in, but they'll be vetted. >> understand the numbers determined by the administration. if you decide to one of 3000 next year, understanding us under the law you could. that is done by the state department and the number of considerations are taken into account. >> i think it is sort of an insult to our soldiers over there to say well, gap, sure, it's unsafe. soldiers are there protecting her customers,, but it's unsafe iraq is good to be the coming year. too bad insult to injury is not to be had them over here, we bring them over here and both of these people accused of terrorism in our country would've been in government housing on food stamps. and the 96 welfare reform bill, we said if you come here legally through immigration he wouldn't qualify for welfare. i think we should change that. does the administration of a

position on refugees stratus admitted they should commune immediately be put on welfare? >> senator, can answer that question right now. i'll get back to you. >> we had a little girl in bowling green, to kentucky on "good morning america" that many people thought she was funny with psa agent during invasive search inside of her clothing, and europeans european >> nematode having her diaper and spec should we had. when the tsa had pistol was here come you said we need to do invasive searches. he said we may slow down or may not do them as much pay but then he sent me a letter and said absolutely have to because the eight euros in kandahar exploded a bomb. to me i think that shows a bit of naïveté to think that somehow there's a similar letter between

eight euros in kandahar and one in bowling green. i wouldn't consider them each to be a risk factor. if anything can't age might argue against davis. to say she is the same age as someone who put off a bomb in kandahar, we have to bring some sense to overdo it. after 10 years, why don't we have a frequent player program? a bit talk of those traveling or traveling to three times a week and yet we treat everybody equally as a terror suspect. in doing so, i think that we take away time that could be spent on those who would be. i think half the tsa agents have joined the program and who take half the agents and look at the manifest of those flying from foreign countries. i want to know the limits of reflate. i do know how a part of this for doing this, but it makes strict rules on the site internationally. that's the biggest risk. but those from iraq to 70,000 people come and fight for going to the.

we miss fingerprints that they had on an ied. good rme. the people once every couple months in iraq or afghanistan who admits into the army to help us. it's hard to get these people. this was an extraordinary circumstance with a fingerprint and mistake, but most of the time it could be lying to us as they go to the bank process. we put them on government welfare than they are here to attack us. we've got enough problems in our country. we don't need to admit the worlds poverty problems and i think the administration needs to take a position to lessen the numbers of people coming in from iraq. you need to take position and move forward and we need to not just be told they will someday be a risk assessment. we need to start during this process and pay attention to people who could attack us and not wasted and diverting their time, resources and insulting the dignity of his traveling.

>> if i may, mr. chairman, i will simply say with respect to the movement to a risk assess the strategy and the tsa, that is exactly what we are doing. as i said earlier in the hearing, we are moving now to dealing with and will be rolling out slowly because you have to train agents as he took us. we have almost 1.8 million passengers a day. and we are to ability in the system because the minute you say an entire group is exempt from screening, they can be exploited as a possibility. but your point about travelers who have a risk in some thing that we accept. we are moving to expand the global entry, which is for international travelers. the just passed her millionth traveler and removing to expand

and moving to less than or loosen restrictions on children under the age of 12 and also to amend the patdown procedures. these improvements are underway, but i will caution, senator, when you say to an amount, we need to move on a deliberate pace but a careful pace. adversaries are determined with respect to aviation system. we want to make sure we do it right. >> one quick follow-up to that. it's probably not as much as they were never going to search anyone under 10 years old or under 12 years old. but for goodness sakes, could we not pick a difference between a joke from bowling green in kandahar? i don't mind if someone comes back from pakistan that you spend more time. it's been a little time. but really we need to understand and use your common sense with what we do.

they really want a practical purpose mean that 99% of kids under 12 wouldn't be patted down and that would be a lot better for most of us who are insulted by what they are doing now. >> thank you, senator paul. senator levin -- chairman levin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sorry it couldn't be here for most of this because the hearing as you know senator collins knows the answers his committee. let me welcome you all. i joined my colleagues and director will think may start start with you. a thank you note in her prepared testimony that the homegrown vanity extremist activity remains elevated with u.s.-based extremist taking inspiration and instruction from al qaeda's global efforts in a wide range of english-language propaganda. part of the propaganda with the recent on the nvidia release by an american-born operative in

