too often used is that we are in a time of transition. the department of homeland security must always be any time of transition. we must be agile and vigilant in continually adapting to evolving threats and hazards. we must stay one step ahead of the next terror attack, the next cyber attack, and the next natural disaster. the most important part of my day as secretary is the most important part of my day as secretary is the morning intel brief, which ranges in scope from the latest terrorist plotting to a weather map. we monitor world events real time and take action, when necessary, to confront and respond to these threats. in support of russian authorities, we are keeping a close eye on the sochi olympics, which are beginning pretty much as i speak. within the last 48 hours, we have, out of an abundance of caution, issued advisories to air carriers and others based on

what we've learned, adjusted tsa security measures, and are continually evaluating whether more is necessary. also within the last 48 hours, in response to a very different type of hazard, fema has delivered 95 generators to the state of pennsylvania, where several hundred thousand people are without power due to the snow and cold weather. in the homeland security world, no news is good news, and no news is often the result of the hard work, vigilance, and dedication of people within our government who prevent bad things you never hear about, or at least help the public protect itself and recover from the storm we cannot prevent. our overall challenge within the department of homeland security, and within the homeland security community of the federal, state and local governments of this nation, is to learn from and

adapt to the changing character of the evolving threats and hazards we face. 9/11, hurricane katrina in 2005, the underwear bomber in 2009, the deepwater horizon oil spill in 2010, hurricane sandy in 2012, and the boston marathon bombing in 2013 illustrate these evolving threats and hazards. the terrorist threat we face is increasingly decentralized, self-motivated, and may be harder to detect. the cyber threat we face is growing and poses a greater concern to a critical infrastructure that is becoming increasingly interdependent. natural disasters are becoming more severe, causing significant economic losses, and with more variable consequences driven by climate change and aging

infrastructure. the basic missions of the department of homeland security are, and should continue to be, preventing terrorism and enhancing security; securing and managing our borders; enforcing and administering our immigration laws, safeguarding cyberspace; safeguarding critical infrastructure; and preparing for and responding to natural disasters. as we all know, at the time dhs was created in 2003 it was the most substantial reorganization of our government since 1947. in my opinion the creation of a department of homeland security in 2003 was long overdue. many other nations who face threats similar to ours had ministries of the interior or a home office with the similar basic missions of bridging national and domestic security, counterterrorism, and border and port security.

perhaps because our nation was protected by two big oceans from many of the world's hot spots, we thought that one department of the united states government, devoted to the mission of homeland security, was unnecessary. that thinking obviously changed on 9/11. further, consider where all the 22 components of homeland security existed before the creation of the department in 2003, scattered across the departments of agriculture, energy, justice, treasury, transportation, defense, health and human services, and the general services administration, including departments that do not have national security or law enforcement as their core mission. in just seven weeks in office as secretary, i have already seen the wisdom of combining a number of these capabilities within one

department of government, when i convene a meeting to discuss how the latest terrorist threats might penetrate the homeland, the participants include dhs' intelligence and analysis office, customs and border protection, tsa, immigration and customs enforcement, citizenship & immigration services, the coast guard and dhs' national protection and programs directorate. put another way, with the creation of dhs, a terrorist searching for weaknesses along our air, land and sea borders or ports of entry is now met with one federal response, from me. preventing terrorist attacks on the homeland is and should remain the cornerstone of homeland security. through our government's counterterrorism efforts in both the bush and obama administrations, we have put al qaeda's core leadership on the

path to defeat. but the threat has evolved. since about 2009, we saw the rise of al qaeda affiliates, such as al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, which has made repeated efforts to export terrorism to our homeland. our government, working with others, must continually deny these affiliates a safe haven, a place to hide, train and from which to launch terrorist attacks. we are very focused on foreign fighters heading to syria. based on our work and the work of our international partners, we know individuals from the u.s., canada and europe are traveling to syria to fight in the conflict. at the same time, extremists are actively trying to recruit westerners, indoctrinate them, and see them return to their home countries with an extremist mission. last night i returned from poland where the attorney

general and i met with my six counterparts from the u.k., france, germany, spain, italy and poland. syria was the number one topic of conversation for them and for us. syria has become a matter of homeland security. dhs, the fbi and the intelligence community will continue to work closely to identify those foreign fighters that represent a threat to the homeland. we face threats from those who self-radicalize to violence, the so-called lone wolf, who did not train at an al qaeda camp or overseas or become part of an enemy force, but who may be inspired by radical, violent ideology to do harm to americans. in many respects, this is the terrorist threat to the homeland, illustrated last year by the boston marathon bombing, that i worry about the most. it may be the hardest to detect, involves independent actors

living within our midst, with easy access to things that, in the wrong hands, become tools for mass violence. we must remain vigilant in detecting and countering all these threats. at the department of defense, i was witness to the extraordinary efforts of our military and the other national security and intelligence components of our government in countering terrorist threats from overseas. here at home, given the evolving and increasingly diffuse and decentralized threat, i believe it is critical over the next several years that dhs continues to build relationships with state and local governments and the first responders in those governments. we must also continue to encourage public participation in our efforts on their behalf, through the nationwide suspicious activity reporting initiative, and campaigns such as if you see something, say something, which is on prominent

display at airports and even at the super bowl five days ago. homeland security is a team effort. border and port security is indispensable to homeland security. good border security is a barrier to terrorist threats, drug traffickers, transnational criminal organizations, and other threats to national security and public safety. in my first month in office i visited our southwest border. smuggling organizations are responsible for almost all those who cross the border illegally. by boat i saw the south texas border on the rio grande, and the shallow places in that river where someone could walk about 200 feet across without getting his knees wet. by helicopter i saw the arizona border. at the port isabel detention center near brownsville, texas, i saw about 1,000 detainees, only about 18% of whom were mexican, and the rest

representing over 30 different nationalities who migrated through mexico in an effort to get to the united states. in arizona i visited with ranchers who live and work on the border, frustrated by the damage to their property caused by those who cross the border illegally. i have met a number of groups and individuals representing a wide range of views about the border, and will make it a practice to continue to do so. with the recent addition of funding for staffing and surveillance by congress, we've made great progress in border and port security. there is now more manpower, technology and infrastructure on our borders than ever before. but we must remain vigilant. the answer is not simply to build longer or taller fences. as my predecessor used to say, show me a 50-foot fence and i will show you a 51-foot ladder. border control experts preach an

intelligence-driven, risk-based approach that focuses resources on the places where our surveillance and intelligence tells us the threats to border security exist, and be prepared to move when the threat moves. i believe in this approach, because it is a smart, effective and efficient use of resources. i also believe in smart and effective use of our resources when it comes to removals. we must prioritize our resources on those who represent threats to national security, public safety and border security. in the senate confirmation process i pledged to continually evaluate our removal priorities to ensure we get this right, and i have already begun this process. we must also continually review conditions at our detention facilities to ensure they are safe and humane. we are gratified by the support congress has provided to our border and port security efforts.

and, we need the additional border and port security resources that immigration reform legislation would provide. in this regard the republicans' recent statement of principles on immigration is a serious step forward on immigration reform, and contains a lot to work with. with both parties' recognition that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed, this should not be an issue used in one way or another for political advantage; rather, we must look to find common sense solutions to a problem we all know we have. the president, the business and labor communities, people of both parties, and others all recognize that immigration reform is a matter of economic growth. immigration reform is also a matter of homeland security. there are an estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants living in this country.

