carriers and tpp. and that's kind of frivolous, but an underlying serious question, you gave a speech to the national defense industry -- industrial association, where you said that the administration should broaden the national security council's role to emcompass more matters. are we just not looking comprehensively enough at first how we define national security, and how we use our national security tools and so -- and this i think grabs nicely off of the aircraft carrier tpp values. >> i think this is really an exciting time. and i'm fully enthusiastic about what the administration's trying to do here. i think we have a great u.s. trade rep in mike froman and i think the secretary's use of global diplomacy or commercial diplomacy is one of the bright

things that's going on in our approach to world affairs. and i think it recognizes that we've made the transition from 21st century problem solving to 21st century problem solving. the 20th century was kind of a bipolar century. the 21st century is obviously multi-polar. globalization is a reality. it's on a course of diversions, because one of the sectors that is universally admired and recognized for what it does is the american private sector. and when you think about the developing world and the growth of africa and what's going on, even dealing with the problems that mr. putin is causing, a large part of the solutions are economic when you think about

it. energy security is something that i've been convinced is not only going to be one of the united states' strongest cards in the future but it's a way of showing leadership in a more globalized world, that recognizes the important changes between the two centuries. this problem is going to be solved not just by aircraft carriers and troops alone. i think the formula is obviously you have to have security before you can have economic development, but security plus economic development plus governance and rule of law applied proportionally to each individual problem can bring about and prevent future conflicts. it's a lot cheaper.

it's also a way in which you can answer the radical threats that face us, by showing families around the world particularly through the use of the internet and the social media that there are better ways and there are brighter opportunities for their families and their children. and the economic trade issues that we're bringing to the fore now are exactly i think indicative of the kind of potential that the united states can unleash with this tremendous private sector. so they're coming together with organization like the national security council to encompass a much broader response to what are the traditional threats. the secretary of commerce's aggressive program, the u.s. trade reps. so i think this is really the way of the future and i'm very excited by the potential.

>> drill down on that a little bit, particularly in the energy sector, which you talk a lot about and are quite passionate about. the transatlantic trade investment partnership, tpp, what could that mean for expanded access to suddenly plentiful american energy for our partners? part of that is how do we use energy as a national security tool. this may come back to you as well caroline because i think many of our allies would like an energy charter, which at the moment i think is not on -- also they would like to have finance, but that's another issue. should an energy charter be in this? is the u.s. open to that, for caroline. first to you. >> i think that the way we use energy and the way we see energy in the future has to be a global

approach. i cringe a little bit when i hear the term -- that energy, we've got ours and everybody else is on their own. i think the difference between the russian president's position, which tends to use energy as a weapon, and ours should be completely different. we can use energy and our good fortune in energy and our technology to help developing countries skip the pollution phase, for sure. providing american leadership and leadership of our friends and allies holistically to help jump start struggling economies all over the world. you need energy. those who have it are blessed. those who don't need it. and to me, an enlightened american foreign policy should

include the ways in which we're going to try to make energy and climate an issue that is -- that typifies all of the best qualifies of american leadership. so i think it's a very positive opportunity. as i mentioned i do believe that part of the response to mr. putin, particularly where europe is concerned, is to help the europeans become less dependent and give them choices and there's exciting projects being discussed right now. the atlantic council has been at the forefront of this north-south corridor from the baltics to the adriatic involving at least 13 different countries, which if it comes to pass will have the u.s.-european transatlantic partnership on using energy for a much much -- to greater influence on a geostrategic

problem, that mr. putin deserves to pay a price for strategically. we'll see what happens, but it's very exciting. >> and for anyone who wants to look at that report, it's on our website, atlanticcouncil.org. he's the co-chair of this north-south energy corridor idea. so it's really getting traction at the moment, both in brussels and here. question of the energy charter, caroline? >> i would pick up on what he said, which is that we need to and we are working on -- with energy and climate seeing that as part of our general national security and international economic work. in my position, energy and clielt is climate is one of the three areas. so we already are seeing it in that sbe gritted fashion. we are working intensively, got

most attention on china. we're working also with ind y and other countries intensively on how to work towards -- leapfrog the sbe -- the dirty stage. the department of energy licenses -- gives license for export, and they have now licensed very large quantity. these licenses are freely granted to countries, or going to countries that have a free trade agreement. if these agreements get done, both tpp and t-tip, that will expand the almost automatic granting of licenses for projects in those regions. we've worked with europe a lot in the last 18 months and we

have also worked about the fact that in europe, especially in some parts of europe, there's room for more energy e fishsy. there is also room for breaking down the european energy market. at the moment, we export -- spain has an lng terminal but they do not send the gas to europe. there aren't transmission lines. so there are many issues within europe which they are working on in which we can work with them. we certainly believe in promoting a strong global market for oil gas, and other energy and, of course the clean energy. >> at this point there's not a particular need. >> yes, exactly. >> draw upon your career in u.s. government.

talk both about the national security objectives that are locked in trade agreements, but perhaps you can also talk about how hard it is to get these deals done. i talked to someone in the clinton administration who was crewial to this to nafta yesterday. she said to me they have no idea what they're getting into. it took a lot to push these ambassador two deals through. and not to mention the tpp to start with. >> let me first congratulate you and the atlantic council for bringing us together because the focus this morning, it's not just on the economics which i think is really quite important. it's pointing out how these trade agreements really are absolutely crucial for our national security. so let me start with that one.

because obviously there are the political elements, because trade, economic, one's economic standing is so integral and interwoven with one's military standing and ability to show strength and to be able to achieve one's national security objectives. i remember when admiral mullen not too long ago as chairman of the joint chiefs had said you know we have to really worry greatly about and the integration here, it isn't just about the aircraft carrier, and that matters, but it is also about your economic standing and what impact that also has. in that sense, that's a key one. let me mention two others that are sometimes often forgotten. and caroline referred to it. she mentioned the importance of values and standards. and here there's also a paradigm

that's been established. and again, it is interwoven with other paradigms. our military alliances and what that mean. but not just only that but also the kind of humanitarian alliances we have, the rule of law, the values that we have. at this time with many global challenges that we have around the world, you know in this case, this adds great value because it does contribute to that international global order, to that paradigm. and then there's a third i'd put forth. and that's one that we look at but it's also audiences in asia and also in europe, and that is how you build consensus at home. if you are able to bolster your economy, and these agreements will do that that leads to greater consensus in the foreign policy arena. and that's been a real challenge for us here in the united states in terms of trying to galvanize

that support and point out that stake that we have in events abroad. i believe strongly that these elements are all interwoven if these -- >> the conclusion and strengthening of nato.

