second. -- is the first of four that are still scheduled. bidder -- vitter, if there are no other senators, i will ask senator kaine and has ahofnhofe -- who different plan. >> thank you for your service and for being here. admiral rogers, do you think the necessary support and policies and authority, and relationships and act, are all of those in place, and would you supplement any of those, what additional allah sees would you like to set? and what additional policies would you like to see set? and what additional policies

would you like to see set? >> i would like to see those in the cyber arena, those are going to be much more broad than the u.s. cyber command, that would be part of it. command,thin the cyber do you have the authorities and the policies to do all of that effectively. >> my confirmed need to be otherwise -- >> the level of expertise is required for potentially damaging operations, this is definitely lowered allowing achieve somes to level of success. how does this impact the allies and the foreign partners and our ability to work with them. >> i think it increases the level of risk for all of our rs. >> i think it increases the

lovell of risk for all partners. >> is a particular problem with allies and partners with less capable defenses than we do and how do you handle that? >> we have a strong dialogue with many of our allies and partners and we need to continue to build on that. >> i know that the pentagon wants more nato members to have more access to the unmanned aircraft. at there particular issues -- or vulnerabilities related to that, given these advanced toortunities for our enemies have this? >> there is clearly some risk there. and the way that we had you gets this risk -- we ask ourselves how we can mitigate this risk. systems,t is physical

what kind of tactics and -- to mitigate this risk. >> are those risks ever such that with regard to particular systems, we would not change our minds, in terms of the transfer to an ally. >> clearly this would be on the case-by-case basis. buy nothing i'm currently aware of. >> ok. last week the press reported that russia used cyber attacks against ukrainian telecommunications to hamper the ukrainian leadership, and the ability to access that. do you agree that russia has very sophisticated cyber capabilities, and if they use them, that could impart considerable damage to the ukraine's critical infrastructure. >> i think so.

>> i am going to move to the reserve -- admiral rogers. inot of us are interested better integrating and using leveraging, with reserve capabilities. trend, thatng-term the reserve is more in the middle of any efforts, and any fight that we have. what, specifically, is cyber crime doing to determine that the guard components are being fully utilized and maximized? >> cyber command is part of the broader departmental discussion that is ongoing right now that will be scheduled to be finished by july, to take a look at the mission analysis associated with asking what kind of reserve capability in the cyber arena that we need, how do we structure the reserve component and maximize the effectiveness, and that part in this mission. u.s. cyber command currently has

an ongoing series of exercises, with these units in the cyber arena. they also have an ongoing dialogue as part of a broader dialogue with governors, as we work our way forward to figure out the best way to maximize that capability. we have to maximize that capability. >> i would underscore and encourage that in regard to cyber command in particular, as i hope that you know, there is particular language in the last defense authorization bill, requiring maximization, the maximization of that in regard to the reserve. i would amend that to your focus and intentions. the final question, i think some of your comments have gone to the fact that the appropriate leadership needs to make the case more fully, and publicly and persuasively, for the use of important authorities, that do

exist and lay them out there in layman's terms, if you will, why this is important. and in that spirit, can you talk about the capabilities that have been very hotly debated, which is the use of a geographic -- geographic information regarding cell phones? >> to be honest, this is not an issue i have yet delved deeply into. this is one of those issues i have to be specifically smarter on, to be discussed publicly. that is part of the public discussion. >> if you would look at that and supplement the record in writing, with regard to your thoughts on that, i would appreciate it. that is all that i have. thank you, mr. chairman. , when you arene done -- you have voted on this one. i would turn this over to whoever is next in line.

i would appreciate it. >> thank you for your service and testimony today. my questions will primarily be for admiral rogers. i have a little bit of an or not -- unorthodox view of some of these challenges about nsa programs. many of my colleagues talk about these programs as if there is a solution to controversy and fixing the programs themselves. i actually think the bigger challenge is that many of these programs are being carried out pursuant to a vaguely defined moral conflict. twice during your testimony today, there was the notion of what we are in fact in. you indicated that you thought that edward snowden's revelations were wrong and cost american lives, but you hesitated before using the word traitor to describe him. when you are asked by senator graham, whether we were at war, you said that we are in a hostility or disagreement, but

then there was a misunderstanding about what exactly he was asking. you thought that he was asking about a cyber war. you understood that as the war on terror. my concern is that we are carrying out a whole series of mr. he -- military actions pursuant to the authorization for use of military force that was done on september 14, 2001 with no temporal limitations or geographic limitations and which has been defined as both the bush and obama administrations to extend to taking action not only against those who planned the 9/11 attacks but against the associated forces. that language does not appear in theauthorization, it is decision of both administrations about what that authorization uses. we are currently in a war, but the war does not have a geographic limitation. it does not have any kind of a temporal limitation, it does not

have an expiration date. this committee held a hearing on the authorization and use of military force in may. i asked witnesses from the obama administration, when will the war in and they said, they don't know, it will be 25 or 30 years. i asked the obama administration witnesses, somebody is born in 2020 and when they are 15 years they can join an organization associated with al qaeda, that only opened then and has no designs against the united states, does this authorization allow us to take action against that group? and the answer is yes. there is no reform we will be able to make any of these programs that lance of the questions of our citizens and civilians if the intelligence gathering operations are done in a significant way, pursuant to the open-ended military authorization. and the questions that you have received about this nature of

your job, you are part of a military command that is executing an authorization that has no imitation whatsoever. for all practical purposes. nsayou are also in the position where you are gathering intelligence. and i just feel that the challenge about limiting the nsa programs, or trying to find the right balance between fighting terrorism, stopping evil and protecting citizens rights, we can do anything we wanted within the four corners of the program. if we do not, as a congress, resist this with the 2001 authorization and try to put some sense of definition and scope to this, open ended, it could be a war for 25 or 30 years. we will continue to have witnesses, sharp witnesses who will come before us with difficulty describing exactly what we are in the middle of because the primary job of congress is to provide a definition at the front end, in

terms of what the mission is, it is the military and commander-in-chief that actually execute the mission. congress has given no definition of what it is we are doing at this point, and for that we will always have controversies, in my opinion, going forward. in your advanced policy questions, you asked about what constitutes the use of force in cyberspace in regards to the war powers act. with self-defense in the u.n. charter and the collective defense authorization. if you could just elaborate a little bit on that answer today, the use of force in cyberspace, and how, in your view, it triggers the war powers or other obligations, that the united states has. >> i apologize, with the 120 questions i was asked i do not remember the word for word specifics. please accept my apologies. one of the unique challenges in cyberspace, war in

what the hostilities are and the military action? >> on the policy perspective we are trying to work our way through these issues. applicable iss whatever we do in the cyber arena, international law will pertain. that if we find ourselves getting to a point where we believe that cyber is taking us down, in armed conflict scenarios, that the rule and the conflict- law of armed will maintain in this as any other. i don't think that cyber is inherently different in that regard. i think that those sets of procedures, for the policies and the nation, i think they represent a good point of departure. >> the phrase that you use is an issue. if we believe that cyber activity is taking us down the path to armed conflict in the international law, would it be your decision that cyber war,

