ass in gear. i will not say that i know what to say anything that is a little bit off. [laughter] so please do me a favor to work with people and go out and vote to give us the victory. [cheers and applause] and if we win iowa we will run the table make great deals to have such a great military and take care of health care without that crazy obamacare that is a nightmare. [cheers and applause] . . it is time for that person to win iowa and have a total

victory. i love you, all. we are having fun. when i heard the polls today they said what are you going to do? i said i am not leaving iowa. i am going to work harder. if i lose iowa i will never speak to you people again. okay. let's do a couple questions. where is that mike? nice questions. vicious. you can ask me anything you want. you any tana? >> you got a good one for him? go ahead. >> how are you? >> good. thank you. i want you to know i am married, eight children, stay at home wife and average income. i want to know with the war on poverty we spent $20 trillion, yet the poverty lines are the same. i made good choices, a lot of people do, we pay for people to

make bad choices, what are you going to do cut some of that out? >> we have now and the numbers came out -- we have 50 million people in poverty in this country. you look like you are doing well in fairness. we have 50 million. 46 million people getting food stamps. we talk about how well we are doing. almost 50 million between poverty and food stamps. it has to end. one of the problems is we don't have enough jobs in this country. it is so simple. our jobs have been taken away. middle income folks their salary hasn't gone up in years. people are making less wages than they were 12 years ago.

one of the reason they say i am doing well is i let people know we will bring jobs and industry back. and nobody else can say that. we will bring it back because a lot of the folks in this room are doing worse than they did 12 years ago. and the other thing is a you have a lot of part-time jobs. i know people who have done well and have a job in the same place. they are working part-time because of obamacare. they love the owner and stores and things. they think the owner is great. but the owner is forced to work part-time jobs. they have a wonderful company they are working with and then cut to mart-time jobs because of the rulings of obamacare. they end up being part-time workers and they don't want to be. they don't like the psychology

of being called a part-time worker. we will not have that stuff anymore. we will have real jobs as the numbers go up believe me. the numbers are right now worse than 12 years ago and that is a shame. >> mr. trump, you will love meeting todd. he is a wounded warrior and i told him how much you love the vets. >> hi, todd. these are the greatest people; the wounded warriors. the best. is that your wife? beautiful. daughter? beautiful. i have to say hi to todd. >> didn't i tell you how much he loves the vets?

>> that is a perfect family. beautiful family. go ahead. >> i just wanted to ask one of the real struggles after 21 years of active army service especially with hundred first air born that deployed constantly with the current administration warrior care is lacking to say the least and especially after -- post-service. my wife, april, is my full-time caregiver. i don't work anymore since told i was leaving the army. what else will the trump administration do better than the obama administration? >> is the va not doing their job? >> my wife can help you. >> he needs more treatment. i am being told from the va you have to go through this new choice program. we cannot get the appointment.

he is not all of the time in the wheelchair -- >> write out a card and i will put pressure on the va like you will not believe. look how beautiful -- okay. we will have, you know, as president, i can guarantee it. as trump, i can say i will probably be able to pull it off anyway because they know it will not stop. it will be easier to take todd and say look, we are going to work with you. will you get me that number and we will make sure and somebody else -- who else? you had problems with the va also? terrible. i just hear terrible. we will solve that problem. you know, it can be solved because the wait now for the va are longer than they have ever been. it is nice to see you people back there. it is about time. what am i doing there?

the waits now are worse than ever. thousands of people dying. you find the same thing. you say you have to leave your own because they will not do anything. we will take care of the vets and va. one of the things we will release soon. we have a a lot of hospitals not doing business and doctors who could do private business. we are loosing doctors because of obamacare. a friend said i have more nurses working than every before but more accountants.

>> hold on one second. >> we cannot wait until class is put back into the first lady. and we cannot wait to see class again. >> what is your question? >> my question is you talk oil. we have refineries that haven't

been built. keystone xl pipeline -- what will you do with that? >> approve it because it is thousands of jobs. and hillary should have approved it. she wanted to approve it. but she has been dragged so far left she is forget it. i would approve it. with that being said, i may want to make a better deal. because you know what we are bringing oil from canada. they may say i want 10%. the truth is that the keystone pipeline was better a while ago than it is now. we have great stuff.

higher than canada. they have the tar sands which is a problem for them. expensive to get it out. we have great stuff. i would approve it because i love the job of building it. but i may say maybe we should get 10-20 percent as the oil flows through our land. maybe we should do that. i am going to look into that. but when i approve it, i tell you what, it will be a great deal for the united states. right now, what we are doing is approving it. they are putting it underground.

>> look how handsome he is. >> one with the question. who has the mike? >> i am a physician and when is someone going to realize you can put the insurance company out of business by lowering the age for medicare? we would have one system. why doesn't anyone have enough guts to talk about it. >> ben carson, in fairness, said he wants to abolish medicare and you know what a disaster that is. i am sure at some point he will take it back.

>> what is your plan for the budget and how do you plan to fund immigration reform? >> it is costing us $200 billion a year. and eisenhower is going to say he moved a million people out in the 1930's. eisenhower moved a million and a people out of the united states. they moved them all the way south and they didn't come back.

we got bad ones. remember the heat? rush limbaugh received more income than any other being. he doubled down. he is good. really good. but i took a lot of heat and then you had kate in san francisco shot and killed in the back. people started looking. let me tell you. we have wonderful people over here illegally but they are wonderful people. we will try to get them back soon and through a legal process. but we have bad gang members. some of the gangs in los angeles are made up of illegal

immigrants. we have unbelievable police forces that don't get the respect they should get. they don't get it. they can't talk. let me tell you something. you will always have bad apples. i don't know who they are. but the police do an unbelievable job. they know the gangs. you go to la and see the cops and chicago and the cops com comcombo would be amazing people if they could do their job but they are not allowed to do their job.

i don't want to put them in our jails. i don't want to subsidize them. we have hundreds of thousands in our jails. i don't want them in our jails. i heard a couple of the candidates saying they don't know. they are such babies. but you know what? they are talking about putting them in jail. i don't want it. our jails are overbrimming. i want to use our jails for people that are supposed to be there. okay? and i don't want to put these really bad dudes, i mean they are bad, i don't want to have to pay for them for the next 45 years. okay? and we will deal humanely with the good people. they are mostly good people. but we have bad ones.

