with respect to targeting the federal government and dhs in particular has become more effective at analyzing travel related data to better understand and anticipate the travel patterns of known or suspected terrorists. this analysis has been an essential in identifying targeting and interdicting known and suspected terrorists and prompting additional screening before these individuals travel to the united states. we've established 72 fusion centers with a service focal points for the receipt and of discoverinand sharing of threat related information among the federal, state, local cultural territorial partners. today the intelligence community is able to identify the common threads thatcan tie a seemingly minor crime to the larger threat picture and all but a few of the fusion centers are now connected to the hs d m which is a secret level real-time data system

shane zearing data across the country. once the 9/11 hijackers made it to the united states, they still required access to aircraft. wih respect to flight schools part of 9/11 the hijackers in the world of the flight schools and conducted cross-country surveillance flights. today the ts screens all foreign students seeking flight training against terrorist criminal history and immigration databases. with respect to pasenger screening, ten years ago the nine alleged hijackers were able to purchase tickets and boarding planes carrying weapons. today, through the secure flight program, dhs prescreens 100 per cent of the 14 million passengers flying weekly to, from command within the united states against the government watch lists and senator coins i think i can elaborate that that would have if it had been deployed prevented the situation that you refer to with of a boarding pass.

moreover, transportation security officers at more than 450 airports now screen all checked and carry-on baggage for explosives, weapons and other threats using cutting edge technologies and with respect to be if your detention, even though some of the 9/11 hijackers were randomly selected for additional screening and a roast of suspicion of gate agents they still need to launch a plan. tsa's behavior detection officers today work to identify potentially high risk passengers who exhibit behavior is that indicate they may be a threat to aviation security and refer them for additional screenings. the last line of defense against the aviation security is on the plane itself. with respect to the airplane security today, all commercial aircraft have hardened the cockpit doors and federal air marshals are deployed across the aviation system based on risk. with respect to emergency

communication, limitations and communication and interoperable the iman air-traffic control operators, military personnel and first responders hinder the response on 9/11. our nation has since made significant investment and training and technical assistance to improve emergency communications capabilities to read each of these lawyers come by and creates a stronger security architecture that did not exist on 9/11 and that helped keep our nation, our transportation system, and the american people safe over the past ten years. we would not be where we are today without the direct involvement and support of the congress and particularly this committee. i want to thank you for your support from your guidance and you're continued oversight. we ctinue to engage the broader homeland security enterprise in the nation's protection. we've made great progress but more remains to be done. thank you.

>> thank you, said it in public. i particularly appreciate the pre-9/11 comparison to today because of documents in a very tangible way the progress we've made, and it in 62 vindicates the conclusion that i've come to over the years and it's a very painful one which was that 9/11, 2001 could have been prevented and should have been prevented, and that is if it was tried today it would be prevented and that's aery important thing to be al jazeera. director's mueller, thanks for being here. talk about change as compared to the department of homeland security didn't exist on 9/11 as the american institution ihas gone through a dramatic transformation in the las ten years under your leadership to

become our domestic counterterrorism agency had really first-rate at that and also we thank you for agreeing to stay on for two more years as i shall also thank your life for allowing you to stay on. [lahter] please proceed with your testimony. >> thank you. good morning mr. chairman and senator collins, members of the committee, i think you for the opportunity to appear here today before you. as it has been pointed out since september 11th, the threat from terrorism has evolved in ways that present new challenges for the fbi and our partners and today the threat environment is far more complex anddiverse than ever before and in respons to the fbi has undergone on president of information over the past ten years as mr. sherman, you pointed out. we have developed new intelligence capabilities necessary to address terrorist and criminal threats.

we have created the of the ministry different technological structure to meet our mission as a national security agency, and we have made these chang while continuing to safeguard american civil liberties. let me begin by focusing on the most serious threats we face and then discuss how the fbi has changed sin september 11th to counter these threats. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and its leader anwar al-awlaki have shown a commitment not only to attack the united states but also to inspire act of terrorism for overseas or from overseas. the past two years it's taken a tax directly targeting the homeland. we saw this with a failed attempt sent package bombs to the united states on cargo planes and in the attempted bombing on christs day the year before. anwar al-awlaki and the leaders reaffirmed their commitment to this attack. they also continue to emphasize operations in the west and have

sought to radicalize individuals over the internet to carry all the attacks here and in europe and despite he recent counterterrorism success abroad, and there have been many, cord al qaeda also remains committed to the high-profile attacks directedat the west. we saw this with the 2009 plot by a zazi in he subway and we confirmed this from the material seized on osama bin laden's compound last spring. as you know we continue to track the curnt streams from al qaeda, threat streams that became public last week and pakistan such as ttp have similarly shunned an attempt to target the united states to release all this when they claimed responsibili for the times square at him to the bombing. and we remain concerned that all of these groups encourage radicalized westerners particularly u.s. citizens to travel to east africa for the

training with the potential to return to the united states to conduct attacks. of course the threat from home from violent extremists is among the most serious terrorism threats today. individuals may be reckless over the internet even if they do not receive direct guidance or training from a terrorist group. these individuals may have diverse backgrounds and life experiences as well as different motives. increasingly, many acting alone and for these reasons, and violent extremists are harder to detect and to disrupt. and the fbi along with the partners in ctc, department of homeland security and the other law enforcement and intelligence communities are focused on these threats more than perhaps eight, nine, ten years ago. and force the fbi remains concerned about the domestic terrorist threat as well. economic and political issues could motivate white

supremacists and militia extremists to violence and as you know, domestic terrorists connaughton operate as the defenders were small cells which are difficult to detect. over all the threat envirment has evolved significantly since september 11th and is more complex and diverse than ever before. this requires the bureau and partners to change and not constantly to address these threats to the as you pointed out, mr. chairman, the fbi has undergone an unprecedented change n the years since september 11th. today the fbi is a stronger organization as a result, and we continue to focus on the national security threats as our highest priority. after september 11th, the deutsch boesh of the 2,000 agents from criminal investigations to the national security matters. over the years that follow we centralize management of counterterrorism and intelligence operations headquarters to avoid the stovepiping of information.

structurally we created the national security branch in 2005 to consolidate and integrate the tero's overall national security mission and engage senior executives the authority to accelerate the integration of intelligence and to the national security operations. we established the director of intelligence at the headquarters to manage our intelligene programs nationwide and create field intelligence groups to prioritize and each of the field offices to prioritize intelligence collection in each of the field offices and we hired and trained thousands of new analysts and agents on the capabilities to read the following septembe11th, the fbi agreed the increased he number of joint terrorism task forces and the task force is operating around the nation and we now have more than 100 of those task forces. the task force's bring together the expertise from our federal, state, local partners and this cooperative effort has led to

numerous successes and disrupting terrorist plots and threats since september 11th. after september 11, the fbi also recognized the need to recruit, hire and train the intelligence analyst condra necessary to meet the requirements of the national security mission. in 2001 the bureau had one doesn't, approximately 1,000 intelligence analysts and fewer than 30 analysts to read to the bureau was triple the number of intelligence analysts to more than 3,000 we have more than 270 supervisory analysts. let me as an aside emphasize the fbi role of countering cyber attacks. one of the most significant complex threats facing the nation. the intelligence law enforcement capabilities the bureau is positioned to investigate and disrupt cyber intrusions' and our need to counter the cyber tax cuts across all of our programs including counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and the criminal programs.

beginning in 2007 we worked with our partners to establh the national cyber investigative joint task force which now includes 24 turtle and intelligence community agencies. through these partnerships the bureau has identified investigated and prosecuted an unprecedented number of intrusion cases and these intrusions of and directed the military, other government agencies, the financial and communications sectors and other critical infrastructures. addressing this cyber threat will be among the fbi's highest priorities now and in the years to come. let me conclude by thanking the committee for the continued support of the men and women of the fbi and support for our mission as it has evolved to read this is essential to our transformation and our ability to meet today's diverse threats. as the psychiatry said i would be happy to answer any questions that he might have to read some of thank you very much,

director. we look for to the question period if you. welcome. obviously counter to the conventional counterterrorism centers on of the most significant new entities created in the government to put it simplistically to make sure the botts are connected but obviously does much more than that so this is the first appearance before of but confirmation and we welcome you. estimates before. german lieberman, ranking member, some members of the committee, good morning. as we begin with me thank you for taking the time to meet with me during my confirmation. i appreciate your counsel and support. i'm honored that my first hearing of the director of the national counterterrorism center is before the committeethat authored the legislation creating in ctc. i welcome this opportunity to discuss the evolution of the terrorist threat and the collective efforts to address that threat. i am also pleased to be transitory napolitano and director mueller this morning and it's appropriate we continue to reflect on the data that the nation suffers the worst

terrorist attack in the history. after a few weeks as the director of the nctc i can report the center is a national asset and its conquest of dedicated and talented intelligence professionals representing a wide array of perspectives experiences. i'm also proud to leave the center continuing the work of andrew, mike eiter and my testimony today reflects the thoughtful and a rigorous analysis of the expert work force at nctc. today's hearing asks the question to years after 9/11 our receiver and chairman lieberman as you said the bottom li is we are safer than we were ten years ago. but al qaeda and its allies and affiliate's continue to pose a significant threat facing the school and the hard work of the thousands of men and women and intelligence of the homeland security, diplomatic of law enforcement communities as well as the men and women in uniform who made significant progress in the fight against terrorism with the support and guidance of this committee in congress we've

built an ending counterterrorism framework. the framework that includes the establishment of the dhs, the transformation of the fbi and the creation of the montreal to the commercial center to replace pressure on the leadership, denied the group safe haven, resources and as a result, kallur al qaeda is weekend but a decade after the september 11 attacks we remain at war with al qaeda to read it's a resilience and active adversary and we continue to face any flt for this director mueller mengin from its affiliate and endurance. in the balance of my remarks i will briefly describe that terrorist threat and then discuss a bit about the role of the nctc and the challenges we face. first al qaeda's core capability to conduct attacks has been significantly diminished. again, chairman lieberman in your words weakened but not a question the group remains the ideological leader of the global extremist movement. it continues to influence others through propaganda. al qaeda as senior leadership

has advanced several unsuccessful small-scale western faults in the past two years and these highlight and its ability to continue attack preparations while understand counterterrorism pressure and just the past week we acted in response to the unnfirmed intelligence possible threat the group was planning attacks in the united states. we remain concerned that al qaeda may be plotting to strike against the united states at home or overseas. further since el pais relocation to pakistan has encouraged its militant allies to expand the operational edge and as to include u.s. and western targets both within the region and overseas. for example, faisal shahzad's attended bombing is a stark minder that the allies continue to threaten the u.s. interest in afghanistan and pakistan region. additionally t years after 9/11 we face a much more diverse and i used the threat from the group's affiliated with al qaeda to read these affiliate's has increased the scope of the

operations seeking to strike some u.s. and western targets with inside and outside of the respective regions to be the single most capable of fully it is al qaeda and the arabian peninsula or aqap. the recent gains in the government alleges increase our concerns about the group's capability to conduct attacks. for the propaganda efforts are designed to expire like-minded western extremists to conduct attacks in their home countries. aqap's attacks against the homeland, the head of the airliner attack in december, 2009 and its attempt to down the cargo planes in 2010 showed that the group is a determined and capable enemy that is able to adjust the dhaka. the evolution of the threat since 9/11 is the advent of the homegrown extrists as you mentioned ranking member collins to read these individuals are inspired by al qaeda as agenda

and the past three years we seen an increase in the violent extremist english content online. this has fostered greater cohesion among the homegrown violent extremists. propes destructive in the last year appear to be unrelated operationally but mayhare a common cause rallying independent extremists to attack the homeland. the key feature has bee the development of the narrative that addreses the unique concerns of the u.s.-based extremist. the narrative includes a blend of al qaeda's inspiration, perceived victimization and the glorification of homeland plotting. the independent attacks with no direction in side of the united states or overseas are difficult to detect and disrupt and could advance plotting with no warning. now turning to the rolph nctc. as the terrorist redefault of the past decade so has the government's ability to counter that threat. nctc has proven to be a vital element of the government-wide effort to counter terrorism.