someone takes out our great emily take activity to respond war, if it can have a huge effect on human life, a huge effect of the economy of the two nations. unless it dimly starred conflict? >> certainly not. i think of the sense of distractive acts that have significant impact for us. theink we are getting in boundaries, of is this an act of war? we are concerned about the broad general spectrum. >> just that question, we do have some important definitional work to do, the absence of the cyber bill makes this harder for all of us. switch topics. yesterday at northern virginia community college -- i was fortunate to be there at a time when there was a meeting of the bc -- based organization, cyber watched, -- d.c. based ,rganization cyber watch

talking about the skills that the cyber professionals needed, as a workforce organization. interested that someone from the department of defense is not around that table, they may want to follow to say that this may be a good avenue of precipitation -- precipitation -- participation. general alexander was here, with the need for 160 cyber missions, and 300 sixty hwy personnel by 2016. as the leader of cyber command, what would be your approach on these issues? and second, the competition from the private sector is also very intense for people with this skill set. what would be your approach for stamping out this mission? >> each of the services would take focus on this and the command of the cyber force, with the individual right now -- on the uniform side of our

experience, we have exceeded expectations and been able to recruit quality individuals and retain them. this is something my partners pay close attention to with indicators to suggest that essentially this is changing. in some way, the civilian side represents a potential greater challenge. i think that we need to look at the incentive, whether this is the ability to focus with these individuals in particular areas for extended amounts of time, in a way that we don't do now. we will have to look at all of that. >> with the civilian side and doing the work of cyber command. it takes a lot of talent of service branch personnel but also the civilians. and there has to be a good mixture. my time is up, and all of you are here for the first rounds of questions -- is there a second round of questions ranking member inhofe?

>> you can continue and i know that sen. cruz is coming back and we are talking about something i was unsuccessfully trying to get at. that is this threat. i fail to see that there is a major difference between someone who is attacking us, depending on what kind of weapons they are using, and the weapon of cyber attacks. -- let me just ask admiral rogers. do you believe that we are deterring our rivals in cyberspace? wenot to the extent that need to. >> do you know what this looks like? >> that is the problem. >> there is not a lot of public out there that understands the significance of what is going on. when i talk to people about what iran's capabilities are and what they will be by next year, we talk about the weapon and the delivery system, they understand that these are not cyber attacks. think, thehis and i

senator from virginia is really onto something. the war is the war. we will have to elevate the threat, that is what we will be dealing with. most people are not aware of that. general selby, they use rail primarily for large training exercises that depend on the rail industry to be ready to meet the department of defense search requirements. what is -- what is your opinion rail meeting the department of defense requirements? >> i cannot give you a definitive answer other than saying that the recent work that has been done to look at the number of available railcars.

with the assessments division -- i will be happy to look at that once i have the opportunity to do that, to confirm. the area of my expertise would not be appropriate. rogers, i mentioned earlier that i got to know the outgoing -- man in charge, general alexander quite well. i had the chance to talk to them, early on in this stage. he has an excellent job. he informed me that you have a kind of background that will be able to do the same thing. this is a different view of the public so they would understand how real that the threat is out there and look forward to working with them --

>> thank you, member in half -- inhofe. >> thank you senator kaine. general, admiral, thank you for being here. thank you for your long and distinguished service to the nation. i would like to talk about the nsa policies. with concerns about -- i have expressed concerns on nsa policies on 2 fronts. one of them is the overbroad intrusion for policy rights. two, number two is the pattern of not focusing on bad actions. and not focusing on the intention to prevent terrorist acts. with the intelligence and with theommunity --

individual bad actors. i would like to ask you questions on both fronts, starting out with the citizenry at large. as you are aware, president obama' group for the intelligence community -- says that the bulk of data collected by the nsa should be held by a third party. the privacy and civil liberties oversight board has recommended ending the bulk data altogether. do you agree with either of these? >> in terms of pulling the data from the national security, there is a standard we could work to that would allow us to do that while still meeting the requirements of generating the intelligence that we need and ensuring protection of u.s. citizens. can you please repeat the second part? >> the privacy and civil liberties oversight board recommended limiting -- ending the data collection altogether. >> i think that we can do this in a way that will provide

protection for the citizens and generate value. >> but you believe this should not be held by the u.s. government. president's the decision to shift that from the national security agency. >> if confirmed, what is the timetable for implementing that report? >> i don't know. --m driven by the solutions -- >> are you committed to working with members of this committee or a solution? >> yes. i want to ask more generally. the fourth amendment protects the privacy of law-abiding americans. what is your view of the appropriate limitations of the ability of the government, for e-mail communications. when you're not under suspicion of any wrongdoing.

>> i don't think this should be done without the corresponding legal framework for the execution. framework with your judgment require the individual suspicion? >> it out -- it varies from the aspects that we are talking about -- which is one area that the data approach was taken to address that, to deal with no contrast or names, no geographic location to strike that balance. >> would you say the government intercepts content from telephones or e-mails requires with the fourth amendment, individualized suspicion in some form of judicial oversight? >> i would make a blanket statement again, i am not aware of the specifics of the law and this is not an area of my expertise. >> i would ask after this you would answer that question in writing.

but in relevance to the fourth in relevance to how you would implement the policies of the nsa, this is a question of great interest. and the government collecting metadata or the content of indications with law-abiding -- law-abiding citizens. this is something the constitution speaks directly to. it -- i would like an expanded answer in writing after this. i would like to shift to the other side. we have devoted far too many resources, with law-abiding citizens and too few resources looking at bad guys. the tsarnaev brothers, we were notified by russia that they may have had connections to radical islam must terrorists.

the elder brother posted an advertisement with his desire for jihad on youtube, not a clear, hidden communication but for the world to see. and yet, even though we knew this individual -- we had reason to know that this individual was a radical islamic terrorists, and he was publicly proclaiming his desire for jihad, we failed to print -- prevent that tragic bombing in boston. i would like to ask you, why do you think that this was, and what can we do to correct this so we don't fail to prevent the next boston bombing. i don't know the specifics of the boston bombing. this is not something i have expressed direct knowledge of. withsecond example, deals major nadal hassan and the ft.

hood murders. hassan had traded 18 e-mails ath radical islamic cleric -- known terrorist leaders any spiritual advisor of the 9/11 attacks. this is someone who is known to do -- be a serious threat to the byntry, we communicated e-mail with him and in spite of all the surveillance capabilities, we failed to prevent that horrific terrorist

were devoted in less energy devoted to brodeur interception and surveillance of law-abiding citizens. it has struck me for some time the priorities has been backward. we are targeting the bad guys protecting innocents from terrorist acts at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of every american. thank you. said mckinny additional questions? i thank you for your appearance today as we go back and forth. we appreciate your serviceberry -- service.

the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon we will start now. is everybody ready? you'll have to move out to around 5:00 for a hearing on the ukraine. the we are ready to start. today we have secretary johnson that marks his very first appearance taking for being here. we look forward to your testimony we'll talk about the president's budget request for homeland security fiscal year 2015. mr. secretary policy documents as you know, that reflect to administration's priorities.