your head will spin. someone said what is the first thing you will do? well, we will work immediately on repealing obamacare. the one good thing about executive orders. the one good thing, obama signed an ex executive order, we have great border patrol people. i got to know them when i went to texas and the border. they are great people. they are not allowed to do their job. they stand there and watch people walk in front of them and smile. they want to do their job. they are not allowed to. the executive order president obama signed, the one good thing, in the first minute in office, i will counter sign and revoke those executive orders. the only good thing is actually that a new president can do a

new signature and that is the end. we will cleanup the border, proud to be a country and a lot is going to happen. one or two more. >> another one on the bleachers. >> going to foreign affairs what is your stance on israel and supporting them? >> we will support israel one thousand percent. israel is so left alone. i know a lot of my fiends are from israel and they feel so left out. i have so many jewish friends who say why did i support obama? i think the worst thing that happened to israel and we will support israel beyond anything they had. that is the easiest question of

the night. >> we have a young adult here. >> okay. >> hi, my question goes back to immigration reform. why is your answer then not to strengthen regulations on drug trafficking and sex trafficking? >> that will be part of it. >> i think other issue with the big problems, the big issues on capitol hill are comprehensive. it is more than building a wall. >> but the wall is a big factor. the drugs are a great question. we will stop drugs. look, i told you before, mexico, 45-50 billion not including the drugs. the drugs coming across the border are beyond believe. did you see the picture last week with a little wall? they built a ramp for trucks to go over with drugs. they think we are playing games. mexico is not helping us. mexico is not helping. if you want to become a citizen

of mexico, i love the mexican people. in nevada i am rated number one with the hispanics in the polls. everyone is shocked. the hispanics here legally they know i will bring jobs and don't want people pouring in. but mexico has got to help us. if you want to become a citizen of mexico, if todd wants to become a citizen, if me, if i want to be a citizen of mexico, me i know they will not take, but do you know it is one of the hardest countries in the world to become a citizen in? but people pour right through in the us. they call us the dumb americans. that is what they call us because of your leaders. if you want to become a citizen of mexico you could take the

best person in this room, the most qualified, you will not do it. they don't do that. if you are there illegally and overstay your bounds, you will not be there. if you have a pass for two weeks and overstay they have cops and police waiting for you. they have police saying you have one day left. i hear it is unbelievable. i am impressed. if you want to become a citizen of mexico it is impossible. they don't have anchor babies in mexico. you are born as a baby in mexico it is like bye-bye-bybye-bye-by. here is it like you are born and we will take care of you for 85 years. not going to happen. this is important. the 14th amendment says right there, everybody said you have to go through a whole process, and it will take many years and

you have to go through every state and amendment. the 14th amendment covers it. trump is right according to some of the best legal minds. the fact is, somebody comes in illegally, and they have a baby, we are not responsible. we may have a court case, and we will win it, but a simple act of congress gets rid of it. a lot of people didn't know that. and the reason i said it can't be possible is because nobody could be foolish enough to allow a thing like that. we are one of the only countries where it takes place. i use mexico as an example because they are tough. if that happens in mexico they don't know what you are talking about. with us no good. not going to happen. let's do one more question. make it vicious, violent and creative. >> we have it back in the bleachers. >> actually make it nice.

>> if i don't like it we will do another one. >> did you ever see like elton? he does a final and the song is great and everyone is going crazy and they are screaming more and more and elton comes back and does three more and the last song is a bum. and you walk out like this: you like to leave on a high so if it is bad question we will do another one. >> i used to live down the street from harry truman in the late '60s and want to leave you with a trumanism -- give them hell, donald. what will you do about the money the politician government calls social security? >> say it again. >> what will you do about the money the politicians/government owes social security? >> the amazing thing is the politicians in this country live

by a whole different standard when it comes to health care and everything they have including what you just said in terms of social security. and i think that should not happen. some of them tried to do it. you know the story in obamacare. they don't have to take it. they live by it a different standard. and that is not going to happen. everybody is going to live by the same standard. they will have to same standard as the poorest person in this room. that is how it is going to be. do one more question. >> one more? okay. go ahead. i cannot get over there. i am here with the mike. >> sean johnson is great. >> i was just wondering who you are considering to be your

running mate or vice president? >> it is good question. but if i answered that question we would have a big story. you know that right? i know a lot of good people. a couple people on the stage i respect. but the truth is too early. we have to close the deal. there are a lot of good people. we have to close the deal. we have to get it done. thank you. we will be back. i love iowa. thank you, everybody.

♪ &%c1 ♪

♪

♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ &%c1

♪

♪ ♪eastern and

pacific on c-span's q&a. >> following secretary lew's remarks, ken conrad follows up.

>> good afternoon, it is good day for bip bipartisan. in the interest of leaving time for the secretary who agreed to take questions let me introduce and welcome to the bipartisan center the 76th sectary of the treasury, the honorable jack lew. [applause] >> thank you, bill. and thanks to the bipartisan partisan center for hosting this event today. for nearly a decade the bipartisan policy center has been an important forum for discussion across party lines for a variety of complex issues. i want to thank the center for the important work that they have been doing on the debt limit in particularly highlighting the contributions of bill hogan and steve bell.

the auto industry was strengthening, and deficit were on the decline last time i came. i called for leaders to be part of the solution and end the crisis that imperiled the crisis. we found ourselves at a pivotal moment for the nation. today is a fitting time to be speaking. leaders reached a significant bipartisan compromise on the budget. it would fund the government for two years and raise the debt limit so the country can meet its obligations. it will increase security through investment, infrastructure, schools and public health and keep our country safe. these core public sector investments are necessary to

create a strong environment for business and economic growth and they provide the certainty that gives companies the confidence to remain on the cutting-edge. the analysis of the previous suggests it will lead to 340,000 additional jobs in 2016 alone. these important investments could be paid for in a balanced way by insuring entities like hedge funds, oil and gas producers and pipeline companies and private equity verb firms pe taxes they own. it avoids cuts to medicare and protects programs that working families rely on. this is a significant accomplish and a step toward ending the pattern of short-term legislating that has become the norm. i urge congress to move forward to provide stability to the government and raise the debt

limit. in order to continue the leadership in the world, i urge congress to imelement the quota and governance reform. failure causes other nations, including allies to question our commitment to the imf. we remain committed to finding a vehicle for implementation of these reforms as quickly as possible. congress is always making bipartisan support on exports and jobs that help level the playing field for our businesses. xm supports 164,000 jobs last year and nearly 90% of xm's transactions directly supported america's small businesses in 2014. with the economy strength knowinstrengthening, now is a pivotal time for the action. jobless claims are close to

40-year lows. and our economy has created $13 spa 13.2 private sector jobs. we should be working together to continue this momentum in our economy. while progress on a deal is very encouraging, time remains short for congress to act on the debt limit. treasury as only one week before we run out of borrowing authority to continue to meet the obligation. i am confidant the congressional leadership will act by then but it is important not to lose site of the time frame. i urge congress to act as quickly as possible. with that i thank you and look forward to answering a few questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. the secretary will take three or four questions.

