you can see live coverage of the senate on c-spanat the w hotel, network is this morning hosting and discussion of job growth in the economy. it will be part of a pivotal at 10:45 eastern, along with interest from a capital firm. stephen case will be on this. that is live right now on c- span2. also, coming up at noon eastern, the former middle east adviser to president obama ian president clinton talks about israel in recent changes in the middle east. that is dr. dennis ross step down in november of last year. that event is hosted by the aspen institute. at 12:30 on c-span3, richard

fisher, president and ceo of the federal point of dallas will host a speech. that is live on c-span3 started it will cut 30 eastern -- starting at 12:30 eastern. >> tonight on "the communicators" -- they will discuss voice command coming internet integration come in and increasing car safety, in some cases aiming for cash-free cars. the communicators at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> house republicans and democrats on friday questioned homeland security about a leaked memo detailing problems at the agency in terms of chemical security. dhs told a house energy subcommittee that issues raised

of the report are being addressed, and that the risk of attack has been reduced over the past several years. the house energy subcommittee last about one hour, 45 minutes. >> the subcommittee will tell come to order. we would like to welcome our panel, and i would like to begin with an opening statement. in my time serving in congress i have learned as often times is the case that the initial problem is not as big a deal to people as a poor explanation of a problem can be. further cut the rope up -- for there cover-ups are the best hope of people who know they are in the wrong, and the worst move for those who get found out. people try to hide problems usually basis with current work corrosive response from congress in republic and its it simply come clean. it is with great surprise and

disappointment i read a memorandum about the operation of the division implementing the chemical facility standards act and the program at the department of homeland security. i have historically been a strong supporter of this program. i believe the statute is sound and regulations reasonable. in fact, the memo calls for only one legislative change, long- term extension of the program. the program was not meant to be another program designed to frighten people or a desert -- bureaucratic back door to or regulate chemicals. it was meant to be a collaborative effort to secure high-risk facilities with facility-appropriate measures based on risk presented. congressional intent was that corporation would give to compliance. we did not intend to increase federal revenues through enforcement actions. i hope vhs is not looking to abandon the original intent. last march i acknowledge it was

a work in progress, but i felt security was been enhanced and significant public and private investments were being made to implement the program. i still believe security of facilities with chemicals is much better today than before congress gave vhs its first ever regulatory authority. unfortunately my confidence in vhs is not nearly as strong. some one compares it to an unmanned a police car position at the side of the highway. it wards off years, but not much else. we need to be assured that the program has a plan and intends to focus solely on correcting internal problems and not suggesting the program should take on any other additional responsibilities. they better first to the responsibilities designed under a law than to take on additional ones such as drinking

water or i as key issues. it is inappropriate component of the subcommittee jurisdiction. -- or isp issues. i urge all members of this committee to join me in the effort. as a fellow military's offer i have tremendous -- respect for the country. that said, we have been taught there are only three acceptable responses when questioned by an officer. yes, sir, no, sir, or i do not understand, sir. i expect no less than that today. i want to welcome those who showed great courage with a frankness of the internal memo. both of you should know that the committee takes very seriously any evidence of undue pressure, influence and intimidation or retaliation whatsoever because

of your testimony today while we continue to investigate the important issues. in other words, we really do appreciate this internal memo. i think it is been very helpful, and we want to insure those that have come forward they are not penalized for that. please let my committee staff know right away if you have any concerns. retaliation is illegal and will not be tolerated. i trust to ensure you are in agreement with me that no retaliation should be allowed. with that, i lead to the ranking member from texas, mr. green for the purpose of offering his opening statement. >> think you for holding the hearing today. -- thank you for holding the hearing today. this a memo was delivered to mr. beers and november 2011 and beat

to the media in detail in the story on november 23, 2011. when i read the internal memo i was surprised and dismayed by the level of function and lack of progress for the program appeared and i am also amazed during this time it was discussed during our work, the fall invitation of the chemical facility in anti-terrorism act. we were aware of the severity of the situation. the portion of the internal memo as related to challenges implementing the priorities. i will not go into all the details, but it seems to me the root of the problem is the fact that they have hired people who are unqualified for positions and was prohibited from hiring qualified individuals and had no training program to help the folks that were unqualified. this inappropriate hiring of all with lack of training has forced dhs to rely on contractors to do work that should be done by the

agency. the internal memo that went several priorities of the program, including process for the review of the site security plans. unfortunately at the time of the memo they had received 42 site security plans, and not as legal plan was approved. i know that dhs is working to clear up all the tier 1 facilities, but it has been six years since the program was enacted and have not even clear the low-level facilities. to date they have conducted not a single complaint inspection. not that any of the industries that i represent are looking for an inspector to come knocking on the door, but they have been working to comply in have made substantial private investment. in some cases we were able to seek free of for homeland security protection in plant protection. i must say that this proposal reinforces the problems identified in the internal memo,

which mostly revolving around the fact that dhs speech is more complicated than they need to be and not relying as a simple system. what i am speaking about is developing this carry programs. -- the personal security programs. as concerns about this proposal in will discuss that later. one it because at earlier hearings -- one, because of earlier. i had assurances the quick card would be used as a standard id whether waterside orleans site. my concern is additional personal security programs will make the duplication. that is one thing the committee needs to look up here did last year at the subcommittee hearing i asked if the department could integrate to the end of the personal security program, and

yet the proposal does not make clear it is an acceptable background check. now is not the time for dhs to go reinventing the wheel. it also includes planned response, including a response for 85 items. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses to confirm, but i believe several of the action items have been initiated or complete it. i am disheartened by the lack of progress in the program. this seems to stem from the fact that no one knows if the program will be reauthorize by congress. the facility's security is important to protecting our public health, if it really in the district i represent. i represent the chip channel that produces more products is said to modern life and also the largest petrochemical complex in the country. i cannot stress how to apportion

the success is to my constituents who were employes and lived in the communities that surround these facilities. they deserve the best security standards possible to prevent act of terrorism on u.s. soil. our goal today is to listen to witnesses and get a better understanding of the problem. the agency recommends several legislative fixes come and i am hoping we can work together to find a compromise on how to assist them after hearing suggestions in hearing from stakeholders. the program is too important to national security to be this much in distress. thank you for the time. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back the time. the cheerleads to colleagues on the right of anyone like time for opening statement. hearing none, we recognize mr. waxman for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for calling on becoming more and portly, for holding this hearing to examine the implementation by

the department of homeland security of the chemical facility into i-terrorism program or standards that are called c-fats. this is intended to address the threat of terrorism toward asians facilities. we will hear testimony about successes come and we will also hear about the many challenges. the program was established in 2006. almost six years later it is clear -- clear implementation has stumbled because of serious challenges and limitations in the program. secretary piers will testify about a detailed report that he received in november of last year. this report takes the form of a memorandum come in anddh dhs provided it to the committee.