looking at the budget proposal fyi 15 what jumps off the page is blatant disregard for critical security and priorities that truly defies logic. you this administration does not see homeland security and law enforcement as important for it is trying to game congress to bail out unjustified and harmful cuts that as chairman i am obligated to call on a new and not tolerate it. with a political election in your budget proposed we know is when we see it in that is what we have today. specifically your budget proposes 12 percent cut marine operation that includes a cuts of more than

30 flight hours sandpipers cent cut to ice which is a $30 billion cut in investigations into decrease the 320-0500 and with the 10 percent reduction. with more than 4% to the coast guard of nearly 30 percent of critical acquisitions and to have pay brad -- budget proposal to result in more drugs on on our streets come to more illegal border incursions, more stress stress, more crime including instances of human smuggling as well as child exploitation that is unacceptable.

with this budget proposal and increasing spending of business and headquarters by 3% to make it worse the budget proposes $1 billion of new fees that are not even authorized. your budget assumes the enormous offsets that do not exist. with the creation of a new and costly political program that does not sit here to the plan passed into law and it has no plan or justification. with the security initiative is little more than a political wish list presented to conversing in this committee and a wholly inadequate way. this does not comply with the law and is missing 20 records required to be submitted with the budget.

this is an argument we have had it with homeland for years for this is how we can understand your budget. so these reports are inexcusable. frankly it is late and incomplete do not comply with the of law with the subcommittee standards. this the committee deals with matters of reality meaning we enforce the law as it is written not how we would like it to be. we only deal with laws and offsets that are real, not false or fictitious if these. -- fees. that is why we have three core principles since chairman rogers was in charge and has been carried over 11 years. unwavering support to the

front-line personnel and the central security operations. to. clear alignment of funding. number three to provide every well justify a dollar through homeland security not 1 penny more. this is a common-sense policy. i know you inherited the ill-conceived budget so we will work with you. with this so-called proposal i will give you my word to do that. we have a lot to cover here today but we turn to my friend and a ranking member in former chairman mr. price for his remarks. >> good morning.

good afternoon mr. secretary. this is your first appearance to answer questions on the fiscal year 2015 budget request from the up president. help you find a rehearings to be constructive and beneficial as secretary the subcommittee will be candid. so even when there are disagreements we respect your service to the country and look forward to working together. under the leadership of each of the predecessors your intent is to hasten the progress. one is the route of vhs personnel i know from our conversations it is a priority for you not only to

address it but to build into one vhs. with the extended vacancies at across multiple offices some of these could be delayed in the senate confirmation process including three last week. but the administration was slow to act so we like an idea when we will see these vacancies filled. you need long t.a.r.p. -- long-term leaders on board to do your job effectively. i have been impressed with using their risk-based strategies from risk-based screening by t.s.a. to prioritize by ice by sea vp the department is taking a more strategic approach.

that is especially needed now as we live in the era of fiscal restraint. that the discretionary budget for the of the including 6.$4 billion total is 1.1 billion of the current year funding level. dhl says not feel the department others are far worse. although i am hopeful we can do for word with the fiscal 15 numbers this agreement will still these massive shortfall across the federal budget for health and research grants in benefits and much beyond that. some are quick to criticize

the homeland security budget request but the government shut down sequestration, with domestic investments this history has left the administration severely limited options. perhaps no greater challenge for the department and immigration enforcement. not only flawed but also because of politics are so contentious i am afraid by exaggeration by fact and rhetoric has convinced me of the futility of approaching immigration as to the enforcement issue to throw money at the of order or any other aspect. we must have comprehensive reform and should have had

it long ago. we could accomplish reform this year mr. secretary that would go farther to make your job more a manageable and your department more successful. one of the things the subcommittee would benefit to help clear the air is more comprehensive how many individuals were they being apprehended how many how many are put on alternative detention with these individuals and where they fit into. with those detention resources with threats to the community or a serious flight risk. but our att programs that are less expensive to work

effectively as an alternative. it is not the way to reach consensus but it would elevate the discussion based on empirical evidence and agreed upon data. with regard to immigration enforcement policy there is a significant debate of prosecutorial discretion in the use of law enforcement has incredible history. as you know, yourself every prosecuting office in the country exercise his discretion to pursue to what extent. can actually if not is there left to the taxpayers. we should have a discussion the priorities for immigration enforcement and we can all agree is simply must prioritize. a convicted felon by definition has committed a more serious crime and a deferred action eligible individual to pose a bigger

risk to the public we don't have the resources to do little. with the specific budget proposal there are proposals i was hoping we would not see again. i want to register my concerns to the coast guard acquisition budget. representing important investment to the future from insecurity that we cannot shortchange. i am wary of transferring funding in responsibility for emergency food and shelter program from cut a and the mad because the stakeholder community did not support the change. other ford to your debate to work with you this year to support of your departments important missions. >> thank you. mr. secretary your entire written statement will be entered into the record to recognize for five minutes

to summarize. >> i'm sorry. shed half-assed might chairman if he has an opening statement. excuse me. >> thank you for being here. on your first appearance before the committee in the past several years the ranking member along with counterparts have worked hand in hand to restore regular order and austerity. the omnibus bill for fiscal 14 that we agreed on in january is emblematic of that commitment to make responsible choices to right size over federal government to target precious tax dollars. that bill was a true product

was a coming together reflecting our shared desire to roll up our sleeves to cast partisanship to the wayside to do the work of the storied committee. all of us are committed to moving forward in a similar fashion fiscal year 2015. with honest and fair negotiations why i am disappointed we are here today to review its budget request as has been pointed out is overly partisan. political. the protection of our homeland is a responsibility of paramount importance. i fear this budget request undermines that duty was the same budget gimmicks on a legislative proposal and cuts to front-line security operations that we sadly come to expect under this

administration. mr. secretary we have to do better. the department has proposed to significantly reduce the coast guard and ice to support the men and women who bravely defended the of men and women on the front line and in particular it will decrease by $202 million in domestic investigations 27.7 billion in addition to reducing that can mandated level by 10 percent another strong signal that this administration is not interested in enforcing immigration laws on the books in this country. this budget cuts over 500 military when the attorney general describes the uptick of heroin abuse in our country that it is an urgent public health crisis, his words.

the wisdom to reduce the first and most important front line of defense for heroin drug trafficking. once again the department is budgeted with imaginary monday relying on $1 billion of unauthorized increases. to support critical security measures. when fema program that has not been properly submitted or vetted. once agin day have a number of plants are reports that is essential to help them do their work well. these and a suggestion in for request. i could go on mr. secretary.

the bottom line is we have to do better. that will help to delay my concerns as we protect our homeland. >> i am sorry about that. we'll come mr. secretary i would like to think chairman rogers and the ranking member for their of leadership. to protect their homeland with the bipartisan working relationship we have fostered to meet that goal, mr. secretary, has to appear for the first time i welcome you. last year their racks of terror with cyberattacks on american businesses and drug cartel violence along the u.s.-mexican border.