which he urges u.s. government. in purchase firearms. under current, and individuals are allowed currently to purchase a firearm without an fbi background check if they are buying from a private sellers such as those at gun shows. does that loophole make it easier for homegrown extremists to purchase firearms for use of a terror attack? >> senator, i have not looked at the gun was in after four weeks in a position i'm reluctant to comment on that. >> will you queen, dynamic as the report quite >> yes, sir. >> director mueller. >> yes. >> what that come in the fbi background check of personal and private individuals would help reduce the threat to us from u.s.-based vanity extremist clerics >> at have to put it at this

background check is important to identifying those persons who have some reason for being in the databases and enhanced coverage of the purchase of weapons would give us greater ability to identify persons who cannot have weapons to prevent them adding weapons. >> would be to purchase from private seller such as the gun show. >> yes. >> thank you. 50 states now formed 2 million new corporations each year without knowing who really owns them. the failure to collect information, the actual owners, so-called beneficial owners to use u.s. companies for

terrorism, money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. it's a subject this committee has been examining now for some years. in august, senator grassley and i introduced senate bill 1483, the incorporation of transparency amount among enforcement assistance act would require disclosure of beneficial ownership for a nation and the company formation progress. the treasury department was supported announce the following. that would substantially advance the administration's fundamental availability and information about companies create in the united states and they went on such legislation is critical to the global financial system in strategic markets reviews. so we went to first of all think the treasury department for that support and we're wondering from

you, secretary napolitano whether or not department of homeland security takes the same supportive position we need to know for law-enforcement purposes, just for law-enforcement purposes, the beneficial owners of corporations are in order to prevent terrorists and other malfeasance from this using shell corporations launder money or for their nefarious purposes. >> yes, we reported. >> i would hope, mr. chairman, we can take up this bill again. he had on the agenda and for various reasons has done an author market. it is important that we have one person in this morning that we need to do with other countries do by the way. we go after tax havens for allowing many more jurisdictions should be used. they do get beneficial owners on

record at least in many cases and i would hope again we be able to take that up in the support of treasury department and department of homeland security is helpful. i want to get that on the record for this. on the northern border, some of the issues that have been addressed, the gao in february reported that the serious security threats to the northern border and the risk of terroristic could be as high. it said if the dhs reports, this is the gao saying that the dhs report the terrorist threat is higher than on the southern border, given the large expanse

of very would limit law enforcement coverage on page one of the report. however, even with a high risk of terrorist and illegal activity to border patrol, reports quote on the 32 with nearly 4000 northern border miles in fiscal year 2010 reach an acceptable level of security, close quote. i'm wondering if you tell us either today or for the record, secretary napolitano, whether that number of northern border mouse has increased. >> i believe it has. as we've discussed another context, that you support operational control, that phrase is determined by her. we have a northern border strategies. it had to be cleared by omb. it now has come up to update with the full fiscal year statistics so that will be published shortly. the other change that's very significant is what is called beyond the borders strategy that we have with canada, which is a

law enforcement information sharing printed or oriented strategy that really didn't exist two years ago when i think a lot of that report was probably researched. that is the enormous importance because it takes pressure the physical u.s. canada border and allows us to expand the border outwards. >> in your own words, the number of miles of border that have an acceptable level security. very quickly, if they could, one more question and then they have a thank you. the urban area security initiative has a very complex funding allocation formula. one of the questions is whether

or not a location is on an international waterway for reasons which are totally incomprehensible, detroit is not list i'm been on an international waterway when it is. the detroit river is an international waterway between the united states and canada. not only that, as were commerce crossing the river at detroit than any other place probably in the world, much less in the country. in terms of commerce crossing the bridge particularly at detroit. will you take a look at that, madam secretary? then issue a letter or not -- find out for us why the city of detroit is not listed. it makes a difference in terms of allocation and resources as to whether running international waterway. >> yes, i'll chill down on that, senator. finally, a thank you.

yesterday remembered 9/11 -- i guess today's now. been following 9/11, there is a small group of people in detroit representing the arab-american community and law enforcement. they came together and formed a group called bridges. there is but a really strong connection between the law-enforcement community under the leadership of the u.s. attorney in detroit and including also elements of the homeland security department. so the communication is far better. the trust is far better. they work shoulder to shoulder now against violence and hatred. it is an important group because if you have the support of the community, whatever community working with law-enforcement, it is a great source of american security and that can support kind of support in the

arab-american community, and the muslim american community as reflected in that group where federal law enforcement and state and local or representative for frequent meanings. they also memorialized our anniversary. the other day with their annual dinner. it's very reassuring to see the enforcement in their communities , whatever the community is working so closely together. that is where security is really enhanced. it's not just the typical law-enforcement security which is important, protecting borders and doing other things, but also having supported the people in their communities working shoulder to shoulder. i just want to commend you both. fbi is actively involved that. justice department, u.s. attorney and dhs by a dhs by a bunch involved. it was heartwarming to see that and we'll feel more secure when that's true. say it was over.