it paints a start picture of this committee. according to the memory of the cover the program has been plagued by personal issues come up budget issues come and statutory limitations. the challenges described in the memo are serious and must be addressed. department of homeland security has a plan to address that identified problem, and that plan deserves careful scrutiny. this is a crucially-important effort, and we must get it right. in some ways of have always been stacked against the program. this program was created by a provision not authorized by the committee, but a writer on an appropriations bill. the program was not established with carefully-crafted legislation that defines its mission and forced the vision for implementation. it did not have adequate enforcement authority, it forceable deadlines, or clear procedures for approving or

disapproving site security plans. and never even had an authorization. in some ways it is fortunate we of learned of the problems which we have, because this committee can now return to the issue and do the hard work of understanding where the problems are in determining how to fix them. it is stunning to realize it is this committee of congress that has jurisdiction over this issue reported legislation that simply rubber-stamp the current program for seven additional years. we did not even know how the program was working. we did not give it any guidance. we did not do our job, and that legislation needs to be revisited in light of this new information. i look forward to the testimony of the secretary are learning more about the department efforts to get this program back on track. the department could take

constructive actions, but it can only do so much. they cannot address shortcomings in the underlying statute. that task falls to us as the committee of jurisdiction and the committee that should have been involved in crafting the original provision that is the responsibility we must take very seriously. i hope today's hearing will be part of an ongoing effort by this committee to address these eight serious challenges facing our chemical facility security program. this is an important issue. it deserves our attention coming of the last congress when i was chairman of the committee, we were working on a bipartisan basis. we brought in all of the stakeholders to craft legislation to authorize the program. it was a major undertaking. we brought in industry, brought in labor and everyone else that had a concern about the issue. we were consulting everyone

throughout the process. that is the kind of type of undertaking we should begin a new, because what we saw this last year was not a furtherance of an examination of the program, but simply saying it has already been in effect for six years, we will continue down the road and hope it will do a good job. we have more work to do than just sending our best missions for the long time of authorization without doing a thorough examination to figure out how we could make this program work the way we intended it to come in the way it must to protect the security of the american people. thank you. i yield back the tide. >> i think you for your statement. -- thank you. i would like to yield to mr. for five minutes. based on my opening statement, i response wachs waxman's

was part of the same. i would also say, we did have a hearing prior to the markup of the bill where department of homeland security said things are going well. obviously -- and industry, and obviously that is not the case. with that, i would like to yield five minutes to the chairman, mr. barton. >> i am not sure i will take that time, and i would be happy to yield but to anyone else you would like to yield it to. i do appreciate you holding this hearing. back in march of last year we discussed the concerns in dissatisfaction the program had not met its goals. this program was set up to protect and serve the general public against the potential threat of terrorist activity. i was chairman of the committee

back of the 109th congress and a lot of authors of the chemical facility standard act that was included as section 550 of the department of public security appropriation act of 2007. the intent was very clear. it was for the safety of the nation's businesses insisted the threat of terrorism in these types of facilities. intelsat bid expedited pace could have challenges. what i did not seem to understand is how the undersecretary could be somewhat aware for so long as so many of the internal problems. why have the employees been hired in the editorial positions the did not have the skill set for the jobs? why has it taken three years to start addressing the internal editorial stop treating it is limitation problems? the industry has invested billions of dollars to upgrade security to me the requirements.

this is beyond disappointing. you have totally mismanage the program, mr. undersecretary. we spent a million dollars per year, and we of the well- developed direction in plant. it is my and trustee of think that you have received a reported 200 site security plans not even what has been approved. we have our differences of this committee and subcommittee, and there were differences between democrats and republicans with this bill was put into law, but there is no one, regardless of political affiliation that says if you receive 4200 security pleiads you did not even get one approved? not one? when i read that a couple of days ago, i was astounded. your own national protection of the program's director have prevented you from hiring

personnel with the experience and qualifications to review these programs in conduct a compliance inspections. you allow the hiring of inappropriate staff and not taken control of your own infrastructure security compliance division to fix this problem, and it has been three years. the administration of the program must be fixed immediately to provide stability to the program in regulatory assurance of thousands of facilities, many of whom are members of chemical manufacturing and facilities alliance. they have invested heavily in security measures of the past five years to attempt to be in compliance. i have to say one good thing, your office has been open and candid in transparent and bringing the internal memoranda for committee staff to review. that is one positive check part in your column. having said that, everything else is of the negative, and everything else is black. it is time to get this thing

done. if you cannot do it, resigned. it there are things that need to be fixed, tell us, and we will try to do it. i think mr. waxman's opening statement was very good. with that, i have one minute left. >> let me reclaim that type of look to the chairman to see if he would like to use the remainder of the time period. >> i would like to welcome the two witnesses and our panel, secretary pie biers and wolfe. i want to welcome you to the hearing and it is being conducted in a bipartisan fashion. having said that, i look forward to the results of the hearings today. i would vote that i have a number of these facilities in my district, and when they let go,

as one did not long back, it causes lots of excitement. and can cause significant numbers of casualties ian d. norris hardships for the communities in which the facilities might exist. so your leaders are much appreciated, and i look forward to the hearing going forward and the spirit in which it begins -- it has begun in the hopes that we will be able to see to it that we get these programs of widely-differing character and agencies to the point where they are pulling together and working together to accomplish the great purpose of seeing to it we have safety and security for the country. thank you. >> think you. -- thank you. with that, the chair calls the hon. ron biers. and mr. david m. wolfe.

, the testimony you're about to give is subject to title 18, section 1001 of the united states code would hope we an investigative hearing this committee has the practice of taking testimony under oath. do you have any objection to testifying under oath? the chair then advises you that under the rules of the house of the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be revised by counsel. do you desire to be advised by counsel during your testimony today? in that case, if you would please rise and raise your right hand, i will swear you add. swear you in. do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the

truth? you may now be seated, and it is my understanding that the only opening statement will be given by you, mr. secretary, in mr. wolf is here to re-enter questions in regard to the internal -- they are both going to give it. a change in direction from last night. if you would then -- you are recognized for five minutes to get your opening statement. >> thank you, chairman and ranking member green. i am pleased to be here before you today to discuss the department of homeland security effort to regulate the security of high-risk chemical facilities under the chemical facility in tie-terrorism act. as you are all aware, the current statutory authority to implement this came about as mentioned earlier in section 550 for the fiscal year 2007

appropriations act, and it has been amended and it recently to extend that authorization until october for a 2012. i believe strongly in the program, and a welcome opportunity to continue to work with this committee, congress, and all levels of government and private-sector to further improve this vital national security program. since the inception, we of issued a basic rule, the fine chemicals of entrants, a joint we conducted to surveys to define the facilities that have a substantial enough quantity of chemicals that cause the determined to be at high risk. after receiving the initial submission from more than 40,000 facilities that might potentially be under the program, we have a narrow that down now to about 4500 cover facilities. in the process of doing that, more than 1600 facilities that

would a fallen under the program in 700 facilities -- 1600 facilities have totally remove chemicals of interest, and 700 have reduced them to the point that they are no longer under the program. so i think we can say that these actions represent some of the successes that have happened with respect to this program in the adoption of the regulation. i think we could say there has been the reducting -- reduction in risk throughout the day should come to the nation has been made more secure. the department has done much work of the past few years to implement this program, but as the report suggests, and we acknowledge, it still has a number of challenges to address. in recognition of this, and upon the arrival of penny anderson and david wolfe, i ask both of them to provide for my