resulting in the murder of 60,000 people since 2006. turning some border towns into a war zone. these challenges alone certainly make an extremely difficult job but yet you have ceased -- overseas 16 different agencies and offices which is no small feat. i wish you luck and we are ready to work with you to provide a border patrol officers, a special agents and first responders every the law enforcement officer the resources to keep our country safe. the president's budget for a the fema state and local grand into a large pot expressly against the wishes of this committee. such a consolidation could

prevent funds from those setter at most at risk with the nation's most densely populated areas in addition the assumption is that the job is premature to secure this to it -- said the finding could please the york city without the nuclear detection and capabilities that it needs. with that said i commend the president for his efforts to put americans back to work to make an investment to support our infrastructure. the opportunity growth and security initiatives if implemented would provide $400 million of mitigation

assistance. the natural disasters becoming more frequent these would be a worthy investment with the infrastructure. last week every day the best and brightest come to america to steady work and then do to the broken immigration and a sister returned home to compete against us in a global market. this makes no sense. businesses and security professionals and labor all agree every day without comprehensive immigration reform is a missed opportunity. i hope the house will take up h.r. 15. nearly identical to the senate bill that passed with bipartisan support that when you come before us next year we will discuss how the president fyi 16 budget needs the implementation for this legislation.

thank you mr. secretary. >> i am sorry for the mixup you are now recognized for your statement mr. johnson. >> fate q. mr. chairman, a ranking member that i have known for some years. i want to begin by thanking those subcommittee i do have my prepared statement from -- for the record to read the abbreviated version and thank for you for what you provided the past 11 years from teleport to continue to work with you in the coming year to protect the homeland and american people. i am pleased to appear before the subcommittee with the fiscal year 2015 budget

request. it builds on the accomplishments over the past 11 years to provide central support to national economic security. basic missions are and should be to prevent terrorism to enhance security to secure and manage our borders to a minister of our immigration laws, starting in securing cyberspace to strengthen national preparedness and resilience. the request provides the resources necessary to maintain and strengthen our efforts with each of these areas with bfi 15 budget request 60.9 billion of total budget authority of gross discretionary funding and 308-point to billion of net discretionary funding.

of a particular note the budget request of the national security kadar a part of the recapitalization to request 300 million for the funding necessary to construct us into the art biocontainment facility central to the protection of the nation's food supply and security. it will provide 10-point to billion for disaster resiliency through the grants program administered by fema and the disaster relief fund. also to the vacancies within the senior levels of the department. i am pleased the senate last week acted three confirmations including a new inspector general and we have three more awaiting

confirmation now and with the suspect -- respect to the others we have an individual we are recruiting. this is an active part of my responsibility to fill these positions i spent virtually some part of every day working on this important mandate. as secretary i am also mindful of the environment in which we pursue each of our missions. when those of us can expect more and more to be added to use the topline budgets. i a therefore believe as many members believe i am obligated to identify and eliminate inefficiencies inefficiencies, waste and unnecessary duplication of resources across the vhs large and decentralized yorkers you while saving missions with the capitalization of the aging coast guard fleet. we reached a major milestone last year with the

department achieve the first unqualified or audit opinion on financial reporting. these are important steps to ensure that management and oversight functions but there is more to reduce. as part of the agenda we tackle the budget structure and the da jazz has 76 appropriations over 120 projects or activities with the structural inconsistencies to make mission based budget planning and analysis difficult. making changes as i have discussed to the budget process to better focus the efforts on a mission. i with the deputy secretary m. personally engaged with the necessary leadership and direction to this process. as part of the management reform agenda doing a top to bottom review governance process how we develop our strategy is to the development of our

requirements how to sustain our platforms. parts of this will include the necessary consolidation of functions to provide the department proper oversight management responsibilities to carry out this task. this allows teeeight just to fully ensure the solutions we pursue our responsive for our strategy, a technological mature cost-effective. i look forward to sharing our ideas and strategies with the subcommittee as we move forward in this area. the last thing i would like to comment is a week before last in my testimony before the house homeland committee a member remarked we know you inherited this but we're doing here is something you own it. i except responsibility for the budget submission

somebody has to be responsible. that is me. i look forward to your questions mr. chairman. >> i appreciate that comment. over the past four months apprehending 66,928 illegal entrants into the rio grande valley in texas. with these procedures it adjudication backlog resulted in them in the united states for the in determinant amount of time which is the defacto catch and release policy. mr. secretary, with yes or no, first come in the administration regressing to the flawed catch and release

policy of our past history? >> --. >> do you know, ? and i do not believe so and i would be opposed. i know from my experience at department of defense the law-enforcement force has serious objections to catch and release. we ask these people to put their lives on the wine and if you do that you should not capture and catch only to be released moments later i do not believe that a policy and i don't believe we have such a policy. >> let's look at some things. the accommodation of government directives, deferred action action, interpretation and the proposed budget cuts lead to a defect go catch and release policy. of these directors members

will -- memos with illegal activity granting lawyer interest, even if it is legal limbo, aren't white house decisions with the latest proposal with i.c.e. enforcement resources craving the posture that leads to humanitarian dilemma and law-enforcement nightmare? we have talked. illegal border crossings are a big deal to my neighbors. we know what is going on in the rio grande valley. we call it the valley by your group calls it the rge. with that illegal flow of illegal aliens coming into our neighborhoods more and more and transnational network support these

illegal crossings. the word on the border is today no one crosses the river without the cartel being involved. they statistics about apprehension in the rio grande valley first quarter fiscal year 2014. as i said, 66,828 people were apprehended. a total of 49,815 were new, were other than mexicans. and 18,555 were juvenile apprehensions. when these folks are apprehended, they met i.c.e.'s mandatory detention criteria, because they were recent illegal entrants. but needless to say, they weren't all placed in detention beds. so what happened to them once they were processed by cbp and turned over to i.c.e.?

of the 66,928, how many were removed from detention, placed in alternative detention, claimed credible, or waiting immigration hearings? how many other mexicans waiting to be deported? we can't just ship them back to mexico. of the 18,555 children, how many were delivered to family members living legally or illegally in the united states, and how many children continue to wait in shelters if they couldn't be reunited to family members? there's no doubt, mr. secretary, in my opinion, at least, there's no doubt the current policies are causing systematic failures to the united states immigration enforcement process. creating, i would argue, an invitational posture that is leading to a humanitarian crisis. it's a really sad story to hear, and we hear it on the border all of the time.

of a small child dropped across the bridge in brownsville, with a plan that is instigated by the cartel, there is nothing to worry about that small child. it will be delivered by i.c.e. to agents flying into a company -- to a family in virginia. now, this whole policy has created a disaster at our border. aren't what our policies we're establishing. would you consider this might be creating incentives to bad behavior? and what's your solution? >> a couple of comments. first, i've been to the valley. i spent time there. i've done the rio grand, and i've talked to our border patrol agents on the front lines about the challenges they face and what they need, the resources they need.

