we have the technology that permits us to detect the very large majority -- i estimate 90% -- of the people trying to cross illegally into the united states in that sector. what that means, mr. chairman, is that when we say 58,000 as opposed to 560,000 people arrested last year and six -- in san diego, i can tell you that my friends and neighbors in san diego will tell you that this order is not out of control. san diego is one of the safest 10 cities in the united states and there are three other border cities among the safest in the united states. .

in respect to the capacities that you are developing and secondly some of the budget implications of those efforts. prior to the attempted air cargo bombing plot out of yemen last fall, cbp was receiving international air cargo manifests four hours before cargo arrival in the united states. that is after the plane was air borne. in response to the october 29, 2010 mailing, the national

targeting center has been working with air carriers so they can analyze cargo manifests before flights take off. in december, cbp began piloting this type of screening with the big four all-cargo carriers. two of these pilot efforts have been completed, two others are either ongoing or starting shortly. i know you call these pilots but i don't believe there are any plans to turn them off. maybe some analysis will follow but this is going to be we understand permanent improvement of capacity. so i wonder first if you can high light what efforts cbp in conjunction wl carriers has undertaken to strengthen your security before it arrives in the united states and what you believe the next steps are. and secondly, tonight ask you about the budget implications about all this.

the 2012 budget, i was christmas surprised that it didn't in-- somewhat surprised it didn't include targeting for cargo. last september cbp told the committee it needed up to 80 million for these specific efforts. in our consultations this figure was revised twice for the highest needs. now, the high ets needs include 40 new air target and funding. so since panel funding for 2011 has not been resolved, we were unable to provide these resources. however, we did expect to see something in the 2012 budget and apparently it is not there. so last december cbp told the subcommittee it would expand its review of cargo

transportation documents known as bills of laiding. it requires additional staff, required additional infrastructure improvements to support the workload and additional screening technologies. so has something changed or what has changed over the last few month soss that you didn't include these needs in the 2012 request and i guess the obvious question is are you now planning to fund these activities from base resours? >> ranking member price, thank you for that question that focuses on that dimension of our mission that is securing goods so that when they arrive at the physical ports of entry we have done everything we meed to to identify dangerous cargo. and in fact the yemen cargo plot with regard to packages and freight led to the same kind of change that is we saw a year earlier with regard to the processing of passengers as a result of the attempt to blow

up the northwest airliner over detroit. so let me indicate what we have done and then provide a very direct response to your question about how will this be funded. two major partnerships characterized our response. and remember, as you indicated, what happened in the yemen cargo plot was that we received intelligence, our government did, from the saudi intelligence that indicated there were two packages that were on their way to the united states that were intended to be detonated in the cargo plane over chicago. so the question then was how do we locate those packages. and i think one of the changes in the global supply chain is we did identify out of this mass of the tens of millions of packages and cargos involved in the international trade, we were in relatively short order, working together with our

partners abroad, able to pluck out those two packages and to neutralize them to so they did not do damage to the american homeland. as we analyze the situation, though, we were able then to also identify very quickly where the other packages that had come in the preceding days from yemen were. but what we also noticed was that we needed, as we did in the passenger context, to be doing much more work away from the american homeland and early in time. and that is what led to the pilot projects that you indicate. three critical partnerships have characterized the work. the first is, as i suggested, the partnership with foreign customs and police authorities. which need to be very close and are increasingly close. the second has to do with the partnership within the d.h.s. between the transportation

security administration charged with cargo security and with customs and border protection. and the linking of the work of cbp and t.s.a. on this has been extraordinary. and i know that government agencies always talk about the extent to which they cooperate. but i can tell you, having been in the federal government, this is cooperation with real results that we see exemplefid and illustrated in the way in which our nation has responded to the cargo plot from yemen. the third partnership, and key to this, is the way in which we have collaborated with the private sector. from day one, we began working with the express cargo carriers with the commercial airline, the commercial airlines and with the large cargo operators to begin to co-create the solution. so, what does the solution look like? and frankly i would say prenthetically that the way in which we have worked with the

