authority in this area. whose job is it from your perspective? >> under 428, the department has the legal authority to refuse the issuance of a visa. the state department has retained the ultimate authority to revoke these once issued. i think all of us have a role, along with the state department, in measuring pre- existing visas. that is a part of the tightening that we talked about. >> thank you. >> those are excellent questions. i want to make two brief points. the first is to say that i share the senator's concern about trying abdulmutallab in civilian court.

. -- senatohtethe senator's concern about trying abdulmutallab and civilian court. i am troubled that secretary napolitano was not asked to comment on that because there are obvious homeland security are obvious homeland security implications and trying totr try a terrorist suspect. we are going to convene a hearing on this subject in

february. the homeland security implications of the decisions to try terrorist suspects in federal courts, in to focusing on the visa question, i think the senator has put her finger on an important point. we want to raise a fresh question. whether the visa processing responsibility really should be with the department, -- with the state department, and this is not a matter of foreign policy. it may be a waste of foreign service officers to have them interviewing people to decide if they are eligible for a visa. it is much more a question of the law and homeland security, whether in terms of legitimacy and immigration. we are going to do is separate

hearing on that. i am not inviting a response unless you wish to. i do not want to intrude upon my colleague's time. i will call senators in order of arrival at is our cucustom. >> i want to thank the members. thank you for being here today. i will jump right to it. there have been reports coming out of canada that suggest an increasing concern about radicalization and the possibility of canada becoming staging area for terrorists entering the u.s. what do you think about these assessments? how seriously should we take these reports? could you tell me what you think

about that potential threat and what we are doing about it? >> a lot of the answer should come in the closed part of this meeting. >> that is fine. >> i will say that we have had extensive personal discussions with law enforcement and security officials in canada, not just in the wake of december 25 but also in preparation for the of things that will be held there. >> we can do that in closed session. that will be good. our reporters are only as strong as the weakest link. we do not want to panic and shut down the borders. we need to have the balance. when people come into the country with explosives sewn into their clothes, as happened on christmas, it means we have

issues not only and airports but also the issues you talked about are critically important. . . admiral blair talked about the fact that these explosive were known about, these type of explosives. is the screening a

when we know about them? >> i think the point is that there are multiple layers of secured debt need to happen. no single one of all -- of security that need to happen. no one of which is a single silver bullet. they increase the likelihood that they will prevent something from happening. once you get to the airport domestically, that excludes -- includes explosive technique -- detection and dogs. internationally, it is different. we do not control in that sense international airports are screening procedures. if we have somebody on the list, we advise that additional screening shoot be done to read what we're doing is embarking

on an aggressive international effort, using this incident as a catalyst for countries that have passengers to fly to look at their overall screening in airport procedures, because there is great variation around the world. >> what you're saying is at this point in time, we're talking generally here, the screening that goes on in foreign countries does not -- it is not as adequate as what goes on here domestically. >> it depends on what airport you're talking about. the airport in amsterdam, the screening there is not dissimilar from the screening in the united states, and the screening that abdulmutallab went through was not that dissimilar. we want more explosive

detection, more technology. other airports have resisted some of those items, because of other concerns that they have about privacy, for example. this incident is serving as a catalyst to reopen that dialogue, particularly with the airports and countries where we have a large throughput of passengers to the united states. >> i want to get back to that. i assume that there will be another round of questioning. i was shipped off of this to something else why have you here. we all know what has happened in haiti over the last seven to 10 days, it has been devastating. there is an issue about adoption potential, haiti children who had been left without parents. we have about five families here who have completed paperwork to get the children

from haiti. and yet they are being held up. i need to get a commitment from you that the citizenship and immigration services will work with my office to help expedite our ability to get those kids out. as you can imagine, the constituency is very anxious. it is a terrible situation. i just need your help in making this work. >> senator, you have that commitment. but may give another answer? this actually has been -- that dhs can work it so many levels on so many things, so the coast guard has been in haiti, the matter has been helping usaid to get into haiti. the issue of war funds is one that is tragic -- of orphans is one that has been tragic. i think that that is going to grow. i think it is something that

needs to be handled very carefully, because there are many issues involved in terms of making sure that people -- i am not going to say these five children, but other children that come to west are indeed orphans -- they come to us are indeed orpen's. there are other issues as to whether the adoptive parents in the united states are qualified for adoption under the applicable law. there are issues about the health and welfare of the children brought to the united states. many of them need to be immediately put into it care of hhs and checked over thoroughly before they can be moved. so we have formed a team, state department, us, hhs, three of the big components to really work on this adoption issue. we all want the right things for this children. this issue is only going to grow over time.

>> that is correct and i appreciate the opportunity to work with you and your group of people on this issue. and i thank the chairman and belgium -- chairman's indulgence. >> thank you very much. we all share the concern. siddur burris. good morning. -- say to boris. the door -- senator burris. good morning. >> it is important to recognize the contribution of the many agencies for making our homeland as secure as it is. see you all -- so you are to be complemented for the work that you have done. there had been numerous terrorist plots will cents 9/11, some of which have occurred in my home state of illinois. so we are grateful to you for

that effort. and i just wonder -- several questions that come to my mind. is there a resource problem here? mr. blair, other directors, is there a resource problem here? >> senator, first of all, thank you for that kind words. i appreciate the kind words now but this is not an occasion that we are happy about in any way. >> understood. >> problems with resources, we were facing cuts last week. with the directors help, those have been avoided. and in order to do some of the enhancement of the watchlist to make sure that when you have a umar farouk, you put that together with the aid umar farouk abdulmutallab.

it does take more resources and director blair has been extremely supportive of that, as has the white house. >> we have moved money and people in the near term to put more on helping it ctc, and there will have to be some changes to the budget in order to sustain that. >> another question -- i just wonder in our democracy, as i was watching the news on this issue about the detroit bomber, and watching media reports, i had some concern about what was being reported for future actions. i don't know what this will come up and closed hearing are not, but i was concerned when the media was reporting where the airports were going to be screening. it by my terrorists, what am i

going to do? i am not going to be bothered -- isn't there some information that we need to keep classified in where the extra screening is going to come from, not to be knowledgeable to the general public? americans have a right to know but if we know them, then everybody else knows them. >> i could not agree more, senator byurris, and the defensive measures that we are taking make it that much easier. the kind of hearing we're having this morning were you have responsible witnesses who think through what could be a classified and unclassified, i think they are absolutely essential. he teaches making a repeat it is

just making the job that much harder. people need to to shut the hell up. [laughter] >> it makes sense to me. that was my immediate reaction- all the lists that the airports would now be putting in special screenings. that leads to another question of my not be answered here. -- that might not be answered here. i am concerned about the possibility of the techniques being used by the terrorists. i did see a movie recently. the movie was "the trader." i do not know of anyone saw this movie. i don't know of anyone has seen that movie. it is about the terrorists and how they were going to set bombs

here in america. i just hope that we are anticipating all of the various processes -- one time it was issued. this time it's underpants. what will it be the next time? and i am pretty sure you all cannot fix "-- disclose this at this point, but please disclose it for the record and the are closed hearing. what are the techniques that you are assessing so we can be on the offense, as you said, director blair, but we have to be on the offense in this regard. and i am sure that you are but i've just want to reemphasize that, because i can say for the record, i think about the small towns across america. i was a terrorist, i would not go after chicago or new york. you know where i would go?

i would go to my home town of some trolly up, ill. centraliz -- centralia, illinois. is there a comment? >> yes, senator. one of the criticisms that we've talked about among ourselves is being reacted as opposed to proactive all the time did you have to be proactive and fix what went wrong. what you have identified the problem, had tried to fix it. but we need to think ahead to be proactive. that is why, we have entered into this agreement to get some of the best scientists in the world in our national labs thinking ahead about the next generation of screening technology and what it could

show us. the other thing is the threat that is constantly are evolving center. -- that is constantly evolving, senator. i received very little information about u.s. citizens that were set -- were themselves radicalize to the point of terror. that has changed over the course of the year. director leiter has already talked about the emerging threat out of yemen. there is a constant evolving environment that we have to deal with, and be thinking ahead of. the challenge for us is a challenge at this table and four others, i challenge for the congress, i challenge for our international partners, is to always be thinking about the next iteration that is being conceived. >> mr. chairman, one quick point.

i would like to comment on something that the ranking member collins made in reference to where this person would be tried. i understand that intelligence was gathered from this person prior to him given his rights. i don't know whether or not that could be disclosed to alleviate some of the anxiety and reference to weather route -- whether or not we were able to get any of permission from this young man, which i understand there was substantial information acquired prior to his rights. >> thank you very much, senator burris. senator mccain. >> i thank the witnesses for their continued service to this country everyone knows the christmas bomber, a person buys a ticket with cash, one way ticket, his father has already warned the cia, the series of

missteps taken place which led to this near tragedy. i thank the witnesses for their candor and forthcomingness about this that your spirit president said, "if for immediately made it public that i will hold my staff, our agencies, and the people in them accountable when they fail to grow -- to hold their -- to perform at the highest levels peaky who has been held accountable? i will be lent to you, mr. leiter. as anybody been fired transferred? has anyone received a letter of admonition? has anyone been put on leave? go ahead. >> we are conducting internal reviews to determine whether or not any of the should beeper feet -- pursued.

>> how long should it take? it's fairly clear what happened, isn't it? >> many backs are not clear. i would correct the record on a couple point. he did not walk a one-way ticket. he bought a round-trip ticket. the fact that he use cash is in africa completely and utterly -- >> that was in copenhagen, not africa. >> no, sir, he bought that ticket -- >> you are defending that we should not have found -- we should not have been alerted to this individual, sir -- >> sir, i apologize. we are reviewing all of these individuals and the president is reviewing my performance as well. >> admiral bellaire? >> you when i haven't -- you and i have a navy background. the first investigation as a safety investigation to fix the parts of the system.

the second is the accountability part of the investigation. >> it has been miky experience that the captain is relieved immediately. >> the captain is sometimes relief and sometimes he is not. >> until such time as he is cleared. i would be glad to go over naval history with you. my question is, has anyone been held accountable? >> we are doing investigation to make sure we do not hold them accountable based on bad information but accountable on what the standards that they were expected to board formed to work. and that is under way as i said in my opening statement. the system was capable of doing this. i personally have a large degree of responsibility for making sure those pieces are working and we are working to make that happen. i do not feel good about it and

i am fixing it. >> i was not asking if you are facing it or not. it has been several weeks and no one has been held accountable. madam secretary? >> senator, we did not prepare a no-fly our terrorist list and we do not do the screening at international airports. i am secretary of common security and i share responsibility for the enterprise that has to happen to prevent this from happening again. >> i thank you, madam secretary. i understand, admiral blair, that in response to senator collins, you're not consulted as to which they knew the christmas bombing would be tried again. >> that is correct. >> how about you, mr. leiter? >>, no sir, i was not. >> secretary to paul a tunnel? >> no. >> i have asked your opinion.

should the christmas bomber be tried in civilian court or should he be under military tried burn all -- tribunal? >> i am not ready to offer an opinion on that in open session. we can talk about it in closed session, senator mccain. >> mr. leiter? >> i did not have a position. i am and -- i am focusing on this and i am not -- i do not have an unpaid -- i do not have an opinion on where he should be charged. >> the christmas bombing was providing information that was necessary to try to crack this case. when he got a lawyer, he immediately stopped that information. that is according to public documents. i do not have any classified information. if that is the case, i think it is a terrible mistake. i think it is a terrible,

terrible mistake when it is pretty clear that this individual did not act alone. admiral bellalair, in your testimony before the committee, you said that he would withhold judgment on whether the intelligence reform act provided that the nai with sufficient authority. -- the dni had sufficient authority. >> senator mccain, has this job continues, it has been five years now cents the director of national intelligence was established. i find that you discover new things that you have to fix as you go along. this incident is exposing some of those.

the authorities of the dni heretofore were to be able to make the big pieces happen. there was lots of sharing of the formation in this case. what we're finding is some individual pieces in which i think more of a party may be required. -- more authority may be required. i do not know quite yet, but the authority mandated by congress had been important to make improvements happened. >> i thank the witnesses. mr. chairman, i find it interesting that none of the top individuals were consulted on a decision whether to put the christmas bomber into civilian court or into a military tribunal. i think whoever advised him -- i think his decision was a terrible mistake, which could

impact our ability to defend this nation. i thank the witnesses. >> i thank yous, senator mccain. center in sin? -- center in san -- sesenator ensign? >> who made the decision to mirandize the prisoner? >> it was made by the team on a charge of the scene, with consolidation in the department of justice. >> how high up did this go? does any of the rest of you know? >> no, sir. >> ok. secretary impala town of, -- the polish town of -- napolitano,

this had to do with the pieces and we understand that the state department, i guess, director lighter, you talked about that you did not know that you had the authority or did not have the authority -- >> i did not have the authority. >> has there not been a case in the past were someone brought to you -- and other words, have we not rejected any basis? >> the state department has the authority to revoke the visa. >> what i am saying to you is, has no one in your organization brought you a case where you thought that there should be a visa rejected, where you actually found out that you did not have that authority before the christmas day bombing? >> we routinely provided intelligence to the state department to make that decision. >> that is not an answer to my question. somebody -- in other words, somebody who is within your organization, they have

information. this person should be rejected. did you not then make a recommendation to find that you did not have the authority before that? has no one brought that information to you? >> the spokes person for the >> the spokes person for the state department was simpl >> tried to understand my question. is somebody from the organization bringing you information about someone who should be rejected? >> no one in my organization believes i have the authority. >> they know that already? >> yes. i apologize. my attempt at humor was clear they lost. i did not realize that i had the authority, because clearly i did not. it is the spokesman that was confused. >> getting back to my question about senator collins, and this has been brought up about who is

responsible for this colossal failure, in business, you understand that if there is not one person responsible for making certain decisions then no one can be held accountable. no one makes the decision. it has to do with whether it is rejection or whatever. if non feels like they are actually accountable -- there are all these people who are accountable but no one person is accountable -- decisions are not made and people really do not know who is supposed to make the decision. is that being addressed in this whole valuation process? >> yes, and a variety of ways. i think he explained in his opening statement that one of the things that is being addressed is who has the responsibility to follow up on different lines of intelligent

as they come in. >> are we going to have a clear set of this person is responsible for making that decision? is everybody going to know what they are supposed to do and what they are not supposed to know in the future? is everybody going to know what they're supposed to do and what they are not supposed to do, is the best way to answer that, and when will we have all of those procedures in place to where everyone knows what they are supposed to do and not supposed to do? >> we have 30 days that the president has established to have anything from executive order down to the intelligence community directive, which i would sign, or similar off authorities like secretary to paul a ti the polish townnapoli.