because i know from personal experience very often you learn more from talking to the people on the front lines than you do your subordinates in washington. in fact when i went to the valley, i told my subordinates in washington to stay home. i wanted to talk directly to the guys on front line. i agree that we've got some real challenges in south texas. i think south texas, particularly, of late, is presenting some real challenges, and we've got some work to do there. one of the things that i was struck by when i visited the detention center on january 20th, there were 995 detainees there, only 18% of whom were mexican. there were something like 30 nationalities represented in that one detention center. and it's very clear why. smuggling organizations are bringing these individuals through mexico, into the united states as part of a plan.

so one of my concerns, one of my challenges, is i think we have to be very aggressive when it comes to going after the organizations. some of whom are beholden to the cartels. many of whom are beholden to the cartels. almost no one crosses the south texas border who is not being smuggled. there is no freelancing. it's all part of an organized process put in place. i am also sensitive to aspects of our system that may create magnets for illegal immigration. i am sensitive to that. and when i was on the front lines, i talked to our border patrol folks about some of the stresses that they face on the front lines as a result of the system we have in place. in my judgment, this is one of the reasons why we need comprehensive immigration reform. both for the added border security that it would provide and, frankly, for -- and i know

some people disagree with this. but i think i'm right on this. as a matter of homeland security, an earned path to citizenship for the 11 million who were here, he want them to come out of the shadows so we know who they are, as a matter of homeland security. but chairman, i am sensitive to the challenges the people on the front lines face. i think in south texas and the valley, we've got some work there to do, in particular. the last thing i would say is, there's a difference between catch and release and apprehension, arrest and, you know this yourself from your time in the judiciary, and someone being released on parole, on bond, because someone has determined that they're not a flight risk. and that does indeed happen in our immigration system. and we have asked for $94 million for an alternative to detention program that we think

is a pretty good one, consistent with public safety. >> well, you sort of confirmed in some ways what i just said abou invitatiol >> i think you for your comments when we had ketch and release, i interviewed bondsman. the posit that they had was they would make the bond but there were before the judge giving up the bond an amount. they were playing this game in the system, bacchanal for when we had the catch and release as a pause in the united states. i need to go back. i will get my time again. >> mr. chairman, as you know, on the subcommittee we have worked very hard. partners with first responders,

state and local governments to fully fund fema programs. propose a reduction, although i note that the administration has also proposed, additional funding or would include additional funding, state and local grants fully paid for. it would be beyond the top line funding level in the budget agreement now, in addition to the department again proposing to establish which would take the place of a currently funded prepared this program. the port security program and the transportation security grant program, in other words the rail program. the administration on like the last two years as proposed authorization language for this new in the gp, but the proposal is basically the same as we have

seen in recent years. so i am wondering if you could elaborate for us the rationale for this proposal i am especially interested in the practical effects. with the major urban areas significant amounts of funding under this restructured. with the city's need to of rely solely on their state government are more on their state government to receive funding under the proposed structure? secondly, could you describe for me what kind of changes you have made in response to some of the criticisms the early, or the consolidated program to be authorized and funded, do you expect that we would see a

significantly different balance of investments then we have seen under the currently funded prepared this grant programs? you see what i'm getting at? there were important to us and you. you want to find them as generously as with possibly can and i want to do this in a way that is effective and efficient as possible. this proposal keeps coming back. we have resisted it, as you know very well. we have reason to believe that the current grant structure is well-defined and has delivered important assistance. if you have a different idea or if you believe that the bottom line in terms of what is delivered an hours utilized would be different and would be better under this kind of

consolidation then i think now is the time to let us know that russia now. as i said, this proposal to fund this is the first time we have seen it. if you are persisting in this we obviously need to know the reason why. >> first of all, i was pleased that and the 14 budget agreement there was more money set aside from state level. i believe that assistance grant making to state and local governments from my counter-terrorism point of view is particularly important as the terrorist threat becomes more diffuse, decentralized and in many instances localized with the self radicalized individuals we see domestically. support for state and local governments is particularly important. we intend to do so. i'm aware of the opposition of

the consolidation of the grants program. another this debate has been going on. i have asked the very same questions you just asked me. with the consolidation of the grants program at the state level they would be increased efficiencies in terms of federal oversight of how the grant money was spent and increased the efficiency of the state and local side in terms of oversight for how this money, of the grant money it is. i know that our fema and administers these grants is a big believer in consolidating the grant program. have a tremendous amount of respect he believes that we need to do this. he administers this program. i have to -- i am inclined to defer to his judgment. i understand the concerns.

anytime you are engaged in grant making, if they're is a way to reduce the overhead so that the grant money is maximized in terms of getting to its maximum impact, that's a good thing. that's why we come back at this. i am pleased that this year we offered opposition language to a company. that's my best understanding of the reason for the proposal. >> one question about the opposition language, you proposed authorization to define the national prepared the school. i no you're maintaining the fair branson the safer personal grants as discrete programs. does this definition include fire fighting as one of those core capabilities? it is included as i understand.

propose to be changed. >> i have to take that question for the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. secretary, the country as an appeal a problem. that is putting in of the. until fairly recently the abuse of prescription drug menace and was killing more people and car wrecks. opioid, oxycontin and allied. we have made a real dent in the through a concerted action on the state, federal, local levels and making some progress. that was what the center for disease control called a national epidemic. and i have been to too many emergency rooms in the district looking at young kids with parents grieving over the body

of their son or daughter. we have made some progress on prescription drug abuse. now they are switching to using their own. and the rise in heroin abuse now is what the attorney general yesterday called an urgent health crisis we all know that heroin is not made here in the u.s. has to be imported, brought it, either across or borders or across our seashores. and yet to combat this urgent public health crisis in your budget you proposed cutting the

coast guard drastically. the one agency that can protect our shorelines against this invasion, the health crisis that we are undergoing. you cut over 800 military positions. over 600 selected reserves funding only to even though the program is on cost and on schedule, desperately needed. proposing to retire aircraft and more concerning proposing to cut flying hours for the new aircraft by 16 percent. i could go on.

undercuts to the coast guard, vital to our seashore events, particularly on drugs. we can talk about the land crossings the same way, the reduction in personnel and cuts to the land base law enforcement , investigations of you are proposing to reduce the number of average sustained detention beds from 304,000 to 30,000. furthermore, i saw when security investigations program decreased nearly 30 million. i could go on. is the attorney general long? he said yesterday this is an curve to of urgent national crisis. do you maintain that the coast guard is not an important factor

in fighting that occurs? >> i wholeheartedly agree with the attorney general with regard to is,. the short answer to your question is that this budget submission reflects hard choices given our fiscally constrained environment in which we're operating pursuant to the bipartisan budget act and the topline parliament that we face. with regard to the coast guard can personally committed to continuing with our recapitalization effort. my understanding is that the coast guard has the oldest fleet of vessels of any navy in the world. we need to continue our recapitalization effort. we have in our budget submission has for 500 to 29 to fund the national security cotter which is the last one and a production line.

i am pleased we are continuing progress toward the selection of a contractor for the offshore patrol cover which is the medium sized cotter in the flea. i am pleased that we have for progress with regard to the frc, the smaller kutcher. we asked for appropriations for to versus 46 because we had to make some large rises. my observation of homeland security investigations is that they do a marvelous job in terms of narcotics interdiction. i did daily reports on their efforts of interdiction of the border of illegal narcotics. and they're doing a terrific job need to encourage them to continue. without a doubt this budget submission reflect some very hard choices.

