>> and a few moments, a senate debate anabel sanctioning iran for its nuclear program. in a half-hour >> when people are saying to him, don't take the vice president he. right now you are the most -- you are a powerful majority leader. don't take the vice president be. you won't have any power. johnson says power is where power goes, meaning i can make power in any situation. his whole life they did nothing in his life previously makes

that seem like he knows because that's exactly what he had done orbit flight. >> senate majority leader here it came to the fore today seeking unanimous consent to pass in iran's sanctions bill. senate republicans over block the proposal as saying the bill needs to include stronger language on the willingness of the u.s. to use force to stop nuclear programs. this portion of the debate is a half an hour. h.r. 1905, iran threat reduction act, the senate proceed to its consideration, that the pried-johnson-shelby substitute amendment which is at the desk, the text of calendar

number 320, the iran sanctions bill, as recorded by the banking committee, be considered; that a reid-johnson-shelby amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amend be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: madam president, reserving the right to object, i would just note that this is a matter -- i appreciate the majority leader's desire to bring this to conclusion. unfortunately, the language that has just been presented to our side has not been widely shared. i haven't actually read it yet. it was brat over at 10:38 this morning. it was described to me. it would be weaker than president obama's policy. given fact that this is a matter on which democrats and republicans and the administration and the senate

have been in pretty close accord in dealing with the country of iran and its nuclear ambitions, hoild that we could ensure that -- i would hope that we could enshould you are that the language is agreed to by all. there seems tobacco an important piece missing and we certainly need the time to talk to folks to see why that's so, whether it could be put back in or if it can't, then to be able to discuss it. because we certainly don't want something that's weaker than the current -- than the administration's current policy. so i would hope that we could just have some time over the weekend and perhaps on monday when enough of the members can be apprised what has actually been proposed here and see if our colleagues on the other side would be willing to make the accommodation that we may need to have made here. mr. blunt: mr. president? the presiding officer: the sphror missouri. mr. blunt: reserving the right to object, i appreciate the leader's desire to get this done. i'd like to get it done, too. in fact the original iran sanctions language was drafted

in my office when i was in the other body. it is an issue i've been involved in a long time. this morning i've had a chance to look at it only within the last half-hour. i suppose i could have been here at 10:38 but even 10:38 for an issue like this -- and my view also is that it doesn't -- its not as strong as the president's policy. it's not as sthong as any other resolution on this topic we've ever passed and the question that would be asked +s, why not? i'd like to think that's an oversight in drafting, that we can draft this out over the weekend and make this reflective of our -- of our national policy and the president's policy, but i'd be very concerned about moving to this language today and would hope that we could work with the leader to have language that we could bring up as early as monday to pass and send the message to the world that the united states senate supports the stated policy of

our government in this critical issue. nobody wants iran to be able to move forward and attain nuclear capacity, and i am -- i'd be very concerned about moving forward on this language as it currently appears to me to be stated. mr. reid: is there an objection by either senator kyl or senator -- mr. kyl: yes, mr. president, for the reasons noted, i would hope that we could work our colleagues to fix the problem here. until we do i would have to object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: mr. president, this is sump a such an interesting conversation on the floor. i didn't have the papers. i don't blame nigh friend infrastructure arizona for not having the dowvment i don't blame nigh friend from missouri for only having a half-hour to look at this. this thing was given to the republican leader yesterday in midday. all right? now, mr. president, the language they're objecting to was in the base bill. so unless they didn't read the base bill, we have a problem here.

now, they said they want to get it done. a strange way of showing they want to get it done. mr. president, this has been a classic example of rope-a-dope. i try to be a patient man, and i have been very patient with my staff working with senator kirk's staff, the minority leader's staff. i try to be as patient as i can here. a senator: would the senator yield? mr. reid: no. not right now. mr. president, this is absolutely untoward what is happening here. we have tried to get this done. every day, oh, its just -- oh, we need a little bit more. we have this agreement that was agreed to by all the parties. but of course now there's no agreement. i'm deeply disappointed my republican colleagues are preventing the senate from passing additional critical sanctions gunshot iran. with if -- against iran.

if they want to embarrass the president, this is a strange way to do it. two months ago i came to the senate floor and said we needed to pass these sanctions immediatsanctionsimmediately. the fastest way was to pass a bill sponsored by senator johnson and shelby which passed out of the committee unanimously. republicans then said no, as they're saying today. republicans said they wanted ideas from senator kirk and senator paul and wished to move forward with a resolution on containment. we heard their objections and we have tried mightily to address them. with the goal of getting this bill passed and protectin protel national security and that have our ally israel, this deal includes a bipartisan managers' package sponsored by senators shelby and johnson along with senators menendez, kirk, paul, and johnson. the american-israeli public affairs committee has expressed strong snort this package. senator mcconnell and to me.

earlier today aipac urged us to move forward as quickly as possible. i ask unanimous consent that letter be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. reid: mr. president, democrats are ready to move forward and vote on an amended s. res. 380, the bipartisan graham-casey-lieberman legislation. this amendment would put the senate on record along with president obama rule iewght policy of containment on iran. yet republicans have objected, again. we can't aford to delay these sanctions any longer. on may 23 there is a round of international negotiations taking place with the iranians on subjects relating to this resolution we have. democrats are ready to move forward. we're ready to pass both a sanctions bill and the containment resolution now, not later -- now.

we can't afford any more delays. sanctions are a key tool in our work to stop iran from attaining a nuclear weapon, threatening ig israel and jeopardizing the united states' national sciewmplet i am to the end of my patience, mr. president. i usually never raise my voice with a senator. i apologize to my friend from arizona. did a few minutes ago. the conversation was between him and me. but i'm rulely upset about this. i feel that i have been jerked around. that's a pretty good understanding of the language that people have, because we can never quite get there. the republicans have kept us from moving forward with this for two months. we should have just done what shelby and johnson told us to do. so i hope that something will happen in the near future, but i have to be honest with you,

mr. president, i don't have much faith that it will. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. reid: i want the republican leader to be heard. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: do i have the floor now? the presiding officer: you do. mr. mcconnell: i would say to my good friend, the majority leader, this is an outrage i don't understand. my staff tells me we didn't receive the draft amendment until late last night, and this morning we were told it was final. got the draft late last night. this morning we were told it was final. we have debates around here about a lot of things, but one of the things that we have typically not been unable to reach an agreement on is the iran issue. i don't know what the problem is here. a little communication ought to be able to bring us together behind something we can speak to unanimously with the goal that we all have, i think in, this body, which is virtually everyone, which is to do everything we can to prevent

iran from becoming a nuclear-armed country. there is no reason in the world why we can't resolve whatever differences we have and move forward. we certainly don't want to take a step backward, and there are members on my side of the aisle who are concerned that the way the measure is currently crafted could actually be a step in the wrong direction. it could have been a drafting error. but what is wrong with sitting down on a bipartisan basis, looking at the language, making sure we get it right and akhaoeft goal thaepbg -- achieve the goal that i think virtually everyone in the room would like to achieve. not think i think to get angry about. a proper response would be to work out our differences and to go forward. timeliness is an issue. we need to do this quickly. i think we all agree to that on both sides of the aisle. so i would just say to my friend, i don't think there is

anything to be outraged about. why don't we get to work, work out the differences and pass the resolution. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm all -- my mind indicates that why is there any problem? we agree. just like student loans we agree, except they won't let us get on the bill to legislate that bill. they think this iran thing is a great bill to do but we can't do it. they say they need more communication. how about two months? how much more do you need? i'm not going to get into getting tom hawkins in trouble who works for senator mcconnell. but he was given it in the afternoon. maybe he was busy. that doesn't matter. the point is we have tried to get something done and we can't get it done. mr. president, i think it is too bad. i'm not outraged. i'm upset because i feel i've been used as a tool to try to adversely affect the president

in some way. so i'm going to continue to keep an open mind on this, but i have to say that i'm terribly disappointed that it looks like we're going to arrive at may 23, and the iranians -- they have people around watching this, they're in town, they're laughing at us. laughing atd us. we can't even come up with a simple resolution. there's no force of law that really -- maybe i shouldn't say that. it does have some. they're laughing at us. here's the united states senate quibbling over a sentence, a sentence that's been in this resolution since it was drafted. i just have to yield to my friend. the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: most people in america work five days a week. this is 1:00 on a thursday. 1:00 on a thursday. what is the problem here? we have a broad bipartisan agreement, i think, about the approach we ought to take with

regard to the iran sanctions issue. the leaders on my side of the aisle are all standing here on the floor anxious to be involved in working out the language, and i would say to my friend, he said there's a sentence. well a sentence can sometimes change the entire meaning of something. how this is crafted is not irrelevant. rather than us standing out here on the floor pointing fingers at each oh it's only 1:00 on thursday afternoon, why don't we seutd down and -- sit down and work out the differences, pass something we can mutually agree to and try to make a difference for our country. mr. reid: no matter how many times you say it the language we're told they're complaining about was in the initial bill. mr. president, i appreciate my friend saying what is it? most people work five days a week. i work more than five days a week. and i have been working the last two months trying to get this

done, and every time we try to do it, the first few weeks it was -- the last few weeks it's senator kirk. senator kirk is ill, i know that, and so i gave him every benefit of the doubt. if his staff is working with him, let's try to do with k senator kirk. thinks it's a good idea. if we can bring it, we'll do t. mr. president, we have been trying to get this done for a long time. it's not today at 1:00. i've wanted to move forward on this for a long time. but let's give it another day. another day or so will take care of this. that isn't how it's worked. i will be happy to yield to my friend from new jersey. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i thank the majority leader for yielding. i want to applaud you for asking to bring the legislation that passed unanimously out of the banking committee to the floor, because there's no one in this chamber who has been stronger on

pursuing sanctions on iran and trying to deter iran from achieving nuclear weapons. and i support -- i'm on senator lieberman's resolution. but time is of the essence. we must send to the iranians a clear message that you cannot just forestall negotiations and have negotiations thinking that you are buying time. we must show them that not withstanding their intentions to buy time, there are consequences. the consequences of those sanctions on the central bank of iran that are already moving forward and that the administration is fully seeking to enforce and the continued perfecting sanctions that the banking committee sent out unanimously that is incredibly important to send the iranians a message. i look at what the legislation will do in part, it in essence

closes loopholes that the iranians have figured out. so it creates sanctions on the national iranian oil company, on the national iranian tanker company, making them agents of the iranian revolutionary guard, and then imposes sanctions on financial institutions that would facilitate transactions with the entity. this is incredibly important. the iranians are using this as a way to get around. it has sanctions on satellite companies that impose human rights sanctions on those companies that provide satellite services to the iranian regime but fail to prevent jamming by iran of transmissions by others of the same satellite service company. it has sanctions on financial messaging services. and even though swift, the largest of them, already pulled the plug on the iranians, we don't want any other messaging service to fill in the void of

what swift created. we want to make sure that noose is as tight as possible. mr. reid: mr. president, could i interrupt. i want to make sure the record is clear when i talk about having no forced law. we're talking about the contained resolution. i also want to ask this question directly to my friend from new jersey: what do you think the iranians are doing watching this performance here today? how do you think they're feeling about what we're doing here today? can't pass this. mr. menendez: they originally felt that when we sent a 1 hundred-0 vote out of here, they said we're in trouble. now they're saying to themselves buying time seems to succeed. we cannot -- we cannot allow the iranians to believe as they head into these negotiations next week that there's anything but having our foot on the head of the snake and that we're going to continue to do that and drive every possible sanction and

close every possible loophole, which is largely what the legislation that you are seeking to pass on the floor accomplishes. that's why it passed unanimously out of the banking committee. even as we talk about the resolution, there's no reason to stop the very essence of what would send a message to the iranians that are going to hurt them in the economy, that are going to undermine their ability to continue in iran as a government, that is going to be the very strongest set of sanctions we can levy from one government to another, for which we are leading and increasingly have the ability to have a multilateral effect which is when sanctions take place the best. i am beside myself. are there amendments i want to offer? of course. but i find it far more important to move now and to send this incredibly strong set of sanctions so that we can get passage and the iranians get the