>> this is an opportunity to look at the debt ceiling. any way you would like to see it changed so there is not this game going forward when we come about it in two years? >> i have said for some time, if this agreement passes, it will be about future administrations, that the debt limit does not make sense as a way of controlling spending or policies. we make commitments, congress makes commitments and we implement them, and the debt limit just determines whether or not you are authorized to pay for them. i believe that there is every reason to look at how we handle the debt limit. now may not be the moment to do it. but i hope no administration every finds themselves in the position where it faces the prosspect of nut being able to pay bills.

if the limit could be voted on an easy, non dramatic way it is another step in the process. if is a regular event of brinksmanship and getting to deadlines where interest rates are reflected and confidence is starting to reflect, it starts to do harm. so clearly we have a lot of policy that is appropriate to negotiate over and that is what this budget agreement reflects. it is the kind of give and take you get in a bipartisan agreement. paying our bills is not something that should be bargained over. >> yes, sir? >> if congress appears on track and like to pass a deal that will procedurally go beyond november 3rd, will you be able

to provide market assurance or guidance? >> i have been clear with all of the dates we have given that it would be irresponsible for the government of the united states to operate without borrowing capacity. the uncertainty is many. we have done our very best to share information so that independent analysis could be done as well as our own analysis. it all confirms that we are going to run out of borrowing capacity when we say. and in some very short period of time run out of the ability to fund the operations of the government. we can't go there. we have never gone there. this couldn't and shouldn't be the first time. >> yes, sir? >> robert with use news and world report. given with part of the stuff tat that made it deal possible was speaker boehner's lame duck

status. how sanguant are you about moving forward in the future in regular order and not have any more debt ceiling crisis? >> the two-year agreement provides a path where congress won't, if this is passed, need to act on the debt limit until 2017 where there will be appropriation caps in place for this year and next. i have to be clear, there will still have to be appropriation bills with bipartisan support and can be signed into law which means they have been clean bills and they cannot be the kind of bills that create the con fronitations that could put us back in a very difficult situation. but there is a month or more for that process to work through.

what is important about this agreement, and all of the recent bipartisan agreements is when you let the majority work their will, you can get bipartisan agreements to do things still. that is an important principle to remember not just today as this agreement is being completed but as congress moves forward. >> additional questions for the secretary? >> i have one more. >> sure, please. >> thank you, mr. secretary. so your previous question you said there shouldn't be any poison amendments that will need to be passed. if there are any amendments that will appeal parts of the dodd-frank fact do you think the president should veto? >> we have been clear the financial reform and the dodd-frank has been central to rebuilding the economy and min

taining that is important. we would strongly oppose any effort to undermine this. we look forward to working with congress on the kinds of appropriation bills that can get bipartisan support. >> now we know there is not going to be any social security cost of living increase next year can seniors look forward to anything in the way of health going forward? >> yell, i think if you look in this agreement, there are provisions that address the medicare premiums, which would have been very substantial increases for some people on social security and that is lessened and spread out over a longer period of time. i think our focus here is to

make sure we can run the other aspects of government that provide critical services to old people, young people, working people. things that just get turned up side down if you have either shutdown or default crisis. so there is an awful lot of things we do in this country that are important to the american people and if this agreement is passed it can continue in an orderly way without interruption. there is a lot that is important to people on social security as well as the rest of us. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank the bipartisan policy center for staying focused on an issue that a lot of people come and pay attention to periodically. we appreciate there are real experts that are partners ebb e ebb n when it is not in the headlines -- even. >> thank you. >> i hope -- could the

congressman weber, senator conrad, senator nickels join us no? we have time for a few more questions. i realize it is 4:30 almost. we have a ball game coming up tonight. i don't think you can make it to -- is it kansas city, tonight? i don't think you can make it so in the interest of time i will not go through the bios on all of these distinguished public servants but let me highlight all three have long careers in the congress. senator nickels and weber serviced in elected leadership for their respected caucuses. and of course, along with senator conrad, they all worked tirelessly on many of the budget issues that remain relevant today. i have a couple of simple questions for each of them and will open it up for you to query

them. one of the questions has already been to some extent asked but i will ask it again of the distinguished guest here. let plea let me begin with the house of representatives where the bill is originating. you were in the house leadership, congressman weber, you know how the house functions. would this agreement been possible had speaker boehner not agreed to give us his position? >> no. >> can you elaborate. >> i thought you wanted to get to the ball game. no, i think speaker boehner for a last month has lived under this threat of vacating the chair. the anger against speaker boehner on the right from the

freedom caucus is the far right of the party, or just the rebellious right of the party, was intensifying and we can talk allni night about why that was. if he delivered this agreement, i believe they will have acted on the threat to way kate the chair. i will defer a little to kent but i cannot imagine the democrats coming to the rescue of a republican trainwreck that at that point. i don't think he could have done it. i think it is good thing that we did it. i think it is a good thing he did it. after he is out of this job, i think he will get a lot of credit for showing leadership at a critical time. >> good. thank you. senator conrads, you had a chance to look at this proposed -- conrad -- agreement.

is it a good deal? >> you know, none of these deals are perfect. but this deal is important. and it is important because it avoids what could have been a disaster. if we would have failed to meet the requirements of the full faith and credit the united states, if we would have put in jeopardy, the full faith and credit of the united states, that would have been a serious thing for our country.