>> thank you. the of his out there after 9/11 and that probably surprised a lot of people to the muslim american community. we appreciate that. i think senator collins would like one or two more questions. ensure you have faced worse challenges than the two of us. just for a few minutes more. i want to ask your question, which is the three of you, we've had a lot of good testimony, could discussion in a positive way of what we've accomplished over 10 years. look to the next year and each of you let me know what your top one or two priorities are but what is not done to your satisfaction yet in terms of your department, bureau and

thunder. >> mr. chairman, our department has so many elements to it, but i think over the next year we will continue to improve and expand information sharing and analytic capability with the fbi, nctc and other agencies in the apartment and outside the capital area to the rest of the country. i believe cyber will be an increasing area of focus for us as we deal with those direct dirt mueller said the emerging threat in the sabre world. i think we will see movement towards a more risk-based screening process for passengers, particularly in the environment. and lastly, we want to move towards -- we call it and you heard in the video that you begin the hearing which dhs taking -- we are still in the

building process, the knitting together processes involved with putting 22 agencies together. i think what's even more progress in the year ahead. >> you've got a busy year ahead of you. director mueller. >> for severe capability internally and externally so while we have to keep for a variety of reasons different database structures, there has to be the ability to pull information easily from databases. >> it is a little background. >> if we have information off of fisa intercept, the minimization procedures to whom that information can be disseminated requires us to keep it in a separate database. but what you want to do is give the analysts the ability to understand if there's anything in the database on a particular individual e-mail address for the link. while for a variety of reasons

we do keep separate databases, whether security or statutory direction, there has to be the center federate databases on both internally as well as externally, which is where nctc is a great deal of its effort. we have to get her own houses in order to be a platform for the government as a whole to be able to do this kind of search capability. >> do you need statutory changes to do that? >> it would be difficult in terms of taking the fisa statute. we've just come through a date of the patriot act and i'm not sure it was something that would get easily while conceivably you could do it, it's unlikely to happen shortly and consequently we have utilized technology. secondly as we pointed out, his essay brewing adjusting organizations to address the

favors that in new ways that will make us more effective as a united entity to address the sabre thread is going to be huge issue. thirdly, assuring that new mechanisms of communication being developed daily by the new entrepreneurial information technology capabilities by various companies, i don't want to necessarily mean in here, but it's not just the communication carriers. google, facebook, all of them. the necessity of assuring in response to recorder curcumin is the right to obtain communications, there is capability of those persons and entities to respond to court orders is something i'll be addressing. we cannot afford him as we say, to go dark. the last thing very quickly is with enhanced technology comes additional administrative

organs. one of the challenges they had this to make certain agents are people spending times on the substance and removing the administrative burdens and obstacles to getting out and doing work we want to pay them to do. and that for us is an issue we continue to say. >> on that third one about gaining access to information from the unconventional, the new communications media, that might require legislation. >> it will. i think you may see some suggestion with regard to legislation. i want to say most of the companies are patriotic and working on capabilities, but we have to make certain we have that access. not access. we have to make certain that the capability to respond to court orders. >> right, of course, a lot of

times those recipients of court orders want the statute to make clear their applications. mr. olson. >> taking up on the theme of information sharing, similarly at nctc as you know very well the founding principle was to break down the silos of information to provide a place for information from ths debate make significant progress through bringing people together in one place from each of those organizations. the next step in the process is to have the information. we have much of it. continue to gather information and have it available where we then can do exactly what director mueller top it out at nctc, search across databases, not have an analyst to one database pagoda with her to be

able to find connections that are so elusive they been able to search seamlessly across all this databases. that's a significant priority for us. second dimension to pursue groups. there's a lot of potential. this is something in 2010 to fill a gap by looking for a less obvious connections among people and then be able to tip those leads off to the operational entities that can follow, whether it's cia, fbi or dhs. there's a lot of potential there and i'll continue to focus on that. third is an area of significance to both of you and not discounting violent extremism. this is an area where nctc has played a vital role and will play an increasingly important role in the next year as we do a couple of things. the one i live right now is to develop implementation plans for the administration's new