they are not going away. they are not going to self-deport. most have been here for years. many have come here as children. as a matter of homeland security, we should encourage these people to come out of the shadows of american society, pay taxes and fines, be held accountable, and be given the opportunity to get on a path to citizenship like others. this is not a special path to citizenship as i see it. it is an opportunity to get in line behind those who are here legally. this is not rewarding people for breaking the law. it is giving them the opportunity to get right with the law. and it is preferable to what we have now. when reform legislation is enacted, dhs must be prepared to implement reform. so, to prepare for this potential outcome, i have already directed the deputy secretary of homeland security

to coordinate the process to ensure we are ready to implement the law. next, dhs must continue efforts to address the growing cyber threat, illustrated by the real, pervasive, and ongoing series of attacks on things like stores, banks, email services, power substations, and the public that depends on them. here, the key to the government's efforts is to build trust with the private sector, and attract the best and the brightest from the private sector to come work for us, people like dr. phyllis schneck, our deputy undersecretary for cybersecurity who came to us six months ago from the position of chief technology officer of the security software company mcafee. i am personally going on a talent search. next week phyllis and i are traveling to georgia tech, where she received her ph.d., to recruit more like her. i am also a big fan of programs like our cyber student volunteer

initiative, which allows college students, on a volunteer basis, to come work for dhs in support of cybersecurity, and allows us to educate them on our mission. through the president's executive order 13636 and president policy directive 21, both issued a year ago, we are making good progress at furthering partnerships with the private sector, but there is more to do. many in congress have expressed a willingness to help in cybersecurity. we appreciate those efforts. our basic legislative goals are, one, new hiring and pay flexibility to recruit cybersecurity talent, two, modernizing the federal information security management act, also called fisma, to reflect new technology, three, additional clarity for, and codification of, existing dhs

responsibility to protect the federal government's civilian cyber networks, four, legal clarity that dhs may provide assistance to the private sector when requested, five, legal clarity that the private sector may exchange cybersecurity information with the federal government, and six, enhanced criminal penalties for cybercrimes. we could also support some form of limitation on potential civil liability for private sector entities, provided it is narrow and targeted in a way necessary to protect networks. we must continue to be vigilant in preparing for and responding to disasters, including floods, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, and most recently, chemical leaks like the one into the elk river in west virginia that threatened the water supply of hundreds of thousands of people.

fema has come a long way from the days of katrina. we have improved disaster planning with public and private sector partners, non-profit organizations, and the american people. we have learned how to pre-position a greater number of resources. we have strengthened the nation's ability to respond to disasters in a quick and robust fashion. we are helping cities and communities recover and rebuild faster. we will continue this progress. finally, we must be mindful of the environment in which we pursue these missions. we operate in a time of severe budget constraints. the days when those of us in national and homeland security can expect more and more each year to our top line budgets are over. i am therefore obligated to identify and eliminate inefficiencies, waste, and unnecessary duplications of effort and expenditures, while pursuing important missions such as the recapitalization of the

coast guard fleet. dhs also operates at a time when the public's confidence in the government's ability to function and work for them is low. dhs is unique among federal agencies for the large, daily engagement it has with the public at airports, seaports, and land ports of entry. the public's attitude toward the entire federal government can be shaped by interactions with dhs. we must be mindful of this, as we seek public support for our work. this is why i am pleased to announce that the acting commissioner of customs and border protection will soon make cbp's use of force policy public. we must do a better job of highlighting the good things we do on behalf of the american people, with the resources they give us. in january i opened a new tsa precheck application center at dulles airport. tsa precheck illustrates the risk-based approach to homeland

security that i talked about earlier. it is smart, effective and an efficient use of resources and taxpayer dollars. in december, we extended tsa precheck benefits to all military, including those serving in the coast guard, the reserves and the national guard. by permitting travelers to provide information about themselves ahead of time, we expedite the process for them at airports, and better focus resources to the pool of people we know less about. this advances aviation security and should be popular with the traveling public. lastly, i am mindful of the surveys that reflect that morale is low within various components of dhs. our greatest asset as a department is our people. each and every day, the men and women of dhs work hard to fulfill our critical and noble mission. each day, they dedicate themselves to the security and

advancement of our nation. i will be a champion for the men and women of dhs, and will advocate on their behalf. morale also depends on good leaders in place at each of our components. we must inject a new energy into dhs, and good leadership starts with recruiting other good leaders to join the team to help run the organization. with the help of the white house and congress, we are bringing in some terrific people to fill the large number of senior management vacancies that exist within dhs. i spend a part of almost every day on this. i'm pleased that in december congress confirmed our new deputy secretary, alejandro mayorkas, and in october our new general counsel steve bunnell. we look forward to the senate confirmation of suzanne spaulding, who's sitting right here, to be undersecretary for national protection and programs directorate. gil kerlikowske to be the next

commissioner of customs and border protection. john roth to be the next inspector general, leon rodriguez to be the next director of u.s. citizenship and immigration services, and dr. reggie brothers to be the next under secretary for science and technology. we are actively recruiting talented people to be undersecretary for intelligence & analysis, director for immigration and customs enforcement, the next chief financial officer, and for other key positions. finally, we will also continually reinforce, among all the men and women of the department, the common, unifying mission of homeland security that binds us together. homeland security is the most important mission any government can provide to its people. i told you i was in new york city on 9/11. for years my secretary at the law firm i was with in manhattan was a woman named gina chiaccherri.

gina is a shy, quiet woman who works about 50 hours a week, commutes another three hours a day, raises two kids, is the wife of a retired new york city police officer, plays by the rules and never makes waves. at 8:46 a.m. on september 11, 2001, gina was walking into the north tower of the world trade center with her 3-year-old daughter, to catch the subway to midtown, when american airlines flight 11 plowed into the building above her. possessed by nothing but fear, survival instincts and adrenalin, gina picked up her daughter and either walked or ran with her in her arms all the way to 14th street, and anyone who knows manhattan knows that's a long way, even to walk empty-handed. the image of a 5'3" mother running for her life with her child in her arms on 9/11, the image of thousands of desperate and displaced americans at the louisiana superdome during

katrina; the image of the finish line at the boston marathon turning in an instant to a blast zone, these should be constant reminders of the urgency and the importance of our homeland security mission. i am aware there is one other component to my job. in the name of homeland security, we cannot sacrifice our values as a nation. we can build more walls, install more screening devices, ask more questions, expect more answers, and make people suspicious of each other, but not at the cost of who we are as a nation of people who cherish privacy and freedom, celebrate diversity, carry our flag at the olympics, and are not afraid. thank you very much. thank you for listening to me. [applause]

>> well, i got teared up as i think others did by the close of the speech, mr. secretary. and let's remember that most in this room, or everyone in this room, sons and daughters, many our spouses, many are parents. and on that day in 9/11, many of those new people who perished were people who were at risk, and the whole country suffered on your birthday again changing experience, and a scholar that in some ways will never heal. i'm going to ask you some questions in a friendly manner, but designed i think to tease out a little more information about some of the topics in your speech and about you.

we know you're born on 9/11. i'm told you wanted to be a subway conductor in new york city when you grew up. close enough to that. >> that's my next life. i want to be a subway motor man on the number seven train. >> there've ago. in case you don't know this, and it matters to me since i have four kids and for grandkids in new york city, the new york subways are protected to a substantial extent by dhs assets. thank you. so -- look at that. [laughter] so, your background is as a lawyer, an assistant u.s. attorney, and the guy who has a lot of experience in the department of defense. hiwhat equation now to take on this awesome responsibility, and it is truly responsible to be the principal spokesman for our u.s. counterterrorism policy? >> well, i lead a terrific

organization of men and women and with the people that are there as leaders, people that we are recruiting additionally to be leaders. i think we're going to be doing a perfect job in the next couple of years. the department of defense, a lot of people ask me, well, is dod like dhs? are the different? how are they different? the department of defense is essentially a military organization. dhs has people in uniform. we have the coast guard. but for the most part dhs is his billion -- a civilian organization, a different culture. but like the department of defense it is a large rather decentralized organization with components who are capable if you let them of running themselves, and so while i was at dod, i had the privilege of

working with two terrific secretaries of defense, obviates and leon panetta. i was part of their management team. i saw them make decisions. when you're the general counsel your purview over the entire department of defense, almost like everybody else. and so i was part of the management team, help solve a lot of problems, was involved in a number of the difficult issues. and as you remarked, i have been involved in national security since i came back to government in february 2009. i have been eyewitness to many historic events that occurred and have been involved in some of the decision-making here in washington. but i would say that the thing that comes to mind first when you ask a question like that is, i have a passion for the nation. i left government a year ago thinking i was done, was settling back into private law

practice, private life. and the president asked me if i would do this job. it never occurred to me that i would be sitting here, that i will be asked to do this job. that i have a passion for the nation. i believe deeply in the mission. attaboy to serve the country. that's why i'm here. >> good answer. and you do have good people around you. i have to give my own shout out to suzanne spaulding was the staff director something called the national commission on terrorism, formed by congress in 1999. it was one of three groups that predicted a major attack on u.s. soil. i was on that group, and limiting with its chairman on september 10, 2001, that people were not paying attention. well, people then start to pay attention and suzanne of course went on to become the chief counsel to the house homeland security committee for the democratic side when i was ranking member. so she is very well trained for the mission.