message then to linger and ultimately have those negotiations take place and not send the message. i appreciate the majority leader's efforts. i applaud it. i certainly am for senator lieberman's resolution. i don't believe containment as a policy. but moving the set of sanctions to ensure -- to ensure -- that the iranians don't do anything but come to the table and say we're ready to follow a course of disarmament here in terms of their nuclear production is incredibly important. you know, sometimes things can wait. this is not one of those times in which waiting proseduces the desired -- produces the desired result. on the contrary, it produces a negative result because they believe that we will not continue to pursue tightening the noose, closing every loophole and being of purpose of one mind. and i hope we can achieve that before we leave here. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: before my friend

leaves, i'd like to direct a question to him: is it true, i say to my friend from new jersey, that you're a member of the banking committee? mr. menendez: yes. mr. reid: it's true this resolution came from the banking committee? the resolution -- mr. menendez: the legislation. mr. reid: this matter came from the budget committee. the matter about which we talk, iranian sanctions legislation, came from the banking committee. it was reported unanimously from that committee, isn't that right? mr. menendez: that is correct. mr. reid: during the last two months, i direct this question to my friend, you and your staff have been heavily involved in what's been going on during the negotiations that have been taking place, is that fair? mr. menendez: that is correct. mr. reid: also i ask my friend, jessica lewis, seated by me, my foreign policy advisor, it's true she worked for the senator from new jersey? is that true, also worked in that same area? mr. menendez: she did until the majority leader took her from me. mr. reid: and it's true that we have worked over this period of time, our staffs working with

republicans have worked so hard to try to get something done. and i would say to my friend is it true each time we were there, were not there the next few minutes, next day, it's taken forever, taken two months? is that right? mr. menendez: we have thought various times it would be already on the floor and passed, and then there has always been an additional desire or objection. i just think that what we have before us, especially in timing, doesn't mean that we can't continue to perfect as we move to the future, as we are doing in this legislation. but this legislation now passed unanimously out of the committee, supported by the major advocates of those who share our vision that we cannot have a nuclear-powered iran and an iran with nuclear weapons, believe that this is important to move now so that we can achieve that goal and send a message to the iranians.

i think that time in this case is of the essence, and that's why i came to the floor to support your effort. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, this is a classic moment, unfortunately, too typical where we all agree on the goal here. we want to pass another tier of sanctions against the iranians to deter them from developing nuclear weapons. our goal has been to get this done before the p-5 plus one, five permanent members of the security council, united nations, plus germany meets again with iran in baghdad this time, which is next tuesday. i understand the frustration of the majority leader. first, no one has been more consistent and steadfast and, i think, sincere in their effort

than the majority leader to have this body make very clear to everyone in the world, particularly the iranians, that we're not going to accept them becoming a nuclear power. and we're prepared to use economic sanctions and if necessary, certainly now the incredible threat of force. i also know the majority leader has been -- has been pushed and pulled back and forth over the last several weeks to get to a point where we can get this done before may 23. so i understand his frustration at this moment. and i hear my republican colleagues. i look at the language that they're concerned about. they're concerned that in listing the economic sanctions as one way that can be used to stop iran from delivering -- from developing nuclear weapons and not listening to the credible threat -- the option of

military force, as president obama and others have said that somehow we're sending a message of weakness. frankly, my original hope was that -- the most important thing is to get this passed before next tuesday when all the parties come to baghdad. difference here is not small. it is nonexist even. we all agree we ought to try the captions, we ought to make them sufficient. they ought not to be watered down and we all agree that we have to have the credible threat of force being used against the iranian nuclear program if there's any real hope of the sanctions working. so i hope -- i know the majority leader has to leave the floor -- but ideally, i wish we could agree on that sentence and get it done today and get it passed by consent. if we carnghts can't, i hope wt

by monday so we do send a message of unity, but the words, the procedures, the mood is standing in the waif us sending a unified message from the united states senate to the rest of the world, and particularly to the islamic republic of iran in tehran, that we mean business. right now we're not speaking with one voice. so i appeal to my colleagues, let's step back, take a breath. can we do it this afternoon? i hope so. if we can't, let's get it done over the weekend and adopt it by monday. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the snoer from south carolina. greenhouse gagraham grappled i e tocque cowhat my friend from -- mr. graham: i would like to echo what my friend senator lieberman said. i would like to send the appropriate signal. it is not so much that we act before tuesday, even though that's important. that is we let the iranians and the worltd knothe world know whn we speefnlg i hope they're watching in tehran. they'll probably find it odd

that as thatthat lidcy graham id with being -- we cangtsz agree that you should take sunday off 100-0. what they achieved was remarkable. to senator reid, you have been pulled and torn. i appreciate it. i enjoy working with you. you think maybe somebody else is doing you wrong. we're novment you got to ask the question, why would senator graham be on the floor concerned about what we say, if i genuinely did not believe we're making a mistake? i don't want to embarrass the president. mr. president, keep it up with in. i hope sanctions work. if you need to use military force to protect this nation, if sanctions faicialtion i will be your strongest advocate. but a couple of things have been said that need to be corrected cht managers' amendment is not

what woos in the base bill or we wouldn't need a managers' amendment. section 102 in the base bill is like three paragraphs. section 102 here is like 10 pages. the bottom line for me is that this section was added in the managers' amendment that didn't exist in the base bill. nothing in this act or this amendment -- or the amendments made by this act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against iran or syria. that wasn't in the base bill. where the hell did that come from? this is not a declaration of war. but when you put this sentence in there and the new amendment doesn't say one thing about the use of force to control the iranian behavior, the president's own words are all options on the table, the reason i'm exercised is that we're now producing a product that backs

away from where the president has been regarding all options on the table and we end the new managers' package with a statement nothing here authorizes the use of force against iran and syria. it's all about sanctions in the bill and the only time we mention force is to say we won't do it or we won't authorize it. all i'm asking is what senator lieberman said. these sanctions are great. i hope they will change iranian behavior. think haven't yet, and i don't think they ever l but i'm willing to go down this road. all i'm asking is that when you include in the legislation ideas or concepts that will change iranian behavior, that we put on the table all options are on the table in the bill because this will be the first piece of legislation where that is ominously omitted and to end the whole concept of what we're trying to do with a declarative

statement, "this is not a declaration of war or the use of force against iran or syria" would make th the iranians belie that we're all about sanctions and that is it. i'm all for sanctions, but if you're listenin listening in tei want more on the table to make you change your behavior. this summer is going to be tough for the world. the iranians talk and enrich. there's nothing i've seen credible to make me believe they're not pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. i hope the talks next tuesday will change their behavior. i appreciate what senator menendez has done to give this president more tools to make them even tougher than they are today. but the worst thing we could do before next tuesday is leave any doubt to anybody who's watching this debate that there's more on the table than just sanctions.

that on the table -- and we thoap god whopeto god we never o stop the iranian nuclear program by the use of force, if that is required. that's all i want us to saivment and i hope we never get there. and this last statement i agree with, that i'm not asking for a declaration of war against irng or syria, but i will not ask for -- who has killed over 2 that americans in iraq who has been a proxy for evil throughout the planet, whose own president doesn't believe the holocaust doesn't existed. to my friends at aparks i agree with you most of the time. but if you think this is the right earnings i couldn't agree with you more. add one simple line that in addition to all the fine work of the banking committee and my dear friend senator menendez, we in the senate recognize what the president has been saying for

president has been saying for >> there is this match. always has been out of guilt. always the mention of dynamite. i think i say in my book but it's hard to know exactly, but this seems not to be true. it seems like he was quite proud of his achievements in the area of explosives.

they build what we call today as infrastructure. >> sunday at nine eastern on effect on booktv. >> department of homeland security act inspector general says corruption and misconduct in his department is a threat to national security. charles evers testified on capitol hill on with representatives from the tsa, customs and border protection and immigration about homeland security at nick's policies and training. this is a little more than an hour. >> the purpose of the is to examine the ethical policies conduct and criminal at tvs within the department of homeland security. i now recognize myself for opening statement. may 6 through the 12th was

public recognition week. we set aside time on art public servants to keep us safe, care for veterans, control borders and find cure for diseases. to make our country stronger and make a difference in the world. most employees vendors and public service is a public trust. each one has a responsibility to the united states government and the citizens they all serve to place loyalty to the constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain. most public servants adhere to this trust. however, the pew research center interviewed more than 3000 adults about their views of our government. 54% said the federal government is mostly corrupt while 31% said mostly honest and 11% said they don't know either. the survey also showed just one third of americans has a favorable opinion of the federal government. the lowest positive rating in 15

years. the measure of dissatisfaction these days is to be expected. the countries in economic trouble and our leaders promise things that they cannot deliver. what compounds the dissatisfaction is their government scandals. there have been many reports of federal employees wasting taxpayer dollars and in some cases committing crimes, which erodes the trust of the american people put in our government. the general services administration spent over $800,000 on a conference in las vegas. the department of homeland security spent nearly $1 billion on the secure order initiative network will return on investment. with falsifying criminal activity activity within our bureaucracies. custom and border protection, personnel collaborating with chuck smugglers, cartels, immigration and custom enforcement personnel filing fraudulent travel claim and tsa personnel stealing personal belongings passengers.

since 2004, 130 agents of the united states customs and border protection have been arrested, charged or otherwise prosecuted on corruption charges. allegations include alien and drug knuckling, money laundering and conspiracy. the dhs acting inspector general, mr. charles edwards states mexican drug cartels attempt to corrupt dhs employees and the impact our national security. the inspector general reports since 2004 there has been a 30% increase in the number of complaints against cbp employees. as recently as february 2012, an ice age and played guilty to 21 counts of obstruction, corruption violations. these charges include illegally at taming and disseminating government documents to individuals with ties to drug trafficking organizations.

there have also been allegations of convictions i.c.e. agents accepting thousands of dollars in bribes from immigrants seeking u.s. documentation. the former intelligence chief for them u.s. immigration and customs of force and is accused of embezzling more than $180,000, stemming from a travel fraud and kicked back scheme that defrauded the government of more than $500,000. for other employees pled guilty to involvement in a scheme to defraud the government. and the pastor alone there's been numerous incidents of alleged misconduct on the part of tsa officers and employees. thousands of dollars in cash and items have been reported stolen. dozens of tsa officers were fired over and proper look at screening because they have a dozens of pieces of luggage onto flights without proper screening. tsa officers have allegedly taken bribes allowing passengers

expedited security checks. a number of additional allegations range from racially charged statements and actions to inappropriate harassment. a recent 22 count indictment alleges tsa employees took payment to provide drug carriers unfettered access through los angeles international airport centrex could be smuggled into the united states. executive branch employees are subject to executive orders issued by the president and ethics regulations issued by the u.s. office of government at it. some agencies also are issues supplemental regulations that apply to their employees and even though their sacks of government manuals, training materials and briefings about ethics, these lapses continue. they not only waste taxpayer dollars. they are a threat to security of our nation. without the majority -- while the majority poor credit

personnel are law-abiding, and this hearing will examine the ethical policies and procedures and homeland security and a tip to understand why the ethical lapses continue in what has to be done to prevent them from happening in the future. one final note is an unfortunate the department of homeland security faces serious ethical mishaps, refuses to provide witnesses from leadership to discuss these matters before the american people. we request the leadership from cbp, i.c.e. ncsa. however, said two recognizes the importance of these issues could not have recognized the ranking member of the subcommittee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for holding today's hearing examining the ethical standards at the department of homeland security. in the beginning i would like to point out there's over 220,000 department of homeland security

employees who work everyday to secure our homeland from dangerous threat to national disasters. so before i begin, i would like to thank them for their service. unfortunately, there are some among them to use their position of public trust of their own personal gain. in doing so they took a very nation they were sworn to protect and harms way. since that server 2004, 137 u.s. customs and border protection employees have been indicted or convicted of corruption related charges, many in recent years as the border patrol -- size. during fiscal year 2010 and 2011, they released 33 incidents of corruption or mission compromising corruption but cbp. furthermore, u.s. immigration and customs enforcement, said the office of investigation have

had investigations of misconduct occurring at both cbp and i.c.e. the number is that office in 2012 allowed and this is only may, there've been a total of 101 corruption allegations involving i.c.e. employees and 362 from cbp. at the transportation security administration in 211, there's three allegations and three involving intelligence violations than 210 alleged in her misconduct. although these allegations have not been proven, they are a testament to the fact that eliminating public corruption at the department of homeland security is in dire need of improvement and therefore am pleased that representatives from tsa, cbp and i.c.e. look forward to the steps they are

taking to remedy the situation. of course, there's other incidents of corruption we can point to, but what sets this situation at i.c.e., cbp apart and our nations airports. i'm troubled by allegations within the department and the disagreement on who should be in charge. recent matters has been implemented to improve working relationships among dhs, oig, cbp, internal affairs to cbp and ice office of professional responsibility. i hope the new memorandum of understanding will surely cause each agency to understand the delayed investigations as a result of internal disputes will undermine outskirts and perpetuate the misconduct. a look forward to hearing from the witness says and for

participation in this important hearing. >> other members of the subcommittee reminded of the opening statements in it the record. we are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today on this very important topic. first, mr. charles edward is that teen inspector general of the department of homeland security. he is a frequent guest here before the subcommittee. he has assumed the position of february 2011, served as deputy inspector general of the department of homeland security, has over 20 years experience in the federal government. next we have mr. thomas witkowski, the acting deputy commissioner of u.s. customs and border protection. in this capacity, mr. rutkowski serves as chief overseeing the daily operations of cbp 60,000 employees and manages operating budget of $11.5 billion. he began work with the u.s.