>> you're right. you have to make choices. so the we. that is what we are in business for. by your cutting the coast guard and the other agencies that fighting illegal drug trafficking, you are increasing management administration, immigration and customs enforcement with 13, almost 14% increase in management and administration, bureaucrats in washington. you cut domestic investigations by almost 3 million so on. so the hard choices, plus you propose to increase the amount of money to complete the dhl said scores.

that is an easy choice may make i disagree with the on the hard choices the ec of me. your budget would put coast guard and a five-year low in cocaine interdiction, five-year low. and we all know that cocaine is flooding into our country. and so, mr. secretary, this is not good news. mr. chairman before i release ridgemont on the me ask the secretary about the federal air marshal's program. and now we can't talk about that in open court here. too much. i would appreciate of report, a

confidential report for the record for me and for whomever wants it about the operation of the federal air marshal's, the number, the effectiveness, the provisions, if any, that they may have expedited and an analysis of where we are with the fan and whether or not we need. >> mr. chairman, i am happy to provide that report to you with the civil safecard. and now we can trust you and your staff with the appropriate safeguards. i am happy to provide that to you. it's something you should have if you ask for. >> anything that's money we want to know about. >> arms are. >> in a program that spends money we want to know about, are entitled to know about and demand to know about. and so i wanted to get a good analysis forthwith, pretty quick

before we mark this bill up. >> i am not disagreeing with user. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary, the explanatory statement of accompanying the fiscal year 2014 omnibus included language directing the department to focus the urban areas security initiative on urban areas that are subject to the greatest terrorism risk and allocate resources and proportionate to fund in proportion to that risk. as you know, the purpose of this language was to focus their resources of the apartment and fema on those urban areas at the highest risk of an event rather than spread this money around from region to region and state to state, rather than put it to good use where it matters most.

how does the department plan to up implement this language for the fy14 allocation? when can we expect the fy14 allocations under the more focused standard? >> i reviewed -- made an initial review of the proposed allocations last week on with pursuant to the time chair will now we have to adhere to. to get that information now i agree with the statement about how the grant money should be prioritized for the community's most at risk as someone who was in manhattan on 9/11 i appreciate the challenges that we in the new york area have and in other communities. so we expect have that information out very soon.

i have heard from enough members of congress about the grant program and how we allocate risk i think it is incumbent upon me as secretary to make sure that we are allocating this in the proper way and that we occasionally re-evaluated to make sure we're getting it right. for a fly 59 and committed to do that as well. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. the budget request would also cut 10 million from the tea and tea security securing our city programs. his program has been invaluable to be in law enforcement and in areas of critical infrastructure the capabilities to identify, responsive, and altogether prevent a radiological or nuclear attack and the city. could you discuss with me what accounts will the proposed reduction of 10 million for this

program tonight as the department coordinated with new york city's new chief of police to ensure that the support reduction to securing the city program would not harm the new york police department's detection capabilities? >> well, i have a pretty good working relationship with the nypd and its leaders. i knew commissioner bratton before i took this job. i met with him two or three times since, and i have anti-lock with the new york city police department. you are correct that there is, and our submission, 10 million less. again, this reflects hard choices. i asked specifically about this one in particular. it is my hope and expectation that we can leverage this through other means, through other grant programs for new york city and for other communities. that is my hope and expectation.

again, it reflects our choices. >> i think you very much because i did work closely with commissioner kelly. lastly, i would just like to discuss some matter of importance regarding tsa. i recently met with transportation security officers who relayed that female t.s. those are finding it more difficult to be promoted because they are held at the passenger checkpoint for pat downs rather than gaining experience at other stations. approximately 33% are women, and has only female t.s. those are permitted to conduct pat downs of female passengers as well as being the preferred choice for pat sounds of children and the elderly, the result is that 33% of t. s. those are responsible for over 50 percent of all patents. having female t.s. those conduct

pat downs of female passengers is certainly a well-intentioned policy, but i have heard continuing problems about its implementation. it said the increased demand for female t so at passenger checkpoints, they tell me they are not rotating positions per tsa policy because of insufficient number of t so on-duty at passenger checkpoints. the result is that there not getting the experience in other stations to be considered for promotion and are being denied position bids because there are disproportionately kept at the checkpoint. in addition to making an effort to hire more females, could you discuss with us what steps the tsa should take to ensure that females have equal access to training, shift bids, promotions

as they're male counterparts and the tragic shooting at los angeles international airport last year which resulted in the number of charter hernandez shines a bright light on the need for check point security. so if you can tell us what steps are being taken to improve checkpoint's security, how will this train employees to handle an active shooter event or event like that tap -- attack at lax will not happen again. if you could address those two issues i would be most appreciative. >> on the first issue, had not heard that before. i am not surprised given the basic statistics, 33 percent are women. we want them to conduct the pat downs of the no passengers, probably about 50 percent of aviation passengers. you had kids that's in excess of 50%. i would now want to see male

officers doing now with regard to women. that need therefore -- there is a certain logic to your question and requires that it be on the front lines of aviation security. i would not want to see that depriving promotion opportunities. i will look into that. it is an interesting comment which i had not heard from the women in the force lie and chatted with an lax and dallas and elsewhere. does not mean that they did not exist. just means that did not raise it to me directly. i was there and spoke with the officers on that day. i asked them about their security. i don't think that the answer is to create a security perimeter around a public airport. that would create all kinds of backlogs. i know administrator crystal agrees with me. there is a review that is out on promoting security for our officers, and that is a top priority, says kermit and women.

>> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a point of want to quickly follow upon, identifying her real problem with the ability of employees and airports to get access to an identification documents and i hope she will continue to work on that. mr. secretary, i noticed that in your background -- i am trained as an attorney as well. i did civil defense work in houston defending businesses and individuals, engineers, professional people. i see that is your background. >> you were the general counsel for the department of defense. just as a point of curiosity, do you think that the individuals picked up by our soldiers overseas and on the battlefield held at guantanamo are entitled to the equal protection and due

process? >> that's a very interesting question that we wrestle with extensively. under the the current stated the case law. >> my opinion is whether the supreme court tells me to think piteous of the currency of the case law is that with regard to the right to habeas they have that. certain of the limited rights. there has been no determination by the course that detainees at guantanamo enjoy the full panoply of constitutional rights the courts but tended to say we are not there yet but we don't have to rule on that. that is the current state of the case law. you can go in that direction depending upon the particular -- >> i was particularly interested in what you have been involved in, advocating for different results. >> i agree with the comment made earlier which is i am not in the