private sector contrasts with what i believe the ranking member and members of the subcommittee are familiar with, which is the contentious manner in which we began to deal with mare time security in the wake of 2001. that situation is vastly improved but it has taken a long time for those engaged in mare time trade to look at the requirements that we imposed on them from top down in part through congress imposing requirements on d.h.s., but we basically mandated a series of changes to require advance information in a whole variety of pre-departure and pre-arrival changes. we took a different approach, frankly, mr. price, to this situation air cargo. from day one, secretary napolitano convened working groups involving the private sector with t.s.a. and c.b.p. to address the issue. and within a month, we began

what you referred to as pilot projects. and they basically have two dimensions to them. we get advanced information. right now, the law provides that when a cargo is coming toward the united states, it must be given to cbp four hours before arrival. it must be entered into our system. or, if the arrival of the place of disembarication is fewer than four hours from our homeland, then it upon wheels up of the cargo plane or the commercial plane carrying cargo. what the pilot project basically does is articulates and starts to implement a new grand bargain between governmental authorities and the private sector. basically, the grand bargain is if you give us information early in advance of the departure, we will use the national targeting center and we will analyze the information you give us in terms of

manifest data and we will make a judgment about whether or not we need to screen and look at it and which way we need to look and screen the cargo much earlier. that has led express cargo, and right now the pilot is between the united states government, d.h.s., and the express carriers, fed ex, ups, i believe it will be extended to dhl soon and to tnt in the not too distant future. and basically what we see from ups is that we are getting the information sometimes 24 hours earlier before departure, sometimes even 36 hours. and we are able to make this decision working together as do we screen it, do we isolate it, do we do it abroad, do we do it en route, or do we do it when

it arrives at the physical boundaries of the united states. that's the nature of the bargain. it is an extraordinary collaboration. and it will be extended over the next six months to commercial airlines and the large cargo operators. so then mr. price you say so why haven't you asked for additional funding to support this. and the answer is that we have asked for additional funding as you indicated in your question we have asked for additional personnel at the national targeting center for cargo. we have actually asked for i believe 33 additional targeters that will work in hern don and be able to analyze that manifest data. and sir, i indicate tow as we have with the immigration advisory program we will be coming back to the congress when we have per fect this, when we have gotten to the point where we can say as a

result of the experience we've had these are the additional measures that we need to take and i think you have understood that we are not bashful about asking resources but taking the chairman's caution into account the environment in which we are operating the secretary has determined that we need to effect these protocols, and we are able to do that within our existing resource base in addition to the additional resources we asked for at the national targeting center. >> just one clarification though. i thought these additional personnel that you referred to were aimed at a passenger screening operation. >> the national targeting center will correct the record if i misspeak, but i believe these are going to be national targeting center for cargo. we have the ntcp that is in

reston, virginia, and that is the program that works with the immigration advisory program. but i believe that these were destined and we intend to allocate them to the ntcc. >> that is not the information we have but if you can get this straight for the record. and while you are at it, please provide us with whatever accounting you can of where in the budget these items that had earlier been briefed and had anticipated where in the items these might be embedded and to the extent that thear not in the budget how you are making tup difference, so to speak. that would be very helpful to us as we try to support this program fully. you understand, we want this to happen. twopet make sure that we understand the full budget implications of this capacity building though. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. dent.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and good morning. a couple things up on mr. price's questions. i understand 100% of outbound commercial aircraft carrying cargo is now screened. is that correct? >> no. i don't believe that 100% of the outbound cargo is -- >> on passenger planes. >> this may be a t.s.a. finchings. i know that customs and border protections is not screening 100% of outbound. >> on the issue of inbound. on the issue of the inbound you just referred to the yemen situation. even if we were to screen 100% of all inbound cargo coming on nonpassenger aircraft, how confident are you that we are going to detect problematic material given what you know? >> again mr. dent, with regard