>> in any case like that, that is a guarantee from you. that that is not going to happen in the future. this will be convened. from what i understand, you will only use interrogation techniques that are approved and the army field manual. is that correct? >> the type of interrogation techniques will be will be calculated by the purposes for which we want to make that information available, whether law enforcement or intelligence. if it is intelligence, then, guess, the techniques that are in the army field manual will be used by the interrogator. >> and as public, the army field manual. this administration to stop using any type of classified -- so that terrorists can basically trying to the interrogation techniques in the army field manual since they are public.

but if we use classified ones, keeping the terrace guessing what they are going through, it would be hard to train, would you not agree? >> the experience that we have is that it depends on the scale of the interrogator. and we have the best interrogators. >> that does not answer my question. that terrorists are allowed to trade to this because it is a public document, the army field manual was a public document. >> but terrorist know what the techniques are, but -- >> but if they were classified, they used to use classified techniques, it would be harder to train to it. >> i don't think it would make a difference. >> why did they use classified techniques before? what you think that through our intelligence committee, they use that if they did not think it was superior to the techniques used with the army field manual?

>> we have looked at that quite carefully, senator, and we do not know whether that same affirmation that was gained through extrajudicial measures could have been obtained without them. >> i guess that is something we will have to disagree on. one last point. you made this comment that i thought was stunning. whoever it was a was more concerned about what folks were thinking overseas -- you even use the word duh when you talk about trying this person and civilian court and to mirandize this person. can you further explain what you're talking about, the administration concerned more with people overseas and what their opinion of folks overseas was? >> that was not the context in which i made that word. can you tell me -- and you read me a little bit about what that

was? it had to do with our being able to pursue both the threat to united states coming out of yemen and being up to presume to violent extremist activities or terrorist threats within units appeared we needed to be able to do but that the same time. >> but this was in response to whether or not he was going to be tried in civilian courts. that is when you said, we were more concerned about what they thought overseas. and you even -- >> let me think back to that. i said that when we were thinking about -- when we put the hig to gather, we were thinking about terrorist captured overseas. we did not think about the case in which a terrorist was apprehended, as this one was, in

the united states. we set up thought of that. we should automatically applied the hig and we will not. >> i was thinking that we could run the transcript of the hearing for the use of the were ord, duh. senator cockburn is next. -- coburn is next. >> thank you for your service. you have a tough job and when things go wrong, it is our job to help you figure out how to get it back. and i think you're all dedicated to doing that. i am going to ask a few questions. at work with my staff to make sure that i stay within the bounds of what i can ask your. i will wait until i thursday meeting in the intelligence

committee to finish it. a couple of questions for both director blair and director lighter. the intelligence community has been largely consisted in noting that had all the pieces of the intelligence been connected, this individual what it met the criteria for watchless. had all been put together, he would have met the criteria. there have been inconsistencies about whether he would have been put on the no-fly list. used say that it would have been determined by the strength of the analytic judgment. but officials say that he would not have met the criteria for no-fly or selectee. that is what they have reported to me. can you explain the criteria and whether not the information would have written -- risen to the level of no-fly for selected? >> id is not an easy yes-no question. >> by a understand that. that is why i ask the question.

>> it really comes down to where he would of been placed, select the or not apply, on what the analytic judgment was at that time. so looking at the signals intelligence and looking at what the father said, you put that together and the question is, with the zero analysts have said we have a potential al qaeda in the arabian peninsula opera to, all we have an opportunity may be boarding an airplane to use a suicide bomb, or this individual was involved in plotting around december 125 to attack the united states. on the purse, he would be selected but not now apply. on the second, he would be no fly. it's easy to see that he should have been on the no fly. but it would have depended on what the analysts said, putting the pieces together about what kind of operative he was and what his intention was.

from our perspective, the right answer, we should not try to parse it in the first ensign. we ought to have standards that allow, frankly, a greater degree of flexibility. you do not have to predict it that way of what an individual is going to do. if ps certain associations and is involved in any operational activity, it is a clear answer and that should be no fly. >> we ought to err on the side of caution. >> i certainly things up. >> and there was a lot a political pressure because so many people on the no fly less, duplicative names that we actually reassessed that in the recent past and made it harder to put people on that list. >> that is absolutely correct, senator. >> director liner, in your testimony today you said that mr. abdulmutallab was identified as unknown or set -- suspected terrorists.

-- a known or suspected terrorist. the derogatory information associated with them did not meet the existing policy standards. for him to be watch listed, let alone be placed on the no fly or select the list. can you explain how someone you have said was identified as a known or suspected terrorist and about whom you have acquired by graphic that that does not meet the criteria for him to be watch listed? >> yes, senator, and i want to make clear at the beginning that we made a mistake in not -- and not associating all of that information -- and at that point he would have been in the terror screening data base. we have a not insignificant number, roughly 100,000 individuals, who have some association with terrorist groups. that may be family members or

the like, or they may have lower-level derogatory information grid that is simply lower than what was adopted in august 2008, and promulgated in 2009 for inclusion in the official watch list. it was simply a matter of the data that we associated with them, not meeting that hires that it -- status. >> secretary napolitano, thank you for your service. i am concerned with what is going on at tsa, and i refer you to an article by mr. -- in the "wall street journal was "about bodies gainers the "wall street journal" about body scanners. have you seen it? >> no, i'm not. >> windy ig looks at what the tsa is doing in terms of screening techniques and equipment, we have a failure to

meet your own standards as we install the equipment. i would caution and i will have this conversation with you probably based on the information we have looked and gleaned from ig the reports and the experience that we have seen that as we respond to the public outcry for us to do more that the potential to waste a ton of money on something that is not going to be qualified to actually change the outcomes of this past december 25, and so i just raise with you that i am highly concerned about that. i also was a medical doctor and -- and highly concerned about the exposure we are going to put people to and highly concerned that the technology that we have today would not have stopped this even if we have had full body scanners in use. and we would not have. and i would love your comments. >> without commenting on the "wall street journal" article that i did not read yesterday, i can say with respect both through diego and ig report on

scanners -- both through a gao and ig report, they were looking at earlier iteration of technology. it has evolved rapidly over time, but we're continuing to push the technology. that is why we have asked not just our department but the department of energy and the national labs to get involved. from the objective evidence, the scanners that are being deployed now clearly give us a better chance of picking up, be it metals, nonmetals, powders, or liquids, that somebody may be able to eat -- may be trying to get onto a plane. >> externally. >> we can talk in closed session about that, senator. >> based on the analysis of- staff on operational testing and screening technologies, i will send you a follow-up questions.

and if you can get those back to me quickly, i would appreciate it. >> we would be happy to do that. >> thank you again for your service. >> thank you so much, senator coburn. >> thank you for having this hearing and a want ad my welcome to the witnesses that are here. i have been weaknesses in our system and human errors have created gaps in our nation's defense. it is vitally important that we address these gaps. the question is how we should not sacrifice our principles nor

undermine our long-term strategic efforts against al qaeda and other terrorists. i like to make two points. first, congress working closely with the administration must protect civil liberties while trying to improve our nation's defense. we should be mindful that our with different procedures alone. i believe the we should enhance our international partnerships, use imagination and risk-based thinking and exploring potential threats. it is our work force a range of tools, training, and the support it needs to protect the american people.

you are task quickly, increasing the use of technology in air passenger screening. you are tasked with effectively putting up the screening consistent with civil liberties. how involved will dhs's civil liberties offices be with technology such fault -- such as full body imaging is this point more widely? >> they are involved right now and have been involved from the beginning in terms of how we deal with privacy and some of the objections raised, particularly with respect to the advanced imaging technologies. no, i would generate -- i would

reiterate that the people are not where the screening is done, so there is a great deal of privacy in that regard with respect to individual identity already built into the system, but even as we move forward, we have our office of privacy and the office of civil rights and liberties engaged in the process and the decision making. >> director blair and director ligheter, it also requires your organization to improve technology related to intelligence and to enhance watch listing capabilities. unfortunately the privacy and civil liberties oversight board, created by the intelligence reform act to protect americans' privacy and

civil liberties, has not been set up. my question to you is how will your agencies ensure that corrective actions and response to the christmas they plot take privacy and civil liberties into account? >> senator, let me say that i think that that panel should be manned up and started. it would provide a very valuable service. we do have our civil liberties and privacy officer very much involved as we consider the changes that i described in my testimony, but i would take your question one of the direction, and that has to do with families and the personal effect of what we have been talking about. we've been pretty much about standards and regulation and screening and so on. the chairman introduced me to members of the families of some of the 9/11 victims before this

hearing, which reminds us of the real people involved in this, not just big bureaucracies. i am also reminded that it was a father who came into the embassy had talked about his son that he was worried about in yemen falling under radical influence. we know that last fall there were five young men from northern virginia that went back to pakistan and with their families that came in and tell them about them so that they could be identified. while we talk about all the responsibility of government and everything we're doing at the bureaucratic level, concerned about families, that is a key part of keeping ourselves safe. we should not either under rate or neglect, it is a very proper emphasis. when we are dealing with families, we need to rely on their help and make sure that

we're not violating their civil liberties that they expect as americans. >> senator, i fully agree with the view that we have to have civil liberty as a central tenet and all of this. the director included four individuals, one of them as a civil liberty expert. the one thing that i would note is that it is very easy for me to recommend secretary napolitano to put everyone on the watch list on the no fly list. there are enormous and unacceptable cost to doing that. what we need to have is an agreement among the executive branch and members of congress about what the promise -- proper balance is. there was a balance that was struck previous to december 25, and frankly, we are now being told that a different balance should be struck. i am very eager to engage in

that discussion with this committee and other committees to make sure that we have the right balance because i do not want to be here after the fact again saying, if only we could have done this. >> director blair and director leiter, dni had not completed their information sharing and firemen privacy policies. dhs has developed its policy. what is the status of dni and nctc developing a policies? >> i am not quite sure what policy that refers to. all have to check and get back to you. but we're very vigilant about getting those policies out. let me find out where the shortcoming yes.

-- where the shortcoming is. >> it is one consolidated policy. and in light of these events, we wanted to understand what the rules are that we are applying. >> thank you. senator levin, welcome. >> i welcome to our witnesses. apparently someone at dhs plan ned mr. abdulmutallab for additional screening what's the plan was in flight. what triggered that? >> let me explain the process. customs and border protection, when it gets the passenger list, pushes out to the

immigration groups known as the aepe, anyone that appears on the terrorist watchlist or on the no fly list. the no fly list is a list given to the carrier, and basically is says do not but the sky onto a plane. the terrorist list is to inform the airport or a foreign government that you should put this person into your secondary screening whatever that happens to be. there is other information that customs has that involves whether that person should be questioned before they are admitted into the united states. it is the difference between whether they should be allowed on a plane, which is really 8 tsa standard -- >> this was an automatic process. >> versus other information that

should be explored before they are actually admitted into the united states. >> i understand. this is a regular routine process. >> based on a regular routine process at that time, the information on the list that would have led to the state department note was something that they would have pursued when he got to detroit. >> the dhs agent in amsterdam, did he have access to that same of formation? >> note, he has access to the no fly and the terrorist watchlist. >> should he not have access to that? whatever that number is, should they not have access to that list? >> senator, if i might take that and two lights. with respect to that particular portion of the state department

list, that listed him as they p3b, we have changed that to push that lord like we do the terrorist watchlist, like we do the no fly list. but the entire list includes people that were previously accused of bringing in the wrong type of ham across the u.s.- mexican border. the type of understanding that we need to have with the congress, where are all of those questions done, the staff, the resources for those questions is domestic. >> the information pushed for it to your information folks here in this case now is being pushed for to your dss agents and other cities, is that what you're saying?