customs service in 1975 as a student. we thank you for your service, mr. winkowski. next mr. james duncan administrator of tsa's office of professional responsibility in 2011. mr. duncan has more than 16 years of experience in supervising and handling employees, misconduct cases out of pr department of justice, my alma mater as well. max, mr. tan moynihan, assistant director at the opposite responsibility of u.s. immigration and customs enforcement. within 23 years of experience working for the u.s. government, has been in his current position since two dozen angry focuses on workforce integrity personnel screening, infections and security management. i want to thank you all for being here today. the chair now recognizes mr. edwards for his testimony. >> good morning, chairman

mccall, ranking member keating and distinguished members of the subcommittee for inviting me to testify today about ethical standards within the department of homeland security. the vast majority of authorities who can teach us a dedicated civil servants, focused on protecting the nation. while a small percentage of employees have committed criminal acts another misconduct , dispute should not be used to draw conclusions about the character, integrity or work at except the many. over the past year, dhs employees continued to demonstrate this ethic of service from responding to 99 federally declared disasters to unprecedented efforts to secure america's borders and to advances in protecting the nation's transportation networks and critical infrastructure. but those who violate the small

to be said to come even one corrupt agent or officer who allows harmful goods of people to enter the country puts the nation at risk. corruption within the ranks of dhs can have severe consequences. a corrupt dhs employee makes up to bribe for allowing what appeared to be undocumented aliens into the u.s., will unwillingly helping terrorists enter the country. likewise, taking a bribe to allow the entry of what appears to be contraband could expose the nation to weapons of mass destruction such as comical or biological bombs. oig has made investigating corruption at top priority. but the personnel and organizational independence of oig investigators are free to carry out their work without interference by agency officials. it is essential to maintaining the public trust and not only the work of the oig, but also the dhs workforce as a whole.

the oig investigate all allegations of corruption involving dhs employees, a compromise of systems related to this security of transportation networks. for example, oig received information about the cbp officer using his position at a large urban airport to support an international drug trafficking organization. oig joined an agency investigation that by i.c.e. which led to dismantling of the drug organization and the rest including the cbp officer. at least 19 separate occasions, the cbp officer had bypassed airport security using his own badge to smuggle money in reference for this drug traffickers. in december 2010, he was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison. in another case, oig conducted an investigation into

allegations involving a transportation security officer at the orlando international airport. the tsa is still limited and 80 laptop computers, cell phones and ipods, estimated $80,000 from passenger legates over a three-year period from 2008 through 2011. tsa terminated his employment in march 2011. august 2011, the tso pled guilty to federal charges of embezzlement and collection of the investigation in general 2012 was sentenced to 24 months of probation. on may 1, 2012, the former acting director of intelligence for i.c.e. pled guilty to defrauding the government of $180,000 in a three-year scheme involving fraudulent travel vouchers and time and attendance claims. sentencing is scheduled for july

july 2012. he faces a likely prison sentence of eight team to 27 months. three other ice employees on a contract employee previously pled guilty to charges related to the scheme, which cost ice more than $600,000. these examples of intolerable behavior by a very small number of employees come at each represent a threat to our nations security and the public's perception of dhs and its mission. dhs is employees are held to the high standards professional conduct and oig is committed to aggressively pursuing those who violate dhs standards. chairman mccaul, i'd be happy to answer any questions you are the members may have. >> the chair now recognizes mr. winkowski for his testimony. >> mr. chairman, ranking member keating, it is a privilege to appear before you today to discuss u.s. customs and border

protection's an ethical standards in combat, corruption and misconduct within the workforce. i would like to begin by recognizing the dedication, bravery and i demonstrated by the overwhelming majority of cbp agents and officers who put their life online each day to protect our nation. as the largest uniform law enforcement agents in the country, cbp deploys over 60,000 agents, officers and mission support personnel and support of our critical mission of securing america's borders against threats while facilitating legitimate trade and travel. as they continue to see success in our efforts to secure the nation's borders from the cbp will continue to be targeted by criminal organizations and individuals that grow more desperate in their attempts to smuggle people and illegal contraband into this country. i am here to discuss the vulnerability in the practice steps we've taken to mitigate this threat.

as you mentioned, mr. chairman, we recognize public service is a public trust. at the center of this cbp's core values of integrity and it is that the utmost importance of all employees and all employees are guided by the highest ethical and moral principles. i'm proud the overwhelming majority of the men and women in the cbp work for service honor and integrity and while only a small fraction of the workforce have engaged in illegal or unethical behavior since the inception of cbp. any such behavior disgraces the agency and betrays the trust of the american public. one instance of corruption within the workforce is one too many. commitment to integrity begins as soon as an employee applies for employment and continues to write a cbp employees career. we utilize multiple tools, including improved applicant screening an exhaustive background investigations to ensure thorough vetting of the

men and women seeking employment with cbp. since 2008, cbp has forgot it polygraph examinations online for some applicants coming critical tool used to screen applicants before placing on the front line. cbp is building the capacity to polygraph 100% of all law enforcement applicants in compliance with the mandates of the anti-border contraction act of 2010 and is on track to achieve this goal while an advance of a january 13 deadline. in addition to preemployment prevention efforts, cbp has also strengthened capacities to detect and investigate corruption within the existing workforce of approximately 200 experienced investigators nationwide, cbp internal affairs uses behavioral science, analytical, research methods to flag indicators of workforce, corruption and provided intelligence driven response. in conjunction with these, we've

developed the analytical management systems control officer -- office called and scout, which analyzes data in the ports of energy to verify anomalies that may create potential misconduct. cbp's office of field operations and border patrol have established integrity and ethical -- ethics committees, which provides strategic recommendations to combat combat corruption and promote integrity in the agencies distinct operational environments. these askers feed it to cdc's integrity, claiming in court nation of the eyepiece ec. the ip cc includes representatives from the enforcement examines best practices and courtney's integrity related initiatives within the agency. cbp recognizes collaboration and information sharing is a critical factor in maintaining

order integrity and addressing allegations of corruption lodged against cbp employees. we've established mo used with the oig and i.c.e. authorizing the co-location of agents in order to assist in investigation of employees. for also active participants in the 22 fbi lab border corruption task force forces nationwide. mr. chairman, members of the subcommittee come integrity is central to cbp's effectiveness as guarding the nation's borders. i thank you and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear to make clear our core values and strategic approach. i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. winkowski. the chair now recognizes mr. duncan. >> good morning, ranking member trent green and establish numbers of the subcommittee. it's a privilege not to appear before you today. every day 50,000 tsa employees work to ensure the security of our security of our nation's

vast transportation networks. tsa employees risk-based intelligence driven operations to prevent terrorist attacks and reduce the vulnerability of transportation networks to terrorism. article is to maximize security while protecting privacy and facilitating the flow of legitimate travel and commerce are multilayered system of transportation security. tsa's work for a sitcom pushes the security mission by screening passengers and baggage of more than 450 airports in the united states. every week we've had 14 million passenger reservations in 13 million transportation workers against the terrorist watch list. a first facilitate the secure air travel for 1.8 million persons each day. success of our mission depends on the dedication and integrity of our workforce. therefore, everything we do at tsa, from hiring, promotion and training to inspections,

investigations and adjudications is driven by commitment to the highest ethical standards. administrator pistol has made clear that integrity, professionalism and hard work are the bedrock principles for the entire tsa workforce. when a tsa employee fails to live up to our high standards, he or she violates public trust, tarnishes the excellent work of the rest of our workforce and damage is tsa's reputation with the american people. for that reason we hold all of our employees to the same high professional and ethical standards that we have zero tolerance for any kind of criminal at 230 in the workplace. tsa's office of human capital publishes the policies of the employee conduct. all employees are required to know our standards intervene to review them on an annual basis. to further assist, tsa's online training center provides training for all new first-time tsa supervisors to give them tools to identify, report and prevent misconduct.

when allegations are misconduct arise, they are investigated by tsa's office of inspection and independent investigative arm of the agents see that reports directly to the tsa administrator and deputy administrator. the office of inspection reviews allegations and reports them to the dhs office of inspector general and connects investigations if oig elects not to handle than themselves. the office of inspection also proactively conducts independent oversight of inspections of operational programs, procedures and policies both in the field and at tsa headquarters. inspections check on compliance and equally important provide employees an opportunity to raise allegations of misconduct in a confidential setting. to promote consistency, timeliness and accountability in the disciplinary process, tsa has created an office of professional responsibility of pr.

zero pr adjudicates all allegations of misconduct involving senior level officials and enforcement personnel. zero pr officials also review each investigation involving a tsa employee with the investigation was conducted by the office of the inspector general. working with tsa's open in a unified database to allow us to track all matters throughout the agency in this will help us promote consistency on accountability. zero pr has also created greater consistency and transparency and the entire tsa disciplinary system by creating a table of offensive and penalties. the table, available 12 tsa employees provides ranges of penalties for each type of offense and guides the decisions of officials said zero pr and in the field. as we strive to continue strengthening transportation security and improving the overall travel experience for all americans, we always bear in mind the success of our mission

depends on the integrity of our workforce, freedom to travel is fundamental to our american way of life and tsa is fully committed to ensuring everyone can do so securely. thank you for the opportunity to appear today. i'd be pleased to address any questions you may have. >> thank you him and mr. duncan. when we certainly appreciate your presence here today to testify, we did request a witness at higher policy level, either administrator pistol or his deputy. i think it is important to have someone at the policy level to discuss these important issues and get tsa failed to produce a witness. next come the chair now recognizes mr. moynihan for his testimony. >> good morning, chairman mccaul, ranking member keating. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the standards for integrity and professionalism. the overwhelming majority demonstrate integrity and

perform the duties upon her everyday. however as in any large organization isolated acts of misconduct from time to time. i testimony focuses on mechanisms in place to ensure robust process are investigating allegations of employee misconduct and assuring picardy. ..

the investigations division conducts investigations through 26 field offices nationwide and in puerto rico. we are responsible for investigating allegations of critical and serious misconduct. the principle opposite is conducting the training to i.c.e. employees. inspections division reviews i.c.e. offices, programs come and detention facilities to comply with agency regulations, policies and applicable attention standards in order to provide executive management with an independent review of the agency's organizational health and assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the i.c.e. mission. finally, the security division is responsible for the implementation of agencywide programs, including personal,

physical, operational, and counterintelligence. screening employees on the front end is an important step that we take to ensuring our mission. i.c.e.'s vigorous process of screening include security checks, background investigations, and periodic investigations every five or 10 years. in addition, once employees are on board, we apply proactive treating measures and oversight at employees at every level, to ensure the integrity of the i.c.e. reports. in addition to the i.c.e. training, we supply the federal conflict of interest statues. the agencies are critical to the mission of enhancing employee integrity. in 2010, i.c.e. and cbp entered into a memorandum, or they are assigned to a opr.

this collaboration has solidified i.c.e.'s commitment to providing cbp with complete and timely awareness and criminal information. recently, cbp took 75 cases to opr involving i.c.e. employees. it the cases regarding cbp employs were guarded internal affairs, and a pr will provide monthly status updates to doj. we are taking proactive steps to ensure that our everything is addressed in the swift manner. i speak for her after morning when i say that i.c.e.'s leadership as part of the professionalism of our workforce. thank you for the opportunity to be here before here -- before you today.