as are many other people who work with you. since i mentioned congress, let's talk about congress. i am still -- >> i love congress. [laughter] >> good start. >> i do. nobody believes me. >> you are going to get a lot of opportunity to do that. >> i know, i know. the other day i was on the hill and i said to our legislation for templates used in drive-bys. let's stop often do -- see some friends of mine. are you sure? we can do that, but i will just stop and say happy new year, and caught a number of very important members of congress by surprise. [laughter] is relationship building. and there's an awful lot of members of congress that i know and respect. >> i'm pleased to say that. michael chertoff, your predecessor was the secretary, he was routinely invite me as the chairman of a subcommittee down here for breakfast and we

would talk about issues. we formed a professional relationship which developed into a friendship. i know you are having fun. it is a fact of that 100 committees and subcommittees of the united states congress, this is not an exaggeration. they have some piece of the homeland security mission. i think of is on the national journal cover and look like a where's waldo picture. it showed all the different jurisdictions. the 9/11 commission was a member of that recommended a number of wings which congress did in the president did except there is one glaring gap. tgap was to reorganize congress in a way that would streamline the home and mission. you are going to get numerous requests to testify across the

board. that is one issue in terms of the times map for you. the other way is when you are a member of congress want to do something legislatively, let's save cybersecurity performed which we'll get into a moment. pick one peer production of overclassification of material. you are on a committee in that committee has jurists action, but not the whole thing. it is very frustrating from congress to send. let it be noted. from congresses and to do some thing, too. here we are sure you thought about this. how are you going to navigate this? >> well, i don't think the answer is simply and it shouldn't be, get off my back. there are a lot of people did in the homeland security mission on both sides, who asked, how can i help you?

how can i work with you? how can i support your mission? is a part of my remarks this morning was to try to it that in the cybersecurity world based going out what i think are basic legislative priority should eat. some of us might have a better chance of passing. i want to spell out what the legislative roles of the cybersecurity mission should be. you are right that there are a lot of committee says that committees who have a piece of the department, and as you know, for miramax areas, members of congress committees thomas is the jurisdiction, very protect it about that. at least in the beginning, i want to build the relationships on the and at some point we'll have to have require a lot of

time and attention by the secretary in the senior leadership of the department to go back and forth in response to requests for testimony or individual visit and that is time that is useful, valuable time for a leader. i do find it useful to know what is on the mind of members of congress or the senate confirmation process, you know, is what it is. i had a relatively good experience. two months from nomination to confirmation. it is an opportunity to find out what is on their mind. powerful members of congress who are embedded in these issues, who gave the abundant in tights in that process. but you're right. there's a tremendous amount of oversight and in the to be realigned some point. and at some point, i will be asked in our colleagues on the

hill to help us with that. >> well, i applied your entries in the numbers. it will help. there are many good people who serve on capitol hill and both parties. the business model needs a lot of work in the committee structure is from the 19 century. but there are opportunities, especially if you invest personally am changing at least some of the dynamic they are. let's just move to cybersecurity since you mentioned it in carefully identified and issues in your remarks. last year, i think this last year, maybe two years ago time slice, congress tried hard but failed to pass cybersecurity legislation. 2012. two years ago. most people think and i would ask you to amplify this, that we are enormously vulnerable to cyberthreats. the private sector basically

controls at least 85% of our cybersystems and a lot of those have to do with critical infrastructure. the president issue -- president obama, an executive order, which goes part way toward solving some of the critical problems of aligning the private lecture in the public sector. but how urgent do you think it is to pass legislation and how can you isolator of the homeland department over com the huge objections before, which is the private sector to enough confidence that homeland had the capacity to handle its response abilities on labor? >> well, it is actually not a cybersecurity threat. it is the cybersecurity -- ongoing series of tax of various sources on banks, substations,

e-mail services that have been on a fairly regular basis of various different degrees of intensity. as though, it is no longer just a threat. it is real. it is here. i think that the key aside from the how congress can get canvasser breaking down barriers, building trust with the private sector and i am developing ideas w-whiskey stand for how we do that. we meet with what business groups, what private sector entities we should go to to explain our mission. it is also come as a mentioned in my remarks, a talent search. the resources, the talent, particularly among young people. people who are just out of school. we were talking earlier about

the cybertalent that exists in the military. the lechery recurs from a very early age in the military is very good at identifying those within the ranks who have a cybersecurity talent and bringing them into the cybersecurity world within the department of defense. we have to build that talent either within our civilian workforce or a track from the private sector. part of my job in the cybersecurity round will be to look for ways to attract private talent because i know it they are. >> would also help if you worked on it, i think you're doing this, better management of the department as a whole? not to criticize individuals, but it is a huge task to integrate the cultures of 22 different agencies and departments and silly work in progress. if you had better management to mirror the good management and

private sector firms, would that instill confidence because the big objection two years ago was this not a well-managed apartment. i'm not famous as fair, but this is the the objection and we are weary of cooperating it. >> i won't disagree with you. first of all, when you talk about cybersecurity, we have an office within dhs headquarters. there are components of the department of homeland security that have a cybersecurity mission. for example, the secret service. the secret service. the secret services and financial crimes. it isn't to cybersecurity. the service is very involved right now in the effort regarding the target stores. i think that the key, one of the keys to answer the dilemma, the question you pose a visible

leadership, but also visible leadership. good leaders bring in good leaders, but i think we have to be fairly transparent to become familiar with the private sector to become familiar with the public so that we build trust. that is one of the reasons i'm here today. >> and do you have plans to get out and about? he traveled to the southern border and maybe meet with business groups. to persuade them to cooperate better? >> we are developing ideas right now to do that exact thing in all parts of the country. >> turning to a few other issues, first on the homeland threat, one of the things that was clear to me when i was in the role i had in congress was how important a vertical information sharing was to the department. it's not just the role played here sharing information among the federal agencies, but it is

getting information down to first responders who could be policed, but who also could be private citizens to smell something strange in the house next door or see something weird anywhere. that mission is going much better. i'm looking at charlie allen, who at one point during the legendary cia career with the dhs semitrucks a lot about this infusion centers at the local level and so forth. one of the improvements i think the that congress insisted on was setting up something called the ipaq g, which stands for interagency threat assessment and coordination group. what it was was a sort of teach for america group of state and local law enforcement folks who would come temporarily come to be detailed by the department to the department of homeland security and the national counterterrorism center, which

was created just about at the same time under the intelligence reform law of 2004. they would advise on what the bulletin should look like the go vertically from and ctc down to first responders so that first responders could understand what to look for and what to do. are you aware of these outreach efforts and do you think they need support? >> yes, absolutely. i think that given the evolving terrorist threat, which is becoming more decentralized, more diffuse as i said in my remarks, less of a traditional al qaeda or al qaeda lake command-and-control structure. we have to be more concerned about homegrown threats, the lone wolf, the person who self radicalized for the small group

or conspiracy of people who self radicalized. i think that is going to require that we continue to build relationships with first responders. boston marathon bombing was the unfortunate illustration of this, where we need him as a department and a federal government to build relationships with state and local law in force and commerce date and local government because the federal government cannot be everywhere. the fbi, department of homeland security cannot be everywhere. so that is critically important in my view in something that i hope to advance over the next couple years. you are also correct that homeland security is a team effort that involves the public. we don't want to scare people. we don't want to make people paranoid. we don't want to make people fear each other because of our

differences. homeland security includes public participation and if you see some pain, say something to repeat a quaint phrase. that can result in very construct a positive things that there is public awareness about what is in the trash container at the large bus terminal or what is in the back pack that was left at the gate or something like that. if people are willing to note a suspicious package and reported to the nearest aviation security and online for an officer, that can have a tremendous effect. we hope it never gets that far. public participation in our efforts is critical so that we never get to the point where innocent billions have to take matters into their own hands to save their own lives.