>> i think that only adds value. so it's a win-win situation. on the other part of your question it's very, very difficult. i have it from the other side of the ledger, caroline mentioned labor and environment and i spent my time when i was in government in dealing with environmental issues which were interwoven into these issues. let me just say this.

it's doable. it requires patience. it requires also being able to -- >> who will be around the table and who are around the table. they realize, look in the end, you give a little here but you get these benefits here. so patience, leadership. first looking at your own interests. and also i certainly would not forget in this i guess also two other important aspects. i think the executive legislative relationships matter. and i also think the ngo community and the business community matter. so also in that sense in terms

of this business forum and a launch in the business forum, it matters greatly because you have to have the voice of the business community and the non-governmental community. patience and openness really matters. >> let me turn to ambassador beazley. i'm just going to be a panelist for 30 seconds to agree violently with paula. but to add one other thing. that is 15 years of europe having half the rate of growth for the u.s. is actually not good for us. and it's not good for our security. it's not good for geopolitics. and so we are seeing actually potentially more resistance to the ttip in europe right now than in the u.s. we have to see how that unfolds. but the director of our global business economics program is really pushing forward a europe growth initiative as not just an economic story, but also a geopolitical story and a national security story.

ambassador beazley, you've been a strong supporter of free trade. with most interestingly, with china. and that's where i want to go with this question. with the asia pacific economy growing faster than any part of the world, how have these trade agreements benefit australia, but you already have this bilateral agreement with the u.s., why do you need tpp, and what do you do about china within this? which is not part of tpp. >> tpp is of a totally different plain. i think the first thing you need to point out is there's a plethora of trade agreements in asia and there will be many more. negotiated after the tpp has put in place. the asian nations love organizing the trade agreements between them. they're not particularly exciting. i think the three that we have negotiated with korea, japan, china, are a bit more exciting.

but partly that's driven by the education that has been delivered, countries in the region following what's been happening with the tpp, and getting an understanding of how much more perhaps they ought to be including in their trade agreements that they might not have done in the past. that's the first point i'd want to make. the second is the trade between this country and the asian region is intense and the character of that trade has driven asian prosperity. it's now generating to a considerable degree, but not in its origins. the u.s. was the great importer of the last resort, which has been obvious in the debates that have been taking place in the u.s. one of the things i point out to my friends in the trade union movement is this. currently, your effective rate of protection for manufactured goods is 1.5%. after the tpp, it will be 1.5%. if the tpp is not done, it will be 1.5%. and what does that tell you?

what that tells you is you have been open to the supply chains that have been operated into the united states four years and you have driven the prosperity of those countries and now you have an opportunity to get some back itself. so that's part of what's bound up in the argument for the tpp, but it is not the argument for the tpp. the argument for the tpp is that asia was excluded in effect from the setting of the arrangements that have governed world trade since world war ii. when the united states finally cracked open the restrictive effects of the european empires and started to introduce a level of principle, complexity, honesty, integrity, and certainty. that's what came through with the wta. the chinese and the japanese will prostrate at the end of the war. or the rest around the european empires. now there is a chance for the

asian people to participate in rule setting. with the extraordinarily superior character of the rules being put in place for ip protection, e-commerce protection, for behind-the-border removal of restrictions, on activities associated with the tertiary sector. a range of those sorts of things that are coming in through the tpp. that will be the wto the get for the asia pacific region. it will be a standard to which all will repeat. the small number of nations, with very substantial economies negotiating it now. the countries in the region will have as a first order of

priority, and i include china in this working out ways in which they may place themselves. this is not ganging up on the chinese. this is putting in place the thing that makes a real difference for the way in which the burgeoning trade of asia is conducted to introduce to it sensible rules, integrity, and the rest of it. the starting way in which we look at global security issues is not who contains whom, but how strong is our principal ally. how powerful is the united states. how happy is the united states? when i first gave public evidence here to your foreign trade commission --

>> something i admire you for. why don't you go where you're loved? sort of the worst that you experience is -- well, let's leave the north koreans out of this. the worst that you experience really in the region is sort of a quizzical, cautious skepticism by the chinese. and that range is are grew to outright love in australia and everybody's in between those two markers. so the area is very accepting of u.s. leadership. it is also very understanding of the value that the united states has been to the region in terms of the products being exported to the united states. the experience in the region of american companies is okay. you've got 650 billion investors in australia directly and

indirectly. we've got 470 billion invested in you, rising at the rate of 30 billion a year and that's 20 times what we've had invested in china. those stories are all over the region. so the notion that somehow you're disconnected from this is nonsense, of course. what you haven't done is put the intellectual effort into europe. you put enormous intellectual effort into europe when you save them. you've also put a lot of intellectual effort into japan. i think you'll see a very different sort of japan from what we've been used to. but also based on what you've been prepared to do with them. but nowhere near put that intellectual effort into southeast asia and south asia. just gives you the chance to do that, but more important than that make the rules right. or make the rules. there are no rules. there are agreements.

and a set of rules that the region can connect to that have got a bit of principle behind it. >> let me go back to caroline, and also whether general jones and paula have any comments and then we'll go to the audience. >> thanks. i want to jump in. terrific explanation of about happiness of america and that's what drives me. two points. the first is that he's absolutely right about how welcoming and how important it is to establish rules, norms, standards. that is what paula also referred to. i would argue that there has been intellectual effort put into that, but it will come to fruition when we are able to close tpp on the basis of a strong bipartisan supported tta which goes to paula's point about a functioning and strong

u.s. the other thing is that if we do not do this, and i agree with you that things will happen that if one imagines not going forward, the world wouldn't stay the same. kim referred to the 500 million consumers in the asia pacific that are going to turn into 3 billion in ten years time. 95% of the world's consumers are outside of america. they're going to keep doing that without the norms that we have based on our values, whatever we do. if we do nothing. but if we're there helping to set the rules with them working with them to set these norms and standards and values, to set the level playing field, then we're showing leadership. if we're not there, that would be a big absent switch. i agree with tim, would be -- not just us, but those in asia

also. >> and in terms of windows of opportunity, it's not entirely clear to me that if this fails now, you'd have another shot at this four or five years from now. >> this is the time to move. this is a tremendous window of opportunity. we've been working on it, especially mike froman with the president's strong backing. this is the time to move. as you referred to. a lot of things happen in the fourth quarter. we certainly believe this is the moment for this one. >> thank you. you want to jump in on any of the issues? >> i want to agree wholeheartedly that this is the window of opportunity and i wanted to inject two words that i haven't quite heard in the conversation peace and stability. because we're talking about security. and here, as i was hearing you speak, i mean, that's also what undergirds all of this. because when you do have a paradigm, you do have rules, and

you have an order here, it is only going to account to that and there will be conflicts that arise when you don't have them. >> when i spoke to you at the atlantic council --