>> we certainly appreciate you being here and your testimony. we requested that director morgan was someone, a deputy or policy person to appear before this committee, and unfortunately, your agency failed to produce that witness. with that, the chair recognizes himself for five minutes, for questioning. when i worked in the public integrity section in the department of justice, we served in the ethics committee. i have always believed that the public service is a public trust. the vast majority of your employees are honest and hard-working, and unfortunately, the actions of a few bad apples taint the entire organization. the purpose is not to take the overall organization at all. let's look at these specific abuses and determine how can we fix the problem. i will start with you,

mr. winkowski. the cbp, the allegations of border patrol agents, cbp officers, working with drug traffickers, to facilitate their business, it is just unconscionable. and you know the threat. you know the threat from a national security standpoint, and you know they are trying to infiltrate our organization. i want to start and ask you about your polygraphs to the polygraphs to you in conduct with employees prior to employment. if you can elaborate on what some of your findings have been in terms of the preemployment screenings. >> yes, thank you very much, mr. chairman, for that question. as i mentioned in my oral interview, we began doing the polygraphs in 2008. we have done about 10,000 polygraphs. about 400 month. come january 2013 under the anti-port of corruption act, we

will do to all law enforcement officers. we will meet that mandate of 2013. a matter of fact, we will meet that mandate this summer. this summer we will have 100% of our law enforcement officers undergoing a polygraphs prior to coming on board as a law enforcement officer. of those 10,000 polygraphs that we have done, we have discovered a host of individuals that apply to be border patrol agents or border protection officers, and a polygraph is able to identify individuals that had a very questionable past. let me just give you several examples, mr. chairman. we had a case where between 2002 and 2009 several bundles of marijuana were smuggled by an applicant. on at least three occasions, the

applicant personally unloaded duffel bags of drugs from vehicles and store them at his residence. the applicant also accepted $1000 in exchange for allowing vehicles is storing marijuana to be sorted his home. a polygraph was able to identify that. obviously, the employee was not hired for a law enforcement position. another example in march 2009, an applicant and friend became involved in transportation of cocaine and marijuana. the applicants friend profited an unknown amount for the transportation of marijuana from a key profited off of $3500 of cocaine. in some cases, i believe, they are having a sole purpose of wanting to become a border patrol officer is to infiltrate us. in a way that we have robust background processes, where we

have systems that i talked about in my oral reply and data mining and looking for anomalies, we really believe that the polygraph is going to be a real game changer for us. we are ready for that. we have been doing polygraphs, but come the summer, everybody will undergo one. i think one of the things also that both you and the ranking member has talked about, the national security positions. i viewed cvpos in the border patrol agents as national positions. as such, we need to take a different view of the position. for example, while you're starting a polygraph prior to the employment, and weeding out those individuals that are deceptive, data indicates that really an officer goes about 8.8

years into service. the question becomes, while we have data mining and we are doing -- we are looking for anomalies and periodic investigations every five years, i think we need to be looking at polygraphs throughout the employee's career. i think that is very, very important, and we will work with the officer of personal management. i couldn't agree more with what you said and what mr. keating said about the national security positions. >> let me say that i agree with you. it really is a national security issue. i think the cases that you discuss in terms of preemployment screening the polygraphs, demonstrates that they are trying to infiltrate our law enforcement. there are other law enforcement agencies that require postemployment polygraphs.

then i talked about this yesterday, can you tell me some of the hurdles. you know, as a former public corruption prosecutor, usually the corruption occurs after employment. after they have been down on the border or points of entry where they have been corrupted by organizations with high dollar amounts to infiltrate the united states with drugs and human trafficking. now, can you elaborate what will be the challenges and hurdles to require postemployment polygraphs? >> one of the challenges that we have is working through the hiring policies that we have in the office of personnel management. i will make it very clear. we have not approached the office of personnel management on this particular issue. but we will do that. i have asked my staff to begin

the process of identifying what those hurdles are. the anti-port of corruption clearly gives us the authority on the preemployment. we need to work through internally, as well as the office of personnel management, as to what will take polygraphs -- as in the standpoint of the periodic investigations, and in between those periods of time, whether it is looking at reasonable suspicion, we're looking at a drug screening type of process where randomly we do polygraphs, i think we have a lot to learn from other agencies that employ polygraphs on a more routine basis, and we are going to undertake that endeavor. >> let me just say that i would like to work with you and cbp

and the ranking member would like to join me in this, in terms of changing the policy and certainly any legislation that is required to make that change. i think this is vitally important. i'll try to keep my time limited. mr. duncan, turning to tsa. allegations and indictments of tsa employees stealing personal belongings of passengers, and proper luggage screening, which, at we saw the latest attempt out of yemen to potentially smuggle an explosive device onto an airplane. again, a national security issue. we cannot afford to have corrupt tsa officers. so what is tsa doing to address this? >> sir, there are three aspects to tsa's efforts to prevent and detect the kind of corruption that the committee is justly concerned about.

the first echoes what mr. winkowski has echoed. to make sure that we are not hiring people into tsa that are going to be a problem. that would be background checks. in the last three years, our background checks have disqualified more than 5600 applicants. those who were subject to criminal history checks, financial checks, and other mechanisms to make sure that we are not bringing people in who have vulnerabilities. the second aspect really has to do with prevention, and we have undertaken various prevention initiatives in the weight of scenarios, such as honolulu, where we did determine that there was a large number of backs not being screened for security. some of the working groups that we have created in the wake of honolulu have focused on identifying tools that local leadership can use to prevent and detect violations of our security protocols. and i know there are some recommendations that have been come up with him or working in

conjunction with the recommendation office. those recommendations are focusing on metrics and other kinds of reports that can be used by field leadership so that we can, you know, identify threats before they blossom into full-blown corruption. >> my time is limited, but a 22 count indictment, tsa provided drug couriers unfettered access to the lax airport so that drugs could be smuggled into the united states. that is outrageous. and really, it is unacceptable. i understand what you are trying to do -- the prescreening, as i understand it, you mentioned a tracking system that you are implementing to basically -- the systematic tracking system to look at these misconduct that you have 400 different offices out there, it is not integrated into one system. i understand you're trying to develop that. when do you anticipate that that

will be completed? >> i don't have it. of time, i don't have a picnic of time. tsa is working, not just on coming up with a workable single definition of security regis, but to overhaul its supporting systems so that security breaches are reported consistently, that they are validated, and that headquarters gets the information from all 450 airports so they can study it and come up with more comprehensive -- >> and what is the timeframe this will be completed? >> i will have to get back to you, sir. >> moving on onto i.c.e. they are accepting thousands of dollars in bribes to provide documentation -- they are tied to drug trafficking organizations. this is exactly the kind of thing that terrorists want to exploit. getting documentation to get into the united states and attack the american people.

again, this is really unacceptable. what are you doing within i.c.e. to remedy this? >> mr. chairman, we have a vigorous plea and trent preemployment screening process and thorough background investigation to weed out those individuals on the front end prior to employment. subsequently, it also employees go through ethics and integrity training, we have an annual integrity awareness program, which is a policy for employees to refresh rules of conduct. on the supervisors attend the i.c.e. academy, as well as law enforcement officers, they go to a much more expensive i.c.e. training. we put out the guidelines of reporting and employee misconduct. information is received from a colleague that doesn't seem right or if they have an

information. we are constantly going back and educating the work force in making sure that they know what the standards of integrity are, what the agency expects from them. and proper ways to report it. i discussed briefly about offices located nationwide. pummeled a sea of the information, the doj, we are working collaboratively with them. we preferred refer back to her office and redress it as quickly as possible. >> in conclusion, i looked through some of your minerals. there doesn't seem to be any overarching policy within i.c.e. there is no specific ethics policy for i.c.e. employees. it is very generic. i would ask that you maybe go back and look at that in terms of specific ethics policies that you could direct towards your

employees. a lot of it is common sense. there are so many egregious examples. it is just unacceptable. overall, the majority of employees are honest and hard-working due to great people doing a great job everyday. i now recognize the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a couple comments i would like to make first. first of all, taxpayers are spending enormous amounts of money to try and make sure that safety is ensured for their travel. american citizens are going through enormous personal intrusions, themselves, going through that gate, getting screened and scanned, having their belongings gone through. this is a very serious matter. and i would think, given the fact that our security and what

the public puts into this, that this hearing we would at least get the people we requested from tsa and from i.c.e. to show up. that comment to me, says something about how seriously they are taking this issue. or how not seriously they are taking this issue. i want to be clear about that in the beginning. secondly, this is just an old saw that we have had. it is before my time here, as well. the 9/11 commission has made it clear that one of the primary problems that has to be addressed is the issue of jurisdiction. and this patchwork quilt of jurisdictions conflicting with each other -- it still is with us. and it isn't every hearing that we have ended is an underlying theme. it's here again today. i have a couple of questions. last year in testimony before the senate, it was said that

there was more than tension and friction between cbp and dhs, there is outright confrontation and unacceptable situations. that is the end of the quote. the fact that cbp, and they have to perform a function that statutorily blog about office raises grave concerns. has the inclusion of cbp employees, as required by that memorandum, and proved that cooperation at all? even though we had to do that to get there. has that improved the situation? >> thank you, senator for the question. august 11 of last year, i signed the memorandum with a commission

person. i can assure you that they have taken every step to work closely in a number of my offices i have cbp agents working with us on cases jointly. there is absolutely no battle, cbp, opr, and i.c.e., this is not a state dhs problem. this is a problem for the entire nation. we want to make sure that we address each issue effectively and timely. >> just a couple of comments. i agree with mr. edwards that the m. mode you has done a good job of really laying out the path forward as mr. moynihan had indicated. cases are being transferred from the ig to i.c.e. and cbp is part of that process.