>> as your secretary obviously had to do, it's a compelling dori. part of that, to his loving trust with the public, which is a function that you as the counterterrorism spokesperson in chief have, but so do local police departments. there have been very successful outreach efforts in minneapolis for the improvement of al-shabaab has been going in los angeles for the sheriff's department has had a very good cooperation with the community. it's not only the muslim community that has options. lone wolf terrorists like timothy mcveigh had nothing to do with the muslim community. but it is important that these outreach efforts generate confidence so that if you see something in your own house or community center or at the local supermarket, you think that saying something to unforced and

endorsed name something to the f. e. i were saying some into someplace that will get the information where it needs to go is inappropriate thing to do. >> that's correct. when i went on my trip to the southwest border, if then a lot of time meeting with mayors and county sheriffs and police chiefs for exactly this reason. and so, as i see it, we need to continue to emphasize the collect for the third that involves multiple levels of government and the public. >> moving to border security, you mentioned comprehensive immigration reform. and it almost passed congress in case anyone remembers this. in 2007, president bush very courageously put forward a proposal, one of its biggest advocates and state government, which your predecessor, michael

chertoff, who was heartbroken when the bill failed. and now the senate has passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. there was conversation in the house that the house version might be different. you commanded the congress and your remarks for the effort is making. in today's press, there is a new comment from house speaker jon barnard that it may not happen this year. i think it is going to be a great disappointment to many communities across our country who are hoping it will and to our efforts rebuild our economy after the most serious recession since the great depression. what can you do to persuade john boehner that maybe he should, steps he might take in this election year to get this thing on the right track as he was one of the people who said he wanted

to make this happen. >> i don't have a crystal ball and there are people who talk to the speaker about this and other issues. i am sure he's getting no shortage of advice right now. what i hope will happen in 2014 is that there is an emerging, evolving realization that this should not be politics, that this is a problem that needs to be fixed and those of us in washington who represent the american public ought to do what we need to do to fix the problem. everybody agrees we have a problem with immigration, with enforcement and administration of our immigration laws. everybody knows we have millions upon undocumented immigrants in the country and they are not going away. they are not going to self

deport. i don't know what the statistic is, but something like 86% of this 11.5 million people have in this country for years. going back to either 2004 or 2008, something like that. so they are here and they are not going away. for my homeland security active, i would rather encourage them to come forward, to be accountable, pay whatever taxes and fines they owe, go through the background check and if they are able to, going through all of that, the son of bill talks about a 13 year. 13 years. get to a path to citizenship if they are able to do so. and so i'm hoping not to science

for that. there's a speaker and others spent a lot of time speaking about. i don't want to what extent it has the widespread support caucus. the document is identifying a problem in this country and seeks to address it. that is a step to see both major parties recognize we have to deal with this. the message i would like to convey and emphasizes from the homeland security perspective, this is something we need to do because of the added border and port resources that comprehensive common sense immigration reform provide and so we can encourage people to be accountable, which in my judgment is not giving them passed in some way.

so for my homeland security give, i hope people in the congress, people in government will finally vessel with this problem and we can do with it. >> just one comment and one more question on this. the right time is earned legalization. it surely isn't amnesty. people have to get in the back of the line and 13 years later, maybe if this law passes become citizens. the speaker was quoted as saying the american people don't trust the reform we are talking about will be implemented as it was intended to be. should people trust you and your department to implement reforms and the current law? >> first of all, we've already begun thinking about if the legislation that is contemplated in various different forms becomes law, we are going to

have to implement it. as compline payday, implementation will occur over a period of years. not like it is going to happen tomorrow. it will occur over a period of years. we think about what we need to do to get ready for this. this is an advanced planning team after to anticipate what the department needs to do, when and if the legislation passes. i believe that we will have comprehensive immigration reform. i don't have a ball on the team title. that is for others who are better at that than me. i believe it will be passed to them assuming it will be passed. i am optimistic and we need to prepare for my party started that process. >> let's turn to some of the outside u.s. issues you mentioned syria and you said syria has become a matter of homeland security.

he did amplify that comment a bit, but i think the audience might eat interested in and the individual comments about wife theory has become a matter of homeland security. >> well, as i stated and as others like direct or brennan, director comey, who believes syria and when they get to serious they are encountering all sorts of radical extremists influences their. we need to be concerned about that. that's why you refer to it as a matter of homeland security and it is not this country. european allies are concerned about this issue and though, in the conference i just left in poland, as a mentioned, this is a major, major topic of discussion and collectively we

are determined to do something about it. >> i think people do need to understand that there is a variety of terror groups in syria. not a monolith, not al qaeda, but some have expressed the desire to train fighters in the area to attack interest in the west. whether that actually will happen or not, it is a threat of people being radicalized here, moving to syria, conduct in kerouac's fair, being better chained and then coming back here. am i correct? >> we need to do our best to pay close attention to an evolving situation. >> and why we are talking about self radicalization come you are careful in the way we talked about it. we have experts in this audience, especially brian michael jenkins of the rand corporation who has studied radicalization carefully.

by the way, one of the thing some of us try to do in congress was to create a multidisciplinary commission to advise congress on what the hallmarks of our have someone who has radical views, which you are protected by her to shame, turning into someone who is prepared to engage in violent acts, which are a crime finding that little nexus. we were not able to pass the legislation because in the last minute it became controversial unfortunately, at least in my view. a hallmark of some of these homegrown on both types is they have clean records. they haven't committed violent acts before. many of them are on the internet, but cannot cite that teach them how to build thompson so forth. certainly, the boston marathon bombers used the internet. there is a lot on the internet there. some of them also intercept

people in our country or travel abroad. most people think it takes human intervention beyond just the internet to radicalized him what. so, he said this is the focus. how should the american public, which is listening to you right now think about this? >> i wanted to convey the answer to that question in my remarks. the federal government, state and local government first responders, law enforcement and local communities needs to be vigilant and we are building not. we are building those relationships. because of the nature of what we're talking about here, it is the risk going too far. the risk rating suspicion and fear among people different from

them. that is the purpose of the last part of my remarks. if you are charged with thinking about homeland security, whether me or the state homeland security adviser to the governor or police commissioner, you can build walls. you can build some and that is so secure that you make everybody paranoid. and you deprive people of the basic privacy and freedoms this country is all about. we can't do that. so this is a balance. it is a delicate talent. do we have a bright right now? are we perfect right now? probably not. i think that a basic responsibility for those of us charged with homeland security and law enforcement and national security is to find the right

balance to be sensitive to it. we can go too far in there and insisted that his terrific government where we had done that. we need to be mindful of that insensitive suet. >> again, in my opening remarks, i commanded you for your speech on guantánamo and drones, which got a lot of attention and was a courageous act for someone who adjusts bad the council -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> well, am glad your back. you say is you close your speech, in the name of homeland security, we cannot sacrifice values as a nation. we can build more walls, ask more questions come at a more answers and make people suspicious of each other, but not the cost of who we are as a nation. i certainly have believed and i do believe that it is not enough just to take out bad guys although sometimes we must do

that and very courageous people have very carefully tried to do that. we have to, have to, in the end, when the argument with some kid in the boonies of yemen for an intercity in america who's trying to decide whether to drop a few pressure cooker bombs along the pathway of the marathon or strap on a suicide vest. if we don't buy that argument, there will be more people growing up against us that we can take out. i was kind of a metaphor that don rumsfeld went to sinuous record. defend that one of his snowflakes. do you agree with that? >> i do. that is one of the things i said at the oxford union that we have to be sent to dave with our actions, not reading those who want to do harm against americans faster than we can take them out.

and one of the things we will do in this administration and government is to develop and how we can address this in the homeland because we need to be sensitive to the fact that there are people who while they live in this country hate this country for various different reasons and want to do harm to others who feel disenchanted, disassociated, disconnected and are influenced by forces under control. we need to try to address that audience are some way or another to get this exact issue. i think i want to, and i know others want to in our government, begin thinking about

this issue. we started developing ideas for how he can go about doing a better job. >> speaking personally commend not amount to underscore the last part is awesome to have your speech, where you said we're a nation of people who cherish privacy and freedom, celebrate diversity, carrier flag at the olympics and are not afraid. i think you are in is a big piece of your job. he will become the face of warning of the terror threat. it would be wonderful if you're also the face of reassurance that our country will survive this will be missed and hit. i know you said that you are going to boston on the anniversary of the marathon vomiting. there was a place, i must say.

