supporting rule 2009-005 or any agency memorandum, bulletin that derives its authority from this rule or 2009-2005. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. scalise: i bring the amendment because what we're trying to do is prevent the department from implementing or using taxpayer money to implement executive order number 13502 and part of that order is to mandate labor agreements on projects worth $25 million or more. what we're talking about here is a requirement that is increetsing the cost dra matly of projects, similar to the debate we had earlier. if you look at, there have been a numb of studies done, there was a 2009 beacon hill study,

if you look -- if this executive order was being implemented in 2008, all the projects done that had a value of $25 million or more would have increased the cost to the federal taxpayer by between $1.6 million and $2.6 billion dollar, billions more that would be spent to carry out a project rather than having just pure open competition. we should be allowing free and open competition on projects and not artificially increasing the cost to taxpayers to carry out projects. if you look at "the wall street journal," they specifically address the executive order that we're trying to prevent funds from being spent to carry out. "the wall street journal" criticized the executive order and called these handouts a, quote, raw display of political

favoritism at the expense of an industry experiencing 27% unemployment and they also called this a, quote, rotten deal for taxpayers. we should be trying to save every dollar we can. we should be trying to promote fair an open competition. we go further on, there was an investigation done by the washington examiner regarding a project labor agreement on a federal building here in washington, d.c., that one project, one project, because of the p.l.a. requirement, the taxpayers ended up having to put an addition $3.3 million for that one project building here in washington, d.c. just want to go on a little bit more regarding studies done regarding p.l.a.'s thaw they showed an increase of construction costs by 12% to 18%. ultimately what we're saying is if a p.l.a. wins the day, wins

the bid, that's their prerogative. you shouldn't be mandating these costs, shouldn't be shutting out open shop companies. the open shop companies represent about 87% of the u.s. construction work force. so why would we be shutting out 87% of the people out there who want to compete for these jobs, for these construction projects and why should we be adding over $1 billion to $2 billion in increased costs to the american taxpayer. we can stop it, we can save the taxpayer money and do a much better job of stewarding the money and do it in a fair and open way. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. price: i rise in -- mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: does the gentleman continue his point of order? mr. dicks: i withdraw my point

of order. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment, executive order 13502 gives federal officials the option to determine if it is right for a particular construction project. there is no mandate. if the gentleman has read the legislation, he'll recognize there's no mandate. mr. scalise: would the gentleman yield? the reason i wrused the term mandate is because the practical implementation of this, when you look -- they're requiring p.l.a. mr. dicks: i think it's clear that the gentleman knows the executive order is only to promote efficiency in federal procurement. a project labor agreement is a prehire agreement thattest tablies the materials and conditions of employment far specific construction project. there is, and the gentleman is part of this, a p.l.a. mandate myth that has been floating around since the executive order was issued that the federal government mandays project labor agreements. actual language from the

executive order says, and i quote, this order does not require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement on any construction project. let me say what it does do. it requires them to support information and whether or not a p.l.a. was used on the contract, it allows all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts. it contains guarantees against job lockouts and combines procedures for solving labor disputes that may arise in the labor dispute. it provides mechanism on matters of mutual breast an concern such a productivity, quality of work, safety and health and includes any

additional requirements that an agency deems necessary. including this language would be a mistake, since this executive order ensures construction projects are built correctly the first time, on time and on budget to the end user. this executive order prevents costly delays that usually result from a work force's lack of knowledge regarding the use of building materials of tools as well as job site safety measures. i urge all members to vote no on this amendment and again if the gentleman, if dii will yield to the gentleman if we he wants to make a comment. i mentioned him directly. mr. scalise: as i said earlier, the language, as you're correct in reading the language of the executive order, the problem we've had is that the white house political appointees are requiring this. mr. dicks: i had an example in

my hone ate -- my own state, a significant prompt, i urged a project labor agreement and they turned me down. they said this is not the kind of project we do project labor agreements on. i was impressed they made a decision, you know, i didn't like the answer, but they said, we have discretion to either do this or not do this. which is what i think we want them to do. because there are some situations where these agreements do add stability between management and labor if you have things like, i think the cleanup site at hanniford in doc hastings' district has a project lay por agreement. there's no strike so we could move forward and do this waste cleanup work that's so important. i just say to the gentleman, i hope that in the future, he'll recognize that there is no legal requirement and they're not requiring people to do it. agencies are saying no when they think it's inappropriate.

so i don't think the gentleman's amendment is necessary and i hope that it'll be defeated. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aderholt: enge -- mr. flake: both gentleman are right. this requirement, the executive order does not mandate the use of p.l.a.'s, however, some agencies have taken and interpreted it as such, that we should mandate it. let me give you an example. on october 15, 2010, just a few months ago, this is the army corps of engineers issued p.r.l.-211-1 to all army corps contracting offices implementing guidance for p.l.a.'s on army corps construction contracts, the following are major elements, requires the project delivery team, p.d.t. to consider the use of a p.l.a. on a project by

project by sis by conducting a labor market survey during acquisition planning. what this does -- mr. bishop: did i hear consider? mr. flake: yes but then it goes further. there was a complaint because some people didn't want that in there. the complaint came back an the army corps came back and said that they should receive additional consideration if they do use a p.l.a. then it should be strictly forbidden. there is a problem here. we do have a problem with the agencies interpreting this in a way that would require the use of the p.l.a. or give added weight to the use of a p.l.a. when the gentleman says this amendment is not required because it's not prescriptive, the current law without the executive order is the same thing. they can consider the use of a perform l.a. nothing prohibits that now. so the executive order, all

it's doing is giving some agencies reason to maybe mandate the use of a p.l.a. that's why we're trying to strike the executive order. the scenario that the gentleman describes, the gentleman from washington, describes, where nobody is requiring or mandating anything that exists without the executive order, so that's what we're trying to do here, remove that executive order that gives added weight to p.l.a.'s. now in arizona, for example, some 9 -- 90-something percent of workers there are not crune workers. they don't want a p.l.a. if you have a project that gives added weight to p.l.a.'s, that disenfranchises a lot of people in arizona, more than 90% of the population system of we just can't do that we shouldn't do that. so the gentleman's amendment should be accepted. we did a similar one that was accepted in the appropriations committee with regard to the milcon budget, the milcon

appropriations bill. so that will come to the floor with its amendment already in it. i would suggest to the gentleman from washington and others who oppose this, that we're simply trying to get back to a time when where p.l.a.'s can be considered but aren't construed as being necessary or mandated by the agency. mr. dicks: the executive order requires all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts and they also -- the quid pro quo here for the government is they get a guarantee against strikes, lockouts and similar job disruptions and provide binding procedures for resolving labor disputes that may arise during the term of the p.l.a. as long as they -- as long as there's no mandatory requirement, sometimes a project labor agreement is a positive thing. mr. flake: it might be. without the executive order, they can consider that nothing

prohibits that. but the problem is, the executive order has led to a situation where some agencies interpret that as requiring a p.l.a. that's what we're trying to get away from. the amendment is a good one. i would urge its adoption. i thank the gentleman for bringing it forward. this will be consistent with another appropriation bill that's coming to the floor with this already in, already having been accepted by the appropriations committee. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. no one requests time on this amendment? the question then is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: eask for a recorded vote on that amendment. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. who seeks recognition?

for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. engel of new york. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of homeland security to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles for any executive fleet or for any agency's fleet inventory except in accordance with presidential memorandum under federal fleet performance dated maye 31, 2011. the chair: the gentleman -- >> mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentleman reserve -- is recognized for five minutes. mr. engel: last week, president obama issued a presidential memorandum on federal fleet performance which would require all new light duty vehicles in

the federal fleet to be alternate fuel vehicles such as hybrid, electric, natural gas or biofuel by december 31, 2015. my amendment echos the presidential memorandum on federal fleet performance by prohibiting funds in the d.h.s. appropriations bill from being used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles except in accordance with the president's may 24 memorandum. our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $600 billion per year to hostile nations such as venezuela and others to pay for oil at ever increasing costs. but america does not need to be dependent on foreign sources of oil for transportation fuel. alternative technologies exist today that when implemented broadly will allow any alternative fuel to be used in america's automotive fleet. the federal government operates the largest fleet of light duty vehicles in america.

according to the g.s.a., there are 662,154 vehicles in the federal fleet with 54,972 belonging to the department of homeland security. by supporting a diverse array of vehicle technologies in our federal fleet, we'll encourage development of domestic energy resources including biomass, natural gas, coal, agricultural waste, hydrogen and renewable electricity. expanding the role these resources play in our transportation economy will help break the leverage over americans held by foreign government controlled oil companies, increasing our domestic security and protecting consumers from price spikes and shortages in the world oil markets. i have been pushing to use and have in america alternative fuels, tomorrow i'm holding a press conference with mr. shimkus an mr. bartlett, the three of us are supporting a bill, and this goes in line with that. so i urge my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle to support and accept my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. aderholt: i withdraw my point of order and accept the amendment. the chair: the gentleman withdraws his point of order. an accepts the amendment. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: yes, we accept the amendment. the chair: is there further discussion? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: we too would like to accept the amendment and commend the gentleman from new york for offering the amendment. he's bringing federal practice into line with the presidential memorandum of a few days ago and this will promote the use of alternative fuel vehicles, rye hie brids, electrics, natural gas, biofuels, by 2015.

it'll be a positive step to reduce our dependence on foreign oil to develop alternative energy sources and to make of the federal government and its fleet an example that the rest of the country can look to. we urge adoption an yield back the plans of my time. the chair: seeing no other speakers on this issue, the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. it would be the secure fence amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. mr. king: 212 is the numerical.

the chair: we got it. clerk will report it. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section of the funds made available under the heading border security fencing, infrastructure and technology, $50 million should be for carrying out section 202 of the illegal immigrant responsibility act of 1996, 8 united states code 1103 note. >> mr. chairman? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from? >> mr. aderholt: i rise on a point of order. the chair: the gentleman reserves the point of order. mr. price: mr. chairman? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: we have not seen this amendment. the chair: a copy will be distributed. while that's happening the gentleman from iowa will be recognized for almost five minutes.

for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i reserve a point of order. the chair: your point of order is reserved as well. the gentleman from iowa has five minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment i offer is an amendment that directs of the funds made available in the bill, there's $150 million category, roughly 1/3 of it or specifically $50 million shall be used to carry out section 102 of the illegal immigration responsibility act which is the gomping statute that directs that a fence be built on our southern border. we've watched as the congress has directed that there be secure fence act be passed, that the fence be built and we've watched the administrations of the last two administrations be less than enthusiastic about their construction. we heard president obama standing within p about let's say 220 yards of the rio grande river in el paso a month or more ago saying he believed the fence was basically complete, to quote the president. well, basically complete by his

definition would mean this, that we have 14.3 miles only of 700 miles directed by this congress, 14.3 miles only of tertiary fencing which is three fences which so far i know is the most effective way and only 3.3 miles of double fencing and if you want to stretch it out and give them a lot of credit for building something, they have about 350 miles of primary fencing, that's less than half of the minimum amount of security fence which takes, i believe, double fencing, vehicle fences, 299 miles. they haven't done what was directed by congress. this amendment goes out and sets aside $50 million which is only going to build about 25 more miles of good fencing but sends the right message and keeps them from going off and spending the money, all of it, on the other categories made available within this bill. the bill is fine with the money that's there. but the definition is too broad and it allows the administration to slide away.