to inbound, on commercial planes coming to the united states, there is 100% screening by t.s.a. certified screeners or by the t.s.a. itself of inbound cargo. and i believe with regard to that extent we have -- we can always improve our screening capacity. we need to improve our detection capacity in terms of the technology. but that situation is considerably improved from where it was even a few short years ago. >> my understanding of the inbound, we are not at 100%. outbound you met the mandate. >> i will correct the record again. this is a t.s.a. function. i will correct the record if i have misspoken. >> i want to follow up on civil air patrol issues. for the past several congresses i have been advocating the use of the civil air patrol on the

southwestern border. it seems that the savel air patrol is willing to help. what relationship does cbp currently have with the civil air patrol? >> mr. dent, i know from the days in which i was the u.s. attorney that the savel air patrol played a very important role in assisting the border patrol in those years to patrol. because of the increase provided by congress in the air and marine assets of the customs and bordprore tex, we rely hardly at all now on the civil air patrol. and i know of your interest. we do not at this point, except in very spotty cases regularly use them in part because the air and marine assets that have been provided by the congress and are at work, for example, in arizona, are on the order of ten times what they were years ago. but i am --

>> are you amenable to establishing some kind of working relationship with the air patrol? >> absolutely. partnership with civil air patrol, as with state, local, and tribal law enforcement authorities is critical. >> i would love to follow up on that with you further. i think we can use them and it would be more effective assets. and on sbi net, the secretary announced that on january 14 that they ended the sbi net program. yet, it has endorsed the integrated fixed towers that are the heart of the sbi net and incaint the department intended to buy more fixed towers for arizona. that is on top of the 15 that are already out there. so these additional towers are for some of the most problematic areas, as you know, but you postponed the purchase of these towers until fiscal year 2012 and delivery isn't expected until sometime early 2013. why don't we move aggressively

and building on those? >> mr. dent, you have correctly described the situation. the large-scale integration and the dimensions were ended by the secretary and i think to the general approval of members of congress on both sides of the aisle. but we do -- where the boeing developed technology, the so-called block technology, which intgrates video and radar works is in the flat terrain and there will be a need for it. where there is canyons and mountains, that technology is not very useful and the secretary has directed that we fill in the gaps in those areas with mobile surveillance systems, remote video surveillance systems, and our agents confimple that this is the -- confirm that this is the best tech netion, as well as with aviation isr, the ability

to integrate. the reason, frankly, for the delay and i believe we start purchasing in 2012 and continue to purchase in 2012 and 2013, is that we need to fill in the gaps. we have in arizona which is our area of greatest priority, we have the towers in place on the flat areas. we need to fill them in with the technology better suited for the canyons and the mountains. but you are right, we want more of those towers to use in other places where the terrain makes them very useful. the priority is one reason there is a delay until 2012. the second is to simply get the competitive bidding that will be required to give companies other than boeing an opportunity to compete for this contract. and to provide the fixed towers. so we think both as a matter of tactics but also good and efficient business sense that that schedule will not do us

harm on a security, from a security perspective, and get us a better product in due course. >> ms. loy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome. and i just want to say we are very fortunate to have a person of your wisdom, experience and caliber in this position and i thank you very much. and if you can clarify in writing for the record it is my understanding that 100% screening of passenger and airlines won't be completed until the end of 2011. i don't think it can be done soon enough. i think it is urgent. and i would like you to clarify that for us. i would like to know why it is not completed. and i would also like to know if there are some nations that are not being cooperative and you speak to implement better screening procedures abroad and what can we do about it. perhaps the first one you can submit to us in writing. second, if you are aware of

certain nations that have not been cooperative, i would like to know about it. >> yes with regard to providing information on both. as you know, the legislation provides the extension, although the deadline is coming up and i believe that the secretary if she hasn't already will be indicating the further extension on the 100% scanning. and with regard to -- >> i just happen to think on that issue it is unacceptable so i would like to know what you need, how much money, how many people to get it done now. >> i understand. and then with regard to the information on countries that have not been cooperative, no one comes to mind. but i would need to consult with administrator pistol with regard to the cargo screening from abroad. and i will do that and supplement the record if he so advises. >> thank you.