first as you know nctc is unique responsibility to examine all international terrorism issues to risk and geographic boundaries so that we can analyze intelligence regardless of whether it is correct inside or outside of the united states. nctc has access to the fall catalog of the reporting both foreign and domestic on terrorism issues. last year nctc had the pursuit group to develop tactical needs and pursue the terrorism threats, pursued group analyst with connections among the less obvious details to help ensure the terrorist threats are fully examined. nctc continues to implement important reforms in the watch listing process. this includes better processing and sharing of the information or watch listing experts within the pursuit group or the fbi and with the department of homeland security to expedite the sharing ofinformation and to build more complete terrorist identity. nctc also conducts strategic operational planning for counterterrorism activities. in this role nctc looks beyond

the individual department and agency missions to the deelopment of a single unified counterterrorism ffort across the federal government. we did the plans to help translate high-level strategies of policy direction in to the coordinated activities. finally, as the committee is well aware the center continues to be the home to the interagency threat assessment and coordination group to read the group is led by the dhs and in partnership with fbi and brings together federal and ma federal intelligence law enforcement first responder communities to bridge the intelligence information gap between the traditional intelligence agencies on the one hand and state and local and private sector partners on the other. i would like to close today by identifying the most important resource and that is our people. as we redouble the effort to meet the terrorist threat, our progress depends on maintaining and developing our talented and diverse work force. we bring together professionals from across the government to focus on the single mission,

counterterrorism and we must strive to work collaboratively to share information and to integrate our efforts. finally come of direct these must be csistent with our core values and the protection of privacy and civil liberties and everything we do nctc must retain the trust of the american people as it fulfills it's critically importt responsibilities. chairman lieberman, a ranking member collins and members of the committee to for the opportunity to testify today. as you know perfection is no more possible and counterterrorism than it is in any other enavor and we always strive to improve the leadership's support and direction have been in valule helping us move for to carry out the mission and to work with results to protect the nation. thank you. >> thank you, director very much. we will go to the questions now and start with a first-round of seven minutes for each senator. let me begin by bring to the threat stream that alerted everyone in the government and the nation last week as we approached the tenth

anniversary. it was describ as specific credible but unconfirmed court and corroborated. let me ask you first what is the status of the review of the threat now? do we consider to be an ongoing threat from sector napolitano, director mueller, whichever? >> chairman lieberman, i will refer to director mueller but yes, we consider it an ongoing threat. we continue to lean forward into conforming that threat. >> it has not been resolved and until it is resolved, it is an outstanding threat that we are llowing up on even though september 11 has now passed we do not believe tt that necessarily means that we should back down and consequently the department of homeland security and the intelligence agencies

are pursuing that as heavily as we have in the last several days and we will continue to do so until that is resolved. >> sifry free here you treacly it remains confirmed by the intelligence stream was specific and credible enough that you are not prepared to dismiss it? >> no. >> do not add anything to that? >> i share the views of the director and secretary. we are not prepared to see that it's been resolved and we continue to work to analyze it and share information about it. >> i would like to add one thing if i might that is since we first got word of that threat we have conducted hundreds of interviews. we've been pursuing a number of leads, and consequently, as a result ofhat, we have been able to eliminate some aspects where we thought we ought to be looking in order to determine whether it was indeed a valid

threat but there is still work to be done. >> that's reassuring for my perspective. i was struck and i know there were plans already well in place to be it federal, state and local to be prepared to defend against another terrorist attack on attempting and with regard t the home grown radicals but others as well. i was impressed by the extent to which so many of the assets that our government has now in regard to homeland security counterterrorism were brought into action on this threat th we really i don't think would have been able to do ten years ago. one of thes things that the 9/11 commission said is when they asked the question who is in charge of counterterrori or the particular response to the terrorist threat they didn't have an answer. so, from my perspective it

looked like you were all really working together very well, but i'm interested in who was in chargeecause at some point somebody has to be overseeing all of this. so who would you say is in charge? >> you have on the one hand of the intelligence agencies, the domestic agencies operational, dhs, fbi and the like all of whom we have been thrgh this before. any number of times, and the relatiships and the organizations come together very quickly given our history but i would say in the white house and the office of the national security adviser it makes certain that everything has been taken care of generally through nctc as the operational support arm but there is no question about the source of the leadership and the coronation

and that's why we have been over the years effective in terms of coming together and sharing information, understanding our differing roles and complementing each other to make certain the job gets done to resolve the particular threats. >> that's very interesting. so the deputy national security advisor mr. brennan is involved in counterterrorism and homeland security acting on behalf of the president in charge of fuel and coordinating our assets but that the nctc plays an operational role on his behalf to you to comment on that mr. olson? >> yes, sir. i would say as you put it, john brennan put the coordinating role on behalf of the president in the last few days in response to this threat and our role at nctc is to be the place where informatio comes together cause some of the information is coming from the cia, as coming from fpi.

lots of information coming from dhs. we play a central clearing house world where we take all of that information come analyze it and share what we are seeing from the analytical standpoint. >> secretary, you want to add to that, does this sound right to you? >> it is an amazing coordination that might seem and i don't think would have been ble to accomplish tenyears ago. it is ultimately coordinated out of the white house. we all understand how we fit together. sometimes it's difficult to articulate and know it when you see it, but it does seem to increase our ability not only to share information among ourselves, but it's important that we get information to the country and receive information back, and that also is a difference between now and ten years ago and i can say that ten years ago when i was the attorney general of arizona, and it was very difficult to get

information as to what was coming on with the attacks and what decisions were going to be made with respect to the air safety from airports, borders and all the rest. now that dislocation doesn't occur. >> i want to ask you one additional question and probably the most visible part of the changein the homeland security since 9/11 for most americans has been the presence of tsa at the airports and i think that they have done a great job. as you know, it is an annoyance to people but they put upwith that, and before this committee mr. pistole indicated the department would like to move away from the one-size-fits-all approach to a more risk-based aviation security strategy to really wanted to ask you what the department is doing to implement the risk-based

strategy and whether the moves would be made soon in tat regard. >> i was fortunate to take director mueller's number to move him over to tsa commesso thank you i owe you -- with respect to the tsa, we do want to live and are moving to a more risk-based approach of the screening passengers to try to streamline procedures for those passengers who are low risk which enhances the ability to focus on the passengers who we either don't know or who are at high risk. we are piloting several programs to achieve these goals like now. one of them is the expansion of the global gentry, which is essentially a program to facilitate international travel. it's a prescreening of a passenger and those who have just a million passengers a couple weeks ago releases of petites coming in and out and

crossing borders. we have been pleading also programs to deal with children under the age of 12 with respect to not only taking f their shoes but also pat-down procedures and we hope over the coming weeks and months we will be able to begin rolling that out. it does require additional training of all the thousands of the tsa officers and that's under way. we are obviously looking at some of the other things, procedures passengers need to make to streamline the process through the lines. there will always be some unpredictability in the system and there will always be random checks even for groups that we are looking at differently such as children under the age of 12, but i think the traveling public will begin to see how some of these changes really in the coming months. >> that's good to ee. in the foreseeable future if i

hear you correctly we may be moving to a system where children under 12 would not normally be subject to pat-dn and the light to respond to devotee additional training for the different pat-down procedures for them and then also again, allowing them to leave their shoes on. islamic excellent. that's good news. senator collins. >> madame secretary, i want to go back to the bowling green case which was very troubling to many of us on this committee. as i look at the overall statistic, the dhs interviews more than 101,000 iraqi refugee applicants and approved more than 84,000 for resettlement in this country. there is an approval rate that exceeds 80% and i was surprised

at the scope of this program. 58,810 iraqi refugees have been resettd here and are living here. now, i know from the previous dhs testimony and from my conversations with the director that there is the review of those that are here to make sure that we have not missed fingerprints or other data or intelligence the would indicate that eighth mistake was made in granting them the right to resettle in this country. but that leaves 25,625 who have been approved for resettlement but have not yet been resettled in this country. so my question is is tre a

hold on that population until they can be more stringently vetted to ensure we are no flooding into the country people who would do less harm? >> let me if i might answer in two parts. first with respect to the 56, 57,000 who were resettled pursuant to the original results and program. they have not been reveted against all of the dhs databases, all of the nctc databases and the department of defense biometric databases, and so that work has now been done and focused. >> completed? >> that is completed. moving forward, no one will be resettled without going through the same sort of debt. i don't know whether that equates to a cold as you say but i can say that having done

already resettled population moving forward, they will alle reviewed against those kind of data bases. >> director mueller, it is reassuring to hear that those 58,000 individuals had been vetted against the existing database but in fact due to a lack of resources and the fact that this is not an easy task to do the matching and the lifting of the leading fingerprints don't you have a considerable backlog of fingerprints that have yet to be uploaded in to these databases? >> as we discussed there is a prioritization in terms of the explosive devices that we look at, and with that prioritization there's a substantial grouping of devices that haven't been

looked at. we are taking the precautions of assuring that we maintain the capability of looking at it down the road and in other words assuring if there are fingerprints they can be recaptured down the road. but as you pointed out before it's a question of resources and we do have to prioritize. if we do get an indication of the name of a person who there's a question about we can do that much thorough review in going into thi third tier to determine whether that person's fingerprints appear on any ied but requires a triggering of information in order to gto that ' to read and it's not just a small grouping as i think you understandit is substantial. and so, regardless of whether the resources should be given and what resources we can do more, nonetheless, there would be a ultimately the grouping that we just cannot applaud for a variety of reasons. >> but what concerns me is in the case of one of the individuals arrested in bowling

green, his fingerprints were in those low werepretty ied parts; correct? >> correct. we have to go back and identify where it was sent to the additional research and i have done that and will continue to do that. >> but that depends on you getting the lead or the name of an individual where you can try to map out where that individual was as opposed to the dhs being able to run the fingerprints against the complete database; correct? >> they can run the fingerprints against the database but the database will not have that information from the third tier that hasn't been uploaded because of te vast amounts of the devices we have and the necessity to prioritize.