my amendment, mr. chairman, directs that the $50 million be spent on the fence. and i think it's ironic the president himself as standing down in el paso five or so weeks ago when he gave the speech that said the fence is basically complete and said some people are going to want a motor, some want a motor with -- moat with alligators in it. the irony is 220 yards away is the rio grande river and the canal and if you counted fences at el paso where they've given us the effectiveness of the secure fence that is built there, there's a fence, a rio grande river, another fence, a patrol road full of border patrol, another fence, a fast-moving canal with concrete bottoms and sides and another fence. if you're going to get into the united states in el paso, you have to get over four fences and swim two moats to get there and the president was making fun of it 220 yards away.

i think the staff should have flown air force i over that. we know fences work and must be maintained and yes we need the technology on them. this directs the resources be used at least for the $50 million of the money made available to build actual fence and it references section 102 which the governing section. and by the way, before we argue this parliamentary, which i do have another language i would be happy to offer if were unsuccessful in the parliamentary argument that's bound to ensue. i urge adoption of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: yes, mr. chairman, i insist on making a point of order. the chair: will the gentleman state the point of order? mr. aderholt: i would like a point of order because it provides an authorized program and violates clause 2 of rule 21. clause 2 states an appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously

authorized by law. mr. chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that is not authorized. the amendment therefore violates clause 2, rule 21, and ski for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does anyone wish to be heard ton the point of order? >> mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i would point out i reference specifically the authorized bylaw program and that's section 102 of the illegal immigration and immigrant responsibility act of 1996 and according to the alleged council, section 102 governs everything related to the border fence. so i took care to draft this amendment to directly address the objection that was raised by the gentleman from alabama whom i greatly respect, this reinforced fencing act is, again, it goes directly to section 102 and is an authorized section and governing, governing in the code, and that's of the alleged council. so i would conclude my argument that this is drafted

specifically to address the objection i just heard, and i'm hopeful i will receive a positive result from the chair. thank you. and i yield back. the chair: does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of order? the chair: it proposes to earmarks in the bill and such an earmark must be specifically authorized by law, the burden of establishing the authorization in the law rests with the proponent of the amendment, finding that this burden has not been carried, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. who seeks recognition? mr. king: day. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk, number 203.

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to carry out the provisions of public law 111-14 8, public law 111-152 or any amendment made by either of such laws. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: thank you, mr. chair. this amendment is an amendment clarifies none of the funds made available in this bill shall be used to carry out the provisions of what's commonly referred to as obamacare, that's the two sections of public law that's referenced in the amendment we heard the clerk just read. the argument will be made that this is unnecessary because the bill doesn't specifically go to appropriations to the health care act that carries the president's name. i would argue we don't know.

2,600 plus pages and no one understands it and we're finding new regulations on a regular basis. a couple of things that might be under the appropriations that we're discussing here, it's possible that d.h.s. could be participating in exchanges for immigrant health care, or perhaps they could be auditing companies and helping to enforce the compliance with obamacare. that's a couple things that come to mind for me. i think this is very important. this congress has a number of times voted to repeal and to unfund obamacare and for us to inadvertently allow the appropriations that could be utilized to carry out the provisions of it i think would be an omission, unforgivable omission on the part of the congress. i urge the adoption of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state your point of order. mr. dicks: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the

amendment because it violates clause 5-a-2 of rule 21. the amendment prohibits the use of funds for implementing the patient protection and affordable care act and thus is proposing a limitation on funds in a general appropriation bill for the administration of attacks or tariff -- a tax or tariff in violation of the rule. the chair: any member wish to be heard on this point of order? mr. wing: chairman. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: the rule referenced by the gentleman, we have many limitations on funds in our appropriations bills, and if the decision comes down to whether there is a parliamentary objection or not, i think i can go back through many of these appropriations bills and find limitation after limitation. the practice of the congress has been to do so and there will be other amendment which is have not been objected to that limit the utilization of this fund and many others. i simply make that argument to

the chair and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of order? if not, the chair is ready to rule. the gentleman from washington makes a point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. on the ground that it carries a tax measure on a bill reported by a committee. in this case the committee on appropriations. not having jurts addiction to report tax -- not having jurisdiction to report tax of rule 21. the phrase tax or tariff measure expressly includes a amendment proposing a limitation on funds in a general appropriations bill for the administration of a tax or tariff. the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa is in the form of a limitation on the funds in the pending general appropriations bill. that is, it proposes a negative restriction on those funds for a specified purpose. the purpose specified in the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa is the execution of the law comprising the affordable care act. the chair takes notice that the

affordable care act involves sundry provisions of federal tax law. the amendment, therefore, proposes to limit funds for the administration of a tax and as such constitutes a violation of clause 5-a of rule 21. the point of order is sustained, the amendment is not in order. mr. king: mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk and would designated as the last king amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the last king amendment. do you have a number on the last king amendment? mr. king: 205. the chair: the clerk will report amendment 205. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act shall be made available to the association of community organizations for reform now,

acorn beneficial sopings, inc., arkansas broadcast formation, arkansas community housing corporation. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. mr. price: mr. chairman? the chair: unanimous consent been requested it be read. is there an objection? mr. price: i object. we don't have a copy of the amendment. mr. dicks: point of order. the chair: point of order. mr. dicks: we cannot function if the majority is not going to give the minority a copy of these amendments. and i think the process here should stop until we have a copy of the amendment. the chair: the clerk is reading the amendment after which it will be distributed. mr. dicks: we don't have a copy of it. the chair: after which it is distributed. clerk will continue. the clerk: acorn beneficial association, arkansas housing corporation, acorn community land association, inc."

acorn land association of illinois, acorn land aassociation of louisiana, acorn community land association of pennsylvania, acorn community labor organizing center, acorn beverly, llc, acorn, canada, acorn center for housing, acorn housing order fastball loans acorn housing associates l. pmpt, acorn housing 3 associates l.p., acorn housing 4 associates l.p., acorn international, acorn votes, acorn 2004 housing development fund corporation, acrmw, acsi, day earn -- acorn industrial trust incorporated, american environmental justice project, inc." acorn fund, i inc.acorn foster

parents, inc.agap broadcast, inc, arkansas acorn housing corporation, acorn housing corporation of arizona, acorn housing corporation of illinois, acorn housing of new jersey, acorn housing corporation inc., a.h.c. -- ahcmy, texas acorn housing corporation inc., american institute for social justice. the chair: the clerk will suspend. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. mr. dicks: i object. the chair: the clerk will continue. the clerk: acorn law for education and training, acorn law reform pack, affiliated media foundation movement, albuquerque minimum wage community, acorn network,

arkansas acorn political action committee, association for the rights of citizen, acorn services inc., acorn television and action for communities, acorn tenants' union inc., acorns tenants' union project, baltimore organizing support center inc., baton rouge association of school employees. broad street corporation, california acorn political action committee, citizens action research project, council beneficial association, citizens' campaign for fair work, living wage, etc., citizens con suletting -- consulting inc., california acorn network, clean goth p.a.c., chicago organizing and support center inc., council health plan, citizens service to society, campaign for justice at avondale, community

and labor for baltimore, chief organizer fund, colorado organizing support center, community real estate processing inc., campaign to reward work, citizens services incorporated, elision fields corporation, frankly acorn housing corporation, flagstaff broadcast foundation, floridians for all p.a.c., green bro springs corporations, genevieve stewart campaign fund, houston organizing support system, hospitality hotel and restaurant council, iowa acorn broadcasting corp., illinois home, illinois political committee, institute for worker education inc., jefferson association for

parish employees, jefferson association of school employees, johnny pugh kemp campaign fund, new york communities for change, affordable housing centers of america, action now, pennsylvania communities organizing for change. arkansas community organizations. the alliance for -- of californians for community empowerment, new england united for justice, texas organizing project, minnesota, neighborhoods organizing for change, organizations united for reform, missourians yined for reform and empowerment, community organizations international, applied research center or the working families party. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five mins. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. this is the amendment that prohibits any of the funds made

available in this act to go to these associations that are in the list of this amendment. we would like to have been able to simply define acorn and their affiliates but because the definition of affiliates created some problems, we had to go with the actual list of the affiliates that has been compiled in large part by the government oversight committee and in another part by the contributions of the astute media that's done some research on this. this is similar to the language, or excuse me, similar to the effect of the language passed in previous congresses under the democrat majority. we've seen what acorn has done and attempted to do to undermine a legitimate election process in the united states. the things that we saw with the radio and the film going on inside the offices of acorn, i believe, and there's under oath testimony before the congress, of at least one acorn, former acorn employee, who testified

that she believed what we saw in the film that was on ewetube and posted in other media outlets reflecked the culture of the acorn offices and around the country. we saw that in five or six offices around the country. they say it would be the wrong thing to do. this amendment shuts off the funding to the organizations that have a record of doing so. acorn and their affiliates, it's a list of over 300, over 300 sprouts from one large oak tree grew. these rethis associates, the successors and affiliates of the larger and now disbanded organization known as acorn. i urge adoption of my amendment and yield back the plans of my time. the chair: for what purpose

does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: i rise in opposition to this amendment and move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: this is an extraordinary amendment. a listing of over three pages of organizations by name, singled out on the floor of the house of representatives for this kind of negative treatment, kind of legislation that would simply render them ineligible for any kind of activity under this legislation, urn this appropriations bill. now, i seriously doubt that there's money in the homeland security bill that would go to any of these organizations but still the principle is very troubling.

i want to ask the the gentleman, the author of the amendment, about a few of these organizations and ask him to document whatever information he has about this specific organization that would justify their being included on this kind of list. being singled out in this way. what does the gentleman, what kind of information does the gentleman have on the arkansas community housing corporation? mr. king: if the gentleman will yield in mr. price: i will be gland to yield. mr. king: i'll tell you, as i said this list has been in large part compiled by the government oversight committee? mr. price: does the gentleman have evidence of what kind of things he's alleging. mr. king: i'm confident i can produce it. i reference the government oversight committee for my

source. mr. price: can you get that information before we vote on it. mr. king: -- mr. price: what about this one, the oversight committee. you're asking your colleagues before the nation, you have information you're claiming about these organizations that would warrant this kind of treatment this kind of plaque balling of these organizations with respect to -- of black balling of these organizations with respect to their ability to compete for governmental funds. don't you think you should have brought with you to the floor documentation of the problems with these organizations that would warrant this kind of treatment? let me ask you about -- mr. king: if the gentleman would yield. mr. price: what about the agape foundation? mr. king: if the gentleman will yield, i won't speak directly

to that foundation -- mr. price: but you are singling out that foundation. mr. king: i would say that i don't recall this objection when a large majority of this house urn the democrat majority voted to cut off funds to acorn and their affiliates so that principle applies yet today in my view. mr. price: how about the affiliated media foundation movement? does the gentleman have documentation of why that organization should be included here tonight? mr. king: if the gentleman would yield, i submit that we could reiterate the same question over 300 times in this amendment, i'll tell you the source of this information is primarily the government oversight committee. the minutes of that committee and their railroad is there, it's available, there will be resources that go below and to the depth of the committee report. some of this also comes from media reports. mr. price: reclaiming my time, this would appear to be some kind of guilt by association but i'm not sure it rises to