on another issue, i have recently heard reports about staffing issues at kennedy airport including that one quarter of all customs and border patrol officers are handling basic immigration work rather than searching cargo for weapons or drugs, perhaps more alarmingly i've been told that 18 flights a day are arriving from known high-risk narcotics producing nations without searches by b.p.o. due to staffing shortages. so number one what steps are you taking to ensure cbp is searching cargo at kennedy airport. and secondly, what additional resource doss you need from congress to achieve this mission? >> i was at kennedy airport on friday. on thursday and friday of last week. and we are constantly looking at the staffing issues and also the allocation to duties.

so that at kennedy airport, which has more c.b.p.o.s, custom and border protection officers than any other airport because of the size and the scope of its operations, we have just under 1800 now with a staffing model that actually allocates both to the processing of people, which we have to do to prevent dangerous people from coming into the united states, but also increasingly we check obviously on screening of freight and cargo coming into the united states. and kennedy leads the way in terms of outbound checks. we have more outbound checks led by an extraordinarily experienced and good group of officers. but i take your point that we always need to look at how do we allocate scarce resources and when do we need more resources for any particular function. i believe that we can improve situation at kennedy.

but i'm satisfied that the leadership in this new port director at kennedy, who i hope you will have an opportunity to meet, was who was at o'hare airport now in charge of kennedy airport under bob press' leadership at the district, and i will make him aware of your concerns and confirm that he is always looking at how best to allocate the resources among the function that is we have. >> i'm not questioning anyone's ability. i am just saying that i think it is important that we get the job done. if you need more assistance you should rhett us know. in that -- let us know. in that regard i have been to the san diego entryway and i have spent hours there. and to me it looks like a needle in a hey stack. so p applaud you. i don't know how you do that work. i also want to say, you talked before about the issues involving our government and the mexican government. i have met with calderon, i have been there and talked with

him. i think this has reached proportions that are just extraordinarily dangerous. we know of the 35,000 lives that have been lost there. and i personally think it is not enough to say guns are going there and drugs are going there. i think we have to push for an assault weapons ban and i think we have to do something about controlling our use of drugs here in the united states of america. what you do about the intilt ration of the military, infiltration of the security force with the cartels because the cartels pay more than the government and the corruption is another whole story for another hearing, mr. chairman. but i appreciate your mentioning those issues and i think we just have to do something about it. so thank you again for appearing before us. i think my time is up so i will save the other questions. >> ok. like to go down to mr. carter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and first commissioner thank you for being here. thank you for all the people

and your department that are doing very important work to protect our nation. we in texas feel it probably more or as much, i would argue most, in this country as far as what you are doing on our borders. we are very appreciative of it. my friend just raised the issue of the question that seems to come up every time we address the border. we certainly are aware of the violence coming from the south. and the question then comes up, where do the weapons come from? and it seems to be that the finger gets pointed to the united states that we allow weapons to be smuggled into mexico. i don't know whether that's true or not. we assumed it was true. we have had this discussion in the last congress. we thought we had put adequate resources on the border to be able to inspect cargo going

southsdz but there are accusations that we are failing in that. first and foremost i want to make sure that is actually true, and know something about the interdicks that you may have had on weapons going south. the reason i question is because ak-47s are not american manufactured weapons. they are european manufactured weapons. and that's what i see the bad guys carrying. but maybe we're importing them and then shipping them down there. i don't know. i think it is important that we do interdict weapons flowing south. if we have a fault in this violence on the border we need to correct that fault. my governor in my state said he is perfectly willing to assist with the resources of texas law enforcement. would that be of assistance to you if texas law enforcement were willing to -- and the law enforcement of other states were willing to assist in the interdiagnose of weapons going

south? secondly, do you have evidence of weapons coming in from other sources besides the united states of america? >> with regard to the source of weapons flow into mexico, i think we have to acknowledge that many of the weapons do come from the united states. i think that has been established by the work of ice and atf as they have traced weapons that are seized in mexico and traced back to sales in the united states. so i think we should acknowledge that because it is a fact. i think the extent of it, though, is not certain. you hear charges from certain quarters in mexico that it is 98%. others say 90%. others say it is 80%. i think we should just acknowledge that it is an issue and we need to deal with it in terms of the new situation. at the same time there is no question in my mind that weapons are being smuggled into