>> yes, sir. >> so that this ban weapons subject to extra inquiry in amsterdam if this had been pushed forward. >> yes, sir. >> great britain did not allow this man to have a visa. do we share information with great britain and other eu countries as to who is on their list? >> we share some, but that is one of the reasons why we have embarked on an international efforts, because that information sharing needs to be tighter than it is, more real time that it is, and more complete than it is and is complete air environment. >> and to clarify, he was denied his visa for non-terrorist reasons. the british did not have information that he was associated with terrorism and other than that which we talked about and signals intelligence. >> but we are working out arrangements with other countries to share in

affirmation about people who should be on watch list. >> absolutely. >> how many people were recommended for all watchlist, the way he was by our embassy, that were not added to the watch list in 2009? >> i will have to take that for the record. it is quite routine that this field makes a blanket recommendation for his inclusion and all levels of the watch list, and then they apply the standards. >> i just want to know approximately how many people were recommended to go on to the watch list by our own people in our embassies that were not added to the watch list. >> i'll take that off the record. >> you will have the approximate number. all right. how many that were on the watch list last year approximately

were allowed into the country? the boilers that were on the watch list? a very significant number. just to give you a snapshot, it is approximately 400,000 names spirit out of those, only 14,000 were selectees, and only 4000 of those were no flight. of very significant number, if they had traveled, they would add that met with secondary inspection. -- they would have been met with a very secondary inspection. a large number to eligible to come and whether or not they were ultimately turned away at the border. i cannot give you that number. >> that is instinctively troubling, is it not? >> senator, in one way that it is. and that goes right back to the standards, what are the standards? to love what we have too high

aboard -- of far -- if we have too high of bar. >> we do not know how many people came into the country you are on the watch list. >> when people are on the watch list, we have made the choice that we want them in the country for some reason or another if they come in. >> he would have had to be on the no-fly of this. in the next section of that report, it is acknowledges that mr. -- that his visa might have been revoked if he had been successfully watch listed the death -- listed. if it had been revoked, he would have been prevented from boarding the plane. >> in fact, as a general matter,

individuals who have their fees is revoked, this may not been done to people who put them on the aircraft. not only must the visa be revoked, it must also be placed on the no-fly list. that is not automatic. >> i would be happy to talk of more in closed session. >> that is the classified section. about whether there are automatically put on the no fly? >> the process has been changed. >> i know that. is that a goal? the goal is to make sure that anyone that has a visa does not get on an airplane. thank you. >> thank you. >> 2 m extent, if this is uncovered, i apologize. i want to make sure i understand.

maybe you are not the right witnesses for this. i do not know if it is justice. i didn't know it is armed services. the decision is to where terrorists that tried to do our country harm, where they are tried. errorist that try to do our country on, where they are tried and process. i want to understand what the president was before december 25. there is no precedent in this country that anyone has ever been apprehended on our soil for a terrorist act and immediately got into the military system. is that correct? do you know? >> i think the right witnesses are from the department of justice. >> my understanding that a number of terrorists have been prosecuted in civilian courts in this country and that there were a couple under the bush administration that ultimately were taken the military court but after they were in it -- were initially arrested and

arraigned in our civilian criminal court. what i am trying to figure out is, the process here. and if we have got a process. my understanding, mr. blair, earlier you testified that you were not consulted about the decision about whether or not this terrorist was going to go to a civilian court or a military court for some marc >> i was not consulted with the high interest interrogation room was deployed so that the questioning of abdulmutallab would be admissible in federal court order was being exploited for intelligence purposes. that might be related to where they would be tried, but not exclusively. we would like to be able to do both. we would like to get the information that would help us for intelligence purposes and had evidence that could be used against the person in a federal

court. if we have to make a choice, then that ought to be made at a higher level with all the considerations you are talking about. >> my sense is what the american people want is for our military and our intelligence and our law enforcement community to have all the tools possible to get both good information and justice. >> exactly. >> all the tools are important but we are going to lose the ability to use those tools that we do not reassure the american people that there is a process in place and that these decisions are being made with the right people in the room. and i do not need to be derogatory to my friends at justice, but at that experiences in my life for the fbi takes over and nobody can talk to them. they just take over. and what i am worried about, can

we reassure the american public that at these moments of decision, and it is my understanding also that the suspect was not mirandized for a long period of time. >> not for the initial interrogation, that is right. >> and the reason is first of all we did not need his confession or a statement because we have plenty of witnesses in terms of prosecuting him, and we had an opportunity to get more actionable information and intelligence by not mirandize in him. >> the decision was made on the scene, the interrogation was done and the decision was made on the scene again that evidence ought to be taken for trial after consultation, which was not complete. yes, basically, that is what happened. there said in a wider process -- there should have been a wider process than they made on those narrow grounds. .

and to discuss this process of the decisionmaking at the point

of apprehension. we are going to go down a path of immediate military custody, which we have not done before, then we need to flesh that out. even though there are a lot of things cannot share with the american public, it will hinder our ability to catch the bad guy, there is their profits we can share with the american public so they can understand that we all want the same thing. we want to connect the five and put them away where they can never met anyone -- where they can never hurt anyone. since some cases they need the death penalty. we all should have the same goal. it should unite our country, not divide it. and we need enough information to do this.

>> we will do a quick second round. very briefly, the statements that he made and? >> thank you. one of my cardinal principles was that a focus on accidents

and everything we did. i used to say that it does about perfect, make it better. once we left here, we had a chance to save hundreds of thousands of people going through security, checking their bag, having their id is checked again and again. i thought to myself, what a challenge to try to know who all these people are and make sure they are who they say are. what a challenge.

we have been lucky, but we haven't smart. we are not perfect. we need to be as close to perfect as we need to be. you know that, and i know that. our job here is to collect oversight, and help you point out what you have not done well, and to find out what needs to be done differently to reduce the likelihood of where someone is intending to do harm. what do we need to do differently to enable you to do more? we have spent many days with the 9/11 commission years ago given us a whole bunch of it right -- recommendations. it seems to me that among the mistakes that have occurred,

when a distraught father given to our embassy in algeria to report something -- whoever took the information down as i understand it may have misspelled the name of a son. that created some problems in the intelligence community and make it more difficult for a two check it. bridgett more difficult for us to check it. -- more difficult for us to check it.

[unintelligible] we have a good idea of how to stop guys trying to blow up a plan over detroit. the technology is there. we need to make sure that the people who need to use the technology can use it properly. and we do to help? >> thanks for your comments. i think there will be budget implications. my view is, and i want to go

back to a point that the senator asked me, the privacy vs. security issues that kids raised in connection with a whole body scanners. we do look at privacy issues from the get go. ultimately, the question is, what do we need to do to protect the security of the flying public even at the take to deal with privacy. security is the number one concern. one thing that this committee and the congress can't do in addition to that is setting public expectation. we are doing and will continue to do everything we can do to prevent this kind of yvette from ever happening again. from whatever source anywhere around the world, there is no one silver bullet. yes we can push some more state department material out to nine

airports around the world, and we have. even if we had, that is just a tool for additional screening. it is not prevent someone from getting on a plane. a secondary screening does not fully resolve the problems. helping the public understand that everyone is working on this. there are multiple layers involved. no single one will be the sole answer. if there were, it would already be deployed. >> as a former naval flight officer myself, i understand a bad day may be your last day. many feel this way.

in terms of specific actions, for standards and inclusion on the watch list of determining what the balance should be between security is incredibly important. this is playing a key role to help us strike that balance. second, i think screen remains critical. it is a critical tool. i am not going to find all of the bad guys. i do not want us to overlearn all of the lessons from this case. there'll be other incentives where different names, passports may not identify this. we need a multilayer levels of defense. going back to issues of domestic radicalization, we have to play an enormous important role that

the american population understands we need a partnership between the government and communities to identify@@@@@@$@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

we are really learning from this incident with scantily nobody was killed. -- which thankfully nobody was killed. we felt we are doing things that are making a great deal of difference. the trick is how to keep the pressure on when the crisis is happening. it should not take a tragedy for us to make the improvement. >> thank you. >> i agree with you. i appreciate the statement that was made. there may not have been a mission accomplished feeling among washington, but a feeling that the war had reached a

different level of intensity. we had a greater number of attempts to attack our homeland last year that the year before. it is a painful way to be awakened. we appreciate the forthrightness of the witnesses today. a lot of other people raised with parental wisdom that everybody either false or slips. the question is how do you get up. the only way to deal with a mistake is to a knowledge there is a problem. that is what your testimony has been today. i want to come back to the watch list. i think this has gone too much in the other direction.

there ought to be a pretty simple way without leaving of or prescreening people about whom somebody has information that may suggest that they are a terrorist. we are not one to arrest or convict them but do a secondary screening to make sure they do not blow up a plane or come to the u.s. with evil intentions. what is the process now for which the administration is reviewing the watchless we are looking at individuals and looking at their records.

in the longer-term this week, i expect that we will obtain interagency guidance within 30 days to more formally revise the standards so that we have people at higher levels in the watch list. it is simple for everyone to understand we have to make sure that we are getting the right balance >> i want to suggest that it seems to me the watch list system is too complicated. having four levels it may be

more complicated than we need. there ought to be a category where there is a higher category where you want to stop someone from getting on a plane. >> i have heard that a lot. i can tell you that we have eliminated one of those levels that are not within the watch list. that step does not exist fundamentally. >> i will say that one of the good things about the watchless is that we had not had someone at the right level. but we did have is something that did not occur before 9 + 11

which is a seamless collection of information flowing. we had a different problem here which is someone at the wrong level on the watch list. the information did flow so that the basic structure was not one of the flaws. ok maybe i should ask this question. these questions of grandma getting screened for this young boy, michael hicks, -- it is not a terrible price to pay to protect the country, but we need to order certain things if we can. >> that case is classified. what we are going to have this

as we make the actual what each list and notify list more robust is a greater ability to redress and remove people who are improperly on the list from the list in a non bureaucratic process. that is something we are looking at. >> let me ask you a question. in the current system, this is a question of prescreening international air travel passengers in the united states. passenger name records 72 hours before a flight is to depart, --

customs and border protection currently does not receive important identifying information about passengers on a u.s. bound flight said they began the check in process in some cases not until 30 minutes before the airplane door closes. also, although we are checking the no-fly and selectee list in real time, we are not running b seven relocations in real time. once the airplanes door closes and they receive that a batch of passenger information, officials from what we call the national target system beginning more in-depth analysis of the people on the flight to determine who may acquire -- require additional attention once land -- once they land.

that analysis led them to uncover the father's concern about the man on the detroit flight. its secondary inspection once he landed in detroit. i wanted to ask you whether waiting until the airplanes doors close is too late and whether we need to thoroughly screened each flight passenger manifest list against all of our databases at least 24 hours if not longer before the plane is set to the part to the u.s.? >> some of that should be held to our classified briefings. what we where we want to get to

is if we have the rocket carried information if someone is a threat, and never get on a plane. the problem is that when they put the documents together, that information was not enough to advise a carrier not to put him on a plane. that was the problem here. with the millions of passengers that live every day, i would like to talk to you about that more in depth and a classified setting. >> you understand my point that prior to boarding a plane is that we have a passenger identifying information but not that is his name or her name. we want to effective the match them on that basis. we will continue this conversation.

>> the yankee. before i ask a couple of final questions. i want to clarify an issue raised by the senator from missouri i told her as she was leaving i was going to do this. there is precedence for detaining someone on american soil as an enemy combatants in the military. as a pad deal was first arrested in 2002 and he was subsequently detained by the military for 3.5 years before he was charged in civilian courts. whether that was the right way to handle the case or not, it is in the a precedent. so it would not have been unprecedented to detainee the man on the detroit flight crew

was not an american citizen. that could have been done and would not have been unprecedented. the second point of my friend raised had to do with the amount of information that was given. that was classified but it is evident to remain that you will get more information over a lengthier period of time. that is than over just a few days. it is not a coincidence. debt he stopped cooperating once he had his miranda rights read to him. and once he had advisers to get him to seize answering questions. i have a different view from my friend from missouri, but i

wanted to establish this on this man being a precedent. this is to clarify the record. he talked about a significant number of individuals and able to travel to our country because they are on the no fly lists as i understand it very few of those 400,000 would have been valid, kermit, visas. is that correct? >> that is correct but

approximately 2% are in u.s. positions. there are a significant number that can come into the united states without a visa. >> that is an excellent point and it is of great concern to us for some time particularly when we are looking at individuals in great britain who may have dual citizenship in pakistan and england and maybe using one passport to travel to pakistan and their british passport to travel to our country. i realize it is an issue for another day but if it's of great concern. we have to -- >> we have to learn the lessons of this case but not over learn the lessons.

using this data is very much integrated in the equation. let me ask@@@@@@@ dhs and the state the

province have identified 57 posts as being high risk. i also understand that request to expand to three more of these high risk posts for more than a year and that you signed them recently. why the delay? you have a need in a high risk area with the dhs personnel. why let it languished for a year? >> we are not languishing. that's me talk about this. it was a being evaluated in light of all of the work being done about where our assets are.

people need to have their highest use around the world. let me talk about the visa security program at both levels, there is a difficulty. they make the department's in a way where we run visas or we do not. either we do the relocations or we do not. we live in a half cast world right now.

the base's security program is a screening/investigative program where in the embassies where we have it, they go out and do further research. as you have mentioned, it is limited and does not cover all of the embassy's nor can it, by itself be more than or should it be more than the winning -- many layers that should be constructed here. i would suggest to the committee that this is one of the things we need to look at. areas of the department where we kind of have authority and the kind of do not. we kind of have personnel, and we kind of do not. , but you did have the authority to deploy people to these high risk posts. -- >> but you did have the

authority to deport people to these high risk post. if they did not languished for a year, are you saying that it took a year to evaluate the request? why the delay -- why the delay? >> it was an ongoing process within the department led by leadership in the department to look at this in conjunction with everything else we were doing internationally. >> was not the request made a year ago? >> i do not know when the actual date of the request was? >> it is my understanding that the request had been in your office for a year. i will follow up. >> i do not think that is accurate. we would be happy to correspond that to you and get the information. >> yankee. >> do you have any further questions?