i watched proudly as an american or horrible thing happened, but a community pulled together very quick the end never lost its stride. we didn't do it that well in 9/11, but we did it that well in an, boston's strong. i would hope those are lessons we can learn, not just me and the people listening to you on the outs tied and many former members of government and present members of government but cannot you, but we can learn the department of homeland security can learn and can teach and can help inspire others to teach. i would just like to close the feedback, which has been a wonderful honor for the wilson's banner and an example of the kinds of things we do here. i didn't mention that john brennan when he was a counterterrorism adviser in the white house has to come here to talk for the first time about

the u.s. government. is that wonderful event, was it not? that may just say i'm not for the last word, secretary johnson to any last that you have. it's your first major speech. >> the white house parting thoughts. this is, jane, thank you again for your leadership. thank you for bringing me here. thank you for your mentorship and support. this is a terrific organization. it is educational. it is sober, it is a place for thoughtful, intelligent discussion and it is nonpartisan. when he talked about national security and homeland security, it should not be partisan. i believe that fervently. thank you for the terrific work you do here and i'm sure i will

see you again. the mac well, i thank you heard as i said for years, the terrorists will not check her party registration before they blow us up. but better focus on this as a country. thank you for coming here is an american, talking about a challenge america faces in the department that wants to be even better at keeping us safe. thank you again. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> some news from congress

today. representatives doc hastings of washington announcing he wants take reelection later this year. the 10 term republican and chairman of the natural resources to many said in a statement, last friday i celebrated my 73 for a period while i have the ability and authority to continue serving central washington, it is time for the voters to choose a new person. >> here they are closing in on me. i am still thinking, today. when i went through survival school, they taught us that the people who capture you are probably the least trained to capture pows and maintain them. so your best time to escape this right now. so i thought okay, these are rookies. i pull out my masterpiece. i went like this, get away. get back and then i fired around right over there had.

they didn't flinch. they just raised their rifles like this. one of them reached in his pocket, pulled out a little pointy talkie, which is like a little comic book. some of them carried in their pocket. it had vietnamese fanatics on the other. it showed been capturing an american pilot in his uniform at the fifth handset. this one guy said -- handset, hence a year or so here i am facing about nine long time staring at me. i decided that's probably the best advice i was going to get that day. >> i think it is more important

and it's a strange thing for one to say that i believe that. only a very small number compared to leave. people even enter into a courtroom entanglement with the law. >> the president's commission on administration released a report last month highlighting recommendations for improving the voting process, including expanding the number of polling places and limiting the wait time to vote on election day. yesterday the cochairs of the commission testified on capitol hill for the first time since the release of the report.

this is just over an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> okay, the rules committee will call to order. are you in on the presidential commission on election administration. the report and recommendations on best practices in election administration. at the quarry of our national identity, as americans, a pride would've been a democracy and of course have the right to vote. it is a beautiful thing to me on november 9th in new york, cold november night, citizens tired, coming home from work, they want to get home, put dinner on the table for the kids, just at home because they've had a hard day of work, put their feet up on the table, the coffee table and watch their tv show. and quiet dignity, they line up, go to the polling place in the next morning we all abide by the decision.

it is an amazing thing that doesn't happen in most countries still to this state hasn't happened happened in any country as long as it's happening ours. it's a beautiful thing. in the 225 year journey since the first presidential election, many things about elections have changed. of course, more people are eligible to vote. as i look around the room here, i don't know if cuba roberts is a property owner, but half of us would not be allowed to vote when the republic was founded. your ancestors didn't own property -- that's right. yes, you are. [inaudible] >> no, it was unintended. anyway, more people are eligible to vote. african-americans, to 20-year-olds, today's expanded electorate is much more reflective of our nation as a whole. as recent examples have shown, there's still problems of their elections come in many of which could be addressed by approving the way we administer. election administrations are difficult, often at engquist

passed. before i go any further that you think the election administrators and officials throughout the election is that it's gone right over the years. it is not an easy shot because it is so important to our democracy. we have to aspire to protection. in reality, most americans don't even have about running an election until something goes wrong. we offer member florida 2000 the senate race where recounts put our election process under a microscope. as recently as the 2012 election, many polling places throughout the country have unacceptably long lines in this wasn't the first election without problem, but we don't like it to be the last. in this election but are your speech, president obama referenced those signs declaring the need to fix that, unquote. that is a difficult task because elections in the united states to run at the state and local level with our 50 states with 50 unique collection systems in houston of election districts with patchwork systems,

sometimes reading challenges. former supreme court justice, louis brandeis called the states laboratories of democracy. they sometimes provide us with examples of innovation that can be shared throughout the country. soon after the last election, the president acted and created a bipartisan commission to study election administration and best practices for improving voting in america. the president insisted this not be a partisan exercise. the commission was supposed to seek out the best ideas for making voting easier and better no matter where they came from and that is just what the commission did. the presidential election -- commission on election administration was made of 10 members, including current and former election officials, executives from successful customer service-oriented businesses and two chairs, a well-known. when a republican, when a democrat, but each with a long history in this area.

mr. bauer and mr. ginsburg have you been on opposing sides in political campaigns in the courtroom. both have top-notch credentials as advocates and champions of the respective parties. so you're uniquely qualified to identify areas where we should move forward. i think on behalf of our whole committee, those present and those not, by teaching them up for serving on the commission finding places where we can move beyond partisanship and focus, not symbols of make a run easier under promoters and it missed readers alike. your commissions reported my judgment is an outstanding piece of work, invaluable road not for improving election at in this country. while the commission's charter charged by the québec nations for federal legislation, the report makes it clear there are areas of existing laws and its enforcement must be improved in our committee will study a report in your testimony today carefully. i hope my colleagues on both sides of the iowa join me in using this report is to help improve our election system and

strengthen our democracy. so we thank you for your work and look forward to hearing your testimony. with that, let me turn it over to senator roberts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to hearing the presentation of our witnesses. i went to thank you for your service. they are to be commended for giving their time on this project, lending their experience and their expertise, which is considerable. i know there were a number of other wild side commissioners not what this today, but i think them as well for their efforts. the commission was charged making best practice recommendations rather than legislative recommendations. that is what the report has done. it recognizes elections are carried out at the state and local level and that is very much focused our attention. for elections property, we need all of the parties. election officials, and voters themselves in the voters themselves to do their part. this requires proper planning and effective administration.

i hope the work of the commission and recommendations that has made will help advance the effective administration of our election and improve the voter asked variants. i look forward to the testimony of eyewitnesses. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator roberts. and i welcome opening statements by other members of the panel. senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, senator schumer. i've looked at these photo issues from that perspective and i want to thank our witnesses today for their good work. while you did mention minnesota with the recount, okay, and the fact that we all remember someone did vote for someone named lizard person in that particular election would be painfully every single ballot in the state, our state has a proud tradition. we are always consistently in the top states of voter turnout. a lot of us his same day

legislation. the top six states are not democratic or republican. one of the top states. most of them have same-day registration. so i know that isn't necessarily part of what you've looked at in terms of legislation. i think he would go a long way and i have a bill with senator tester to look at rolling that out on a national level. thank you, mr. chairman. to do it fairly in a nonpartisan way. senator king. y. senator king. >> i don't really have a statement except since minnesota may have been brought up. jesse ventura and i always thought of the states with independent governors who had the high voter turnout. [laughter] >> to that point that senator king did not wear a feather boa additives or not you're a party?