consideration the views of the successes and challenges of the program. candid, honest assessment and challenges to the program. these kinds of assessment are extraordinarily valuable tools that we need in order to evaluate progress and to determine where improvement is needed. furthermore, an unprecedented deal, course corrections are to be expected and ongoing decisions will lead to be made. in late november 2011, a detailed report was hand- delivered to me. it is important to note that in addition to the referenced challenges the report also proposed a charting a path that will address the challenges, specifically the report included an action plan with a detailed recommendation for addressing the issues identified. we have shared the recommendations which this committee. since my receipt of this report,

each of the nearly 100 items in action plan have been assigned to a member of the program senior leadership team, and i have already seen progress on these issues. for accountability and training tracking purposes have a task each assigned to them. tactics that will monitor the progress. program leadership now meets with my principal deputy under secretary susanne spaulding at least once a week to provide status updates to this program. mr. chairman, let me assure you there will be no retaliation to the people who wrote this report who have served me and you and this nation by frankly telling us where we have challenges and what we need to rebdo about it. you have my pledge on that, and

i expect to be held accountable to that issue. the department does take its responsibility if the haitian security seriously, and we will move forward quickly is strategically to address the challenges before us. we believe it is making the nation safer, and we're dedicated to the success. we will make the necessary course corrections to the program to protect the nation. thank you for holding the support hearing, and i will be happy to the absurdity of your questions. >> think you. i would like to recognize mr. wolf for five minutes. >> i would also like to thank the members of the committee for the opportunity to testify before you today. in july of last year we assume positions as director and deputy director for the infrastructure security compliance division.

that was in response to the secretary's request to provide a fresh take on the department as what we see priorities, challenges and action items necessary to the success of the program. we feel strongly that the challenge are not insignificant and not insurmountable. i welcome opportunity to insert any questions you might have behind the challenges we sighted, but would also like to focus on the action items. we have our review made tangible progress in addressing some of the challenges of the report. one challenge is the ability to compete facility site security plans in a consistent reasonable, and timely fashion. to help overcome past difficulties in meeting this past challenge, we are allowing

tier one facility plans in a more effective and timely manner. using this approach of the past few months, we have been able to more than quadruple the number of conditionally-authorize plans. specifically throughout all of 2010 and november 28, 2011 we had conditionally authorize 10 site security plans. in the subsequent two months leading up to did you reach 23rd of this year, we conditionally authorize an additional 43 say security plans. we expect to complete our review of all tier one site security plans and notify the facilities within the coming months. we also expect begin issuing authorization to tear to facilities during fiscal year 12. while this interim review process is underway, we're also working on an even more efficient -- for approach to state security plan review insight sites tier 1, 2, 3, and.

we have found workable solutions to injured near-term solutions and progress of long-term success. while not every action item will have a near-term or simple solution, what i can tell you is i am very proud to represent the hard working men and women of the program, and i am confident the ability to address these challenges together. i welcome your questions and look forward to working together to further the success of the report national security program. >> what i would ask is i do not think we have a copy of that, and members already want to refer to that. if i kept it a copy of that and get a copy so we can distribute it, because we did have the undersecretary's opening testimony or for the record. with that, i would like to

recognize myself for five minutes to begin questions. to bounce around a little bit, but we are in a very fiscally-constrained environment and with the challenges that will occur to the military, 45 billion-90 billion per year that could be cut, we at the national level will look for everywhere we can go to try to adjust dollars so we can leave the needs of the federal government's operations. let me start with the budget- type question. the anderson memo states on page 15 that iscd lacks a system for tracking fraud, waste, and abuse. our concern is this is not an

igo manager. and how can a member of congress choose to fund a program that is so itself described? >> let me begin the answer to that question by turning to my colleague. the report notes these deficiencies in the program. we have asked for a management review of the program in december of last year. the program review was completed while this particular report was of being prepared and was incorporated into the report, and the comments you see are part of an effort by management of the most senior level, which means me, asking to ensure this program is working properly. i want to turn to mr. wolf to talk about what we're going to

do for these findings. >> i would just add that we did not find any actual indication of fraud, waste and abuse with regard to the purchase and tracking of supplies. we found a system was not in place, and something we are ready moved forward to address. >> let me reclaim my time. we know there are action items and will move forward. that is obviously a major concern that we will have to deal with. not only ourselves but our colleagues in this whole debate. we will go ahead and follow this. i appreciate the fact that in july you brought mr. anderson and mr. wolf on board. i guess the question would be you have been undersecretary

since 2009. what took you so long to have an overview of this program? >> the initial indications of concern surfaced in the following year. prior to that, i had definitely had a the sense that the program was evolving program that changes were being made, but they were being made in due course with appropriate diligence by the program managers. in july of 2010, i discovered a discrepancy in the way that people were being paid within the program and moved at that point to correct its. in the fall of two dozen 10 we posted an announcement of the program -- >> not to be disrespectful, but

to move to another question, because the timeline is important to us. statements were made. that is my comment back to mr. waxman. we were given a pretty good signal that things were going well. small problems, but nothing major. one of the questions i asked you was about the high-risk process and the reasons for a drop in the number of facilities her tiered. at that time i was not aware of any miss-tiering problem. were you? >> no, sir. i first learned about the problem and the beginning of june of this past year. >> was a the earliest time to your knowledge that they

discovered some facilities had been -- in other words, were there other folks within the department that knew that this process was all messed up? >> there was indication in may of 2010 that there might be a problem with respect to heari tiering. the individuals within office look of the problem and felt they had informed it those of a problem. i did not know there was a problem of that point in time. the program went forward from there. in 2011 with the new acting director of office, he asked for a view of the program in rediscovered this discrepancy is you and ask for a much deeper dive into that. the deeper dive is what resulted in the problem being identified to be assistant secretary give immediately to me. that is in june of 2011.

>> my time is expired. we will continue obviously to do oversight over this process, and i hope if there is any relevant activities that folks within the your office that have not been doing the job that through the legal process of removal, that some people could be held accountable, because i think there is probably -- if there was not wait, frost cost -- waste, fraud, and abuse, there may have been. now i would like to recognize mr. green for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. as a set in my opening statement, it seems like the problems for the past six years is the inability to hire qualified individuals in a lack of morale. i think some of that comes from

year to year reauthorization. mr. wall said in his statement, but none of us have a copy of your statement. what has been done since the memo was released were since mid-december or since it was released on the 23rd, there has been some action that has been done that we have not heard about, except for this morning. do you know about some of the things that have been done in the past month or so? >> yes, i do. i want to start this response, but i also want mr. wolf to respond as well. we have looked at the training issues that were identified in the report. we have removed the impact of it for hiring training officers with of the program so that can go forward, and we have begun to look at the training requirements in order to take the people who were hired who

may not have adequate training for that position that they are in. last week, we have to define what it is we in fact expect from our inspectors when they are doing the final site authorization inspections and what they're doing compliance inspections. >> i would add that we're very excited about the progress we have made in the past couple of months, the reviews of the tier 1 it site security plans. i believe the progress we've made in that regard and the statistics i mentioned are included in the written testimony as well. we have a very aggressive plan to move forward with review of

the site security plans and to conduct our reach it did in to reviews of -- >> i know you gave hard numbers, but i of the of five minutes. you gave hard numbers on what has been done in the past 30 minutes. >> we started two months ago with 10 that tier 1 site security plans that had been authorized. we are now at 53. >> that is the only part number that you gave in your testimony? it is hard to go or something else side. >> absolutely. we have authorized 43 additional tier one say security plans. >> all of those were taken from my testimony. those facts are all of my testimony. is that based on site visits or what has been provided by the companies? >> that is based on what has been provided by the companies.