that level. do we know about the sorks of these organizations that would warrant there being tarred by this treatment here tonight? wouldn't the gentleman have the respect for his colleagues to bring to the floor, to bring to the floor the documentation that leads him to smear these organizations and include them on this extraordinary amendment? you're expecting us to vote on this. what about the failuated media foundation movement? does the gentleman have information about that organization? mr. king: as i said to the gentleman, we can go through this 300 times and you could ask the same question 300 times and it's uh substantially the same answer, the primary component of this list came from the government oversight committee. we can go get the records from the committee and produce those but i don't think the congress is interested in holding up this process while i go and contact the chairman and the staff to pull that information. mr. price: the gentleman has

been planning to offer this amendment, why didn't you have the basic respect for this body to gather this documentuation, knowing that these questions would be raised by anyone who wants conscientiously to vote on this amendment. mr. king: doesn't the converse also apply that there's an implication of disrespect for the government oversight committee and their findings? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the amendment and strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i just think that this is -- i hope that the chairman will object to this amendment and ask the gentleman to withdraw it. i think this is an extraordinary attack on all of these groups, but we have no evidence, we have no information whatsoever to base a decision on here. you can say that the -- the

government oversight didn't write you a letter and ask you to offer this amendment. did they? you have no official relationship with the government oversight committee, do you? mr. king: i'm not on the committee if that's the gentleman's question. mr. dicks spock so who put this list together? mr. king spb the oversight committee. the chair: i would ask toverp speak to the chair. mr. king: if the gentleman will yield. mr. dicks: i yield. mr. king: the government oversight committee put the majority of this list together. i want to emphasize, some also come from media reports and so i don't challenge the legitimacy of the government oversight conclusion and i don't have reason to believe that the analysis of this -- mr. dicks: reclaiming my time, did you check the media reports to see if they were accurate? we've all heard of media reports that are inaccurate. you're casting aspersions on

groups here from all over the country and none of us here have any indication of the basis and you're saying some of these came from media attacks. did you check that these media attacks were accurate in mr. king: let me take your argument down to the conclusion which will be, if i don't respond to your question, you'll ask me another and another and it will get down to, have they been convicted in this a court of law, is it under appeal, has it gone to the supreme court, we can never reach a conclusion on this the gentleman knows that. we have to make a judgment call. mr. dicks: i reclaim my time. i remember a senator from wisconsin in the 1950's who did just about the same kind of thing and was rebuked by the other body. for casting aspersions on innocent people. mr. i think king: would the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: i am telling you, you are asking this house to vote on something, you haven't

verified it, you don't know what the groups are about. it's a disgrace to offer this amendment. mr. king: would the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: i yield. mr. king: i ask if the gentleman can name any individual who was unjustly charged by the senator from mr. dicks: i'm not going to get into that tonight. i'll be happy to send you a list when you verify the media reports and talk about these organizations in a meaningful way instead of just putting a list here together and expecting us to vote on this thing. it's ridiculous. mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time and remind everyone to talk to me, go through the chair. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: mr. chairman, i -- the chair: does the gentleman wish to strike the last words? mr. price: i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: i don't want to prolong this but i do want to

plead with my colleagues. this is something that this body simply, simply should not be a party to. bringing in three pages-plus of organizations that many of us, most of us have never heard of, have no knowledge of, they may be on somebody's list somewhere. we have no knowledge of the basis for inclusion on that list. there may have been media reports about them. whatever there is that would back up this kind of a list, at a minimum it should be provided to us tonight, anyone offering an amendment of this sort ought to provide the basic documentation for the kind of stigmatizing, the kind of exclusion that is being proposed here of these organizations from any ability to compete for funding in this bill. i hope it's obvious. i hope it's obvious to

everybody here, no matter what their political persuasion that this is simply unacceptable and must be rejected. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. anyone else seek recognition on this amendment? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr.ing king: mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings offered on the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. insert the following none of

the funds made available by that act may be used in contravention of 236-c of the immigration and nationality act, 8 united states code 1226-c. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. >> this amendment stipulates none of the funds of this bill may be used in violation of 236-c of the immigration and nationality act. mr. cravaack: it would prohibit i.c.e. from using taxpayer dollars to process the release or to administer alternative forms of detention to illegal immigrants which mandate their incarceration of the immigration and nationality act. 236-c allows the u.s. government to detain illegal aliens who committed anyone of serious crimes detailed in section 236-c until that

illegal alien is deported to their home country. for example, 236-c would require i.c.e. to detain an alien who committed arson until he is deported. i think this is a very commonsense provision. in fact, in my opinion criminal illegal aliens shouldn't be in the united states in the first place but that is a debate for another day. make no mistake, i want to state that i think the vast majority of i.c.e. employees are great americans and i personally appreciate the work they do to ensure our nation remains a nation founded under the rule of law. nevertheless, i.c.e. does not always operate in accordance with section 236-c, for example, i.c.e. has allowed criminal illegal aliens waiting for deportation hearing to leave federal detention facilities and re-enter the general public if the criminal or illegal alien is fitted with a g.p.s. tracking device or regularly checks in with their i.c.e. supervisor. this is very troubling to me, mr. chairman.

in august 2010, i.c.e.'s policy of releasing dangerous criminal aliens proved deadly. according to the freedom of information act which i have, illegal aliens carlos mantano was sentenced to over a year in jail for a second d.w.i. and released from i.c.e. custody wearing only a g.p.s. tracking device. this is in direct violation to section 236-c. tragically, on august 1, montano got drunk, got behind a wheel and collided head on with a vehicle carrying three nuns. this head-on collision killed 66-year-old sister jeanette moser of virginia. to protect innocent citizens from criminal illegal aliens, i firmly believe we need to enforce immigration laws, especially section 236-c that mandates the detention of dangerous criminalily legal aliens and urge my colleagues to support this amendment to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used in violation of section 236-c.

thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: we accept the gentleman's amendment. the chair: is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this amendment? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. >> mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. >> request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: will the gentleman pess phi which amendment? will the gentleman from michigan specify which amendment. >> i don't have the number.

149. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. amosh of michigan. at end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available under this action should be used to purchase new imaging technology machines. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. amash: thank you, mr. chair. i offer this amendment on behalf the distinguished gentleman from utah. my constituents and i share the concerns of the distinguished gentleman from utah and his constituents, mr. chaffetz, and using the full body scanners at airports. we're concerned not only about the efficacy and safety of such machines, but also about the serious violations of privacy and our rights as protected by the fourth amendment of the

constitution, resulting from the government's use of such machines. it is in that spirit i offer this amendment and ask my colleagues for your support and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the amendment is unness. the bill includes no funding for new advanced imagery technology systems. this is because we -- it's because we could not afford 275 new a.i.t. as requested. we had to fill a $590 million hole left by the budget request gimmick and authorize advanced aviation fees. it is not because we oppose technology. in fact, a.i.t. systems offer an alternative to paddowns at

airport checkpoints where nonmetallic threats are a great concern. in addition, the deployment of new advanced target recognize capabilities will make the a.i.t. systems less objectionable as they display avatar figures, not actual images of screened individuals. because of this amendment is unnecessary and needlessly limits necessity for security screening, i would urge the members to reject this amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: and i wish to join the chairman of our subcommittee in opposing this amendment. not because there's any funds in this bill for these advanced imaging machines, this particular technology. there isn't no funding in this bill for this purpose. but on principle, this amendment is objectionable. it could be very damaging.

i won't dwell on the privacy safeguards. i think they've been debated in this body before and we're well aware privacy safeguards surrounding the use of this equipment are extensive. the face is blurred, there's no storage of the images. the operator of the machine is off the premises. and as the chairman just said, the technology is constantly being improved to protect privacy further. the point also needs to be made that an amendment like this, if it were implemented, not just with respect to the current year funding but with ongoing acquisition of these machines this amendment would damage our ability, reduce our ability to find nonmetallic explosives and weapons or bombs carried on a person's body. that's the fact of the matter. these advanced imaging machines

are better able to detect a wide variety of threats. that metal detectors simply cannot pick up. so adopting this amendment would put our citizens at risk. it's a step backwards in our security provisions, and it should be rejected. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. anyone else seek time on this amendment? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. gentleman from michigan. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. the gentleman from michigan. >> mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk will report the amendment. is this amendment 148?

>> yes, it is. the chair: the clerk will report it. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. amash of michigan. before the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available under this act may be used to operate or maintain existing advanced imaging technology machines as mandatory or primary screening devices. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. amash: i again offer this amendment on behalf of the distinguished gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. as i mentioned previously, millions of americans have serious concerns regarding the use of advanced imaging technology machines, also known as full body scanners at airports. in light of our serious concerns about efficacy, safety, and privacy, and the violations of our liberty, we ask that these machines not be funded for use as mandatory or primary screening devices. i ask my colleagues for your support, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i rise in opposition to this amendment as we stated earlier, the amendment is unnecessary. the bill includes no funding for new advanced imagery technology systems. this is because we cannot afford 275 new a.i.t. requested. we had to fill a $590 million hole left by the budget request gimmick which was the unauthorized aviation fees. it's not because we oppose technology. in fact, a.i.t. systems offer an alternative to patdowns at airports, checkpoints where nonmetallic threats are a great concern. in addition, the deployment of new advanced target recognition and capability will make the a.i.t. systems less objectionable, as they display avatar figures with, not actual images of screened individuals. because this amendment is unnecessary and needlessly

limits a discretion for security screening, i would urge my fellow members to reject this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. king: once again, i want to join the chairman in urging rejection of this amendment. the reasoning i applied to the previous amendment applies with equal force to this amendment. . we're talking here about the need in our airports to employ the best and latest possible technology to save lives and we're not -- we're not doing this without knowledge of emerging threats and the ability of different technologies to pick up more sophisticated threats, more difficult threats to detect.

that's what these machines are all about. it's most unwise, i think, most irresponsible, on the floor of this house to make judgments about this that actually could compromise our security in very, very serious ways. i urge rejection of this amendment. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on this amendment? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman will be postponed. the gentleman from michigan. >> i have one final amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report.

the chair: the gentleman from michigan, we have two versions of the particular amendment at the desk. if you'll come up here and make sure we have the right one. clip amendment offered by mr. amash of michigan, at the end of the title, insert the following, none of the funds made available by this may be used by a political appointee as defiped by title 49, united states code to delay, vacate, or reverse by an employee in

the privacy office of the department of homeland security to make records available pursuant to section 552 of title 5 united states code popularly known as the freedom of information act. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. amash: my amendment prohibits political meddling in the department's compliance with the free tom of information about, commonly known as fombings ia. foya gives citizens -- f -- foia gives citizens the right to know what their government is doing. in our democracy, the freedom of information act, which encouraging accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open government. countless instances of waste, fraud, and abuse have been exposed using foia. in september of 2009, political appointees in d.h.s.

implemented an unprecedented policy to review foia requests and documents to be released. the review process is ex-troirtnary. chairman issa and sthart grass lee wrote to 29 offices of inspector general to determine whether and to what extent they have a role in responding to foia requests. the level of involvement of d.h.s.'s political staff is uniquely high. while it is the case that political staff at a small number of agencies have prior notice of news worthy releases, at no other agency do front office staff have an opportunity to withhold or delay such releases to avoid embarrassment for or for political reasons. foia is vital to our democracy, it's the most powerful tool we have to determine what our government is doing and the law has a long track record of exposing corruption and inefficiency to improve government for all americans.