i think we have come a long ways since the testimony. >> a couple of questions that came to mind, the bulk of the people that have been involved in this corruption, what is their salary range? i just want to hear a generalization. howard is people -- how much are they getting paid? >> i would say in the average base salary, when you look at a border patrol agent or a cbp officer at the gs 12 level, which is about $75,000 a year, then there is overtime associated with that. especially when you look at the southwest border, there are some of the highest-paid individuals in those communities. >> your office's primary port

authority over the investigation for corruption and employee misconduct. within the department of homeland security. however, you have the right of first refusal as well. usually, that right has been heavily exercised. and your office has transferred hundreds of cases for cbp and i.c.e. to handle. what contributed to that? was a result of a backlog? what contributed to the backlog if that is what led to this? >> we had 2360 open cases. we have 219 agents. clearly, the work load for each agent is more than 12 cases per agent. i have been working actively with cbp to have their agents filed to work the case is jointly. there is a 38% increase in border patrol allegation corruption in h

years. border patrol agents have doubled. oag has not had the resources requested. i cannot keep piling up these cases. i need to act on it. this is a dhs problem that we have to address. under my supervision, i have transferred 374 cases of new subjects to i.c.e. opr, the folks who are detailed over there. i am not transferring any crco cases. 301 of those cases are cbp cases and 73 of those cases are i.c.e. cases. still, because i.c.e. opr has an average of 4.5 cases per agent, clearly they are taking the resources and in some of my -- clearly we need to -- i cannot

keep taking these cases a long time to close. i need to address them quickly and get resolution quickly. all of the 2360 cases, 40% are unnamed subjects. we have an analysis group, but cbp also has those resources, so does i.c.e. our intention is to work jointly on this and try to see if we can come up with some reason to investigate sheer investigation. talking to john martin and david, this is a giant effort. i am confident that the systems put in place and the initiative is going to address this problem effectively and as soon as possible. >> and it is partly resulting in your budget situation? >> absolutely. >> i want to be clear on that. with that content with that

mr. chairman, i know that. >> thank you. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i think all of our panelists to hear our question this morning. i want to follow-up on mr. keating's last question. and ask that mr. edwards and mr. moynihan responsiveness. from fiscal year 2010 to the present, i.c.e. opr has received 26,983 allegations of employee misconduct. some involve corruption. others did not. in any event, this number is extremely high. in addition to the investigation of the matter is, i want to know, does i.c.e. opr work with i.c.e. at large and cbp to incorporate lessons learned learned from these investigations were new standards and procedures? given what you just stated, mr. edwards, having to deal with

the budgetary constraints, you know, how does this actually work out? when i.c.e. seems to have a host of their own investigations to conduct. if you add up all the allegations together, i don't even know how personnel is able to manage. but that is for you to answer. >> yes, ma'am. that's a great question. even for opr, the complaints we received so far, 12,648. nonetheless, i think that even before these investigations -- this is -- there needs to be -- and all the components are doing the proactive efforts in terms of the prescreening, the preemployment screening, periodic background investigations, integrity breathing and ethics briefing, we do a number of those as well. also, let the employees know

what to look for it when there is fraud happening. when the allegations come in, we go to the -- they go through the process just like i.c.e. does and [inaudible] we work jointly, not only with i.c.e. opr and the fbi and any number of partners jointly, because the aggressiveness of how we try to do this is going to get to a resolution sooner. looking at our caseload, and what i.c.e. has presently, i think the effort they have taken on is going to address these problems quickly. >> thank you, ma'am. i would like to ask about the joint intake center. which is the central clearinghouse for the cbp to report misconduct as well as other reportable information. it is a collaborative effort and sits in the cbp office space,

for it cbp and i.c.e. it is a great cooperation that has existed since dhs. the numbers, those were items reported to the joint intake center. it may involve lesser degrees of misconduct or items such as lost, missing, stolen property, things that are not necessarily allegations based. the numbers could be larger than what we need to document, but not all of those 26,000 allegations are true allegations of misconduct and were in this investigation. and i can get back you as far as a specific number of what was. from our case in perspective, we have about 600 cases in our inventory right now, in addition to the 374 that mr. edwards will be transferring here shortly. we are working closely with cbp internal affairs, full participation will be done during this chancellor.

honestly, it is a large number of cases. we have set up teams for triage. we have set up leads for the most egregious allegations that show the greatest forms of vulnerability. we will do that is collaboratively as we can as an effort. >> my question is, what happens with the employees -- who have alleged to do something? do they remained in their post? how would they handle this, because certainly, you know, we are concerned about the public and their interactions due to these individuals, who have alleged misconduct. whatever that may be. also, their colleagues as well. one bad apple can spoil a bunch. how is that managed?

.. because a lot of times the use of attorney will not accept as a criminal case. we want to make sure that we've done enough work on the administrative friend and said that components can take quick administrative action. so we should work with the

components. >> do you want to add anything? >> man, are just going to say that every case stands on its own merits and just the receipt of an allegation on the egregiousness or as the case develops, we work closely, whether it is i.c.e. management or cbp management to see the person in that position vulnerabilities to gray. we made to put on administrative duty while it continues, re-sign them are depending on the level of evidence and seriousness of the position of the individual. it may be put on administrative leave. that would help us face that decision. >> if you'd indulge me for a moment.

mr. winkowski, -- >> i would like to have a couple of issues here, a couple thoughts. i think it's very, very important that these allegations be worked down quickly. we have the responsibility to exonerate people as well. i think the panelists agreed if we have an individual is suspicion that we really need that investigation to move quickly because that individual is still on the line, if you will and is still processing people and still processing cargo. once we are notified by the investigation -- the investigators that there is an issue, we will take that person off the line. and put them on administrative duties as mr. moynihan said. once an indictment takes place

in the person is put on indefinite suspension ended this way through the court systems, right now we have 11 people on indefinite suspension. to the other point of your question, ma'am, i think there's a good point here. we have the investigation there is a conviction. what do we do next. there are office of internal affairs, we dissect that. we look at where the vulnerabilities are, what we need to do from the standpoint of changing policies are changing processes. so our management controls and internal controls so it doesn't happen again. it's a constant layer effect that we implemented that we think is very important from the standpoint of the very subject.

>> can we associate with the ranking member's remarks in terms of seriousness of these charges and indictments and convictions, federal law enforcement, bribes taken to improperly screened luggage. first of all, stealing personal belongings as people go through the screeners all the time and scanners and yet the idea if tsa officials urged during personal property. but beyond those are the national security implications. the idea that tsa also to take a bribe to allow thousands of pieces of luggage to go through improperly screened or to allow the drug trafficking organizations to have unfettered access. this is precisely what the terrorists are looking for. i is providing fraudulent documentation. all of these cases are trying to

get things through airports, improper screening, improper documentation. that's exactly what they're trying to exploit. and then of course cbp is taking bribes from drug cartel organization. and given the seriousness of this, i do first want to say thank you to cbp for mr. winkowski for you showing up at the policy level, but i do want to express my extreme disappointment that tsa and i.c.e. given these allegations are proven fact did not bring forth the policy level witnesses that we requested. so it sends a signal to the congress. or these officials are just trying to hide from the american people. so i am not very happy with that. you can associate myself with the ranking member, with his

remarks and with that, the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> when democrats start to show up in numbers, which is somewhat the case in the 1820s and 1830s, that very much the case in the 1840s and afterwards, they show up in a political environment in which they are already qualified to vote as soon as they become citizens. just to get a sense of the politics of talk about, this is an image from harper's weekly in 1858 around election time are just faster and it shows a saloon and a polling place. if you want to go come you see the doorway all the way in the back. you have to go in there to vote. >> in a few moments, and white house briefing on this weekend sometime and nato summit.

>> national security advisor, tom donilon jointed jay carney briefing reporters on this weekends santan and nato summit. tomorrow's asif ali zardari meeting will focus on security issues and saturday will focus on the economy. president obama leaves sunday for the nato summit in chicago. this is a little less than an hour. >> i will immediately introduce internet briefing to tom donnellan, the national security adviser. the united states is hosting the g8 and nato summit this year. tom is here to give you a preview of those summits as we have done in the past with visitors. how make some comments and take your questions on related subjects and then tom well the parts and i will remain to take questions on other matters.

with that i give you tom donilon. >> thank you, jay. appreciate the opportunity to come by. i want to take a few minutes today and not give a couple comments at the top and then take a few minutes to give your perspective on the upcoming summit. the g8 summit on camp david and then i'd be glad to take questions. thanks for coming out. the first thing i wanted to say is that i've been reflect team on where we have come the last three and half years. the initial summit that the president attended in 2009, i saw the global economy in freefall, the momentum in afghanistan has shifted to the telegram. al qaeda was entrenched in a safe haven and america's alliance with the free. today i think it is fair to say and we can discuss this in any detail as you want to be made significant progress on each of

these issues. the u.s. economy is growing. al qaeda's leadership is devastatingly put in place a responsible way to wind down the war in afghanistan. meanwhile this has been a top priority from the other side. our alliance has never been stronger and we'll talk about at any second. over the next several days, the aim is to build on the progress and will do so at camp david in chicago and the two summits really do -underscore and our embodiment of american leadership on a range of global challenges in advancing several overarching u.s. interest to make the international architecture work effectively in a transformational world. second revitalizing the core alliances and really advancing our strategy to win the war in afghanistan and a responsible fashion. as a result of our engagement and bilateral multilateral levels of the course of the administration, we are the team and i think we'll see during the course of this week will progress made on the coast i just talked about. so let me talk about what we're doing. the first meeting will be the g8

meeting beginning friday meeting at camp david. a lot of you know i'd like to think historically about these things and i did a little research on camp david. it's always risky to do with with mark millar in the room, but i'll do this anyways at the risk of being corrected immediately. first, i want to talk about why the president chose camp david for this meeting. first the g8 meeting will be the largest gathering ever to stay at camp david. in fact, the first time it will be more than two heads of state at camp david. can't david has hosted over 15 different heads of state as well as various critical meetings. again there's only been two summit held at camp david. the camp david accord in 1978, where president carter posted prime minister fagin. and the middle east peace summit in 2000 between israeli prime

minister a hoot or rock that arafat has today president clinton. the summit is intended to be small and intimate and the president made a conscious decision to house the g8 meeting for this reading. each head of state or government will have his or her own cabin and they'll have the opportunity obviously committed firmly and take full advantage of the grounds of camp david. the meetings themselves will occur in the dining room table. this is consistent with the history and purpose of the g8 meetings. it's in fact the basic approach. as he notes in meetings have their origins in the 1970s that the united states hosted informal meetings with financial officials from the major developed economies. 1975, president d'estaing invited heads of state and government to these countries for a summit to discuss the

economic recovery. sense that they become large gatherings with infrastructure and all kinds of support staff with long communicate than the president wanted to pull away and get back to basics, get back to the intent, to have the leaders of the developing economy from the world being able to talk about face-to-face and intimate sessions the issues facing us. so that is what undergird the president's decision to have this at camp david. i wanted to give the little flavor of what would it be like up here. we then talk about the meeting itself and the objectives of the g8 meeting. obviously i'll go through maybe the best way would be to go through the agenda and how it will unfold during the course of the meetings. on friday evening there'll be a a leaders dinner at camp david. prior to that i should imagine a president alonso have its first

winning the president of him here at the white house friday morning. i think it is around 11:00 friday morning. the president looks forward to meeting with president alone and his team. that ending with the president will be followed by a bunch of blair house of secretary clinton is hosting in his delegation. again, to begin our relationship with him and continue our work with an important ally, france. i can talk about that meeting again in some detail at the plate to do that. as i said the schedule begins on friday evening with a working dinner for the leaders only. the topic for this dinner will be the reason of political issues. i expect that the following issues to come out and leaders will raise other issues during the course. though clearly be a discussion about iran and we expect to be advancing international consensus around the p5 plus one

approach to addressing the array and nuclear issue and that they might think would be international unity, which has been a hallmark of this project as well as the previewing our expect nations for the may 23rd 2nd ground meetings with the iranians and the p5 plus one in baghdad and that would be a point of discussion on friday evening. this has been a top priority for this administration. as you know it had a multivariable intensive approach from the first day we came into office. this approach has begun but officer engagement. they were not met with response from the opinions. we proceeded then to look into multiple variants pressure campaign, frankly been included a lot of elements, including sanctions. the unprecedented national sanctions campaign to put in place has resulted in the iranians coming to the table. each member of the g8 is a core

member of the sanctions after. each member has been absolutely essential to putting in place that has been an extraordinarily effective and i think most people it's a surprisingly effective sanctions after. they'll also be pressing the array needs to take advantage of the diplomatic efforts putting forward and the continued good faith from a simple, but the willingness to engage in concrete ways, with the p5 plus one that dressing the ukrainian nuclear program. the message will be that the iranians should seize this opportunity. i'm all this goes on in parallel, the effort will continue, led by the united states and the others at the table on friday. we also expect that they will -- the leaders will discuss north korea, disguise burma.