mexico through their southern border as well. but again, in keeping with this new relationship between the united states and mexico we acknowledge the issue and as you suggest it is one we need to work on. with regard to outbound operations secretary napolitano institute for the first time in the history of our border not southbound checks of which there were intermittent ones but instead what is new is that there is a regular systemic check. not a 24/7 check but a systematic well orkstrate effort to intercept guns and cash going south. with regard to the participation of local law enforcement, they do parts strait now all over the border from california to texas. texas dps is a big partner of ours and border patrol agents speak highly of it as do i. with regard to local sheriffs

and local police departments in texas and elsewhere they are often involved in task forces that are participating in southbound checks and they share in the in the forfeiture. so the answer is yes those partnerships are critical and they can always be improved but they are very extensive as we speak. >> we certainly are perfectly willing to be involved in our state and our governor is speaking out publicly that he is willing to share any resources you need to protect our state because quite honestly we are very concerned about the violence across the border. i was with people from laredo yesterday. we were talking about how much we used to share a great celebration we have on our border, george washington's birthday celebration. and it used to be flowing back and forth. that flow now stops and we have

snipers protecting our meeting of governors on the international bridge. that is a zangeruss situation that shouldn't occur between friendly neighbors and it concerns texas greatly. >> it should concern all americans mr. carter. and i will say that for all the violence taking place in northern mexico, the fact is that we have not seen that spillover violence into the united states. even from juarez to el paso. and, mr. carter, it is a major, major mandate of cbp to make sure that does not happen working with d.o.j. and local law enforcement, we need to make clear to the cartels particularly in the wake of the killing of the law enforcement agents in mexico, that we will not tolerate the widespread violence come coming over from mexico into our country and we will not tolerate the killing of american law enforcement officers. >> well, my time is up. but i assure you, the state of

texas stands ready willing and able to asassist you in any way you request. >> thank you, sir. >> ms. roible alrd. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome, commissioner. as you are well aware, protecting american businesses and america as workers from illegal imports is key component of cbp's mission. unfortunately, the agency has been unable to prevent chinese shippers from evading paying dues on many of their shipments into the united states. in november, senate investigators posing as business owners easily found ten chinese companies willing and able to sneak merchandise into the united states to avoid paying duties, which have been imposed to protect more than 120 domestic companies and 12,000 u.s. workers from unfairly traded imports. also, steel industry

investigators recently discovered a consimet of tubing bound for the los angeles used market again to avoid detection of the required duties. this failure to address industrial smuggling as you know is costing american jobs robbing our treasury of much needed revenue. what is preventing cbp from doing a better job of addressing this thre posed by chinese illegal imports? and what is it that you are doing to address this and how can we be helpful? >> i would say that of many changes that the secretary has instituted and that i am proud to be implementing, one of the largest has to do with reemphasizing the importance of our trade function at customs and border protection. that, in addition to securing

the flow of goods, we need to expedite the lawful movement of goods. and in fact, we see that expediting of lawful traffic as being entirely consistent with and in fact critical to raising our security profile. it is only by expediting the movement of the vast amount of lawful traffic that we can actually concentrate our attention on the very small amount of traffic that prevents risks of harm to our security. and we include in the definition of security our economic prosperity and our economic competitiveness. so in fact we are revamping the relationship between our ports and the trade function at cbp to see to it that the trade enforcement of intellectual property rights, of various anti-dumping provisions has a new emphasis on our activities,

because we don't see that as being antithetical to our security duties. and i think you will see over the weeks and months as you see a now cuss on the evasion of and the defrauding on the basis of nafta distinctions. i think you will see increased attention both from customs and bordprore tex and from immigration and customs enforcement to intellectual property rights enforcement. these are important objectives of the secretary and ones that we see as completely consistent with our mission of keeping dangerous people and dangerous things out of the united states. >> the national immigration forum and texas coalition have found that while bls of dollars have been spent between ports of entry such as the vast expansive desert between the