we are speaking though this agreement is law, so senator nichols you were number two in command of the senate republican leadership. he remained a close friend of majority leader o'connell. some of your staff is working for former staff is still there with you. what is your prognosis on the budget package being adopted quickly in the united states senate? you have a number of republican senators who are up for election as well as so many of them that are seeking the presidency next year. what is the outlook in the senate assuming it makes it over to the house? >> while one i want to compliment speaker boehner

especially but also senator mcconnell and the leaders as well for coming together. i think it's important to do it. there has been very little bipartisan work. interesting although comments secretary lew said about the repercussions but the debt limit brought us together. i think john boehner would have gotten this deal done. i think paul ryan would have gotten this deal done. this is very important. that limits do make the vote. they get your attention they get the administration's attention. the administration, and john boehner gets credit for this. nobody gives them credit for that frankly was responsible, primarily responsible for the deal in 2011 that frankly has brought spending down significantly. the president takes credit for it. he passed the 10 million-dollar 10 million-dollar -- bill and the 2011 agreement is basically

amended to a debt limit extension. it was the first thing to curb that growth in spending and that brought spending as a percentage of gdp from 26 down to 22 and going lower so that was premised on negotiations that the speaker led that was tied to the debt limit and so sometimes he @, but it does, it does influence things. i think it would pass the house and i think it would pass the senate. think the presidential election with a couple of members in the senate who are now campaigning may be trying to get headlines from it but i don't think that they will prevail. >> do you expect it will be filibustered? >> they may try but i don't think there are any workloads to

talking about it for very long and i don't think it would be very well received. in the senate you do need to be able to cooperate to get some things done. i don't think they filibuster on this package, the this package does a lot of things are not always perfect but it does curb entitlements. and entitlements by the very definition you have to pass it through both houses to reach bipartisan support and they are filing doing something with social security disability which was in real trouble. anyway i think it will pass the senate and again my compliments to the leadership and finally there was some communication with the white house. the white house hasn't exactly been reaching out to congressional leaders. saying let's make a deal and you have to make some deals to make this town work and to make our government work. >> coming back to the disability

insurance program but let me go back to congress and -- congressman webb. the freedom caucus had a list of nearly 21 demands many of them that called for a wide range of changes in the house rules. how do you think mr. ryan will fare with our caucus or will he be subject to the same tensions that plagued speaker boehner? >> that's a good question bill and i don't think we know the answer for sure. john boehner who also is a good friend of mine got tired of dealing with the freedom caucus and the far right of his party and chokes the last several months maybe longer. he was quite public and saying very critical things all of which is to say a part of this is not procedural or rules driven periods about personality personality and paul ryan at least started with the goodwill

of folks on that end of the party spectrum. that's why he got the support of 70% of the members of the freedom caucus. they like him and they trust him and they think he's an honest man and they unfortunately have come to the conclusion that they didn't like john boehner. if you want to be hopeful in my judgment more because of the personality changes and maybe a honeymoon. mcafee will that paul ryan which exists because he doesn't have a deal. the barn has been cleaned out. >> the barn is being cleaned out but let's not make a mistake in thinking that underlying dynamics that have caused polarization and dysfunction in the congress are on the mentally change. they are not fundamentally changed and he's going to have to show a lot of skill and leadership in moving forward to deal with the very fractioned caucus. we have a chance now. my great fear becoming speaker

in having to deal with this right off maybe he would have succeeded but maybe not. he surely would have had a hard time dealing with other things coming down the pike like ttp which requires a huge bipartisan effort in my view. >> senator conrad my cat a little bit of a difference of opinion that this is the bipartisan policy center. congress seems to operate under the gun to the head a lot. defaults, sequesters. is this the standard order of the legislature today? to either parties parties benefit from these kinds of things? do we have to have a self-imposed crises to get government to work? >> you know it's my great hope when i was there that we could do things that clearly needed to be done without these self-created crises but i'm not

so sure anymore. in this climate with congress especially the house as it is, it seems like the only time you get across the finish line is to have a deadline and a deadline that has got real consequences to it. >> when we were involved with bowles-simpson or simpson-bowles, some of us thought there was the opportunity for a grand bargain to get the country back on the fiscal path that would really get our debt down, that would put us in a much more sustainable position but at the end of the day we couldn't get that across the finish line despite five years when you put bowles-simpson and it was quite

an effort so i wish i could say this was just a passing phase and we will get over this. i'm not so sure and i'm also, with respect to the debt limit i confess, i used the debt limit to get bowles-simpson and that's how we got the commission named. but we never threatened, never not to extend the debt limit. we were arguing about how long the debt limit would be extended. they would never would put the country in a position of default because that's a disaster for everybody. my god if there's one thing we should be able to figure out its defaulting is not an option. >> i hesitate to raise this but maybe i will anyway and that is is their deficit reduction and this package? >> you know the acoustics are very bad in this room. [laughter] >> i saw your lips move but i

don't see this as a deficit reduction package. this to me is a package that kind of reorients deficit reduction artegon and frankly deficit reduction to me wasn't done very well. yes sequester lead to deficit reduction. as senator nichols indicated we have gone from 26% of gdp spending 26% of gdp down to less than 22%. that's a substantial reduction in spending but how did we do it? we did it all on the domestic side or virtually all, virtually all of the domestic side which will be at a 50 year low. we didn't do it on the side of the budget which is really seeing growth that really has to be reformed. so to me this kind of reorients

that a little bit. does take a nick on entitlements which is to me a positive development. hopefully it opened up a broader discussion because if we are going to be serious about getting the country back on track i believe we are going to have to reform entitlements and reform the tax system. if you sat down and were going to decide -- design a of bad tax system it will be hard to beat this one. >> taking all the cuts that we made out of the domestic discretionary budget was never a good idea. maybe it was the only way we could get by and i think he knows the budget better than anyone i know and if he says it's not by go along with that but it points in the direction of the tells the congress you can't anymore pack away at the discretionary spending when that is not the problem. >> as i would like to say here you mean the seed corn of the future. i want to pick up a little bit

and give a little bit of a shout-out here to the bipartisan policy center center. we have a task force led by senator domenici and david haughey who has become chief of staff worked over the last year or year and a half and one of your former staffers was involved in that focusing on ssdi. a difficult difficult issue and i think your absolute correct there were some major proposals and reforms in this particular package going forward that are needed to deal with ssdi. i think there are some elements quite frankly there are also elements in the agriculture area >> senator nichols can i come back? you have been on this one, some people would say the meal has been eaten, paid the bill. don't walk out of the restaurant

others argue that as you have heard the only way to get the attention of the president come you made this argument, is to address, to have this gun at your head. are you still in that particular position and had this not come about had it not been for the debt limit? >> this deal would have never happened in my opinion if we didn't have the debt limit, no way. and kid and i go way back in the senate. i looked at all the debt and i will tell you the toughest vote i've ever had in the senate was the first time i voted for debt limits. i had ronald regan call me at home. glad to have you on this one. i was as conservative as anybody and that caused me, i remember being troubled on that. i was 32 years old and i did want to increase the debt limit. i have looked back and i voted

for the law and voted against the law. a lot of it depends on what was happening at the time but as i grew in leadership in capability i found it as a great tool. we passed the congressional review act that became law. we passed a big budget act and 97 and did a lot on the budget. on the debt limit extension some major pieces of legislation sometimes having carried because we all know. at the end of the day the responsible legislators know if it's going to pass. it was a question of what they did on it they can get signed and now congress has to pass an appropriations bill. that is absolutely hogwash. the constitution says congress shall appropriate and members of congress have to negotiate.