>> and that third tier again happened to be where the fingerprint of the individual from kentucky were located. madam secretary, i want to talk to you about the fsion center. i have been a supporter of the fusion centers i visited one of them in a large urban area and one in a rural state and i have seen the information sharing that they do and i've been impressed but my enthusiasm is not shared by everyone. there are individuals on both sides of the ogle that argue that the fusion centers are duplicative of the joint terrorism task force to read why do we need them when we already hae this multi agency task force particularly in a time of budget constraint. senator warner's essentials letter in june on that issue,

senator coburn's subcommittee is looking at the effectiveness of the fusion centers, and i know that the dhs has conducted a study to identify baseline keep the peace that every fusion center should have. so tell me why we should have fusion centers. >> i can speak both as a forer u.s. attorney general and governor has to the utility of the fusion centers. they do not duplicate. they complement. their portals of entryhere we can share information, and as i mentioned in my opening comments all but three we are now connected at the secret level and get information back as the director mentioned and then director mueller, of the phenomena we are dealing with now was the growth of the homegrown terrorists and the

so-called loan actor were lone wolf. we need more on is on the ground and the federal government itself can supply. the training and ability to share information about tactics and techniques, early trips that should be looked for cn be very, very helpful, and it's not just sharing information, senator that is portant with respect to the fusion centers, its sharing analytical and expanding analytical capability to the different levels of government. so we now have the 72fusion centers. we've moved our own analysts into the fusion centers themselves so that they can help my only the gatheringnd the receipt of information but the analysis of infrmationand that itself is helpful and if you look at zazi and faisal shahzad connected with jihadi jane and all of those cases you'd see t fusion center activity that is very helpful and indeed this

past three days with the ongoing threat has been described to you fusion centers are active in that as well. >> thank you. >> thanks, senator collins for the information and senators will be called in order of arrival as follows. senator brown, carper, johnson, pryor and mccain. senator brown. 64 mr. chairman. >> here is a three part question. several of the reason that the terrorist attacks against the u.s. have been carried out by re inspired by aqap. how would you assess the threat to the homeland, would you put them at top of the list of the threats by terrorist organizations and theas a follow-up is yemen on its way to becoming another afghanistan safe haven for aqap to plot a tax and to we have a sufficient strategy in place for yemen? >> thank you putative reports to that question, the first is that

aqap is certainly among the biggest concerns from the counterterrorism perspective. it has shown itself to be to have both the intent and the capability of carrying out attacks against the united states and the homeland. i mentioned the two examples of that in christmas day 2009 and in 2010. beyond the actual attempted attacks one of the biggest concerns we have about aqap is its propaganda efforts. anwar al-awlaki, dual u.s. citizen has transpired magazine sought to inspire western request westerners. the actual issues of inspired magazines have included step by

step on making instructions. >> that is my next question. how do they get away with that? how do you get away with putting the bomb instructions in the magazine to be dissemiated by? can you tell me that and mr. mueller, the same with you. >> it's not something that in other words, that information is put out in an online magazine over the internet and -- >> there's no control over anything like that? >> certainly some of that information is not necessarily unique to aqap at one of the biggest concerns of the nature of the information is that it's quite basic. it's easy to follow. it doesn't require something to be sophisticated to follow those instructions. in your question, yes come aqap is the top of the list and one of the biggest concernswe have. whether yemen is a safe haven we are very concerned about the ability of the young men who government at this point to

sustain the strong counterterrorism efforts given the government's challenge is that it faces. so aqap has had the opportunity to recruit in sight yemen and to plan and a plot to incite young men in a way that we put extreme pressure on the senior leadership it's more difficult to put that same pressure on aqap leaders in yemen. spinet on the inspire magazine in particular -- >> we are not without tools. but the fact of the matter is once you upload something or want to applaud something on the internet, it is exceptionally difficult to try to eradicate it and in fact i would say impossible. so while we do have the tools, the likelihood, the possibility of erratic eating from the internet understanding it's not just the united states with every country around the world it is virtually impossible and

to the extent that we have some capabilities to address that is probably something we should talk about not necessarily an open session. >> madam secretary, in your testimony you said, and i've heard you many times talking about the nation's borders and protecting us from the legal entry especially your neck of the woods where you are from i know it is of great concern to senator mccain a lot of the other border states and quite frankly i couldn't agree with you more. in massachusetts alone there are several tragic cases of residents been killed by persons in this country illegally and free were never heard from, but it really has to stop, and thus secure communities program is something i believe -- i don't want to miss state but you re in favor of and you've worked words and you would like to see it implemented. how do you deal with states for

example my state where you have the governor or others who don't support it? is there a way to convince them or control them or incentivize them to really get with the programs to speak? >> welcome senator brown itunes support secure communities. i think it is the key tool in the immigration enforcement efforts to identify those in the country illegally who are also committing other crimes and some existing warrants are multiple illegal entrants are the security concerns, in other words, we have to be able to find them and going to the jail and prison of the country is a logical first place to start and so we -- >> you can't do your job if you don't have the ote pollution from the indivual states are people in charge. how do u do it? >> there was some initial misinformation about the community's plan fact of the

matter is is the interoperability between the dhs and the fbi so that when someone is booked and their fingerprints are run through the fbi, there is alsa connection to n them against our information database so that i.c.e. can flag and a rest before the release back to the community. it doesn't require the specific agreement of the state or locality in order to deploy secure communities. now it's helpful when we have that and so i'm using my power of persuasion to speak with the governors are the makers or other officials who have been troubled by the program. >> it just doesn't make sense when you are having -- we are all americans first and we are trying to -- especially when we work together and we solve or tackle the problem together -- we usually prevails. so i'm encourang others that i

know back home in massachusetts and througut the country remember we are americans first and we will work together on these very real terrorist threats and concerns, and by providing -- if someone is here illegally than it is basic murder and mayhem we should be able to get them out and do it with the cooperation of all government entities. >> secure communities was begun under my predecessor. we have actually deployed it now throughout the country i think we have in 1200 some sites and we will have it in every jurisdiction by if 113. islamic mr. chairman can i just ask you a question? mr. mueller also pointed out and you have folks who are american citizens going over and being trained and then using their knowledge come back. what is the status on -- i kow the terrorist expatrie sharnak

to you and ausley and senator collins and others found what is the status are we going to refine all that or -- >> i would be happy to refile that. i think it continues to be a problem. >> i just mentioned very briefly in terms of what do you do about the extremist material like inspire magazine or the other things on the internet, and what director mueller said of the authors what this is true on the federal government, but what we've discovered and we've gone over this, senator brown, is that some of the major sites that google owns youtube and weld lager and the operation obviously if individual citizens complain to them about a particular site having brought up material -- >> we'll have standards. people whose job it is to review complaints like that and on many

occasions -- >> let me say that i have not least one staff member who exercises his individual citizen rights when he is not in the office to complain about these come and google, youtube, facebookthey take down those jihad web sites. it's quite remarkable. now of course the problem it's the glory and the problem of the internet, they can pop up omewhere else and then you have to go at it all over again. but there is that a devot by the individualcitizens. estimate as the president in charge as people to call us having encouraged citizens if they feel compelled and move to contact those entities to do just that. >> it's pretty easy to do if you go on those website. thank you. senator carper? >> to the witness is welcome, governor, nice to see. directors mueller, think you for your willingness to sn on for a longer tour of duty. we are grateful for that. it's nice to see you as well.

my colleagu have heard me tell this story before but it's worth repeating, going to take this question in a little different direction. about two months ago having a shooting in the finance committee, the subject of the cheering was deficit-reduction and one of the witnesses was alan blinder who used to be the vice chairman of the federal reserve when alan grenspan was the chairman, and the church of the testimony and said unless we are serious about the recent health care costs in this country, medicare, medicaid, and finding addressing the of care cost said we are not really going to get a handle on the deficit all the witnesses finish this is the money during the q&a li this, and came to me and said you said earlier if we don't do anything about health care costs that's the 800-pound gorilla in the room and we are playing around the edges and he said that's right. what will be your advice, what

should we do? he said on not helping congress. he teaches at princeton. he says here's my advice i would urge you to find out what works. do more of that. that's all he said. find out what works. do more of that. so i guess to correlate to that would be to find out what does not work and do less of that. i think the same is true across thgovernment as we deal with the budget deficit we are happy it's down. it's going to be $1.3 trillion i think by the end of the year, but everything we do we have to look through it as a way to get a better result for the same amount of mon and i would just ask of you today to talk about some of the things though we are doing that are working and maybe some things where we are spending money but not a whole

lot to our security. secretary, would you go first? it's been a pretty good job as i recall. >> thank you. yes, we did have the balanced budget every year. first of all, i would resist the notion that some redundancy is wasteful. in the areas with which we deal, some redundancies helpful becase there is always the possibility that someone or something will get through one of the many layers that we have. so, you have to evaluate redundancy differently. in this arena than i think in some others. segment, we aays have to plan for some tomonitor in the universe with which i deal with which is who or what can get into the country and how we know who or what is in the country? so one of the major improvements that we've been able to

accomplish in the last several years is to merge more and more data bases that are very robust so that we can look at the abnormal travel patterns and the like and share that information. that the kind of information we can share with the fbi, with the nctc when we are pulling a tough read of a threat. so that is an improvement that we want to continue to make more robust and linked up as i sit with the fbi, nctc and other agencies around town. >> directors mueller? >> i would like to have from two perspectives, first internally everyone of us are looking at where we can make savings and contractors cutting down in a variety of ways we have to continue to do for the foreseeable future.

more importantly is prioritization. not everything can be a priority. and for us it is programs we have, the particular crimes and threats we see out there and prioritizing our efforts to address those threats and assure that as we do that there is a metric for success as opposed to just indictmens and the like but how is that your efforts to address -- >> we are pretty good measuring the process. we are not all that good in the government and measuring the outcomes and results. >> more generally in the federal government and in our line of work the ability for information technology to provide us not only the information we need to sort through the information and bring out that which we really need is something we are all undergoing as a part of having a kid with the visa you can do searches across a variety of databases both internally and

externally and b doing that and developing the information technology capability we will save a tremendous amount of money but particularly we share the information across the agencies and have the ability for our analysts to do the kind of search that doesn't require them to go to when did this come and make a search and come out and do another one and that is one of the keys in my mind to both information sharing of the future but also doing it in a financially responsible way. >> dewaal to add anything? >> yes, first let me say that we're looking at ways to be more efficient in how we are using our resources, but i would make two points. the first that follows a one director mueller, and that is that at nctc we are seeking to create what we call the counterterrorism data and that is to take all of the data we can from the dhs, the fbi, from

other agencies and to be able to get into japan advances in information technology to be able to search across the data as collector mueller says the advances in technology makes it a way to actually save money. instead of doing the search is manually where you log into one system and then into a separate system having all that information available so you can search across a variety of databases and make those connections you wouldn't otherwise be able to make. the other initiatives tt i would identify that i think is no resource expenditure and that is we set up as i mentioned in my opening statement pursuit groups which are analysts looking for tactical at the tactical level in the connections that might not be obvious, and then taking the information, those connections and handing goes off to the fbi and to the dhs as leads to follow upon. that's an area where we are focusing particularly in the aftermath of the christmas day attack in 2009. >> let me just conclude by

recalling the words as the football season recalling the words of the party who used to say you're not keeping score, you're just practicing. another way to say that is what we measure we manage and the idea of looking through the federal government to see what's working and what's working well, how can we invest more money there and what's not, and a little less money they're considering napolitano there are two departments in the federal goverent where i think the government is operating without the financials. one is the department of defense, secretary leon panetta said to me that he's going to try to get there by 2017. he's going to push his people as hard as he can and i think that's great. we need to help him. your department is making great progress. and i don't understand, th is something you would put a priority on and i urge you to keep doing that. the guy sitting here on my left i've been pushing the idea you

had a tool as governor veto we think the president ought to have the tool and we tried for your test rightfully constitutional. devotee sitting in this room except maybe one person has co-sponsored that and we have about 40co-sponsors to push that. i call a four year test drive with the veto. i think that could be part of the solution. not all of it but in the day that we are looking for good solid reasons, we are looking for silver bullets it's not a bad one. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator johnson? ..

