been issued by the department with new technology to get us to 100% or anything like that? >> representative trompson, we are happy to brief you and your staff on where we are. all that's been done the numbers are available, i just don't have them at my finger tips at this hearing. let me also say, however, that as we move forward we have to recognize congress also gave the secretary the power to waive that requirement, and i think implicit in that if it's not feasible, practicable, affordable what it would have undue interference with all of the cargo that needs to transit into american ports for real-time inventories for the manufacturers of the country. that's all things taken into account. whether that interfencer with lawful and legal trade we get enough of a benefit that it makes it worth it. and we believe that there are other ways currently available to get there.

well, i'm aware of information that you share from time to time. what i would ask that if you have the current rational for not doing it and whatever data supporting it. i think the committee would be some on the committee would be interested in seeing it. i appreciate your indulgence. also, can you tell us how much of this cargo congress said should be screened before it comes to this country is actually screened when it gets here? >> yes, i can give you those numbers. i'll be happy to provide those numbers to you. >> so your testimony that some of this cargo is already here before we look at it? >> it may be. it depends on the source, but

again, there are multiple layers that go into examining and knowing what is in the containers that are? ships bounds for the united states. some of those layers begin before it gets to the point of exit and it has to do with trusted shippers, it has to do with other initiatives we have particularly some of the large ports of the world. others have to do with what in particular the coast guard does before cargo is arrowed to enter a port of the united states. and in between there is the exchange of a lot of manifest and other information necessary to evaluate whether cargo is high or low risk. there is a whole system set up. i don't want to leave the public an the committee not only we're doing 100%. we're doing quite a bit but the 100% as the standard is not yet

attainable. >> yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from california, the chairman of the subcommittee on cybersecurity and infrastructure protection security technology. >> thank you, mr. chairman i thank both of the witnesser. i might say some discussion about application of while it would not assisted in the terrible case in colorado, we did have a debate on the floor of the house whether we should have the lone wolf provisions allowed for the patriot act. we won it on the floor. and it was consistent with what the administration was supporting. so i appreciate the fact that it is now recognized as current and continuing threat to us that is the operation of the lone wolf. maim secretary, i want to thank your department for the

excellent briefing classified briefing we received yesterday on domestic nuclear detection office and i think some of the questions asked with respect to the last issue were addressed there, and i appreciate that. and i appreciate the work that is being done there. we're going have a subcommittee open hearing on that and other issues with the ndo tomorrow. very interested in your prepared testimony with respect to dhs imprementing a curriculum for federal, state, local and correctional facility law enforcement officer with respect to community-oriented policing in california, for instance, we have post officer standards and training commission that establishes the curriculum for all law enforcement officer who are allowed to carry weapons and

community oriented policing is a part of that. i look forward to see exactly what your department has. i would be most interested in elaboration on exactly what the indicators of violent extremist activity are that you mentioned or reference in your prepared testimony. the reason i ask that is this, in the aftermath of fort hood, it was very difficult to get some to admit that we had missed a whole lot of red flags with respect to majors a sad. when we a joint hearing asking representative of the administration d. od what the red flags would be and how they would be implemented with respect to him. it was difficult to get a response. if you are preparing a curriculum that is assist local and state law enforcement

officials as to those signs that hopefully will help us identify before violent behavior takes place. what are those signs? >> well, a couple of things. one is the curriculum is based on the community policing idea with the idea that police officers deputies sheriffs whatever are normally the best position to witness something tact is, techniques other indicators without spelling an unclassified setting what those indicators are. let me say that we have involved local law enforcement including california and the development of this curriculum and part of it includes taking 62 cases of home grown terrorism or proported tropical storm from a variety of ideology and mapping them out as to what happens so

we can precisely look at what were some of the things that early warnings signs trip wires things that should have alerted lawrmt. -- law enforcement and it can't be it can be as simple communication with known terrorist that becomes available all the way to unusual purchases of guns and unusual purchases of explosive i haves. >> how do you distinguish between the speech versus that which is an indicater of potential violent action. what i mean in major nied hssan. he went into a rant about justification for radical islamist attacking those in the west. and yet that was not reported,

that was not acted upon, it was not -- i would consider that an indicater. is that such an indicater in the curriculum that you're presenting to law enforcement including my state of california? >> perhaps, and i don't want to get hasan issues. they have issued a report on that now. all of these taken together when you look at the department's efforts on cve countering violent extremism. there are a number of things. number one, we need to get a better understanding of what is going on in society that leads to creation of violent extremist. can we get some of the root causes. number two, how do we partner with nongovernmental agencies ngos other groups that may come into contact someone who is

moving from your ease spousal of believes to becoming operational. number three, how do we better train our local law enforcement to beware of tactics and indicators. one of the best ways is to provide case study and analysis from the events that happen within the united states or that happen in other countries. >> director olson? >> if i could add a couple of points. dhs under secretary janet napolitano leadership is taking lead on this along with fdi and department of justice and ntct. one way we contribute to the effort is analytically. we have a group of analysts that lock at the question of radicalization. we generated a number of an lettic products to understand a what you're talking about congressman in terms of the pathway from radicalization to

mobilization of violence. helping to explain what the identifiers are so we can use that in training to local law enforcement and first responders to recognize the signs. and thoan take action when somebody is on that path and we can stop that person before they do take action. >> i appreciate that. i'm just very concerned about this and tony blair said two days ago that the west is asleep on this issue. even he underestimated the power of the narrative of the violent islamists. and i just hope that we have learned from our . >> gentleman from texas, recognized for five minutes. >> we thank the chairman and the ranking member for the hearing and acknowledge the witness and thank them for their presence this morning.

first, let me acknowledge the passing and funeral of inspector phillip prather who was assigned to the houston decision of the federal incompetentive service his home going service indicated the record of service. i'm grateful that director patterson was able to attend and secretary and i hope we'll have a dialogue after over the next couple of days. thank you for your letter of sympathy to the family. i would like to put on the record, there is a need for more responses hr, human resources if you can look into it i appreciate it in firms of working with the family. let me ask a question that if the homeland security department was operate rabble? 1993, i think it was 1993, 1994,

in the action of the oklahoma bombing, 95. it would have been considered domestic terrorism under the homeland security department? >> yes. i actually worked on the case. i would say, representative, it had the hallmarks of domestic terrorism. >> do we as a department your department the opportunity to review concern with the domestic terrorism meaning actions that may be driven by american citizens? >> yes, representative, as i testified, i think matt testified, we look at terrorism from abroad and from within. can be as islamist be motivated by over ideologies. yes. >> so, um, would situation that would have wired and set booby

traps and others in a residential dwelling that has now left dwellers outside of their home for a period of time and if it had been triggered could have caused massive loss of life, would that warrant homeland security involvement as local jurisdiction do they have to call you for that? >> well, the aurora tragedy and the true tragedy is under investigation, and i don't want to get too much into the comment on that there's a lot we still don't know. i would say that with respect to the response and the local police, by the way, if i might make this point. one of the thing we have been doing is doing a lot of training around the country on how to respond to different types of terrorist potential a-- attacks.

one of the scenarios we have training along the lines of mumbai style attack. we have multiple shooters organized. and we have done that training. >> i have another question -- finish. >> and there aurora police were there and their response last week is to be commended. but with respect to is that there a federal presence so forth in an instance of that type. >> let me express my sympathy and applaud those law enforcement. it was a difficult time. i would encouch that homeland security be present. i believe there are issues of domestic terrorism. let me move quickly to another issue. five members of congress attacked a staff person in department of state department on the grounds of being associated with a muslim brotherhood, the mother, father, and brother do not want to to

call the staff person name. i know, the staff person is an outstanding american. they sent a letter to the state department, inspector general, my question is broadly, there are letters suggest there are muslim brotherhood operatives in the united states government to me that is homeland security issue. my question to you, barring classified information, if we have to have a classified response at the later time, are you engaged or have you been notified or are you investigating the idea of staff, present staff, being associated with a muslim brotherhood in the united states of america? they sited the rom dan decision. they cited de facto u.s. recognition of some entity brps is homeland security in this? this is our jurisdiction if that is a accusation? >> we have looked into this.

the fbi has looked into this. we found no credible evidence that such activity is going on. >> could you reneat again, madam secretary? >> we have looked into the fbi looked into, we have found no credible evidence that such infiltration is going on. >> and the fbi being the component that would have an intelligent component would it be for the cia but the fbi would have used their intelligence resources is that you're suggests. >> i would say siewm so. i don't know who they use. that would be my assumption. the u.s. department of homeland security and fbi found no evidence. >> that is correct. >> thank you, chairman. >> the gentleman from texas mr. mccall. >> thank you i want to thank the witnesses, first, madam secretary let me come plenlt you on the attention to the caribbean. we chaired an oversight hearing on the caribbean being the third

border, and i know i got reports back from governor, and representative that did a great job. i certainly appreciate that. i chaired a hearing just recently on the use of drones. as you know, we have been strong advocates for the use of dhs drones on the border. there's another respect the united states and entire your. i bring it because the gao four years ago said that the ts and dhs had a role to play respect to security assessments and a national policy and lane year ago we had a man who used this attempted to use this drone but it was alerted by the fbi attempted to blow up the capitol hill. your response from the department you had no role with respect to the drones and you

were not going to send witnesses to testify at that hearing. i want to register my disappoint. i personally dhs has a role. in fact every member sitting on the subcommittee republican and democratic agreed with the assessment. in fact the witnesses if too. it's rare you have a privacy expert and law enforcement expert agreeing on the same issue. dhs has a role through the officer of privacy and also through science and technology and other departments within dhs to dealt with the issue. can you explain to me why it's not given any attention. >> and i can't speak to exactly how the role was expressed last week. here's what's going on, yeah, you're right. yes, you're right. we used drones on the border extensively. with respect to the regulation of drone use in interior of the united states, which is

relatively new fee fee nonthat i think this the focus of the committee, the regulatory with the faa because if a frofl issue but we are working and will be working with the faa to make sure that homeland security equities are protected and with respect to science and technology, that director we do have a funded project, i think it's in california locking at drones that could be utilized to give us situational awareness in a large public safety or disaster such a forest fire. and how they could better give us better information. >> time. i appreciate that. i hope that you, you know, the ranking member prepared to offer legislation with me. i prefer to see it happen in administratively. and the executive order within your department to coordinate with the justice department and the faa.