>> there is a vote, but if you would like to start, go ahead. >> thank you. this is becoming so obvious now with what it's been going on with this administration and with different agencies as well as different departments working together. there is a director of strategic planning to support effective planning. which is essential to preventing attacks. congress also directed the state department's coordinator for, but terrorism to collect all supervision for international counter-terrorism activities

they appear to overlap. my question is of the state department cooperating for and how are you doing this? >> i think we are cooperating. i want to go back to something that the director said earlier. there are summoning people involved here and i do not think the legislation they created here -- i do not think it gave clear authority. it did not give us clear authority to direct action. we have become a mediator of sorts rather than a direction -- a director of action. it was directed to design a process -- whereby there would be primarily threat screenings

-- priority threat screenings. we wanted to empower us to demand accountability at a more tactical level at a broader range than threats have been seen. it will acquire unilateral cooperation from the state department, who led security, the fbi, the military. it would it please give us the impetus to do that. >> thank you for that. the public has been very concerned about what has been happening. we tried to put different things in place. in it your testimony, you state that as an interim measure, you will deploy law-enforcement officers from across dhs to service federal air marshal's to

increase security aboard some international flights. when will these officers be deployed and what training do they receive to ensure they are fully prepared? and to provide security inside of an aircraft? >> if i might reserve the details of the to plummet as a classified briefing. with respect to training, there is a specialized training. we have and a large group that started training this week that will be during work on february 1. it involves on how to take down a passenger on a plane and keep others say it while doing it, because you are in a closed environment.

have to take down a passenger on a plane without causing damage to the structure of the plane. there are other things in different things from a law enforcement perspective that happen in that airplane setting that are different than a normal setting. >> this came to me when you were talking about working with other countries. ehud testify that tsa security requires -- it passes through several countries to undergo additional screenings i am concerned of the requiring additional screening of all passengers from certain countries.

it could divert attention from other possible threats. my quick question is have you heard concerned about this directed from other nations and what is being done to address those concerns? >> that list was developed from the state department's state sponsors of terrorist list. plus at bonds in conjunction with the state department. it is of concern to several of the countries that had been put on a list, recognizing that the enhanced screening is happening for over half of the passengers from all other countries who are embarking to the united states. it is very aggressive and all- inclusive. we are talking with members of

some of those countries and talking about things they can do that with a alleviate concerns and allow them to be removed from the 100% less. >> thanks for your responses. >> thanks and there is a vote on the floor. you have been really generous with your time. we will try to reschedule this in the spirit of cooperation as soon as possible. we may sit in with another commission a closer session. i know it is controversial and i have heard pressure back from a

couple of countries. this is so critical which is the life and death of americans. you are talking about some more screening before you get onto a plane. it is done to achieve a public good. he started out with the right position. friends have complained about it, but it is the world we live in. >> in the. -- indeed. we want to make sure the environment is as safe as it can be. do not worry about that. >> i appreciate it. i thank you. we are in a war. we are in a world war with the islamist extremist that have attacked us since 9/11. they have been attacking us from various ways.

you hold people accountable in close the gaps. you go on with the aim of securing the country that we are all here to defend and the freedom we are here to the fed. it is in that spirit that i appreciate your testimony. we applaud and laugh. we want to fix what did not work in these cases. we will continue to go on with these oversight hearings. we will go on a separate subject matter after that.

we will keep the record of the hearing opened for 15 days for additional questions and statements. i thank you again. the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] oooo

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: all of us have witnessed this horrendous event that has taken place in our continent and i know that whether republican or democrat

that we all want to be able to do whatever we can to ease the pain on these poor people and that's why i'm glad that mr. herger's here representing the republicans on the ways and means committee that did not hesitate to meet and decide just what could we do as a committee to make it easier to encourage people to make contributions. i know all over the country people are getting -- collecting clothes and food and things of that nature. but the bottom line is that they need cash, they need checks and that this is what we have decided to do and so we have a nonpartisan bill here on this -- which deals with the technicality. it's available on the joint committee's website, www.jct.gov and it's listed -- www.jct.gov,

and it's listed, and i ask that that be made a part of the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: what this bill does is allow americans and others to make generous cash contributions to the charity of their choice and at the same time not have to wait until next year to be able to deduct this as a charitable contribution. it accelerates the time that this can be done between now and march so that any contribution that is made can be deducted on the 2009 tax return that's being prepared now for april 15. in addition to that there's been

some question as to how you can document the actual payment if it was made on the cell phone or if it was made without actually having a proof of a charitable deduction. the only proof that could be made would be using the telephone bill and there was a question as to whether or not that would be considered as sufficient evidence of making the contribution and this bill will indeed make it possible for a text message to be relied upon that's used in the cell phone when claiming this charitable contribution and i yield to myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. herger: madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to

revise and extend my remarks and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. herger: madam speaker, we have all been moved by the reports and images of last week's horrendous earthquake in haiti. and we were reminded just this morning of the dire situation that country is facing as reports have surfaced of a major aftershock. throughout our history americans have been eager to help others recover from the devastation of wars and natural disasters in far away places. once again we have seen the compassion and generosity of the american people displayed front and center in the haiti relief effort. including an outpouring of realtime donations through cell phones and the internet, with many of our own u.s. citizens struggling to find work and make ends meet it is only fitting

that we should provide immediate tax relief for these charitable contributions. this bill, which is sponsored by the bipartisan leadership of ways and means committee, as well as the whips of both parties, and more than 150 members from both sides of the aisle, would permit itemizers to treat haiti-related charitable contributions made through the end of february as if they were made in 2009 rather than 2010. this would allow itemizers the opportunity to claim the charitable deduction under 2009 returns which most taxpayers are required to file by april 15 of this year instead of waiting until they file their 2010 returns. it would also permit taxpayers to use cell phone text messages

to contribute to the relief effort, to use their phone bill as a record of their donation. this is a commonsense bipartisan idea and it deserves the support of every member. i urge an aye vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to kendrick meeks, he's a member of the ways and means committee but more importantly, he's closely identified in bring the bringing back of haiti -- in the bringing back of haiti before this tragedy. he's been there and we admire and respect the contributions he's making to rebuild this great nation. i yield two minutes to mr. meeks from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. meeks: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank all of the members that are here in this bipartisan support that we have for this great piece of legislation to not only incentivize americans to continue to do what they've

already done to be able to help the people of haiti, through being able to take off their contribution or get the tax benefit in their 2009 taxes. i think it's important that we have a strong vote on this piece of legislation. the haitian people, i was just there, i spent two days on the ground there, humanitarian workers have working so hard and most -- a majority of these nongovernmental organizations that people can contribute to are doing the best work on the ground as it relates to the feeding and providing comfort for the haitians that are in desperate need of international support at this time. madam speaker, i would go even fourth say that hats off to our emergency response and urban rescue people that are really saving lives every day and with the contributions that americans give to organizations that are doing great work on the ground, coupled with the congress and

the house's action today -- the congress' and the house's action today to help individuals with their contribution will feed into a better response and a better recovery not only for haiti but to also continue to fulfill our humanitarian commitment to the poorest country in the western hemisphere. so i commend the chairman, the rest of the leadership that signed onto this bill, republican whip cantor and a number of others that are on the ways and means committee on this bipartisan effort. thank you so very much, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: i have no further speakers on my side at this time. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from california. mr. herger: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my good friend from california for the time. and i rise today as an original co-sponsor of this bill. as my colleagues have explained, this important measure would accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions to our relief efforts in haiti. this means that those who are able to contribute now may receive the tax deduction for the 2009 filing period. with over $40 million in private and corporate donations already made, this will be a great incentive for the american people to reach even deeper into our pockets and help our friends in haiti. this in turn will augment u.s.

government efforts demonstrating the clear benefits of public-private partnerships. and it's an important step at a time when we must do more with less in the face of rapidly rising deficits here at home. there is no doubt that the united states as a government and as a people stand side by side with the people of haiti during this most tragic time. our assistance efforts so far are unparalleled. lastly president obama pledged $100 million in u.s. funding toward the relief effort. it is my hope that after this expeditious surveys of the damage a significant portion of this funding will come from the $845 million in international disaster assistance that this congress has already appropriated for fiscal year 2010. by pulling from these funds, we will be able to quickly address

the humanitarian needs in haiti right now. in addition, i urge president obama to immediately begin efforts to convene an international donors conference to bring together other responsible nations and international organizations that can join the united states in committing efforts to help the haitian people recover from this horrible disaster. keeping in mind the urgent nature of this much needed assistance, it remains incumbent upon the u.s. to work to ensure that international donations are pooled and integrated. that pledges are tracked. and that transparency measures are put in place to help ensure that aid reaches those who need it. further, we should encourage joint ventures and public-private partnerships as we consider the many ways that we may help promote not only the immediate but also the long-term recovery of haiti as well. the united states will do its share, but the rest of the world

must do its best also. other nations must not forget about haiti once the attention on the crisis has subsided and leave the u.s., as has been often the case, to bear most of the responsibility for the recovery of haiti. i would like an additional minute. mr. herger: i yield an additional minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. madam speaker, we have all been deeply moved by the outpouring of support that we have seen from communities across the united states. unsurprisingly the haitian american community has shown invaluable leadership in the aftermath of last week's tragic earthquake. now more than ever the u.s. must focus our efforts on engaging these communities to make sure that they are involved in the rebuilding of their native homeland. the haitian diaspora is a valuable resource that must be

tapped to ensure that stability, freedom, success, and prosperity that the haitian people deserve finally come to true. finally come to true. i would like to thank chairman

where over 160,000 people were killed. that disaster inspired cooperation that was truly incredible even in the troubled island of ache that had been torn by war for years. that rebuilding effort sparked a terrific renaissance there. this must signal a new day for the troubled but promising country of haiti. obviously our immediate priority must be saving lives with food and water and shelter and medical supplies. i am pleased that groups in my community like the acclaimed mercy corps, the northwest medical team, have leaped into action with resources from the pacific northwest to make a difference under these dire circumstances. we must recognize the decades of crushing poverty in haiti have left ordinary people far too vulnerable to disaster. we have an obligation as a country as we work with

comprehensive aid efforts in the months and years ahead after the cam rons are gone to help the haitians re-- camerons are gone to help the haitians rebuild. the world has not always, indeed has seldom been a good neighbor to that troubled country. i am pleased that this legislation will make it easier for americans who face tough times themselves to help give gifts of hive and hope to our neighbors in that near island. the bill allows those who have donated to haiti a chance to claim the donation in the tax reform that they are preparing this spring rather than waiting a full year to claim the deduction. it's a simple gesture but it will encourage giving in this challenging economy and helping do what is right for haiti. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. herger: madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: it is my honor to yield to the majority whip, jim clyburn, two minutes. there is no question that he has provided the leadership on this issue and inspired the ways and means committee and so many other members in the congress and haiti as a true friend in the heart of jim clyburn, our democratic whip. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, chairman rangel, for yielding me this time. i want to thank you and mr. camp for bringing this legislation forward. i want to thank the minority whip, mr. cantor, for joining with us in making this a truly bipartisan effort. i also want to thank the 162 co-sponsors, original

co-sponsors, of this legislation. i believe that all of us who are familiar with the various areas of our great country know that it all depends upon where you live as to what kind of catastrophic event you can expect to visit your community. for many of us it may be a dust storm. for others like my area of the cointry -- country, hurricanes. for others, it could very well be an earthquake. all of us are put the sum total of our experiences. i believe that it is this vast and broad level of experiences

that the people of these united states of america are going to call upon in order to respond to the people of haiti. and for us to offer all americans the opportunity to conduct on their 2009 taxes in a contribution they make to this effort by the 28th of february, will go a long way toward innocenting the kind of behavior -- incenting the kind of behavior we think is very, very important. i want to thank the sponsors of this legislation. thank the -- all of those who will be voting for it today. it is one way that we can say to the people of this nation that americans are not just

sympathize with them, but we empathize as well. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. herger: madam speaker, i yield whatever time he may consume, our whip, member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. cantor: thank you, the speak. -- the speaker. i am pleased to rise this afternoon in strong support of this important relief legislation for the people of latey. on january 12, 2010, haiti was shaken by an earthquake unparalleled in its history. as horrendous as they are, the pictures in our newspapers and on tv can only begin to tell the story of the suffering of the haitian people. just this morning the people of that country had another scare, experiencing another shock that was magnitude of 6.1. madam speaker, when crisis calls, american citizens are at their finest. the people of the u.s. have

always been and continue to be a generous and giving people. and whether it is offering shelter to orphanned children, making cash donations, or volunteering time, when tragedy strikes the american people take action. charitable donations have already begun pouring into organizations assisting in the relief efforts. this legislation allows generous americans who make a cash donation to the haitian relief effort to treat those donations as if they were made in the tax year 2009. similar policy has been used in past tragedies and studies show that it actually increases the total amount of charitable contributions. i want to thank my colleague, majority whip, clyburn, for his assistance in bringing this legislation to the floor. i would also like to thank the gentleman from new york and the gentleman from michigan and their leadership in bringing forward this important bill. while it is often the differences between the parties

in congress that makes the news, this legislation demonstrates that we can come together on commonsense proposeals to ease the suffering of our fellow man when our offices discussed last week how we could help encourage charitable donations for the relief effort and in particular this proposal, it was clear that partisanship had been setaside. i think the american people and those in haiti are all the better for it. i ask the support of this legislation and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. rangel: i would like to yield two minutes to mr. davis of illinois, a member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, very much, madam speaker. i want to first of all commend chairman rangel and ranking member camp for their quick action and leadership on this legislation. i rise today in strong support

of this bill to accelerate the income tax benefits for those who make cash contributions to people affected by the earthquake in haiti. americans are deeply saddened at the level of devastation caused by earthquake that struck haiti on january 12 resulting in tremendous damage and loss of life. there are enormous needs in haiti and it is important to have the federal government, our government, demonstrate the leadership in providing relief. i also wish to acknowledge and recognize all of the organizations and groups not-for-profits, churches. over the weekend i visited several churches and i was tremendously impressed at the level of giving that people out of the goodness of their hearts were pouring out. especially do i congratulate and commend bishop blake and the church of god and christ

churches for the enormous contribution that they are making, but baptist churches, methodist churches, all churches, people have demonstrated what it means to give of themselves and to help others. i thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. herger: madam speaker, i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, my good friend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. . >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of this. on january 12 haiti was struck by a magnitude 7 earthquake which devastated the country and the people of haiti. i have lived for approximately a dozen years in earthquake country and i know how serious an earthquake of this magnitude is. i wish to extend my deepest sympathy to the families who have lost loved ones in this

horrible tragedy. even in the face of this disaster, the people of the world have united in response through prayer, monetary donations and critical humanitarian aid. in fact, the "chronicle" reported yesterday that over $275 million has already been generously donated worldwide. i'm again humbled by the efforts of humanitarian aid groups based in west michigan which has a long history of charitable giving in times of need. the response to this natural disaster has proved no different. i am grateful to my constituents for the compassion and generosity which has existed for many years. humanitarian aid groups in grand rapids that are contributing to the relief effort include rays of hope for haiti, the christian reform relief committee, the red cross and countless others. even a global corporation

located in my district is en route with several flights this week to haiti transporting medical supplies and a medical team. the extraordinary efforts by all of these groups are to be commeppeded. while our country and the world response to emergency needs in haiti, i have heard from many in my community who echo my fervent requests to provide additional assistance to the orphans in haiti. i ask for your continued prayers for the children of haiti who will soon be united with their adoptive families here in the united states and especially for those who have been orphaned in the wake of last tuesday's tragedy. i also urge the department of homeland security and department of state to greatly speed up the adoption process and visa procedures, for not only the orphans already in process but also for all the children who became orphans due to the death of their parents in the horrible earthquake. i urge my constituents and all americans to donate to a charity