the committee will come to order. thank you for your patience. i know you're all very busy. the chair would like to notify members, remind members that no subcommittee will start until the full committee is finished. we do have two subcommittees that are planned to meet at 2:00. we also have votes that will happen on the floor in about 45 minutes. we'll try to do this as swiftly as possible, but i wanted to note that. for members that might be showing up for the 2:00 hearing that is beginning to o'going to occur in this meeting. let's address why we're here today. the gyrocopter incident that happened two weeks ago. the 9/11 commission after that terrible horrific terrorist attack wrote "the most important failure was one of imagination. we do not believe leaders understood the gravity of the

threat." we're here today because we need to understand who saw what and when, who communicated what. did it work? did we learn those lessons of tragedies of past? on april 15th the man in the gyrocopter was able to fly through the highly restricted air space of the national capitol region and land on the west lawn of the capitol. he started off in the north, came, went over the lincoln memorial, right past into the air space surrounding the white house, right past the washington memorial and landed on the lawn of the capitol. unbelievable. he first told federal authorities about this -- it came on the radar about two years ago. the national capitol region is unique in that the department of defense, transportation, and homeland security along with the capitol police national park police and the congressional sergeant of arms all have roles to play in protecting the air space. as best i can tell in this region, there are roughly 32 law

enforcement agencies that have some form of jurisdiction in the safety and security of the washington, d.c. area. but it's still unclear who on this panel was ultimately responsible for first identifying this object entering restricted air space and then for responding to it. at this point, ignorance is no longer an excuse when it comes to to drones and small aircraft. in january, a drone crash landed on the white house lawn. it's becoming very common in the world. after the gyrocopter incident a drone with radioactive material landed on the japanese prime minister's residence. dozens of unaccounted drones have flown over the streets of paris since last october and a drone crashed into the german chancellor merkel at a rally in 2013. there have been several instances involving the white house, including helicopters and small aircraft, and this is a pervasive threat. it's been there for a long time.

it isn't going anywhere. and when we show this type of vulnerability, i worry that the shine that it will inevitably be taken down, and taken down hard has gone away. someone should have identified this type of threat. we aren't prepared to meet or that our enemies would exploit. our defense of technology must be able to prevent and respond to unconventional and emerging threats. we need to have that creativity to understand that the would-be terrorist and those people who want to see harm to the united states of america will likely be creative. but in this gyrocopter incident he was loud and clear what he was going to do. in fact, he was live streaming it. and nobody seemed to pick that up. news outlets did. they sent staff, they sent reporters down on the lawn to watch it. the united states military has researched drones since world war i, and for the last 13 years

used them to fight against terrorists. yet the primary drone detection technology currently used by the faa, norad, the secret service, and the capitol police is roughly 70 years old. this antiquated technology can't even tell the difference between a bird a drone a gyrocopter or just plain old weather. even a mylar balloon sets things off. i understand we will hear today about the pentagon's effort to improve our capability to identify and intercept small aerial threats. this is the same technology that customs and border patrol has used on the border for years. long periods of time. they've been dealing with this type of gyrocopters and hang gliders and all sorts of these type of small aircraft on the borders for decades. they have been dealing with this for a long time. did we ever learn any of those lessons? do we need to bring cbp in here to help protect the capital region? they seem to figure it out.

the stakes are higher interagency intelligence sharing and communications coordination can never, ever fail us. we must make sure all agencies with a role in the national security effectively communicate with each other. so hopefully we'll hear today how the agencies represented here have effectively communicated about threats and their counterparts. quite frankly, i didn't learn much in your opening statement. that was as bland as we could have possibly been. we're here to address a serious topic. we're not going to just stand here and say well, it's classified, we can't talk about it. evidently, when you have been talking about it, it hasn't gotten done. i'd like other members of congress and congressional staff and visitors at the capitol also have concerns about alerting the capitol community about this incident. the first capitol-wide alert came at 5:03 p.m., several hours after the incident was over. i look forward to hearing about how the sergeant of arms and the

capitol hill police have updated their policies from ever happening again. it certainly shouldn't have ever happened in the first place. it's very disappointing that three of the agencies here, the faa, the department of defense, norad, and the park police chose not to brief members of congress last week. now, i do appreciate the capitol police, the sergeant of arms and the secret service for making themselves available. we had four agents, four committees, four committee chairmen, four members asking for your presence to have a behind-the-scenes closed door briefing on this topic. and for whatever reason, the faa, department of defense, and the park police refused to brief members of congress. that doesn't give us a whole lot of confidence, folks. and we will yank you up here time and time again until we get answers in the public. we are different than the rest of the world. we are different. we're self-critical. don't take it so personally.

understand this is how we make america the greatest country on the face of the planet. we do this in open and transparent way. but when you won't even talk to members in a closed door meeting, that's not acceptable. it's a waste of our time, a waste of other people's time. we need results. we have some yahoo in a gyrocopter land right over there and it didn't work. i've got opening statements from you that shed no lyingight other than a time line and how big a space the park police protects. it didn't work. we need candor. i want to thank director clancy and mr. irving for their response to this request. we've had a lot of interactions with the secret service that haven't been the most pleasant but i will thank that agency for being so accessible in their communications, and he has made himself available on the mobile

phone and calling us and making sure that he's available here. and i want to publicly thank him here, even though we have had our differences. we understand that the mission is difficult to fulfill but you're here today because you've been entrusted to accomplish that. we want to help that. we're in the my of our appropriation season. we can't ever have this mission fail. so we look forward to hearing more about that. with that, i will recognize the ranking member mr. cummings for five minutes. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. unlike previous hearings our committee has held with the secret service and the dea which involves misconduct by individual agents. today's hearing presents a different question. how should our nations deal with the relatively new and evolving threat of unmanned or small manned aerial vehicles entering the air space over our nation's capitol. this is a question of technology

and policy, both of which are rapidly evolveing. in this case, i do not personally believe the condemning the capitol police for not shooting down the gyrocopter. i also do not believe we should rush to criticize federal agencies charged with responding to this threat. instead, i believe the best course of action is to work collaboratively with both the capitol police and these federal agencies to understand the threat. understand it. and to strongly support the ongoing efforts to enhance current technologies, many of which are classified. so i thank you about this very critical issue. i completely understand the frustration expressed by the chairman and others about this incident. and let me be clear. i share the frustration. i said in a meeting the other

day so often what happens is we have a tendency to tell each other that everything will be fine when the rubber meets the road. and when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road we discover there is no road. the air space around our nation's capitol is supposed to be the most restricted in the world. yet a postal worker -- hello. a postal worker from florida was able to fly his gyrocopter through 30 miles of restricted air space before finally landing on the capitol lawn. in this case, the individual was only trying to make a peaceful demonstration. but we might not be so fortunate in the future. it takes almost no effort to imagine what could have been.