southwest border, by comparison d.h.s. has spent little to improve security at the ports of entry. according to a white paper by the texas border coalition, the probability of a person being apprehended for criminal activity between ports of entry is 70% and only 30% at the ports of entry where the bul of criminal activity occurs. this is a vulnerability as has been discussed earlier that mexican drug cartels have exploited. and according to the 2010 national drug threat assessment, more than 90% of hard drugs smuggled into the u.s. in 2009 actually came through our border ports. in addition, according to the border trade alliance, which is a network of leaders and business and government, insufficient staffing at border crossings is creating bottlenecks that seriously impede the flow of commerce

vital to the economy of both countries. while i am pleased that your fiscal year 2012 request budget request includes additional funding to meet this need, it falls far short of what is needed to combat drug cartels and facilitate the flow of goods and people through our busy border ports of entry. i understand that earlier you spoke of efforts along a specific corridor in arizona on the southwest border. and i applaud your efforts in that area. however, given the reports that i referenced, can you please tell us what strategies you have to address the threats at the ports of entry and wouldn't our country be better served if our resources were directed towards these areas that appear to be the main ports of illegal

activity? >> commissioner, if you could, go ahead and answer this question and then we will go on. but go ahead. >> the issue is not a zero sum game. and you are exactly right. we need to see the border not as divided irrev caably between the parts and at the ports. we have to see it as a continuous border and we do view it that way. so in fact as you noted, we have asked the budget asked for 300 additional customs and border protection officers that are necessary to staff new ports of entry on the southwest border. we have also received 250 more customs and border protection officers in the southwest supplemental bill which is in the 2012 budget actually made a part of the base budget. but over time we do need to address that issue. there is no question. in 2006, there were -- i'm

sorry, fiscal year 2004 there were 17,689 cbp officers and there were 10,819 border patrol officers. in fiscal year 2011, there were 20,7 -- 370 border patrol amingts and 20,777 cbp officers. so while we have seen growth in cbp officers, we have seen much greater rates of growth in the border patrol. we are conscious of the issue you raise. but we see it as a continuum. and believe that we can continue to grow cbpos in a way that will address more effectively the issues you raise. >> mr. latesdzm. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, commissioner. i have heard from different people inside the department and outside the department

getting to the issue of contra band coming into this country. and whether drugs, whatever it may be. that maybe we are not using the kind of authority we already have. and i am talking about the border search authority. that there has been a change. i don't know if you would just tell us what your policy is if in fact it is being utilized to the point where it should be. >> mr. latesdzm, i can speak as a former prosecutor and assure you that there is no place in the american landscape where american law enforcement has greater powers of search without any reasonable suspicion or any probable cause but rather as a matter of protecting the american homeland at the physical ports of entry. those authorities are fully in use.

in fact are even in greater use with regard to matters of questioning. so, for example, in the wake of assassination of the agent in san lewisice, we exercise those authorities to the fullest to question and hold in secondary anybody with the remotest link to the zeta group believed to be responsible for the murder of agent zapta. so i want to assure you as a prosecutor, also as the head of cbp that we understand our authorities, we understand that they need to be used responsibly but they also need to be used fully and they are being used to the fullest extent consistent with our tactical objectives. >> and i don't understand why we keep hearing reports that it is not being used as it should

be. any other agencies that you give that tort to? >> when people across -- are cross designated from ice or d.o.j. agencies or as mr. carter suggested when local law enforcement is part of the task force on the outbound if they are cross designated they are actually empowered with the same authorities of search to the fullest extent permitted at the border which is the widest permitted under american law and juris prudence. so what i think would be helpful is when you are told border authority is not being used i would be happy to get the case and then respond to the case. because i am a very firm believer of our exercise of authority at the border responsibly but also fully. >> so how does the extra band come in? >> those authorities are not exercised on every car that

comes in across the united states border. there are -- we have 270,000 vehicles coming into the united states every day from the northern border and the southern border. and what we use risk management, the experience and skill and knowledge of our officers, which is not perfect but the alternative is not one that the congress has ever commended to us which is to open up every trunk and subject every car to an x-ray which would bring trade and travel into the united states so critical to our economy to a halt. but you are right, there is a decision that can be made. but i submit to you, sir, that we want to use our powers to the fullest but we want to use it where we have good reason to believe that they will provide us with a secure result and not