you saw the announcement today by secretary clinton with respect to our evening of investment sanctions in burma. it's been remarkable progress in leaders will want to engage on friday evening. burma is at the start of a long, but promising path towards democracy. you know the president has made it a top priority. again we can talk about this in any detail you want. i think you'll also see a discussion on friday evening and leaders can bring up whatever other issues that they want. but the focus of the security issue in friday evening. the next morning, the focus will turn to the economy and of course the global economy especially the economic situation the euro zone will be the top of the agenda. this is the first opportunity for the leaders of the major developed economies to meet face-to-face, sent president élan election to transcend the political event in greece.

this will also be the first g8 meeting and prime minister nota of japan. obviously this comes at a very delicate time with respect to the european economy, the euro zone economy. >> let me just say a couple things about this. one, the united states welcomes the evolving discussion and debate in europe about the imperative for jobs and growth. two, the united states has an extra nearly six to kent state and the outcome of the economic discussions in europe and the steps taken in europe. this is the european union as a whole of course the largest trading partner of the united states. and three, the president looks forward to leading a discussion among the leaders about the imperative of having a comprehensive approach to manage

the crisis and get on a sustainable path towards recovery in europe and that will be a key part of the discussion of the campaign. the other area and i won't go into as much detail of discuss questions about them. after the discussion in the course of the morning on the global economy focusing again on europe, there will be separate sequential sessions devoted to the following topics. energy and climate, food security. the president will tomorrow deliver a very important speech on the critical initiative he's had in place here. we'll make a real difference in the lives of people and at camp david or will be a working lunch on food security, attended by four african heads of state. so energy and climate, food security. it will have its own fashion. this is obviously important as

we have put together a nonsecurity aspects of the follow-up in afghanistan post-2014. that is how is afghanistan going to come out of the work on them into stable, economic situation and would've been a to pass in the international community. this leads up to a donors conference in tokyo in july. the last scheduled session at camp david would be on the middle east g8 meeting. that is essentially the outline at the g8 meeting. nato, the nato summit. the president while the saturday evening and go to to host 62 nations and several international organizations for the summit. this is only the third time since nato's founding in 1949 the united states will host a nato summit. incidentally, the first time it has been hosted in a city other

than washington. the other two times the united states has hosted were in 1978 and 1999, which of course is the 50th anniversary during president clinton's term. as i said, 61 countries as well as the e.u. coming united nations and the world bank will be in attendance. there will be a different groupings of countries during the course of the day. the president will fly to chicago on saturday evening. the first meeting you haven't been able to do with president karzai of afghanistan. obviously an important meeting because a central focus of the nato summit will be on afghanistan and afghanistan's future. the first meeting of the day probably will be with president karzai of afghanistan. the president will then move into a series of nato meetings. initial meetings with just the nato allies at 28. that evening, sunday evening the nato allies will meet at soldier

field for a working dinner and all the leaders plus one adviser. on monday morning, the summit will continue at the car in place for discussions on afghanistan and this will be a broader meeting. this will be then nato countries plus the 22 non-nato afghan troop -- non-nato tribute countries in afghanistan. and the second formal meeting on monday will be a session with the key partners we have in various projects around the world with nato. i want to talk about nato alliances for second and then i want to talk about talk about afghanistan and i'll take your questions. the united states nato -- nato is a cornerstone alliance for the united states in terms of ability to advance international interests. when we came into office almost four years ago, now three and a half years ago, we asked her

what we needed investment, where we needed work, what needs to be done. our analysis was alliance they did a tremendous amount of tension, the alliances were afraid fasting. if you have 2009 and the president said about reinvigorating reactor in the transition at the beginning of the administration was really building out and refurbishing of revitalizing alliances. why is that? there's a lot of talk among foreign policy commentators on the issue of decline and the u.s. assets and liabilities. i don't often see this, but she really should see it. when you put together a list of unique american assets going into the future, things that will provide for the future the united states, you talk about an innovative economy, size of the economy, energy, future, demographic future which are unique american assets and promise a bright future for the

united states. you should also put on that list alliances. no other nation in the world has a set of global alliances like the united states does. no other nation in the world built on bipartisan work since world war ii has a series of countries that can go around the world can work with these countries. alliances i can tell you from experience are a wholly different qualitative set of relationships and coalitions of the willing. alliances are valued highly by each of the members. you have habits of cooperation, shared threat assessment, operational capabilities you crack some work on it can call in at a moments notice. some of the operation would be a good example. so from the outset, this has been a strategic priority for the united states. strategic to undergird our security through revitalizing a reinvigorating alliances in this effort at nato's part of that. i'll just talk about afghanistan for a minute and then we'll take

your questions. the focus at the nato summit will be afghanistan. he was a member of the nato summit in lisbon in 2010, the united states, allies and partners with a step forward for core strategy and the way forward in afghanistan and that is due to begin transitioning in 2011 the lead for the afghanistan having full responsibility for security across the country would end at the end of 2014 and the isaf military mission would end at that point. it was under the rubric of an together, out together. again, i think the lisbon summit was an essential moment in our effort here. afghanistan had been quite an hot issue between the united states and europe and partners around the world. there's been disputes and questions about whether or not the group of countries in afghanistan could see this project through and i think what the president's leadership in the hard work of allies and

partners we put in place a multiyear effort to responsibly address the goals we had, defeating al qaeda and assuring afghanistan would not be in the future a safe haven for al qaeda or associated groups in the united states. to do so together and have the time to do it responsibly we are on a path to do it. what this summit is about is the next step on that transition project to the end of 2014 and then beyond. there's really three elements i will mention and then i'll take your questions. the first is with respect to the next step towards 2014. the alliance will decide that in 2013th edition will shift forces. that is the mission will shift from the isaf forces, united states forces being in the combat lead and stepping back and getting into principally training and advice about what the afghans going into the

combat lead over the country. that is essential if you think about how you get to the end of 2014 the full afghan responsibility for security. you need to start that process and get the afghans out front with the united states and allies and partners supporting them and moving forward. that is the first element of what will be taught to go at chicago. the second will be a discussion and an agreement on the structure and sustainability of the afghan national forces as you go past 2014. that is, what should their size b.? what should permission be and how will it be paid for? sustainment of course is a euphemism for how it will be paid for after 24 team. we've made very good progress. currently we are at about 330,000 afghan forces. i will search up to 352,000 afghan forces. we will then at some point after

2014 start to go down to a sustainable level and work through the modeling on that one. of afghan forces that will be the level we required as assessed by our military in conjunction with the afghans going forward. sustain it. the cost of this will be around, in our judgment or a 4 billion a year and with the united states has been doing, working with isaf partners only worked up about 30 countries now to work through commitments and this is two and half years from now. ..

after the ansf mission ends, there will be a discussion about, especially folks being on a much smaller side unsanitized training mission in afghanistan. chicago is a critical milestone and the next step towards a responsible ending of this war and achieving a very important goal in this effort in afghanistan. and really, the execution of the strategy of the president which was laid out in his speech. with that, i am glad to be gone for another three or four hours.

>> a question on president obama -- [inaudible] , president karzai and the state of the [inaudible] >> the question was on president asif ali zardari was invited to attend the summit. he is going to do so. he is coming with his foreign secretary. he will participate on sunday. the second is we have made real progress, i think, towards resolving the issue around opening up the grounds and supply lines, since november across the border. that is where 24 pakistani soldiers were killed. key groups have moved to

conclude these negotiations. we have our negotiators out there as welcome and we are making progress towards that. whether that will be done in the next few days or not, i can't judge at this point, but the decision on both sides, stands to return a conclusion of this going forward. that is important to us. at this point, there are 61 countries going to be present there. and the president -- there is not plans to have a second bilateral. but the president was to him during the course of discussions that we have in chicago. >> the question you mentioned during the conference on friday night. can you give us a sense, given the players that are going to be involved, what expectations you have, if any, for anything that happens if the [inaudible] plan doesn't work. >> i think all the countries present at the g-8 summit have real concerns and need to have

real concerns about the violence level in syria. i think that the death toll right now is approaching maybe 8000 and the asad regime has undertaken a brutal response against its own people. they are trying to express their own views. there will be a general disapproval of that come obviously. number one. number two. each of the members who will be present will support the plan. they are trying to pass a cease-fire. yes, the violence needs to be brought down.

yes, there are about 240 monitors, -- see, the monitors have access, and trying to bring down the violence of the effort spent but also come up with getting a political discussion about a transition in syria. i think that will be the basic outline of discussion. >> [inaudible question] can you give me a broad definition of what sort of afghanistan you hope to leave behind in 2014, and separately, on iran, nicolas sarkozy has been considered to be one of the toughest choices for the western sanctions policy on iran. are you concerned at all that that will change in government as france has gone under a governmental change, will that change?

>> i would be glad to take those questions. but i need to write on the second one. >> i can repeat it. >> with respect to afghanistan, the goal is to have in afghanistan, again, it has a degree of stability, such that forces like al qaeda and associated groups cannot have safe haven unimpeded, which could threaten the region and threaten the u.s. and other interests in the world. that is number one. number two, in afghanistan, and afghanistan that has security assets, that allow us to a provide a modest stability, to protect itself against groups like that, and an afghan national forest, of sufficient size and stripping ability, that these goals can be achieved. that will be a real focus of a discussion in chicago. but, as i say, it is also important for the united states, its partners and allies come to

also focus on the nonsecurity aspects of this. that is when you have a job insecurity, when isaf finishes its mission at the end of 2014, the goal is to have a sustainable economy by going forward. that is an important it is for the next 2.5 years. a couple of things on us. we have a conference of approach, and we are working on this now and this discussion years in advance, to try to put in place building blocks to achieve the goals that i have laid out. by the way, we also want to have a solid political transition in afghanistan. there will be elections for president in the middle of 2014. it is important, obviously, the that the afghans put in place a sustainable political process as well, going forward. we also, reasons why, we want to get to a place where we achieve our core goal, and our are corbel is a strategic diffusion

of al qaeda. we want them to no longer be a threat to the united states, our allies, or our interests. this is a central part of the foreign policy to the united states, especially, i think in terms of this being a daily effort that we pursue relentlessly against al qaeda, with respect to iran. we fully expect france to be a good ally going forward. again, the government in france has only been in place for a day or so. we haven't had the kind of detail and discussion likely will have tomorrow, although we did have some of our team go over to begin discussions. i expect we will have good support from front entrance ramps on the iran issue. we will have good support from france going forward. as well as a range of other issues. we will have to work through other issues.

presidents are crazy, but i see a good relationship between us already. >> first of all, do you expect the president to talk about strategic oil reserves, and my second question is does the united states have an interest in exploiting the difference between internal knowledge and the austerity goal? >> now, the first question, with respect to oil, as i said, one of the designated sessions during the course of the summit will be on climate. there will be a broad discussion there, with the president discussing all this above

strategies for energy development. and there will be discussions on improving energy efficiency, as you can imagine. the leaders will certainly -- i don't have any announcements on that, but the leaders will discuss that situation. we have been engaged in an ongoing way in monitoring the global oil situation, in light of the effect of sanctions that we have had on iran and its effect on oil markets. we will continue that monitoring. i'm sure that the leaders will discuss the range of options that they might have before them. up to this point, i can say that i don't have any announcements here, but it will be certainly a topic of discussion. i don't want to say anything specific what options will be or will not be discussed. it is fair to say that during the climate discussion, there will be a discussion about oil markets and monitoring the state of those markets, in light of the iranian sanctions efforts.

now, with respect to your question about exploiting differences, that is not -- that is not the intention of the president or the united states here. i think, chancellor merkel and the president had their meeting a day ago. this will be a discussion, as i said, about addressing the issue in a comprehensive way of the current crisis and the ongoing needs for growth and jobs. i think that that is in the interest of each of the leaders, and all the global leaders. i believe about steps that might be taken to move forward, but i don't think that the conversations will be anything like taking one side or the other, trying to exploit things, these conversations will be about a coherent and common goal of having the crisis in europe

managed well, and getting on a path of sustainable recovery. >> what are the key differences between the leaders that will be sitting at that table? >> well, let's let leaders speak for themselves at the table. but i do think it is important that the president you know, will lead a discussion out here. and as the host, i think the participants expect him to. they expect him to lead a discussion. this is not the first discussion that president obama has had about economic issues with these leaders. i expect they will be constructive. [inaudible >> [inaudible question] can you tell us -- [inaudible] can you start with something they're?