organization for earthquake relief in haiti. i am very pleased that former presidents bush and clinton are leading the efforts through the clinton-bush haiti fund. this bill, h.r. 4462, will allow taxpayers to deduct their donations from their 2009 taxes and it is my hope that all people who are able will offer their support to the people of haiti. may god bless and comfort the people of haiti. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. rangel: madam speaker, i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. herger: yes, madam speaker, i have no further speakers so i'll close. i yield myself such time as i may consume. in closing i'd simply say that this is a good bill. it reflects the generosity of the american people in

responding to a horrific disaster and i urge all

minutes. >> would before we start on this hearing everyone of us has to be moved by what we have seen on television or people we have talked with during the past couple weeks in haiti who and if i could with the indulgence of my colleagues wearing another

hat that i have as chair of the operations subcommittee have been particularly interested in what has been happening and i have had talks with people on the ground in haiti and others who have gone down there and i want to begin by thanking president obama, secretary of state hillary clinton, usaid administrator shah, general frazier of u.s. southern command of a hard-working people here and on the ground and in haiti for their efforts to save lives in the aftermath of this devastating earthquake. and number of states, i know california sent search and rescue, virginia and others. my own state of vermont is said sending down a medical team today recovering from this disaster as a daunting challenge for the people of haiti, vermont

and all are open their hearts and sharing generously. we will continue to do so. anyone of us as human beings have to be moved by what we have been seeing. now the subject of this important hearing, a terrorists intent on a detonating explosive was able to board a plane with hundreds of passengers headed for detroit michigan on christmas day. after congress passed major legislation in 2004 to implement the nine of the commission's recommendations and after the country invested billions of dollars to increase security systems and reorganize our intelligence agencies the near tragedy of christmas day compels us to ask what went wrong and what additional reforms are needed to. the administration responded

quickly and it's connected a preliminary review. the president identified problems. he spoke darkly of the american people about the incident, threat and actions necessary to prevent the future of the tax it does not offer excuses and is said to conduct responsible action to provide additional security measures. and i know there will be hard questions in this hearing. we want to know why and how we failed to successfully detect and prevent this attempted attack. how did someone who paid for an airline ticket with cash, boarded without luggage for a winter trip to teach royte whose father, week before to warn his son had become radicalized, how was he able to board a flight to the united states with a valid visa? just as we now know the horrific

deadly attacks of 9/11 could have been prevented, should have been prevented, the recent white house review found the government has sufficient information to have uncovered and potentially disrupt the december 25th attack. our intelligence agencies declared adequately integrate and analyze information that could have prevented this attempt to read the president called this a systemic failure and he's right that it's on a softball. just as we fail on 9/11, we failed here. now, i would hope all senators here ask whatever questions they feel they should put i hope we proceed with a shared purpose of making america a safer. no one has been angrier or more determined than the president. did not respond to the denial that has come forward to identify failures and corrected, so let's -- we are looking for

partisan advantage. we are all americans, we are all in this together. every one of us, virtually everybody in this room fly often. passions in politics should not secure distractions so we'll do our part. the president recently announced immediate actions he ordered instead of giving in to cynicism and a division for the confidence and unity that define us as a people. for now is not a time for partisanship is a time for citizenship. the time to come together and work together with seriousness the national security demands. i was here after 9/11, republicans and democrats working together with the president to find out what went wrong and make sure it didn't happen again. that is what we need to do today. our witnesses today our public officials, not adversaries.

each share a common purpose. as the president said to prevail this fight to protect the country and pass it safer and stronger to the next generation. the aftermath of the christmas day plot as well as fort hood tragedy can be tempting to forget it's always easier to connect the dots in hindsight. it is not aware intelligence agency's first raised the alarm about the suspect who to blow up the northwest airlines flight it was a suspect's father in nigeria who turned him in. our response for the incident has to be swift also thoughtful. it may be tempted to take for flux of options but to do so will only result in unnecessary denial visas in the flooding of the watch list since they've become an effective tools in identifying those who do us harm. we need to stop real people who may do less harm not a hero

children. a one-size-fits-all mentality will ensure we miss threats in the future. we canton guard down and hide behind walls of fear and mistrust. we shouldn't but our response by another recruiting tool for terrorism we have to be smarter than that. and finally this morning the inspector general released a report a few minutes ago telling miss use of so-called exigent letters by the fbi to obtain information about u.s. persons. a report describes how the fbi uses x's and letters without prior reauthorization to collect thousands of phone records and instances where no oxygen conditions existed. it also details how the fbi then compounded the misconduct trying to issue national security letters after the fact. this wasn't a matter technical violation. if one of dustin something like this we would have to answer to

it. this was authorized high levels within the fbi continued for years. i am dustin the director mueller the fbi work to correct these abuses. but this report is a sobering reminder of the significant abuse on this broad authority. no one is above the law. no senator and no member of the fbi and there has to be accountability for what happened here. senator sessions? >> thank you. i will join with you and your comments about the tragedy in haiti and hope that we and a unified effort in congress can do all possible to assist in that tragedy. it was on christmas day that america was reminded the war on terror is still being raised and our enemies will stop at nothing in their efforts to destroy the country. but for the bravery of passengers and crew aboard

northwest flight 253 and defect in the bomb close to 300 innocent people could have been murdered. make no mistake, this was another act of terrorism, another act of war and now it appears clear our intelligence officials had gathered enough information to stop mr. abdul from boarding the plane. in reality it was our enemies poor bomb wreckings skills in the courage of passengers and crew that save the flight. but as before the problem arose from a lack of action on the table intelligence. was a hesitation to interfere and one person travel plans, policies are arising from that or failure to connect the dots and individual failure somewhere or systemic failure. perhaps all. it's clear eight years after 9/11 there's still holds in the counterterrorism system. al qaeda has openly declared war

on our country. they have attacked us and are still attacking us. this administration cannot wish that reality away and i don't think they intend to. the threat cannot be negotiated away. but we must do is acknowledge this reality and work to vote and interrupt the attacks and destroys the organizations that are at war with us. it is a different kind of war but real nonetheless. and this hearing can help us get insight into the failure that occurred and what we need to do in the future but until the administration and congress fully acknowledge the reality of the enemy i don't think we will be fully effective. the work of the 9/11 commission unified our nation behind the idea that preventing act of war by traditional law enforcement techniques would not be effective. they declared we should treat this danger with a new understanding of how war. the truth is that the

administration intends to view this conflict wrongly as a law enforcement act matter now. retreating from that national decision i thought we have reached. now we have a policy that prevents captured terrorists here and abroad will receive a trial in our civilian courts the they will be given miranda warnings, giving courts appointed attorneys long subject to interrogations' but have rights to repeated court appearances and speech files matter they may possess critical information concerning further deadly attacks that might be planned. this is what civilian trials mean. this is how they are conducted. as attorney general holder testified civilian trials are not required in these cases by the law or the constitution. and i would note that in hammill war to my knowledge no nation has ever allowed the enemy to use our own courts to further

the enemy efforts to destroy that nation. this is not a case about whether they were red flags, the terrorists father personally went to the u.s. embassy to raise a red flag. there would be a tax on the bodies plan to get cash, he checked luggage, reportedly was known to have communicated with terrorists in yemen, our intelligence agencies reportedly intercepted messages referring to the nigerian, referring to him, in the press. so this case is one where our own good intelligence gatherers got information, people that rest on the four corners of the globe got valuable information. so, we have preliminary information that suggests the authorities were aware of this terrorist and had caused to stop and question him and denied him the right to board the plane. so we cannot defeat al qaeda through half steps, miranda warnings, minimization procedures and inspector general

reports. this is not the time for the government to direct new barriers between the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. we understood that was the mistake before. nor is it time to add more bureaucratic red tape, new reporting requirements are on necessary safeguards which do nothing more than hinder the ability to thwart the next shooting, the next bombing, the next 9/11. we should use every unlawful power and toole to protect this nation. this war was declared by al qaeda and its terrorist allies long before september 11th before guantanamo bay but guantanamo bay did not cause this terrorist attacks. long before we invaded afghanistan, before the drone at tax and the fall of saddam hussein this is a war that began to take shape in the early 1990's when al qaeda attacked

various u.s. facilities here and abroad. unfortunately it is a war which will continue i have to say for some time for some years and it's imperative that our intelligence and counterterrorism professionals have what they need on the front lines to disrupt the next plot and thwart an enemy at every turn. rather than putting more bureaucratic hurdles on our intelligence agencies through the weakening of the patriot act we should be looking to cut the red tape, strengthen the ability to stop the next airline bomber promptly before he gets a visa or is allowed to board a plane. we need to get this right and appreciate the willingness of all of the administrative witnesses. i appreciate the witnesses to the administrative witnesses to testify. i especially appreciate the presence of a director mueller who took a hard look eight years ago at some of the warning signs that were missed before

september 11th and makes aggressive good reforms and the -- and the fbi. three's dustin and experience the testimony of@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ r

distinguished record of the burr justice including serving u.s. attorney for the northern district of california. please go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator sessions in particular, please to be here today. before i began as did you i would like to commit on behalf of the men and women of the fbi to extend our condolences and support to the people pt and all of those who've lost family from the devastating earthquake last week. the fbi is providing assistance to the rescue effort but we are also focused on making sure fund-raising efforts are not tainted by fraud and that we are doing everything possible to ensure the relief in haiti is legitimately going to support the victims of the earthquake. let me turn to the subject of today's hearing if i might. as recent events have made clear

tourists remain determined to strike the united states. the fbi has transformed itself in recent years to meet our responsibilities to determine, detect and disrupt these terrorist threats. we haven't in project intelligence did what is accretive administrative and technological structure needed to meet our national security mission. we are now full partner in the intelligence community and we too must consistently collect, analyze and disseminate intelligence to those who needed as has often been said today we share information by rule and hold by exception. meeting these threats however continues vigilance an improvement on the fbi part in on the part of every intelligence community. but to dumoulin to address the falcon threat we have seen over the past several years. when nalubaale faced traditional threat from al qaeda but also from self directed groups, not part of al qaeda as former structure. we face threats from home grown

extremists, those who live in the communities they intend to attack and are often self radicalized and self trained. we also face threats from individuals who travel abroad to terrorist training camps in order to commit acts of terrorism overseas or to return home to attack america. and these continue to change the default as extremists are now operating in using juries around the world as al qaeda and its offshoots are rebuilding in pakistan, yemen and the horn of africa. while the threat has not been diminished together with intelligence community partners we've disrupted a number of plots for the past year. we've learned a great deal from these cases with about the new emerging threats and how to stop them. let me offer several examples. in may for individuals in new york some of whom met and were radicalized in prison and were arrested for plotting to blow up jewish synagogues and to shoot down military planes.

in july a group of heavily armed extremists in north carolina forests for making plans to wage jihad overseas after traveling to the terrorist training camps. in the timber on the eve of september 11th a colorado resident was a arrested in new york for planning to set off a bomb after having received detailed bomb making instructions from pakistan. the same month to sell from a plus loaners one in springfield illinois and one in dallas texas were arrested for attempting to bomb a federal courthouse and a downtown office tower in those respective cities. and weeks later a chicago resident was arrested for his role in planning a terrorist attack in denmark and assisting in the deadly 2008 mumbai attacks. and of course of the killing of a young army recruiter in arkansas in may and the tragic shootings at fort hood in november orie storch six middleware loan extremists have struck a military hearing held

last year's cases demonstrate the diversity of threats we face, some involve self radicalized service influenced by the internet where the time in prison and others received training or guidance from known terrorist organizations abroad either in person or over the internet. and the targets of these attacks range from civilians to government facilities to transportation infrastructure and to the military both in the united states and overseas. on christmas day the attempted bombing of northwest flight 253 has made it clear the threat of attack from al qaeda and its affiliates continues to this day and we can and must do more in response to these threats. as directed by the president, the fbi has joined with our partners in the intelligence and law enforcement community is to review our information sharing practices and procedures to make sure such an event never happens again. the president has directed a review of the visa status of

suspected terrorists on data bases of the terrorist screening center and as for recommendations for improvement to the protocols for watch testing procedures at the tsc. together with a law enforcement partners we will learn from and improve our intelligence systems in response to the christmas day at hawk. mr. chairman, you mentioned the exigent latter issue and let me address that as well. let me start off by saying that we take the issues raised by the inspector general exceptionally seriously and we have since he first undertook a review a number of years ago. at the outset it is important to understand that their records obtained work telephone toll records and not the content of conversations and secondly exigent letters have not been used since 2006. as i stated in 2007 when the

inspector general first reported on the fbi use affects such letters the fbi had substantial weaknesses, substantial management performance failures in our internal control structure as it applied to obtaining telephone records. and since that time we first became aware of this we have reformed of internal controls and developed automated programs that together would change policy and training substantially minimize this any errors. on this issue i would like to insert one quote from the report that summarizes what we've done since 2006. in the states it is important to recognize that when we uncover the improper practices and reported them to the fbi in the first nsl report the fbi terminated those improper practices and issued guidance to all fpi personnel about the proper means to request and obtain telephone records under

the ecpa. it goes on to say that does not excuse, and i agree, does not excuse and produce of oxygen letters and in effect of the idea ill-conceived attempt to cover them with other nsl. >> the statement will be placed in the record going back to this issue during the hearing the next witness is patrick kennedy undersecretary of state for management and korean minister in the foreign service undersecretary committee oversees the bureau consular affairs as a secretaries press adviser mr. kennedy please go ahead, sir. >> thank you, chairman leahy, ranking member session [inaudible] -- chairman leahy, ranking member sessions and distinguished members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. as secretary clinton stated following the attempted bombing

of flight 253 we are all looking hard at what did happen in order to improve our procedures to avoid human errors and mistakes oversights of any kind and are going to be working hard with the rest of the administration to improve every aspect of our efforts. we acknowledge errors remain and that process easy to be improved. here are the steps we have already taken. the proenneke state misspelled his name in the visa fight the report. as a result we did not add the information about his current visa in that report. to prevent this we've instituted new procedures that will ensure a comprehensive information is included in all of these recordings that will call attention to the visa application and issuance material that is already in the databases we share with our national security partners. >> with the forbearance of my colleagues why can't you -- if you go on a global search, yahoo! search and tight and a

name, the computer will automatically ask did you mean and but three or four other ways of spelling. why wouldn't that be a relatively simple thing to do? >> that is correct, senator. when an applicant appears before us we already have that software installed on our application screening process. if we put in the name kennedy and spell it, misspell it will come back k-e-n-e-d-y. we had unloaded that software in the database to check on already issued visas because we are looking for a specific known commodity. we are in the process of changing that. we have also evaluated the procedures and criteria used to revoke. the state department has brought and up flexible authority to revoke visa and we regularly use that power since 2001 we have revoked 51,000 visas for a variety of reasons including

over 1700 visas without prior where the media does recognize. we can invoke to the point of people seeking to board an aircraft preventing their boarding. an accord nation with the national targeting center we revoke visas under the circumstances almost daily. we are standardizing procedures for triggering from the field and are adding revocation recommendations to the visa report. we struck the databases and reviewed information coordination with our partner agencies and our scrub since december 25th we have reviewed the names and all prior visa fiber submissions and reexamined information in the consular will look out database on individuals with potential connections to terrorist activities or support for such activities in these reviews we've identified cases for a vacation and have also confirmed substantial numbers of these person may pose a threat to our security that person does not hold the visa.