my amendment protects foia from po litcyization at d.h.s. it prohibits them from improper lir blocking the release of foia documents. it allows them to be aware of foia requests and documents proposed to be released but prevents them interfering with the public's legal right to know. i ask for your support an yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i thank the gentleman from -- i think the gentleman from michigan makes some good points and therefore, we are prepared to accept this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: i rise to oppose this amendment.

i want to deal just for a moment though with some of the accusations that have surrounded this proposal and others like it. the accusation that homeland security politicized the process by allowing political appointees to rerue documents before they were released to the public. the committee's lengthy investigation and a correspond regular view by the inspector general found no evidence that the documents were edited prior to he release for political reasons. according to the i.g., and i'm quoting, during our review we learned from the office of the secretary that the secretary was involved in examining several hundred fombings ia requests prior to exposure. this is so they would be awear of certain requests that it deemed significant.

after reviewing information and interviewing expert, we determined the significant request review process did not prohibit the eventual release. they found the process to be inefficient and cumbersome but i understand it's since been modified to address these concerns. now, on the amendment, i think it's a bad idea and perhaps counterproductive, could lead to the exact opposite of the gentleman's intended result. let me explain what i mean. in some cases, political review and decision making will allow the department to be more proactive in disclosing information to the public. under this amendment, the head of the agency or another political appointee could not override an arbitrary decision by a bureaucrat to withhold documents that should be released.

that bureaucrat could be protecting himself and his colleagues. those documents should be released. there is -- there could be a perverse result, i think, if this amendment were adopted. and at least under the reading of our oversight committee colleagues, the amendment might prevent the agency from carrying out the ability to carry cut the foia requests, because the agency head is in charge of ensuring that the process is completed. if they're taken out of the mix, it call into question who is accountable and whether the foia process would operate as intened. so we better be careful in treading on this ground. we could have exactly the opposite results from what is intended and for that reason, i oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does anyone else wish to be heard on this amendment? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from north carolina asks for a roll call vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings an the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman has an amendment at the desk. the clerk will report the amendment. >> it regards a 10% funding issue. the file number is jordan 25. no number on it. the file number is jordan-25. the chair: i think we have it. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. rokita of indiana, insert the following, section, each amount made available by

this act other than amounts required to be made available by a provision of law, amounts made available for u.s. customs and border protection and amounts made available for u.s. customs enforcement is hereby reduced by 10%. the chair: the gentleman is is recognized by -- for five minutes. mr. rokita: i want to thank the gentleman from alabama, it's just 10 after 12:00 by the clock of the house. this is a long process, we have more to do tomorrow, i appreciate all parties allowing the house to work its will. i rise to offer an amendment tonight on behalf of the republican study committee and myself to reduce the overall funding levels by 10% with the exception of funds for securing the security of our nation's borders. this would save, mr. chairman, $2.5 billion. our country son the brink of a fiscal crisis as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has stated repeatedly, our debt is the greatest threat to our

national security. not citizens going through airports. not what appears to be three wars now we've involved ourselves in. our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. we need to ensure that our tax dollars are spent wisely and efficiency. especially when it comes to protecting our nation. unfortunately the department of homeland security is not an exception when it comes to examples of government waste. the department of homeland security must oh faux cus its resources more effectively in their short history, they have become inherently wasteful, creating programs that do not make our nation any more secure. and they're not unlike any bureaucracy that's come before us. -- that's come before it. a recent audit found 32 contracts worth $34.3 billion that have been plagued by waste, abuse or mismanagement from 2001 but 2006. if we pass this amendment and

force an across the board cut, d.h.s. will be forced to analyze its programs more effectively and become a more efficient agency as a result. mr. chairman, i don't speak tonight out of mere opinion. i speak tonight out of experience. you see, i used to run a bureaucracy. i used to run a bureaucracy that ran on 1987 dollars, unadjusted for inflation. and we had good results. my former security division alone because of great people, we got 300 years of jail time awarded in over -- and over $52 million in restitution. the government can do more with less on all levels and that includes the department of homeland security. d.h.s. funding needs to be reconfigured focusing on protecting targets that are legitimate threats rather than dispersing funds -- disbursing funds on a per capita basis. second it must redefine its mission and focus on what its

original purpose was, protecting the homeland from terrorist attacks. as we approach the 10th anniversary they now focus on mass casualty events like natural disasters. firefighters and cops funding, once funded locally, is funded by grants from the federal government. while no member of this body will contend they're not vital oour communities, these programs are not federal responsibility under our constitution and for a very good reason. we need to start making tough decisions, mr. chairman, this amendment builds upon the work of the appropriations committee in reducing spending, but i believe it can go further. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yield back the balance of his time. he cannot reserve. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i move to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i appreciate the intent of the gentleman's amendment, i think it's well intended, i think he makes valid points, however i have to reluctantly oppose the amendment. the bill we have before us tonight strikes the right balance between funding priority programs that are essential to our nation's security an keeping discretionary spending in check. the bill cuts nearly $3 billion, or 7%, from the request. that does not take into account the internal cuts taken to address the $650 million shortfall for aviation security and customs due to the phony fee offset used by the administration. it also does not reflect the significant increase provided to ensure robust funding for disaster relief. the committee has cut underperforming and ill managed programs. we made difficult choices on priorities for the bill. significant cuts in this bill

include $215 million from headquarters consolidation. then an additional $69 million from department of management and operations, an additional $81 million from the transportation and security support, an additional $629 million from science and technology research development. and more $2 billion from fema's first responder grants. deeper cuts will serve no other purpose than endangering critical security operations from our frontline agencies, such as the coast guard, the secret service, free fema, t.s.a., that conduct daily operations to make our land secure. this past year we've seen intense fight terror activity with new threats to aviation and several homegrown plots. as i've mentioned before we've endurred a near constant occurrence of natural disasters

across this nation which require robust response in recovering investments. the department of public works cannot be overemphasized and is especially true as we approach the 10th anniversary of september 11. because of these reasons, i would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, our chairman has expressed very well the reasons for opposing this amendment and simply would weaken our security dangerously and we're talking here not just about first responders and firefighters but also talking about front line d.h.s. personnel and a number of our agencies. i join him in urging rejection of this amendment and yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> i thank the chairman and let me also thank the committee, particularly the subcommittee chair for their hard work on this legislation and the number of bills that will come from the appropriations committee. we do appreciate that. look, the gentleman from indiana is right, let's just remember some of the numberings. $14 trillion national debt, $1.6 trillion deficit this year. that's following two previous years of running record annual deficits, $220 million deficit for the month of february we had earlier this year, a record monthly deficit, and over $200 billion we pay in interest each year just to service that record debt built up by these report deficits. mr. jordan: and most importantly, just remember six weeks ago, standard & poor's said the future credit rating, the outlook for america's credit is now negative for the first time in 70 years. so something's got to give here, guys.

we can't keep doing the same old, same old and expect a different result. we're spending way more than we're taking in. every family, every small business owner, everyone in america knows you can't do that. the federal government is doing the equivalent of a family making $50,000 spending $85,000 a year, making $50,000 a year, spending $85,000. we're not just doing it one time because we're investing in something that will have a return. we're not just doing it one time for starting a business or putting a kid through school, we're doing it year after year after year and somehow we think that's all going to work out. it's not going to work out. and the american people understand it and they expect tough decisions. they expect the kind of thing that mr. rokita is bringing forward in his amendment today and that's why i rise to support this amendment. what this would do is actually consistent with the republican study budget brought in front of this body earlier this year. we think it makes sense. if you remember, that budget that we brought forward

actually gets to balance within the budget window. the only budget brought forward that actually balances within the 10-year time frame, something the american people expect of their members of congress, something the american people expect congress to do. so i applaud the gentleman from indiana for his amendment and would urge a yes vote and with that use yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. any other member seek recognition on this amendment? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from indiana. mr. jordan: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings offered by the gentleman from indiana will be postponed. the gentleman from indiana. mr. rokita: i have another amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

do you have a name or a number? mr. roe keita -- the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rokita of indiana, at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used for official receptions or representations. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. rokita: thank you, mr. chairman. i prize tonight to offer an amendment that would safeguard america's air travel by restricting funding in this bill for any collective bargaining by the transportation security administration. recently president obama's administration announced a decision to allow the t.s.a. unions to -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. i think we reported the wrong amendment. i ask the clerk to rereport the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rokita of indiana, at the

end of the bill before the short title insert the following section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement the determination of the administrator of the transportation security administration regarding transportation security officers and collective bargaining as described in the decision memorandum dated february 4, 2011. the chair: is this the amendment the gentleman intended? mr. rokita: that is correct. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rokita: thank you. i rise to offer an amendment that would safeguard america's air travel. recently president obama's administration announced a decision to allow the transportation security administration, t.s.a., the unions, to enter into collective bargaining agreements. this would restrict our ability to meet ever-changing dangers and will add the federal spending which at our time of federal deficits would be irresponsible. since the creation of t.s.a. 10 years ago, its unions have been prohibited from collective bargaining and for good reason. this ban comes from former

t.s.a. administrator loy determining collective bargaining agreements would hamper the critical nature of t.s.a. agents national security responsibilities. t.s.a. agents are no different than f.b.i., c.i.a., and secret service agents. we do not negotiate collective bargaining agreements with security personnel and t.s.a. clearly falls within that category. we witnessed the necessary flexibility of the t.s.a. in 2006, after a british airliner bombing plot was discovered, t.s.a. was able to overhaul its policies within 12 hours. if unionization occurs, t.s.a. will be less flexible and less efficient in doing their business to protect america. contracts and demands of collective bargaining are complex and cumbersome and is less flexible than is needed in national security situations. the union demands will unquestionably make our transportation security more costly and less efficient. and certainly, let's not ignore

the fact that the recourse that citizens have when they are mistreated, illegally groped or otherwise not served will be reduced, if not made nonexistent with a union. i will work to ensure that collective bargaining does not impact the safety of any american travelers or needlessly subject our rights or personal space to a union or its leaders -- mr. chairman? mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. it's premature. there's not yet been a completed election for union

representation at t.s.a. moreover, it's unwise. the t.s.a. administrator has made a modest and limited proposal to allow limited collective bargaining for transportation security officers. i think that's in the best interest of t.s.a. and it has -- it has been restricted to nonsecurity issues. so it's a wise proposal and a modest one and we should allow it to go forward and at this point i would like to yield to our colleague, mr. thompson, of mississippi who the ranking member of the authorizing committee on homeland security -- on homeland security. mr. thompson: i rise in opposition for the amendment. i've been on the committee of homeland security since its inception. we've gone through hearing after hearing, looking at this issue of collective bargaining for t.s.a. employees. i might add the rationale for

offering this amendment has been completely refuted by every hearing eve ever had in the committee. i'm convinced that our men and women who work for t.s.a. do a good job. however, the documentation is clear, they need additional training, they need a number of other items that collective bargaining can get them. for instance, they have a different personnel system than other fellow employees. they have have a different salary schedule than other employees. all those things lead to reduced morale for the employees. more importantly, we have collective bargaining rights for customs and border protection employees, the fellow protective service, and nowhere have we ever found where our good men and women in uniform cannot perform admirabley in any situation.

the record is clear where our union employees are federalized, they do a good job. so this notion that somehow collective bargaining is incorrect or improper should not go opposed. this is a heightened awareness situation. the men and women at t.s.a. deserve the right to collective bargaining. for the record, mr. speaker, let me add that they're halfway there. they've already had an election. three unions sought representation and we're now down to the runoff for two. let the men and women do their job. collective bargaining is not a bad thing for our men and women at t.s.a. lastly, let me say that the administrator has it right.

his record with the f.b.i. is impeccable. he looked at the situation, made a decision that had been kicked around for too many years at the department. let's give the men and women at t.s.a. the right to choose a collective bargaining unit if they so choose to decide on a collective bargaining unit. mr. speaker, i now yield back the balance of my time. mr. price: i thank the gentleman and yield back our time. the chair: the gentlemen yield back. anyone else wish to be heard? if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from indiana. >> mr. chairman, ski for a record vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana will be postponed. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aderholt: i move the

committee do now rise. the chair: the motion is on the committee to rise. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman? the chair: 2017 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair on the committee of the whole on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2017 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests.

the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. lucas of oklahoma for monday, may 31 and for today. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. aderholt: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the motion is adopted, accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. today for the morning hour debate.