i do think faa controls the safety of the airways but doesn't focus on security per se. i think that is a appropriate role for the department. but director olson, it occurred not too far from my district. i went to the memorial service. it came out, the report did thea. it's been down played. workplace violence incident, senior intelligence officials including your predecessor down played the e-mail exchanges between mr. assan and mr. al lackey. east doing research we investigate by looking at website and one documentation

this was a politically sensitive issue. i think that the contact resulted in the death of 13 soldiers and the next 9/11 the biggest terrorist attack on american soil. real briefly one of the e-mails particularly literally outlines exactly what major assad ask on may 27th 2009, and end of it he said i would assume the suicide bombers who same to kill enemy solders would kill innocents in process is acceptable. i mean, there is a huge red flag in the e-mail. as a former doj prosecutor. i can't imagine i can see san diego's concern. i can't imagine why wfo did not give that greater attention. do you have any response? >> i say, congressman, the webster report extentive study how focused the fbi responded

and i know that director of the fbi has indicated that a number of the recommendation from the report are being implemented as far as changes to information sharing and information and technology. i can say at the personal level also former prosecutor nctc, the shooting along with the 2009 attempted attack are seminal events for us as far as trying to learn what we can from those lessons. they are hard-learned lessons. we need to continue to be vigilant to do better at spotting those types of indicators and sharing that information appropriately. >> i hope so you when you have a major on the major base on the united states the number two terrorist in the world. it's not transmitted to the general and the commanding officer in charge of fort hood. i think it's unacceptable. particularly after reading the e-mails, i feel mislead. they mislead the congress by down playing the extent and the

importance significance of the e-mail. i had time is expired. >> general lady from california mrs. richardson is recognized for five minutes. >> [inaudible] it's not working. it's probably not being picked up. >> will you give me a little more time. >> start over. you got it. >> all right. >> start the clock over. >> thank you, sir. madam secretary, as i was explaining my role here on the committee an also having where i live represents the los angeles

and long beach. throughout my whole district is impact of the port in that part that we both benefit and we also have challenges. my question to you is follows i want to build upon the questions of ranking member thompson. when you submit the information you promise for the record would you be willing to include that it may require a briefing or a classified briefing to this committee, what do you view as the continuing vulnerables within the nation's ports what resources right now need to be able to creases the gaps in the security port. we would like to assist you with that. number three, what is being done to look at specifically the small vessels threats that now becoming of great concern to us as well. i should let you know i submitted a letter to the gao it was provided to you as well as at the time back on may 7th of

2012, i wanted to give you an opportunity to respond to your willingness to provide us that information. >> ere always willing to work with on issues of the port. obviously critical infrastructure for the country and we work with a variety of partners on them. they're complicated entities. large ports like los angeles. weld be happy to work with you. it. >> and supply the information? and it some will be classified. >> yes, sir. thank you. >> also, being a part of the e emergency communities and preparedness committee, we recently had an update regarding the reforms that have been done due out grant program. and i want to commend you in your staff for establishing transparency with those who utilize those programs with state and local government and getting their thoughts. i would like to ask you what do you expect to do in terms of continuing to address how we can make sure those fund are in

fact-risk-based by traditional formula and specifically i'm referring the minimum requirement amount that i believe is in statute that allows for example, well over $2 million tounge various cities that certainly don't rise to the risk we see in others. >> well, i think there's a chairman noted in the opening remarks, we have more and more risk-based approach to a lot of things. , i mean, from how tsa look at traveling public how we deal with containers, to how we award grant monies. threne is a little bit of policy issue, i think for the congress to consider which is to say at a certain amount risk evaluation is not perfect, it's somewhat of an art not a science and spreading some of the monies around might make sense but on the other hand where we have high-risk areas and known risk areas. we need to be sure to address

those. >> okay. would you be willing, though, to consider working with the committee to establish those policy changes that would give you the ability to ensure that more of those are in factories-based specially given the tremendous reduction your department has unfortunately suffered. >> yeah. absolutely in the fy13 budget request, we propose the congress take up all of our grants and look at remerging them, reconfiguring them in such a way to maximize our ability to use risk-based criteria. so we have that proposal before the congress, and we'll be happy to provide you with a copy. >> and my oh question is, in your response regarding the port, one of the things that you mentioned the difficulties of implementing 100% cargo is potentially the cost and

international relationships. could you describe to the democratic national committee -- to the committee what you're doing to establish these agreements so we can go forward and have a more stringent system similar to what we have internationally with passengers? >> well, i have not personally dealt with the trade ambassador. the trade represent on this, i know our staff have had a discussions, also had discussions simply port to port not with respect to the trade representative but with respect to the actual shippers consignors an towarders in the like. there's been a broad variety of approaches to issue. >> would you consider meeting with the trade ambassador because when we had the trade agreements that came before the congress four of them, i asked the trade ambassador specifically had he worked with you to establish these agreements so at least for those going forward we could eliminate the problem and the answer was no. >> always happy to work with the

trade rep. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. chairman, would you allow me to ask one question to mr. olson? >> yes. try to keep it. director has to leave at 12:30. i'm sure you're aware in the committee there's many discussions about terrorism intelligence. could you share with the committee what you would view would be the percentage of intention that you receive implies that the terrorism that this country is facing is based upon those being directed by their islamist faith? >> a percentage directed. >> the way to answer that question is in terms of our work, certainly a substantial majority of our work focusing on al qaeda and the affiliates. so certainly substantial majority of ntc focus on al

qaeda and the al qaeda ideology. >> do you -- could i ask a followup question. you're kind. >> i know. that's part of my personality. [laughter] you bring out the best of me. [laughter] >> you might get a hug, sir. ..

after 13 soldiers were killed and many were injured. i stated at the timehat political correctness was going to kill people and i think it did in that case from what we have learned about that particular incident. the more there they were gaps and communications between your department and the fbi and other entities that ms. mccullough has brought up and my friend from california has brought up. it's certainly something that just really concerns me. i think the blood of those dead soldiers fall on the heads of members of this executive branch because they did not do their work and because political correctness prevented major

assad from carrying out the attack that was blatantly obvious to many people. and i hope we change all that. because i think political correctness is going to kill more people if we don't stop it. had it existed at the time of the fort hood incident, how with this new -- they describe in your written testimony have prevented the tragedy from happening at fort hood? >> representative, first the webster report goes into the fbi dod issues. to my knowledge and i have not read the full report but dhs was not there. but i must take exception to the way that the question was worded, because the men and women i work with and that men and women at the fbi -- >> mama i asked you about how

you -- madam secretary i apologize. i have just a short time. >> you asked a long question with a lot of insinuation in it. i don't pick it's fair to the men and women who work in this area all the time. >> i asked a question about the new curriculum that you have described. would it have prevented, if it had been in place at the time, prior to the fort hood massacre, would it have prevented major hasan from carrying out that terrorist attack? >> it's difficult to give you a firm yes or no but i can tell you the curriculum does go into the indicators of someone who is moving to -- from extreme ideology to operational and i'd be happy to provide you a briefing on that. >> i would like that and i think ms. lungren as the similar kind of brief and i would be very interested in hearing that. also, how with the curriculum

that you describe in your testimony prevent homegrown terrorist attacks without singling individuals or groups due to their religious or political beliefs and with that question and i want to remind you that your department, individuals in your department have described anybody who is pretty military or military matter or a gun owner, a christian conservative individual, that's me, is a terrorist. how would you prevent me being singled out as a terrorist that them find people like major hasan not being a terrorist? i don't think i'm a terrorist. >> i think representative, as you know, the point to which you refer was prepared under the prior administration and issued after hours, very early on. we have since taken corrective measures to make sure that these things are precisely identified

and it is something that requires all of us to continue to look at what are the root causes of terrorism, what are groups that can help us that are outside as i said before, the public at large can have a role of this see something say something aspect of things. so it's a very difficult area and we ate to the cognizant of civil rights and civil liberties and privacy issues. we are very cognizant of those but on the other hand we are trying to learn lessons after every incident as to what we could've done better. we are not static. >> thank you maam. my time is about expired and i have a previous engagement but i just want to say in closing that we have got to get past this political correctness. we have got to start focusing on those who want to harm us and i think it's going to take intelligence gathering and boots on the ground to do so. within the department as well as

the cia, the fbi as well as the military is to try to prevent these kinds of attacks and mr. cho -- mr. chairman i yield that. >> the gentleman from michigan mr. clark is wrestled -- recognized for five minutes. i don't think your microphone is working either. i don't think it is being picked up though. that is what i'm saying. >> i'm sorry. >> try the other microphone. [inaudible] >> is it turned on? >> it's on. [inaudible] [laughter] >> the one that was used by --

yeah. >> thank you mr. chair. secretary nepal a tone that thank you began for recognizing and protecting our aviation system as being a key priority in your administration. as you are well aware i mention detroit is a high risk area. is the underwear bomber had been successful, a huge commercial aircraft could have blown up right over metropolitan detroit. my concern is this. how to best warn the public about an imminent danger like this so they can take cover immediately. i feel that one of the most reliable ways to do so would be to alert the public through the

free local broadcasting media, such as local tv and radio. while many people in detroit relied on local television such as seniors and also some economic issues facing the region, a lot of people are struggling financially. just this week i have been working with helping to stop addictions of homeowners who are currently in foreclosure. many households, they can't afford cable but they have free local commercial tv broadcastino them. many folks do have cell phones. the unfortunate issue is when we had our power grid shut down and we had a blackout essentially in detroit, the wireless networks got overloaded and we could not communicate with our cell phones. that is why i think it is important at least to have access to radio broadcasting

through cell phones. i will soon be asking the committee on emergency communications, preparedness and response, to hold a hearing to examine these issues on how we can best alert the public by continuing free local tv broadcasting and enhance the public's access to radio broadcasting. do you have any thoughts on how we can best alert the public so they can take cover in the event of an attack or other emergency by continuing on the local tv broadcasting and enhance free radio broadcasting? i welcome your comments. >> yes and show done quite a bit of work in this area and you have to use multiple media to get your message out quickly. fema has actually done the most work here. but as you know, cell phones go

out but texting me work. radio, tv, other ways that people receive information, so there has been quite a development project in quite a lot of work done here. >> thank you. i look forward to working with fema to make sure that a public has access to free local broadcasting through tv and radio and i will address this before the famous subcommittee as well. thank you very much. >> mr. chairman if i could at one point in response to your question about the medias and secretary nepal a tunnel referred to training that is being done with dhs and fema in the lead in local communities. and how to respond to a shooter or a mumbai of the -- mumbai-style attack and part of the training does involve not only the law enforcement response to that training to a shooting incident but also public messaging that must go on in the event of an attack and how that would play out and the

actual workshops run through an exercise so that exercise helps build capability in those communities and that is something we are working we are working together on. >> thank you strolls in and mr. chair i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from michigan, the chair of the border maritime committee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. hopefully this microphone is working. secretary you have been asked a number of excellent questions about the cargo screening and i would just mention the subcommittee i am chairing border maritime have had a number of hearings about this and i think you will find at least the testimony that we had from your agency was that the percentage of screening right now isn't about the five percentile so it's in the one digit numerals and as also as been explained to her subcommittee that the estimated cost of client -- compliance would be 15 to $20 billion a rough guesstimate so actually we -- the house passed a piece

of legislation, the smart port act which really talks about the risk-based assessment etc. but that is not my question. my question is, i want to talk a little bit or ask you a question about visa overstays and we have again in the subcommittee, some of the things that have been rather startling, we think about the amount of illegal aliens that are in the country. everybody eyes think somehow they all came across the desert and that is not, you know, the truth is in the 40 percentile of all of the illegals in the country currently came through visa overstays and we saw that rid the recent capital suicide bombing who was on a visa overstay and in the case of 9/11 at least four of the terrorist murders were here on visa overstays and in regards to the secure communities now which i'm a huge supporter of, i'm just wondering if you could talk a little bit about the criteria