okay what can we get in there. we are not going to get the administration from the republican standpoint everything they want. congress gives the rights the appropriation bills. what can we get the they will eventually sign so you have the give-and-take and that's through negotiation and maybe you find out if he vetoes the defense authorization bill was vetoed for the worst time. my guess is that fixes this. now with them with some plus-ups my guess he will find it and he's not going to be happy with guantánamo. that same restriction has been there for three years so this idea that the administration did dating to. they claim --. >> that pre-negotiation is not going to fly. congress is not going to give him that kind of authority. >> i have to assume because of

this agreement, assuming it is enacted and the president signs it that they have no worry about basing a shutdown issue in december. i shouldn't go that far right now? >> one of the best things about this is congress for the last six years has not done the appropriations process. and the senate complements thad cochran reported every bill out of committee. that's the first time that's happened in years so they are pretty ready to go. there will be some plus-ups and changes and they figure out what would be the trio to p allegations so they will divvy those things up and come up with it and i think almost every bill out of the senate appropriations subcommittee were reported on bipartisan way. those won't go but i can tell you they are not claims.

they have lots of things. i am kind of i guess not offended that congress will pass those bills and the president may or may not veto them and a tb test them some departments are not open for a period of time that's his choice in congress can go back and say we want to fix fix it or not fix f. so that's all good. it's going to be good to see congress working and the legislative process working not just for this event for next year. >> i was not an appropriate or except for a very brief period and i was invited to a lot of the appropriations committees. i would say i have never seen a clean appropriations bill. it means not having something on it you don't like. we all know how the appropriators operate. they put the things on their that they want to achieve. so i understand the secretary's wanting to set the ground rules

here though we all know that congress is going to pass appropriations bills with things in there that you may or may not agree with and the question is what happens at the end of the day? at the end of the day the president has to sign it. >> one of the positive aspects of this from my perspective visits two years meaning we basically are voting for something we have been appropriating for some time. we have got this band. listen i want opened up to the audience and i know it's late in the afternoon. so identify yourself when we come around for a question. yes sir, back here. >> i'm zach israel. i have a question regarding an issue of the glass-steagall act and if you are watching democratic debate this issue came to the forefront. i know that senators voted to

repeal that back in 1999 to repeal glass-steagall and my question is do you regret having done that and do you think bipartisan legislation in the senate john mccain and elizabeth warren reinstated -- voted to reinstate it. i believe you both voted in favor of repealing glass-steagall. >> i would have to do a little more homework on it. on the financial side, and i don't even own a number that vote. i should but i'm familiar with the fiduciary role that the administration is trying to jam through now that basically rewrites it. my first trip to washington d.c. was on a restaurant and they are trying to rewrite it. i think that congress and house are trying to stop it. >> that could be a rider on one

of these appropriations. >> a should be a rider. that's my point. they are trying to redefine a fiduciary. i was the fiduciary of a pension plan. i know something about that. i don't know about that glass-steagall act. i think what the is trying to do, i don't like executive branch legislation and that is clearly legislation what they are trying to do so i wouldn't be a bit surprised if you see a rider on an appropriation bill and i would support that 100%. >> conrad do you remember your voter glass-steagall? >> yes, i do. because i had quite a debate and discussion internally when i was deciding how to vote. of course there were a lot of other things involved there in that legislation as you know. that was not an easy call and you know i'm not now speaking

and don't intend to again but i really have not devoted the kind of study that i would want to to tell you how i would vote or just a question of glass-steagall. you will recall that when we go back to those days we were dealing with an entire package and there are real issues that are enormously complex that involve our financial system and i would want to spend a lot of time and hear a serious debate before it reached a conclusion again. >> any questions? a question over here. >> my name is dave. i was wondering the legislation and the provisions that do seem

to be the hot-button issues are that planned parenthood, obamacare and some environmental riders specifically the two gentlemen with gop backgrounds. do you see the agreement perhaps making people willing a little bit more to get along or are you still seeing this as a flashpoint? >> i don't think we have eliminated the flashpoints. i think we have maybe taken a small step in the direction of comedy and bipartisanship but only a small step. the issues that you mentioned are not going to go away particularly planned parenthood. i'm glad that it wasn't in the context of the debt ceiling to default but there is going to be a fight over it. people feel maybe justifiably very strongly about it and i think that they would be ready to allow a part of government to shut for a period of time

because of the importance of that issue. >> i think in each appropriations bill you have democrats and republicans to work on those issues a lot. i was on an appropriations committee before a graduated and went to the finance committee but in those areas that you have become expert and this is your domain you spend a whole lot of time and democrat and republicans will work to try and figure out okay most of the bills in the finance committee will find are reported out with good bipartisan votes and it's mainly because the chairman and ranking members no matter who is in digital usually they work fairly well together. harry reid i was chair of minute he was ranking or vice versa. we always came up with a bill that we both supported.

now we have hotspots but we could kind of work them out and we kind of knew what wiki get through. and we did some things maybe the administration didn't like sometimes but we knew what could be signed in you also kind of know what can't be signed. sometimes you test the limits. more often than not you work it out in a way because you are both bested and you work all year to pass these bills and he wanted to become law. you don't want it to be tp'd and not go anywhere but it needs to run backtrack and happen. but that's part of the legislative process and frankly it's a good process. it's not perfect but it's a good process and i'm glad it's finally going to start working because b. look at what congress does they raise some money and they spend a whole lot of money. they haven't been doing that

last portion. it's been on automatic pilot for years and now the committee is going to have a chance to work so there's going to be a lot of amendments on the floor. i'm assuming speaker ryan and certainly leader mcconnell, they believe in regular order. that means you'll have appropriations bills that will have lots and lots of amendments and i think that's kind of a healthy process and it's a good process and i think most of the bills they sign, maybe some of them will be vetoed. so what? we veto the defense authorization bill my guess is congress will pass it and it will be fine. >> a question over here. >> looking at here crystal ball about the affordable care act, four or five years from now for the country -- country be settled in with it and will it be significant revisions or will we still be fussing and fighting about it?