in some instances following compliance assistance, visits conducted of the sites by our chemical security specialist. >> let me get to another issue. i mentioned about the personal security program, which was submitted on june 14 of last year. it is listed as the third priority in the dhs memo. i am aware we need to screen individuals. it would required to submit back from information with all existing personnel following in the new individuals would not be classified as personnel if they have a clicker. the information is worth 48 hours. in the real world we live through a big rollout, and not as smooth as we would like.

and i think there were too rigid thousand cards, so when your court to overlaid it with personal security requirement, what did the card not cover that you think we need now under the personal security? i am concerned about reinventing the wheel, even though it did not run well early, but it is running pretty well now. >> let me clear up perhaps a misunderstanding of the way we intend to use the card. we will accept the card as of a we would like to know the names of the individualshat come on to the site who have cards in order to determine that the card is in fact still valid, but anybody who possesses a card,

that will be an acceptable standard, and anybody who might have access to getting a card can do so and use that in lieu of any other background check. >> i want to make sure that is what was submitted, because i have concerns about that. sometimes what we hear in what passes in law does not get to the final stage. was that submitted that the card would be the id when submitted to omb? >> leveraging of twik and other credentials was part of the information submitted to omb. >> i would feel comfortable seeing in writing what you said that the card is -- we have thousandths of around the country that we do not want to out a breakdown in redoing something. i know working with the industry in bargaining units and

everything else is something that should be important. i know i am over my time, and i have a number of other questions are like to submit if we do not have time today. >> a look like to recognize mr. rolfe -- mr. murphy from pennsylvania for another five minutes. >> thank you. the memo states that is critical to evaluate itself. to that end, let me ask for your candid response. why was this not done until now? >> why was some of this not done until now in terms of evaluating itself? was there anything that stood in the way of delaying this kind of self evaluation? >> thank you. no, sir. as i indicated earlier we have had several reviews.

this is the most extensive one we of asked for, but we have had several reviews over the course of the program since i became undersecretary. >> who set the goals for each year? >> i am sorry, sir? >> who is responsible for setting the goals? >> the program director provides the goal. they go up the chain of command to the secretary an undersecretary and then to me. >> is that public information in terms of the goals and objectives? >> i want to check. >> how you measure the goals and objectives? is there some internal measure? >> let me ask david wolf to answer that. >> there are established performance metrics that we prepare and send of the

appropriate teams. the performance is measured with a conducted percentage as compared to the totality of the regulated community. >> clearly the things you're talking about, and i add my comments to the chairman in terms of we appreciate you getting -- getting your candor on these, but in addition, but we would like to know are these evaluations of how factored into employee compensation, such as raises or bonuses? >> sir, as a general matter with respect to the entirety the performance is factored into the issue of bonuses or promotions. do you want to add anything specifically? >> i would echo the under secretary's sentiments. meeting our performance goal is

the significance -- significant measure for us in assessing bonuses. >> do you know if any of the employers have received a bonus of 2009? >> could you repeat that? >> do you know if any of the employees or supervisors or superiors received any bonuses since 2009? >> i do not have that information. >> it would be helpful for this committee if you could let us know that. let me say will full member you have states that employees felt uncomfortable delivering bad news to superiors. and to what extent to the failure to inform you contribute to the children read it? to chill the environment? was it you or someone else? to the chain of command had that effect? >> let me start by answering that. i have said as a management

principle that i appreciate hearing bad news, and i do not want to hear bad news from anybody else. this particular issue has been used as a teacher live by me for the entirety of my work force, because no one, no one should feel they cannot tell me bad news, because bad news is usually something we can do something about. if we do not hear it, i cannot do anything about it. i cannot speak to the culture with an office of the words of the report, but i want you to understand that all of the people who work for me, i say that time and again. i am perfectly prepared to hear bad news coming and i really do not want to hear it from someone outside the organization. >> as a navy officer, i admire someone saying that. our recall general mcclellan sank within the chain of command the food got better in the news got better, too.

so are you confident now that you are getting full and accurate information, full disclosure? >> sir, i have complete confidence in penny and david making sure that information comes to me, and they know i want to hear it and know i want to fix problems that they serve to me, to the extent i have the power to fix it. >> can i ask mr. wolf to given the answer to the same question. >> i can confirm that director anderson and i received the message the under secretary was just discussing. he once the bad news with in the first week or two of arrival of the job. -- wants the bad news with in the first week for two over rival of the job. within the organization i can not necessarily speak to how the culture evolves, but i can tell

you that penny and i have gone to create ankenths culture of transparency, a culture in which our employees are not afraid to raise issues that they view as problems. we have an open-door policy. we have all hands meeting on a regular basis, and we have made it clear we do not tolerate oppression of concerns. >> thank you. i yield back. >> before i yield to the chairman, let me ask unanimous consent for five members of the members of the subcommittee to submit opening statements for the record. i recognize mr. dingell for five minutes. >> thank you for your courtesy. secretary beers, why did you

commission that top to bottom study of this program? >> sir, when it became evident to me that we had every tearin - tiering issue that came to my attention in june and at an issue about locality pay and slowness in terms of approval of site security plans that i needed to make sure the new management, which we have brought in to take over the program and make sure it was running solidly brought their full attention to giving me as accurate a picture as possible in this program. as i said earlier, we have are decommissioned the management study, which was completed during the time the report was prepared, and that was part of the report as well. so the final request of kenny

anderson and david wolf was the result of an increasing concern on my part that the program was not running well. >> thank you, mr. secretary. is the department of only a security working to engage the industry and helping to get this program successfully implemented? yes or no? >> absolutely, yes. i know there has been controversy recently regarding ms. classified facilities. can you assure me and members of the subcommittee or properly addressed this issue and have correctly identified high- squished facilities? please answer yes or no. >> yes. >> these questions to mr. wolf. as your internal memo points out, there have been a number of challenges in implementing this program. do you believe the program is

fixable, yes or no? >> yes. >> you do believe it is? >> absolutely. >> what are the top two or three things that need to be addressed to bring this about in your opinion? >> i would say the f.s.p, site security plan review process, which we of our party begun to remove considered -- move forward considerably in preparing inspectors and the rest of our team to move forward and conduct authorization. >> now, what progress have you and the department made in addressing these issues? >> we have a quadruple the number of tier one site security plans and that we have

conditionally authorized just over the past two months. we have commissioned an inspector tools working group as well to develop a standard operating procedures, other policies, and to determine what tools are needed as we move forward to the next age of the program to conduct authorization inspections and get into compliance inspections as we move forward. >> thank you. i return one minute, 27 seconds. >> thank you, mr. dingell. now i would like to recognize the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. bass, 45 minutes. >> i am not as familiar with this program in its history and so forth. i do not have a lot of facilities in my area. i am, however, very concerned about this memo.