the did not have enough, so things like procurement -- that is why, as the senator mentioned, we are making this. we can go through component by component epically -- component by component. component and say look, when the department was created, we've

had as an border patrol agents coming out with 21,000. they are on the field. i can go to and say we started the department, the tsa didn't really exist and that all has almost had to be built from scratch with the company personnel, training and technology e. and i would recommend and be happy to sit with you and go through that and see whe we are. we are trying to keep the administrative are missing as possible given what we are asked to manage and how we are asked to mage it. but the goal is come as i said earlier, senator, is to do that with asp in a layer of management as possible to enable and empower business deal to do their jobs. >> one thing i would appreciate it if you could look at the headcount of the agencies consolidated and the i could work up in terms of may at 230,000 employees in the

department. 63 at the tsa. in earlier testimony, direct or mueller, we are concerned about how many fbi agents were in the task. i kind of want to ask your opinion. do you have frustrations in terms of the lease says to you activities versus web resources are necessarily spent in department overhead clinics >> i had one of the consultants come in several years ago to look at our structure. we are very flatline structur. we at 56 field offices they really do work around the country. persons from the business community all report to one individual basically, that you have got aeal problem in terms of coverage. they come away, they say we're thin in terms of management. to me chex organization.

they will call the counterterrorism person back at headquarters. we have more agents on the street now than out in the various investigations. what we find returner terrorism terrorism -- the cases are not just domestically and in concert with the caa, nsa, others looking at the cases internationally, which is required to build up the capability at headquarters that we did not have before. that's frustrating. everybody organization blake to be in the field. in order to be effect is, we have to build a capability to coordinate our actions. in this paper area, traditionally cris have been in bank robberies or white collar crimes in a particular division. in the cyberarena, you can

affect persons from all 50 states. you don't know where they are. in order to address cyberintrusion, for instance, it takes a headquarter managed oversight in order to do it. that is working day in you hs, nsa, cia and other compartments. we try to stay as flat as we can be, but given the threats come with how to develop new organizational structures to address. >> in hindsight what that information, would it have been more efficient model utilizing the terrorism center for that effort? >> the counterterrorism center is analytical. will we provide is the immediate response to leadnyplace in the country. the threats such as last week, we agents following up on aspects that lead in every one of the states in the country. it's a combination of the anatical capability along with the ability of the operational

ability to go and pursue that ad, interview peoplecome into wires where appropriate and court orders, to do surveillance is around the country, to do the forensic work, which provides you the intelligence, which is absolutely essential to bring to bear. nctc has none of those capabilities. >> obviously one of the tasks of the department is response to a terrorism attack. you can take a look at the earthquake here in d.c. as somewhat of a dress rehearsal. i wasn't here, but i was told the cell phones did not work for hours. there was a mess out of town is not a good evacuation plan. have you taken a look at that instance and kind of evaluated how prepared we ended the department performed away with it expected to? >> yes, we look at all those instances. when you have a disaster that is is kind of the private cellphone

cell phone capability is often overwhelmed in the first instance. everybody's trying to call out. a key question i asked was, what about the responders? were they able to be in touch with each other and to have interoperability? as far as i know, the answer is yes. the second question is evacuation of the capital chain. we've had that issue as snowstorms. we had it with this recent earthquake. we have been working. first it capital region group involves virginia, maryland, the district and our department, working with the office of personnel management quite frankly in terms of how do you affect an orderly evacuation of the district? u don't have enough for her coverage to it very well and that is the plain fact of it. but it can be done better in that group is an ongoing sessions looking at how they can at least improve evacuation

procedures, particularly if the federal government will go into shutdown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator moran. >> mr. chairman, thank yo i'd like to express my appreciation for the three witnesses and more iortantly for their effos to make americans more safe and secure. i express gratitude on behalf of all kansans for what you do. not in secretary, she got us to see some intention, but less than what we normally talk about in safety and security. we often talk about transportation, airports, memos, those kinds of things. there's been thisenuine concern. in fact, the green talents weapons of mass destruction talked about aggro bioscience from the threat that comes from animal disease and unfortunately gave us and asked in a report on our preparation for that

occurrence. there is in my view a real threat exists in our ability to deter, detect, quarantine the introduction of any kind of disease into our food supply. we have a hearing this afternoon on this topic, and which one of your officials from your department will testify, but i would like to know your 10 years later after 9/11. i think in fact slightly before 9/11, the president of kansas state university, john we felt testified in front of emerging threats hearing here in washington d.c. about this issue wasn't something a lot of us thought about. i'd like to have you bring me up to date on where you think we are in regard to that threat. >> i think that threat is one of many evolving threats we continue to confront good one of

the challenges, senator, that we have been working on these last few ars is to actually improve and replace our laboratory and diagnostic capability because one of the problems with these threats is exactly that. this diagnostic, quarantine and decisions need to be made on a very rapid pace is. if one of the forces of our food supplies is beginning to be in fact did. we have been working with campus on the in-depth, one of quite frankly the concerns i had this in the fy 12 budget, we asked -- someone will correct me if i'm wrong i'm sure, but the department asked for 150 million for fy 12. the house mark was 75. the senate mark was zero. i hope that can be exploited perhaps in the conference between the house and the senate we can rectify that. that facility is i think necessary for really the next

generation. not just for now, but also the future. we need to think not only what is happening now, but what we could be confronting 10 years from now. >> in addition and i certainly appreciate your comments in regard to the scientific aspect of this. in addition, any sense of how prepared are better prepared, less prepared to respond to the introduction of some contaminant? >> i would say overall beer better prepared and obviously involves more departments better tha just dhs, but there's been a lot of cross departmental work. some exercises has been done. and also, importantly customs and border protection with respect to inspecting what can come into the country have studied a lot of work in this arena. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. charman. >> senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the witnesses for their

service in director mueller, thank you for your willingness to continue to serve. none in secretary, are you aware of the government accountability officereport of september 12, the trustee chairman levin and me and the subject observations on the cost and benefit of an increased department of defense will in helping to secure the southwest land border? >> i'm not sure i'm familiar with that particular report, senator. >> well, i would refer to you for your reading in the report it says in addition, agency officials identified a number of broader issues and concerns surrounding expansion of dod's assistant in securing the southwest u.s. land border,

specifically they include dod officials expressed concern about the absence of a comprehensive strategy for southwest border security and the result of challenges to identify and plan a dod role. are you aware of the department of defense concerns about the absence of a comprehensive strategy for southwest border security? neck as i sid, i don't know that report, but i will say i spoke with secretary gates and secretary panetta about the fact that we do have a comprehensive borderstrategy, what it is and what goes dod template to assist a spare. >> so you disagree with the dod officials expressed concerns about the absence of a comprehensive strategy fo southwest borde security? >> vehemently. >> i'd be glad to hear about your strategy because i fail to

see one yet as the residents of a state. >> we been trying to find a date o come brief you over the last several months am i just haven't been able to write that one. but in more than happy to come in and sit down with you and go through it's happening. >> been secretary, i'd be glad to receive that. we have one meeting that's highly unsatisfied jury and you might want to broadcast your strategy to the residents of the southwest who also, certainly the governors and senators agreed there is no comprehensive strategy, along with dod officials expressed concern. i am sure you are familiar, not in secretary with operation fast and furious. given the high level information sharing between the departments, were you made aware of the operation that was underway?

>> no. >> let me be very clear for the record. you are under the family with operation fast and furiously the operation was underway? what weapons are being transported from the southwest and the state of arizona to mexico, without so yes we know serous last in the operation. you're not aware of it? when the first times you are someone within dhs is made aware of the operation click >> senator, i would have to go back and check, but it was a think around the time of the death of our agent in southern arizona. >> what action did you take at that time? once you are important. >> first of all, what to make make sure the investigation into the cause of his death in prosecution list pursued vigorously and that was being

done. i id meet with the fbi agent in charge in arizona at the time. at the tremendous toll doj was referring the entire matter to the inspector general so we have reserved judgment of the report found. >> when were you made aware that guns, which were allowed to walk during fasting for his were used in the murder border patrol agent frank terry? >> sometime thereafter. i don't buy specific date, senator. >> may be despised for the record. we'd be interested. have you come to any conclusions , director mueller as to who was responsible for this operation? you're doing investigation, right? >> sator, we do the investigation of the killing on the border patrol agent and that has been pursued, but there have been submissions meaning court pursuant to the investigation. the investigation with regard to

the operation itself is being connect it by the attorney general, but the inspector general's office at the department of justice. >> have u reaching a conclusion so far? >> i am not very to let the inspector general's investigation has shown at this juncture. i was concerned that they would be in terms of the extent to which there is fbi involvement in a reached a conclusion to believe it was none fbi involvement in that particular operation. >> see her conclusion is who was involved? >> well, the fact of the matter is atf, which was the principal agency involved. if you're asking about ruby on ats and agents on the ground or the others in a supervisory lan card that is being investigated

by the inspector general's office and i am not privy to their findings today. >> simulators out to the inspector general as to their conclusions? u.s. director don't have any role? >> well, we do not have a role in that particular asect of the investigation. we have an important role in bringing to justice those persons responsible for the death of the agent. >> year we can inspector general's report? >> that i'm not. we are pursuing who is responsible, what weapons were used in the killings of the border patrol agent -- >> what conclusions haveyou read that? >> and believed they were submissions made in court. i got to get back to you in terms of where bergeson charging somebody. >> well, it was nice for you to get back to me, though we have a dead border patrol agent. we have a situation which for a period of time is out of control. it's been no a number of weeks

since this happened and you would be glad to get back to me? >> well, i don't know specifics of what chrges have brought in arizona with regard to that particular shooting. >> you sure that's what with us what information you have? >> we have information relating to individuals who repair. we've got individuals identified as result of interviews we conducted ably done forensics me identified weapons. we are pursuing a weapons. >> and when the wealth of information been made privy to the american people? >> it's an ongoing criminal investigation. that information will be made available in the criminal proceedings back against the individualresponsible for the killing. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccain. thanks to senator akaka.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i join all americans across the world in mourning the loss of the thousands who died as a result of the terrorist attacks a decade ago. as we commemorate the solemn anniversary, we must acknowledge the tremendous progress over the past decade to secure our nation against terrorist attacks. i want toommend those administrations resolve and successful strategy to prevent another attack. we must also commend the men and womewho have serve bravely in the military, as wel as the federal state and local workers and homeland security, not enforce an intelligence and other fields who has made substantial contributions to combating the terrorist strikes.

this anniversary is an opportunity to reflect and all the attacks still affect an assault today. we must remain vigilant to the privacy and civil liberties are not sacrificed in the name of security. as we reaffirm that which we will never forget, those who died 10 years ago, let us resolve to continue to take steps to ensure that such a tragedy would never happen again and to strengthen the principles upon which our nation was founded. the former chairman of the 9/11 commiion just released a report liing nine of their recommendations that remain unfinished. included in the absence of a functioning privacy and civil liberties oversight board.

in april i joined senators lieberman and collins in a letter to the president, asking that he nominate a the full slate of members said the board could operate. and i'd like to ask these questions to the panel. and if any of you can comment, fine. otherwise provide it for the record, that will be fine, too. so my question is, what is the status of the board being formed in our counterterrorism efforts reviewed? this is the important part for privacy and vil liberty concerns, given that the board is dormant?