what if he had weapons? what if he were carrying a bomb? on the flip side it is also my understanding that based on classified briefings we received that this individual is incredibly lucky to be alive today. the next person who tries something this stupid, and it was stupid may not be so lucky. i'd like to thank all of the witnesses for testifying here today on such short notice. i also want to thank you for providing briefings last week both classified and unclassified. your missions are extremely difficult. and the lives of people throughout the district depend on your success. i look forward to hearing from each of you in an effort to address this very pressing situation. we all agree that our paramount interest in the continued security of the air space over the capitol and addressing any

possible breaches as effectively as possible. this is a critical moment, gentlemen, a very critical moment. by the way, it's wake-up call time. we live in a dangerous world with complex constantly evolving threat. so it's imperative that we are prepared to counter them. in addressing these questions today, however the last thing we want to do, the last thing is give a road map to those who want to harm us. i hope that you all agree on that. don't want to do anything that counters what you do every day, and that is trying to protect us. so we need to treat this information responsively and we do not want to highlight security vulnerabilities to would-be attackers.

because you can guarantee your bottom dollar they're watching. out of an abundance of caution i want to make 100% sure that all of our witnesses understand that we do not we do not want you to discuss any sensitive information in this public forum. i think all of you know what i mean by sensitive. and if you don't know raise your hand now, let me know and we'll try to make sure you're clear on what we're talking about. and i'm not trying to be smart either. many of you have raised concerns about holding a public hearing on this topic. and i understand your concerns. the chairman understands your concerns. our committee understands. after discussing with the chairman and his staff, and i want to thank him for this, we have agreed to set up a separate cleared room to address any sensitive issues that may arise. the bottom line is that you are the experts.

and we will defer to you for what can be discussed in this public setting. if our questions call for sensitive information, please let us know and we can reconvene in a closed setting to address those issues. our sole purpose today is to help you counter the threats we face, not to expose our nation's capitol to greater danger by exposing operational details or security vulnerabilities. let me go back to something that the chairman said. i wholeheartedly agree with them on this. gentlemen, time is of the essence. time is of the essence. and i have not come here to ask you. i have come here to beg you to do whatever you have to do to get the technology, if we don't have it. to speed up the technology if it's in the process.

to more effectively and efficiently allow you to do the job that you are sworn to do. and i want to take this moment again to thank all of the people who work with you they are people who have come out here every day, trying to make sure that we're safe. and i want to publicly thank them on behalf of all of us for what they do every day. i want them to understand, and i know that the chairman agrees with me on this although there may be criticism, it's about moving to a more effective and efficient system of protection for all of us. and so one of the best ways to do that, of course is to make sure we have effective oversight, and again, mr. chairman, i want to thank you for calling the hearing and with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i'll now recognize myself for five minutes. it starts with a simple

question. who's in charge? you've got a dude in a gyrocopter 100 feet in the air crossing 30-plus miles of restricted air space. whose job is it to detect him and whose job is it to take him down? >> that's my responsible and i'm accountable for that. >> why didn't it happen? >> because we're working against physics, sir. our system is designed to detect track identify. we have a decision-making process to decide what to do. and then we engage. and that system is netted sensors, radars, cameras and other capabilities that are out there, and we employ that system to the best of our ability, mitigate the risk to the best of our ability, but it's only capable down to a particular set of characteristics that the platform that we want to track and defend against is emitting. based on speed and based on size. and i can go into further

details in the classified session. >> your spokesperson in an article dated april 16th in "the baltimore sun" it wasn't operational on that day. >> it's not operational. it's in a test process right now. we're using it as a test platform. it's not integrated into our system. should it prove to be effective

our choices is to put it into our system and make it operational but it's not operational today. u.s. customs and border patrol uses the teethered radar system. why aren't you using that? >> we think it has more promise innocence innocence.

statements that from the tampa bay times. the website which he provided. you later said it did not find it notices by the individual from the tampa bay times. why weren't you able to see it when so many others were?

we have news organizations sending so many reporters down there. >> the media knew about this ahead of time. we get that call and that one e-mail. >> you told me you would provide that e-mail yet you have not provided. >> yes, sir. >> we have asked to meet with the individual. had their guns up ready to fire. make those people available to us. >> obviously, this case is under prosecution. >> when will we get that e-mail that the chairman asked you about? when will we get that. >> i can get that to you. >> does that mean right after

this hearing? >> yes, sir. >> last question before i turn it over to the ranking member. you said that due to the extremely short time frame between the lockdown order and the direction to lift the lockdown, no messages were sent soth to the congressional community adviseing the lockdown. you state later it was clear of any hazards at 2:57 p.m. and yet it was 5:03 p.m. before any notice went out. why did it take so long? >> you're absolutely correct. we immediately fixed that the next day. we did send some messages out based on their direction. that matter can be fixed. we had an overly complex notification system.

we immediately fixed that. it will not happen again. >> why didn't we get notification there was a potential threat? there was a mix up on command center lack of communication between my staff and the command staff. that will not happen again. we have fixed that. >> they're in the same room, correct? >> it is correct. they are in the same room. most cases the notifications do go out. they were flawless. in this case they were not. we assure you it will not happen again. >> thank you. i'll now recognize the ranking member the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you very much.

i want to ask you about the police in current policy using lethal force. the chairman and others say you should have shot down the gyrocopter. others seem to disagree and you seem to disagree. this incident was not first time the capitol police have had to make a life or death judgment call in matter of seconds. in 1998 a deranged individual burst through the doors of the capitol and shot and killed two capitol police officers. that was a tragic event and i'm certain it's on the mind of every single police officer outside this these doors. do you believe the shooting in 1998 influenced how the capitol police handle threats of this nature today and when i know this incident happened?