the same time expeditious coordination with our national security partners is not be underestimated. there's been numerous cases where our unilateral and uncoordinated revocation would have disrupted important investigations that were under way by one of our national security partners. the had the individual under investigation and our revocation action would have disclosed u.s. government interest in the individual and ended our colleagues ability such as the fbi to pursue thease quietly and to identify terrorist plans and co-conspirators. we will continue to closely coordinate our revocation process these with our intelligence and law enforcement partners information sharing and coordinated action foundations and border security systems put in place over the past eight years. we believe that u.s. interest in legitimate travel and trade promotion as the chairman

mentioned in educational exchange are not an opposition to our border security agenda and in fact further that agenda in the long term we will continuously to make enhancements to the security and integrity of the visa process as we continue to take this work would take a comprehensive review. the department as was the product of relationships with iran interagency partners and particularly department of homeland security which has authority for the visa policy. the state department brings unique assets and capabilities to this partnership our global presence, international expertise and highly trained personnel bring a similar advantage and supporting the visa function throughout the world. we've developed and implemented extensive screening process requiring personal interviews and supported by sophisticated global information network. this front line border security has visa offices in every country virtually staffed buy highly trained multilingual culturally aware personnel of

the state department. we've embraced a multilayer approach to border security which gives multiple agencies an opportunity to review information and require separate reviews at both the visa and admission stages camano visa is issued without being run through security checks against our partner databases and we also screen applicants fingerprints against u.s. databases as well. we take our partners consideration and to every effort we make. we fully support the security@@

please go ahead, sir. >> thank you, chairman lee. let me start by echoing the sentiments regarding the tragedy in haiti, this is of a fixed proportions in the men and women at the department of homeland sequoia coast guard, fema and across the department working

across the court to support the international average for the people of. us president obama has made clear we are all determined to find and fix the vulnerabilities in the systems that allow this attempted attack to occur. our country's actions against terrorism require multi agency multinational effort to include intelligence community, defense department, dhs come agencies your today as well as efforts from our international allies. our aviation security relies on partnerships among the u.s. government, airline industry and foreign government. these partnerships must all come together when an individual seeks to travel to the guide states to board a plane effectively there are three key requirements. individual must retain proper documentation to include a passport, visa or travel authorization ticket and boarding pass. the individual must pass through checkpoint screening to ensure he isn't conceiving it with another dangerous material on his personal our baggage. and the person must be cleared

through a screening process that seeks to determine if the individual poses a threat and thus could be denied permission to fly. within that travel process let me briefly describe the dhs role. first, to accomplish preflight screening the department of homeland security is one of the principal consumers of the terrorist watch list which includes the no-fly list. we checked against it and use it to keep potential terrorists from boarding flights and to identify travelers should undergo additional screening. second, within the united states to prevent smuggling of weapons and other dangerous materials on planes, the dhs performs the physical screening and airport checkpoints and provides further secure measures in flight. outside the united states, dhs works with foreign governments and airlines to advise required measures for flights bound to the u.s. as well as which passengers pose a threat. tsa does not screen people are baggage of international airports. i submit to the lager to a statement describing the various

gauges prevents the work to keep people, terrorist from boarding planes. but regarding the attack on december 25th, umar should never have been able to board the plane with explosives. the inner agency process to fix the full abilities highlighted by this attack is well under way. as a consumer of the watch list information dhs welcomes the opportunity offered by this process to contribute to improving the federal offense ability to connect and some late intelligence and we are working with the fbi and the ctc on that. we are also focused on improving aviation screening and expanded and trash all partnerships to guard against a similar to attack. i am personally returned from it all day trip of consultations with key partners abroad. in terms of the dhs role, the bottom line is that he was not on the no-fly list which would have flagged him to be prevented from boarding or was he on the select list which would have liked him for secondary

screening. furthermore the physical screenings that were performed by foreign authorities at airports in nigeria and in the netherlands failed to detect the explosives on his body. immediately after the attack you just took steps to secure incoming and future flights to include directing faa to alert when hundred 28 incoming flights of the situation increasing security measures of domestic airports, implementing enhanced screening for all the international flights coming to the u.s. and working with state and local air carriers to provide appropriate information. in the reports to the president for guarding this attempted attack the department has outlined five key areas of action we are now addressing. first as the incidence and underscores aviation security is increasingly international responsibility the solicitor napolitano dispatched deputy secretary and myself and other officials to meet international counterparts on these issues. today secretary the public, the struggling to spain to meet with

european counterparts for the discussion took to strengthen international secure aviation security measures. second, and teaches creative partnership with timmerman of energy and its national laboratories to use their scientific expertise to improve screening technology at airports. third, dhs will move forward in in deploying enhanced screening technologies like advanced imaging technologies and explosive trees detection machines to improve the ability to detect the kind of explosives we saw the 25th. fourth, strengthen the capacity of aviation law enforcement including the air marshal service and finally as mentioned earlier we will work with our inner agency partners to we evaluate and modified of a terrorist watch lists are created in quitting how names are added to the no-fly list. as the president said, there is of course no foolproof solutions with there are many steps we can and are taken to strengthen international aviation security. we face and adaptive adversary as we develop new screening

technologies and procedures our adversaries will also seek new ways to evade them as shown on christmas day. we must always be thinking ahead to innovate, and prove and adapt to the new emerging security environment. and i look for to the questions to discuss this further. thank you. >> thank you. i still remain concerned, and secretary kennedy, the state department didn't realize the suspect on the christmas day bombing possessed a visa until after it initiated its action on the flight. the consular office said the first notice was given to the national counterterrorism center initially misspelled the name as we talked about. but within days and amended notice was sent with the corrected spelling. why didn't the office not checked the visa status of the nigerian national at the time it was sent?

>> he did not do that, mr. sherman. >> i know but why not? >> the second message was launched from another source. >> it may have been lost to another source but why wasn't he checked? >> because we did not have access at the embassy to the other come to the other reporting, mr. chairman, and we had entered his name in the correct spelling into the database that is our watch list database which was disseminated to all the appropriate agencies. we slipped up. i have no statement other than that, sir. >> thank you. before i go into the christmas

they attacked us to go back at some of the things you talked about, the justice department specter general report on the national security letters the fbi essentially told those companies that got these letters that there was an emergency so that the company did the records voluntarily as we would expect them to do and in the letters they were given said a subpoena would follow for instance a subpoena didn't follow often there was no emergency and this goes beyond being a technical violation. these are americans being obtained improperly, the 2,000 telephone records. as has or will any fbi official be sanctioned or punished for these violations in the law?

>> let me start by saying -- let me start by saying yes, as the process started back in i think it was in 2006 and initial reports were issued by the inspector general as a result of those reports they were reviewed for discipline and individuals have been disciplined for their participation and the series of issues. in this particular case the report will go to the process and look at the conduct and a sly and discipline as warranted. let me also say on a share with you the concern that this is information on american citizens we had without following the appropriate prada calls. in some cases there was not an emergency and we have put in place a process to go through every one of those numbers and determine what we had a valid legal basis to retain that number and where we did not it

was from our system. >> please let this committee know what action is taken. for the record you nodded yes. >> yes. >> what i worry about is the over inclusion of names on the no-fly list. he won the right names on their but if you put every single possible name in effect you have no names, you have such things as we saw last week in "new york times" and 8-year-old boy who was on this list from the time he was an infant he's been subjected to physical searches putdown so much as the family doesn't want to fly as his mother said he may be interested, but certainly not on an airplane, and it is -- would be humorous except for when it

causes to the family but also what is this to the whole system when after a complaint after a complaint the name stays on their the same mass the late senator kennedy who was stopped numerous times because he was on list and given the president of the united states, president bush called to apologize and said it's not the president's fault he is wanted to know how to get off the list and he still didn't for some time. i'm going to be looking first and foremost at a hour analysis and say what put somebody on how do we go about number one making sure we have the right person on their and secondly that we now don't over inflate the list that legitimate travelers come business people, students, just the average

american flies on the list and is unable to travel. estimate is on the one hand a delicate balance as we have seen in the christmas day plot. the name can be misspelled with one letter and you will miss them. on the other hand there are basically two, the precautions that were taken to assure we have the rent person and for almost all of these lists particularly if the ones that result in the stopping of an airport or no-fly list requires not just a name identifier accommodative birth, something that identifies it as opposed to just the name. second, the other aspect is there is a redress process. if a person is no-fly there is a redress process dhs maintains -- >> let me interrupt that you read the date of birth, this a-year-old, somebody would look at the list and say he is on their, he was born last year and

he's now on the terrorist watch list, somebody -- >> i cannot explain what happened today to allow any more than what senator kennedy on how he had gotten stopped. >> about, i told this because he's irish and we don't know him. but you heard what secretary kennedy said. you have a list over year and a list over here. who determines which agency carries a primary responsibility that is several agencies like input from state and in ctc, dhs and other agencies. who? >> when it comes to international terrorism, the contributions nominations on international terrorism go to the counterterrorism center. it can be a case developed by the cia, ntia or nsa or even ourselves, it goes national terrorism center and the

national counterterrorism center makes the determination as to which lists the individual be nominated to whether the no-fly, the selector the terrorist screen database. for domestic terrorists it is the fbi that makes the recommendation to the screening center as to who should go on that list. it is screened by both the contributing agency to the national counterterrorism center screens of the national counterterrorism center screens it themselves and finally the terrorist screening center does terrorist screening center does a@@@@@@k

do you think we can do better by getting people off of the list? i heard somebody on a talk show the other day say it keeps getting stopped. >> in some sense, yes. if people do not belong on the best, they should be off for a variety of reasons. feres with their right. who would be responsible to that? is the nctc? >> in terms of international terrorism? yes.

but also dhs in terms of the redress process when somebody files a complaint that they should not be on the list is then handled by principally by dhs. but generally you want to have on this lists person to meet that criterion should be on that list because it is protection against terrorist attacks -- >> i couldn't agree more and people in this world, a lot of people have the same name and it's difficult to know and one of the reasons we are here can planning is because somebody didn't get on the list. but mr. heyman, someone who can prove that the same man as a dangerous person can somehow be not given as much burden of the airport has otherwise would be the case. >> senator, there's a one-stop shop web site that was developed, www.dhs-trip, and

anyone concerned they are inappropriately on the watch list should go there. there is a process that is at adjudicated 56,000 people at this point. >> i just would say i don't think we need to have a prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is a terrorist before they go on the list. what is the burden normally we would have? that shouldn't be too high. >> it is reasonable suspicion the person is either assisting, participating or supporting terrorists. >> are you satisfied that is the standard? >> we are looking at the standards and seeing their application across the various potential threats but has worked well in the past and at this point without further discussion i'm satisfied with that. i believe it is slowing of -- >> noss putting them in a jail just confronting them to get on an airplane.

mr. mueller, after being dispatched by an al qaeda if we get in yemen to blow up hundreds of civilians in an airline bombing, umar abdulmutallab was within hours of the landing of a northwest flight. he was reportedly given mardy and the warnings, shown after being arrested including being a feisty have the right to remain silent and was entitled to a lawyer. so first, who made the decision mutallab was going to be treated as an criminal rather than as a belligerent? >> i think i can talk generally about what happened and not interfere with ongoing litigation. abdulmutallab was arrested on the plan after these incidents, there was no prior discussion. he was handed over i believe by

the personnel on the plan to the cbp, who are originally had custody of him and he was taken to a hospital in which the fbi took custody of him and happened so fast that there was no time at that point where the transfer was made very quickly given the moving circumstances to determine whether alternative arrests could or should be made. >> who made the decision he would be treated as if he were a criminal to be tried in civilian courts and be provided miranda warnings? who? >> to was to arrest him and put him in criminal courts. the ones who took him from the plan and then followed up on the arrest -- >> this is a very big issue. so the decision was made by agents on the ground based on some protocol or policy they

understood. >> based on a very fluid situation we are trying to gather the facts to determine what this individual had as important as determining the call but what if this individual what are the threats out there that need to be addressed? >> surely you recognize, i assure you do that there are great differences between chongging a person under the military commissions in fact i was able to work on legislation to get language in that said anyone, quote, a part of al qaeda at time of the alleged defense where an underprivileged colonel combatant, enemy combatants subject to military commissions and indefinite detention as long as we have a conflict with al qaeda. and so, this was a big decision immediately i assume the lawyer advised his client not to talk.