represent an undue burden on lawful trade and traffic. >> do we have any idea what percentage of the amount of, say, drugs are being caught at the border? >> i have been involved in border related activities for 20 years and i have heard a whole range of estimates. and rather than provide one, all of which are at best educated guesses, i would just as soon share my personal view, which is not an official view, off line. i can't state it with any official emper matter and would hesitate to do that and there by mislead people that there is some more certaintyty to it because of the position i occupy. >> ms. alrd was talking about trade. and a lot of the companies in the u.s. have teamed up in the

partnership against terrorism and at borders south in programs but they still seem to have significant delays. apparently there is 47 different agencies involved in some way in border inspections. is it working? >> so there are now more than 10,000 companies that are part of the customs trade partnership against terrorism. and these, as i indicated in response to the question, one of our major objectives consistent with maintaining a high level of security and increasing security levels is to restructure the relationship with the trade and provide a more expedited passage for those members of the trade community who are trusted shippers, who have engaged in the isa, who have engaged in the supply chain security matters, and i think if you consult with the trade associations you will see both

in the air cargo where we have part nerd on security measure having to do with freight, so too in terms of this idea of what benefits can we provide to the trusted shippers torks the trusted importers, to the trusted zoiveragets and we are working with the private sector to enhance those benefits and to work with our government agencies. while there are 47 agencies which we serve as the executive agent, there were really seven agencies including e.p.a., f.d.a. notably, agriculture, the highway safety transportation are the main agencies for which we work, and that is where the ace program is critical. and i look forward to discussing with the committee the work we are doing with the automated commercial environment that is critical to the issue you raise. >> thank you. >> let me yield now to mr. --

you've got a quick question. >> would you clarify for the record with regard to screening and inspecting international air cargo? it's my understanding that cbp inspects arriving cargo at ports of entry under its customs authority. but the t.s.a. inspection screens u.s.-bound cargo overseas and departing the u.s. because of its aviation security responsibility. and it is the only agency empowered to carry out such a screening overseas. could you clarify that? >> that is generally correct in terms of where the physical inspections take place although t.s.a. relies on certified screeners in many cases abroad. but we are involved very heavily in this work in partnership with t.s.a. because of the targeting work that takes place is done with the national targeting center for cargo in herneden, virginia.

for example, when a cargo is placed on a commercial airline or on an express carrier there is a manifest filing that is processed by cbp officers in herneden, virginia. we are partnering with t.s.a. so there are t.s.a. officers. >> talking about the cargo manifest, not the passenger manifest. >> we analyze the passenger manifest as well at the targeting center for passengers. but we co-locate with t.s.a. so that the targeting is being done by cbp at the ntc but the actual screening you are correct is being done by either t.s.a. personnel or t.s.a. certified screeners. >> thank you. let me turn now briefly. we have got very limited time and i want to get to a couple more just for a second round. but as you know, commissioner, it has been difficult in getting the customs fee changes

enactd with that. and of course it is out of this committee's jurisdiction. but how will cbp make up that 55 million fee revenue difference if the legislation is not enacted as we had discussed earlier? >> mr. chairman, this is part of a larger issue and challenge that faces cbp. so, for example, 37% of our cbp officers, 37% of the 21,186 officers are actually paid by user fees. so when we see a decline which we have seen during the height of the recession in 2009 we saw a decline in user fees of 8%, we need to make up the difference and we do that in the appropriations. it is not a satisfactory situation which is why we have asked for the help of the