>> yes, sir. it ends up influencing the history of that agency and the policies they put in place? >> can you please tell us what impact, if any, does that shooting impact have today? how does that affect it? >> we changed our security posture. i'll be glad to discuss that more in closed session. we drattistcly drastically changed our posture. it's not to save their lives or others lives. in this particular instance given all the ramifications, some of which we discussed in closed session last week i think they made the appropriate decision. that's a challenge that officers face every single day whether it's on one of their check points during the traffic stop and stopping people around the

campus, et cetera. >> without going into any classified information tell me this, did this incident this incident that we're talking about has that forced you all to change anything about your policy with regard to shoot downs? >> we have not changed anything yet. it's caused those moments to be re- re-examined. >> there was another incident. a woman drove to the capitol grounds and the capitol police shot and killed her. we learned later that the woman was mentally ill and she was not armed and that she had a 1-year-old baby in the backseat of a car. is that right? >> yes, sir. >> while some praised response of the capitol police others criticized. what impact did this incident

that is this incident i just talked about and your policy of using lethal force? >> that matter is under litigation. i can tell you every time we face one of these instances it causes us to examine and re-examine how we do business. every one of these instances puts that police officer os the street that has seconds to make a decision about whether their life is in danger or someone else's life is danger. >> it seems clear that both cases, the officer almost insignificantin instant instantly, life and death decisions. with respect to the gyrocopter, some have suggested they made a mistake.

as well as we discussed in closed session the ramifications that officers have to take into consideration when they are considering using lethal force and the ramifications of that force, the impact it may have on others. all the decisions are processed in matter of seconds and that's what happened in this case. i believe their actions were heroic. they quickly approached arrested the individual.

make sure everything was safe. >> out of curiosity, is there simulation for these types of incidents in the training? >> well frankly, that's something we're all examining. when airborne vehicles reached the point where they become a law enforcement issue or a d.o.d. issue that's phenomenon we're all examining. >> you didn't answer the question. it's not part of simulation right now. is that what you're saying? >> we have the capability to do what we need to do and take any vehicles down. i don't know that historically police agencies have practiced shooting at aircrafts but that's something that's clearly under -- >> i want to make it clear we have the capability to do what we need to do. i do want to make that sure to the committee. >> two more questions. there seems to be a discussion

to have shot him down. can you tell us whether the capitol police had an opportunity to take down the gyrocopter and if so why they didn't? >> i would say in this instance in the manner of which it landed. no, sir, they did not have the ability to do it based on height and proximity to other people and all the ramifications and how quickly it landed and based on the whole decision making matrix that i mentioned. there's often a split second or so where an officer has to make that decision. >> last but not least, why do you say that the capitol police officers made the right decision. you reiterated that over and over again. i want to know why you feel so true about that. >> in this instance and each instance is unique when a police officer faces those kinds of

challenges. had shots been fired i believe they acted quickly bravely and heroically. >> before the gentleman yields back i've asked you directly in closed doors and in here whether or not you had someone with a gun. when asked that question in a different way you say no and you told me yes. what is it? >> we have officers out there with weapons. >> in this instance with the gyrocopter coming at the capitol capitol. i understand you didn't get as much advance warning but did you or did you not have guns trained on this to take them out of air if he continued to fly on.

did they have guns on him in this instance? >> as he landed. >> he was in the air? >> i would say as he landed. >> that's why we got to talk to the people who are actually -- yeah. >> reclaiming my time, just very quickly. how far was he from the ground? how far was he from the ground if you know when you had an opportunity when the capitol police had an opportunity to shoot him down. >> i believe he saw him right above grand statue. >> i'll now recognize the

gentleman from florida. >> thank you for holding this meeting. we have experienced another horrible communication failure of the system. this isn't new. ranking member just cited back in october of 2013 we had the deranged individual a woman, who backed into someone at the white house. came across the entire distance of downtown metropolitan d.c. went through the barriers and the communications failed. i wrote you on october 8th right after that and said we all appreciate and commend your actions actions. i've contacted you. highlighted several tragic acts.

number one it's my understanding the secret service, capitol police, park service, district of columbia police and other agencies from interoperable commune kags. when i raised this there are other things here. we spent a quarter of a billion in reviewing and all the things after 9/11 and that failed. those communication systems failed. they failed again. i'm stunned. this is how we get warning. this device still has not gone off to this instance. my office is right down the hall here. i overlook my desk space is out so i can look at the capitol line. i'm sitting there watching what's coming down. i'm on the phone and i look and there's a police vehicle not on the road not on the path, but coming up the grass.

there's another officer with a pretty powerful weapon. i've got pictures of it. we snapped some of the pictures of it. i said to the staff i don't know what's going on. something's coming down. this is the first communication that i got. let me get the exact communication. actually, it wasn't until 5:02. we never knew what was coming down. a week before on saturday we had incredible notice. were you here, mr. chairman? no. was anyone here? no one was here. it was a serious situation. someone committed suicide. it worked very well.

it's working some of the time, not all the time. >> now it will work all the time. >> i don't think i got a response from you. a lot of people around here wanted to sweep this under the table. it was an embarrassing situation but it can't happen again. a gyrocopter can lift how many pounds? >> 254 pounds. >> it can lift that much. that's part of it. you can have a 200 pound individual flying it. what capacity does that lead? 50 pounds. 50 pounds. no one knew what was on that

helicopter. did anyone know what was on it? we were told some time ago but nobody connects the dots. we didn't know whether it was letters to the congressman or whether back to 50 pounds of plastic explosives. nobody knew. wait a second too. i just heard today you said that domestic network was notifyied. what time? it went up on the faa domestic network. who knows when that is. >> about 1:34 in the afternoon. >> that was afterward. there's something wrong on the faa notice. you had the guy under arrest.

we never knew. i'm not afraid. i've been here through 9/11. again, i don't think it's too much to ask that we get this thing right. there's a lot out there. we got new threats. we had another one just recently. >> yes. >> how long before we get defense? i've got a great weldser. we can get him up here. we can get the number to adt. you can still jump over the fence. >> the attachment will be

attached this summer. >> okay. >> this letter has to be in the record at this point. this is my letter. >> i have searched my messages to see if an alert was sent out. was one sent? the staff told me you can't respond to you that you only send these alerts out. there's no way for us to contact

you. we need way to contact you. thank you. >> we're going to recognize the gentlewoman from the district of columbia for five minutes. the problem you're all facing is getting ahead of risk and threats that are unbelievable. that's what the congress and for that matter the public expects you to do. we are fortunate that's our process.

it's not possible for existing technology that keeps the violation of an air space that we can go. we can catch helicopter. we can catch a small plane but technically we have the technology to capture that fly below that air space. >> what the faa provides is radar feed. it's for our purposes to separate air traffic is filtered to ensure a controller is able the safely separate traffic this

very small aircraft flewing through is not something that a controller would ordinarily pick up in the course of carrying out their aircraft activities. >> i'm going to ask law enforcement on the ground to do the impossible. i am going to ask was it on the ground to tell us ahead of time what the impossible is. we're asking you to do star wars type thinking about who could fly like you fly a kite. if we don't think about it we know who will be thinking about it. i want the know why congress hasn't been asked for the capability to fly below that

usual air space where, by the way, if anybody gets into that air space. we don't have the ability to do something panamount to that the only people who know it are those of you on the ground who don't have this capability and will have to think about risks that only law enforcement has the capability to envision. i want to know why the congress hasn't been asked for means to provide that capability. >> what i was referring to is the faa's surveillance capability that's provided to this whole government effort. it's not the entire government surveillance network is not limited to that. >> i'm prepared to answer that