>> without getting too much into the details in this particular case the agent interviewed him in a period of time for any information relating to ongoing and other threats -- >> before or after the miranda warnings? >> before the warnings were given. >> anything he said during that time is not admissible in the civilian court, is it? >> that's correct. i take that back. as i assure you are aware there is a loaded exception for emergency situations in the case called quarrels -- >> when you are setting a policy for your agents it seems to me you have a policy these kind of individuals will be treated through civilian courts rather than military commissions which he is entitled which he could rightfully be tried as confident, and that has

ramifications because it is going to reduce and i think you agree the intelligence being gathered. and one of the things we learned from the 9/11 commission is intelligence is what saves lives. intelligence. and we need to gather intelligence. that is the motive of criminal justice systems generally in america. it is to prosecute criminals. and so i think this is a serious matter. are you satisfied that you have a clear understanding, national policy about how these people should be treated once they are apprehended? >> i do believe -- >> it sounds like the guys on the ground made the decision -- on the fly. >> there are decisions made whether or not to arrest somebody -- >> a listing powers isn't a problem. were you contacted about whether or not this individual should be

treated as an unlawful enemy combatant aarsele internals? so the decision was made below your level? >> that does not mean a decision can -- the does not mean the decision cannot or should not be taken later if one wants to go otherwise but in this particular case a fast-moving events decisions were made appropriately i believe very appropriately given the situation. >> i don't think you can say appropriately. we don't know what that individual learned while he was working with al qaeda and we may never know because he has now got a lawyer and is being told to be quiet. >> senator sessions, let him finish answering the questions. the fact is of course if you're talking about going to a military commission he would have been given a lawyer and a military commission. military commissions have i think freakin' sections. the courts have had hundreds of convictions of terrorists. sprick i don't think they are given military lawyers will tell them to remain silent and

nationally. if they are going to be tried in a trial by military commission they are given a lawyer. i think it is a matter of serious import. i don't think we have clarity of rules and we've got to get this straight. these people would be better try the military, one of which is for gaining of intelligence. my time is of, esters chairman. >> i might say to the distinguished senator of alabama, he, like, was a prosecutor. do you think any prosecutor is going to have to worry about what was said by somebody who tried to ignite a bomb and was stopped by several lionesses? rafah i have to rely too much on -- >> in response to your question to me -- >> being serious for a moment. >> -- in response to your

question is not just the ability to prosecute this individual but whether you were properly interrogated over a period of time we may find out there are other plans, other mutallab's boarding planes were going to blow up american citizens. >> senator kohl. >> director mueller, how many people were on the flight approximately? is it being expanded now? >> generally we are hesitant to give the full members. i would say several thousand. >> and are you anticipating -- >> hesitant to give it an open -- stat are you anticipating the list is going to be expanded? >> there are discussions and have been some expansions, yes. >> and part again that can be as to what activities of taken place particularly since september -- or since christmas day. >> all right. a director mueller, clearly there are flights into the

united states from hundreds of reports all of the world, and these airports are under the direction, supervision of other governments. i assume some of them do a better job, some of them don't do as good a job according to what we hear. in israel date of a terrific job of screening people before they board flights. what kind of a problem is that dealing with other countries to be sure their security measures at their airports originating flights into the u.s. are sufficient? >> i would be happy to try to answer but i think that my colleague, mr. heyman, from dhs would be more familiar -- >> thank you, senator. the standards by which international airports are security government is the international body for developing security regimes for aviation across the globe.

countries are required to meet the standards for the last point of departure to the united states. tsa does all that those countries to ensure security standards are met but you're absolutely right. the ability to meet those standards from country to country, and i think as we the e are looking at in terms of discussions with international partners is the ability to help build the capacity of around the globe for the record level of security. >> it seems to me that is a crucial element of this whole discussion that we are having. how good do they do their jobs and other countries and other airports. i wouldn't be surprised if there may be airports around the world that should not be allowed to originate flights into the united states because of their lack of proper security implementation. wouldn't you imagine that might

be true? >> in order for a carrier to travel from a country abroad from a final point of less point of departure of brought to the united states on a direct link to the united states they have to meet the standards and they have to meet tsa of audit requirements and the department of its last point of departure, about 245 of them to the united states every year. and if an airport or carrier does not meet the standards, they are given an opportunity to address those concerns or the flights are discontinued observations, and i would suggest that there must be some serious issues related to airports that are not doing the

proper job of screening prior to originating flights into this country. my common sense tells me that it is very possibly true. what do you think? >> out of the last departures of the united states, they audited them on a regular basis to ensure the safety and security of those fights. other cities that may be interested in direct flights to the united states would have to go through certain standards and review. if they are not able to meet them, they would not be permitted plight. >> i would like to hear from you about body scanners. the plans to expand them -- what are some of the issues we are dealing with? >> that is a little bit out of

my expertise as well. >> there are a number of different ways in which we provide security check points in the united states. passengers may be trying to conceal weapons and materials. there is a walk-through metal detector. in the united states, we have some layers of security to include behavioral observations and k-9, explosive detection devices as well as the other technologies. we are in the process of applying full body imaging, enhanced imaging technology. body imaging,

enhanced image technology. that technology has the advantage of detect the nonmetallic substantive, such as powders are like words, such as was found unlocked move a taliban christmas day. we are moving forward rapidly to deploy additional scanners around the united states. >> abbott to get back to my question about different airports in different countries. what is it about israeli airport a system that has attracted as much praise as it has over the years? >> senator, that is one of the countries i just visited ended in fact did take a tour of the airport and had briefings from security officials there.

they have addressed their security fence during number of light-years, including things that we do in the united states, behavioral observation, the way that they interview, the interview is critically important to passengers. in the number of layers of screening, of targeting potential terrorists as well as screening baggage that may be on board. they also live in a very different environment. and i would not compare their targeting necessarily to the united states. i think they are the different environments that they live in and does not necessarily transferable. but there there is a defense is something that was also adopted in the united states. and that's what a lot of people talk about. >> finally, i just make the observation again that this is a worldwide issue, clearly. and i'm troubled by the thought

that reading security airport security in different countries have said they would then very critically would probably disclose wide variances between the security effect of ms. implemented in different countries. and until we do a better job of trying to coordinate of the world, the security systems in different countries, we will continue to be at great risk. would you agree with that? >> senator, i do agree. i think one of the key things we learned from this is that access to any airport in the world gives you access to the entire international system. this individual bought a ticket in one country, traveled to the second country, transited to a third country to target a fourth country. there is somewhere near two dozen individuals, two dozen nationalities represented on that plane that traveled across a number of different countries. this is an international problem and that is why secretary napolitano is heading to europe tonight to meet with european

counterparts for discussion on enhancing national security. there will be meeting additional has tasked that apartment to expanding international cooperation in this round. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. grassley. >> i'll start with secretary kennedy. the state department has indicated that it could not provide this judiciary committee with a copy of the christmas day bombers these application prior to this hearing because it was part of quote, unquote, an interagency doj review process. however, the justice department indicated to my staff yesterday, just yesterday that the state department had not even provided me a copy of the application to the justice department yet. i don't understand why the state department would tell us that it was being reviewed by the justice department if the justice department says they

don't have it. so, since i don't want to trust just executive branch opinion about what is on this and what process about to go through, i want to know for myself what information did this bomber put on his visa application? why shouldn't we conclude that state department is simply trying to hide behind the justice department criminal process in order to avoid a delay a full accounting of how this terrorist act into this country under her watch. but my big question is, secondly, when will we get a copy of this application? >> senator, we are by no means attempting to hide behind this whatsoever. i promise you that i will return to my office and i will have our staff contact the department of justice immediately. and we will proceed from there,

sir. we're not attempting to hide behind the department of justice. we carefully coordinate our activities with the department of justice and we will get back to you, sir. >> but they've got to have it in order to review it. you told me as being reviewed here and i do want to say you did, but some people in the agency said is being reviewed. >> we will check with the department of justice this afternoon, sir. >> i think the first thing to do would be to walk it over so they can have it. i'd like to go on to another issue with the fbi dirt. on january the seventh, there president obama to backdated them to conduct a thorough review of database holding the assets and current visa status of all known and suspected terrorists beginning with end of quote. this direct that implies that there is a concern that the

state department may have issued besides to individuals who are known or suspect a terrorist. however, the christmas day bomber was not labeled a known or select suspected terrorists. he was given a lesser classification by the state department does what they referred to as a piii be on the meaning he was possible and probable terrorists. has the fbi reviewed our records in the state department class department for individuals designated pb3, meaning possible, probable known or suspected terrorists to determine if any of these issues or individuals were issued a visa? >> my understanding, senator, is that we have taken the no-fly list to ensure that the person there do not have visas. we have taken a select a list to

determine what% do not have access to the defense. and then, with regard to the much larger terrorist screening database, we are going through that and making certain -- at that time we're going to that database in assuring that those persons do not have the says. it is from the terrorist screening database that the system is populated with information on particular individuals. so we feel that this way we are looking at a database which are handled by a terrorist screening center and what we're doing will be redundant to what is being done by the state department as well as by the end ctc. >> senator, but i? >> just a second. just encase you answered my question, but i don't know for sure if you answered it. have you reviewed p3b's.

if you haven't, do you intend to be so? >> i'm not familiar with p3b's. >> possible or probable terrorists. >> is that a definition? is a definition for populating a particular list? >> it's my understanding it is. but maybe i had to let secretary kennedy speak. maybe you could have solved this for me, but go ahead. >> yes, sir, senator. if i could get one second that context. every visa applicant who comes into the united states embassy in the fight for a united states visa, his or her name is run against a complete database that includes entries from the fbi, entries from homeland security, entries from the terrorist screening center, entries for dea. we take entries from all these agencies daily and load them into our database and so no one

who applies for a visa, no one was issued a visa without a complete scrub against the full interagency database and additionally, there also scrubbed against the complete dhs and fbi fingerprint science of individuals who are concerned with those agencies. so we ran this complete screen. then, anytime someone is moved up so to speak on the screen list for either of our partners within the national security, that information is immediately transferred to us. we then run that new information against our list of issued visas to see if those agencies have obtained new information that they have not been made available to us earlier. and then we found that. and if that phone has moved up on that list, we then moved to revoke those he says immediately. lastly, your questions are about the p3b's. it is a category of when someone comes to our attention with

concerns about them, but is not conclusive. we then immediately send that information to our partners in the intelligence and law enforcement community, but we put this p3b code and so that no state department officer at that poster anywhere else in the world will issue a visa without doing a double check with our partner agencies. after december 25, we have a rescript that with our partners in the intelligence community and have canceled 70 the says. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much come mr. chairman. i like to just make a couple of comments about some questions. i think it's become pretty clear now that the airplane remains a major explosive device. i think it would be very clear that they're going to to be more attempts. this attack took place over united states soil. i think the handling by the fbi

is entirely appropriate and i'd like to bring to this committee's attention the fact that the fbi has done excellent interrogation in the past. a subcommittee of which senator kyl and i have participated have had former fbi agent testified, going back to the 1993 new york city bombings, where the interrogation done by the fbi really brought about convictions of a number of people, including a blind shake him of people who are serving time in prison in the united states who were part of trails here in the united states. so i believe the handling of mr. abdullah tolle of is entirely appropriate. and i think people should understand that. i'm concerned about the no-fly

list. i believe the definition of who would go on the no-fly list is highly convoluted, takes a philadelphia lawyer to interpret and i've been told by direct or player that it is being reassessed and hopefully will be redone. pet and is becoming the explosive of choice. were going to have more attempts using this explosive and hopefully it will not be perfect but soon. so let's go for a moment to the visas. and mr. kennedy, let me ask you, were you saying in your testimony that there will be an automatic revocation of the says four subjects of a visa viper cable or a terrorist identities mark environments the tried and true? answer is yes or no.

>> answer is we send that information to our partners in the fbi and other law-enforcement agencies and in the intelligence community. we have been requested on numerous occasions by those agencies not to revoke the visa because there is an active investigation. >> let me stop you there. i know all about that. i have questions but that is for another committee. we will be taking that up on thursday. those are not many. i know the number of people on the no-fly list. it seems to me that we ought to have a process which ensures be vocation of a visa. what i have learned is that it is very difficult to revoke a visa. >> it is not very difficult to

revoke a visa. if the fbi, homeland security, any other members of the intelligence community tell us and we get information from them every day in which we run against our records -- if they come in and say this individual is a danger to national security, we revoke the be set immediately. >> that is automatic. where does it have to come from? >> from the department of homeland security. we receive information from all of our partners. they provide as with information that says this individual is a danger to national security -- we revolt that be sent immediately. national security, we revoke that to be set immediately. >> i'm happy to hear that. as you know, mr. outdo mattel up

was offered a multi-your visit in june of 08. do you believe it's in the united states purity and just to issue visas that allow entries over several years or more than one visit to the united states? >> senator, because we receive information every day from our law enforcement and intelligence community partners, we are able to revoke and canceled the says on any given day is new information comes to our attention that says that individual who is not a threat when we ran his or her application against our partners databases, if those circumstances change and we are motivated by the intelligence community that this individual circumstance has changed, we then immediately revoke his visa. >> all rights. it just seems to me we still have a lot of learning to do.