>> you don't know that. [inaudible] [laughter] i will reserve my comments on the forward to the witnesses. >> first, mr. bob dollar. in addition to serving as a cochair of the presidential commission we are here to discuss, mr. bowers a partner in the law firm of perkins to eat. he is general counsel to the democratic national committee in the 2008 and 2012 election cycles with general counsel. as you can see, the democratic side are equally strong. mr. ken ginsburg and serving as cochair of the commission, and in 2012 and 2000 awaits you served as national counsel to the romney for president can't gain. he's had a profound effect in our electoral system in 1992 and

1994. he changed america not in the way i would say, but it was amazing what you did. with that, let me turn it over to mr. bauer. we ask each of our witnesses to limit their statements to five minutes an additional statement and additional remarks about it check should not be read into the record. mr. bauer. >> senator schumer, senator roberts, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity testifying today we discussed how we would organize this. i'm going to open with some general considerations identified in the report that we asked our readers to keep in mind as we laid out her beckoning nations in the best practices we identified. i am going to illustrate the approach we took it talking about the issue most associated with the commission and that is the problem of long lines at the

polls. there other issues that will cover that -there ares that will cover that we address in six major recommendations along with highlighted this practices. let me say first that the commission was structured on the theory that election administration is a topic of public administration and needs to be treated as such. the voters thought to be considered very much as we would consider any other recipients of services provided. that is to say ulster in their life, americans think a good read about customer service and how customer services rendered to them in their roles as consumers and other walks of life. likewise, our view was and i think the president in tension with the commission the voter is entitled to that level of customer service, provided the kind of service in the voting process that we all believe as

the drivers of our democracy the voters deserve. from the public administration was essential to our work. one of the station of the importance of the commission and the approach the commission took a nice part about public administration and emphasis on public admin is duration is our reliance on data. we have to look at election administration says the earliest possible through the lens of the best possible information, social science and research available. we were very fortunate that some of the witnesses who came before the commission were able to fashion fresh data for purposes of your testimony to commission could rebuy upon and that included an extraordinary survey of several thousand state and local administrators by the country's top political scientist and survey research experts. the very significant information on the issues we address from this survey.

overall, the effort was to look closely at the evidence. how the electoral system was performing. and that connection, one of the recommendations we make is we need in this country much more systematic collection and analysis of data to enable us to pinpoint both the strengths and weaknesses in the performance of our process. beyond that, there's a few other considerations were discussed at the outset of harvard corp. the one size fits all has many different jurisdictions. some believe you cannot generalize reforms across cultures action aligned. to some extent that is true, but it is also true there's enough in the way of common features to election administration across the united states the one side in many respects can settle for these recommendations in the recommendations we have made on the basis that they truly fit all issue of resources come election administration costs

money and too often we heard from admin is readers that budget priorities are such the pressures on the state and local jurisdictions are such that too often the need to election administrators come in the fiscal needs are shuffled to the bottom of the deck. we don't make specific recommendations. that was not our charge. it was important to note we cannot have salary conduct elections without money. the technology challenge i believe my colleague mr. ginsberg to discuss in greater detail, but it is clear one warning though we rang he was impending crisis of voting technology. enforcement of existing law is very important that even though we don't make legislative recommend nations are asked to call attention to problems in compliance with existing federal statutes that were enacted to protect certain populations of voters the language minority voters, disabled voters and voters among our uniformed military and overseas voting

population. some of the statues like to move back had significant sartorius effects. there are still gaps in complaints we identified in the report, compliance with the american disability act, voting rights act and the provisions that protect language minorities and performance of public assistance agencies under the national voter registration act and supported the registration process. so those are some fundamental points we make. but we see briefly a point about lines. i have a few seconds left. there are many factors that feed into mind. he tried to analyze but those factors might be. they raised a whole host of issues that can each be individually addressed in the aggregate alliance can be resolved. this is something we call attention to, publicizing online tools on our website and to be permanently hosted on the caltech m.i.t. technology voting project website that administrators can use over time

and improve upon enable them to allocate resources within the polling place and plan for long lines but address them. this is a report, but it's also a project in our work begins now to work with you, the congress, legislative leaders, community leaders come election administrators on the country to see to their effective implementation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for having us here today. it's been a pleasure to work with bob on this. it is fair to say we are proud of the work of our commission. we work with the state and local officials. we actually put on our elections to remove carriers to delete qualify citizen to cast their vote easily. elections and voting is an area where there can be conflict between the public and the

democrats. but it is also a subject for republicans and democrats can agree on the basic principle and commonsense solutions to make it better. we are fortunate to work with eight other commissioners and a talented research director from whom we've learned a tremendous amount. were able to reach bipartisan in unanimous agreement on the report's recommendations and best practice this. we found the basic constables on which republicans and democrats agree is that every legally purchased her daughter has the right to be able to cast his or her ballot easily and without an adamant. as to the details of voting, bob and i have some history to fall back on. we've been on the opposite side of partisan battles over the years and undoubtedly will be available election's home. among those battles have been a lot of recounts. all those recounts were instructed to this exercise because it provided an parallel

view of how the system works. we will both tell you that those are problems. the commission presented a unique opportunity for us to address some of those topics that both republicans and democrats no problems in which we need to do some thing about. that is not a partisan issue. it is trying to get right sound and i very much need to be got ready. in fact, it is so important to get it right that it deserves doing even if it doesn't satisfy everything that one party or another believes need to be fought in this area. it is for fixing these problems the commission recognized her elections are at mr. anaprox that late 8000 different jurisdictions, largely using volunteers who don't receive much training. as a result, achieving uniformity in our elections has proven challenging. let me turn to a couple big picture issues the jurisdictions face. as bob mentioned, the state of

our technology is an impending crisis. the machines in every jurisdiction purchase 10 years ago but funds after the florida recount will no longer be functional with in the next 10 years. voting equipment generally have not picked up technological advances in our daily lives. the current equipment is expensive and unsatisfactory to virtually every elections official within the commission spoke. that is heavily due to a federal certification process that is broken that must be reformed. this is a subject to the chair paying attention i will not end well in its current. one of the issues we heard about distantly was having adequate fiscal facilities for polling place at most communities those facilities were schools. officials in an increasing number of jurisdictions by safety concerns as the reason for not making tools available for voting.

adequate facilities to vote in safety for children cannot be competing interests. the commission felt a strong need to call attention to the problem and to recommend security concerns be addressed by making election day and in-service day for students and teachers. bob already talked about long lines. let me touch quickly on some of the other subjects that the commission specific recommendations and best practices to the state and local officials. early voting was one. our commission charge was to make it easier for all eligible voters to vote. the majority of states with democratic and republican state officials leading the way now have early voting and told us that early voting is here to stay and increasingly demanded by voters. the details in the number of days and hours will vary price day, county and locality and they are best made there. more accurate voting lists. rather to help insure only duly qualified voters vote or to

facilitate more people being able to vote more easily. the commission found agreement is to port across political spectrum for more accurate voter lists. we made two recommendations in that regard. when is the adoption and use of more online ration, to support the voter.gov website has examples of tools that can do that. secondly, we recommend that all states joined to existing and complementary programs. the interstate voter crosscheck arkansas project and the election registration and information center. both allow states to share data in ways that will make their list more accurate on their own initiative. finally, the report touches on a number of subjects summarized in the testimony. military and overseas voting, disabled policies and laws that require accessible polling for the nation's voters with disabilities, a group that is to

enlarger with the baby boom generation. recommendations entail state and local officials with numbers of the disabled community and those with language proficiency issues to be able to work out solutions for local polling area is an data and testing. there should be testing of our machines after each election to see how well they perform and to share information among jurists diction and there should be more uniform collection of data because of their political scientist friend led by a research your day pursley of stanford university told us, more data leads to better solutions. with that, thank you again for having me and bob for having us. i know bob and i would be happy to answer questions you >> thank you for your great report annex the testimony. i'll start off. the report recommends that states adopt online voting registration, a reform that improves accuracy in state

money. 19 states had done it, so that means 31 have not if my math is correct. what is the barrier to the other states doing? is there anything we can do to overcome those barriers? [inaudible] >> -- to make sure we don't interact. we will interact just as we return to our day jobs. we are not seen a barrier so much. sometimes it takes a while for the discussion to take place and ultimately decisions to be reached in favor of changes that, and voter registration. we are optimistic that this is one of the developments. a key and i think well tested technology into the process that is going to sort of move irresistibly across the country. ..