but i need to do it in a closed session. >> thank you. that's not what happens. i want to give you the same time that those who have tried to pierce out air space just can't do it. in closed session we need know that and we need to know it now. one of the reasons we need to know it now is the first thing i find that officials do when they don't have the capability is they keep the public out. they sap we know how to make sure nobody gets hurt, nobody gets in. it's been often. we seem to work on case by case

basis. he said they saw it only a few seconds and then they had to get themselves together. it hasn't occurred yet. i would be interested in that in closed session. i am interested in closing down the capitol. when anthrax occurred i had to go on the house floor and literally embarrass the police to get the capitol open. it was closed for months because the capitol police couldn't

think of way to keep it open. it was terrible to have the capitol closed. i want to make sure i have seen no evidence that the capitol is being closed. those grounds are being closed. i want assurance that's not taking place. >> i thank the gentlewoman. anybody care to comment? >> could i have an answer. can people still go where we're able to go? >> i think you understand you have the right all the time. they happen to be right once. we appreciate the fact of what you deal with. however, i just have relative few questions that can be asked without going into some closed

session. first of all to director clancy. the secret service has recognition of this gentleman and his intentions to fly here and land on the capitol. sometime before in 2014 in fact, early 2014, as that secret service interviewed mr. hughes based upon some information he was putting out back in august, september and october of 2013. there was phone calls made from half the newspaper to secret service.

>> our denver field office got a call. we relayed that information to our partners and capitol police. that day we also went and interviewed that individual. he had no indication he could be flying up to the washington, d.c. area. we did do additional interviews

who cooperated the first call we received in denver he did have some aspirations to do this. we did share the information. >> you shared it with them. you had that information back in early 2014 that there was an individual of interest that had some idea to fly and bring letters to congress in a very unusual way? >> yes, sir. the secret service shared that information with us.

>> nothing up until minutes before he landed. we got a fairly cryptic e-mail and a phone call that was not date or time specific talking about whether or not was he aware he had a permit. that was minutes before he landed. >> april 15th as i'm seeing a time line here, an individual made call to secret service to the tampa field office to warn of the plans. was that information shared with you? >> swefwe received call from an individual -- >> this was april 15th that i

have here. >> yes, sir. an individual called our tampa bay office and asked specifically for a specific agent. we said the agent is no longer assigned to the office. this individual said just let him know i called. there's no specifics to mr. hughes or this flight. >> was there any notifyication that he joined in here as well. any notification that someone is start this flight on his way live streaming it. he may be come over your territory. is there any action that can be taken with the park service in stopping someone flying low?

>> had no information regarding mr. hughes coming to this area prior to our officer patrolling witnessing this aircraft. >> it leaves me with great concern that when information is given, crack pot or otherwise and then the day of, the event takes place. we have information that's given still the person is able to make it all these miles. leading up to our capitalist self and land. i yield back. >> thank you.

this is not good. i get the feeling that just as before 9/11 if you visited an airport in the united states we had very little security going on. those countries that dealt with terrorism before us and they were all tooled up. they were ready. they had heavy weapons and metal detectors. we were lulled into a false sense of security. i get the sense we're behind the curve again. you go into any major capitol in

europe or middle east or africa and their taking precautions that we are not. this was not good that a fellow is able to fly in here and land a gyrocopter. it's not good. i don't know if it's a lack of

communication between departments but we got to do better. we got to do better. is there anything that we've done since this sky landed the gyrocopter is there anything that we have done that we would do differently if that would happen today, a terrorist were to do the same thing? anybody? okay. we're doing the same thing when this guy was doing his thing. we need change. we need change. i got enormous respect for you. can you tell me what you need to make the white house safe the capitol safe, the supreme court

safe with respect to the air space that you're charged to guard? >> this is a team effort. certainly among the members in the panel but certainly among the american people too. this still went forward right to the door of the capital. that's what gets me. there's a lot of public that were exposed to potential danger.

we're worried about the general public as well. >> yes, sir. you're exactly right. for example, the tampa bay times said prior to departure of this aircraft. we could have had a response team at gettysburg. that's part of that team effort. in terms of your second question sir. i'm sorry. >> well look. if your offices are on the ground or your agents are on the ground. what are the orders? ha is the orders for capitol police officer or a secret service agent if there's an object flying toward the capitol. are we still stand and watch? are we still passive? are they under orders to do something? >> i'll say first it's communication and we take a

defensive posture. that's our first move. >> i don't know. maybe we got to talk about this more. >> this gentleman just asked a question and the silence was

chilling. he asked the question and i'm talking to all of you now. i do need to know a yes or no. have we done things now that put us in a better position than where we were on the day. i don't want silence. it's not good enough. >> the answer is yes. i'd be glad to discuss that in closed session. >> has that been a team effort? >> yes, sir. >> thank you.

>> discuss new technology that may be a threat to the capitol, white house. how many times have you all met together prior to this incident to discuss that? >> individually i can't say that we've all met at all. there is a lot of work being done among the federal department. >> it's not frequent. how many times have you done it whether all you have have gotten together, you're talk about the team. we know a lot about teams. bad news bears were a team and they didn't do well. >> the staff works together. >> have you staff all been in a room to discuss that prior to this incident, and if so, how many times? first of all >> first of all -- >> do you know how many times? >> yes, sir. >> discussed the technology and

what is different? >> what has been going on congressman is there is a national effort. the national security staff has been leading an effort over the last year to look at uavs in particular. what we refer to as non-traditional aircraft. >> we can put a man on the moon. can we figure out how to stop a postal worker with a gyrocopter coming into the ground? >> the work that's been doing between the department of homeland security department of defense fast track looking at technologies that could help. >> when we go to closed session

i'll show you what we have what we're testing. >> i'm not asking what the plan is. >> i need to do that in a closed session. >> the silence is deafening. if you get together twice a month, your staff, how many times have most of you or all of you gotten together to discuss your responses to this hearing? did you neat as a group to discuss your responses? >> yes, sir. >> what you're saying is you all got together to discuss your responses to this hearing but you all don't get together necessarily individually your staff, to discuss the protection of assets here. when did you do that? >> yesterday, sir. >> why would you do that if you

wanted to be transparent? why would you try to coordinate your answers to this hearing? are you more afraid of a government oversight than protecting the people? >> no, sir we're not. >> why would you have gotten together to discuss your responses? >> to talk about the lessons we learned. >> to talk about the lessons before you testify. is that what you were doing? >> no, sir. >> none of you prepared your testimony. >> is that your sworn testimony that you would talk about how you would testify? >> we did talk about what we could talk about in open hearing as opposed to closed hearing. >> was there any strategy to those discussions on what you would say and what you wouldn't say in terms of how you would look? >> the discussion is what would be talked about in open hearing and what could not be talked about in open hearing. >> my understanding is it was a

lot more strategic than that. am i wrong? you and i have a good relationship an honest relationship. was that discussed in terms of what you would say and what you would not say this terms of response to questions? >> no, it was not. >> what was discussed? >> i think as you've heard from these other two gentleman it was a discussion of what could be said in open. >> what i find very concerning mr. chairman is all of you are willing to get together to discuss your testimony before coming here to be honest and yet the american people expect just honesty and yet what we have is a coordinated effort to be a stone wall. that's concerning. i yield back. >> i need to add and i said it in my opening when we ask you to

come privately before committees of congress, more than half of you said no. i don't understand that. i really don't understand that. you can sit here in public testimony and say we're doing everything we can. this is the way our system works. time you did get together nobody was in the room. sounds like you coordinated on how to message this and you spent more time doing that than briefing congress being candid with us. i now recognize from the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> thank you.