>> i think it would be significantly changed. no matter who is president, if the republicans present, none of the would-be repeal the replace that it would be very close to that. it will be significantly rewritten if a republican is elected president. >> the provision as it takes away the employer mandate paid. >> the penalties and the taxes and the co-ops there are a lot of disasters. >> you're hitting close to home when you talk about co-ops. senator conrad that was your provision. >> i thought those were pretty good. the co-ops have a proud history in my part of the country and

health care policies that are hugely successful and even health care cooperatives under the affordable care act. a guy just e-mailed me from montana as a part of a health care co-op there are so they were doing well but they were you know frankly subverted by subsequent steps and what has been implemented are two different things. but look on the affordable care act i think the affordable care act is with us in substantial, substantial amounts. you know the affordable care act never has a chance to go through the regular legislative process. it never had a chance to go through a conference committee to come back to the house. never had a chance to go through the whole house process because as you overcall senator kennedy died and so there are lots of

things that need to be fixed in the affordable care act. i'm a democrat. i voted for it, proud to have voted for it. i believe it was a step or words for americans health care. millions of people covered. i think it has played a role in keeping down increases in health care costs that there are lots of problems with the affordable care act whether you are a democrat or republican, for or against the original legislation that could and should be fixed. >> it would be really fun to see an amenable form and the senate. the senate really never had a vote on individual or employer mandates are being able to keep your health care plan if you like it or are the excise tax on devices. the never have those votes on a bill that was going through. it would be nice to see that

happen. maybe not a markup on the floor but it's going to be rewritten fairly significantly if that chance prevails in the future. so that would be -- those. >> i think it will be rewritten but i don't think you will be all done it once but i think the president is a smart guy but one of the dumbest thing i've heard him say is i want to solve the health care problem once and for all many times. we are never going to solve the health care problems once and for all. >> to your point larry i guess i think a little more than don does that it's kind of getting institutionalized in a don't think it's going to get ripped out great but i do think we adjusted every year and we are going to legislating about health care and that means about the affordable care at just about every year or every congress because things change. demography is, technology, the finances of the country and everything else. i think it's going to be

adjusted over time and i do think as we elect as president republicans are going to have to vote on something that looks like repealed but it will vary quickly replaced at least in many measures because it has become institutionalized to a substantial extent. the first cooperative was in my senate district. >> thank you very much. we have asked you to come in on afternoon we appreciate you taking the time. thank you very much senator, congressman. i want to call mac and i'm an optimist because i don't see the point being anything else. i think today i will be an optimist and we have a bipartisan agreement as we go forward. thank you all for joining me this afternoon.

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning. the subcommittee will come to order. i want to indicate my displeasure and like a response from the sec. of homeland security regarding a letter i sent for this hearing asking for information related to today and while we're going to talk about. i asked about the number of containers inspected prior to arrival at a us port, the percentage inspected after, the defendant -- different methods used a criteria used basically i asked him how many containers the screen, how they screen them, scan them. you would thinkyou would think homeland security would have those numbers in front of them because that is what they do. in addition i asked about

the progress to meet the 100 per scanning requirement. the information requested is relevant to today's hearing and the department should have been able to provide a response within a three week lead time, roughly the same a lot of time taken to develop the testimony will hear from department witnesses today. are any of you aware of the status of the secretary's response to my letter? >> i am aware that the letter has cleared the interagency with the departments within and that they are waiting for final approval at the department level. >> of the numbers. >> i am aware of the numbers >> you have the numbers. >> great. the subcommittee -- and let me say one last thing, we are not going to hear from anyone from south come or north come because the office of secretary of defense refused to send witnesses or briefers from

either south come or north come. i'm not sure whether that is the department of defense saying this is a homeland security issue only pollwhether they just did not care enough to send somebody. maybe they have a beef with me. i would say that is pretty petulant to not send anyone besides coast guard. the subcommittee's meeting to discuss the scenario of a dirty bomb, radiological dispersal device in the us port. a potential. the united states has an exclusive economic zone spanning 3.5 million square miles of open shoreline, 360 ports and numerous small harbors across the country. a maritime border is unique due to its sheer size and the potential use of moving large quantities of

materials undetected. if you can carry thousands of pounds of something you can carry thousands of pounds of something else. this can assist in disrupting future efforts. security measures were enacted to better protect our homeland by expanding efforts to detect and deter threats overseas. obviously much better to find things when they are not on us shorelines including screening cargo manifests before containers are loaded, scanning shipping containers that have been determined to be high risk, screening personnel data, knowing

where a ship and its cargo have been, and intercepting a vessel at sea and preventing its entry. we will hear from our witnesses on how the federal government deploys the whole of government layered approach including law enforcement, technology, and intelligence to detect, deter, and interdict potential threats. treaties and agreements with foreign governments to conduct corporate enforcement efforts at force overseas. the last five years to successfully enter for attempts by criminal gangs with suspected russian ties. we can talk about that either in this panel on the next. the successful disruption of the sale was a positive result, however the desire to obtain materials for a dirty bomb or the extreme materials for nuclear weapons are growing. due to the the iranian deal, no matter what you think about it one way or the

other and the reaction that the other middle eastern countries will have to iran having at their facilities, there will be more nuclear material out of the market which is just the way that it will be going forward. you will have more countries with more nuclear capability then we have probably ever seen in the world. that's one of the reasons we will start this series of hearings up because the interdiction efforts by the coast guard and homeland security will be paramount. paramount. that is the only line of defense, not just the 1st. it is concerning that the whole of government approach does not appear to include foreign-policy. we're heading out a path. well this hearing is about preventing, deterring, and interdicting threats that is important to be aware of how foreign policies conflict and potentially disrupt enforcement measures to keep our country safe.

>> mr. chairman, thank you for the hearing. when you 1st notice the hearing i am going to wait a minute. when? about 2,005 we did a series on national disaster insurance. included among the three things that we looked at was , let's see, hurricane of the east coast, that would be sandy, earthquakes at the new madrid fault which has not happened, and terrorism, a dirty bomb at the port of long beach. so there is a study out they're that i wanted to get in time for.for. in any case this is a subject that we need to pay attention to command i thank you for holding a hearing. the threat of nuclear or radiological dirty bomb arriving is sobering.

national review of disaster insurance. virtually unimaginable 15 years ago, not quite ten years ago. coordination strategy. numerous federal programs, activities, capabilities and fermented to fulfill the strategy. other threats outside of the us homeland is something we ought to be grateful for command i certainly appreciate that. becausebecause of the effort made by thousands of federal employees every day to protect us. and yet we cannot let our guard down for you andeven the likelihood of a terrorist cell smuggling weapons of mass destruction into the country may be low,

but the consequences would be catastrophic. we mustmust continue to do everything possible to make sure doesn't happen. are we adequately testing and validating our technologies? and procedures and training to make sure they remain relevant given the current and emerging threats and circumstances and in the event of a detonation of a dirty bomb making sure today that we will have in place the technologies capabilities to quickly and effectively respond to the cleanup and recovery of such an attack. today i am sure the answer is also no. thirdly, considering a future terrorist may be homegrown come are we doing

everything that we can to track and monitor within the us the coast wide triedtrade to make sure the vessel is operating in us domestic waters of potential conduit. i think the witnesses that are here and i'm looking forward to the testimony. >> thank you. >> i'm going to introduce everyone really quick. we are admiral peter j brown , thank you for being here. did i get it right? the department of homeland security director of domestic detection office. the office of field operations for customs and border protection. thank you for being here. and the gal director of justice and law enforcement issues. we will start with you. you are recognized.