>> i don't have any announcements announcement to make. >> on the question of [inaudible name] versus merkel, dc this is an line with -- do you see this as your new go to person? [inaudible question] >> i think it is important to say that the united states has a very good relationship with nicolas sarkozy. president nicolas sarkozy was a very is important supporter of the american in france relationship. number two, we will work to build the same kind of relationship with president hollande. the first meeting between

president hollande will be at 11:00 o'clock tomorrow morning. it will be premature to speculate on the discussions. between president hollande and chancellor merkel, the presidents approach to these issues, i could i think you can look forward to an open discussion and for them to agree on the carmen -- common goal. to address the current crisis facing europe, particularly in reference to the political ramifications in greece, and also, we welcome the evolution of discussion in europe, a growth and jobs, but you see that being discussed probably in europe, and that will be on the table for discussion during the course of the week.

[inaudible question] i was wondering if you tell could tell us what your concerns are regarding pakistan about the programs -- [inaudible] if you are afraid that will have an effect, on diplomatic relations with pakistan. my second question has to do with -- [inaudible] second question is dealing with the hand over to afghan security forces. how concerned is the menstruation it comes to [inaudible] incidents which seem to keep happening.

>> the fact that they keep happening, i don't understand right now, but i think might be one third of u.s. casualties -- what does that say about the condition of the afghan forces on the hand over the country? >> on your first question, i cannot comment on specific efforts. i can speak generally about it. we have undertaken, as i said, earlier, from the outset of this administration, a determined effort to eight -- and a targeted effort, which was very difficult for the united states, and that effort has been successful. that effort has a lot of elements to it. that effort is carefully overseen by the white house and the president and by senior

members of the administration and carried out consistently, as john's speech laid out, it is consistent with international law, domestic law, rules of law, ethics, and those are the instructions we have from the president, and that is what we do every day, with respect to these programs. i really can't go any further than that. with respect to transition and the so-called green on blue issues, i guess i would say the following things about that. we had built with the afghans and partners, a very large afghan national army. an afghan national forest. it is now, as i said, and she can check the numbers, it is over 100 30,000 forces at this point, having 352,000. the second is that the number of instances that you raised, they

are quite small. when you take against the backdrop of building a very large force for the ultimate security of afghanistan. third, the performance of the afghan national forces, and some quite important instances, including the attack in cabo, recently, with respect to those forces, i think generally, progress has been made. number four. with respect to the quality of the force going forward, as i said, we are 2.5 years out from an ultimate turn over of full afghan lead, although we will decide in chicago, i believe, but that transition should begin in the course of 2013. that transition meaning the transition from the united states and isaf forces being in the lead to having to step back and assist with the afghans

being in the lead. number five, there are stresses and strains in a war zone. there are lots of reasons for these instances. you have to address them seriously come up with systems for addressing what can be very complex situations, and we are doing that. general john allen is very consistent and putting in the kind of systems and screenings that you want to have in place to ensure that you minimize these kinds of things. the overall point i would make is that when taken against the backdrop of the scale of the forces being built by the united states and isaf, it is not a large number of instances. that said, it has to be taken seriously. as he said, you have to ask yourself why. you have to ask yourself if this is a trend. if this is a trend, why is this ongoing? you have to ask yourself what

can we do about that. in order to ensure that we do our very best to protect our forces and our men and women who are serving with our allies and partners. >> [inaudible question] do we pay innocent civilians when they are killed by -- i know that we do so, for instance, if there is best to if there is a civilian casualty incidents in afghanistan, we always we will investigate it and put forward compensation, obviously, for the loss of a loved one. >> what if it is not in afghanistan, but it is -- [inaudible] different techniques with military operation -- can the united states are making to compensate back? >> there are a lot of possibilities in that question,

including instances that occurred in pakistan, in november. it would be appropriate -- inappropriate to talk about compensation issues. those are in regards to pakistani soldiers who were killed. with respect to other examples -- i'm not going to go there. >> in response to a question, saying the were confident that [inaudible question] -- how confident are you that the president will give up his -- in order to withdraw troops and in afghanistan? >> i will say a couple of things directly. the question is about iran. i think that we look forward to having them is a strong ally in france is a strong ally. with your question about the

withdraw combat by the end of 2012, he will have to make its national decision with respect to that. what we would look to a country to do, is they make national decisions, and indeed, we made national decisions as well. we decided we would draw down on our surge troops -- the full 33,000 by the end of this year in september, and that's what we are doing. but we would look to an ally to make those decisions in the context of the overall wisdom of framework. that framework allows for different kinds of contributions to be made by countries. contributions can include combat troops. i would point out that the province where the french are prominent, it is the province during the course of this year. we would look to allies to make their national decision in the context of the overall alliance approach, which has, as in isaf,

until the end of 2014. you can make train and assist contributions and other kinds of contributions. we will have a discussion with the french about this. the key concept is, again, despite the specific nature of the contribution and the national decision you might make about the case of a withdrawal and timely withdrawal, you are a member of the alliance and there is an end together and out together fashion in the alliance. >> [inaudible question] >> i can't speak for him, jessica. i think those are going to be the kind of discussions we look forward to having. the kinds of discussions that we look forward to is what exactly will be the french contribution going forward. taking into account that the president ran on a platform, president hollande ran on a

platform, but france is a member of the alliance. they are a member of the isaf, if they are a member is an ally of the united states. it is appropriate to have discussions about this. >> by the u.s. pressures to afghanistan regardless of who wins the presidential election of 2014? >> i don't -- the strategic partnership agreement? yes, the president obama and president karzai sign. a couple of things, that is an agreement between the united states and afghanistan, not between individuals it is a national agreement because it was in the interest of the united states and afghanistan. the second things thing is it has obligations on both sides, which we would seek to be implemented there is obligations on the u.s. side and also the afghan side of.

>> [inaudible question] is the conversation moves towards growth in europe, -- what actions will affect the european economy and the u.s. economy -- >> actions for what? >> actions, talking about growing and [inaudible] >> with respect to nato and the way forward, one of the sessions, indeed the first session will be devoted to nato capabilities. the nato allies have undertaken a study over the last two years, focused on those capabilities that it believes are essential into the future.

part of that, of course, our missile defense. by the way, there is a milestone at this meeting that will declare the missile defense system, it has achieved a level of interim capability. the united states feels confident making contributions of assets, including radar in turkey. radio surveillance were in a low has agreed to put together an alliance ground surveillance system, but that is the first point. then you need to decide what capabilities you need. i think nato has done that. that will be approved at chicago. this alliance, by the way, for efficiencies, it allows for multipliers, which was the case in libya. i do think that is a fair point, to consider, even if you do get efficiencies and you do have forced multipliers through alliance work, even if you do have a focus on those things

that you need to do and some of the things you're not going to continue to do, it does take a level of funding going forward. doctor terry gates gave a speech to nato that was focused on this. that is a discussion that we have on an ongoing basis with respect to nato. i think it is a fair point and one that needs our consistent focus. with respect to actions that could be taken, i do not wish to comment. this will be a discussion among the leaders, the leaders, i think, will focus on the specific concepts and ideas for growth and jobs, but i will also point out that the ultimate decisions on that will be decisions taken in the euro zone. in fact, at the european summit meeting, following after, the most immediately, after the g-8 summit on may 23, in europe.

>> it is appropriate that you mentioned -- [inaudible question] >> taking the last question, one more question. [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> setting up camp david, the do you accommodate -- [inaudible] [inaudible question] >> well, there are a couple of points on that. the allocation system, of course, is sacrificed. [laughter] and it really can't best i can go into that. but there are a couple of things

to tell you. one is that it is a complex of buildings. there is adequate, and during the planning, we made the decision, a team led by george mulligan in the white house military office, they went through this in great detail. they have adequate facilities out there. for each delegation and each head of state to have his or her cabinet, and for each to be accompanied by a key staff person. additionally, of course, there are a set of communications -- they set up for conditions. it is adequate and an extensive facility. maybe we can get a deeper briefing on that. i am just as concerned as you are. >> is it rough for heads of state? >> is it rough for heads of state? well, i grew up in providence, rhode island.

i'm not really the one to comment on rustic. >> thank you and thank you all. [talking over each [inaudible conversations] >> in a few moments, an oversight hearing on the federal communications commission. and in an hour and a half, a bill sanctioning iran for its nuclear program. after that committee hearing on ethical problems in the department of homeland security. and later we will re-air the white house briefing on this weekend's g-8 and nato summit. >> unpriced "washington journal", congressman sean duffy will discuss his first term in the house. and an update on transportation bills in congress, we will talk to democratic congressman, the ranking member of the transportation committee. "washington journal" begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> when people are saying to him, don't take the vice presidency, right now you are the most -- you are a powerful majority leader, don't take the vice presidency, you won't have any power, johnson says, power is where power goes, meaning i can make power in any situation. his whole life, nothing in his life previously makes that seem like he is most -- because that is exactly what he had done. all of his life. >> sunday night, the conclusion of her conversation with robert caro on the passage of power. volume four in the years of lyndon johnson come his multivolume router b. of the 36th president. sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> ahead of the federal communications commission say the plan is underway to spectrum relinquished by broadcasters, and is expected to bring in up

to $15 billion. the spectrum is needed by wireless devices like smartphones. this senate commerce committee overhyped site hearing at the fcc is little more than 1.5 hours. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, i am going to break senate protocol, infuriate my colleagues, forget the fact that we are going to start our votes at a much earlier time, but i have an opening statement that i just want to give so much -- even though the chairman isn't here. we are very proud of that. oh, it is julius. julius, i am breaking all the rules. i'm going to give my statement and nobody else is going to be allowed to.

there could be a kerfuffle up here. >> i support you, mr. chairman, 100%. >> obviously, it is a pleasure to welcome all of you today. having five members is glorious. i was at the fourth circuit yesterday. jessica rosenworcel was the commissioner. for the first time, they had 15 members. they had all their members there. which has nothing to do with this. anyway, ajit pai and jessica rosenworcel are wonderful additions to the board. this hearing falls on the heels of a hearing that we had exploiting the future of video and how it has migrated from one platform to another. such migration is not limited to

just video, it is occurring across the communications landscape. we all need to be in serious thought to how our communications laws are protecting consumers basic rights in light of these changes. i would be remiss if i did not start by acknowledging that you have accomplished on the commission, comprehensive reform of the high cost universal service fund and you have done a very good job at it. the committee had a hearing on this last year on the need for reform. i know that it was not easy. you had to make hard choices and you still face difficult decisions on implementation. as expected, you are reform efforts have not pleased everyone. but it was imperative that the funds start targeting universal service support areas of the country without the service that they truly need. the sec also has the

responsibility of carrying out implementation of spectrum auction and public safety provisions of the passage earlier this year. specifically the law gives the agency is simple and streamlined tasks to adopt technical requirements were the new firstnet authority. the sec should not encumber firstnet's mission for safety. we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get this right, and it is complicated already. we ask and we care about this. also, we care about another

program called e-rate. it has made an enormous change in our country. it provides our schools with affordable internet. but also the demand for schools and libraries is out spending the supply of money available by a too one formula. that worries me greatly. that is why i am troubled about the proposal that indicates he will consider using trend -- e-rate's initiative. ranking member hutchinson, i've been very bad. i just started early. >> starting early? >> but i got permission, i got sorted permission from your guide. >> mr. chairman, did i do that to you? [laughter] >> let me be clear. i support broadband adoption and

digital literacy efforts. it is vital that we make sure that broadband is widely deployed and adapted in rural and urban communities. let me be unequivocally clear. i believe any digital literacy initiatives should not compromised the e-rate program. the chairman and i have talked about that several times. finally, in this hearing, we may hear calls from the agency of statutory authority. any effort to revise or update the law must keep consumers front and center, and is something regardless of effort, and it is extremely going to be watched closely. we are not going to allow that to happen. now, that is the end of my rudeness. we have questions, but we are time constrained. we have votes starting in -- what, 3:50 p.m.?