business of enforcing the law as i wish it existed. i do my best job of enforcing the law as i believe that currently exists. >> there you go. >> generally that is true. >> and since 2000 to this committee has had instead she is provision that chairman carter with strong support of chairman rogers and the final bill the president just signed provides this as an hr3547. the funding made available under this bill shall maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds. and you are quite correct. as the secretary has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the constitution loss of the united states you can't deal with the law as you wish it would be. therefore if you could, what possible justification is there for the department of homeland

security to refuse to obey that law? and why would you request to cut detention beds by 10%? first of all, what is your legal justification for ignoring the law and not complying with that? >> i go with similar provisions when i was a lawyer for the department of defense. the apartment of the air force when i was general counsel there. i believe that and the executive branch when we have a legal obligation to make the budget submission we of the congress our best effort at what we think the budget priorities should be. >> recommendations. >> has a recommendation. it is your prerogative to agree with it or disagree with it. i am sure that the congress will do so in this instance as well. but with regard to that particular provision we believe we owe you our candor and our best effort at will we believe

is the appropriate level for detention beds given our current demands. and so that is what you have from the minister's. >> right. you are not filling all those bets today. that is my concern. >> we are not filling all those beds today. actually today i believe we are somewhere just shy of that. but shy of 34,000 based on our best judgment about who should be detained and you can be bonded or paroled. >> it's mandatory. you agree? not discretionary mandatory. >> it reads as it reads. we have given you are best submission based on our honest assessment of what we think we need. >> sure. and confident you can detect from the committee all of us on this committee are committed to enforcing the law as it is written. my good friend who had the pleasure of serving with in the

texas house, one of my nearest and dearest friends, his constituents who live right there, there is no one more committed to enforcing the law and in greece constituents because those poor folks are at the front line and do what it every day. they want safe streets and good schools and a strong economy. larry knows largest inland port. and a beautiful city. i used to go. you can't anymore. it's like a ghost town. it is critical, and i hope you detected from all the questions you have seen in this hearing that you enforce the law as it is written. it is not, as you said, what you would like the law to be. you are also following the law has given to you by the united states congress. this is not optional, not discretionary, no prosecutorial discretion on the part of a police officer as to whether or not you will fill 34,000 beds. you shall fill 34,000 beds. if you could, would you please

take that message back to the agency? and know that the chairman and all the subcommittee members will be keenly interested in helping you labetalol has written. >> the comment on that bed mandate, as the law is written and as has been interpreted by my colleagues in saying that you must fill 34,000 beds, what that does this if i am correct takes away the discretion of professional personnel who may determine that someone who is arrested could be an elderly person, whoever that happens to be, that you would not be

allowed to use that discretion and put them in an alternative means of detention because of health or for other reasons of those 34,000 beds were not filled. there would be in a position of having to fill those beds every night whether or not he believed a certain number of the people that were arrested could be put into an alternative situation. is that how -- i mean, the law is interpreted. 34,000 beds have to be filled regardless of the merits of the need, the conditions of that person and that the discussion is taken away from ice professionals if that 34,000 number isn't filled?

i am just trying to understand the logic in how this law applies. it is very, very costly to have people in detention. a hundred $25 a night as opposed to -- shephard did what the figure is, something like $0.30 per day to put them and alternative measures. could you explain to me. >> well, i don't have the statute in front of me. i have no doubt it says the word shower and a. and i don't know that the interpretation here -- and feel free to disagree with me. we must maintain 34,000 detainees at any one time. it is that we must maintain the capability for 34,000 detainees. congressman, correct me if i'm

on. okay. the other, to five. >> the capability is one thing. you must fill them. that means that there is no discretion. both parents have to be filled every night regardless of who it is the you or are arresting, whether the elderly or otherwise. that is what i am asking for clarification on. >> the statute says, the language says funding shall maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds through september 302014. so reading that i would interpret that to mean that we have to maintain 34,000 detention beds. some of those beds might be empty of any given time, but we have to maintain 34,000 detention beds. we believe that is not the best and highest use of our resources given our current estimate of

who we need to detain, who we regard as public safety national security border security threats our best estimate is that the number is something south of 34,000, particularly when we have or we think is a pretty view alternative to the attention program that we have also passed the refunding for. we have asked for something around 30,000 to detain you we believe need to be detained. >> so your interpretation that is different than the previous interpretation. both plans to not have to be filled. they have to be available. the discretion as to whether or not to detain someone or put them into an alternative situation remains at the discretion of the professionals? >> i am reading the statute.

>> the reason i'm asking -- >> the lawmakers can correct me if i'm wrong. i it's the -- canal was a member of the air force we used to be at langley every year. is not exactly like this. you shall budget for 94b52. it was not just you shall have 94. you shall submit to me a budget. in the chief of staff of the air force would have this conversation with me every year. to after release of the budget for 94? at the guy on in the 76. i said to him, well, i think you owe it to congress the candid to tell them you think you only need 76. there will disagree with you every year and will get 94.

you know, as part of this process which we are engaged in right now i think reality our best estimate of what we needed al we take you spend the money. >> and if the gentle lady would yield a thing she has about 30 seconds. >> i would agree that you have to have available 34th thousand beds under this law. be made available, i think that's what this says. you get a dollar amount in map for how much will pay. i think that is a call. now, the concern i have about reducing the number is that from my experience, one of the bad jobs i had was keeping rjo of the fog.

will we run out of space, about five times or more extensive than the space that you maintain i think the numbers of track and we have been closer to 34,000 in any other number six. it is not because we're filling beds of people who don't need to be there. the need is actually there. we will find that out as we investigate this. >> yield to those who were here earlier. i was here earlier. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. secretary, as you know,

the screening partnership program allows airports to apply for a private screeners rather than the federal screeners. administrator passed laws on the record opposing the concept. today i believe 14 airports actively participate in the program. again, for the screen partnership program. and a few questions the would like to address to be a first, what level of oversight is al qaeda just connecting to insure the cost comparison process being conducted by tsa is accurate as al qaeda tests validated the cost comparison process? >> the level of oversight -- on sorry, should i go out? >> go ahead. >> the level of oversight that we are providing to the proponents with regard to programs like the one is, i would say, and transition.

we are conducting a top-10 efficiency review including creating a new budget process and the like and that i hope will lead to a greater efficiency and weeding and inefficiencies with regard to that particular program. >> second, is al qaeda just as wrong with the amount of time it takes tsa to award an sdp contract to transition that airport once an application has been approved? >> for what program? >> the same program, the screening partnership. >> i am sure there is room for improvement. >> al qaeda -- the federal process, starting wages rather than the actual wages being paid preventing bettors from meeting the parameters of the bid without paying incumbent employees at tsa starting salary rather than the current wages.

mr. secretary, chairman carter and i agree that in this budgetary environment cost efficiency is absolutely critical. tsa set the bar for private screeners to compete. >> that is a good question. i would like to take the one for the record so that i can give you an answer. >> no problem. >> i want to quickly move to the personnel charity program, given that there are individuals who are being vetted for security plans for da says programs similar to the personnel sherry program horner. why should they have to go through that same process? >> i believe that we are looking for ways to consolidate our screening programs. this is an issue that has been raised and me. i believe we're looking for ways to consolidate our program picks. >> i appreciate your help.