for your department when you apprehend or when you pull over for instance they have visa overstay or who may not be here or somebody that you think is a high-level risk so we don't support them because of some of the criteria that could have happened even in the case of 9/11. hijackers may have been pulled over for a routine traffic stop and had nothing else and we decided they were not a high risk priority. i do have concerns about that and i wonder if you could address that? >> well i think i have explained in many settings, we are in immigration enforcement area studying priorities in part because we have resources. we don't have an endless pocketbook and so we have focused on criminals, on recent order crossers, repeat violators and others who may be a national security risk. that process is going very well. with respect to visa overstays, beginning in may of 2011 i

directed that we go back and see if we could react and apply that population and set it against law enforcement and intelligence community holdings and dod battlefield holdings. as we did that, we learned quite a few of them, almost 50%, actually had left the country with just the documents were not linked up but we now have completed that and the priority cases have been referred to a i.c.e. for removal and we are current on setting thesis now. >> i appreciate it that. actually there was a backlog of several hundred thousand which i think has been significantly -- i think the backlog has been eliminated. good to hear that. good to hear that. one other question i would have, and mentioned about secure communities and you know as it has rolled out and now almost

everywhere really around the country, which has been a tremendous assist i think for the first responders particularly when you look at them as a force multiplier or your various agencies under your umbrella as well and eliminating or deporting i should say, deporting, many of the detainees through the secure community by using your database etc., but yet we still see that there are several areas, couple of them in the state of california, couple of cities in the state of california and i think alabama is a state that is going to be rectified by october with a supreme court ruling with immigration law. and i think that the people of alabama look forward to that and in particular of course it has gotten a lot of attention, cook county, which is essentially a sanctuary city and they have declined to participate by or federal law for secure communities. and i'm just wondering if you have had conversations with for

instance the department of justice about that? i don't think we should allow it to continue and certainly a hammer that we would have initially is the state criminal alien assistance program dollars, which is tremendous. several million dollars a year so i am saying, we are not going to comply with the secure community and on the other hand they are saying would you mind giving us all the federal money so they can pay forward ever they want to pay for in their system currently. that it would seem to me would be a place to start and if you do intend to continue to give them the funding they are asking for at the same time violating this, i guess i would look for respectfully how can we do that? why would we do that? >> well scaffer is the department of justice program and we are evaluating all options with cook county. bear award -- it even precludes them from sharing information,

any information with us so we could put a detainer on an individual and make sure they are not released back into the community before we look at them for possible removal so it's a very broad ordinance, and as i said before we are evaluating all options. >> i appreciate that and i hope that you do that. a think that is a bad message to be sending to everybody else in the country to look at those kinds of things and i would hope that you and the attorney general holder would work together to bring that to resolve and the satisfaction of everybody, who has a constituency which is every american, to make sure there are violators in the system that need to be deported. thank you. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. i now recognize the new ranking member, the gentlelady from california ms. heinz. >> thank you chairman king and that went quickly. i passed my one-year anniversary in congress last week and what

does that mean now? [laughter] thank you chairman. you know i think there's a theme going on here in this hearing this morning, and i know you are aware of that and that is port security and the issue of cargo scanning and screening. certainly it's an issue that i think still concerns a lot of us. los angeles and long beach are america's ports and it comes to that port complex. congress did pass a law that requires 100% scanning by this july 14 and that day clearly has come and gone and you have indicated pretty strongly that is not probably going to happen even with with the two-year

waiver. my first committee that i sat in here, we have the 9/11 report card, and i remember simply asking you know, were we doing enough in port security and the panel pretty much said that was an area where we were so lacking and on that, with the chairman's help, i was able to actually pass a bill a couple of weeks ago. it was awaiting passage in the senate, that will last the department of homeland security to take the comprehensive look again at our nation's ports, the gaps that may exist in port security and then come back and tell us in a classified setting where our gaps -- what can we do in the future to close those? so i know you have spoken about this a lot but again, could you

discuss, elaborate on, give us a little comfort on where you see us going with particularly the scanning of our containers? i've know a big issue is the economy, jobs, commerce and we don't want to slow that down, get one major disaster could actually cripple our economy. so where do you see as going particularly with this new technology that emerges that maybe makes this more possible without slowing down commerce? >> well i think representive lungren's subcommittee heard with respect to nuclear type material, there are new technologies and things that are in play and i won't go to that in a classified setting. obviously we have paid a lot of attention to ports and obviously we think the 100% rule, which

does give the secretary secretary the authority to waive, is not the only way to reach the goal. there are multiple ways and we also are more than willing to work with you and with the committee on trying to give you greater comfort level about the safety of america's ports. interestingly enough representative, one of the things you said is, well if there's one thing that happens, armageddon is going to occur and we will see a total crash in the market. i think one of the hallmarks of really being prepared for any kind of incident is the ability to respond and to be resilient and to get right back to work, so you will see that a lot of our work has to do with the size of the resilience point. >> i agree with that and i hope that as part of what you bring back to congress, is you know, a better plan for all of our ports to recovery in the event of a disaster. let me switch quickly to

airports, and i know at l.a. international airport we had a big issue with unacceptable highway times for people entering into this country which i think the -- presents a potential security threat at our airports. we were able to get 20 more cbp officers at lax and some specifically requested out but could you speak to long-term, the staffing shortage of our cbp agents at our airports and how we will address that in the future? >> we are spending some significant time as we look at the fy14 budget now within the confines of all the other restrictions about what we can do to increase the number of hours that we have four inspectors and the number of personnel looking at our staffing models to see if we can adjust that. we have had a problem at lax and a problem that are big and national airports. all i can tell you representive

is we are doing everything we can think of to do to rectify that situation. >> thank you very much. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentlelady said i know the number of airlines coming in and out of jfk made the same request, the fact that there is a shortage of customers and people. >> mr. chairman one of the things we requested in connection with the fy13 budget is the authority for us to receive participation and payments from port authorities, from airlines, to help subsidize the cost of additional inspectors so say for example an airline in your port wants to bring in a 3:00 a.m. flight from china, they help subsidize the cost of having to have that shifts of inspectors there and there are other ways it can work but it's something i would hope the committee could help us with. >> thank you secretary. the gentleman from michigan mr. walberg is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. speaker and

thank you to our panel today. i was hoping that your kindly goodness would produce something for the future for me as well, but thank you mr. chairman. let me go back and, there have been leaks in this administration. we don't know who and we don't know why but there have been and just to rehearse a non-exhaustive list, these leaks have included information about strikes against al qaeda and pakistan, somalia and yemen. we have leaks concerning reported cybercampaign against iran's nuclear arms program, weeks that included terrorist plans to destroy american airlines, leaks and details of cia and special operations forces efforts to kill osama bin laden, and others.

i guess what i want to ask madam secretary and director olsen, were dhs or in cts consulted in advance of these disclosures? >> we certainly were not consulted. in other words, there was no, as far as i know nothing at nctc involved in any of the leaks that you referred to. i think the main point for us congressman is that the specifics of the allegations, this is something that we take very seriously within the counterterrorism center now the director of intelligence director clapper has made a number of comments publicly about the importance of this issue and the reality that leaks have the potential to interfere with ongoing operations and it's

not an exaggeration to say, to endanger the lives of intelligence officials and others. so it's something that i know within the intelligence community we take extraordinarily seriously. >> i assume that will be your same position madam secretary? >> yes and i have spoken with director clapper and promised our full cooperation in whatever it investigations occur and also with the fbi, the same thing. >> what is your position -- have these disclosures impacted our national security? >> it's certainly not helpful, i will say that. >> that is what i would say as well. i said leaks can be very damaging and in this instance, these leaks are now the subject of an investigation and i wouldn't want to comment any further. >> let me move on from that.

you are both senior prosecutors. attorney general holder has refused bipartisan request, bipartisan request to appoint special counsel to investigate these disclosures relying instead on prosecutors to do the job. in your professional opinion, is it realistic to expect a u.s. attorney to question senior members of the administration regarding these disclosures? madam secretary? >> as a former united states attorney, they are not line prosecutors in that sense. they are presidentially appointed and senate confirmed and they act independently on the number of better so i think that's an appropriate way to proceed. >> i agree completely with that. >> so, you don't see that it would be a challenge for a person in this position, a line

or whatever you would call them, the u.s. attorney to question senior members of the obama administration regarding these disclosures? >> you no, i anticipate there will be several investigations and they will involve members of the administration, and as i said before we have pledged our full support. >> we were also corporate in with the investigation and i also would say that these questions probably are better posed to the attorney general. >> i have asked questions of the attorney general on a number of subjects and have not get -- of many answers. i would appreciate answers that we can only work with what we have. >> i do have confidence in the u.s. attorneys office in turning these questions out immediately. >> when he served as u.s. attorney, or the national security division, you would

have authorized assistance to take sworn testimony from the president's national security adviser? >> i am i'm not sure it's appropriate for me to comment but a hypothetical -- >> i thank you in my time has expired. >> the time of the gentleman has expired and the gentlelady from arizona is recognized for five minutes and welcome again. >> thank you mr. chairman. madam secretary, mr. olsen thank you so much for your testimony particularly i was appreciative of the secretaries very thorough report on the involvement and the emerging threats to our country's security. it's absolutely my honor to be here not only to be on this committee to -- but to add another arizona voice to an important issue that we all share and that is how do we increase security of our citizens and of our border?

as you no madam secretary, there have been anecdotal reports about material evidence of the presence of terrorists along our southern border. my question is, is there any credible evidence that these reports are accident and that terrorists are in fact crossing our southern border with the intent to do harm to the american people? >> you representive first, welcome to the committee. it's good to see you here in washington. with respect, -- would be one that i've read for two currently being adjudicated in the criminal courts from time to time and we are constantly working against different and evolving threats involving very as terrorist groups and various ways they can enter the country. what i can tell you however is that the southern border, the

u.s.-mexico border, is heavily, heavily staffed at record amounts, manpower, material, infrastructure and the like and we are constantly making sure we are doing all we can to make that order as safe as possible. ..

i would always say that the trained personnel board aircraft you know how to respond to events is always a very important factor. >> okay. in testimony today you said risk-based analysis which we talked about last time as well. you said it's not perfect. it's an art. it's not science. with that said given the different layers of security that you talked about where a clean person can come through the normal security process and just in this hearing room we heard not too long ago about the

various holes within and around the aircraft and other shadow of the aircraft the people that can come up and possibly plays a device or a weapon on board the aircraft. with that understanding a person coming through clean through the airport can hook up with a device on the aircraft and plan eight from the tarmac which we see a lot of problems. i see the program to be absolutely vital with a 1.5 flem annually at the cost of the american tax payer for $15. so that is truly one of your chief defense and as a pilot, that flew for 17 years, as a former federal flight officer i can ensure you the federal officer is not the last line of defense but a chief deterrent for those that wish to use an aircraft as a human guided missile. the house also recently passed a

homeland security appropriations bill that would increase the funding. now, the proposals that were brought up in the administration basically cut the program in half in essence eliminated it read of the funding level stands will this administration worked to clear the backlog and by saying the increased funding to join the program? >> representative, first of all, the reason that the administration submitted the budget requested it is because as you all know, we are working under severe budget constraints. the program as compared to the air marshal program is not a risk based program so that's why that decision was made. regardless, however, certainly if that appropriation comes through and it's back in the budget, we will make sure the program is well run and backlogs are relieved. >> is it your intent to not phase out the program? >> i don't speculate on what if.