>> not an secretary. >> senator aaka, i will stare. i don't know the status of the board itself. i can say at the department we have a presidentially appointed privacy officer to rent a privacy ofice. they are integrated into all of our program planning, particularly with respect to information sharing and how that is done, and making sure, for example, that when we entered into and the at the nctc in exchange for information that we include within those limtations on uses and users, on a training and also with respect to u.s. persons put some special limitations on tying the retention of certain types of records so that those kinds of privacy concerns we think about before we move forward.

they are important to protect. >> senator, we have three ways. firstly the attorney general guidelines. we've had them for a number of years that guide or investigative activities. secondly, we do also have an individual responsible for overseeing our particular initiatives from the dead impact on privacy and civil liberties. and thirdly, again when we have some form of initiative that is being undertaken, we have a panel review of that initiative, which has, certainly from our legal counsel's office, also the department of justice oversees hat particular undertaking is being reviewed in the panel -- by the panel. >> senator, i do not know the status of the board, but i would say that i nctc, we have utterly consider three layers of

oversight and cnsider our activities have a civil liberties and private activities for his spurs. internally we have a privacy officer assigned to nctc with his rule to review activities from that perspective. we have attorneys in the tni who can do the same activities with reect to our work. separately, all of handling is done pursuant to attorney general guidelines. as well when we handle information on that surveillance act, the fisa court has a role in overseeing that activity. finally, i would mention we're subject to robust congressional oversight of the house and senate intelligence committees. >> thank you. secretary napolitano, as you know, the age at pacific cooperation leaders meetings

will be held in honolulu, hawaii in november. this high profile event raised concerns that hawaii could be a target of a terrorist attack. local residents have also expressed concerns about the island of oahu be in lockdown as a result of security measures. how are the u.s. secret service the lead security plans progressi? how old they inform the public about areas to avoid businesses impact did they security measures? >> well, thank you, senator. has been designated as the nss even. meaning the secret service will provide lead organizational responsibilities, but we will work very closely and are

integrated with hawaii officials in haii and local law enforcement. they are an integral part of cleaning and execution at any nsse event. as it gets closer, there'll be a publication event to make the public aware of what areas will be closed down and the lake. one thing i would say to reassure the presidentresidence of oahu, where conscience of the fat people live in the cities and still need to get to work and school and so forth. and for example, next week we will have the u.n. general assembly convened i will have many, many national leaders in new york city and still come in new york city will work and people will be able and have been able to get to where they

need to go for the most part. so we are very sensitive to that. i just used general assembly as an example of something that is perhaps even more complex than the one in a while who to say we have some experience and we will deploy our best efforts in hawaii. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> senator paul. >> thank you to the panel for coming today hesitations. secretary napolitano, pete admitted about 7000 iraqis are the past years, two of which senator collins brought up were arrested in bowling green under accusations of conspiring to be involved with terrorism. you know, i can understand refugee status after we lost the war in vietnam, the communists took over and people are cited as our would be executed. we won the war in iraq and

redmond and 70,000 iraqis. when we win the war there's a democracy, what reason do we have to admit so many in continue to admit so many innocent not a danger to our country and overwhelming massive numbers of folks that have to be screened? and appearance sometimes not screen properly? >> well, senator, we have now gone back and we screened the iraqi population who were admitted as refugees against all the dhs databases, the nctc databases, department of dense biometric databases and any future refugees we will continue to do the same. if there are particular has their particular concerns on individuals, we are for them sometimes to the fbi to do further investigation or checking. >> is their position on the ending so many people and continue to miss so many people? >> the refugee program is under the prior administration and many individuals who have been

rechecked were admitted then. with respect to the current time, people qualifyfor refugee status under the law. they will be permitted to come in, but they'll be vetted. >> understand the numbers determined by the administration. if you decide to one of 3000 next year, understanding us under the law you could. that is done by the state department and the number of considerations are taken into account. >> i think it is sort of an insult to our soldiers over there to say well, gap, sure, it's unsafe. soldiers are there protecting her customers,, but it's unsafe iraq is good to be the coming year. too bad insult to injury is not to be had them over here, we bring them over here and both of these people accused of terrorism in our country would've been in government housinon food stamps. and the 96 welfare reform bill,

we said if you come here legally through immigration he wouldn't qualify for welfare. i think we should change that. does the administration of a position on refugees stratus admitted they should commune immediately be put on welfare? >> senator, can answer that question right now. i'll get back to yo. >> we had a little girl in bowling green, to kentucky on "good morning america" that many people thought she was funny with psa agent during invasive search inside of her clothing, and europeans european >> nematode having her diaper and spec should we had. when the tsa had pistol was here come you said we need to do invasive searches. he said we may slow down or may not do them as much pay but then he sent me a letter and said absolutely have to because the

eight euros in kandahar exploded a bomb. to me i think that shows a bit of naïveté to think that somehow there's a similar letter between eight euros in kandahar and one in bowling green. i wouldn't consider them each to be a risk factor. if anything can't age might argue against davis. to say she is the same age as someone who put off a bomb in kandahar, we have to bring some sense to overdo it. after 10 years, why don't we have a frequent player program? a bit talk of those traveling or traveling to three times a week and yet treat everybody equally as a terror suspect. in doing so, i think that we take away time that could be spent on those who would be. i think half the tsa agents have joined the program and who take half the agents and look at the manifest of those flying from foreign countries. i want to know the limits of reflate. i do know how a part of this for doing this, but it makes strict

rules on the site internationally. that's the biggest risk. but those from iraq to 70,000 people come and fight for going to the. we miss fingerprints that they had on an ied. good rme. the people once every couple months in iraq or afghanistan who admits into the army to help us. it's hard to get these people. this was an extraordinary circumstance with a fingerprint and mistake, but most of the time it could be lying to us as they go to the bank process. we put them on government welfare than they are here to attack us. we've got enough problems in our country. we don't need to admit the worlds poverty problems and i think the administration needs to take a position to lessen the numbers of people coming in from iraq. you need to take position and move forward and we need to not just be told they will someday be a risk assessment. we need to start during this

process and pay attention to people who could attack us and not sted and diverting their time, resources and insulting the dignity of his traveling. >> if i may, mr. chairman, i will simply say with respect to the movement to a risk ssess the trategy and the tsa, that is exactly what we are doing. as i said earlier in the hearing, we are moving now to dealing with and will be rolling out slowly because you have to train agents as he took us. we have almost 1.8 million passengers a day. and we are to ability in the system because the minute you say an entire group is exempt from screening, they can be exploited as a possibility. but your point about travelers who have a risk in some thing that we accept. we are moving to expand the global entry, which is for

international travelers. the just passed her millionth traveler and removing to expand and moving to less than or loosen restrictions on children under the age of 12 and also to amend the patdown procedures. these improvements are underway, but i will caution, senator, when you say to an amount, we need tomove on a deliberate pace but a careful pace. adversaries are determined with respect to aviation system. we want toake sure we do it right. >> one quick follow-up to that. it's probably not as much as they were never going to search anyone under 10 years ld or under 12 years old. but for goodness sakes, could we not pick a difference between a joke from bowling green in kandahar? i don't mind if someone comes back from pakistan that you spend more time. it's been a little time.

treally we need to understand and use your common sense with what we do. they reallyant a practical purpose mean that 99% of kids under 12 wouldn't be patted down and that would be a lot better for most of us who are insulted by what they are doing now. >> thank you, senator paul. senator levin -- chairman levin. >> thank you, mr. chaman. sorry it couldn't be here for most of this because the hearing as you know senator collins knows the answers his committee. let me welcome you all. i joined my colleagues and director will think may start start with you. a thank you note in her prepared testimony that the homegrown vanity exremist activity remains elevated with u.s.-bsed extremist taking inspiration and instruction from al qaeda's global efforts in a wide range of english-language propaganda.

part of the propaganda with the recent on the nvidia release by an american-born operative in which he urges u.s. government. in purchase firearms. under current, and individuals are allowed currently to purchase a firearm without an fbi background check if they are buying from a private sellers such as those at gun shows. does that loophole make it easier for homegrown extremists to purchase firearms for use of a terror attack? >> senator, i have not looked at the gun was in after four weeks in a position i'm reluctant to comment on that. >> will you queen, dynamic as the report quite >> yes, sir. >> director mueller. >> yes. >> what that come in the fbi background check of personal and private individuals would help reduce the threat to us from

u.s.-based vanity extremist clerics >> at have to put it at this background check is important to identifying those persons who have some reason for being in the databases and enhanced coverage of the purchase of weapons would give us greater ability to identify persons who cannot have weapons to prevent them adding weapons. >> would be to purchase from private seller such as the g show. >> yes. >> thank you. 50 states now formed2 million new corporations each year without knowing who really owns them. the failure to collect information, th actual owners,

so-called beneficial owners to use u.s. companies for terrorism, money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes. it's a subject this committee has been examining now for some years. in august, senator grassley and i introduced senate bill 1483, the incorporation of transparency amount among enforcement assistance act would require disclosure of beneficial ownership for a nation and the company formation progress. the treasury department was supported announce the following. that would substantially advance the administration's fundamental availability and information about companies create in the united states and they went on such legislation is critical to the global financial system in strategic markets reviews.

so we went to first of all think the treasury department for that support and we're wondering from you, secrery napolitano whether or not department of homeland security takes the same supportive position we need to know for law-enforcent purposes, just for law-enforcement purposes, the beneficial owners of coorations are in order to prevent terrorists and other malfeasance from this using shell corporations launder money or for their nefarious purposes. >> yes, we reported. >> i would hope, mr. chairman, we can take up this bill again. he had on the agenda and for various reasons has done an author market. it is important that we have one person in this morning that we need to do with other countries do by the way. we go after tax havens for allowing many more jurisdictions

should be used. they do get beneficial owners on record at least in many cases and i would hope again we be able to take that up in the support of treasury department and department of homeland security is helpful. i wa to get that on the record for this. on the norther border, some of the issues that have been addressed, the gao in february reported that the serious security threats to the northern border and the risk of terrorisc could be as high. it said if the dhs reports, this is the gao saying that the dhs report the terrorist threat is

higher than on the southern border, given thelarge expanse of very would limit law enforcement coverage on page one of the report. however, even with a high risk of terrorist and illegal activity to border patrol, reports quote on the 32 with nearly 4000 northern border miles in fiscal ear 2010 reach an acceptable level of security, close quote. i'm wondering if you tell us either today or for the record, secretary napolitano, whether that number of northern border mouse has increased. >> i believe it has. as we've discussed another context, that ou support operational control, that phrase is determined by her. we have a northern border strategies. it had to be cleared by omb. it now has come up to update withhe full fiscal year statistics so that will be

published shortly. the other change that's very significant is what is called beyond the borders strategy that we have with canada, which is a law enforcement infomation sharing printed or oriented strategy that really didn't exist two years ago when i think a lot of that report was probably researched. that is the enormous importance because it takes pressure the physical u.s. canada border and allows us to expand the border outwards. >> in your own words, the number of miles of border that have an acceptable level security. very quickly, if they could, one more question and then they have a thank you. the uan area security initiative has a very complex

funding allocation formula. one of the questions is whether or not a location is on an international waterway for reasons which are totally incomprehensible, detroit is not list i'm been on an international waterway when it is. the detroit river is an international waterway between the united states and canada. not only that, as were commerce crossing the river at detroit than any other place probably in the world, much less in the country. in terms of commee crossing the bridge particularly at detroit. will you take a look at that, madam secretary? then issue a letter or not -- find out for us why the city of detroit is not listed. it makes a difference in terms of allocation and resources as to whether running international

waterway. >> yes, i'll chill down on that, senar. finally, a thank you. yesterday remembered 9/11 -- i guess today's now. been following 9/11, there is a small group of people in detroit representing the arb-american community and law enforcement. they came together and formed a group called bridges. there is but a really strong connection between the law-enforcement community under the leadersip of the u.s. attorney in detroit and including also elements of the homeland security department. so the communication is far better. the trust is far better. they work shoulder to shoulder now against violence and hatred. it is an important group because if you have the support of the community, whatever community working with law-enforcement, it

is a great source of american security and tha can support kind of support in the arab-american community, and the muslim american community as reflected in that group where federal law enfrcement and state and local or representative for frequent meanings. they also memorialized our anniversary. the other day with their annual dinner. it's very reassuring to see the enforcement in their communities , whatever the community is working so closely together. that is where security is really enhanced. it's not just the typical law-enforcement secity which is important, protecting borders and doing other things, but also having supported the people in their communities working shoulder to shoulder. i just want to commend you both. fbi is actively involved that. justice department, u.s.