>> the house republican conference met with president obama today discussed u.s. debt

and deficit reduction. following the meeting, they spoke to reporters. on tuesday, they rejected a bill that would raise the debt limit without cutting -- spending.

>> some is caused by the debt facing our country. we will raise the debt limit, the spending cut should not exceed the debt limit. otherwise it will serve to cost jobs and our country. that is not what the american people want. we had frank conversations. i thought it was productive. i'm looking for more serious conversations about how we reduce the deficit and get our economy growing again. >> good morning. today's meeting davis an opportunity to express concerns we have surrounding the current situation in the economy. there were is report issued estimating that private sector job creation amounted to 38,000 new jobs in may.

that is short of the amount needed for the economy to get back on track and people back to work. i said to the president, it is important for us to focus on growing the economy. as we discuss and try to get the fiscal house and no -- order, very important for us to look at growth as part of the fix. we can bring the deficit down but we can also get people back to work. we know our chairman is hard work at putting together a tax reform plan. hopefully the president will work with us to keep out of the discussions surrounding the debt limit any notion we will increase taxes. it is counterintuitive to believe you increase taxes on those entities you expect to create jobs. >> it was a unique opportunity

where we got to convey what americans want. the president laid out a debt discussion. unshackling the burden of regulation on small businesses to get them working and then began again. from wisconsin and across the world. what i heard from the president is he wants to sit down and find real cuts now. there needed to be retirement reform. we will work with them toward those ends to recreate new jobs and put it on a new path to pay off the budget and pay down the debt as well. >> i want to thank the president and speaker for bringing us together. every generation has been proud to pass on a better country to the next generation. for a lot of americans, there is a question as to whether or not our children are going to have more opportunities.

the foundation we late for them is important. we cannot take for granted we will continue to have that strong foundation from which ingenuity takes place. our tax policy matters. our debt matters. whether it was our vote last night on the debt ceiling or the conversation today about job creation, we are committed to taking the steps necessary to make sure the next generation has that opportunity. >> any day republicans and democrats are having a dialogue, this is a good day. what the president heard from republican members is that jobs are our number one. that is our job. unfortunately the greatest impediment we have two jobs is a lack of confidence in the future. republican house members were able to share with the president that the job creators in our

district of the regulatory burden creates a lack of confidence in the future. tax policy that is not competitive. a tax burden that is too high. it creates a lack of confidence. a debt burden. the president heard from republican members that the debt burden is going to be too high taxes which leads to low unemployment. unfortunately, we did not hear a specific plan to deal with the debt crisis that could actually be scored by the congressional budget office. we hope there is an opportunity to work on this debt that is costing us jobs. until we have the confidence we can solve this debt crisis by dealing with the drivers, our entitlement spending, we will

not get the jobs the american people demand. >> did the president have response to the gdp report? >> the president committed we have to look at growing economy. the discussion focused on the philosophical difference on whether washington should continue to pump money into the economy or free should provide an incentive for small businesses to grow. i think the president was aware that job creation is not enough. he did mention that the public sector -- a lot of losses. our message is on growth in the private sector. that is how we're going to get people back to work. the peasant -- president talked about a need for us to adjust. that is code for more washington

spending, something we cannot afford. >> [unintelligible] >> that is not exactly what i said. [laughter] i just said we have to take on this debt. if we demagogued each other at a leadership level, we will never take each other. we have a crisis coming. if we want to grow jobs, we have to get our spending under control. if we try to demagogue each other, we're not applying the leadership we need to get the debt under control. that is what we were saying. i should explain what our plan is. it has been mis-described. we describe what did is we have been proposing 70 hears from us

our proposal works so that in the future he will not miss characterize it. he did not mention the one where the other. >> what was the point of the meeting? public-relations, negotiating. >> it was an opportunity for our members to communicate directly with the president about our ideas about how to get the economy growing again. how to create jobs and our ideas about how we solve the debt problem. i told president, this is the moment. this is the window of opportunity where we can deal with this on our terms. we can work together and solve the problem. we know what the problems are. let's not kick the can down the road.

>> negotiations over raising the debt limit continue tomorrow when the president meets with the democratic caucus at the white house. we will have full coverage on c- span. some of our live coverage on c- span 2 -- the house oversight committee hearing on the recovery from the gulf oil spill. the governor of mississippi and local officials will testify. also, mitt romney begins his presidential campaign. he will make the announcement in new hampshire. coverage begins at 12:30 eastern on c-span 2 and c-span.org.

>> this weekend nonbook tv, covered from the festival. authors on sexual politics, the taliban, the beginning of the 20th century, clarence darrow and more. in depth with a live studio audience and your calls and questions. find information on mine -- online at booktv.org. >> they are scheduled to leave iraq by the end of the year. a subcommittee looks into the transition from a military to civilian operation. we will hear from officials from the state department, and the defense department. steve shaft of a higher chairs

this subcommittee hearing. it is about an hour. >> i want to welcome all of my colleagues to this hearing. it was called to assess the obama's administration iraq policy as we approach the official transition from the apartment of defense to the department of state. june 1 well marked six months until all u.s. troops are scheduled to leave iraq.

as of january 1, 2012, it will fall to the state department to see the implementation of the goals outlined in the framework agreement. having just returned from iraq, i appreciate how critical the work our military and state department does as we continue to carry out the mission there. in conjunction with the iraqi partners on the ground, that helped put iraq on a course to become a stable and democratic country that respects human rights. as we look with favor upon these gains, we must remember we are not there yet. earlier today, baghdad suffered a car bomb and roadside bomb, wounding 16 people. the recent progress is precarious and positive. it is too easy to look at where we are today and forget where we were several years ago.

although the administration's plan is well-intentioned, i am concerned it is never -- not well reasoned and a number of areas. our men and women have fought for over eight years to get as to where we are today. thousands of lives have been lost. billions have been spent. the worst possible outcome would be to withdraw before iraq is ready to stand on its own. there is reason to question their readiness. in january 2011, u.s. forces reported that "the u.s. faces choices to fill essential gaps in iraqi security forces, capabilities, or accept the risk they will for short of been able to secure iraq from external and internal threats." echoing those concerns, the

lieutenant general chief of staff of the iraqi army but knowledge the iraqi army depends on u.s. forces for the protection of air space and borders. in 2010, as the u.s. was sending combat missions, he said, "if i were asked about the withdrawal, i would say the u.s. army must day until the iraqi army is fully ready in 2020." at its core, the discussion about transition breaks down to to give you a questions -- does the state department have the capability to succeed? should the u.s. military remain until meaningful capacity can -- many in the government doubt the iraqi security forces will be prepared to defend the state from internal and external threats by december 2011.

although a may be expedient to see four, it may not be a sound strategy. it is a fact that our military forces continued to play a role on the ground in iraq. by continuing to see as the guarantor of stability, we allowed democratic institutions to grow and mature. while there are many complex, american this congress must remain dedicated to achieving success in iraq. it is in both of our interests to see a democratic iraq prosper. that is our strategic objective. we should do everything to ensure it happens, including extending our military presence on the ground. more and more, iraqi figures have come out in support of extending the deadline. as the check comes, no one wants to pay the bill. the cost and a rack of asking the u.s. to stay is about past

-- passing box. i saw that firsthand just last week. this cannot be where it ends. responsible leadership in the u.s. or in iraq cannot sacrifice hard earned strategic achievements for short-term political gain. we must not allow that to happen. this hearing is meant to be an opportunity for members to ask the administration what it seeks to achieve in iraq and how it plans to achieve it. our goal today should not simply be to judge upper down the plants before us. it should be to find policy that will get us where we need to go. the united states has spent a decade securing and helping to build a foundation of a prosperous and democratic iraq. it's premature withdrawal risks those gains. it would be a failure to -- that

is precisely what i fear may come to pass. i yield to the chairman from new york, former chair and ranking member of the committee. >> i thank the chairman. the hearing is an important one. we had a hearing last of member, i suggested that most members of congress think we are basically done in iraq. our combat troops have left last year. the rest of our 50,000 troops are coming home at the end of this year. as a political matter, iraqis yesterday's problem and news. the only problem is that it as -- at odds with reality in iraq and the administration's plans for it. as we heard last year from the citizens secretary of state, american citizens want to help

iraq meet its needs, stand up the economy, and establish a democratic system over the next five to seven years. five to seven years. the u.s. mission in iraq will spend billions of dollars operating five major diplomatic facilities in applying its many as 13,000 people who will operate a fleet of military vehicles, helicopters, and may engage in such diplomatic operations as "counter motor notification and neutralization response." at that same hearing, the deputy secretary warned that we are now at a point where the strategic dividends are within reach as long as we take the

proper steps to consolidate them. he said a long-term partnership with iraq based on our mutual interests and mutual respect. secretary feldman said the same point noting that, "the importance of this moment cannot be overemphasized. i thought then we had a major problem. i'm now convinced we have a total disconnect. " with the aid of a multibillion- dollar american presence, the public and congress are not just moving swiftly to the exit on this, they have left the building. if there's one lesson the obama administration cannot seem to learn, it has to be that nothing

explains itself. nothing sells itself. if the administration thought it was vital to our national security interests to spend billions of dollars over the next five-seven years to establish a partnership with iraq, a more robust effort to sell the policy to the congress is necessary. with all due respect, this panel at this time will not be enough. i prefer we do not repeat our dismal performance in afghanistan where, after driving up the soviets, the taliban, we abandon our prior allies to their fate. it was short-sighted and produced exactly the bad results that were anticipated at that time. now looks like we will make the very same mistake in iraq. all the blood, all the national

trauma, where are we? we are on our way when a smaller investment would give us some hope of salvaging some benefit from the horribly misbegotten war in iraq. the administration is going to have to sell a lot of members on an outgoing effort that those members do not want and they do not believe we need. they have been counting the days until it is finished. the collision of our expectations is not going to be pitied. i yield back my time. >> i think the votes have started on the floor. i did not hear the bells. we can probably get through the introductions before we will go over. two bells. we begin with the ambassador.

i have been told it rhymes with an insurance company commercial. i'm not going to do that -- my imitation. that is the correct pronunciation? she served as a coordinator for iraq that the office of the deputy secretary. she is responsible for coordinating all state department aspects of the transition from military to civilian operations. she works closely with our ambassador to iraq who we spend time with when we were there. the u.s. military other departments and agencies. she has previously served as deputy -- for food security initiative, assistant chief for assistance at the u.s. embassy baghdad, director of the office of afghanistan, ambassador to the asia-pacific cooperation forum, u.s. ambassador to the

democratic republic. she received her and a from columbia university and her bachelor's from another university. we appreciate you being here. i have been informed we have five minutes to go on the vote. we will save the introduction of the next two witnesses until we come back. we are in recess briefly. we will be back as soon as the votes are over.