we will see what happens. >> i will make sure all understand when you are telling me. if the program is brought up to the level of funding the contras approved that is your intent not to phase out the program. >> if there is funding for the program we will carry out the program, yes, sir. >> switching gears service members at fort hood that we were talking about today have denied purpleheart metals. and related to compensation on the basis of the judgment they were in workplace violence and not terrorism. in your opinion were the fort hood shootings by their rank who described himself as a soldier on his business card who was an active correspondent in the direction from al qaeda and cried allah in the beginning of

a terrorist act? >> i'm not going to get into the decisions of the department of defense. they have their own criteria. but i would say, representative, that an act can be both fourth lakes violence and an act at the same time, and this has all for the hallmarks of both petraeus mick do they deserve the problem at all? >> i have described how we would look at that act. >> so you classify it as a terrorist act? >> both. >> one being a terrorist act. in regards to recently -- >> my time is expired. i will yield back. >> the gentle lady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. germany and madame secretary and director for both being here today. i wanted to ask you a question

and actually i asked you to work to help us work through a problem that i'm sure you are aware of and somehow it keeps getting passed around to different people. madam secretary, this has to do with a border crossing between mexico and calexico which is on the border of california and mexico. a very big crossing. my mother grew up in mexicali, so i am very aware of it has the best chinese food in the world by the way. there is a new border crossing or expanded the border crossing going between the two, and one of the things about mexicali and mexico and calexico is that in the summer it can get easily up to 110 degrees. people are waiting to cross the

border for up to three hours with no shade standing in line and that is a pedestrian crossing. so there is an effort to make a new flame of crossing. almost all of the mexican side of that crossing has been built. meanwhile, we failed to move from our end to meet it and get this land bridge open. part of the problem is that is a gsa facility. i a understand this. but how do we do what we need to do, which is to get this bill so we can meet the mexican side so that commerce can move at a faster pace than three hours in line and the people crossing back-and-forth many of them for work and for family purposes and purchasing also so that we can move forward and get this done. will you work with us?

will you help me get us a meeting with the gsa administrator? can we all sit down? this is a very big and frustrating problem for the people that live in that the area. >> i concur and i think the physical ports along the southwest border many of them are inadequate for the amount of people the cargo that needs to go back and forth. as you identify it is probably the number-one thing you can do is provide the funding for the projects. if they don't have the funding they can't build the project but we would be happy to work with you. >> i would like to submit a letter from the board of supervisors of imperial valley where calexico sits on the border asking for some resolution come hopefully positive resolution to this. it's incredibly embarrassing to see a brand new facility from mexico having done their part and nothing happening on our side.

>> without objection that will be made a part of the record. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. term and and let me think posted to the kaput of the panelists for your service to the country. i appreciate that when you come here you get the tough questions but i also appreciate the tremendous service to perform each and every day on behalf of the nation but i am going to ask as well some questions that i know have been a great importance to me. let me start with you first. i want to be -- i want to ask you -- you know because you are at the in ctc every day to see the global the information. do you believe that it should be designated a terrorist organization? >> we certainly have seen, congressmen, the rise as a significant threat in nigeria

over the last couple of years and a particular dramatic rise in the violence that group has caused a nigeria particularly over the last year. if you recall last august the attack on the u.n. headquarters -- >> i'm aware. the record reflects. i just want to know your opinion do you believe it should be a foreign terrorist organization? >> that is the question whether to designate that group that is within the province of the part of state to make that. i am aware -- >> but what do you believe because i'm having trouble getting an answer from the department of state to beat >> provide the intelligence on the group to the ultimate policy decision about whether to designate from the pure perspective of the definition of terrorism and whether that group engages in terrorism and the answer is it does engage in an act of terrorism in nigeria and it has. >> let me take a second and just ask madame secretary what is your opinion on that?

>> well, i think i would concur with the director on all that he has said, and that is a policy decision ultimately for the state department. >> let me go through because i'm not getting the ability for the state department to make a decision. the fact is we are attorneys and we talk about the criteria, the elements. are they for an organization? question one, that is clear. to the engage in the terrorist activity? without a question we could stipulate both of those. really the third question is to the organization's terrorist activity a threat to the security of the united states national or national security of the united states either the foreign relations or their economic interests. now, mr. olson, you've testified here today that it remains focused on local and regional attack plotting including western interests in nigeria. you further testify that it is primarily focused on plotting against attacks in nigeria. it would enable a spokesman for the group of publicly threatened

to find to be cut on their way to the news out what if its coverage of islam didn't change. according to my interpretation of your testimony and each of those elements, it meets all of the criteria of designation for a foreign terrorist organization. would you agree with that? >> i would agree that the act of that group meet those criteria in terms of its activities and the intelligence supports that. ultimately come and as you may know, sir, and number of the members of the group have been designated as terrorists. and ultimately the decision of whether to designate the group is a policy called. >> but madame secretary, why would we not do that? because i think you appreciate as i do the ability to have enhanced activities for the investigation on our part that we suggest that there is testimony as well. i think most significantly the letter from the department of

justice requesting that this be done. one of your colleague agencies from the deputy attorney general specifically requesting. i have met with the cia and i represent to you their genuine concern and hope that this would be accomplished in the general himself, the african command, has talked himself about the concern that the aqim and others are collaborating with al qaeda is collaborating. so given all of those facts, why would the state department not designated them as a foreign terrorist organization if you have an opinion? >> representative, i think that is a question addressed to the state department. >> i appreciate that. i think the facts speak for themselves on that. i am fearfully and here let me go for the record my concern is we took the same stance with ttp and aqap after.

we descend into the crowded and visit it until after within the united states. so, i'm very concerned about this issue. madam secretary, let me just ask one quick sort of overarching question the overseas here in the united states are we doing enough to try to do with the issue of the visa overstay or can we do more or are we concerned about that? >> we have gone back and revisit the backlog. we are current with the visa coming in. it doesn't mean that there are overstays in the country that are problematic and we should always be concerned about that. we are open to ideas and suggestions on other things we could do. but i think from the departmental standpoint and the last 13 months, 12, 13 months quite a bit has been done from a security standpoint to look at those overstays. >> thank you. mai tais up but i'm grateful to you for your service. >> i have been informed you have

to leave at 12:30 we will do our best to expedite but we do have members left. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> thank you. last week we talked a lot about the in the white judiciary committee who. i've been hearing a lot -- i talked with a lot of sheriffs down in southeastern arizona, and they've been talking about cbp reports about where they have been a policy they just turn illegal entrants backs out if they don't pose a threat either criminal or violently. with the onset of the memos i recently got a copy of a cbp memo that says guidance for exercising discretionary authorities and prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of immigration law is and what is

states is the dinar prioritizing people that are in the organization for those that could prevent -- present de threat were smuggling. then they also said that you can exercise discretion when it is confirmed that the alien does not -- actually, to come from the alien doesn't fall far from the categories. then they list a number of different examples or key factors where they actually take into account whether they just turn them back south rather than processing them. one of them being the likelihood it would be a permanent status or other relief from removal or the alien's ties to their home countries conditions in that country. and one of the things they are allowed to do is have a voluntary return at that time that they are actually encountered along the border. hell are the agents actually going to be able to determine all of these different factors

if they are just encountering them when they are making that illegal entry in between the ports of entry? >> what they do, and i think representative we can provide you a briefing offline. but what they do is they bring the immigrant, the illegal alien to a central center, and i think we need to distinguish between man wayne the naked removal for the i.c.e. referral to the consequences that we apply along the border with respect to detention and movement back to the country of origin. that is different than i think you are thinking of like a turn away or something of that sort. we don't deutsch were always at the southern border. >> it actually does say in the enforcement context exercising discretion of prize to a broad decision including but not limited to the falling between the ports of entry. voluntary return.

and so, that is -- >> that's right. voluntary return is not turn away. voluntary return means to stay in the border patrol process for purposes of being handled first is going into the immigration court context. >> this says with a language and this does matter within these memos it says although the initial exercise of discretion review should be made at the second line supervisor level it doesn't say must be made. so that gives actually the discretion to the cdp agent at the time of the apprehension not to actually crosses the individual and take them into custody but to have the voluntary return to where they came from and so that is the disturbing thing that i have saved from this memo along with the june 15th memos is the of this of the body of discussion that doesn't actually given with the good statutory authority. >> i think that is inaccurate and we would be happy to provide you with a specific border patrol briefing on that point.

>> so it is inaccurate, but it says although the initial exercise of discretion reef you should be made, and there is -- you are an attorney. you know language matters. and that is some of the other things you have within your june 15th it also should connaught must these are the things that are troubling when we are trying to draft legislation here to not allow and have the of was that of the wall. we have the june 15 the memo you believe you have prosecutorial discretion. hhs believes they have the ability to waive the work requirement for welfare even the but specifically states that section can't be waived and we are in a situation we discussed last week where we need to be able to write the law and make the executive branch actually enforce them and even when we put these you can't leave it or you must do it it seems the executive branch continues to say we have the discretion even though the statutory -- the

statute doesn't state that you do. so if you could just answer coming you know, where do they get this discretion to have the ability to allow voluntary removal of illegal entrants when it doesn't state that within the statutory authority? >> it's hard for me to follow your question, representative, but i cannot identify a prosecutor or former prosecutor who would sit at a table and tell you they don't have discretion. it's why the u.s. attorney's office is typically don't do check cashing cases even though there is a law. you have to enforce law and a strong and sensible manner. as you know, we have actually removed more people from this country in the last three and a half years than any prior administration. we remove more aggregated so the enforcement record is quite strong. >> the time is expired and i ask

unanimous consent mr. crawford be allowed to set to participate in the hearing. without objection but this is me have to leave before we get to you but welcome to join us. the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes and will be following mr. tonkin and mr. rogers. >> thank you mr. treen and all of you for being here with your testimony today. madam secretary, i just stepped out of the roulette few moments ago to talk to a couple of college students from my area. one of the happens to be from joplin was sorry and i just want to thank you for all of your efforts after our horrendous crater that took 161 of my constituents' lives down there a year ago and you all were exemplary and unwavering and steadfast with your efforts down there and i want to thank you for that. do have a question. a couple questions on today's

issue. representative lundgren a while ago was asking about the fort hood shooting, madam secretary, and in his questioning about the fort hood shooting i would point out that major hasan was e-mail in probably the second leading to the rest and his question to you if i understood the question was how was all of this mist that people couldn't look into it when you have a major idea to the second leading terrorist in the country come and i hope i was wrong on understanding your answer but to me your answer was what's going on in society. we need to be concerned with what's going on in society that leads to the violent extremism. spec representative, first of all, we continue to watch the

progress and and your constituents are amazing. with respect to that, what i was saying is that within the whole universe of the violent extremism, we need to understand better what causes it and we need to work with non-governmental organizations, and we need to have a very strong community-based policing curriculum that looks at early-warning tactics come beavers, techniques that could be employed. so if putative internet my answer is suggesting this is a sociology issue. there were clearly lessons to be learned about the communication to and the fbi and the department defense with respect to that fort hood shooting tragedy and i think all of us even if we were not directly involved are going to lead the