attorney and dhs by a dhs by a bunch involved. it was heartwarming to see that and we'll feel more secure when that's true. say it was over. >> thank you. the of his out there after 9/11 and that probably surprised a lot of people to the muslim american community. we appreciate that. i think senator collins would like one or two more questions. ensure you have faced worse challenges than the two of us. just for a few minutes more. i want to ask your qstion, which is the three of you, we've had a lot of good testimony, could discussion in a positive way of whatwe've accomplished over 10 years. look to the next year and each of you let me know what your top one or two priorities are but

what is not done to your satisfaction yet in terms of your department, bureau and thunder. >> mr. chairman, our department has so many elements to it, but i think over the next year we will continue to improve and expand information sharing and analytic capability with the fbi, nctc and other agencies in the apartment and outside the capital area to the rest of the country. i believe cyber will be an increasing area of foc for us as we deal with those direct dirt mueller said the emerging threat in the sabre world. i think we will see movement towards a more risk-based screening process for passengers, particularly in the environment. and lastly, we want to move towards -- we call it and you

heard in the video that you begin the hearing which dhs taking -- we are still in the building process, the knitting together processes involved with putting 22 agencies together. i think what's even more progress in the year ahead. >> you've got a busy year ahead of you. director mueller. >> for severe capability internally and externally so while we have to keep for a variety of reasons different database structures, there has to be the ability to pull information easily from databases. >> it is a little background. >> if we have information off of fisa intercept, the minimization procedures to whom that information can be disseminated requires us to keep it in a separate database. but what you want to do is give the analysts the ability to understand if there's anything

in the database on a particular individual e-mail adess for the link. while for a variety of reasons we do keep separate databases, whether security or stautory direcon, there has to be the center federate databases on both internally as well as externally, which is where nctc is a great deal of its effort. we have to get her own houses in der to be a platform for the government as a whole to be able to do this kind of search capability. >> do you need statutory changes to do that? >> it wod be difficult in terms of taking the fisa statute. we've just come through a date of the patriotact and i'm not sure it was something that would get easily while conceivably you could do it, it's unlikely to happen shortly and consequently we have utilized technology. secondly as we pointed out, his

essay brewing adjusting organizations to address the favors that in new ways that will make us more effective as a united entity to address the sabre thread is going to be huge issue. thirdly, assuring that new mechanisms of communication being developed daily by the new entrepreneurial information technology capabilities by various companies, i don't want to necessarily mean in here, but it's not just the communication carriers. google, facebk, all of them. the necessity of assuringin response to recorder curcumin is the right to obtain communications, there is capability of those persons and entities to respond to court orders is something i'll be addressing. we cannot afford him as we say, to go dark.

the last thing very quickly is with enhanced technology comes additional administrative organs. one of the challenges they had this to make certain agents are people spending times on the substance and removing the administrative burdenand obstacles to getting out and doing work we want to pay them to do. and that for us is an issue we continue to say. >> on that third one about gaining access to information from the unconventional, the new communications media, that might require legislation. >> it will. i think you may see some suggestion with regard to legislation. i want to say most of the companies are patriotic and working on capabities, but we have to make certain we have that access. not access.

we have to make certain that the capability to respond to court orders. >> right, of course, a lot of times those recipients of court orders want the statute to make clear their applications. mr. olson. taking up on the theme of informaon sharing, similarly at nctc as you know very well the founding principle was to break down the silos of information to provide a place for information from ths debate make significant progress through bringing people together in one place from each of those organizations. the next step inhe process is to have the information. we have much of it. continue to gather information and have it available where we then can do exactly what director mueller top it out at

nctc, search across databases, not have an analyst to one database pagoda with her to be able to find connections that are so elusive they been able to search seamlessly across all this databases. that's a significant priority for us. second dimension to pursue groups. there's a lot of potential. this is something in 2010 to fill a gap by looking for a less obvious connections among people and then be able to tip those leads off to the operational entities that can follow, whether it's cia, fbi or dhs. there's a lot of potential there and i'll continue to focus on that. third is an area of significance to both of you and not discounting violent extremism. this is an area where nctc has played a ital role and will play an increasingly important role in the next year as we do a couple of things. the one i live right now is to

develop implementation plans for the administration's new framework strategy for countering violent extremism. we done a number of things on the intelligence side and on the operational planning side to prepare law enforcement to understand the radicalization process and help communities understand where to look for threats within their neighborhoods and communities, but there is a significant amount of work to do anything nctc will nctc will play an important role. >> senator collins and i just sent a letter to mr. brennan expressing disappointment with a lot of te report and a lot of the disappointment had to do with the lack of detail, and lack of clarity as he read it about who was in charge, but al what is going to happen. insofar as you are going to put some flesh on the bones or

whatever the metaphor is, clarify that urgently that would be very important. it's interesting how much cybercomes up and also these remarkable instruments of data analysis retention, which have helped us enormously in the last week witthe latest threat stream. or we can yet do better at that as the boss that. thank you. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. olson, let me just take up where you left off because i was going to talk to you about who is the lead for countering violent extremism? i know that the white house is the lead for policy and put out what is in our view a disappointing disappointingly, sketchy strategy, but it's the nctc going to be the operational

lead for implementation? >> we will not read the operational implementation. the national security staff and counsel at the white house as the lead for developing the policy and we at nctc play a role and will be front and center developing an implementation plan, putting flesh on the bones for the broad policy. but the agencies and departments with specific authorities and responsibilities in each area will be responsible for operationally implementing that plan. i think the overall picture is centralized policy development, the decentralized implementing because the agencies that have a particular expertise or role that they c take advantage of.

>> i share the concern of the chairman that we don't have one person who's accountable to congress who's in charge ofthe strategy. one of the problems of running it out of the white house is the individual from present staff are not accountable to congress. so for us to exercise oversight in this extremely iportant area becomes the impossible. going to push with the chairman to continue to argue that we need one person accountable to congress was clearly in charge of the strategy of four cbe and for homegrown terrorism. i'm glad that nctc is involved, but it sounds like everybody has a piece of it. he understood my that's desirable, but there's got to be one person in charge.

i know we are wrapping up, let me switch to oth issues ever to touch on before we adjourn. i too am pleased to hear the priority placed on cybersecurity. whether i like it to threats that we face that i feel we are least prepared for cyberattacks, homegrown terrorism and chemical biological weapons topped my list. ..

to require the government to share actionable cyber information with the private sector. what do you see as the biggest impediment to the timely sharing of cyber threat information? and also suburb reaches with the -- and also cyber breaches with the private sector? >> on the one hand, there is some reluctance in the business

community to share breach information with the government. community to share breach information with the government. that i think is going to be addressed and we would want to go to dhs and ourselves so we can work quickly on that. it's interesting you see blight haydon articulating is view he probably couldn't answer the other side of it and if he were here two years ago he would have been answering the other side of it. >> i appreciate that also. spec there is a very substantial an imperative to the extent possible we share the information that will allow the private industry to protect itself from cyber intrusions and to the extent that it does not disclose the capabilities that we need elsewhere it is not only a criminal case for an intrusion in the united states, it is also

often a national security risk at which we have to treat as a national security risk and other capabilities of their then you do not want to be disclosed because you would lose that capability and so it is sometimes a difficult balancing act to make certain we push out as much information as we can and we should but there are good reasons often you cannot get sufficient detail as you would like but you can get a generalized warning but ther are equities on the other side we can't go into here. i do believe and i think secretary can probably talk to we are making great strides in trying to make available information the two were three years ago we would not have been able to do and are currently doing. >> madam secretary, do you have anything to add? >> firt of all i hope the legislation moves forward. i think it's a good piece of

legislation and necessary to establish authorities and jurisdiction and the like so we will work with you in that endeavor. we need to keep focused on building our information sharing capabilities at the dhs and through the u.s. certification facility and others we have worked with the dod on our ability to use some of the assets of the nsa and under appropriate circumstances but for the whole cyber arena from the dhs perspective is going to be a growth area and the information sharing with the private sector particularly political infrastructure aspects of the private sector will be the key for us and as the director said getting information that in a timely fashi and all of this needs to move very, very quickly. >> finally, i want to touch on

the decision to make public the threat of the last weekend. the sergeant-at-arms sent out an e-mail message to i believe all employees of the senate as well as to all senators in which he talks about the announcement and says the announcement was, quote, well intentioned, perhaps helpful but not very well coordinated. this obviously worries me because the sergeant-at-arms is a key player when it comes to protecting the washington, d.c. area. we followed up with the sergeant-at-arms and first let me say that he said coordination is 100% better than it used to be.

the fbi's local office worked very closely with them but here's what he said happened. first, she was told as were we i might add, that the information was classified and closely held and as he said that's pretty typical and an understanding approach. but then he said that the decision to go public caught them off-guard and they were out of the lubber and essentially it sounds like they learned about it on telvision. what is your response to this critique and again so that i'm not taking this out of context he did praise the local fbi office and he did say that coordination is 100% better than it used to be but he said the decision to go publictook them

by surprise to and seems that shouldn't have happened given what a key player the sergeant-at-arms i since he controls the capitol police. matsuzaka to become if you would. >> i will go firston that. it's difficult to respond out of context. the decision was made to share the threat because it was credible and specific, and to share it through the joint there was a joint information bulletin with the fbi to share it out through the law enforcement particularly in the affected areas which are d.c. and new york which are the targets of the threat stream.

there wasn't a public television of the threat because the information was already getti out and action was taken in response to that when he says he didn't know it was going public, if he means there was some kind of public press release whatever, there wasn't. there was information shared through the law enforcement channels as it should have been for law enforcement to be aware of what the threat was and what to watch for, so all i can comment to that is whetheror not she received that. i dn't know. but that's how the information was put out was through law enforcement channels. >> director mueller? >> we took the position from september 11th to the extent we have threat information, and imminent threat information that is specific to a particular

jurisdiction, new york, washington, doesn't make any difference the person responsible for securing the communities should have the information and we find a way to get it whether it be a bullet tore through the joint terrorism task force. inevitably that opens the circle of persons who have information on that threat. inevitably the person responsible with the new york or washington, d.c., the police chief or otherwise so i have to respond to this threat. and so you will have actions taken in each of the jurisdictions affected raise the public's consciousness. and often as result of the rays of public consciousness there has to be anexplanation of why you are doing car stops or have more people on the street, and it is that cycle where the information comes out without a conscious decision not one particular point in time okay we are going to go public. the questions come in and the decision is made that you have to give as much as you can to put it in particular context.