we think about the people who come to visit us from our districts and the young people who enable us to do the work that we do. we're talking about thousands and thousands of young people, interns and fellows and employees on capitol hill here. we feel responsible to them and their parents and their parents to keep them safe. they're all within the national capitol region flight area.ir you've been talking about. it's the visitors that visit our national memorial. the world war ii memorial the jefferson memorial. we just had the national cherry blos son a week ago. there had to be well over 100,000 americans visiting those

areas. an area that was traversed by this knuckle head with a gyrocopter that could have easily been a terrorist. we take it seriously. it isn't about ourselves. it's about the huge number of americans who are in the special flight rules area and the national capitol region. it's not just about gyrocopter eithers. it's about drones as well. we heard a lot about drones and the threat they could cause. your testimony is you said this. what we said is the gyrocopter was detected by the integrated sensors as it approach and transitted through the fra, the special flight rules area. they fell below the threshold necessary to differentiate aircraft to weather, terrain,

birds and other slow flying objects to ensure the systems and those operating those focused on that which poses the greatest threat. you said we are in the early stages of kwukconducting a thorough reconstruction analysis. you said identifying low altitude object s a technical and operational challenge. have i read that correctly? >> that is correct, sir. i can go into greater detail on answering some of those questions in closed session. >> here's my problem. like my colleague up here i find the lack of planning on how to respond to gyrocopter's, disappointing. these things are hardly new.

here we are nearly 100 years later and just starting to tackle the problem. i want to invite your attention to this question. when did the faa first begin to think that drones may be a security concern? >> the faa has specific direction from congress to swift swiftlyswift swiftly integrate unmanned aircraft. since then we published a road map. we have embarked upon a stage integration process to find way to disagree grateintegrate these. our mandate and aurour direction is to find way to integrate them so they don't pose a safety of

flight issue. >> you said identifying these vehicles is the technical and operational challenge. challenge is a nice word for problem. something that we're really having a hard time with. the question is how long have you known this was a challenge, admiral admiral? >> we have been working against a low radar target for probably over 25 years i've been. i've been in the aviation business for 38. we understand the problem and the technical challenges opinion if we go to closed session we can show you the solution we have in place. i can't do it in an open testing. >> on scale of one to ten, ten being the most urgent, how urgent is this gentlemen? >> in the protection of the united states and the homeland defense and my role as the norad it's my primary responsibility. on scale of one to ten, it's about a 50.

>> i look forward to closed session. yield back. >> the gentleman now recognize the jegentleman from south carolina. >> thank you. >> i'm going to go about this differently. a little more straightforward. at any time did we have the ability to shoot this guy down? >> no, sir. we did not. we did not have a detection. our ability to track it or positively identify it. i can't do any further. >> i don't want to know anything we can't do in public session. >> i have that answer for you. >> we had the abilities but chose not to. you're telling me that's not accurate. >> i need to go to closed session. >> it's the same answer regarding if the gentleman wanted to, he could have crashed this into the capitol building,

correct? >> yes, sir. >> the same is true for the white house or the museum? >> if there was an sbents, yes, sir. >> would it have been different if it was a small single seat airplane? >> yes, sir. small single airplane would probably be able to track that. we would. we track them and two incidents a month. where we launch our helicopters on those sorts of things. >> similar result had it been a drone or something smaller? who saw it first? it's fair to say you were the only two who didn't know about this guy in advance right? >> we did not have knowledge. we did not. >> the secret service knew. who else knew about this guy in advance? park capitol police but the

park police did know about the guy? i need to figure out why he left from gettysburg. have any thought? why would a guy drive from florida to pennsylvania to do this? got any thoughts on that? there's a lot of private airports between florida and gettysburg. >> i think it's difficult for us to answer that question. >> fair enough. >> here is my last question. sounds like most of the stuff i want to know i have to deal with in closed setting. were you advised not to come here today? anybody suggest not to come here? >> no, sir. >> anybody suggest you not come to the briefing a couple of weeks ago? >> we were seeking permission and did not receive permission? >> from whom? >> we go through the department of defense.

>> who is next person up? >> my myself to the secretary of defense to the president. >> i don't have a good answer for why we didn't know and i apologize for not showing. that's not something the department does. >> did you seek permission to show? >> i was not aware there was trying to meet. >> i understood it to be a scheduling issue. we did not hear back. >> mr. clancy, i think you did agree to come? >> yes, sir. >> with that i'll yield my time. >> they were planning to schedule a proper witness. i did attend following that. >> okay. >> yes, sir, i was here last week. >> i'll yield the balance of my

time to the chairman. >> thank you. i want to look at the time line and make sure i'm clear on it. let me back up for a second. how many different agencies or departments were contacted during the week of by the tampa bay times reporter. who did he reach out to at any point? secret service? he landed at 1:24. >> 1:23. >> can you walk me through what you did in those 23 minutes?