framework strategy for countering violent extremism. we done a number of things on the intelligence side and on the operational planning side to prepare law enforcement to understand the radicalization process and help communities understand where to look for threats within their neighborhoods and communities, but there is a significant amount of work to do anything nctc will nctc will play an important role. >> senator collins and i just sent a letter to mr. brennan expressing disappointment with a lot of the report and a lot of the disappointment had to do with the lack of detail, and lack of clarity as he read it about who was in charge, but also what is going to happen. insofar as you are going to put some flesh on the bones or whatever the metaphor is, clarify that urgently that would be very important. it's interesting how much

cybercomes up and also these remarkable instruments of data analysis retention, which have helped us enormously in the last week with the latest threat stream. or we can yet do better at that as the boss that. thank you. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. olson, let me just take up where you left off because i was going to talk to you about who is the lead for countering violent extremism? i know that the white house is the lead for policy and put out what is in our view a disappointing disappointingly, sketchy strategy, but it's the nctc going to be the operational lead for implementation?

>> we will not read the operational implementation. the national security staff and counsel at the white house as the lead for developing the policy and we at nctc play a role and will be front and center developing an implementation plan, putting flesh on the bones for the broad policy. but the agencies and departments with specific authorities and responsibilities in each area will be responsible for operationally implementing that plan. i think the overall picture is centralized policy development, the decentralized implementing because the agencies that have a particular expertise or role that they can take advantage of. >> i share the concern of the chairman that we don't have one person who's accountable to congress who's in charge of the

strategy. one of the problems of running it out of the white house is the individual from present staff are not accountable to congress. so for us to exercise oversight in this extremely important area becomes the impossible. going to push with the chairman to continue to argue that we need one person accountable to congress was clearly in charge of the strategy of four cbe and for homegrown terrorism. i'm glad that nctc is involved, but it sounds like everybody has a piece of it. he understood my that's desirable, but there's got to be one person in charge. i know we are wrapping up, let me switch to other issues ever to touch on before we adjourn. i too am pleased to hear the

priority placed on cybersecurity. whether i like it to threats that we face that i feel we are least prepared for cyberattacks, homegrown terrorism and chemical biological weapons topped my list. ..

have introduced a bill in the recommendations of the department of homeland security and the administration to require the government to share actionable cyber information with the private sector. i would like to ask the secretary and the yukon director mueller, what you see as the biggest impediments to the timely sharing of the cyber threat information can also cyber breeches with the private sector and other agencies and i will start with you, director. >> [inaudible] >> on the one hand there is reluctance on the business community to share breach

information with the government. that i think is going to be addressed and we would want to go to dhs and ourselves so we can work quickly on that. it's interesting you see blight haydon articulating this view he probably couldn't answer the other side of it and if he were here two years ago he would have been answering the other side of it. >> i appreciate that also. spec there is a very substantial an imperative to the extent possible we share the information that will allow the private industry to protect itself from cyber intrusions and to the extent that it does not disclose the capabilities that we need elsewhere it is not only a criminal case for an intrusion in the united states, it is also often a national security risk at which we have to treat as a national security risk and other capabilities of their then you

do not want to be disclosed because you would lose that capability and so it is sometimes a difficult balancing act to make certain we push out as much information as we can and we should but there are good reasons often you cannot get sufficient detail as you would like but you can get a generalized warning but there are equities on the other side we can't go into here. i do believe and i think secretary can probably talk to we are making great strides in trying to make available information the two were three years ago we would not have been able to do and are currently doing. >> madam secretary, do you have anything to add? >> first of all i hope the legislation moves forward. i think it's a good piece of legislation and necessary to establish authorities and jurisdiction and the like so we

will work with you in that endeavor. we need to keep focused on building our information sharing capabilities at the dhs and through the u.s. certification facility and others we have worked with the dod on our ability to use some of the assets of the nsa and under appropriate circumstances but for the whole cyber arena from the dhs perspective is going to be a growth area and the information sharing with the private sector particularly political infrastructure aspects of the private sector will be the key for us and as the director said getting information that in a timely fashion and all of this needs to move very, very quickly. >> finally, i want to touch on the decision to make public the threat of the last weekend.

the sergeant-at-arms sent out an e-mail message to i believe all employees of the senate as well as to all senators in which he talks about the announcement and says the announcement was, quote, well intentioned, perhaps helpful but not very well coordinated. this obviously worries me because the sergeant-at-arms is a key player when it comes to protecting the washington, d.c. area. we followed up with the sergeant-at-arms and first let me say that he said coordination is 100% better than it used to be. the fbi's local office worked very closely with them but here's what he said happened.