>> thank you and good morning. i am honored to be here today to discuss the coast guard's role in the prevention and response to the arrival of a radiological dispersion of a dirty bomb. i thank you for your strong support of our coast guard and men and women in uniform. it is a pleasure to be here today the two of our most important partners, customs and border protection and domestic nuclear protection. the nation's safer in no small part to the partnerships that we have with these two organizations: i would like to personally thank the commissioners for their ongoing support and leadership. the complete statement has been submitted to the subcommittee. through a layered security approach coast guard pushes border security out well beyond the nation's shoreline of fostering

strategic relationships with partner nations to detect, deter command counter threats as early and is far from us shores possible in order to prevent an attack on the homeland. coast guard efforts begin overseas with robust international partnerships to provide access to maritime ports of origin. through our international port security program the coast guard performs overseas port assessments to confirm the foreign trading partners meet international standards for security and antiterrorism. since the inception of this program is personal have visited more than 150 countries and approximately 102,000 port facilities. two more effectively counter these threats the coast guard maintains more than 40 maritime bilateral law enforcement agreements and 11 bilateral proliferation security initiative ship forwarding agreements which

allows coast guard teams to join vessel suspected of carrying illicit shipments of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, or materials far from shore. the coast guard membership within the intelligence community provides global situational awareness, analysis, and interagency. they provide security plan compliance and inspections and this reduces the vulnerability to terrorist attacks and are involving our ports. building on preventive efforts the coast guard brings agility and mobility to our detection regime with the jewel to have the ability to deliver detection capabilities anywhere. they connectthey connect over 400 routine vessel inspections, examinations, law-enforcement boardings every day, and coast guard personnel who visit carry detection devices to alert users to the presence of radiation. in 2004 we developed a

maritime radiation detection program and have since maintained a close relationship with dnd out to standardize equipment and enhance national capacity for protection with multiple levels and capabilities, including the ability to reach back to scientific experts for more information. we do this in conjunction with cvp and tsa visible intermodal provision response. many units, including our coast wide sectors, deployable specialized forces and major cutters are equipped with devices that can identify specific isotope distinguished between man-made and natural sources and reach back interagency experts to assistance. provides the nation with the unique maritime capability for radiological detection, identification, self to contamination, and routine hostile situations. specifically designed and

exercised to integrate with other interagency or dod response forces. at the national level together with the national targeting center, the coast guard screens ships, cruise, and passenger information for all vessels required to submit what we call a.m. no way,way, advanced notice of arrival 96 hours or more prior to entering port. that process screened over 124,000124,000 notices of arrival and over 32 million crew and passenger records. the response to the chief of the coast guard response would be part of a coordinated interagencya coordinated interagency effort to bring the most capable and appropriate resources to bear. a dirty bomb is suspected in route to or identify with any us port, the interagency maritime operational threat response protocol will be employed to coordinate the whole of government interagency action to achieve the best solution, and with that thank you.

>> thank you, admiral brown, dr.. >> good morning, chairman, ranking member, members, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify with my colleagues from the department of homeland security and the government accountability office on our 1st to prevent and respond to the introduction of a dirty bomb into a maritime port. an attack withan attack with a dirty bomb in the us port would have profound and prolonged impact. as the domestic nuclear detection office we have a singular focus, preventing nuclear terrorism they cannot be accomplished by anyone agency and takes a whole of enterprise approach and so they were deliberately established as an interagency office and benefits from the support of detainees from across the federal government. we work closely with our federal, state, local, and

international partners and those in the national laboratories. my testimony today focuses on the work to strengthen the operational readiness. responsible for the domestic implementation of the global nuclear detection architecture. a framework for detecting, analyzing, and reporting on nuclear and other radioactive materials that are out of regulatory control. dependency can be to place great focus on technology alone but it is more effective to carefully integrate intelligence, law enforcement, and technical capability to improve the g nda. the colleague captured and well stating detection technology is an important part of the overall effort to keep a nuclear device out of the us, but it is not the only one. if the us ever had to rely on our radiation port monitor to stop a nuclear

device a lot of other things have gone wrong. law-enforcement missed it, intelligence authorities missed misted, risk-based treaties misted and nonproliferation programs fail. providing effective technologies as they connect intelligence driven operations. by implementing a multilayered, multifaceted defense approach it is our objective to make it there terrorism may prohibitively difficult undertaking for the adversary. and so our efforts begin overseas relying largely on sovereign foreign partners to develop and enhance their own national detection program. in this endeavor they work closely with the interagency and multilateral partners to develop and share guidance, best practices command training. they can be interdicted before the arrival of our

shoulders. the layered approach continues at our borders. the operational components of ports of entry, long land and maritime borders and within the us. today all teams are equipped with detection devices and they have applied detection systems to the coast guard and custom and border protection to scan small vessels. cvp scans nearly 100 percent of all incoming maritime containerized cargo for radiological and nuclear threats. building capacity is also critical. and so they are presently working with 33 of the coast guard area maritime security committees sharing information and intelligence, assisting with alarm adjudication and providing technical support operational partners as they

build their detection program. in case of an attack of nuclear terrorism or the interdiction of a nuclear radiological threat leadership will need rapid attribution based upon sound scientific evidence. nuclear evidence. nuclear forensics when coupled with intelligence and law enforcement information support those determinations. the indio therefore advances technologies to perform forensic technology. make no mistake, the united states remain committed to holding fully accountable any state, terrorist group, or other nonstate actor that supports or enables terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass distraction. we will continue to work with our partners to counter nuclear terrorism and improve our overall collaboration across the technical, intelligence, law enforcement committee. we sincerely appreciate the committee support of our efforts to secure our homeland. thank you forthank you for the opportunity to be here, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, dr..