we have oversight responsibility, and to some extent we are as a vulnerable to criticism for failure to perform adequate oversight and be vigilant about the use or abuse or alleged abuse of taxpayer funds, and that is why the memo is bipartisan, because we all know we have a responsibility to make sure government is run well. i am also a businessman and have dored and fired people to ts things. i do not like to fire people, but it happens. you were in my position looking at this report, would you consider yourself to a done a good job in your role to date? >> as i have said publicly before, i hold a self responsible for these sets of problems, and i commit myself to fixing them.

boss,you were zeryour old would you keep yourself of the job? >> i cannot even sure that question, sir. >> have you consider the possibility this might not be the right role for you? >> sir, i consider that every day i work for the federal government. i swore an oath of office of at least three locations to protect and defend the constitution of the united states, and i believe in that. if i believe i cannot do the job, that i will walk away from it, as i have done before. >> do you think it is unusual to have an action memo that you are not really disputing with several -- 70 different recommendations, a lot of which are noted in progress. you also noted in your testimony that you could address these issues "to the extent i have the power to fix it."

do you have the power to fix these problems? >> as far as within this particular action plan coming yes. with the effect of mr. green's comment about twik, card. card, no. that means you have to be a transportation worker. >> this is a disturbing memo. we appreciate the fact it has come to our attention. i certainly hope that you understand that most of us have not seen anything like this. it is a very and usually poorly- run agency, and dipped it is not going to -- if at any time you believe you are not the right person to turn this troubled agency are around, that maybe there ought to be a different

management structure. having made that point, i think -- i hope the committee will carefully watch the progress and this action plan, because the american tax payers are not going to stand for this kind of alleged or perceived incompetence in management for this very important agency to our nation's security. >> i want to follow up with this. we really have to get a handle on this card issue. we would like you to provide us your legal opinion on why you cannot deal with this twic card -- we think you can p. the energy and commerce committee have been in discussions with homeland security for months trying to resolve this. we think it is within your

jurisdiction. if not, we would like to see the legal reasoning why it is not so that we can change a law. we think it is within your power now. i think my friend, mr. green, would be very pleased if we could get a handle on it this. or help work with us. this is an issue, again, that was brought up in march of last year's hearing, that we thought we were moving in some direction, and there have been multiple consultations with homeland security, and we're not any further than we were march of 2011. i would like to yield to my colleague. >> i know we went through this last year. because the twic card is under the department of transportation and coast guard, i know there is an issue with homeland security.

i do not want to reinvent the wheel, because so many times those same workers that work on the dock side are also at an inland plant. earlier this year, we gave that authorization language, but it has not passed and has not passed the senate. >> reclaiming my time, i would just say that coast guard is under the department of homeland security. this should not be difficult to do. now i would like to recognize my colleague from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're here this morning to discuss issues facing the chemical facility, anti- terrorist standards, or cfats program. we're talking about this leaked dhs memo from 2011. dhs has serious problems with

the cfats program. 4200 site security plans received, but they have yet to approve one. cfats was enacted in the 2007 homeland security appropriations bill to enact, and the legislation. we did that by passing hr 2868 in the house, providing a comprehensive security program to protect americans living there these facilities. unfortunately, the senate did not take it up a i am not here to claim that hr 2868 would have magically fixed all the problems in the dhs memo, but it provided stronger from work to protect the americans that live in the danger zone of a chemical disaster. last may, this committee had the opportunity once again to exercise its jurisdiction and set for the full authorization of this program to replace the vague and inadequate cfats program enacted in 2007.

unfortunately, the committee decided not to address shortfalls with the cfats program and is moved a simple extension of the current law. we had the unfortunate combination of both a large number of to muffle -- chemical facilities in high population densities, and insufficient security consequences are dire. i regret that there has not been a more pro-active approach to secure these facilities, and i will continue to push for more coverage of security program to ensure the safety of my constituents living in the shadow of these facilities. in november 2011, dhs begins to explain why nearly five years up to these regulations went into affect not a single site security plan has been approved. it reveals that this committee was rash, in my opinion, in passing legislation to rubber- stamp the program for seven years without investigating or addressing the program's shortcomings. we have heard from those in the business community that the

cfats is still strong and businesses have done everything they're required to do under the program. according to industry representatives, we should be comforted to know the companies that acted prudently and are prepared for inspections should the department ever begin to conduct them. i hope this is true, but our national security is inherently governmental. many of us have worked for years to establish a robust regulatory structure for a chemical security -- chemical facility security. approvals and inspections are insignificant or the roping insignificant. and you think the department of homeland security should play a role in insuring that our chemical facilities are secure? >> sir, i strongly believe that the department has a role and that the office that is tasked with doing that can play that role. >> do you think the department must play a role?

you think it is absolutely necessary? >> i am serri? >> do you think it is absolutely crucial that the department play a role? >> think the original intent of the act is absolutely appropriate, and, yes, the park department must play a role. >> would you say the approvals and compliance inspections are necessary and important to insure chemical facility security? >> i think they're absolutely essential to making this program work effectively. >> i mean, i agree with everything you said. it the failure of the department to complete the approvals and inspections is a serious issue. i am glad to see that the department is treating it as such, and i welcome the opportunity to work together towards a strong and effective program. the point i am trying to make here is that this committee has a responsibility to put together an appropriate comprehensive authorization bill and not simply rely on this paragraph, or whatever it is -- it is like this long, in the

appropriations bill that really does not give you sufficient guidance or mandates or inspection or enforcement capability to do what you have to do. i understand that there are all kinds of problems with the department, but a big part of the problem is that you never had a comprehensive authorization bill to tell you what to do and to give me the authority what to do. we could sit here all day and talk about how bad you are, and there certainly are problems, but i think it is our responsibility to be sending more comments of to provide the guidance. that is my only point. thank you. >> gentlemen yields back his time. recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> thank you very much. thank you for being here today. we have such a short little time to ask these questions. but if i could, first, is in my

understanding and am i correct in hearing that we spend about $48 million0 for the program since its inception? is that correct? >> yes, sir. i believe that is the right number. i can give you the exact number. >> that is all part, thank you. >> as chairman, mr. dingell does very good at the yes or no questions. but i want to go back to the question about working with industry. you said you have been working with industry. but in reading the report that came through and looking at the site security plan, we have received -- you have received about 4200 sfp submissions but none have been approved. did you ever hear from industry during this timeframe that, gee, what is going on, these things have been submitted that we're never hearing back from the department? >> yes, we did receive inquiries from industry about when they were going to be approved. >> do you know how many?