webster report. >> had this been thoroughly gone through to see where the dots were not connected or why? if santiago said he a we have a huge problem here this guy is talking about jihadists ideas and said in the leading terrorist has anyone gone back to the people that made the decision not to pursue it and say we can't get into that because it is a civil rights civil liberty? i'm concerned about the 13 people that were killed. >> representative, again, dhs was not in that ford had a shooting situation personally. but we all have copies now of the webster report and we are to reading it with great attention. islamic the fort hood tragedy continues to be a touch point for us as an even and we need to learn from on how to share that type of information and make sure that as we represent the

hub of much of that information mother is reporting from the fbi or the cia come from the dhs and dod, we need to continue to make sure that information and those types of communications find their way into the hands of the individuals who can take action. so again, the webster report is one of the after action report but there have been others and those are all part of the overall effort of the national intelligence committee to respond. >> let me get back into my second question for the secretary. on the egyptian however you pronounce the name that visited the white house last month, apparently you testified that he had been through three vetting process these and no information was found indicating anything was wrong. but the chairman mentioned that on his own facebook page he had

that he belonged to a known terrorist organization. my question is when he has been vetted and refitted and a third time you send the secret service to the white house do those people that did that of setting are we going to hold them accountable? is anybody going to say who did this? he had on his facebook page that he is in a known terrorist organization. do we do that? do we go back to those people and say how did you miss this little item? >> representative, as i said to the chair, she was vetted multiple times. what happens, and what we will see out of the arab spurring among other developments is that organizations that have been named as terrorist organizations in the past may or may not be come all the members may or may not be terrorists themselves and that is what needs to be looked

at because these organizations and parties have devolved considerably over the last several years, and we see this historically as well. so if the question is did someone get into the united states? did somebody getting to the white house who wasn't vetted? the answer is no. should we look at the process as the chairman pointed out to me? we can absolutely look at that. >> i interested in the individuals and the vetting. if my friend mr. bohm ended the fighting i would like for someone to say i don't care if it was an evil thing terrorist organization or one that used to be on and not now. i would like to hear that from mr. duncan and the guy that did the fighting to tell me the reason i didn't flag his face the page that he's a known member of an organization because the arab spring we've taken that group off i just think that is going to prevent

my friend here sitting next to mr. duncan in this vetting process if he's held to accountability then rick might be a little more careful and protect our citizens a little more. doesn't that make sense? >> representative, that particular case has been looked at me and there were no mistakes made reed is the next three separate settings and no mistakes but he had on his facebook page he wanted a terrorist organization. at the white house a couple weeks ago. >> will again, representative, i think i discussed this long enough and i would be happy to provide you more offline. >> i appreciate -- i wouldn't want to see a flow chart on all of your responsibilities because you've got an extremely complicated and tough job and i do appreciate what you do but sometimes it is the little things that matter coming and if

we could go back and look at these 3i just can't get through my head these groups of people affected this fellow. >> it began in the state department because this was a state department sponsored trip to bring individuals who are now going to be potentially part of the leadership of a country with whom we have dealings to washington, d.c., and was affected in every appropriate process. sprigg again from the people that did the fighting that's why we did it so thanks for your testimony and for being here and i know you have a very complicated job. >> i would add again the law doesn't allow them into the country on musters a visa waiver. it may have evil but right now it is on the four interest organization list. he's a member of it and shouldn't have been allowed in without a waiver without your name given the reasons why. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five

minutes. by the way he saw the terrorist watch list. i appreciate gentleman from new i think it's very important. here is money from this administration and admitted they made a mistake and own up to it and see some disciplinary action if necessary. madam secretary, you're the secretary of homeland security. somebody as a member coming in this country is absolutely your responsibility. absolutely. the buck stops right there. homeland security is something i know you take a grave responsibility for and we take very seriously on this committee and in congress so let me say that's what have i want to go down and i will stop right there. in the final report of the webster commission on the fbi and the even set fort hood the was recently released at the time of the fort hood attacked

the fbi didn't have access to all the relevant data bases and even though there was for that sharing of information, they didn't have access to that to search for the information on the fbi agents who were not checking all of the fbi database is because there were so many of them and the agents haven't received training on how to use them. certain databases existed, and even when putting in the inquiry for every john major hosam, and the exchanges the databases didn't produce all the relevant information necessary for clearing on that case and i know the fbi is a separate organization, but in 2009 you broke ground on a $3.4 billion facility housing 15,000 employees, the largest project in the district of columbia region, 68 years since the pentagon was built. at that time you said we are going to have one dhs atmosphere

the dhs has a large amount of data bases. each of these does not appear to be linked in one central database with a google interface selling the simultaneous searching of all the relevant databases within a wide system. in january 2010 the fbi deployed the data integration visualization system allowing unauthorized users to search for more than 50 fbi databases simultaneously. the webster report points out very clearly the washington field office and i'm not sure which the office that was didn't search was and although he was a member of a blanket that's been redacting the counterterrorism squad he says he didn't know the double u.s. even existed. it goes on to say that let me find this to read at the time of the shootings, however, with the exceptions, users access each

database using discreet interface search engine. from my understand there are so many different databases you have a different password for every one of them you're not supposed to write this down. it's a frustrating system for everyone involved at every level not just in your agency but every agency in the federal government. it goes on to say that the historical evolution of the multiple fbi and other u.s. intelligence community databases have discreet platforms that have impeded the fbi ability to access, search, organize management in an efficient manner. so, under this one mind set that you talk about coming to the of plants to expedite the process similar for a normalizing consolidated in ticketing information and what i mean by that is we've got folks coming into this country on the fees' study and we don't know when they leave the country because

there is no intrusion staring to the agencies. this is a serious problem with the information sharing that goes back to the 9/11 commission report that talks about the stovepiping aspects of information between the agencies. the territorial disputes, the war of agencies responsible for protecting this country has got to end and as the psychiatry of the department of homeland security is your responsibility and i will wait for an answer. >> well, representative, first of all as you correctly note, those are comments made by the report as to the fbi. let me comment as to the dhs and extended an invitation to you because we actually have done the massive amount of work over the last three and a half years particularly since the christmas day bombing attempt in a nine to unify databases in su a fashion because it comes from all over the place but you also

need analytics will or else it is just so much of that. if you were to go out for a sample to our national targeting center, you would see how we are now able to process and analyze 1.8 to 2 million passengers per day as they seek to fly into this country or around this country. so the data can always be improved. it's never perfect. i'm not saying it is but what i am saying is i don't think there is a recognition by the committee yet of how much work has been done with of the committee's support >> i have to go into another system to look at the system. >> the time is expired. the reason i say this director olson said he would leave by 12:30. we will be finished in ten minutes if you can both stay. gillette from alabama, mr. rogers, chairman of the transportation committee's recognized.

>> secretary pulled on a, it's good to see today and appreciate your service and your recent visit to alabama the center for domestic preparedness. we really do know it's difficult for do to make those kind of visits so i appreciate it. you are aware that last wednesday the subcommittee on i chaired the tsa subcommittee had mr. wilson, the head of the general aviation department along with the gao testify about a study the gao just completed on four and fought school training or training in the schools of illegal individuals in this country. the report was pretty upsetting and shoot over a program of years this has been -- i won't go into the number because i can't but not an unusual occurrence. they made several recommendations. the gentleman from the tsa acknowledged all the

recommendations were accurate and that his department already started working on repairing several of them. what i'm asking you about is the very next thursday you testified before the judiciary committee mr. london brought this up and i've seen the videotape when you disagree with that. can you tell me why you disagree with of the gao report and that testimony? >> the tsa witness was on another point but with respect to the gao report, the flight school that it was focused on -- and those were as of 2010 and before what i was taking note of is that we have already fixed that problem moving ahead. what we haven't done and what is the gao recommended is institutionalized with memorandums of understanding those are in process right now.

>> but you're talking about with regard to the one school, not across the flat school system. >> with respect to the flight school system. >> after your testimony we have reached out and they came back and said that is flatly not provable and that is what disturbs me. >> it's not because what we have done is a practice that wasn't committed to writing and it now is. it will be is in the process of being drafted. >> that was in their observation and i would like to get that reconciled because it is disturbing years after 9/11 and we have evidence that on a regular basis people are in the country illegally can get flight school training. >> if i might, respectfully, if you have such evidence, please, share it with us. >> we will share it because we would like these reconciled i take this very seriously as you

know. also earlier in the ceiling i was in the armed services couldn't be here but mr. thompson raised this issue with you about u.s. citizens and those of our here being able to get flight school training without being bumped against the no-fly of list and he's introduced a bill to change that. i agree with the effort to remedy that but i want to take more time to study what we need to do so i've asked the crs to look at this and they said you already have the power that the secretary can just designate an individual or category of individuals that must be vetted under current statute by a understand you told mr. thompson that you do need additional statutory authority. >> what i told him as a would be nice to taibbi it up because there is a lack of clarity. but with respect to this, when somebody's on the no fly listed

as a u.s. person we have a variety of ways of knowing that what they are doing before they apply for certification but they are not that it opened up against the system until they are applying to the faa. >> that's the problem and what we want to get remedied because you are right if they apply for the license they are bound against but as we found for the terrorists they just want to learn how to take off and fly. we want to get it fixed so that somebody that is applying for training with the they are in this country or not legally. i would urge you to give us any proposed language would like to see happen and i will be working with mr. thompson and the rest of the committee to get it done for you to respect the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and i appreciate your flexibility in allowing me to come and

participate in the hearing. secretary napolitano i am a former tech so i am very concerned about the threat to the national security with respect to the remote control in particularly come and the co-founder of the caucus and that is one of the main concerns is be addressed on an ongoing basis despite the repeated requests state and local police remain without electronic countermeasures also called jammers used to protect from these. the fbi text may be hours away from the incident site. at the same time we spend tens of millions of dollars to give hundreds of jammers to afghanistan according to the gao report half of those will simply collect dust in storage. what is your plan to help state and local police bomb squads share in the united states? >> i will tell you representative that is a new one we meet with state and local representatives of the time. we meet with them also when we travel learn of the country and i've never heard the issue raised.

i will be happy to look into it. >> i hear that issue a lot because being the chairman of the caucus in the house, they've raised that to me and it's why i'm here today to make sure that you are aware of it and what a critical tool that is in helping to prosecute the war on terror with respect to the ied so your attention would be appreciated. >> i want to thank secretary napolitano and dr. olson for the time and testimony and the answers you gave. we look forward to working with you. members may have additional questions and we would ask you to respond in writing. the record will be held open for ten days and without objection unless you object the senate stands adjourned.

let me begin to open up the discussion by asking this what exactly is the nature of the clash between macarthur and truman? is in the clash over policy? is this a problem of personalities?