>> good morning. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the role of u.s. customs and border protection in preventing and responding to the threat of a radiological weapon that our portsare ports of entry, an important responsibility we share with our partners today. as the lead agency cvp works closely with domestic and international partners to protect the nation from a variety of dynamic threats including those posed by containerized cargo arriving at air, land, and seaports. before my appointment earlier this year i served as the director of field operations.

i know firsthand how complex cargo security operations are and how valuable a programs and partnerships are two national security. since the september 11 attack attack they have established security partnerships, intense targeting and risk assessment programs. all essential elements of the multilayered approach to protecting the nation from the arrival of dangerous materials such as a dirty bomb in ports of entry. increase the security of the supply chain. i would like to highlight a few of these efforts. today. they have been receiving advanced information on every cargo shipment, vessel, crewman before they arrive at our ports of entry from maritime containerized cargo this information is received 24 hours prior. this advanced information is

then run through the automated targeting system which will compare the data against multiple law enforcement and trade databases which are identified as high risk and selected for examination. high-risk shipments may be examined overseas before being laden onto the vessel heading for the us as part of the container security initiative. the program places us officers in the 64 and seaports at 35 countries around the world. these overseas officers have the ability to reach 80 percent of the maritime cargo heading to the united states all overseas examinations are performed with the assistance of those country counterparts. we include the scanning of the container for radiation as well as subjecting the shipment to a nonintrusive inspection. look into the container for anomalies.

performing over 124,000 overseas examination of high risk cargo before the cargo is placed on a bet -- vessel destined to the us. if the exam is not performed overseas shipment will be inspected upon arrival at a us port of entry. at the us port of entry cvp deploys the same large-scale nonintrusive inspection systems to quickly examine containerized cargo for the presence of anomalies which may indicate a threat. thosethose containers found with anomalies are physically searched at warehouses located in the seaports. lastly, every containerized shipment, every single one is scanned for radiation and has been since 2010. there are over 1280 radiation detection portal monitors deployed at us border crossings allowing for nearly 100 percent radiation screening.

>> you just said that 100% of cargo leaving us ports. >> leaving us ports. >> leaving. >> yes, sir. so the 1280 portal monitors allow us to scan nearly 100% of the arriving see containers, trucks, and passenger vehicles arriving from canada and mexico as well as shipments in the mail and air cargo environments. most americans are unaware of this critically important security measure. detection technology targeting capabilities and partnerships are strategically aligned to prevent the arrival of a dangerous weapon. standard processes to ensure coordinated and effective response. in the event they detect radiological material all personnel are trained insecure, i slay, and notify protocols. the suspect cargo is secured, immediate area is isolated, and scientific

experts are notified. scientists will confer with the department of energy and when necessary refer the findings to the fbi to coordinate appropriate response. thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you very much. our last witness is misted -- mr. david morrow. you are recognized. >> good morning. i am pleased to be here to discuss the efforts to prevent a dirty bomb attack on a us port. preventing the smuggling of aa nuclear radiological device into the us is understandably and deservedly a top national priority. as we are from the other witnesses there are a wide away a programs and activities at several federal agencies to help address and mitigate this threat.

mymy statement focuses on one key aspect of this much larger effort, the covert operations to assess capabilities to detect and interdict the smuggling of nuclear materials and the us. over the years dhs has invested billions to develop, purchase, and apply radiation detection equipment on the nation's borders as well as equip and train personnel on how to use the technology. they have invested substantially less on testing to see whether it is being properly used. for example, over five years cvp spent 1 million for covert testing, and that covered all types of covert testing, not just nuclear radiological. it is important to give them credit, through much of that time and up to the present day they are only required to do a single covert test per year. they took it upon themselves to do more than that. while they did more than required, this resource investment meant that they could not test every port of

entry. and it's covert tests undercover officers try to smuggle radiological materials three us ports of entry. basically this isbasically this is a real-world test of the equipment and personnel using it. we found the testing provided limited assessment, specifically the number of covert tests was not sufficient to make a generalizable assessment of all us ports of entry. cbp conducted covert tests command 86 of the 655 locations were testing could have been done. in addition,. in addition, the decisions on which locations to test were not based upon risk assessment which meant it's covert testing did not prioritize the most dangerous materials, most vulnerable locations are critical equipment. for example, 31%example, 31 percent of the tests were done at fixed checkpoints within the us, not ports of

entry. we recommended that they use a wrist former approach to help determine where to conduct covert tests. they agreed and are in the process of doing just that. we also reviewed what they did with the results of the covert test. these tests found problems with officer noncompliance from equipment failures as well as opposite error due to lack of training. they followed up on systemic problems like these to ensure corrective actives to a corrective actions were taken but did not consistently track the status of actions to fix problems of individual locations. we recommended they do so and have actions underway to do so. in some respects findings on this program mirror some of the themes we have seen over the past several years. they have made significant progress. in particular,particular, we have made great strides since 98 when the us began deploying radiation

detection equipment. in some cases agencies rushed to failure to deploy technologies before ready. over the yearsover the years dhs and other agencies have implemented gal recommendations to address these problems, and as a result strengthen programs. looking ahead, congress, dhs command other agencies face tough decisions. complex, vital to security command certainly not an expensive. as agencies adapt to changing threats upgrade or replace aging equipment and enhanced capabilities gal will be there to provide congress independent oversight of this critically important mission. thank you for the

opportunity to testify this morning and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. i am going to now recognize members for questions. you are satisfied that cvp took into account what you guys found in that they are making corrective action? >> yes, they took the findings my report from last year very seriously can't put together a team of folks to address those recommendations and have actions underway to fully address them. they are out all the way there yet, they have taken action. >> thank you. let's start with the questions from my letter with the numbers. what is the percentage of shipping containers inspected prior to arrival in the us port? >> every container is assessed for risk. 124,000 containers were expected. >> what is that percentage? >> aa little over 1 percent of the 12 million containers

>> but everything is analyzed. >> everything is analyzed. >> screened, i guess you could say. >> depending on how you define screening in scanning , we do look at the advanced data we receive from the shipper in terms of the manifest as well as the importer. we compare all of that to what we have in our databases in terms of automated targeting systems, intelligence information is provided, and from those reviews certain containers will rise to the top causing greater concern. highest risk containers are the ones we look at overseas. >> what happens when you look at a country like uae that scans everything. as passive systems that are made in san diego that scan everything. >> that is correct. many countries of the.radiation scanning equipment similar to what we have here. the radiation scanning is very doable from a technology standpoint