>> and up front cost is recouped over the next 10 years but because of budget processes which are not that different in states people to want to make expenditures in year one and your to but that's not proven to be -- that's not a barrier in your eyes. second, the report states electronic poll books out the potential to solve election day issues, that election officials want this technology. can you discuss our electronic poll books make a difference in

what's leading the adoption of that one? >> it's much be sure to describe how to make a difference to describe why it's been a problem. they make a difference because the information that can be put on an electronic poll book takes care of a lot of sort of the antiquated paper that's in a polling place. you can call up much more information including signature verification and photo ids for people. it can cut down on the traditional line problems that have plagued some jurisdictions on election day. so they are a low-cost, simple solution to putting a lot of paper in one place where poll workers can access it easily. >> their implementation? >> this goes into the whole sort of mess we're falling into with technology. part of the problem is that the certification program for new

ballot systems is kind of fatally broken. this -- as new systems are having a great deal of difficulty coming online because the certification process now takes so long and is virtually impossible to get through, some of these solutions are just proving very meddlesome for manufacturers to find a market to put them in place. >> okay. next, delaware is highlighted in your report as a national leader in and limiting those national voter registration act. delaware seems to seamlessly transfer information from d&d motor vehicles to the election rolls. can you tell us a little more about this, explain what better than what most other states do? and again why aren't more states doing at? >> we, center, brought delaware in particular because of are concerned about the inconsistent reforms of the department of motor vehicle across the country

in implementing the responsibility under the national voter registration or motor voter act. this is ascended can issue. one of our commissioners chris thomas finlay with this issue twice -- has really called attention to this is a major, major shortfall in compliance with federal law. recalling attention to the fact that a, there is no reason why these dmv performance cannot be improved and b our models like delaware if they can look which illustrate how effectively this can be done and what a difference it makes in elective administration. they really needs to be major consistent attention to the fact that this is a serious, serious problem in the operation of current federal statutes. >> my time has expired. senator robbins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to talk about the long

line problem, and we often hear about long lines are result of some kind of a real plant of some sort that certain areas are being targeted and the lines are result of a deliberate effort to disenfranchise certain groups. my question is, did you find any evidence of that? second, are these lines resulting from management problems or deliberate schemes to disenfranchise people? >> i'll try to address this as well. what we saw is that almost exclusively -- >> turn the microphone toward you. thank you. >> that this was a management issue, that there are any number of solutions that we put forward in the report to deal with this specific problems of long lines. we hold extensive hearings with the jurisdictions, into jurisdictions where long lines had occurred. and we found that the problems

are all identifiable and they are all solvable and there were no plots of conspiracies that closed the lines. in fact, if we spent sometime in the jurisdiction in south florida and held a hearing in miami, and what we found was in the polling places where there were long lines in those counties, that occurred in less than 1% of the polling places in that particular county. that would suggest resource allocation issue and a way to look at management techniques and facilities to be able to improve that. and one of the things that bob mentioned in his testimony was the providing of online tools for precinct officials to be able to gauge the flow over the course of the day and better allocate the equipment that they have within a county.

[inaudible] >> testing 1-2-3. [inaudible] [laughter] >> let's just try -- are we back? can you hear me in the back? [laughter] your report argues in favor of expanding early voting. states, do you think the states of not adopted -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

my question is, is really wiser voters to be -- [inaudible] don't we want voters to be casting on the same -- [inaudible] is there a value in the legal act of voting -- [inaudible] >> the thing i'm trying to point out here, if you're voting 45 days before the election day is that within the 45 days, several occasions, up with regards to the campaign. and the voters who voted 45 days early have no chance to factor that in in regard to the

election day. i've asked you about for five questions. it's not fair. bob, why don't you go ahead. >> thank you. senator, there are two points i would make about the early voting and the issue you raised about whether or not it cuts off the opportunity for citizens of liberation prior to casting about. the first is that without seeking out to be amount of early voting a state might prepare to provide, the extent of the early voting provide, voters actively resist the notion that they all need to be funneled through on one day from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. at night. the traditional election a model has not only broken down from a standpoint of administrators, it's less feasible from the perspective but it runs up against the grain of voter expectation, that they should be cramped in if he will do this one day, hour to devote.

it creates a whole host of problems and contributes to examples like long lines but the second point i would make is that the studies show that the voters to vote early are the voters who are the most settled on their choice. they are voters have made up their mind. what you call them the most partisan or the most ideologically committed but one way or the other those are the voters least likely to be moved by any sort of anticipated changes in the campaign agenda over the remaining days of the season. so on balance, when you way want voters expect and what they believe they ought to be offered in the way of options for voting against the risks that they will be denied an opportunity for information they really need for deliberation, our commission concluded that early voting in some form or another wins out. >> i believe this is an area where the individual states --

>> for how much early voting their voters want and we did hear across the political spectrum from officials of both parties who say that voters in many jurisdictions really appreciate, expect to be able to have some options at the time that they cast their vote. in terms of resources, it can be more efficient for jurisdictions to have a early voting and not have to jam everything on to election day. that's not always true. i think this is one of those areas where we aim to report that state and local officials and they are the ones who will end up deciding. >> i thank you. there is an article by norm augustine -- norm ornstein, and it's back in 2004, but i still think it's very relevant. the headline said early voting necessary, but toxic in large

doses. the article forcefully details the dangers inherent in early voting, and the points he makes i think are at least worth considering. i committed to the attention of all of my colleagues. i have some other questions about my time has expired. maybe we can get back on another round, or i could submit them for the record. >> i agreed to continue to chair the hearing. no problem with a second round. senator klobuchar is next, we do have an executive session to and nominate two people to the election assistance commission. we will do that off the floor at about noon we may have a series of votes. so with that let me go on senator klobuchar, and thanks, 13, for generously agreeing to chair. >> i first want to start by thanking for that consumer model

you develop sure that people shouldn't be waiting in line and you can look at it in that some fashion. but i did want to follow up on something that senator roberts was asking about iq, mr. ginsberg, and that was when you look at these instead of these things were people trying to disenfranchise people or was it management issues and you said it was management issues and i could see that in our state sometimes when we have problems at polling booths, mistakes were made but it do think some of the efforts that are going on right now in some of the states, north carolina and florida recently have started efforts or enacted laws that would cut back on early voting, or north carolina stopped same-day registration, or some these other things that you see states doing but what i'm concerned about is the effectiveness is to disenfranchise voters whether it's done at the end of your precinct level or not. this is about laws that are being an active with stringent license requirements and things like that. my question is, do you think some of that is going on? number two, just to get the

stuff done that you want to get done is there the political will to do it in these states and in congress would receive the kinds of things that ar are going on n someone other states have been backtracking from this idea that we should allow more people to vote? >> senator, two quick responses to comments. the first is we were surprised, maybe no surprise, i don't want to overstate the case but we were struck, i'll put it this way, by the testimony around the country, democratic and republican, in jurisdictions that might be more red or blue or more blue than red, at the uniform wish once the lights were off and the doors were closed or in hearings with the agenda with well defined, i wish to seek election administration in fact be the first great public administration for the benefit of the voters. across the board that's what we heard. we had an opportunity at all of our hearings for anybody who wanted to be heard to be heard.

so we might have had an opportunity then for voices then and very partisan voices. but by and large hearings and the other discussions we had seemed to have been welcomed as an opportunity for people to voice their wish that we had an election system we could be proud of. outside of many of the issues we discussed there are controversial enactments that the parties are quite divided about. and i assure you that if ben and i went off into a room, we would wind up brawling about just those issues again. it's painful but we are holding out as long as we possibly can. but that's not the whole story. and the second point i would make an this is a critical point is that if we strengthen some of the key administrative sort of features of our electoral infrastructure, if, for example, we have an understanding that we're going to strive toward the 30 minute wait time maximum that

we are ticketed in the report and address some the issues that lead to long lines, then we're going to risk the vulnerabilities of the system to partisan mischief. senator roberts raised the question for jeff plots to create long lines? well, there's more vulnerability of the system to vote for shenanigan if the system itself is weak and it will break down under pressure. if it's strong it's less likely that it will break down under political pressure or by political design. so those are the two responses i would offer you. >> i think this area is fraught with partisan feelings. i think that's unfortunate. i think you cannot equate cutting back hours in early voting with trying to disenfranchise people. simple fact of the matter is in north collide in florida as an example, no one has suggested anything early voting. what people have suggested is that there are administrative concerns about having unlimited

early voting. that is a fair debate to have and does not entail voter disenfranchisement and we get into sort of nasty rhetorical detours on this issue all too often. also point out in all the studies that we saw, early voting does not increase turnout. that is an unproven assertion that having more hours actually does increase turnout. >> and same-day registration, do you think that -- >> it is a different matter. it's hard to say because the states that you mentioned as having early voting do have a history of increased participation. so i think the laboratory of the states to see if same-day registration works or not is not yet been taken on. and i think in some of the states where there is low turnout, same-day registration would create all sorts of problems for the administrators that might, in fact, the vault into problems like longer lines.