monday senate intelligence committee chairman dianne feinstein spoke at a forum on u.s. global intelligence and security issues and weighed in on their recent national security leaks. then on tuesday senator feinstein said she should not have speculated earlier about the white house response ability to read from the world affairs council, this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> good afternoon everyone. hope you are all enjoying a nice lunch that we have here today. thank you. thank you all for being here today. certainly delighted to be year. the world affairs council is educating the public about the issues that are so critical to the world and our times. of the service it performs in this capacity is truly in valuable and the distinguished

speakers series is one such service that we are all going to enjoy the benefit of today. today the distinguished speaker we are honored to have with us is the person who has given her entire adult life to public service, and i think serves as a model for what makes our country so great. from her early days in california and san francisco politics to her current role as the chairman of the senate select committee on intelligence, senator feinstein has worked on behalf of her nation's interstate is personified selflessness and the bipartisan leadership of pittard i've been fortunate that the opportunity over the years to interact with senator feinstein on numerous matters of importance to national security. her knowledge of the security landscape combined with her absolute integrity in addressing the facts has very appropriately and her the reputation as one of formations visionaries on these critical issues of our time. i always feel fortunate to be able to your center feinstein's

began by looking for work to her talk today. so ladies and gentlemen, please strine me in welcoming to the stage the chairman of the senate select committee on intelligence, the honorable dianne feinstein -- [applause] and here to present the award. >> thank you. to those of us that care so much about public service as was said, there is no finer public servant in this nation or the world than senator dianne feinstein and else said, every time we listened to the cementer we learn as she covers this nation and the issues that we

care about. just to mention she sponsored 109 bills and co-sponsored over 206 in her amazing career and we will throw in she was one of the most respected mayors and voted the number one respected mayor when she was in san francisco. on behalf of the bowl of the world affairs council, it is our privilege to give this plaque that says to the honorable dianne feinstein, chairman of the u.s. senate select committee on intelligence the outstanding international public service award for your amazing leadership for this nation and the world. senator feinstein.

yet [applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you. now i speak? all right. [laughter] welcome ladies and gentlemen, members of the diplomatic corps and the press club and all of you that care about this great country and its position in the world, i am very pleased to be here but there is only one reason i'm here.

if she were a cowboy should be a roper because i do not do lunch speeches and engagements and she called and said what i and i said you know i don't know about the day or votes. i hate to sign up for something. >> please, please, please coming and you know how she is. [laughter] secure ibm. and if you would give her a big round of applause because she's a very unusual and a special woman. [applause] as for bush, when i first ran for the united states senate, northrop grumman was one of the only defense plants the what let me come and see what was being done. at the time co and here i am they won't let me sit down and see what is happening in these

plants. northrop wasn't like that and from this day forward, i came to have a great appreciation for the openness, for the kind of leadership and can't was wonderful and he left big issues which he has fit into just amazingly. so the only mistake that he made was to remove the corporate headquarters from california and place them in washington, d.c.. so, that is the only bone i have to pick with him. i need to ask you to give me a little bit of space. i have a very bad cold so you are going to be coughing and nose blowing but please put up with it. i apologize for it on antibiotics and prednisone so poorly that is going to take care of it. but obviously i had to show up,

so here i am. i've been chairman of the committee on intelligence for some 11 years. he came over from the house and became my liaison on intelligence, and then when i began the trend three and a half years ago made him staff director and i would like to introduce you to him. what david please stand? [applause] we resolved that one of the first orders of business was to take a committee that had been partisan and change that in to a totally bipartisan effort, and i am very pleased that we have been able to do that. the vice chairman as censure saxby chambliss.

he and i worked closely together. i trust him. i believe he trusts me. i try to keep people was fully informed as we possibly can. and we had extended our oversight. the different activities of the 16 big intelligence agencies of our government we are in the process of completing what will be a major study on the interrogation and detention of high value detainee's. there are treatment. unfortunately come some time ago, the republican aspect pulled out, so this is in effect a majority report but it will be 4,000 pages long. the staff has gone through some

5 million pages. 20,000 footnotes, so we hope to have that finished soon and will go to the kennedy for its recommendation and we will see what remains classified. in our oversight of many different areas, the staff has been branching out particularly as we go into certain operations we have a special effort on the cia three weeks looked at the intelligence. the key to these to minimize collateral damage. to go for the targeted individuals.

what. the collateral damage is greatly reduced beyond what you may read in the press. i have asked please, please, can i release these numbers and the answer is no. they are classified. so that is about as far as i could go on that. most people ask me right away are we more secure today than we were before 9/11? and the answer ladies and gentlemen is a resounding yes, we are. in the first place the agency down, so intelligence is rapidly analyzed by i think the core

across the community and read a tune which means argued against to develop problems in the intelligence and then sent on to wherever it should go. we counter intelligence center to protect the homeland, to specialize on threats against the homeland. we have the fbi which has developed a 10,000 plus intelligence unit within the united states and some people are surprised at that and they say well, the director of the fbi in his public report in an open hearing to us pointed out that there have been some 20 arrests this past year of people engaged in the pursuit of a terrorist plot against this country who have been stopped. i think that's very important. i think it's important that we

continue it. it is my belief that people will come after us if we can. there for the safety of this nation, the protection of this nation is our first challenge in the main goal. i think to show the difference, you can look at the tape down. you can come to understand the rehearsals that went into it, the care that was taken with intelligence. the specialization of the people who participated, and the fact that it was done without an american life lost in the process. there is no question that it's created friction with pakistan. but it's very difficult for most of us to believe that osama bin laden can live in a relatively large compound in a military related community for over five

years and that community does not know that he's there so this was a very important take down because this was the head of the movement to kill americans, 3,000 of them on 9/11 in those great buildings in new york city. and was carried out and most interestingly enough, the head of that mission was in fact at the time the daughter of the counterintelligence agency now the secretary of defense a great californian and a good friend, leon panetta to come and there was a mission very carefully and very well carry out. ..

it has a way to go. thrust of this is to be able to have come a if you will, the kind of central command from which orders can flow and try rds be adjusted quickly, and i think we are on our way to that. we are in the process right now of doing an intelligence authorization bill, and that will be marked up in the intelligence committee tomorrow afternoon. part of this bill will address

what has become in -- a particularly egregious situation and that is -- it's a very difficult area, because people ask you a question. there can be a statement made, totally inadvertently, reporters like the gentleman who is going to question me in a few minutes, have developed a unique skill of piecing things together. [laughter] so they get one little bit in one place and then they go to two to three, or four or five additional places and they managed to put together a whole story. the problem with this is that it jeopardizes actionable intelligence. it jeopardizes people who are willing to help this country and it creates a view, well why

should i help them? i'm not going to be protected and nightlife may well be in danger. so that is the main part about leaking that you really do jeopardize an effort that is beginning operation. we have a process in the senate, whereas the leadership, and i'm very proud to say that we work closely with the house chair and the ranking member. i had the privilege of going with vice chairman chambliss and the house and senate chair and vice chair to afghanistan a few weeks ago, so we work closely together as well and share information. that is bipartisan. i think that makes for much more coherent, stronger civilian oversight.

let me just point out the need for civilian oversight of intelligence agencies. it is critical and it is key and is as important as civilian oversight of our defense, that intelligence is overseen, that intelligence is conducted within constitutional bounds, that legal opinions are able to be reviewed by us to see the grounds that certain actions were taken on. this has become more and more difficult because presidents and administrations want to carefully guard their in-house papers and don't want to show them to the other branch of government. but without them, we cannot make judgments as to whether certain things were initiated with legal approval, and that is very very important.

the bill that we will be marking up tomorrow essentially adds an administrative process within the department for the investigation of leaks. the director of national intelligence would ask the inspectors general to carry this out. we have some very good inspectors general. we may need to give them some additional authorities, which we can do but up to this point it appears to be adequate. really, for those leaks that are likely not to have federal prosecution, because federal prosecution is very difficult to achieve, that there will be an ministry to process that could go up to termination for someone that knowingly leaks classified information.

it will also have a cooling off period. when you leave government with the classified status, of one year, before you can go on as a pundit on a station and talk about all you know about intelligence. so, steps are being taken. let me end with one other thing and then we will go into the next for him. i happen to believe that the most dangerous part of the world today is the middle east. i happen to believe that not enough attention is centered on it. i happen to believe that something that happened in the spring over turnings of government has really metastasized into a very unpredictable situation. and i will leave you with one

description. egypt, which is the largest country in the middle east, and to some extent with its culture, its economy, a very very prestigious country also has agreed to a two-state solution, recognizes israel's right to exist and whatever one might say about mubarak, he has been helpful to israel in terms of keeping guns out of going into gaza and being a supporter of a dialogue which might yield the two-state solution. and that is a major list in that part of the country. we now have a parliament that is 50% muslim brotherhood, 25% selloff list and even more -- salafist and a member of same muslim brotherhood is now the

president of the country. i was told the other day that what he most wants is the release of the blind sheikh, who was responsible for the bombing of the 1993 world trade center bombing. i hope that is not correct because it is a nonstarter i believe that this country. and south -- so how egypt goes and what happens, i think anyway is going to set a trend. its size, its complexity, difficulty, the military part of it, the islamist part of it, the secular part of it, how this all comes together and whether a stable, somewhat progressive government, came come out of this remains to be seen. and on top of that, we now have serious and i'm sure we will talk about that in the queue and

day, so i won't go into it any more right here. but, i just want to say to you that we need to beef up our intelligence in the shadowy world of terror, of asymmetric attack, of asymmetric armies, terrorist groups, not nation-states. the biggest weapon we have is good, actionable intelligence and so our job is to keep that strong and be able to see that we can protect their people, prevent an attack and do the right thing for the world at large. so i am delighted to be here and we will go on to the next part and i thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you senator and thank

you again all of you for being here. let's start where you left off in syria. a very uncertain situation and the defense department just today renewed the warning that some salafist governments, have shown up in the middle of the fighting and there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the syrian opposition and also the intentions of president assad. whether he might for example use chemical weapons against his opponents, what he is doing moving chemical weapons which he has begun to do. do we have the kind of intelligence that not only takes pictures of the sky and shows us yesterday moved something that get to that cumin question of, what is his intense? was sort of government to the opposition types invention?

what is assad's intent and desire intelligence good enough? >> i think not at this prime on those very difficult questions. i think that we know where the cw, chemical weapons, are kept. there are a large number of sites. there is a large variety of chemical weapons. i think it's fair to say they are being watched carefully. any movement hopefully will be detected. i think it would be absolutely dastardly for assad to use chemical weapons against his own people, and i trust he has the good sense to know that. with respect to developments, i think the arab league's

statement that they would work with him to find a safe harbor for him is very significant and hopefully we can support that and a safe harbor can be found, and he can retreat. i think if he and his family leave governing, there is an opportunity to put something together. now john we were talking before we came in. the problem is this. there are literally dozens of groups and some of them are rather shadowy and we don't really know. probably the biggest one is the national counsel in turkey and it looks at this point that is a group that we should try and work with. i jotted down on a piece of paper this morning, actually david did it for me in a staff meeting, things i think we should work to do. the first is the no-fly zone.

more difficult to do, and we can't do it as easily as we did in iraq but i think that can be worked out. secondly, to support the national counsel, to see if we can help grow them into a consequential, diverse, representative group that has groupthinkers and more heat in more light to support the eric -- arab league. keep out weapons, gasoline out of the country, blockade ships, peak ships with gasoline out, both from iran as well as from other places in the world. and the last one is carefully guarding the chemical weapons sites.