>> i do not have that information. kwadir know when you might have received the first inquiry? -- do you know when you might have received the first degree from industry as to when they might have these approved? >> no, i cannot tell you precisely when, but i can get that information. >> again, going back to earlier testimony, you are looking at five and a half years since the enactment of cfats and the statute itself and four and half years since the final rule. i would like to find out when the industry that was being regulated was finding out if they were or not being approved, because it is a part of the time frame. let me go to the other thing that was brought up earlier, saying that -- to do not have it in front of me, but i wrote it down, saying that you are going to have an open-door policy and

not afraid to raise issues. the reason i bring this up is a was a county commissioner for six years, years back, and we had about 1100 employees in the county. we regulate it all kinds of things and had a lot of different departments. it was not unusual for employees who worked one of those departments this served underneath the board of commissioners to bypass their supervisors and call me at home. or, being from a county of 125,000, they run into you at the county fair, they talk to the grocery store, or they ask to talk it someplace else. did you all get any contact from anybody at any time saying, gee, i would like to talk to you about something, we think something is going wrong with the program? >> sir, on this particular program, yes, and that is part of the reason that some of the efforts in order to investigate problems took place in the past. with respect to bypassing the

chain of command in order to prevent that particular problem, we come in management, and i, in particular, have meetings with other individuals or groups of people throughout the mppd that are well them in the chain of command in order to elicit their thoughts and suggestions so that we can improve the program overall. >> let me ask this question, do you know when you might have stairs -- a first started getting an inclination of something wrong, people by passing the chain of command to say there isn't really wrong here in personnel or the way the program is being run? >> [inaudible] >> excuse me, the first instance that i can report to you that this occurred would be in the summer time frame of 2010 when it came to our attention because

of a report by an individual that there seemed to be a problem with the locality pay. as soon as we found out that that was an issue, we took that on and went through the process to determine what had gone wrong in terms of the appropriate page to the individuals involved. >> so this is a reaction to the first inclination, and would be a couple years after the program was put in place. correct? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. real quick, i know my time is running out, mr. chairman. but if we get some of that information back -- again, i really hope that the open-door policy does exist and that folks are not afraid to come forward, because this has got to work. when you look at the number -- with 4200 sfp's that have been submitted and try to get these things come up is very, very important, not just for the department itself but for all the industries out there trying to comply with it. mr. chairman, i yield back.

>> the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. >> thank you. i would like to yield my time to the ranking member of this subcommittee, a brother green from texas. >> thank you. i am going to revisit the personal charity. i appreciate the update. i saw your testimony, and i am going to encourage the chair that maybe two or three months from now, we invite you back to enjoy our hospitality again and see how far along we are, because this is such a pardon -- such an important issue. let me get back to personal chaired a program, because that is sensitive. i have plenty of plans on the water and plenty that are not. this same company owns them, and oftentimes they transfer personnel back and forth. my concern is what was submitted to the omb did not recognize that the twic cards would be

used, and i can understand why something regulated by your agency can apply for a twic card. but it seems like i and the government, we could use the same data base for the background, and the twic card would be interchangeable. some of my folks are going to be frustrated, ending up paying another few hundred dollars to get a second car, because their company transfers them somewhere. not all companies are really nice, and they say, no, that is part of the requirement for the job. you have to have a driver's license to drive the company car. that is my concern. the proposed personal charity program requires facilities to submit background information on all existing personnel in 60 to 90 days. new or escorted individuals not

classified as personnel, even if they evena twic card, with neither information's limited to dhs 48 hours in advance. was that part of the cement and -- submittal to omb? >> i believe that is part of the submittal to omb. we're looking at all of the opportunities to leverage the various cards and want very much to go in the direction that you want to go. >> and i know there may need to be an interagency memorandum to work together, and i know sometimes our federal agencies do not like to do that. but we have redundant information if we are using the same data base. i just do not understand why dhs, as we proposed in two separate legislation to earlier, with aze twidc background check.

is there an incident that i am not aware of that existed within the twic system but that required dhs to go beyond twic? >> i am not aware of any, sir. >> i stay pretty close to the ground there with a lot of my folks, and i have not heard one. in our area, people may not like some of the chemicals we produce, but they're produced because somebody needs them in our country. and we want to make sure there safely produce, both for the people who live around it and for the folks on that plant. every time i talk about the issue with dhs, you're sure made a incorporate twic. i want to make sure goes forward from that. i think maybe we will even contact omb and express that concern. do not reinvent the wheel, even though we have two separate agencies. hopefully that would come from both agencies, including the department of transportation if you use the same data base. i do not have any other

questions. i will yield back to my colleague from georgia. i appreciate his courtesy. >> the chair recognizes mr. harper for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i certainly think that two of you for being here today. mr. wolf, i want to thank you and ms. anderson for the work you have done on this. this may come as a shock, but it is not always surprising to learn that an agency may be dysfunctional. not always a surprise. we appreciate the candor, and no one should ever be criticized or subject to anything for being very open, which you and ms. anderson have done. that gives us some input. but i want to ask a few questions, if i may, mr. wolf. as i looked through the report, one of the things that you spend

some time on were the issue of the unions within the organization. can you tell me when the work force and of the division was unionized? >> i cannot give you an exact date on it that. it was before ms. anderson's and my arrival. i want to say spring of last year, like march. >> well, can you tell me, does each worker have to cast a vote in order for their votes to be recorded? do you know how to process works and nonvoters are considered voted to unionize? >> i am not completely certain about that process. >> can you get me that information? >> absolutely. >> that would be great. can you tell me how many employees there are in the cfats program and how many are eligible for government unions and how many ever live voted to

be represented by unions? >> i do not have the totals on voting. i would say there are approximately, and i do not have the exact numbers in front of me, a little bit more than 200 federal employees in the cfats program. those who would have been eligible to vote for union membership, that would be our field force, and on supervisory field force. so a little bit under 100 of those. >> at the time of union is it -- unionization, were all job descriptions in place that apply to that work force? >> as we noted in our report, we are continuing to refine the requirements for the sections and -- >> when you started out in the report and said the presence of the union at this stage of the program will have a significant

negative impact, explained that. >> i appreciate the opportunity to provide a little additional context to that. the report was not intended to be a statement concerning whether unions and federal work force are good or bad, but rather, it is a recognition of the fact that this is a program that is very much in its emerging stages, and we're very much in the midst of putting into place policies and procedures for the conduct of inspections, for the operations, review of the site security plan, and so forth. so if adds a layer of complexity that would not otherwise exist. that said, along with the union, we have a shared interest in moving the program forward in a collaborative relationship. >> certainly. we have an overall big picture here of an issue of national

security that we have no kind of gotten bogged down. does it not make it more difficult though after the immunizations to take place to implement some of these policies? are you not seen that, even with the references you had to the mileage reporting? >> it does add a layer of complexity, but it also adds voices in the development of policy that will allow us to develop a more sustainable process moving forward. >> what was it, 16 weeks, that you reported for the mileage requirements to be done? >> i believe that was -- >> i understand the need that everybody has to work together. the fact is that this is caused delay, has it not? why don't i not make you answer that question? i think we know. but i appreciate your time, mr.