this committee who gave you says to certain of the 9/11 hijackers. and those visa should not have been issued in my view. i think we've really got to batten down the hatches of who we give visas to. and i'm about to go into the visa waiver program because in my view, that the soft underbelly of this country, mr. heyman. >> senator, if i could add one thing with your permission. >> ahead. >> you're entirely correct. for 2001, we were not, we the state department, were not receiving sufficient information from our intelligence community and law enforcement colleagues. since 2001, the number of data elements given to us from our partners is up 400%. we now have a 27 million name

list for the entire community at large from the line for ms. community and from our own sources that every single visa applicant's name is run against the database as well as the run against fingerprint databases and the fbi and homeland security. so there has been an absolute change from the point that you spoke of in 2001, where we were not getting sufficient information ordered to have a data set to run against. we now have that. as i said, it's a 400% since 2001. >> i appreciate that and i thank you for it. mr. heyman, as you probably will know i am not a fan of the visa waiver program. we now have 16 billion people from 35 different countries come in without a visa. and we don't know if and when they leave. i believe it's the soft

underbelly of this country. i believe that if he went to school in great britain in the u.k. became a naturalized citizen of the u.k. he could've had a visa waiver and come into this country without one. and i think that's a real, real problem. so, let me ask you, what checks do we have that someone who was denied a visa, but is not put on a terrorist watch list can come into this country at a later date through the visa waiver program? >> just to clarify, in the visa waiver per game, you do not need a visa, but there is a travel authorization that is required and enhanced travel authorization that runs the same

checks basically that he visa check would do. it is also done the same kind of recursive view of the watch list of things like that to revoke or refuse authorization is done. and i understand your concern about it. but let me just say the visa waiver program includes a number of additional enhanced opportunities for cooperation and information sharing to include reporting of lost and stolen passports, standardize passports, sharing of terror screening information, sharing of criminal data information. and recurring auditing our review that we have with these countries to a value weight overall security, which we don't have without the visa waiver countries. so they're a number of enhanced security that supplement security and the dwp programs

and so i'm not sure i'd agree with the characterization but i understand your concern. >> i'm not sure i could agree with what you said that we can debate this or discuss it separately. thank you. >> we're going to do senator feingold is going to be next. and then senator cardin is going to chair the hearing. i have to go on the floor or on a judicial nomination. making notes here, think all of you probably will be giving for the next few days or an awful lot of follow-up. >> thank you all for being here. i join all members of the committee and my horror at what happened on christmas day and the northwest fly from amsterdam wanted time tonight and in the tragedy we must understand how and why the bomber was able to board that flight and what steps we can take to stop the next attempt through masato attempt

it calmly and not users to discuss political points. not just lay blame or take actions that are politically expedient, but ultimately an effect. by all accounts, the president was right to characterize this as a systemic failure and i agree with him that some tough questions must be a two repair and improve the counterterrorism systems that are now in place. this is not the time for excuses, nor as a potential pointing fingers. it's time to fix the problem. that's exactly what omega spacer. if you're german, i just ask that full statement be placed in the record. first, i'm concerned that the policy of enhanced screening for all nationals from 14 countries potentially harm our relations with governments and populations that can be allies. in defeating al qaeda and its affiliates, it may not be an effective use of limited

resources. can any of you tell me whether a formal intelligence analysis has been conduct did, assessing the value of blanket screening of all people traveling from or through or nationals of particular countries either generally or specifically, with respect to the recently designated 14 countries? somebody. >> sure. the designation of the countries with the determination in consultation with the department of state and the department of homeland security as well as an assessment of new and emerging threat information. their recommendation includes not just the enhanced screening of a number of foreign nationals, but in fact the majority of any individual traveling to the united states to include u.s. citizens. so it is not in fact a blanket

across specific nations per se. but enhanced screening for all individuals coming to the united states. >> mr. chairman, my question was if there was a formal intelligence analysis that i've been conducted as a part of this? >> the threat information was included in the analysis for determining the enhanced screening procedures. >> i'm not certain that the same. did you provide that analysis to congress? >> the formal intelligence analysis that led to these determination. so i'll have to get back with you. i was not part of the discussion, but i will be able to follow up with you after. >> okay. mr. kennedy, what role did the state department play in helping to determine which countries should be on the list and how did the state department handle the response is received from those countries once they were notified? >> thank you, senator.

thank you, senator. the department of homeland security presented the state department right after the events of christmas day, with a list of countries that they said that they believe that these areas needed enhanced screening. we review that list. there were a couple of countries. we have questions about the list was then approved by the state department because homeland security felt that on the basis of the information as mr. heyman said was sufficient as an interim step that needed to be taken in order to safeguard not only nationals of other countries parting of aircraft as well. and so, i know from discussion but i've been taking place at the department of homeland security is continually reviewing that list to determine the best way to provide safe and secure aviation movement because

of the boarding -- let's call it the boarding process if i could senator. >> out of the state department handle that once they were notified they were in this group. we have shared that information with department of homeland security and we are in discussions with them. our office of counterterrorism at the state department works very, very closely with the department of homeland security as does the aviation division of our economic and business bureau. those discussions are ongoing, but the primary responsibility as mr. heyman said in his earlier testimony for serving airport and determine whether or not that airport is safe to launch aircraft to the united states is the last. >> but i would like to be able to have access to the information about what happened when these countries were notified and what their responses. this is very relevant to the

value and wisdom of doing this. >> yes, sir. we will be in contact with your staff this afternoon to set something up for you. >> we've heard decisions to try umar farouk abdulmutallab and federal mystified by this reaction, given the similarity of this was prosecuted in federal court by the part ministration now serving a life sentence prison of argued the of compromised our ability to obtain useful intelligence. but as i understand anis senator feinstein touched on their people in charge of federal related crimes cooperated with the u.s. government. do you see any reason to treat this case different. has that been your case that these cases cooperate with the government and provide useful intelligence? >> in direct answer to the question, we've had eight number of cases which through the process the criminal justice

process committee has its individual i decided to cooperate in a provided tremendous intelligence and that is not to say that there may not be other ways of obtaining that intelligence. but, yes, to answer to your question criminal justice system has been a found of intelligence in the years since september 11th. >> thank you for that matter. director, i can't finish without telling you how concerned i am about the new inspector general report that came up this morning, which he talked about medea killing fbi with regard to obtaining phone records. i know you've taken a number of sets premiums and to address those issues. but the ig recommends much more him in the doj and the fbi need to provide congress today with the new oil opinion that states that the authorities the fbi has to obtain phone records. will you make sure that happens? >> i am trying to understand exactly what you want. >> the new policy opinion that states the legal authorities the fbi has to obtain phone records.

>> if it is no aussie opinion is up to the attorney general. as you know, there is no reason why you should not have it, but it is not my area. >> let me thank all of our witnesses for the work you do for national security. in my role as chairman of the subcommittee on terrorism of homeland security, we held a hearing last year in which we went over whether we are sharing information among the u.s. intelligence agencies as effectively as we do in order to protect homeland@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ i want to ask that their testimony be made part of this record. i guess my first question is there's been concern as to the operational roles and responsibilities with regards to

making decisions concerning who is to be stopped at our airports, and how we share the appropriate information. the president has asked for a review. other any recommendations for change currently in the works as to the sharing of information and the respective roles of the different agencies making these decisions? bo decisions? >> why don't i try to address that. the president has directed a to look at the criteria and utilize what person that various levels of the terrorists watchlist. that's one aspect of it. the president has also asked us to look and blair is looking at other mechanisms using information technology, which

will enhance our ability to better connect pieces of information from various -- various databases. that has been an ongoing process since september 11th and it is an ongoing process as new technology becomes available and we have new data set. but i would say just as the comment that the sharing is -- it's a new role since september 11th the terms of our desire to share with every other agency. not one of us sitting at this table or otherwise does not understand that we have an obligation to share that information to the next terrorist attack. the motivation and will is there. a lot has been done and there's still work to be done particularly when it comes to utilizing information technology to make our jobs easier. >> and also how we connect the dots. then they get to mr. umar

abdulmutallab. information became available last year to the state department from his father. and as i understand that information was reviewed as to whether there was a beast that outstanding in regard to the individual because of the spelling of the name, it didn't pop up on your data search. is that correct? >> that is correct, senator. as i said earlier, if i could add two points quickly. we did put the name correctly into a lookout system and the lookout system went to all the agencies in washington and a longer classified message describing more in-depth conversations with his father went in with the correct spelling in the two were married up in a single file in washington. and so, the misspelling, our error, was obviated by the second message that appeared up with it, sir.

>> but it never jumped -- it never gave you the information of the time that ibiza was outstanding. if it would have shown that he had been issued a visa in 2008, was there sufficient information available for you to take action in regard to the visa? >> no, sir. there was not sufficient information from his father nor do we take preemptive action because, as i mentioned earlier, we always consult with our law enforcement intelligence community and partners before we revoke a visa to make sure the individual is not a subject of investigation and we would compromise their investigation. >> to make sure, are you saying that even if it would have popped up at the ibiza outstanding, >> it was insufficient to immediately revoke the visa and also following the protocols that have been in place since 2001, we checked with our

partners in the intelligence and law enforcement communities to make sure that our revoke in a visa does not tip them off that he is under surveillance by one of our partners in the national security community and us our action would've compromised their ability on the hypothetical to roll up a larger terrorism ring. >> so in this particular case, we don't know what would've happened if you made that inquiry? >> we did notify -- we did put is incorrectly spelled into our database that was available to law enforcement and intelligence community personnel. >> and no dots were connected from that that we are aware of prior to christmas? >> .-- it didn't go on any watch list? >> know, if the intelligence or law-enforcement came back to the state department and said, we

have other information on this individual in addition to the information you the state department has provided us, we are putting him on one of the list. we would have potentially be would've revoked the visa of coordination of law enforcement and intelligence. >> dhs have the information prior to christmas day, but did not have any reliable information to act? >> he was neither on the watchlist nor a no-fly list nor a select list. so there was no check against those lists would have come up with anything. >> whose responsibility was it to look into that information and determine us to whether he was actively involved in al qaeda and yemen? there is information that he was there. it seems to me that there was significantly -- significant information linking into potential terrorist act to believe that was put into our data bank. whose responsibility was it to

follow up to see whether actions should be taken to at least alert agencies of a risk factor, but also to investigate whether there is further reason to suspect that active terrorism might be taking place? no one seems to want to answer it. >> senator, that is a subject outside the jurisdiction. i can describe our process. any information that comes to the tension in the state department that says there's a potential terrorist, we send it in -- the >> you typed it in and send ten. you would knows acted without the further information from other agencies. at this point, i guess director mueller was referring to the responsibility, whose responsibility was it to take that information and try to connect the dots? >> i think the presidents report identified by the president would say that the information

goes into the national counterterrorism center where the lists are maintained from which you then put a person on no-fly or the -- and so, the information has developed by nsa, cia, developed by the state department goes into the nctc for determination as to where that person should we and on which watchlist. and to the extent there is follow-up, it is generally there when it comes to international terrorism. >> i just like to make the observation that there was information that was put into the databank and it appears like before christmas day no one acted on that. >> well, there is some information that did get to nctc and other information that did not get to nctc. and so it was a question and i think it's fair to say that some person should have passed

information into nctc and did not end up there. and the database where you have the information that leads to putting a person on either a select or no-fly list for international terrorism is generally goes through that process. >> i guess my concern is that it's not clear as to whose responsibility it was to take that information and to develop it, whether it is a serious enough link a monopoly to protect america against that individual, but to use that information to try to determine whether there is active terrorist plots against america. and i hope that is being corrected because there was information there that was just sitting there. and obviously, it could've been a very serious situation against this country. senator schumer. >> thank you come on mr. chairman. let me thank the witnesses for

being here. my first question is for mr. kennedy from the state department. it's about multi-and should be says. one of the main criticisms that's been leveled in this matter was that abdulmutallab visa issued to him by our embassy in london of june 2008 was not revoked once his father warned our nigerian embassy about his extremist act to the the. this criticism is valid, but does not take into account the complex process that state department must typically follow in order to revoke a visa. you know that. so instead of focusing on the visa revocation, which is more complex than people realize, i think we should look at the fact that abdulmutallab and seven of the 9/11 hijackers came to america on unlimited multiple entry visas that gave them a revolving door to come and go into america as they please. once you get it, you can go back and forth without anybody checking on you as many times as

you want. in the new information that came in from al qaeda and the yemen as well as from mr. abdulmutallab's father, came in after he was issued that foldable entry visa. but the problem. so i propose that the citizens of the 14 countries identified as potential security threats by the obama administration should be required to apply for permission each time they visit the united states. rather than enter at will by virtue of the so-called revolving door visas that they valid for years at a time. this way we can have a calmer examination of all the facts that we know about antigo each time they enter. so no information comes in, that will be part of the file. in the burden of proof will be on the entrant rather than on the state department to revoke. had this policy been in place before the abdulmutallab incident, he would've been denied a visa because his name

was entered into the database in the entry stated he would be presumed ineligible if he had applied for a new visa. so my question for you mr. kennedy is this, do you agree that abdulmutallab would've been unable to enter the united states had been required to a new visa prior to his flight to detroit? do you agree? >> possibly, senator, for this reason. i fully agree we have to examine all the shoes and that's part of the ongoing process we are engaging. two points if i might, senator. >> let me ask my second. if you were just going to say yes. will you work with me to implement the suggestion that either administratively or through legislation that we implement this plan? okay, now those are the two questions. go right ahead to >> we are examining all of our process is right now as you rightly suggest this calls for fully complete review. >> what do you think of this

idea? >> if i could with one preliminary statement, once an individual receives a visa, it is not that that is continually reviewed. it is continually reviewed. if the national terrorism center or any of our other partners in the law enforcement or intelligence community say that they have new information on an individual, they passed that information to us on a daily basis. we run all that information against the list. >> i understand that. i'm not asking that, sir. if the information is missed, which it was here, if the burden of proof around the entrance who had to get a new visa, it's much more likely that it would be caught than if you had to go revoke the visa as you have no way of revoking it because that new information was missed. >> senator, i agree we have to look at this very strongly and i totally agree with you. the point i think that our

difference is is that we do every day review every issued visa to see that new information has come into us or not. and so, we do continue reviews and if we discover the terrorist screening center at the fbi or homeland security has elevated this person, we been revoked a visa immediately. >> yeah. so again, why wouldn't it be better to do it the way i'm suggesting? >> because senator, if the information is not -- if the doctor and i cannot read, than the individual is going to get the visa because there is no -- when they apply for the new visa and we ran against the database, if the dots not connected in the individual has not been put on the list by one of the intelligence or law enforcement communities, -- the >> but he was on the list. >> no, sir.

he was not a no-fly or the new issuance lists. >> r then he would not -- they would have seen him on the bigger list, and there would have reviewed it more carefully. if they would not, then something is profoundly wrong. >> senator you are very correct.