it's happened once it's happened 50 times since september 11th. if i getne criticism from stevan and local law enforcement is always director, why do i have to hear about it on cnn? and the fact of the matter is a combination of wanting to inform people who ar immediately affected with that understanding you open the circle would is going to be on cnn sooner rather than later. it's a fact of life. >> it is, and i don't disagree in any way with the decision to go public because i think you want more people on the alert. i think you want the average citizen watching for suspicious activity, but it does strike me if a person such as the sergeant-at-arms and in such a key position to not know that there was going to be a decision made to go public. so i would be happy to share the

e-mail he sent to all of us with you. >> i would like to see it cong and we will be talking. >> he does an excellent job but let me just be clar on that, which is why i brought up his concern. thank youvery much. >> senator collins and of course he was previously the chief before he became the sergeant. so he has background. it's interesting, i don't want to keep you any longer, but there was not a decision really made fr instance in the white house to go publiwith this information. there was a decision made for all the factors you indicate to disseminate, and i will say part of the information that you have on the threat to the student will cool law enforcement for official use only, not classified, buthe presumption is based on experience that once you do that, people are going to start talking and it's going to find its way to the media.

so, everybody got it right? >> the recipient of the police chief for others responsible for public security has to take steps. if you don't respond to that come the questions asked are going to be why are you taking these steps, so it's the response to questions that inevitably buildup has you go forward and the local communities or the federal community tkes the steps necessary to address the threat. >> but wasn't there a press statement actually put out by the department homeland security? when we were briefed by john brennan, she told us dhs was going to be the lead on the public announcement. >> yes that was later on in the sequence, that wasn't at the immediate time that we put out the document as i recall. >> senator collins already said this we both felt that this was a case where the balance of public interest and safety

wasn't putting this information out, not everything that there had been a specific credible unconfirmed threat. okay, before we close, senator rockefeller filed a statement with the committee which i want to include withoutbjction in the record of which he discusses the importance of allocating the d blocks to the first responders and i agree with him totally. i want to thank all of you. it's impressive work that you and everyone has done over the ten years. we are at a time of national pessimism because the economy but it seems to me if people the country will think back to 9/11 and think what we've done since, we have new organizations here and the third the government to medically

transformed homend security. i don't think there's some other country in the world that could have done it as well as we did without being too explicit there are other countries in the world, close frien of ours who probably should have done a lot of what we did and haven't yet but in any case we all have reason to be grateful to you and again everybody who works with you on our behalf, so it's been a jury informative and encouraging as we all know and we look forward to continuing to [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> tonight, president on his plan to cut $3 trillion from the deficit through spending cuts and raising taxes on wealthy americans. >> both parties agree that we need to reduce the deficit by the same amount, by $4 trillion. so what's choices we make to reach that goal? either we ask the wealthiest

americans to pay their fair share of taxes or we will ask seniors to pay more for medicare. we cannot afford to both. either we get education and medical research or we have to reform the tax code so that the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies do not get. we cannot afford to do both. this is not class warfare. this is math. >> war of his remarks tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> canadian prime minister stephen harper returns to the house of commons for the fall session to discuss deficit reduction and foreign policy. this is courtesy of cpac and does contain some french with english translation. this is 47 minutes.

>> the hon. leader of the opposition. >> mr. speaker, of the prime minister is still looking at the world with rose colored glasses. we're told that canada is on the brink of another recession. they have announced on alert for household debt. the government's solution is to cut services. when will the prime minister take action in order to create jobs and prevent another economic crisis? >> first, i would like to congratulate the leader for her new position as they leader of

the opposition. [applause] concerning the economy, we are part of a fragile global economy. that is something i have repeated on several occasions over the past year. and we need to continue to focus on job creation. using measures for the moment among other things. >> the economy shed over 5000 more jobs. people are giving up because of lack of job opportunity. we need to create 420,000 new jobs. canadians need a job strategy now. where is the job plan? [applause]

>> the leader of the opposition needs to get her facts straight. there are more people employed today than before the recession. [applause] this government remains focused on jobs. we're making investments in economy and in research and innovation, keeping taxes low, and of course making sure that we do not see the kind of deficit problems in that have caused the global recession in the rest of the world. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister has created a structural deficit by a given reductions to larger corporations. companies are not creating jobs. there are almost $500 million

that are simply and set aside and not used for creating jobs. the government's strategy is not working. where the investments? where are the jobs? >> mr. speaker, there are more canadians working today than prior to the global recession. and canada is almost the only industrialized country to be in this situation. that is why we have focused on keeping taxes low, not tax for corporations, but also for individuals and small companies. the speaker can fully understand the situation. we will not create jobs by increasing taxes. [speaking french]

>> the prime minister needs to look up the situation as it is. there is an increase in unemployment. money is wasted on large corporations in tax cuts. when will the government put an end to that and put in place a real job creation strategy? >> i certainly do with my colleagues in the g-7 regularly. there is some weakness in the u.s. economy. the plain fact is that we are the envy of the advanced countries in the world with respect to jobs. we have added almost 600,000 net new jobs since the recession ended. and more than that, mr. speaker, 80% of those jobs are full-time jobs. our job record -- [applause]

>> order. >> mr. speaker, with the conservatives have created is the largest deficit in canadian history. and they have still falling short on job creation. their strategy on something for nothing for corporate taxes has done nothing. 400,000 jobs would have to be created just to keep the same proportion of jobs we had before the 2008 recession. why will not the finance ministers stop these reckless corporate giveaways? why will he not target the real job creators? [applause] >> i do not know who the member opposite thinks the real job creators are other than small business here in canada who pay taxes. they want government to hire jobs by creating jobs in the

public sector. as i said, our record with respect to job creation is among the best among the developing economies. we have to keep working at it. the boy to get there is not to have a $10 billion tax increase on business, which is what the opposition has suggested. [applause] >> mr. speaker, through the wall -- through all the rhetoric, i think canadians will understand that there were 1.4 million people who are officially unemployed and many hundreds of thousands of others who have been discouraged from working. this second fact is that the economy contracted in the last quarter and the economy right now clearly is not growing. these are undeniable facts. last year, the government produced an economic statement on october 12. can the prime minister commit that he will introduce an economic statement and will deal directly with the job crisis in

canada? >> we just had in the election were the government made clear that we will create jobs and growth. we have a fundamental difference with the opposition. we understand you cannot breathe jobs by raising taxes. [applause] >> mr. speaker, the prime minister is refusing to of knowledge and recognize facts. the economy is not the same as it was back in june -- last may. the economy has contracted here in canada, in the united states, and in europe. i will ask thathe prime minister again -- will he commit today to

holding a clear statement to having the banister of finance -- having the minister of finance make a statement by october 1? >> mr. speaker, our economic policy is very clear. mr. speaker, i reiterated that the global economy -- that the global recovery is very fragile. clearly, canada is facing risks due to that. the government will take responsible action. we cannot, however, create jobs through the level of debt that we see in the united states. no, this has led to huge problems in the global economy. we do not want to have policies like that here. [applause] >> the government leaked to the other day that the deal on the perimeter, the security bill, it

has been inked between the united states and canada. we just learned that the president obama plan for reinvesting in the united states includes several buy america provisions that will cost canada several jobs. how can this government possibly have signed any kind of agreement with respect to perimeter security and at the same time allow the administration of the united states to carry on direct discrimination against our country. [applause] >> mr. speaker, if i inked a deal with the united states, i certainly do not remember doing it. [laughter] the fact of the matter is that this is an important initiative, mr. speaker, to sustain much as their security, but obviously our access to the american market on which so many

canadian jobs are based. we certainly do not support the protectionist measures included in the latest american-built. -- american bill. we have an unadulterated record to free trade. [applause] >> order. >> committees trust of the auditor general to protect their hard earned tax dollars. it was the auditor general who exposed the liberal sponsorships game. if any bureaucrats or political staff for ministers attempted to keep the general in the dark or mislead her about the spending around the-8, would not the minister agree that that would constitute a very serious breach

of public trust? >> once again, we have this member and the same mold/same mold. -- same old/same old. >> mr. speaker, when the auditor general tried to investigate the $50 million in pork barrel spending, they were unable to find a paper trail. that is because the auditor general was not told that the project were run through the constituency office. it was independent researchers that broke the code of silence. i want to ask the members who directed these bureaucrats to keep silent and who told them to show disrespect for the canadian taxpayer?

>> there is nothing new here. what i can say is that 30 two projects have been funded by infrastructure canada. there is a different contribution agreement for each project. they are on time and on budget. harrison will dollar was accounted for. we up -- every single dollar was accounted for. >> mr. speaker, we know that the deputy ministers and inaccurate reports to the auditor general. the minister of foreign affairs said it was to tip off funding. but we know that it was a senior executive. will the minister -- did the misdirect of them?

>> no, mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. speaker. during the election campaign in 2008, the current head of the treasury board presided over meetings of a local leadership group. this group was one that would be spending considerable amounts of money when he was a candidate. can the minister explain how he found this to be normal? presiding over this group during an election campaign? >> mr. speaker, nothing new here. the auditor general came forward with a report and we thank her for her work. she gave his recommendations on how we could be more transparent. the good news is that there are

32 public infrastructure projects. they all came in under budget. [applause] >> mr. speaker, the ag was kept in the dark. the summit management office was misleading about their involvement in the funding meetings. and the minister went ahead with these slush fund meetings in the middle of the election campaign. will this minister finally apologize to canadians for the abuse of their trust? [applause] >> i only have 35 seconds. i could not possibly prove every and accuracy in that statement. all 30 to infrastructure 32jects -- all3

infrastructure projects have come in under budget. >> mr. speaker, the president of the treasury million spending -d criteria necessary on funding. they ask a mayor to set criteria for funding they would be receiving. will the minister clarify the situation with respect to his involvement in the management of this slush fund? >> the honorable minister of foreign affairs. >> mr. speaker, we were coast to from coast to coast to coast. the good news is because of the infrastructure projects, we saw economic growth, more jobs, or opportunity. that is why canada is leading

the world in the g7, that is why we of the strongest in industrialization. that is why the minister of finance was named the best minister of finance last year. >> mr. speaker, conservative ministers are developing quite a passion for the use of high- flying government jets. the ministers of finance and defense make liberal use of these jets. the prime minister says that everything is fine because he paltry equivalent of the commercial airline ticket. why haven't abandoned it in this, when it comes to an jetting around the country -- why have they abandoned this? >> mr. speaker, just to throw a few facts into the mix -- prime minister and all ministers require that -- the government commercial aircraft is not available.

let me remind you that when it comes to liberal use of this aircraft, the conservative government has reduced the average annual spending of the minister challenger by approximately 80%. [cheers and applause] looking good. >> the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, it is clear the conservative -- few canadians and travel to boston to see a hockey game. or to go to have a coffee. for some ministers, using this jet transportation went up 50%. we would like -- could it be justified that the government have a better excuse than saying that the liberals did worse? they did worse? the honorable minister. >> there they go, mr. speaker, making things up. the reality is the jets are

used when commercial flights are not available. >> by how much? >> we have reduced the amount of time the jets are being used, medevacs, and they are used in fact for a medevacs. these are aircraft that were purchased in the 1980's. these aircraft are part of a operated under the auspices under the canadian forces. >> right on. >> hear, hear. >> mr. speaker, the cost of the taxpayer funded trips to events like football games, hockey games, and the calgary stampede, have shocked canadians. the government is planning significant cuts to the canadian forces. >> mr. speaker, will this canadian austerity plan only apply to sailors, soldiers? and air men and women and not to the brass?

proved to be taken by the chief of defense staff? chief of defense staff? >> hear, hear. >> the minister of defense is operating under the rules of the -- he understands with -- what the expectations are, and certainly is prepared to live with those, live according to those rules. fly frequently on government business, but obviously where there are alternatives, we will look into that usage. [applause] >> the fact is 1.4 million canadians are out of work, more than three years ago. over 300,000 more. that does not include the canadian to have given up looking for work altogether. with so many canadians out of work, will leave and as minister -- will the finance minister use the opportunity of the economic statement to introduce a real plan to create and save canadian jobs?