wall, and for you and ms. anderson to be so candid with your answers. >> i recognize the gentle lady from california for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman for recognizing me, and i apologize for the state of my voice. but i am feeling well. i am pleased to be here. thank you both for your testimony. the internal homeland security report from november 2011 provides me support for concern that problems in the statutory language creating the cfats program have tendered its successful implementation. of course we're talking about homeland security here. according to cfats the reportto personnel have not yet determined to systematically reduce site security plans, although the department has set up an interim process to try to get these plans reviewed, staff are still working to develop a process to be used over the long term. apparently, many initial site security plan reviews have to be

redone. the november report states that have been found to be " inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the programs mandates." mr. beers, would you please elaborate on what the report meant when it stated that the site security plan reviews have not been conducted consistently with the spirit and intent of the statutory mandate? >> madam, i cannot specifically speak to the reason behind that. i can give you some broader context about what happened with respect to the efforts to get site security plans that, in fact, met the requirement. as the program was rolled out and as it evolves, the guidelines for the information that needed to be provided in the site security plans failed to illicit appropriate responses from industry, some of

that undoubtedly was or could have been done better if the guidelines that we had put out had been more clear and some of it was simply on the part of industry not providing that information. i do not mean to suggest that that was an intentional act, but it required as to go back to those particular facilities and ask for more information in order to be able to get to the site security plan that, in fact, appeared to meet what we needed to have in order to have a site security plan. that iterative process ended up taking time when those site security plans were initially filed, and that is part of what i regard as the due diligence that we and industry need to undertake together to ensure that a plan that is finally authorized and approved -- approved is a plant capable of providing the kind of security

that you all had charged us to build. let me turn to mr. wolf about the specific comment. >> yes, briefly, so i can go on to another question. >> about the site security plan review process specifically? >> well, is a very concerned that these delays have occurred. >> we have taken steps to address those through the implementation of our interim review process. and as the undersecretary and i have mentioned, the last two months, we have quadrupled the number of site security plans we have been able to authorize. i think the future is bright moving forward on that path. >> it wife for that. you are trying. i appreciate that and of ricci the department is working to address these issues and establish a consistent site

process. but i am concerned that flaws in the law make ambiguity and inconsistency in the process unavoidable. this will prop up again. that is because section 550 france discretion to the secretary to approve site security plans that fail to meet the risk-based performance standards under the program. the law says only that the secretary may disapprove of plan that fails to meet those standards. as many in this committee will perhaps recall -- i recall it well, because i offered an amendment during the markup of hr 908 that would have change that word "may" to "shall." that word "may" is what causes the ambiguity, and having to go back and read question -- time is of the essence when we are talking about homeland security. mr. beers, you agree that site

security plans selling to meet these standards should be disapproved? >> congresswoman, our objective here is to get to yes, so the notion of disapproval does not necessarily accomplish -- the point is when we say we're not prepared to approve if that is the functional equivalent thereof, but what we want to do is have a cooperative relationship with industry in order to say whether or not a plan requires more information or more clarification. >> and industry needs to have this as well. i would like to finish one sentence. >> we're trying to get these in before the vote. >> i believe it should be a requirement so that industry is clear on what they need to do. >> i now recognize the gentleman from louisiana for 5 minutes. >> thank you. the memo is one -- let me commend you for asking it be drawn up. on the other hand, it is disaster in terms of acquisition, inventory

management, attitudes. i mean, a total indictment. now, the guy that represents an area with a lot of chemicals, a lot of businesses and workers that depend upon this, if i can see the argument that your job is important for safety, it is frankly not just an indictment of the organization, but it frankly seems to place my constituents at risk. that said, how many employees does this particular division of dhs have? >> i want to say 206. >> 206? this problem seems so endemic. how many of them fired? i mean, it seems like an easy target, because they speak of consistently people being hired because they know somebody. i mean, you can always write somebody's name in here if you only have 206 people.

clearly it was not -- how many have been fired? how many are going to be fired? >> sir, with respect to the issue about the retiering -- >> no, just a simple question. clearly, there is an endemic problem here, and it is rife. how many have been fired? a pretty simple question. and how many do have on the chopping block? >> sir, with respect to the leadership of the organization, the people who were in the leadership positions -- >> i only have three minutes. can i have a number? let's have moved on. >> how many? >> two people. >> so 1%, and we have people hired apparently because they know somebody, promoted because they know somebody. apparently fudging on their gas reports. only 1%? seems like the organization -- i

do not mean this to be kind of snitty, but i am amaze we're tolerating this kind of incompetence. i am struck, in your document, you say that, from page 9, we have yet to approve the site security compliance inspections. moreover, we have not yet determined what it will look like. yet, since this report was reported in the news, we have quadrupled the number of compliance reports this year. is that my understanding or is that incorrect? >> what we have quadrupled as the number of site security plans we have conditionally authorized, which is the step that proceeds of the opposition in section, which it then it leads to the final approval of a facility site security plan, sir. >> ok, so the indictment of the report stands that six years into this, and we have yet to come up with a compliance inspections program.

i just do not know what to say. now, i do know what to say. it clearly, there was a contract this out. i do not know how you do not to start over with this program. but i understand the coast guard has the authority to use an alternative security program. can we use an alternative security program -- i understand, you had this authorization already. can we use that now since it looks like the current program is so dysfunctional to be beyond restitution. >> the short answer is yes. i want to describe what we have done with respect to that. >> we do already have some alberta of security programs that have been submitted by industry stakeholders, and we're working very aggressively in partnership with our industry stakeholders to develop some templates that can be used. we cannot prescribe the specific template, but we are going to work through some templates that

well, the hope is, allow for more expeditious, speedy review and approval. >> but this does not include contracting out this function, correct? can you go to a third party for inspections? you describe a staff which is poorly hired, poorly trained, and has a poor attitude, and has a sense of law enforcement being called to wear pistols as opposed to actually go through and look at something -- >> the compliance inspections is an inherently government function. >> my understanding that the coast guard actually has an alternate standard, and whatever they call it, the offshore for the oil rigs, they have a third- party inspecting oil rigs. >> i cannot speak to the coast guard, sir. i am not aware. >> ok. i have much more to ask. >> the gentleman yield five minutes. >> contractors greater thantsa

functions to some of the airports. it is worth looking into. i would like to yield five minutes to mr. waxman. >> thank you. none of us can be happy about this memo that came out last november showing how poorly this program is serving the american public. this is a serious matter, a matter of national security, possible attacks by terrorists on a chemical plant. i know that all of us are concerned, not just the people here in the congress, but mr. beers and others in the administration. we have a stark picture, but perhaps there's a silver lining, because it appears to me that the department is taking this situation clearly. but i want to talk about congress' role. it is era -- it is easy at a hearing like this after we get a writ -- after we get a report on its failure to be done on the people running the program, but congress has a responsibility as

well. this program was established in an appropriations bill, not a bill that came out of this committee. it was on an appropriations bill. is there a provision in section 550 that addresses personnel hiring? >> i am not aware of it, sir. >> is there a provision that addresses use of travel cards or purchase cards? >> no, sir, i am not aware of that. >> how about details on inspections? >> no, sir. >> anything that explains background checks? >> no, sir. >> are there any enforceable deadlines in this law? >> no, sir. >> the answer to these questions are all know, and the reason is that this committee never held a hearing or conducted a markup on legislation for this program, so the problems we see today were never contemplated by this committee and no direction was provided. i understand that mr. barton