first, she was told as were we i might add, that the information was classified and closely held and as he said that's pretty typical and an understanding approach. but then he said that the decision to go public caught them off-guard and they were out of the lubber and essentially it sounds like they learned about it on television. what is your response to this critique and again so that i'm not taking this out of context he did praise the local fbi office and he did say that coordination is 100% better than it used to be but he said the decision to go public took them by surprise to and seems that shouldn't have happened given what a key player the

sergeant-at-arms is since he controls the capitol police. matsuzaka to become if you would. >> i will go first on that. it's difficult to respond out of context. the decision was made to share the threat because it was credible and specific, and to share it through the joint there was a joint information bulletin with the fbi to share it out through the law enforcement particularly in the affected areas which are d.c. and new york which are the targets of the threat stream. there wasn't a public television of the threat because the information was already getting out and action was taken in

response to that when he says he didn't know it was going public, if he means there was some kind of public press release whatever, there wasn't. there was information shared through the law enforcement channels as it should have been for law enforcement to be aware of what the threat was and what to watch for, so all i can comment to that is whether or not she received that. i don't know. but that's how the information was put out was through law enforcement channels. >> director mueller? >> we took the position from september 11th to the extent we have threat information, and imminent threat information that is specific to a particular jurisdiction, new york, washington, doesn't make any difference the person responsible for securing the

communities should have the information and we find a way to get it whether it be a bullet tore through the joint terrorism task force. inevitably that opens the circle of persons who have information on that threat. inevitably the person responsible with the new york or washington, d.c., the police chief or otherwise so i have to respond to this threat. and so you will have actions taken in each of the jurisdictions affected raise the public's consciousness. and often as a result of the rays of public consciousness there has to be an explanation of why you are doing car stops or have more people on the street, and it is that cycle where the information comes out without a conscious decision not one particular point in time okay we are going to go public. the questions come in and the decision is made that you have to give as much as you can to put it in particular context. it's happened once it's happened 50 times since september 11th. if i get one criticism from

stevan and local law enforcement is always director, why do i have to hear about it on cnn? and the fact of the matter is a combination of wanting to inform people who are immediately affected with that understanding you open the circle would is going to be on cnn sooner rather than later. it's a fact of life. >> it is, and i don't disagree in any way with the decision to go public because i think you want more people on the alert. i think you want the average citizen watching for suspicious activity, but it does strike me if a person such as the sergeant-at-arms and in such a key position to not know that there was going to be a decision made to go public. so i would be happy to share the e-mail he sent to all of us with you. >> i would like to see it coming and we will be talking.

>> he does an excellent job but let me just be clear on that, which is why i brought up his concern. thank you very much. >> senator collins and of course he was previously the chief before he became the sergeant. so he has background. it's interesting, i don't want to keep you any longer, but there was not a decision really made for instance in the white house to go public with this information. there was a decision made for all the factors you indicate to disseminate, and i will say part of the information that you have on the threat to the student will cool law enforcement for official use only, not classified, but the presumption is based on experience that once you do that, people are going to start talking and it's going to find its way to the media. so, everybody got it right? >> the recipient of the police chief for others responsible for public security has to take

steps. if you don't respond to that come the questions asked are going to be why are you taking these steps, so it's the response to questions that inevitably buildup has you go forward and the local communities or the federal community takes the steps necessary to address the threat. >> but wasn't there a press statement actually put out by the department homeland security? when we were briefed by john brennan, she told us dhs was going to be the lead on the public announcement. >> yes that was later on in the sequence, that wasn't at the immediate time that we put out the document as i recall. >> senator collins already said this we both felt that this was a case where the balance of public interest and safety wasn't putting this information out, not everything that there had been a specific credible unconfirmed threat. okay, before we close, senator

rockefeller filed a statement with the committee which i want to include without objection in the record of which he discusses the importance of allocating the d blocks to the first responders and i agree with him totally. i want to thank all of you. it's impressive work that you and everyone has done over the ten years. we are at a time of national pessimism because the economy but it seems to me if people in the country will think back to 9/11 and think what we've done since, we have new organizations here and the third the government to medically transformed homeland security. i don't think there's some other country in the world that could have done it as well as we did

without being too explicit there are other countries in the world, close friends of ours who probably should have done a lot of what we did and haven't yet but in any case we all have reason to be grateful to you and again everybody who works with you on our behalf, so it's been a jury informative and encouraging as we all know and recognizes the o continuing to

gentleman from gentleman from which is currently