>> the committee will be back in order. next we had the doctor who currently serves as the deputy assistant for the middle east. he is on a three-year public

service from georgetown university where he is a professor at the school of foreign service. prayer joining the defense department, he was a fellow for a new american security and served as coordinator for the obama campaign. in 2005, he was a council on foreign relations working at the department of defense on counterinsurgency, counter- terrorism, and stability operations. he received his ph.d. from columbia university and his bachelor's from the university of miching -- michigan. last but not least is christopher, the senior deputy assistant for the middle east. from 2007 to 2010, he was the mission director in iraq. a minister in the foreign service, he joined usaid as an

adviser in vietnam. he has since served in the mission for central asia, and director of india, director in egypt, in 1994, he became the first mission director for the west bank in gaza. he is a bachelor of silence from the ohio state university. master's degree in international relations and a master's degree in public administration from the john f. kennedy school of government at harvard university. we welcome all three of you here. we operate under the 5 minute rule. if you could keep your remarks to that time, there is a lighting device on the table that will warn you when the time has concluded. then we will ask questions for the same period of time. without further ado, i welcome you.

>> thank you, chairman. distinguished committee members. thank you for inviting me to appear before you today did discuss the issues facing iraq and the challenges associated with the transition from a military-led to a civilian-led presence. we have significant interest in iraq that would require the continuation of u.s. support to ensure we do not lose the fragile progress that has been achieved to sacrifice. we face a critical moment that will determine whether we achieve our goal. we must recognize the success extends beyond iraq and the united states. it could become a political and economic leader in the middle east. as it faces challenges, iraq must take center stage as a beacon of democracy and the anchor of u.s. support for the

region. countries around the world but to our effort to assess our sincerity regarding the middle east. they look to iraq as an example of what is possible in the region. a democracy whose purpose is to serve the people. the transition we are executing is vital to our national interest, to pursue and strengthen them we must strengthen our partnership with the government of iraq and its people. the framework agreement between the added states and iraq is a road map in building these ties. in the government, we have found partners who are committed to a shared vision. the prime minister another leaders considered to be the foundation of the relationship. with support from the iraqis, we look forward to building a partnership that will strike at iraq, security interests of both countries, and provide stability. the time is right for the

transition. the security situation continues to improve, providing an opening through which the people can focus on the prospect of rebuilding a strong economy and forming a government that is more efficient, less corrupt, and committed to the nation. the people are eager to build a strong iraq. we must support them. our partners aroundit is at thef diplomacy. its success will not only determine the fate of a friend and ally but will determine engagements in the least -- in the middle east. this is one of the most important international endeavors that the united states has undertaken, and its success or failure will have global considerations. we do this always mindful of the cost requires the american people to bear. united states has sacrificed much to reach this critical moment.

now is not the time to hesitate or change course. we must maintain our momentum. the transition that implementing note -- it is critical that we follow through. we must continue our missions there, and we have found that these two countries no share a common goal. it is a strong ally of the united states and is committed to and capable of ensuring security, providing services, and addressing the will of the iraqi people. now is the time to work towards achieving that goal. i would like to think the

ambassador and his embassy and the many offices and bureaus throughout the department of state and other u.s. departments and agencies that are involved in this transition. planning and implementing this transition has required tireless efforts of our top men and women, many of them risking their lives to make sure that everything we have fought for over the last decade was not lost. thank you for allowing us to be here today. i will answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, et mrs. ambassador. >> i appreciate opportunity to meet with you today to discuss the military and civilian letter arrived. the ambassador has discussed the policy with regard to transition, so i will focus and

say a few words about the support to help set them up for success. i know members have concerns about the readiness of the iraqi government to provide security in iraq as u.s. forces drawdown between now and december 2011. indeed, a terrorist and malicious attacks continue to pose a threat. there were three coordinated car bombs in kirkuk, and there were attacks in baghdad that left 14 dead and dozens wounded. iraq still faces dangerous and determined enemies, but it is important to recognize that they do not have the support of the iraqi people and that they do not spark the return to civil war. moreover, despite these recent attacks, the underlying security situation remains strong. penn -- iraqi security forces

have assumed primary responsibility for security of the entire country, and are u.s. forces numbers have declined from one the obama administration came into office in january 2009 to roughly 47,000 today. since january 1, 2009, the iraqi forces have been in the lead, a world they have more capably embraced with each passing month. last year, we made the transition from operation iraqi freedom to opposition new dawn note -- operation new dawn. while the united states continues to provide vital support to the iraq security forces, including training, equipping, mentoring, and providing certain technical enablers, we need to be clear that the iraqis are very much in charge, and they simply no longer lead -- need the large

numbers of u.s. forces. they have also remained professional despite salon.com integration. indeed, it remains unclear. they continue to engage prime minister al maliki to emphasize the importance of reaching finality on this issue. the department of defense and other agencies and offices have also undertaken unprecedented levels of coordination and planning for the transition in iraq. dot has an excellent working relationship with the state department, and we are working together at all levels for a successful transition. challenges exist, but rest assured that dod is doing everything it can to buy up the state department achieve success. the coronation in november of last year, the dod embedded an officer to serve as a news on.

dod and state have also established an ad hoc group for coordination and synchronization. this group is cochaired at the deputy assistant secretary level and continue to talk about the eight suborned areas including supply chain, medical, facilities, information technology, security, and aviation. additionally, to expeditiously respond, and equipping board was established in early january 2011. the process consists of working people from areas that fee recommendations for the sourcing of equipment, and chaired by the joint staff for approval. currently in iraq, a stake in dod team has been established to deal with issues from the downsizing of the footprint. this is not a turnkey operation, and each presents key challenges.

for example, each team needs to move containerized housing units and undertake general site preparation. dod will also provide specific functions, for example, providing general pace operation and support. in conclusion, i want to emphasize our continued engagement in iraq remains vital. we are now at the point where the strategic dividends of our tremendous sacrifices and investments in iraq are within reach as long as we take the proper steps to consolidate. based on mutual interest and respect, it continues to present many advantages to the united states. shoring up our relations with our key partners, the dod believes we need to remain focused on iraq. thank you. >> thank you very much. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you.

chairman, ranking member, honorable members of the committee, thank you for holding this hearing and for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss the role in the transition from military led to a civilian led presence. this has played a major role in the civilian response to the iraqi social and political needs and continue to do so. the situation in iraq has dramatically improved over the past few years, but iraq is still very much opposed conflict developing country, facing considerable challenges. the reduction in violence has created the breathing room for iraqis to work on their democracy, restoring institutions and credit institutions for private sector led growth, but continued support is required to further nurture their fledgling democracy.

there has been support since 2003. the primary objective then was to restore the central infrastructure for services. beginning in 2007, much of the resources were shifted to a stabilization program to complement the military and civilian search that began at that time. -- surge that began at that time. therefore reconstruction teams. it is currently aligned with the strategic framework agreement, which outlines the political, economic, and security operation in the united states and iraq. the agreement focuses on sustainable development in several seconds -- sectors and is characterized by host country ownership with the cost of these programs. mr. chairman, the key challenge ahead for the iraqi government will be security, central services, economic growth, and the strengthening of institutions of democratic governance. now is the time for iraq to

transition from a legacy of war to one of economic activity and good governance. these programs will continue to strengthen the capabilities for iraqi government's at many levels. this includes the gradual transition towards a more decentralized model of decision making and control of resources. it will help a rug expand its economic growth in non-oil sectors, such as agriculture, financial sector development, and small and medium enterprise. we will also support the health sector in iraq by strengthening primary iraqi health care. we will continue to assist the ethnic and other minorities and displaced persons. we will also support the education sector in iraq. working relationships with key leaders drove iraq. community action groups, councils, former cooperatives,

all of whom have been partners or have been trained in our programs, they continue to work to improve the lives of their families and communities. u.s. aid has been able to adapt to changing situations in iraq and fully expects to adapt to circumstances as the military withdraws. we will work with our partners, both american and iraqi. this has been a strength of our programs, being able to engage directly with our beneficiaries and an ability to go more widely into the country. in this way, we're better able to monitor the impact of up programs. mr. chairman, along with partners and the broader mission, u.s. aid will continue to maintain the commitment necessary to build on the gains that a already been achieved. u.s. aid will be assisting the iraqis in for the developing their own abilities and resources to ensure a sovereign,

stable, and self-reliant iraq. in closing, i would like to think the ambassador and their staff, the general and their crew and the many officers throughout the apartment of state and other u.s. departments and agencies that are involved in this transitions. all benefit provided aid. they do for allowing for the opportunity to buy before you today, and i look forward to working with you and the congressional colleagues. >> thank you. i want to thank all of the witnesses, and the members now have five minutes. the administration had developed so-called minimum essential capabilities, benchmarks, which were four to lead and stayed in which, quote, the iraqi industries and others can provide internal security and provide maximum foundational

capabilities to defend against external threats. in its june 2010 report to congress on iraq, the department of defense assess that only the iraqi navy is on course to fully achieve its next goals prior to december 2011, and iraq will not be able to independently secure its airspace before that date. overall, the department of defense has presented to maintain minimum benchmarks level, and continues to be reliant on u.s. support. in march 2011, the centcom commander said in senate testimony that there are going to be loose ends unless the iraqis asked us to stay and work on these issues, and those loose ends would be difficult for them

to overcome on their own, and, doctor, you mentioned one example, a recent violent occurrence. in happen to be -- this was the third time i was in iraq. i was there after the fall of saddam. that was about 2000 the rate of his back. around 2007 toward the end of the surge, and most recently, as i say, about one week to two weeks ago, and the day that we were in baghdad is when that happened in kirkuk, and the general whose staff had been some of the victims, and, of course, we have evidence ongoing throughout the rest of the country. " with that being the case and everything we know at this point, how realistic is it for us to be able under the existing plan to pull that many troops

out and basically transition from a department of defense? is the state department up for that task? is there any precedent for anything on this scale? and what do you think the committee should know about that? >> it is our assessment that the iraqi security forces up pretty good capabilities in terms of internal defense. we have spent billions of dollars and many years building up a very capable insurgency force. we see a few gaps that are likely to exist beyond 2011. they will have challenges in intelligence. they will have some challenges in logistics. the bigger gas, as you mentioned, is the gap in external defense. maritime will be in pretty good shape, as you mentioned. there will be challenges as relates to what we call air

sovereignty or air defense, and that is going to be true for several years, as well as combined arms, their ability to defend against conventional adversaries. it is important to note that even in the absence of a troop presence, there will be waits for us to get out to these challenges, with our cooperation programs, and the state department programs, so we will be able to continue to get after this. anything beyond this cooperation would require for the iraqis to ask, and as you know, they have not yet asked. we would start that conversation with them. >> let me get to the second question, if i can, and i will address this to you, madame ambassador, and then if you want to follow up on anything there,

you can. i understand that the special note inspector general has initiated an audit of the police to bowman program and has requested an interim conference to begin the audit. they have been told that the department has been informally taking the position that they have the authority to audit this program even though his it is funded by another, which has authority under public law as amended. my view is it has done important work on police training, which is clearly part of the reconstruction, and we will need to continue to look at these programs going forward, and also for the think it is inappropriate to try to block access to information on how preparations to carry a eight perspective appropriation of more than $1 billion are proceeding. please let me know what you plan to do to facilitate the ability to continue to do its work. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

we sought to be consistent for coming in response to all on the various requests for documents and information during the planning effort, including from them. in fact, i worked very closely with employees there when i was in iraq. we appreciate the efforts they have undertaken to perform audits and investigations of reconstruction activities in iraq and have provided them with requester materials that we feel fall under its mandate. as the department engages in a significant transition from a military to civilian-led mission in iraq, our assistance is also transitioning from a largely deconstruction base to technical assistance and capacity building. we do not see this as extending to the state department operations as part of our diplomatic platform in iraq. those are responsibilities we feel, fall within the purview of

other entities, such as the government accounting office, the survey an investigation step on a committee, the department state office of inspector general, in the commission on wartime contracts. >> thank you, and let me just conclude with a quick statement that we have spent billions of dollars every there, and auditing those dollars and making sure they are being spent appropriately and not wasted or ripped off from some and the deed is critical, so we would ask your cooperation in continuing. thank you very much, and i know you'll to the ranking member from new york. mr. ackerman. >> thank you very much. thank you all for your testimony. is there somebody in the administration who is in charge of selling this to the american people? >> well, in my building, it is the secretary of state.