i think the risk of civil war is enormous, and you know, you look at this someday soon you think they are already in a civil war and other days you think no, not quite yet. but there is a very interesting article in this morning's financial times ladies and gentlemen, written by a professor at au by the name of jepsen that speaks to the history of syria and particularly the minority groups, the alawites and what could happen in the civil war if the country split and an alawites territory stretched up the coastline up to turkey and it's bad news. so keeping our eye on this country very closely, think making a serious statement and backing them up where we can with action and some of this has been taken such in keeping

weapons out of the country, weapons that would go to the government, encouraging the defection of high-level officials. this is now beginning to happen. it happened in libya and that made for a trendline of how this thing is going to go. those would be my suggestions. >> let's stick with that for a minute because it is terribly important issue. on the issue of stopping arms supplies, one of the problems was flights over iraq from iran to syria, though stop but there are some indications that they ever stamped, using syrian air force planes. >> well, candidly, let me express dismay and prime minister maliki's support of syria in this respect. the united states but a lot of american lives and treasures

into iraq and to see that government is not going to cooperate, that would be i think a very bad happening, and i would very much like to encourage the cooperation of the iraqi government in this regard, because it would be bad for iraq too if this thing turns into a mass of civil war. and i think the american people do not want it's on the ground. some people talk about it but when it actually comes to putting americans in what would become another war, i don't think it's the right thing to do. the other thing that i think is really important is encouraging both russia and china to play a role. they are major global powers and

major global powers have a responsibility to the rest of the world to exert that power in a constructive way. and this is really an opportunity to do just that. i think vetoing a u.n. resolution, think their reluctance to support the arab league is a huge mistake because it means these countries are really not going to help solve some of the big problems in the world, and i hope they will change and become a dominant force so that the three great powers unite with russia and china to really work together to create a backdrop for some very positive action. >> the other obvious answer you mentioned is the situation in egypt, but we have a parallel situation potentially on the goal line heights, israel's northern border. the departure of president mubarak has led to some

instability in the sinai and greater troubles and gaza with things moving across that order. do you think there's a similar danger on the northern border as assad loses control? the family has show we say had its issues but one thing they did do for many years was to maintain the peace upon they go along heights. that could all fall apart, couldn't? >> well that's right. lawn that indeed was going to e very good news. israel was compelled by all of this and no one should say to the contrary.

it is estimated there are 50,000 rockets, some of the more sophisticated than in the last shelling israel got from lebanon from hezbollah, but those rockets are a real concern. there are so many and any relief by iran or hezbollah to begin to fire on israel would create more problems. >> and the other issue with hezbollah of course and we have just seen it again and bulgaria, try minister netanyahu and barak have fingered -- for the terrorist attack on israeli tourists in bulgaria. hezbollah has always been supplied through syria, so what are the implications? is there an opportunity here to

strike a blow against hezbollah and against iran's ability to export its brand of islam in syria? >> well, you are right. largely, a lot of the rockets i believe came from iran through damascus in -- into lebanon and hezbollah has profited for the more militant quds force republican guard of the iranian government. i think there is no question about that, so we begin to see these. i have no information that iran was responsible for the israeli terrible bus tragedy, but that is the talk. and israel has said that they will respond in some way at the appropriate time, so we will have to wait and see.

but to my knowledge, no evidence has been put forward at this time. i would hope that iran would take this as a very cautionary note. it's hard for me to see any benefit to iran, to increase this kind of terrorist activity. it will only make what has been a pattern of about six different regencies appear solid pattern that they are extending whether it's cypress or anyone benge anywhere else, whether it's attacking, trying to work out an attack on the saudi ambassador here. it would only say that this has become a pattern and a practice and that of course would create a whole different dimension with this thing. i also don't really believe it -- i think all our efforts right

now should be on p5+1. the next meeting later in the week i think this week, and all important meeting to see with the iranians will put on the table with respect to nuclear enrichment. and i think most of us know what the solution is. so this is a very important meeting and my hope would be that the iranians would lay down a proposal that would have some merit, and they would recognize that there really is nothing in it for them if what they want is medical isotopes. that can be provided. if you wanted medical program, that can be provided. if they wanted energy program, that can be provided but the one thing that is being asked for is, do not become a nuclear weapon country. and again for them of not

becoming a nuclear weapons country in my view is so different and so much more. they can be recognized in the world community. you can have recognition of the government. you can have the beginning of an economic trade and began to ratchet down the sanctions which are now ratcheting up and really beginning to bite. you can sit down with iran and discuss a whole host of other issues that they have wanted to do, they say, for some time now. so there are a lot of things and getting that p5+1 organization run by catherine ashton and with saeed jalili, the saudi -- excuse me, the iranian negotiator. >> i suspect your kind words about journalistic tradecraft,

which by the way so you all inch dan is exact he what intelligence analysts do. they take bits and pieces, it's called mosaic theory. >> thank you very much, john. >> we are just doing the same thing they are. in any event have you seen any indications that the iranians really are prepared to negotiate away their rights to develop nuclear weapons? >> i think they are coming to the table to indicate a change. in october, lady ashton wrote a letter to jalili suggesting this. i believe it was november or december when jalili responded positively, and so the big power plus one meetings began to. the first one, think there was a lot of encouragement and i think then there was discouragement.

but i think people have to think long-term, absent an agreement, what happens. iran continues to enrich the, goes up to or beyond the 20%, becomes a nuclear weapons power, gets attacked by israel, and i believe israel will not let this happen. and then what is the reaction? iran is militarily and strategically -- iran will respond. how is unknown. in one of the things that i think we need to spend more time on is, if they do this, and we do that, what is the next step? and this could be cataclysmic

for the entire middle east. so it is in my view, the most serious question on the world map and in terms of security, the number one issue right now. we have to get it right, and we have to encourage china, russia to help iran stop syria gets solved, egypt data will -- stabilized in tunisia looks like it's moving along quite well, livia gets stabilized. is really critical or any number of things could be a major eruption. >> let me go back to the intelligence issue that i started with and that is the question of whether as these issues become more complex and we find ourselves facing threats in northern mali and the northern part of nigeria and places that we have not

concentrated on, do we have, particularly the human intelligence, the cultural knowledge, the geographic knowledge, to cope with these threats as they become more widely distributed, despite the set says -- success as you said? >> i think it is building. this is the problem. all of this requires cultural and language skills on the part of our people, and which the intelligence community has been making a major effort to improve. by john, it takes time. it isn't overnight. and you can't pick up 2000 years of history overnight and this is an ancient part of the world. so it is much more difficult. it is also interesting how divided this area is. countries into themselves

divided, sunni versus shia, etc., all of the northern groups. so it is very hard. i would say that we are better than we were. we have got a long way to go. >> a fair answer and my understanding is that it's difficult sometimes to recruit people who have ebo language skills, operate in nigeria because of the other issues he we raised which is security. it's simply hard to get clearances or for people who did not fit a more conventional pattern but whose cultural understanding, religious knowledge etc. is what you are referring to. >> that's exactly right. that's exactly right. >> so what can we do about that? >> well, this is a double-edged sword. you do have to be careful. i mean, you don't need a double

agent, and so it's a difficult world. malian particular i think is a huge problem because that is where al qaeda is now going to, and it's terrible. so hopefully -- there is going to be an increased effort. i can't really talk about a. >> let's talk about leaks, why don't we? [laughter] you knew we were going to have to do this. one of my core questions as we have seen secretary panetta, director clapper, institutes and new procedures to restrict leaks. you have talked some about it and your committee is working on some legislation that would restrict briefings to the press. >> you picked up that part. you didn't mention that part.

>> yes i am i did. we can talk about that off-line. i do have some questions about that. we will open it up. is during the bush administration making a case for war against iraq, the counter arguments to what the administration was putting on the table about iraqi connections to al qaeda and iraqi wmd, it would not have been possible under some of these conditions that are now being said, and i wonder if that leaves the american people when it is done responsibly poorer without access to people who say look, i know what my director said publicly and i know at the white house said publicly that actually our intelligence doesn't support that. >> well let me answer it this way. one of the reasons why i wanted

to become chairman of the intelligence committee is to see that never again does the intelligence community to a national intelligence estimate called in and i.e., that is both wrong and bad. saddam hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction. we had our secretary of state, a distinguished four-star general, stand before the world at the security conference, security council of united nations and hold up a file that he claimed was a biological weapon from a mobile lab. there were none. that is a real blight on our intelligence and it should never, ever happen again. i voted to go to war in iraq. i read that classified report very carefully. i read the white paper. i believed it. shame on me. and i voted yes to go to war on

what was america's first preemptive war. and so i have a sympathy for your question obviously, but the way to remedy the situation i think is to see that policymakers have the right intelligence, instead of intelligence which is just plain wrong. >> and yet there is also a reversal of the opinion, which is one of the strengths which is the intelligence department is not always agree with the defense intelligence agency. >> which is exactly what happened in the problem was as i recall it, every time there was a big difference the cia prevailed with the energy department or with the military department, and now the analysis has been changed. it is much better.

i would like to believe that this would never happen again, but we had a policymakers trusting intelligence and that intelligence could not be trusted, and that is a big problem for this country. >> the other part of this problem i think is, what prevails really in my experience as the white house, not so much the cia. >> the white house owns intelligence. >> the white house has been known on occasion to leak. [laughter] i said at a conference 20 years ago at least, whatever administration that was, that the shift in state was the only one that i had ever encountered that tended to leak from the upper decks. [laughter] still not a bad line i guess. so, general clapper can do what he is doing in congress can act but the president as you just

said has control of all intelligence and some of the leaks we have seen recently that have created such a stir, do have i think have some fingerprints on them that are not from the central intelligence agency or dni or the defense department, and how do you discipline that? >> i am aware of that. i think that is a correct analysis. i think the white house has to understand that some of this is coming from its ranks. i don't know specifically where, but i think they have to begin to understand that and do something about it. there is one book they can read and they will see it very clearly. i think that should read the case.

i think you know, what the president actually knows about this, it's difficult because with respect to intelligence, he is in a bubble. he has his daily brief called the pdb, the president's daily brief, early every morning so he gets the briefing of intelligence. i don't believe for a moment he goes out and talks about it. i don't believe the briefers go out and talk about it, but who knows who else. i think that the importance of this has to be really set by the president himself and hopefully he will do it and i think he will most likely read the book and see it himself. >> have you had a chance to talk to him about this? >> no. >> because, you cannot if i'm right compel testimony from members of his staff.