3:45 p.m.? they may last longer. i wasn't meant to say this, that is why i broke the law by saying this. i started early. you should be able to say something, and then we will go directly to commission members and senator kerry, unless he hits me with a sharp elbow. >> let me say that i'm glad that we are finally having this oversight hearing. i think it is very important. i think it is pretty obvious, first, let me welcome the junior members, because the winter committee would very large majorities and we are glad you are on board and have a full contingent now. i want to say publicly, because i have said it before, a lot has

happened since our last hearing, and the net neutrality regulations that were put forward by the sec, which i think overstep and we are in complete disagreement with i think the activities that you are all making must be confined to what you are authorized to do. i just want to put that on the record. going forward, we did pass the bipartisan bill on auctioning the wireless bands, and the incentive options will be going forward. at today's meeting, i am certainly going to ask some of the questions that i have on that, and because i know others might want to speak, i think that this is a very important effort going forward, and that it be done right is very important also. we can explore that in the questions and thank you

mr. chairman, for going only two minutes early rather than 10. [laughter] >> i would ask now senator kerry followed by senator demint. >> do you wish to say it? >> i am going to it ask that my full statement be placed in the record. let me just say quickly, i think a lot of good work has been done on this commission. i salute both bipartisan and thoughtful considerations that commissioner clyburn and commissioner mcdowell and commissioner rosenworcel have given. i'm worried that some people, i don't want to see this important

entity get caught in the partisan crosshairs of this congress. some are suggesting a weekend or inactive fcc, that it might be much better. i think that we have to be really careful of winding up with a nonregulated communications the keenest group that would be in vulnerable to competition. i hope -- we need to have this discussion about where we are going post 92 and 96 efforts, none of which contemplated the world we live in today. it is entirely appropriate to be doing this, but i think we have to be careful as we go forward, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator kerry,

now, senator demint. >> i think our first goal is to make sure that senators are protected. burns to consumers, transparent to them i think that's what we are all about. and i hope that is the way we look at it. i have expressed a number of you what seems to be a sense in this room and in this congress, that telecommute nations haitians companies, the producers are somehow a government property or government service. private investment, private management, our job is to make sure that the competition works, that there are enough choices let the market work. when we do that, we know the customers are protected because they always have more choices that they are not treated right. sometimes, i think, as we look at it as a public utility, it is our job not only to regulate it, but to manage it. that is the sense i get

sometimes with the decisions that are coming out of the fcc. with a lot of, i think, preemptive regulations that are solving problems that aren't there yet. that is what i want to talk a little bit about today. i appreciate the service of all of you, and i have had a little bit to do to help usher most of you through this process. i appreciate your service, and i think the way you approach your job has more to do with how we look at it, maybe then you. if you feel like we want you to manage the industry, that is what you're going to do. our hope is that we can recognize it is very different than 20 years ago that we literally have dozens and dozens of competitors, ways to get content to consumers, we never even imagined. they are growing every day. the chances of someone being taken advantage of are getting less and less. i had a lot to do with things you have done and we have done. hopefully today we can talk about where to go from here ,-com,-com ma how to make competition and choice is better, not necessarily how to

run the industry. mr. chairman, i would like to strike consent to enter my opening statement for the record, but i would rather hear from the witnesses than us. >> so ordered. with due respect to my colleagues, i call upon chairman. what i thought we would have to do is have the chairman and commissioner mcdowell speak. then we would come in with questions. we want to use their time efficiently. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for allowing us to be here. implementing the new law is a key priority of the fcc today. i am pleased to be joined by a full complement of

commissioners, including my newest colleague, jessica rosenworcel. she is experience, and accomplished an excellent addition. we have been productive, collegial, and focused on issues of real importance. i am grateful to commissioner clyburn and commissioner mcdowell for ongoing collaboration and engagement that has improved our decision and process. at the fcc, our mission is to maximize the power of communications technology to further public interest, to help grow our economy, create jobs and enhance u.s. competitiveness and power consumers and unleash american innovation. we have made two minutes progress in the past three years, and indeed, private sector innovation, investment and job creation are up across the broadband economy. these metrics are up by double-digit percentages, both from looking at broadband application services and looking at broadband providers and network infrastructure. the u.s. has regained wilbert leadership.

american services are being adopted more than any other. u.s. mobile is the envy of the world. we are the first country rolling out the next generation for t-mobile. our efforts to unleash the opportunities abroad focus on broadband gaps. first, the section gap, we are focused on freeing up more and better import license and driving efficiency in the use of spectrum networks and devices, removing regulatory and other barriers and mobile broadband buildout. and moving forward on innovation like spectrum sharing as a new and additional tool to free of government spectrum for commercial use. specifically, i want to thank the committee for its work to authorize incentive options. the fcc now has the challenge of implementing the unprecedented mechanism. we will be the first country in the world to do so. continuing a proud tradition of u.s. leadership on mobile policy, and i look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee as we move

forward. we will also tackle the broadband deployment gap grid as you mentioned today, about 18 million womac americans live without broadband into structure could our reform plan will modernize the services, spur buildout to hundreds of thousands of womac americans in the near term and set us on a path to universal broadband by the end of the decade. for the first time, putting the fund at a responsible budget. the broadband acceleration initiative, the fcc has removed barriers and accelerated buildout. for example, we have adopted orders to in addition to the broadband gap, nonprofit and private sector leaders must tackle the barriers to broadband adoption and literacy, one of

several private initiatives to promote solutions to major challenges. the successful program is created thanks to the leadership of senator rockefeller and senator snowe, was integrated in every classroom us are, we have adopted modernizations of the program, including removing school's ability to strike the best deals for broadband and we remain committed to this important program. public safety communications is a core mission of the f. c. c. and we are on schedule implementing the provisions related to firstnet, helping deliver on the promise of nationwide and are operable mutations were our first responder. we have also improved mobile 911, and we are working on next-generation 911. for example, americans will be able to send text or photos to 911. the fcc recently led a process culminating in isp, knitting and

subscribers -- in the international arena, we are working to that consumer consumer protection and empowerment as a quart fcc responsibility and we have taken action in many areas, including smart phones in the letter. i appreciate the committee staff report on the subject. i want to highlight not only with what the fcc has accomplished, but to highlight what we have done. we've taken many steps to modernize our programs and make sure they are responsible. our major reforms are saving hundreds of millions of dollars. in addition to our programmatic changes, we also regularly review the agency's rules and practices and we have illuminated unnecessary rules and data collection. we have done everything in the statement and more with the lowest number of employees and tenures. i have the honor of being confirmed by the senate in 2009,

i said i would work to focus the fcc on promoting investments, unleashing innovation, fostering competition and protecting consumers. those remain my goals and i look forward to working with this committee and with my colleagues on unleashing the opportunities adjudications technologies for our economy and the american people. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner mcdowell. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member hutchinson. this is my first opportunity. i want to thank the senate for confirm my comments, they were able to hit the ground running. little did i know that they would be hitting the ground running before the u.s. senate 48 hours being sworn in. they can handle it, i'm sure. we have plenty of work to do in the coming months and years. i believe that america and the future is bright when it comes to putting the power of new communications technologies into the hands of consumers. specifically, i believe we are in the early days of the golden

age. we can encourage and strengthen america's leadership in wireless if we first implement the new spectrum law with simplicity, humility, and regulatory restraint, acting, work harder to ensure that federal, state and local governments really wish more spectrum for auction. and third, commence a comprehensive effort to adopt policies that make it easier to deploy technology that enhances spectral efficiencies. when it comes to implementing the new law, we should learn from past efforts that resulted in unintended consequences and counterproductive consequences as well. new actions -- new auction rules should be appropriately minimal by adopting deregulatory flexible use policies that will make any rules future proof.

for innovations we can imagine today. rules should also offer opportunities for small, medium and large players to bid for and secure licenses without excluding any player, as congress intended with the law. the fcc's inbox is full with many other matters as well. we must conclude are proceeding on universal service contribution reform as soon as possible. this silent and automatic tax increase is eating into consumers wallets. it has been as high as 18% and it must be updated as soon as possible. furthermore, we are overdue for modernizing our media ownership rules. based upon the record before us and recent court decisions, and a minimum, the 1975 vintage newspaper broadcast band is seen as outdated in today's competitive digital marketplace, as the white repelled long sideburns and disco music are of

yesteryear. not only must we stay energized and unified from swallowing the highly successful, nongovernmental, private sector multistakeholder model for internet governance, but we must find allies through out the world, especially in the developing world throughout this letter. thank you for having us here today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, commissioner. i will start with questions followed by senator hutchinson, senator kerry and senator demand. i appreciate the fcc's commitment to expanding the recent broadband across the country. i have said that. i also share your passion for making sure that broadband is a widely deployed and adopted in rural communities. we want to make sure that they study the efforts considering broadband through the beat-up

program. we want to better focus resources on those endeavors that have proved to be effective. so i appreciate the fcc's recent efforts on promoting digital literacy, such efforts should not under any circumstances proceed expense of the future program. already, annual demand for it e-rate funds is now asking for money available by a too one factor. there are three of you, i ask each of you if you could commit to me to support the e-rate program. i must remind you that i ask for a yes or no answer and i got all answers of yes. we are going through a repeat performance. the world changes. please give me a yes or no

answer. you promise not to take funnel funds from e-rate or use this for your digital initiatives? >> mr. chairman, yes, i think. the answer is yes. we are committed to strengthening and supporting the e-rate program. digital literacy is important. we won't do anything in digital literacy that would undermine the e-rate program. >> that would allow you to answer yes? i believe so. >> so you say yes, please. >> yes? commissioner mcdowell. >> yes. >> commissioner jessica rosenworcel. >> yes? commissioner ajit pai. >> yes. >> excellent. not much time on that. this is for the chairman and it has to do with the mobility.

in the context of fcc's universal reform, service reform, you and i have spoken about the important roles of wireless services, which they plan rural areas. we have discussed the mobility fund, which will help support the deployment of wireless services that are underserved today. prior to her fcc actions to perform universal service funds, our offices discussed the importance of making sure that the fcc's efforts helped bring wireless service to rural areas that do not have it now. but it is my understanding that the largest holder is a spectrum in my state of west virginia that may not participate. my question is, can the mobility fund help poorly served states like west virginia, even if local carriers choose not to take part, number one, number two, what other steps can be taken to bring wireless services to these rural areas? >> we hope and expect that there will be broad participation in the upcoming auction for the

mobility fund. it is worth noting that for the first time we have identified mobility as an independent universal service goal. it is contributed to universal service to everyone in their homes, but also recognizing that people want and need mobile service when they are on the road to and from work, etc. that is the purpose of the mobility fund. it will take the first step with the auctions. we hope for broad participation. we are committed on the goal of getting mobile broadband to the parts of the country that don't have it. where the economics don't support it. but where it is important to ensure that consumers have mobile access to i think you, sir, and i call upon the ranking member, the distinguished senator from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i would like to ask

jessica rosenworcel a question. it is about broadband networks for emergency responders. as you know, you have granted the state of texas a waiver to deploy the emergency responder network in the 700 megahertz wireless band. it is further along in its efforts to comply with the parameters of the grant than any of the other jurisdictions in the country, i am told. and they are prepared to start using them at work as early as this month, just in time for the start of hurricane season. my question is, because texas had moved to try to meet this very important season that afflicts us regularly, is it possible that the timetable can be achieved, that they will get that waiver to be able to go

forward so that they can actually deal with this issue? >> i hope so. as you know, prior to congress' enactment of firstnet and the public safety proceedings, there were a small number of waivers granted. we understand that the end tia, which had responsibility for her first -- firstnet, we want to achieve the goal of the statute of having one inter- operable public safety network for first responders, we also have to to take into account the kinds of issues that you're talking about. can i ask you would if it would be a priority in your opinion to try to work with all of those issues and assuming that they have met all of the requirements that you would be able to move expeditiously? >> yes. unfortunately there is a small number that you described for texas.