accounts in the federal budget? none, zero. in 2000, when more than than $3.5 billion was appropriated for disaster recovery, how much was offset? none. in 2005 and 2006, when communities all over the south

were recovering from hurricane katrina and more than $2 billion was appropriated in each of these two years for recovery, how much of that was offset? none. under republican presidents like president bush, as well as democratic presidents like clerk and -- like president clinton and obama, we have not required offsets in the rest of the budget when we have literally faced a disaster. we have stepped up, provided the money and moved forward. the number and costs of disasters has grown dramatically over the past few years. i don't want to engage the senate in the debate about climate change because i know that people get red in the face and want to come to the floor and tell us their political views of the science of this question, but i will tell you this. the property and casualty insurance industry of america testified before my committee recently and said they see what's coming -- more disasters and more costs than we ever

imagined. one of the experts said be prepared to say every summer of your life from this point forward, this is the hottest summer i can ever remember. that's what the future's going to hold. and as these temperature swings get worse and worse, they precipitate these terrible storms. i'm not an expert on much, but i am perhaps a little bit of an expert after almost 30 years of flying 48 round trips a year between illinois and washington on flying on commercial airplanes. i think i know a little bit about that, maybe a little more than most. this has been one of the roughest periods i can ever remember. for the last several months, the storms and turbulence have been greater than i could ever recall. i hope it's an anomaly. i hope it never happens again. we're told by the experts it's likely to continue. it means more storms, more damage, more disasters, and we don't have a fund sitting somewhere in washington waiting to pay for it. we have got to step up as the

need arises and meet our obligation to the families and businesses that have been negatively affected. we know that this damage which i showed in the southern part of the state reaches all over the state. this is an ear of galena, illinois, homare of general grant, president ulysses s. grant and this area in the northwestern part of my state has been flooded causing extreme damage to the people and the area. it's just another example of what we've been through. if we freeze the money for disaster relief as some have suggested, it means that repairs being made to recover from floods and storms from april and may won't be reimbursed. from metropolis, illinois and southern illinois, they are facing damage there that needs to be repaired, the city of carma as well. on friday president obama requested $5 billion of new disaster funding, $500 million in supplemental money for 2011.

the president recognizes 2011 has been an exceptional year for natural disasters and that recovery from hurricane irene alone could tax fema way beyond what it's capable of providing for. this money is desperately needed by the families and businesses who are trying to clean up and put their lives back on track. i strongly support the supplemental appropriations for the disaster relief fund. let's help our fellow americans get back on their feet. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: i rise to honor staff sergeant hamburger, who served his country as a flight engineer while mobilized with the army air national guard. staff sergeant hamburger and 29 fellow soldiers paid the

ultimate price in support of operation enduring freedom on august of, 2011. he was the crew chief on the chinook helicopter that was downed by enemy fire in afghanistan. it is through extraordinary ?ies sacrifices like his that we are able to enjoy the freedoms we have today. stamm sergeant's shamburg's devotion and pride in his country went beyond the time he spent in uniform. patrick lived to help others. from his childhood in lincoln to mentoring fellow soldiers, those that knew him recall that he was always looking out for others. patrick's brother, chris, remembered his kind spirit by stating -- and i'm quoting -- he didn't worry about himself half as much as he worried about

everyone else. you could have been a complete stranger and if he could have helped you, he would have done it, unquote. 13 years ago, that mentality and sense of patriotism led a young high school senior to take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states, and the state of nebraska against all enemies, foreign and domestic. that oath brought opportunities for staff sergeant hamburger to share his mechanical talent with his fellow soldiers. those closes to him will tell you that his pride and joy were with his family, his friends, in the v-day express, the chinook helicopter he maintained. he loved action soldier and he

cook great pride in his service. the decorations and badges earned during his 13 years and distinguished service speak to his dedication and to his skill. the bronze star, the purple heart, the army reserve component achievement medal, the national defense medal, the afghanistan campaign medal, the global war on terrorism service medal, the armed forces reserve medal, the noncommissioned officer professional development ribbon, the army service ribbon, the nato medal, the combat action badge, the senior aviation badge, the nebraska national guard homeland defense ribbon, the nebraska national guard emergency service medal, the nebraska national guard service medal, and the

california national guard commendation medal. these medals, as well as sergeant hamburger's willingness to serve others in need, speak clearly to his commitment to upholding the values and ideals that all nebraskans hold dear. we nebraskans are proud of his character and the ways in which he represented our state of nebraska. i am confident that in the coming months nebraskans will surround and uplift this family and friends as they mourn the loss of a truly remarkable son, a brother, and a friend. today, as we all bow our heads with the family, i ask that god protect our service members both here and overseas. we are truly grateful for the service and sacrifice made by

those in uniform and their families. madam president, i yield the floor. i would notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: