representatives on the floor, our 24/7 watch center where cyber is concerned. we're working with them very extensively on that. >> very good. now turning to our borders, the chairs, the u.s. canadian parliamentarian group actually coming to washington next month, i know you've been working on some cross border crime issues. i did want to thank you for an issue i've been raising for a few years and that the issue of the canadian baggage screening, which has finally been resolved as part of the beyond the border action plan. thank you for working on that. then i wanted to ask, i know senator schumer asked some things about the tsa. again, i understand that there is always incidents that need to be resolved and new things come up. but over all i think they also, like yourself, have a very challenging job. i have been proud of the work that they do at least in the minneapolis airport where i work with them. you just brought in the precheck pilot program in our state. do you know how that's been

going? >> the precheck pilot programs are very popular. this is the domestic branch of the kind of trusted traveler programs that we began with the global entry program, internationally. so we are expanding that precheck program as rapidly as we can. >> very good. then last, the jolt act i just call your attention to that. this is bipartisan legislation that we've introduced with senator schumer and rubio, blunt, mick ulsky, kirk, and lee. i think it is very important to move ahead with that. we appreciated some of the work you've done on tourism and we're working with the state department to improve visa wait times. there are other things we can do contained in this act and we'd love your help and support with that bill. >> happy to take a look at it. >> thank you. >> senator corbin.

>> good morning. >> good morning. >> good to see you. we can all stipulate you have an extraordinarily challenging job. i want to ask you a question about the dna testing of detainees. i know you are a former federal prosecutor and attorney general so you know how powerful a tool dna can be in a law enforcement investigation. as a matter of fact, to digress, we've had an important violence against women reauthorization on the bill probably this afternoon or tomorrow and i'm offering a bipartisan amendment that will address the 400,000 estimated, untested rape kits that currently are sitting in police lockers and elsewhere, which as we all know is a powerful tool to help identify what in many instances are serial perpetrators of sexual assault. but let me bring you back to

2005. senator kyl and i sponsored the dna fingerprint act during the last reauthorization of the violence against women act. this gave federal law enforcement authority to collect small dna samples from all federal arrestees and detainees just like we take fingerprints but as you know, more accurate. these dna samples again as you know can be checked against the fbi's nationwide dna data base to determine wlt arrestee or detainee has committed other crimes perhaps in other jurisdictions. so far, codis we're told has assisted law enforcement officials with more than 169,000 investigations including 10,000 in my state and texas. so we've steen to be a powerful tool. at your 2009 confirmation hearing and i asked if you would see to it that the alien

deportee dna testing regulations are fully and promptly implemented by the department and you replied appropriately the dhs will fully comply with the applicable statutory and regulatory framework. nearly three years after the hearing, how do you feel like that's going? >> well, i think, senator, we have deported a record number of individuals, as you know. i will be happy to go back and look at all of the regulations governing that to make sure we're in compliance, but we have had a very aggressive plan to deport those who should be removed from the country. >> my question is a little more narrow because we want to identify whether the detainees have perhaps committed other crimes and aid those law enforcement agencies in the course of those other investigations not just enforce the immigration laws, which is important, but is not the

complete rationale. would you be willing to on a voluntary basis submit to the committee sort of the department's evaluation of how it has complied and handled this requirement of 2005 into the dna fingerprint act? >> i'd be happy to supply that. >> that would be very helpful. let me tell you the reason for my concern. of course, we know the fbi has used a great deal of taxpayer money and crime lab resources to prepare for hundreds of thousands of dna samples. as a result of the passage of this act in 2005. we're told that the fbi is prepared for and expected to receive between 120,000 and 240,000 samples from the department of homeland security in the year 2012. to date they report only having received 4,000 samples so i hope

you'll help us. >> let's get to the bottom of that. >> identify what the disparity is between the number of samples and the number anticipated by the fbi as a result of this because while i'm aware that for example in afghanistan and iraq when our military captures high value detainees, they do get biometric identifiers from them that could be used, can be used by law enforcement agencies and the department in the united states when identifying people coming across let's say the southwestern border without the appropriate visas to make sure that they're not coming in for, you know, to commit acts of terrorism and other violence. >> senator, if i might -- >> it strikes me that this dna evidence -- i'll be glad to let you answer -- this dna information would be vitally important and enormously useful

not only in assisting your department in terms of border security and immigration enforcement but also to help law enforcement at large in terms of identifying people who come into the country and commit crimes that currently are unsolved. please go ahead. >> thank you, senator. and i didn't mean to interrupt. but we do run illegal immigrants against a variety of data bases. and i think i should supply you with that information and then i will look specifically into the issue of dna with the fbi. >> to my knowledge, and i look forward to your report, that is more in the nature of fingerprint and other biometric identifiers and it did not extend to dna testing of detainees until congress passed the dna fingerprint law in 2005. so you understand, i know, the issue and i would very much welcome your response to me and the committee so we can help get to the bottom of that.

>> good. >> mr. chairman, i'll yield back my remaining time. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, secretary napolitano. >> thank you. >> just one question on the secret service episode. what opportunities did this behavior create for compromise of the president's security, for instance, had the prostitutes had connections with colombian criminal networks or foreign intelligence services? i'm not saying that it did but it seems like the kind of behavior that would rend an agent vulnerable to blackmail and influence if criminal networks and foreign intelligence services were aware of it and that is a potential avenue for capris mifs the president's security. >> senator, we are still

completing the entire investigation. and there are still interviews to be conducted. but i think we have planned to keep the committee briefed on what we find and whether there could on a future basis be that kind of risk. but as i testified earlier, the first question i posed to the director was, was there any breach to the president's security in this instance? the answer was no. >> but there was a risk of breach along those lines if those connections existed, correct? >> there may be a risk and that is why this behavior cannot be tolerated. >> let me switch to cyber and thank you for your energetic work and persistance o know this issue as we in congress try to pass the legislation that we need. there are a variety of different approaches that are being looked at here. let me ask you this. if we were to pass a bill that

failed to protect american critical infrastructure in private hands like our electric grid or financial processing systems, our communications networks and so forth, and, indeed, if that bill even failed to define critical infrastructure or provide a process for defining critical infrastructure so we actually knew what it was and what it wasn't, how well would that bill have met the threat that you see us facing in this realm? >> it would leave a significant gap given the attacks we think we already see. that is why we think the nation's core infrastructure should have basic performance standards to meet. that is why we think a bill needs to have real time information sharing in it and incentivize that information sharing. and so those are the kinds of things that really should go into a comprehensive cyber bill.

>> and would you be able to say that the national security needs of the united states had been met by a bill that did not include any protection for our critical infrastructure? >> senator, i would say based on what we know now and the risks that we already see now and the kinds of attacks that we already see now the failure to address core critical infrastructure would be a significant gap in any legislation. >> thank you. my last question on this same subject but switching from the national security and public safety side of cyber attack to the intellectual property and economic competitiveness side of our cyber vulnerability, i said about two years ago that i thought we were on the losing end of the biggest transfer of

wealth in the history of human kind through theft and piracy because of the attacks on our industrial base and our technological base from overseas for the purpose of industrial espionage and stealing intellectual property. since then, general alexander has used virtually the same language. mcafee has issued a report that uses virtually the same language. mike mcconnell has used virtually the same language. this is a very big deal for us from the point of view of economic competitiveness and you've been an attorney general. in fact we were attorneys general together. you've been a u.s. attorney. in fact, we were u.s. attorneys together. you've had a lot of experience as law enforcement and in your role as secretary of homeland security. i do not yet believe that we are

resourced adequately in law enforcement to address that aspect of our cyber liability, and i hear from companies in all sorts of industries that when they can get for instance the fbi's attention they are very impressed with the capabilities that are involved but it is very rare that you could turn over a case of intellectual property theft to the fbi and say, go. they simply don't have the staff or resources as much as this part of law enforcement has grown both in u.s. attorneys' offices and at the fbi, so i would like to ask that you participate in discussions that we're going to be having around the cyber security legislation about how we should better organize our cyber resources. it's both criminal and civil

because a lot of what gets done is done through civil law. the core flood bott net was taken down by civil case. a lot of cleanup on the net of crooked websites can be done through civil proceedings but it is a law enforcement function because air getting rid of very bad actors on the net who are attacking american businesses and the american economy. that was a little more of a speech than a question but i'd like to invite you based on your experience to participate in that discussion. i don't know if we need an entire organization or a different way of organizing law enforcement activity or the cyber equivalent of an organized crime strike force. those were set up many years ago. there are many different structures but i don't think the private sector is getting the support it needs through law enforcement because of lack of resource and there is an awful lot of money going out the door. we are standing by one of the biggest robberies in history and would love to have your support

in pursuing that concern. >> senator, first of all, i agree with your statement of the scope of the problem. it is severe. it is endemic. it is a transfer of wealth as you put it. we work with the fbi, secret service, and i.c.e., all have cyber security and do criminal cases in that area as well as some others. so i would be happy to participate as we -- i think in the context of comprehensively looking at the protection of the country and cyber, how we organize our law enforcement resources and make sure particularly the fbi has what it needs to handle some of this work is a good question and i'd be happy to participate. >> thank you. madame secretary, as you've noticed, the senators on both sides have come in and left during this hearing because most of us have about three different

committee meetings going on. you don't get that luxury and i do want to apply to you, one, for keeping your answers as brief and to the point and, i might say, as accurate as you have, which is typical of your appearance and i appreciate that. i have to leave. i just note that senator lee will go next. i want to turn it over to senator koomz. i'm doing this. we're trying to keep similar hair lines. [ laughter ] >> sorry about that. but we're -- the senator has worked very, very hard on this subject and i've asked him to take over the chair and we'll go to senator lee next. i appreciate what you said. i think i can speak for senator grassley and others on here we will want to keep in touch with

you and the director of the secret service as this whole matter goes on not just on what has happened now, what is happening in the future, and what will happen in the future. we'll do it because of our obvious oversight and the need to do it. the protection of key people, in this case the presidential election year. both the president and the republican nominee. but also because we have so many good men and women in the secret service that i hope will be able to demonstrate that there are a few bad apples. they're weeded out so that the others who are extraordinarily dedicated, highly trained professionals can continue on the work they do. >> absolutely. >> senator lee, thank you for that. please go ahead, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary napolitano, for joining us. in march of this year, john cohen who i believe is your principal deputy coordinator for counterterrorism, testified

before a house subcommittee that the department should have a biometric exit system designed and ready to go at least ready to roll out and announce and describe sometime within the next few weeks in the coming weeks. in your written testimony today i believe you said that a biometric exit system should be ready for deployment and use within four years. how confident are you about that time frame? >> what we are planning, senator, the actual plan is in final clearance with omb so should be out shortly. but given our ability now to do enhanced biographic exit, immediately moving and deploying that and then we will move and use that as the platform for adding on the biometric but the plan is done from our standpoint. we're just working through the final nuts and bolts with omb.

>> what does it take so long to get it deployed -- is it just the development of a technology? in other words, the fact that it takes four years to get it going, is that -- >> well, it's cost -- it's the scope of the issue. we have so many ways that people can exit the united states. we're very different from other countries in that regard. and man power. other resources, yes. >> what kind of an impact do you think this will have on visa overstays once you get it deployed? >> i think it will help us although we have already used our enhanced biographic to go backwards to identify over stays and to prioritize those that we want i.c.e. to really focus on finding and removing. >> can you give us any sort of brief, specifics, a brief thumb nail sketch on how the system will work? >> i would prefer to do that in

a classified setting. >> okay. >> and we would be able to do that, yes. >> understood. now, on a different topic, last year john morton the director of u.s. customs, immigrations customs enforcement, issued a couple memoranda that between them set out certain priorities that would govern the use of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion within i.c.e. and within that memorandum, there were a number of considerations outlined, which end up mirroring to a very significant degree the same factors outlined in the dream act, the same version of the dream act that the senate refused to pass a couple years ago. it came up for a vote and didn't get the necessary number of votes to pass. among those factors that the agents were instructed to

consider in exercising prosecutorial discretion included the alien's length of presence in the united states which mirrored the factor in section 3b1a of the dream act. the circumstances of the alien's arrival in the united states, particularly if it happened at a time when the alien was a young child. which mirrors what can be found in 3b1b of the dream act. the alien's criminal history mirroring 3b1d of the act. given to those who have graduated from a u.s. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing college or advanced degrees at a legitimate institution of higher education of the united states, that of course mirrors section 3b1e of the dream act. the alien's age with particular consideration given for minors mirroring section 3b1f of the dream act and wlt alien has