congress in both repealing the exemptions from the cobra fee to generate the 55 million in a period of constrained budget resources. but you are correct. if that relief is not there, we need then to turn to our appropriations and we do it in a way consistent with the appropriations but in away that does not permit the predictability or as ms. allard's question suggested, with the growth projectry we have seen where there is an appropriation made in the case of the border patrol and we have seen a steady growth. >> well, as we mentioned earlier, it is about budgetting and we need a responsible request for the administration in terms of operation especially in light of the fact that we do have short of officers in the major airports and there are things we certainly need to pay attention to. at this time let me recognize mr. price.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and mr. commissioner, i want to get into oods another of the 100% mandates that you are dealing with from the nine letch act this one having to do with the overseas, with the scanning of u.s. bound cargo overseas. i will not have time to ask the full question and you won't have time to fully answer it so we will both no doubt make submission force the record but let me just flag this issue because i think it is important and i think there is a certain ambiguity in your budget with respect to the two-year intentions. i have made it abundantly clear that i share the secretary's skepticism that the 100% mandate is achieveable certainly wnl the 2012 time frame. she has just said it is not going to work. and i believe it would probably take a prohibitive amount of resources to scan all cargo overseas at any near point in time. in any event, d.h.s. has chosen

a different path. i think you have made that quite clear. you are using a risk-based methodology, using advanced information and intelligence to target the high risk, highest risk mare time cargo for scanning over ever overseas. now, in light of this, tonight scuyo to elaborate on your budget request and in the future in particular of the secure freight initiative which you know is the pilot program involving 100% scanning overseas, and the container security initiative which involves dozens of ports overseas where the targeting methodology is being implemented and perfected. the earlier budget request that you made, 2011 and 2012, seem to envision the certainly the scaling down if not the phasing

out of the secure freight initiative pilot. in all places except pakistan. yet your 2012 budget includes funding for two pilots to test 100% screening mandate and one in essence as i read it replicating the sfi model used in pakistan in a high threat corridor. i do not understand the consistency of that request with the path the department has chosen and with your earlier funding proposals. and then also, we need to know what the future of csi is. you know, is it really feasible to reduce the overseas physical presence of your officers in these ports where this is a very difficult thing to carry out? is it really feasible to reduce that to the degree that you are suggesting? and in any event, what is the

future of the csi approach and the kind of pattern you anticipate for continuing and enhancing this kind of work overseas? >> commissioner, let me just say we are at that joint session if you can just briefly answer mr. price and then submit the rest of your answer. i do want to get mr. carter get one question in before we go to the joint session. >> yes, sir. in a word, we should supplement the record and we will because these are very serious issues. and with regard to secure freight initiative, we think that the pilots demonstrated that we should restrict the application of that model, which is basically getting x-ray images, taken abroad, by foreign service nationals and transmitted to virginia for analysis. and we think that should be restricted to those relatively few countries where american

officers would not be safe. so in fact, we do not have officers in pakistan. and that is why we have maintain the sfi in that form there. the csi frankly the change there is, which we need to elaborate, are fully consistent with the difference in circumstances between 2002 and today. so in fact, in 2002 we had no advanced data, we had no automated targeting capabilities, we had no ntc. we had no do not load authority. we had a limited overseas presence. we had very few international relationships. that situation is completely changed eight years later, nine years later. and the csi program, still very critical, needs to evolve and is evolving and this budget reflects that. but, mr. chairman, if i may we would like to supplement that and mr. price if possible i would like to vn have an

opportunity to go into much greater detail on what the new csi looks like and how it is consistent with the goals you have espoused and articulated. >> thank you, commissioner. mr. carter. >> we have a short time schedule here. operation stone garden grant. those are in your budget. how are they being utilized? has there been any mention of that today. and are there any things preventing them from being utilized? >> no, sir. what we have done is channeled and funneled the stone garden grants which are border related. we funneled them toe the area of greatest impact and need which is the southwest border. these funds permit local law enforcement, sheriffs departments in texas, police departments in california to actually use their officers over time in operations that are related to border security. the secretary and i are great proponents of this program and that program will continue and

hopefully be strengthened over the years to come. >> if there are ways to strengthen let us know what they are. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioner for being here today and we look forward to working with you on these issues. the meeting is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> coming up, "washington journal" will take your questions and after that "newsmakers." and later, a homeland security committee hearing on the radicalization of american muslims with committee chairman peter king. >> this morning on "washington journal," a look at the latest budget negotiations on the bill to fund the federal government. with laura meckler of the "wall street journal" and citizen jane politics founder and editor patricia murphy. also, a