>> hear, hear. finance. >> mr. speaker, i hope the member of the party will support the budget members that include the tax credit for business in canada. that will give 525,000 small businesses an opportunity to hire more people. in canada, that as important as we put a limit on the rate of increase of unemployment insurance, payments by employers. our tax reductions continue beyond originally in 2007. that helped create jobs, and we have continuing infrastructure programs. plus work sharing. activity in the economy today, and that is why we have 400,000 net jobs. >> the honorable member -- >> make it clear that farmers want the canadian wheat board to stay. and i quote. "while farmers have spoken, we

recognize that at this time and place, this is what farmers are asking for, and we will certainly work to make sure that the board delivers for them in the best way possible." do you know who said that mr. speaker? the minister of agriculture. the law is clear, and farmers have spoken again. why dozens he honor the will of -- why does he not honor the will of farmers? keep the wheat board. >> the honorable minister of agriculture. >> farmers always love to hear someone from ontario. we have a voluntary board. we have admitted it is non- binding, mr. speaker. we accept that. [applause] >> mr. speaker, i am from this area. manitoba, alberta had indeed spoken.

the farmers, mr. speaker. they have voted to retain the wheat board, and i implore the prime minister, why will he stand up for the prairie farmers and guarantee that we will have a wheat board well into the future? [cheers and applause] >> order. the honorable prime minister. >> mr. speaker, first call, it -- first of all, it is interesting to have a question from a member who does not have a single farmer in his riding. let's talk about the fact. lets talk about the facts. not only was there is wheat board, it did not include the tens of thousands of farmers who have walked away from that institution. mr. speaker, the wheat board gets to pick its own voters, and i guess they do that over there, the winning -- the liberal party could even win an election. [laughter] [applause]

the fact of the matter is, let freedom, that is what they're going to get. [cheers and applause] >> order. >> the honorable member. >> the government is planning to spend billions more on corporateit cannot find money to help address the crisis of crumbling infrastructure. just this summer, montreal was shocked when a section of highway 127 collapsed. luckily, no one was injured. mr. speaker, canadians are at risk, so why is the government now cutting back on infrastructure spending? and i never in the history of the country --

>> was not here, but his party voted against it. that is very interesting to hear that now. >> cutting infrastructure spending. mr. president, the government must stop avoiding facing responsibilities and must take the measures necessary to help greaterwe cannot expect to modernize montreal because this is the economic future. about here. opportunity -- to car sharing and public transit. the minister of transport. >> mr. speaker, the thing that is very important our country, respecting jurisdiction, my colleague must know that in quebec each decision to invest in infrastructure is the

responsibility of the government except for the three bridges between the provinces. when it comes time to invest in infrastructure, we do so for the municipalities and the priorities as we do in all provinces of this country. and we will continue to do so, mr. speaker. >> the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, the government prosperity is the economy, and it should prove it. infrastructure problems in economic consequences. the champlain bridge has reached the end of its life span. yet, the government has to look for excuses not to replace it. assume its responsibilities to protect the economy? it is a national issue. will it enact the building of a new bridge? [applause] >> the honorable minister of transport. >> mr. speaker, we have invested

in montreal bridges, including champlain bridge. we have invested more than $315 million in order to ensure that we make these installations safer. the party opposite mostly voted against it, so it is interesting today. >> the honorable member. the people taking the bridge were running real risks even is also one of public safety. come and those who use public transit. will the government take thethe

honorable minister of>> mr. speaker, the subtle part of the bridge, because we have to really understand what thethere were investments of $137 million, ongoing for several years. continued to do its job and does work. we talk about the provincial region are in good shape for thewe make sure of that. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i question relates to the series and on during issue of anti-semitism in the in-the committee. -- in the community. my question to the minister of citizenship and immigration is action the government is taking? >> good question. >> first public to think the --

first, i would like to thank the member from mount royal, and the member from davenport, for their leadership and the parliamentary coordinate the parliamentarians here in january, which led to the ottawa particle -- on behalf government in the world to -- that canada will take a forms of anti- semitism, including the surge of the new antisemitism, which seeks to target and vilify the collective state of israel. we stand in solidarity with the jewish people of their democratic state. [applause] >> mr. speaker, there is no business case for abolishing the canadian wheat board. it is clean and simple. the majority of grain producers

have voted to keep the monopoly of the wheat board. i argue that the minister is both a duty bound and honor bound to uphold the democratic will of prairie grain producers as a respect of the very act that defines this ministry, which guarantees grain producers before the government interferes with their ability to market their grain. >> mr. speaker, a glaring hole was left out in the middle. that is what we campaigned on. give us the authority to move forward on that. give those farmers the right and the opportunity to market their commodities at a time and place that they see fit. the same as their cousins in

ontario. >> mr. speaker, our american neighbors certainly see the benefit because 13 times they have gone to the wto to complain that it is an unfair competitive advantage. now our minister of agriculture is going to do america's dirty work for them. my question is simple. who are you, mr. speaker? what side are you on? why are you not standing up for for the canadian wheat board? >> the honorable minister of agriculture. >> mr. speaker, let me quote one of the farmers from western canada. it is no surprise. the chance to buy grain freely from farmers. mr. speaker, that is the crux of this.

opening up some three years ago. but i never see it. he said the only mistake that was made was not doing it sooner. we look at that as very positive for the farmers. in australia. former investors of canada will follow the same model. and have a much better chance of prosperity. and that mr. speaker, the parliamentary secretary. it is a very important position which requires professionalism and discretion. recent events have become a secretary's judgment and potential security concerns. my question is, will the parliamentary secretary step aside from his responsibility until the situation will be investigated? [applause] >> mr. speaker, the member has behavior, and we have found no

otherwise. >> mr. speaker, really, foreign affairs must be treated with more seriousness, a great deal more. the minister of foreign affairs is taking care of the pictures and the foreign minister is looking after his affairs. who is looking after the affairs of the -- in the case that concerns the parliamentary secretary, we are told that there has been something behind closed doors. he has nothing to answer for. does the opposition in the house have a call for the report thatthank you. >> mr. speaker, i am not entirely sure what this has to

do with government business, and personal life has to do with the new tone of decorum. there is no information to suggest otherwise. >> the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, the minister of industry, the hsd harmonization in quebec would be the 15th. it is now the 19th. they pulled the plug. new champlain bridge. why have they stopped quebec, vote the right way? why have they dropped. mr. speaker, i think the to -- nothing happened over 10 years.

they deny that there was a hard time harmonization. imbalance they created, and we recognize that quebec as a nation once more. we have done more than they have in the previous government. >> mr. speaker, canadians fail to understand how the funds allocated by parliament to improve the border infrastructure were used to build gazebos and washrooms that had nothing to do, even with the auditor general. -- according to the auditor general. if the conservatives claim to will they accept review of the fund by the defending committee on government operations? and that the honorable minister

of foreign affairs. >> you have to do more than that. floor to my transparent. i say to the members this is the rejected in the last election. growth, and on economic opportunity, and that is exactly what this government will continue to focus on. >> it turns out we need more industry. will the minister explain to me why he has decided to take his time when the government has set -- has sent the message.

question. we do have a plan, and our plan is working. as my colleague knows full well, we began with a sector-by- sector regulatory approach a year ago. the greatest emitter of greenhouse gases. i have just posted new regulations for the cold fire and of the to the sector. we will proceed sector by sector from here, around priories. >> the honorable member from halifax. nothing better to do this summer shave is hundred jobs. the department of environment cut for our economy. social development, future power for all of us. this will not be without consequences for canadians, mr. speaker.

analysis that the government considers the result of a cut for canadians. >> first of all, mr. speaker, i must correct. the numbers given by my colleague. >> there is a great difference, mr. speaker, between 776 permanent employees who might be affected. 300 positions which will be declared surplus. employees who may have been eventually separate from a department. another of the core services come from us, mr. speaker. the parity remains the key. -- a priority remains the key. speaker. 2011. the unit representing flight

attendants served 72 hours notice to strike, a strike that could take place at 12:01 wednesday morning. because air canada plays such a vital role in the canadian economy, could the minister of labor please give the house and update on the status of the labor negotiations at air canada? [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, a case like this, the best solution is always the one that is hard for each one themselves. we have received strength from the numbers, and we are concerned that a disruption of the air service will that canada's economic recovery. respect to the economic recovery, they will want us to focus on the economy. we will act professionally in this economy.

conservatives' intend to cut service processing centers that to 22 over the next three years, shift jobs in the areas of high unemployment and urban areas makes no sense. or the government remains so illogical? jobs we cannot afford to lose. at a time when canadians need the government most. cuts are being pressed instead of focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs. >> order. >> during the global recession, unemployment insurance spiked. so we hired additional workers who were -- we're leading the

world and economic job creation, there are outstanding applications for ei. we are honoring our factories, putting them to use. >> the canadian government learn about the cuts to service can do, and what we know is that these jobs are very important terms of beating up the protest against what the insurance price. there is a continues to be a -- and backlog. will this minister explain to out-of-work canadians, why are they making it hard as an active program that canadians have paid into. >> we want to make sure that canadians access the service in which they are title.

-- to which they are entitled in an effective and efficient manner. by paper. leap forward into the 21st century. we are automating a lot of this, because it is a more responsible way to deal with this. mr. speaker, we want to make sure that we are responsive to canadians so they can get their payments quickly, accurately, and in a responsible way regarding their taxpayer dollars. >> mr. speaker, canadians from coast to coast were horrified when there was an deduction. no family should have to endure that kind of fear and uncertainty felt by the family when their son was taken from them. to the great joy and relief to everyone involved, he was returned safely. mr. speaker --

[applause] could the minister inform this house as to how we are keeping canadians save and strengthening the justice system? >> i want to thank the honorable member for his interest in this, and we all join in wishing him the best now is back with his family. we waged the aid of consent from 14 to 16. provisions for dangerous offenders, because we believe those who commit violent crimes should serve sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes. we have put the victim's first, and the canadians know that they can count on this government.

>> mr. speaker, years ago, we jointly created the agency waterfront toronto for the purpose of developing in a socially responsible way. the plan is ready for implementation after rigler is consultation with the citizens of the city. now, the mayor is seeking to implement his own plan and take control. can the minister of finance confirm his commitment to waterfront toronto and sticking with the current plan? >> not only can i confirm the commitment by the federal government, in fact, the commitment was over $500 million, and over $400 million have been spent. most of the projects that have gone ahead, including the canada sugar beach and others were done primarily with federal money on the toronto waterfront.

we have supported this project route it's time of advancing. i understand that the mayor and waterfront ontario are having some discussions, and i suspect they will come to an amicable resolution. >> mr. speaker, the leaders of government said this week that he intended to read table -- by increasing the number of seats. while saying that quebec was trying to use a black male by not wanting to see its number of seeds go down. it is this the respect that the government has for the quebec nation? >> mr. speaker, each canadian vote to the greatest extent