served in the military of the united states mirroring section 5a1d2 of the dream act. given these prosecutorial discretion standards, which match up somewhat closely to the same factors put forth in the dream act and given the fact the dream act was not passed into law what assurance can you give us or what assurances can i give my constituents when they approach me and suggest that perhaps there might be an effort under way to back door these same factors in -- through regulatory channels that couldn't be passed through congress? >> senator, first let me begin by saying, having worked in this field for decades now, we strongly need overall reform and we -- and strongly support the dream act as a legislative enactment. you are right. it failed by four or five votes to get cloture here. it was passed by the house. that being said, what we have the capacity or only

jurisdiction to do, is to administratively close a case. that doesn't give the person involved any kind of a green card or anything of that sort. it simply means that their case is effectively suspended. and any can remain in the united states. that's very different from the dream act, which would allow an actual pathway to citizenship and that's, you know, one of the things i think we should be doing is really focusing on our enforcement resources on those who are real risks to the public safety of the united states and those who meet the standards of the dream act if they really meet those standards are not. >> so the overlap between them is coincidental and you would say, your response to that is it is essentially that these are two different layers of analysis. one in the dream act would be focusing on a path way toward

citizenship. this is focused on how to allocate scarce prosecutorial and law enforcement resources. >> i think that is an accurate statement. >> okay. and you're not concerned or convinced these could spill over into something larger? >> we are in the process of looking at all of the cases on the immigration docket to see which if any should be administratively closed. and those that meet the criteria you just named are those that we would consider for administrative closure. >> okay. finally, is there any chance that in my lifetime we'll see passengers before boarding a plane not having to remove shoes going through tsa? >> senator, we have already -- we're looking at everything from what is the threat and what is the risk and we have already made changes for passengers over the age of 75 and children under the age of 12 where except for on a random basis, and we always

have to have some unpredictability in the system, they can be expedited through the lines without their shoes being taken off. from a technology standpoint, the technology still does not exist that allows us to easily identify nonmetallic matter in shoes or liquids, which is why we're doing some of the things we are doing tan's all based on the intelligence we have about the terrorist threats we face. >> i see my time has expired. thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, senator lee. senator franken? >> thank you, mr. chairman. madame secretary, this week the house of representatives is considering several cyber security proposals but this morning i want to talk about with you about the cyber security proposals that are here in the senate. because while there's ban lot of talk about privacy and civil

liberties implications of the house proposals and, rightly so, fewer people are talking about the two bills here in the senate. the fact is that they are, as they are currently drafted, both of the cyber security proposals here in the senate present very serious threats to our privacy and civil liberties. both bills allow companies the near unfettered ability to monitor e-mails and files of their customers. both bills may allow companies to share that information directly with the military. both bills generally allow the federal government to freely share that information with law enforcement and both bills immunize companies against grossly negligent and knowing violations of the few privacy protections that apply to this

process. in doing all of this, both of these bills sweep aside decades of privacy laws, many of which this committee wrote in many cases with chairman leahy at the helm. i'm talking about the wire tap act, the communications act and the penn register statute. i've been working with senator durbin with the sponsors of the cyber security act of 2012. they've been working with us in good faith. and i sincerely hope we can fix these problems before the bill even gets to the floor. i think it's really important that everyone know that we have real civil liberties problems not just in the house but also here in the senate bills. i'm saying all of this to you, madame secretary, because the administration cyber security proposal from last may does not have many of these problems.

it is in several ways more protective of our privacy than either proposal here in the senate. i want to use the remaining time i have here to tease out those differences and frankly just make the case we should pay attention to what the administration did in its proposals. first of all, madame secretary, as i mentioned, both the cyber security act and the secure i.t. act would allow the military to be the initial recipient of any information being shared by a private company but it is my understanding that it is the official position of this administration that a civilian entity not a military entity should always be the initial recipient of cyber security data from the private sector. can you explain why this is the administration's position? >> the administration's position

mirrors how we have actually organized ourselves in the absence of cyber legislation. the way we organized ourselves is that d.o.d. has responsibility for military networks but d.h.s. has responsibility for civilian and the intersection with the private sector. we both use the technology resources of the nsa but we use them under different authorities and with more restrictions, particularly on the privacy side, than you would in an international military sort of context. so the position that we have is to make sure that the statute mirrors what actually is happening on the ground. >> well, thank you. second, madame secretary, both of the bills in the senate give private companies a new authority to freely monitor the communications and files on their systems many of which