you had same-day registration. so i think it is an unproven, untested area so far. >> for ages i enforce our election laws and look back through every single painstaking come every single count of double voting, 90% of them were father and son with the same name in which is also little fraud in a major county with over 2 million people. and every so often would be someone who is met and voted twice, a fellow who didn't know they were on probation that they couldn't vote. with things like that happen, it's true but for the most part people are not going to go out and try to commit a felony and vote. my general concern and so glad about what we're doing is that i just don't see that as a major problem as much as it is that it's become hard for people to vote, or for some reason they don't want to go stand in these lines because they hear about the wind and they don't want to go out and vote. that's what i appreciate what you're doing. i have one more question along the lines of your

recommendations. i wanted to know more about what they identified at the security issues. have they been incidences at school? we have a lot of voting schools in minnesota and its essential place where people feel comfortable to go and how do you think we fix it? >> i think this area was one of the greatest areas of surprise to us when we heard from so many local officials that it was a problem. the concern is that since the incidents at schools with shootings and violence, that having strangers walking around in the schools and on the campuses was a source of concern. and that's the reason that some states, some localities are cutting back the use of schools. it's a tremendous problem because in the majority of jurisdictions, schools provide the best facilities for voting. there is ample space, they are accessible, all the things that

you want any polling place. so the conflict between interest and safety to children and voters is a conflict that should not be allowed to exist. >> you suggested like having volunteers there or something? >> well, to have a school holiday basically on election day so that it would be a dream day for teachers. >> that would being ineffectual not changing the school calendar, you're not costing today because they always scheduled anyway -- >> and have a scheduled on election day with their time to go vote as well. that makes sense. thank you. >> gentlemen, thank you. i'm sure my kids would vote for an extra day off. >> it's not -- its and in service to. >> i know. senator schumer mention laboratories of democracy and i thought that, in fact, the states are laboratories of democracy. the problem is no one reads the lab reports and we don't do a very good job of sharing information so i commend you because i think what you've done

and is exactly that function of collecting data and information across the states and sharing best practices. this is principally a state and local issue. i will, in echoing senator roberts, we had a situation in a main election recently where we had very early voting but i can member how i was a month or more before the election but the dynamics of the election changed in the last several weeks and we have people going into account offices trying to retrieve the early vote to change it because of developments in the election. so i do think that there's a legitimate issue about how far in advance. elections do tend to sometimescome into focus in the last several weeks. we actually had that experience. i need people that went to the town office and said, how can i get my vote back? i want to change it, and they couldn't. it was a very distinct situation.

the long lines issue, how widespread is it? is it a national problem, or is it extremely localized? you mentioned in one district it was 1% of the precincts, or something like that. i mean, are we searching for a federal solution to what is really a very isolated local problem that needs to be dealt with by local officials? esther bauer, do you want to tackle a? >> we are not recommending a federal solution. we are recommending a series of reforms by which state and local governments can keep the weight lines down and hopefully comply with the 30 minute standard that we have articulated. secondly, it is a problem -- obviously it is by jurisdiction is going to be scattered throughout the country. there's some just actions that don't routinely, long lines, some are quite frankly have some

real problems with long lines. the best data indicates in the united states, 5 million americans waited more than an hour to vote and another 5 million between a half hour and an hour to vote. so that is 10 million americans, and that's a significant number of people, and other jurisdictions that having had quite that experience could be significantly at risk if the are not sort of, if you will, anticipatory adjustments to the electoral process to address problems like, for example, weak voter rolls or inadequate supplies are inadequate voting machine and then you would see lines pop up or you haven't seen it before. >> mr. ginsberg, is this a true national problem or is this something that's very localized? >> i think in our experience it was pretty localized. anytime you 10 million people voting for long grades of time, that would suggest to me a

solution to that because it shouldn't happen. we had 130 million voters, roughly, in the last election and it affected 10 million of them, so that's a significant number but it is localized. what we saw was there's not one reason that there are long lines. in fact, in different jurisdictions there are different places. some jurisdictions will have 100 polling places and put 10 in each precinct and not take into account a rush of registration in a couple of particular precincts, so you have machines in one place standing idle and align in another. in some locations you've got facility problems. the place where people are voting is just too small and it creates a line. there are any number of common sense solutions to the problem that we heard about from both our friends and the private sector and from election administrators. and bob discussed them in his

testimony. and we lay out solutions that can be used on the local level to solve individual problems that will occur. >> i'm particularly concerned about something that you mentioned, a phrase i think was an pending crisis in election technology, and you went on to mention about federal certification. could you expand on that, what the issue is and what we can do about it? >> yes. there are a couple of points to be made and i suspect bob will want to add some as well. the current certification system is using standards that were developed in 2005 and 2007, to approve new technology. that was before anybody had an ipad or a tablet or many of the devices we use today. and so because the standards have never been updated, largely because of problems that election assistance commission. the whole rigmarole that the

machine manufacture has to go through to get new equipment past so it can be used by the different states has become extremely time-consuming and extremely expensive spink. >> so it's a federal certification process to? >> it currently is, yes, but there are two jurisdictions, los angeles county and travis county, austin, texas, that have decided that they will build their own systems because things just aren't working on the federal level. before the process of certification became federaliz federalized, it was handled by the state election directors. and that seems to have been a process that worked better in effect may be a solution doing forward. so it's not necessarily a federal solution that's needed to the problem, but something certainly needs to be done. >> is it possible that the federal solution is to undo the

prior federal solution to? >> perhaps. it would not be the first time. >> mr. bauer, your thoughts. >> i agree, we did not choose to be prescriptive. we didn't say it needs to be addressed a particular way, but we did point out that, and this, by the way, is not intended as an adverse reflection on anyway on the election assistance commission which has other duties which is performed extremely well. i'll report is replete with references at the top flight work they've done developing best practices, to sending them to the jurisdictions. but here, knowing that there's going to be continued conflict about its role, there is a structural blockages that needs to be addressed that we can't wait for someday we might hope for when partisan fevers will subside and the election system commission will somehow experience a new dawn in this particular area. the problem that's been

identified is simply to urgent and, therefore, some answer has to be found. >> senator roberts, second rou round. >> mr. acting chairman, it occurs to me coming back at this point, but as usual you have focused on the very questions that i was going to ask, and our witnesses with their expert knowledge have already answered them. so the question is, do i simply repeat the questions that you've asked and have them do it over again, or simply ask permission to put this article by norman ornstein, it's clear back in 2004, early voting necessary but toxic in large doses, i'm not going to read it to you but i would committed to the attention of everybody.

-- i would commend it to the attention of everybody. i think it is still liable today and i want to thank the witnesses and everybody concerned with this, and since my questions are a duplication of the questions already asked, i yield back. and i thank you, sir. >> senatosenator klobuchar. >> thank you very much mr. jarba. i have a few more questions about some actual individual recommendations you have. the first i thought was interesting the internet the idea. i come from a state where we literally put a camera on rising waters on the river and everyone in the community tunes in to see what's exactly happening so they can see it. or we use this all the time obviously for whether. people are constantly checking today, right? when the storm is coming in tonight and this simple idea that people could with simple technology check to see what's happening with voting lines in the precinct. could you talk a little bit about how you would envision that working? would you be turning a camera on

the people are just getting reports? >> i think what we envision is that the administrators would be continuously assessing wait times and then posting accessible reports, that citizens could consult if they sort of planned out when it would be most convenient for them, most efficient for them to vote. as you point out, quite correctly, this is fairly straightforward. it is one of the ways in which we believe we have to be continuously thinking about the introduction of technology to support the voting process. >> you would just, there's no wait times or something like that? >> twenty minutes, half an hour, 45 minutes, correct. >> venue had another one on pole working, training. he spent a lot of time discussing the importance of that and professional workers operating in the polling places and training standards for poll workers. how would this work?

>> again, it's something that really can be talked about by the state but implemented by either the state or local jurisdictions. old workers are the point of contact for most voters -- poll workers. so having well-trained poll workers ask is extremely important to the smooth functioning of the system and just the way voters feel about voting. it comes down to training. and whether that is a top priority or not with local administrators to be able to recruit poll workers. wannabe laments we heard from election officials was a difficult it is to recruit poll workers to find enough, ma to be in the polling places. so we have some suggestions about using college students and even high school students. apparently high school students are more reliable and showing up then college students. go figure. and to