>> right. >> are there any legal reports because as you said the president ultimately has control of all classified information and so if members of his staff are declassifying it, it's generally not a legal issue. >> well, that's right and the president can declassify it like that and one of the things we do in our bill is asked for simultaneous notice that we will know if an issue is declassified and they will know why. right now we don't no, and so that has its difficulties. >> let me go to the audience questions now and one of them is on this very topic so it's a good base to start. can you be more specific about the danger of leaks? who is in danger? >> i tried to be specific. people who help us are in danger. we are collecting information.

we collected in two ways. one is satellite intelligence and the other is human, or humans in the human intelligence comes from people and therefore those people who are what are called assets for intelligence officers are in danger. and i can tell you, without any doubt, that the recent leaks have been jeopardized. i can tell you without any doubt that we have lost assets because of them, and that is who was hurt. and then we can get the right information. some of it you know like tahrir square, you can read on social media and that is a good thing and we need more social media i think but what a government is thinking in what the military is thinking out various terrorist groups are thinking only comes

from a certain acquisition of materials from people who have the ability to know that material and that is the key to human intelligence and it's difficult. >> alright, with the audience here, this is a good question on a topic we didn't touch on but i know you have seen it first-hand recently. how important is an improved bilateral relationship between the u.s. and pakistan to domestic and international security? >> i think it's very important and i would love to see an improved relationship. i'd like to do anything i possibly could to help that improved relationship. i think there is a new head of the pakistan intelligence unit. i think we have made very clear to pakistan what our concerns

are. in the pakistanis to agree to open the routes in which equipment comes into afghanistan. i think that is a very good sign. we now have another problem with attacks coming from pakistan directly into afghanistan so there is a real need there for pakistan to step up. this will be a test. will they step up? will they stop these attacks? and we need to develop trust. the trust is very low between the two countries. so these are some of the things that i think need to get done. >> the other thing i think you have spoken on, just to follow up on the audience question, a lot of those attacks across the border at least according to general ally in our from the haqqani network based in the tribal areas and we still to this day have never designated them a foreign terrorist

organization. i believe you are in favor of that. >> i've been in favor of it for two years. i have written letters to stay to that effect. i introduced a bill that they should be designated a terrorist organization. they fulfill all of the criteria and i think -- c. i have a concern that terrorist groups are not going to negotiate with you when they think they are strong. they will negotiate with you when they think they are weak and making them a terrorist organization and putting the full-fledged support behind that designation may be effective in moving them into a different place than they are now. but it may not too. just letting things go -- things go as it is makes sense. state has had a reservation. i'm not quite sure why.

you know, we know that there is some effort to start negotiations with certain groups, but i don't see it candidly with the haqqani. they keep killing our people and every time they do, it certainly sets that effort back. if they go out and kill our people, a very singular message that they don't want to negotiate. >> we will just continue with that for one more week. the declaration has been sitting on secretary clinton's desk now for six to eight weeks. as you say, you and others have been talking about this for two years or more. let me take one more run of why you think this hasn't happened. there's no question that they are a foreign terrorist organization. there simply is not. >> i happen to believe secretary

clinton is really a fine secretary of state and in the interest of full disclosure she is also a friend and has been a colleague and i have strong feelings about her, positive. so it can't be hey hillary and and -- but i've written a number of letters. i have outlined my concerns. she is well aware of them. i think the house has passed a bill now. that will likely come over to us. that is a conditional fill, should rather then shall. >> right. >> if that is the best we can do that is fine with me, we will pass it. >> but still no explanation from her. >> not at this time. >> more audience questions. could the u.s. intervene in syria without a u.n. resolution?

>> could the united states -- >> intervene in syria without a u.n. resolution? >> well, i suppose so. i don't think you have to have the u.n. resolution to do the things that i outlined. those are things that we could certainly work on on our own. the united nations resolution that could be most helpful i suppose is the fallujah and resolution. up to this point they have not been effective and so i wouldn't bet that anything would come out of the united nations that wouldn't do it. well because china and russia vetoed it so china and russia become pivotal in this and they are in the neighborhood, at least russia is, and i think they have to step up and if the middle east explodes, certainly there will be involvement, and i

think to just sit back and see this huge worlds turmoil evolve does not make me particularly proud of our great nation. >> do you believe that good actionable intelligence and intelligence transparency are completely at odds? >> yes, to a great extent i do. intelligence transparency, as i would take its meaning, means to make it public. you can do that. you just can't and have good actionable intelligence. one of the things that we have learned in this asymmetric battle that we have been fighting is that the opposition is not stupid and that the internet has changed the nature of communication. so it is very easy to communicate it, and so you have

to be careful. i mean that was the wikileaks, assange, the problem with all of these things going out, millions of bits of intelligence, which did have a downside for the united states. there is no question about it. so, by the nature of what intelligence is, it is to give you information, which can enable you to make a correct decision, whatever that decision may be. so it's information for policymakers. to make that all public immediately jeopardizes the people that have given you that information. at jeopardizes your ability to properly respond to it, and it kills i think any effort to really solve this.

these are difficult problems. these aren't average problems you get intelligence on. these are special problems. >> you have raised another really good issue that i know you have paid a lot of attention to them and that is cybersecurity and what more we need to do in that area. we are facing an enormous challenge in china, smaller but somewhat more sophisticated operation out of russia and even some of our allies who are acting in this role, so what sorts of things do you think need to be done to increase the security of our communications, especially as we move more and more to the cloud? >> cyberis the number one national security problem facing us and i think people don't really understand the degree to which these intrusions are made. because a lot of them are classified and cannot be

released. in the private sector, banks for example that a rob like the royal bank of scotland, for $10 million, 10 or 8 million, it was in 2008 from 250 atms. they did montek lions to know that. citibank, 10 million. they did montek clients to know that, so cyberattacks companies by the thousands of people don't know about where it becomes extraordinarily difficult is where you get the critical infrastructure, the command and control which were taken down in eastern europe during that. a command-and-control system in the taiwan strait could be taken down. our command-and-control command and control system, the faa, the electric grid. all of these things that would throw a country into a real

turmoil can take place. the big defenders are china, russia and to some extent israel. let me just put the cart on the table. so, it's really very important that we have i think, some kind of international agreement on cyber. i even doubt that the chinese central government knows the depths to which there are cyberpenetrations into this country coming out of certain parts of china. thousands and thousands a day of cyberintrusions. so the part of a bill that the committee staff has done, and that we have worked on together, and is a part of lieberman,

collins, rockefeller, feinstein, carver now is the information sharing part of that bill and we have worked very hard. we have shared it with others. i just told wes, please take a look at this final draft quickly. this is fully transparent. we try to work with people in the liberal wing who have concerns about privacy so that privacy can be taken care of. we try to do it on a basis that high-tech has an understanding, defense has an understanding. it's not easy but when this information is shared under the bill, you are absolved from liability. and so that is shared with the government. so i think that is the positive nature of this bill. companies don't want to share data, but in this arena, we --

if we don't stand together we will all hang separately. i really believe that. >> another interesting point you just raised is the bipartisanship of your committee and chairman rogers and ranking member rep or spurred her's house intelligence committee which is in rather sharp contrast to the atmosphere on the hill these days on issues as important as the federal budget. how is it that those two committee seem to be the exception to what increasingly is the role of partisanship? >> i see one of the things, and this is -- this could be wrong but i think one of the things that we broke down from the very beginning and david was a huge help with this, is to bring the two staffs together. they work separately. there is democratic staff and republican staff and who the

staff director and his or her ability to do this is really critical. i think this goes to the top and i think the intentions of the leaders of the committee is critical. i think breathing individual members when you learn something, putting them in, i mean saxby chambliss and i may have some disagreement. i can't think of any at the moment, and either we will compromise them or i will give or he will give -- is the overall mission is too important that we get our work done. it had been six years before with no intelligence authorization bill, which is supposed to be done annually. those are the laws under which the intelligence community works ended a change in those laws and we have now passed three. that is a good sign and we have

done it by unanimous consent, by working together, by using the mechanism of where two staffs, house and senate, get together and work from the beginning by having openness and sharing between the two houses. i find it very easy to talk to mike rogers, dave ruppersberger and saxby chambliss and that is really quite wonderful. >> but again it is the exception and here we are in a country with where millions of americans are suffering economically and your home state has been hit hard. we have wes bush's company trying to deal by -- aligned with the sequestration, with no movement on that issue. so why is it that the rest of the congress can't do what u.n. senator chambliss and

congressman rogers have been able to do? >> for a while i thought well, it's the nature of what we do and that i became chairman of the energy and water subcommittee and lamar alexander from tennessee is the republican ranking member. we are able to work closely together. you have to talk. i think you have to understand how this government is set up, because if you compromise in an ideologic straitjacket, it becomes a 30 word. compromise in our democracy becomes the word that affects change. because it's the only thing you can do to effect change. if people resist on both sides and won't compromise, so that they can pound their chests and say i helped shut down the

government or you know, i don't care what happens, i'm going to cut everything, it is no help. it is of no help because there were where are problems that you have to handle and the only way you can handle them is to try and compromise. so the ideologic straitjacket doesn't really work for a working body. and i am lucky, i have two people who understand that i work with, and i think that is the positive of it. and i just think we have to understand that we don't do the country a service to elect people who won't make something work, who won't ever come to a conclusion. if it's not their way, it's the highway and that is just plain wrong. you can't do it in this kind of democracy.

remember we are not a parliamentary. >> some people now wish we were. but you know we are now looking at presidential election that is starting at least down that same path with attacks and counterattacks and ads that don't always stand up to scrutiny. it's kind of the zero-sum game if you will and i think a lot of americans what has happened to us and why is this going on? >> well what it does is it provides -- divides and it polarizes the people and it takes a kind of -- it puts campaigns on a very low level. the one thing this democracy, and you know i have been on the judiciary committee now for the 20 years i've been here so i up have been up close and personal with the constitution and really come to have a great appreciation for this document.

it is the foundation of all law and the government that comes out of it with a three equal branches is really amazing. this is an todd very much in school so people don't really understand that what our government depends on it is an electorate. people have to become willing to grapple with these issues in a thoughtful way, not taste on bumper strips or how signs, but really think about these issues. join groups. i was a member for a long time of the world affairs counsel, of the league of women voters, of decisions, great decisions in my early days where i could really postcollege meet with people, meet with professors and meet with others to learn more and

more and more. one of the great things about being a senator is you have access to all of the great minds in the world. you can pick up the phone and call someone, whether it be mark zandi or i'm going to call professor jansen and say which you come down and sit down with some of us and just tell us a little bit about your thoughts? i mean that is an amazing thing to enrich somebody's decision-making ability. and we need more of it, not less of a. >> we have time for one last question and i will in this case referred to one of our foreign visitors. thank you for coming. on the visa waiver issue, the opportunities and risks from an intelligence and security point of view. >> oh i know who that is. [laughter] >> left the record show that i did not identify the questioner. >> in any event, i historically have not been a big fan of the

visa waiver program for everybody. is a huge program. it admits at least 23 million americans a year. whole number of countries that don't have to have visas. the problem for us is we have no exit system. we don't know if those will return home. it's shocking but it's rude. and i have been working with the department to try to see that they come up with an exit system and we keep for years we have been promising and it doesn't happen and it doesn't happen and it doesn't happen. you know you go to china and you fill out a little slip that is in triplicate. it says the purpose and this is where you are staying and when you are going home. we don't know where anyone who

comes into the country is or whether they go home. we don't even know when you talk about illegal immigration how much of it is from visa waivers where people come here and just stay. we don't know how much of it is for pieces where people don't leave. and that has been a long-standing problem that i have wanted to fix, and i think it's fair to say i have been a member of the immigration subcommittee and judiciary. i am actually number two in seniority and i was pushing and pushing and pushing. the weight is measured is with i guess it's called the rejection rate and that is measured on when they know people do not come home and then certain countries are not admitted until

that rate drops. forget the percent right now but it's a low percent. there are countries that have been very helpful to the united states, that are good friends to the united states, that are very concerned about it and i am aware of it and i'm hopeful that we will have an exit system soon and that should go a long way to handle a problem. >> thank you very much. you have certainly lived up to your well earned reputation. >> thank you very much. thank you everybody. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> week thank and appreciate the senator for sharing her time and insights with us today while she is being d.