what's your timeline? >> 12:59 wads the e-mail. it was quickly sent to investigative division who began to try to pull up information. they talked to him a little bit. that information was provided to investigators as well. >> when you say provided to your investigators, when you have somebody that's approaching the capitol and this unidentified flying object, for lack of better expression, what do you do when you get that information that this is something that could be encroaching into the air space. what's your next step? >> there was no information this was happening that it was iminnocentim imminent imminent. they did some research into the individual himself and check to see one of the questions was was there way to provide it. we have a system to access that as well. >> any of these agencies that you contact once you hear this

is a possible situation. is there any communication between the different departments or agencies that this is a concern. >> you said you got information on this as well, is that correct? >> yes, sir. tampa bay times called our tampa bay office on april 13th. there was no specification regarding mr. hughes. we said we would be if it involved our protectee or one of our protective facilities. there was nothing specific. >> one of the opening remarks and i'm trying to remember specifically who talked about this, talked about on the radar, distinguishable versus undistinguishable. help me understand that. >> an unfiltered radar picks up

everything. it is cluttered with in addition to aircraft will include things such as traffic on the street. it will include birds. anything that is anything that is moving around. and so for our purposes at the faa, we filter it for what our primary function is, which is to safely separate aircraft. that means we filter out small things that might be a distraction to a controller. now what our forensic analysis showed was that the radar did indicate something after the fact that we were able to piece together in most likely the flight of the guy row copter cosmopolitan gyrocopter. would you agree after the fact -- >> i would agree with that. the point being that an air traffic controller can't do his job with a very cluttered screen. what we're very focused on is how can we ensure that a controller is able to safely

separate air traffic in our case. >> i will come to -- can you answer your own question there? how can they be more safety conscious as far as being able to get to the clutter on his own screen? >> what we do is because the things that we're filtering out are things like birds or weather systems or small things that do not pose a threat to aviation safety. now we do provide the unfiltered radar to our partners across the government and each of the individual participants filters it for their own purposes. >> help me understand this. is there not -- and you would know this being the expert. if someone is flying a gyrocopter isn't that a different pattern than what birds or other things may be flying around on a radar or faa system? >> as i testified to earlier it appeared and disappeared. it actually had much more in common with a weather system. >> okay.

admiral? >> yes, sir. the characteristics on a radar of an aircraft of this size, flying the speed and altitude, it has the same characteristics of flocks of birds. it can appear the same way. so we adjust -- we take the feeds from the faa, as well as our own filters, then we adjust those filters based on the environments that give us the highest probability to pick up the smallest possible -- >> thank you my time has expired. >> now recognize the gentleman from georgia with be mr. carter for five minutes. >> thank all of you for being here. we appreciate the work that you do. i've got just three very quick questions for you or maybe comments. first of all, mr. clancy, thank you for being here. i believe you were here a couple weeks ago. i closed my clents withomments with saying i hope i didn't see you any time soon. here we are again. we had an incident in cannon i

believe it was last week where there was a suspicious powder that was found. my staff had four e-mails sent to them during that time. yet in this situation with the gyrocopter we only had one e-mail sent to us, and that was after the fact. why the difference there? what different scenario led us to that situation? >> the answer is the systems we had in place failed and we immediately fixed them. and i certainly understand your concern. so messages will be sent immediately now and i appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that we sent them in those other instances. >> we sent them in those other instances but we didn't with the gyrocopter. >> we sent some out but clearly it was not comprehensive enough. yes, sir you are correct. >> okay. gentlemen, it just appears to me that we're not keeping up with the times. i been sitting here and i hear

what you say that this needs to be discussed in confidential hearing and i get that. but i'm still not confident and i think the people want to be confident that we are keeping up with the times. drones aren't anything new. they've been around. and yet all of a sudden we have all of these incidents. we hear about the incident in japan with the prime minister and radioactive materials were sent there. that's scary for me and scary for everyone. are you comfortable and confident, and i want you to assure the american people that you are that we've got this under control. >> sir we can assure the american people that all of us at this table and the whole of government is working their very best to protect this nation and its citizens against the many threats that happen to be out there. in closed session i'll tell you what we're doing about this particular threat. >> does that mean it is not going to happen again? >> i can never say it is not going to happen again, sir.

>> i understand that. >> lastly, the communication particularly among all of you. i'm a freshman rep. i've been here for four months but i've been in business many years and i know communication is key. you have to surround yourself with good people and make sure everybody's talking to each other. i'm just not getting that warm and fuzzy feeling here today after listening to this that that's happening with y'all. i just want you to assure me that if that has not been the case up to this point that it will be the case in the future. >> sir, on the morning of 9/11, a network a telephone line, went into effect. it's never been hung up since. and it includes -- it includes over 200 mission partners that protect the american people for this particular threat, for the air threat. it's called the den. and it is exercised and it

operates every single day. twice a day, just for the national capitol region every one of those 200 mission partners are dealing with a penetration to our special flight, the sfr. twice a day it occurs. and once a week we actually launch the coast guard helicopters in order to do it. so not only is it operating, it's exercised, it's utilized every single day. >> congressman, if i could there is an effort under way by the white house national security council bringing all federal departments together to look at these issues and particular technologies that are currently available, technologies that are being in development and looking at possible procedural changes as we encounter these kinds of situations. >> again, gentlemen, thank you for the work that you do and encourage you, please this is extremely important and weeed you. so thank you for being on top of your game. mr. chairman i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. recognize the ranking member. >> thank you. i want to thank all of you for

being here but i just have three issues i want to raise. mr. carter, i cannot help but be concerned about the communication situation here. when you said that you didn't even know that the ranking and -- chairman and ranking member of four committees wanted you to be here the other day? >> sir i did not personally know. >> there's something wrong with that picture. there's something wrong with that picture. and let me say what i tell my staff. when something goes wrong, and i find out about it i wonder what i don't know about. and so you'll recall at the beginning -- all of you, at the beginning people talk about when rubber meets the road then we

discover there's no road. so communication is basic stuff. then waynt to just -- this is directly connected. one of the things that we've noticed in a lot of committees -- not just this committee, but other committees -- is that folks seem to want to operate in silos. silos. and then you doing something over here, i'm doing something over here, i've got my turf, you got your turf. and it works against effectiveness and efficiency. and i just want to make sure you are sure -- you all assure us that you truly are working together. i just think we -- this is such -- of such urgency. i know you said your staffs get together, top-level staff. i guess that's what you are

saying. you all need to get together. and it should not be just to prepare -- get your notes together for a hearing. i mean you all are -- you mean you are there. you are paid to do a certain job, and this is out of -- i mean this is -- this is with all the respect that i have for you. and it is tremendous respect. but when it's not about your deputy or whatever. it's you all. we look to you all. you are the experts. you are the ones who give your blood, sweat and tears and you all are the brilliant minds that we rely on every day to keep us safe. and i think you all need to be meeting. i know somebody said that white house is trying to put something together where folks get together. i mean that's just -- i mean that should come from you. particularly after we have an incident like the one that happened here. and so you know, i'm looking forward -- i'm anxiously looking

forward, mr. chairman to the closed session and i know you're going to talk about that in a minute. so that we can get some answers. i hope you all took notes about what the things you said that we have to discuss in closed session and that we will do that. but again, i want to thank you for being here today. and we're going to press forward. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you. it's been a good productive hearing but we will go to a closed hearing at another date. we have two other subcommittee hearings. we got backed up with the prime minister. we appreciate your patience. you all have important jobs to do as well so we will work together at another time. i do have a few more questions. the tampa bay times published stories prior to this incident. the guy in the gyrocopter was live feeding a stream.