>> i need somebody specifically who has meet ability of explaining to the american people why we are doing this, but the american people think we have already done? >> it only thing i would add, both our secretaries are heavily involved. it is a top priority of both secretary gates and secretary clinton, president obama was tasked right away to lead our efforts. >> what you are both indicating is that there is none, and i am suggesting there is a key problem. the american people think that we're finished with this, we are done with it, and we do not have to make any further investment, and that is not the case. these kinds of things are going to be very difficult to do in the ensuing months if not years, given all of the givens, both

realities and the political things that we have to vote deal with. and that is not necessarily a good thing. this seems to be, iraq seems to be a marriage of convenience, and everybody seems to agree that there should be some kind of a divorce but when, and everybody thought we were waiting for the final papers to come through, and maybe we are sticking around, and now they are all saying we should leave, while they really mean we should stay, but we are not staying unless they ask us, and it seems like a mess. i do not know how you explain that to the civilian population that they're going to have to

pay for child support. all right, i guess i will move on to something else. is there any more in this region, in the entire region, but that we can afford to ever finally leave? >> i do not want to speak up sidekick my particular portfolio -- >> can we afford to leave egypt? can we afford to leave libya? can we afford to leave anywhere? >> i think we a profound interest in this part of the world, which extremism, energy security, the safety of israel and other strategic partners, so i think we are heavily invested in this part of the world and have a heavy presence in this part of the world, and i think we are likely to remain present even with our drawdown in iraq, and i do not know if that means

we ever leave. >> you start multiplying that korea around the region, that is point to a shift by the time needed to seven years, and that will add up to more billions of dollars. i am not advocating leaving. i just want to know, after my first question, if there is no one in charge of selling it, nobody is going to buy it. >> i will say we have made a consistent case in the administration, and the president did again last week when he gave his speech, of emphasizing the importance of long-term strategic partnership with iraq, and it is especially important in light of all of the events with the arabs calm and iraq has been so important to our national interests that we get either been in war against iraq or in iraq for 20 years, so we have clearly made an investment. >> what about a financial partnership? you are talking about billions

of dollars supporting a country that is richer than we are in many ways, not really, but basing to have things, and they are going into financial partnerships with others, and that means they are cheating on us. >> representative ackerman, we have no intention of leaving iraq. i think it is. -- pretty clear in our statements. in fact, it -- one >> the american people think we have left. they think we may be political decision. here is the problem. you have no intention of leaving, and everybody else in the country except those who are really finely tune, which is a very limited audience, thinks we have already done that, and i would suggest that is a short to intermediate-term problem, because it is not going to be just iraq that is on our plate with the situation. somebody in the administration

really has to start thinking about that, long term, even if long term only means by to seven years. how do you sell a $1 billion program to people who think it is done? >> representative, if i may, the deputy secretary will be chairing a round-table discussion on friday with approximately 30 ceo's of major u.s. countries to talk about the challenges and the opportunities of investing in iraq. they will have a number of press interviews, along with ambassador jefferies, in making the case that iraq is worth all of the effort and worth the long term commitment that we have made. thank you. >> those people may have a financial incentive to invest in iraq, because it might be good for their companies, but the american people do not necessarily own that portfolio and do not see it that way.

if i can put on my public relations have and try to understand where the american people will be coming from. i will say again, if you do not have anyone to sell it, you do not have anyone to buy it. i taught english better than that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. ackerman, and the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> you are welcome. >> i wonder if you can comment -- first of all, let me ask you about this fiscal year. for iraq and/or afghanistan. >> i cannot speak to afghanistan because it is not in my portfolio. i believe we have asked for $25

million for fiscal year 2012. >> is it your understanding it is well in excess of $1 billion? >> not in iraq at the present time. >> i'm just talking about one. >> no, i am not sure. >> you do not know the numbers? >> no, sir. >> what are the conditions on programming that money? you work for aid. there are all kinds of constraints and regulations and legal requirements. what are the comparable constraints on the use of and reporting of an auditing of this? >> well, i know, sir, how funds were used in iraq during the period i was there, and by and large, they were used by the military units and reconstruction teams to deal with a rapid response capabilities with various other

economic and other issues on the ground. these were more short-term to respond to local situations. in the longer term -- >> i am very familiar with how u.s. aid works. but would not be a concern to you, it certainly is to me, that i agree that was the original intent, but when you have that kind of intent, when you get to very significant sums of money, i am asking you to put on your professional hub, not your policy act, as a professional, would it not concern you that we now have another policy concerns, et it is not $25 million but $1 billion plus proof would that be a concerned -- $1 billion plus? would that be a concern to you?

>> a mechanism to make sure that that money is spent appropriately. >> i would, too. is it of any concern at all? i know it is not your portfolio, as you pointed out, but any concern? pick up anything at the water fountain? >> i am not going to speak to afghanistan. it is not in my portfolio. >> i am speaking about whether or not you have a concern as a taxpayer is -- in the united states that we have a program that has now ballooned in terms of value, not a $25 million program, and there are other countries we are talking about here, and does it concern you at all from a management point of view, even in the theoretical realm, let's say professor -- let's say?

that has so little in a way where it would be comparable the we would constrain the program. >> i think i would disagree with your characterization that there is little accountability. i think there is coordination and a great deal of reporting on congress, and an organization we have talked about earlier has done regular assessments. i cannot speak to the magnitude of the specific projects in afghanistan. i mean, none of us work on afghanistan. we would be happy to take that question back. in iraq, there was $100 million. we actually did not spend all of that money, and then in fiscal year 2012, when requested millions, to finish that off, and that includes the first part of the fiscal year. >> i thank you for the advice. i, in fact, already took it, and

i talked to the head of a group, and he would not share your confidence in the program, and, as a matter of fact, in afghanistan, a number of people left and say, frankly, because it is a cash program, and these are amounts that are quite substantial, that we actually have some people who unfortunately had yielded to temptation, and it has to do with the lack of accounting and accountability. since you have offered, i will take you up on it. please do get back to the committee about what constraints are in place and what accountability mechanisms are in place in this growing program. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we will go to a second round. if anyone has questions, we will get to them. >> i have a couple of them myself. just a couple of quick questions. i assume all the panel members

would agree is that it is not only in iraq's best interest but also in america's best interest that we see a democratic, for the most part, iraq prosper and flourish. imc and nods assent by everyone there. and how is it in america's best interests, and i know it is an obvious question, why is it in our best interests beyond, not taking into account we have lost thousands of our men and women there, which is clear, and a lot of treasure has been spent their or money, but how is it in our long-term best interests that iraq is essentially a successful country in that important and tumultuous part of the world?

i see two of you chomping at the bit. >> we have a recent example of when iraq was the opposite of that, so i think it is pretty clear that in our interests that we have a stable and democratic government in iraq, especially in that region, surrounded by some less stable and less democratic governments, so -- >> why is it? >> well, it is for our own security, but it is also for the security of the region, and it is also for our economic benefit and for the potential boat that iraq, you know, has the potential to become what it was before, a middle-income country, a stable country, a partner of ours, a partner of other democracies in the world. i think we of only to gain from iraq being a democracy. frankly, we have a lot to lose if we would have them revert back. >> iraq historically has always

been in an aggressor state in this part of the world, and it is our hope that a democratic iraq will be a more moderate actor that we can work with in a region that is vital to our interests for all of the reasons we talked about before. i would also point out, given the mosaic communities in iraq, only a democratic system can hold that country together, that is to lead to the type of mechanisms to combat extremism that will keep iraq stable over the long term. i mean, saddam was able to keep a lid on security, but iraq was not stable. iraq was a little dictatorship. there was the 2003 invasion, but it has come out of that and is on the right trajectory, and as president obama said, we have an interest in continuing that trajectory. now we are try to stand up and about the way democracy in egypt

and tunisia and encourage reform in other parts of the world. -- and in other parts of the world. >> the united states has spent nearly a decade securing and helping to build the foundation of a prosperous and democratic iraq, and a premature withdrawal could risks from the remote those gains, -- it could whisked -- it could risk squandering those gains. ambassador? >> this goes to your first question, too. we have asked for assistance to help to continue to train their police forces. we have asked for assistance to continue to train and equip the iraq security forces, and, in fact, in fy 12, we have asked

under the financing program for a substantial amount of money, which we feel is essential to help iraq defend itself against the fiscal things you're talking about before, so our plan is actually to stay there and to help them. with u.s. aid. we have also talked about the capacity buildings of, fragile institutions, years of instability and repression, and so we are not done, but we feel we are well on the way it to amending the situation there. >> and i assume the panel would agree that iran, and least in the last 30 years or so has been, shall we say, and unhelpful actor in that region, and if iraq falls under that influence or they are not able to stand up to iran, " that would be a very unstable, but it

would certainly hurt the u.s. for the security interests around the world. is that correct? ok, and i think that is an affirmative. doctor, did you want to say anything? >> a strong iran is likely to not be a puppet at the end of the string. a strong iraq that has a strategic partnership with us, which is what all of the iraqi leaders want, is going to want to maintain its sovereignty, and it is going to be a fiercely nationalistic place, so i do not think the iraqis want to be dominated by iran. with what we have in the last minute, with one of the things that was a bit disturbing was something you would not expect, which is the fact that the parliamentarians that we met with, whether or not there

needed to the u.s. involvement beyond the end of this year, were unwilling to make that commitment, although to a person, every one of them indicated yes, but we really cannot say that publicly, because we run for office, as well, and they said that is for al maliki to say, and the spokespersons for al maliki, they said the parliamentarians, those are the folks you have to go to, and it is not unlike what you see here in washington, when on some of the big issues, everybody points the finger at the other. maybe it is the administration or the democrats or republicans, but this is a key issue, and the politicians in iraq are going to have to step up to the plate, as well, but because for the united states to pull up by the end of this year and turned over complete, the future of that country before they are ready could literally, you know, have