at one point in the development of the p is the consideration was being given to the use of the car by individuals. is this still on the table? many people come to me. >> i believe it is an important program. my understanding is that we are on track to be in a position to mail to people their cards and get to the one stop for a system where you only have to go wants to get your card and then you get it mail to you. >> my staff and now would love to work with your folks on that issue. >> thank you. >> i would know that i personally have to go to the dmv to get my license plate. >> ici have to you back my time. i just want to say, have a question i will submit for the record of some part with respect to the motor coach industries

and the inner city passenger transportation. thank you and i will you back. stay. >> chairman, thank you so much. good seeing you again. what i want to do is focus on performance. this last ominous appropriation bill, we add some language which applies to all agency heads, including yourself. as you prepare your funding request and in consultation with the gao, you should directly link your performance tied into the performance measures and we have to show that those performance measures that would give you $1, what we get for that? it goes on. examine output, everything has defined. one of the things that i would ask you to do, when we were looking at the performance and

the to your performance goals, and they're is a handout, members, if you will look at the hand up. i think we gave you a copy for, mr. secretary, i would ask you to look at, for example, your budget last year was -- that is the general purpose discretionary was 39 billion. how much money do you think out of that is used for terrorism which is a number one goal of preventing terrorism. >> well, it depends on -- there is probably a number of we attribute out of that to counter terrorism. it depends obviously on what aspects of our mission you consider to be potentially counter terrorism, one aspect of the secret service budget goes to counter terrorism. i suspect there is number assigned to that. i just don't have it off and.

>> if you can get that to us later on roughly. what i would venture to say is billions of billions of dollars we put in to terrorism. >> that is probably correct. >> and then your number one goal -- you said different goals, and i am just taking everything you have, the performance. your number one goal is to prevent terrorism. and then there are measures tied in that. now, would you venture to say -- and i am looking -- i would ask you to take a look at this. if we spend billions of dollars on in number one goal, your first performance measure is the percentage of intelligence report rated satisfactory or higher. the customer feedback that enables customers to understand the threat. and then you go on, the second

one, the percentage of intelligence report rated satisfactory or higher and customer feedback that enable customers to participate. thank you retired the performance measure. you go into others. now would you say that for members of the appropriation that if we appropriate billions of dollars that the number one measure you should have his house satisfied are the people that it does intelligence reports. is that what we should be measuring? i took everything out of the website. >> the way your question is stated now would have to say no. >> and then i would venture to say -- i mean, i would ask you to go back with your folks and look at this language that we add it to the bill, ask you to look at the outcomes. i think the outcome we ought to be looking at should be members

of terrorist acts committed in the united states should be zero. i mean, i think that is the result of the impact will looking at. i would ask a look at that because of all of looking at antipathies. i would ask your staff to look at the definition of what an outcome measure is, when output is in on that. i would also ask you -- i don't have this, but if you look at one of the things that i am familiar with, i breathe the air and drink the water on securing the land ports, for example, i mean, i'd think we should have much better measures them what you have your. again, i would ask you to read just look at that it will work with us, work with gao. unless you take a look at that. mr. chairman, you are familiar with what we did in texas. with the state legislature we have different measures.

again, we would love to sit down and look at this. we're just measuring activity. after billions of dollars, your number one goal and the number one measure is are you happy with the report we gave you? i think we can do better than that. mr. chairman, i would like to yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary. >> mr. secretary, as you know, customs processing of the nation's busiest airports during peak travel times remains a problem. this deters international terrorism to the united states costing our economy billions of dollars annually pity as you are aware, fiscal 2014 on the bus appropriations bill included funding for an additional 2,000 cpb officers. what is your plan for mitigating and eliminating excess of customs and immigration wait times at our nation's airports?

and specifically approximately how many of the 2,000 additional cpb officers do you plan to deploy at our airports? >> congressman, i agree with much of the premise of your question. i agree that one of my missions as secretary of homeland security is promoting and expediting lawful travel and trade. so wait times at airports is a big issue. on will observe that in a lot of major airports wait times can spike up and down depending on time of day because very often international flights, and all it wants. i have seen this myself. and share your experiences and. you are correct and the fy14 budget we have 2,000 additional

c bp officers, many of whom will be devoted to airports fast and lessening wait times. we have made some preliminary estimates of were those officers should go, but it is still work in progress. we have not finalized yet. but an important goal is reducing wait times facilitating lawful travel and i think it will be able to accomplish that with the additional resources you're given us. >> thank you. an additional question. since the attempted bomb plot with cargo coming of yemen in 2010 cpb and tsa have worked closely together to create the air cargo advance screening pilot program. it is my understanding that a draft rule to convert this pilot program into a mandatory program has been in discussion for over your. can you provide any update on when we can expect to see a

public notice of proposed rulemaking? >> not specifically. i'm happy to take that question for the record and get back to you. i agree with you that airport security and poor screening of inbound cargo should be a top priority. it certainly is priority of mine and secretary of homeland security for the very reasons decided, but i will get back to you on the timing. >> and a follow-up, some in this rule does get published and go into effect in the near future, is d.h. s. blinder have sufficient funds to staff the national target center that analyzes and targets these international inbound cargo shipments based on risk? >> i will have to get back to you on that. >> mr. chairman, i will yield back. i have more questions for later. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. secretary, it's a pleasure.

>> 2001. in your testimony, the authorizes have expressed some very heartfelt views as to why this new assignment is so important. a part of your new assignment will focus on the whole issue of server security. i note that in the 2015 budget you have that one.

the priorities for the use of these dollars. i am determined to advance the ball on cyber security. al qaeda says is the coordinator of the federal government's efforts in this regard. i am very aware of the cyber security threat that this nation faces based on my experience in national security, and we have to do a better job. the subject matter in general is impenetrable for a lot of people so one of my missions is to state the threat more clearly and in plain terms of that the average american understands that this has to be a top priority. the 1 billion is across d.h. yes. that covers not just in pee pee dee, national director which has the core mission, but it also includes the components.

for example, the secret service is the lead investigator in the target store issue with the credit card to target. that is also cyber security. and so across dhs in its entirety there are a number of components invested which is how you get to that number. a large part of that number is the einstein system where we protect the doctor of world. i believe there requested 375 million. the response in the private sector and diagnostics rapid response. >> talk a little bit about the private sector. all the things that happening out there. .. respon response. >> could you talk about the private sector? with all the things that are happening out there? >> yes. >> issues of privacy. certain carriers. i think in many ways doing

kroijeous things. you have to ben trait we need working relationships some of whom have grown suspicious and others who have become participants. how do you handle yours yourself and your department in terms of your work in this area and how is it going? building relationships, raising the trust with the private sector, with private business, with the average american. interfacing with best practices, and the like. and we're doing that, i'm permanently committed to that. i'm engaging with business leaders myself, to talk to them about this problem, and lowering some of the barriers. i agree