defeat out of the jaws of victory, and that is what we do not want to see, for the united states and for the iraqis, as well. i want to thank the panel, and i will yield to the gentleman to virginia if he has any more questions. >> i do, mr. chairman. thank you. you indicated in my previous round of questioning that your understanding of the program in iraq was $25 million promote >> 4 fy 12, the request. >> fy 12. >> and $100 million, my understanding, 4 fy 11. >> am i reading this report right betz's in 2003, the total amount of funding in iraq was $3.8 billion? since 2003? >> sir, i will have to get back

to you on the exact number, but we spent a considerable amount of money in 2003. >> more than $25 million. >> yes, that is why i said for weeghman >> yes. and is it your testimony, if i understood you correctly, that you are satisfied or that you believe that we can be satisfied that all of the right accounting and transparency is in place, just as it is, for u.s. aid programs? >> what i would say is that there was an innovation in iraq, largely to enable our current -- counterinsurgency operations, and that we learned along the way, frankly, and we are better now than we were at the beginning, so looking at how the program was executed at the very beginning, you would find more problems than how it is executed now. i would say that there is better

coordination and that the money is better used now than was the case in 2004, for example, but are there no challenges? every program of this size will have challenges. >> the question was whether you felt there were adequate mechanisms of accountability and reporting and transparency as their source of our with u.s. aid programs, such that the pentagon is satisfied? >> i feel that we are in a good place executing programs in iraq, which is the portfolio that i cover, and i cannot speak to -- >> i understand -- cannot speak to anything else out of your portfolio, but it is not an unreasonable expectation that we might up your learn that what you have in your portfolio would be applicable elsewhere. would that be fair? >> it is absolutely true that the way the program has been hit executed on the ground in

afghanistan, i cannot speak to that. >> all right. i look forward to having more dialogue about this, because i think it has grown so big that it presents a very serious problems in terms of accountability and transparency. i would love to have you submit for the record more detail about what the pentagon learned in this time period, as you said, that has improved and involved. that is great, but i want to know what that is, and i also want to note the applicability to other places. obviously, i have afghanistan in mind, but i will not burden you with afghanistan. let me ask a totally separate question real quickly. one of the things talking to reconstruction folks that they suggest is that it is time we have a permanent office the stabilization in reconstruction operations, because we sort of

reinvent the wheel every time something comes up, and that if we had an office centrally located with expertise, knowing the ropes and so forth and rolodex of vendors and providers and nonprofits and everything else, that would make us, frankly, more efficient and save taxpayer dollars. any comments on that? mr. crowley? >> well, there is an office in the state department but that has the purpose of doing exactly that, and i think the ambassador would be better positioned to comment on it. u.s. aid works closely with that office at it -- where there are these kinds of responses that are required. we also have our own operas of transition initiatives, which is, itself company built around providing responses to these kinds of situations, and it

works hand-in-hand with the state department office that is tasked with that responsibility, so -- and >> mr. chairman, i know we are running -- would you to indulge? >> the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. >> i thank you. >> he is right. there is an office at the state department that is tasked with exactly what you're talking about, and under the quadrennial development, in fact, there are a number of suggestions for how the office can be strengthened to fill the role you are discussing. >> , ok, again, if you can get back, that would be great. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. we are ready to wrap up the meeting. if you have questions? no? ok, well thank you very much, and if there is no further business for the committee, we

want to thank the panel for their testimony and for answering our questions this afternoon, and without objection, all members will have five minutes -- excuse me, five days to submit questions or statements for the record, and if there is no further business to come before the committee, thank you, we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the next on c-span's, homeland security. then, the homeland security spending bill. later, republicans discuss their meeting on raising the debt limit. on tomorrow's "washington journal," the progressive political agenda. a financial services committee member on raising the federal debt ceiling, and we will talk with an economist about the economic impact of the mississippi flooding. "washington journal," live on c-

span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal," our live call-in program which connects you. weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house, and also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview program. on saturday "the communicators," and on sunday, "prime minister's questions" from the british house of commons. you can find it at c-span.org, and the library is searchable. c-span. washington your way. the public service can make -- created by american cable companies. >> homeland security officials to they say they have all the resources they need to take full advantage of intelligence

material gathered from the compound of osama bin laden in pakistan. they testified before the house subcommittee on counter- terrorism and intelligence. we will also hear about the border protection agency role in catching the times square bomber. this is one hour 20 minutes. >> with the dhs, we thank you for coming before us, and we will try to see what it takes

with regard to what should be a quick session, and i suspect others, hopefully, we can ask if you will stay for any questions that may arise on this very, very important topic, so i would like to welcome today's witnesses to discuss the growth and future of the dhs intelligence enterprise. before we begin today, i would like to take a moment to send my heartfelt condolences to one of our subcommittee members. i do not know if he will be able to make the meetings. billy from missouri. representative long represents joplin, missouri, and i know many of you who deal with homeland security are well aware of the devastation from the tornado last week, and i know that i speak for all members of the subcommittee when i say our thoughts and prayers are with him and the people in his district and the great people

throughout joplin in this difficult time. as we all know, the department was created in response of the 9/11 attacks and consisted in the merging of 22 existing agencies. there has been great progress in solidifying our homeland, but more work remains. my personal experience, having been sworn as the united states attorney for the eastern district just days after 9/11, i worked closely on a variety of issues during my time in office. with four terrorist attacks against our homeland since 9/11, multiple disruptive plots, and dozens of individuals indicted on terrorism charges, the threat to our homeland remains at an all-time high and is more perverse than ever, even with the death of osama bin laden. we continue to face serious threats from terrorist groups who are attempting to employ foreigners and americans to our

homeland to conduct attacks. in addition to date, we face a significant threat from radicalized individuals within the united states, including the united states citizens who have lived here their entire lives and yet are still drawn to the ideology and conduct attacks. most notable among these included the times square bomber, the new york city subway bomber, and major hassan. theoday's 112 congress, subcommittee have been focused. we learn about the threats from yemen, pakistan, and unrest in the middle east and north africa. today, i look forward of learning what the men and women from the department of homeland security on the front lines are doing in this war on terrorism. our patrol officers are charged but preventing terrorist weapons from illegally entering the

country. tsa officers are trying to prevent terrorists from boarding the aircraft, and the targets of al qaeda since its inception. myself and the ranking member have international airports in our districts, so we know firsthand the challenges facing aviation security. the ice agency are responsible for looking at those who remain in the country illegally, and the coast guard is tasked with protecting ports and other critical infrastructure, including an oil refinery or others, like the delaware river in my district. the men and women of law enforcement, the boots on the ground, they rely heavily on intelligence, which includes everything from identify suspicious individuals to tracking hundreds of thousands of shipping containers around the world, assuring a robust system of collaboration, information sharing, and excellence across the department intelligence enterprise.

it is critical. the dhs intelligent enterprise has changed dramatically over the years, and we are here to understand where we have been, where we are today, and where we should be going, and i hope this will be an in-depth discussion of the intelligence enterprise so that members leave here with an understanding of the positive developments, of which there have been many, and a sense of the challenges that remain. in the course of today's meeting, i also hope to learn about the cooperation between the elements, how law enforcement and intelligence information is being shared and used to create a first-rate homeland security intelligence. and just on a last-minute, mr. secretary, i know that you are where i sent a letter to secretary nicole itano and attorney general holder with the various questions were evolving -- involving the treasure trove

from a raid. we will do everything to make sure appear about this with the front lines of the operators. other forward to receiving a written response to that letter, but please let us know how we can help you in any way moving forward on this important issue, so i look forward today to hearing from today's witnesses, and i would like now to recognize the ranking minority media in -- minority leader from california for any statement she may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this meeting today on the intelligence enterprise. of it forward to working with you to continue the history of long oversight to coordinate the intelligence and information sharing activities of the department. this enterprise brings together the intelligence capabilities of the entire department, from headquarters to the office of

intelligence and analysis to analysts in the field working on various components. we are here to examine the progress that the intelligence enterprise has made since its creation in to identify areas needing improvement. although we have come a long way to shore up intelligence gaps within the department, several incidents over the past few years have revealed vulnerabilities, and there is the importance of maturing intelligent enterprise. does dhs have the funding it needs to continue building its architecture. doesn't have what it needs from the intelligence community and senior leadership across the country? the chief intelligence officer leads the dhs intelligence enterprise, and i am pleased that she is here today to discuss how the enterprise is maturing. some challenges faced appear deceptively simple, white developing a common lexicon for all intelligence professionals

to use department why. once you do that, please share that with us, because i continue to be challenged by many of the acronyms. other challenges seem more complex, light green to the other components, but there are sometimes competing priorities to serve the large customer base. et to what extent is the information and analysis sharing a priority of each component? how is the department reducing duplication and redundancy of effort within the dhs and between dhs and other elements of the intelligence community? how much money should we be devoted to it, and can it be done better and more efficiently? i am looking forward to hearing from all of the intelligence chiefs gathered here to get information and to see how all of you were together in this constrained budget environment to discuss the many threats to our homeland security. documents in the aftermath of

the bin laden operation have underscored how critically important is for all components, even with their unique mission to work together. note that is attributed to bin laden and his lieutenants, targets in major cities across the coasts, and we know that al qaeda was looking at our rail, aviation, and energy sectors. do we have the right policies in place while protecting be civil liberties of u.s. do we have the right technology to allow components to communicate with and their components within the dhs and within the intelligence community as well as state, love wrote -- local, and private partners? after this hearing, we expect to have a much better picture of the accomplishments and more importantly, how we can help you address your critical needs and meet your goals in the future. i would like to thank all of the

witnesses for being here today. although many of your accomplishments are designed to go unnoticed, know that we appreciate your tireless efforts to keep america secure. i yield back. >> i think you, and other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. we are pleased to have five distinguished people before us on this important topic, so let me remind the witnesses that their entire written statement will appear in the record, and i hope that you will allow us to understand the most critical parts of your testimony and do your best to try to work with us on the time deadlines, as well. there is the undersecretary and chief intelligence officer from the department of homeland security office of intelligence and analysis. the undersecretary -- i disney

to make sure. she was confirmed in her present post by the senate in february 2010. before that, she led a storied and accomplished career, including as electronic warfare officer in the united states army and later as part of a select committee on intelligence dot the defense intelligence agency and the director of national intelligence. undersecretary wagner also wanted bachelor of arts degree from the college of william and mary and another degree from the university of southern california. secretary, you are now recognized to summarize your testimony. >> thank you mr. chairman. co-chairman, ranking member, and distinguished members of the committee, i am honored to appear before you today to discuss the dhs intelligent enterprise in the company of some of my colleagues.

i view this hearing as a valuable opportunity for us all to update you on how we increasingly work with a partnership to provide support to the department, the intelligence community, and are many and very external customers. i want to start with a few definitions, because this can get confusing, and the dhs intelligent enterprise consists of all elements of the department better engaged in directing, collecting, processing, analyzing, and disseminating intelligence information petricca in support of the tournament's many missions as outlined in the department of homeland security review. the council is basically the board of directors of the intelligent enterprise, and is comprised of the heads and other key members of the intel its enterprise, such as the program