said you should resign, but he was the chair of the committee at the time this law was adopted to an appropriations bill. we tried to get the people who would have a stake in this to work out legislation when the democrats were in power and i was chairman, and we had the chemical industry and others with us. and the republicans came to power, and this committee said let's just extend this for seven years. we will just keep this thing down the road for seven years. now one of the proponents of doing that was the chemical industry. they were troubled by some of the ideas that we would have further inspections and we would have further deadlines and we would make sure that things happened. but, while they participated with us and tried to change the law, they said all that wanted to do this last year was extend

the existing law for seven years. now this existing law does not have much of a requirement on you. you have established a working group, mr. beers, in the department to look at legislative and regulatory changes and whether they're necessary. is that correct? >> [inaudible] >> speak into the microphone. >> yes, sir, with respect to the integrity of the department. >> the november report identified several statutory limitations on the program that it limited effectiveness and includes a rigid and a limited enforcement authority. for example, a facility can violate requirements 20 times, and you would not have the authority to take any more action based on repeated violations. that means that they can repeat these violations over and over again and you cannot do anything about it. is that right?

>> that is an element of the report that we have looked into as a result of the report. while it is true that just on the face of it, the answer to that is yes, we believe we could use our administrative order authority. >> you are going to have to use your regulatory authority to do something that should have been set into law by congress. i hope this working group will examine that. the report calls into question the adequacy of the program's performance standards. that memo said, without testing to evaluate the effectiveness of the performance standards, adequacy of the standard often is more a matter of opinion. will your working group give us some recommendations on that issue? >> search, as we come to recommendations, yes, we will give those to you. . >> you are going to examine that issue, i presume. congress should have examined it as well.

you have excuses, and everybody says we're going to do better. i think we all have the burden to bear in the failure. congress did not do its job. we hope you would have taken up the slack and the job congress should have directed you to do. but i think it is awfully premature for members of this committee to try to put the whole blame on you and say you should quit. maybe some members of congress should quit if we're not doing our job. yelled at my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado for five minutes. we're going to try to get this done and then adjourned the hearing after he is finished. >> thank you for recognition, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. when i first read this memo, it was a little bit like "jerry maguire" meets the "titanic." unnecessary expenses, unqualified personnel, fell language, in effect of hiring,

unauthorized expenses, inappropriate work behavior, catastrophic failure, a perceived cronyism, favoritism. how would you grade your performance on a scale of one to 100? >> i think this report is a clear indication that the program needs a whole lot of work on it. but i do not think it entirely recognizes what we have done, and i am not being apologist, but i think it indicates that we have some major challenges which we are prepared to address. >> unauthorized use of money. is there criminal activities that have taken place? >> those are issues that we're looking into. >> if you discover it possible criminal activity -- perhaps if that turned out to be the results of these reviews, the answer to that, of course, is yes. we have an obligation to you at a to the american public to do that. >> i in terms of what you're facing, what else are we missing

from this memo? is this a car rented sieve -- is this comprehensive? >> sir, you're asking me to say what the unknowns are here. i am not saying that this memo is the entirety. i do not think david would say that. but it does represent a commitment to make sure that we understand the problems as we know them and to come up with solutions to fix that. david? >> i would echo the undersecretary's sentiment. i would say that the report was focused, as it was intended to be, on internal candid assessment, very much on the challenges side of the equation. it did not focus as much on the programs excesses' -- successes and opportunities. you know, i would add, too, that we have a very talented and committed work force with then

the group. very committed folks at headquarters and in at the field. they're all eager to move the program forward. as i mentioned earlier, the problems we identified in the reports are certainly not insignificant, but there are by no means insurmountable. we're looking forward -- we have a nearly 100-point action plan that is in progress. we are meeting in a weekly basis with deputy undersecretary spaulding to review the process on those items, and we anticipate continued progress. >> the report identifies several issues with the challenges you face with the union. can you name any other agencies or offices to deal in anti- terrorism security, national security, who plays a union in the bridge before most accountability measures were put in place? >> i am not aware of any. >> let's talk a little bit about the budget. the memo talks on page 15, "iscd

lacks the system for tracking the usage of consumable supplies, which creates an environment for fraud, waste, and a b.s.." this is not the gao saying this, it is the managers describing their own program. how can a member of congress choose to fund a program that is so self prescribed? >> we recognize some administrative shortcomings in the tracking of funds, this is ag, too, that relatively new program correlative a new organization. we have put into place safeguards relating to the receipt of goods. as i mentioned earlier, we did not identify actual fraud, waste, or abuse, just that there were additional processes that need to be put into place to ensure that that was not -- >> point of clarification here.

that part of the report is actually taken from another review that was accomplished during, started before, and finished and during the time in which they prepare that, and it was our own compliance unit that did that, that discovered that. they did not discover any charges to be late, but they said that the procedures were inadequate, as the report correctly says. >> dhs as an inspector general, correct? what's we have an inspector general. for the whole department, we have an office of compliance and security within our own mppd, and that is to look into this issue at the assistant secretary and my request? >> indeed assistant secretary has looked at this? >> yes, sir. >> you had conversations with the inspector general? what's with respect to this report? and i personally had that

conversation. >> but he has with this memorandum? >> yes, they're available. >> they are available or he has them? did you send it to them? >> i will have to confirm that, sir peter >> thank you. based on the authorization, with a multi-year authorization give you the edge toward the -- give you the assured the need to pursue development? it would be helpful for you to ensure that the program cannot change? >> as the report says and we have said for some time, and long-term authorization of this program is of vital, but to the work force and to our security partners and a stakeholders in this program. it gives us a longer-term stability that a year-to-year, unfortunately, does not provide us. >> a number of sites where retiered last fall. >> i have to remind my colleague

close toe beinggetting the votes being called. >> i have additional questions. >> let me follow-up, i think mr. it beer cos testified he would have liked the lot to be made per minute at the march hearing. let me also just, again, thank you, mr. beers, for your years of service. marine corps officer, vietnam, foreign service. obviously did step that the department of state, middle east, a persian gulf, internal narcotics and law enforcement. we get caught up in the heat of battle. we expect you to address these issues and fix them, and that will make further hearings go well. in response to my friend, mr. waxman, i love the on the father quote -- you cannot pass a law

for total compliance. it is really the people that make things work. i think you're going to get a handle of it. i just wish the people who have left the department to not get a move that probably would have been held more accountable for their activities. with that, i would like to adjourn this hearing. thank you for your service. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the u.s. house is about to gavel in in just under 15 minutes. general speeches, and then legislative business at 4:00 p.m. eastern. they will credibility to make recommendations on federal non- military targets that could be sold for proceeds court redeveloped to cut costs. white house coverage coming up at noon eastern here on c-span. the u.s. senate is back at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon, working on a house-senate compromise on federal aviation administration programs for the next four years. final passage vote at 5 p and this afternoon. you can see the senate live on c-span2. this past week, house and senate lawmakers continue negotiations to extend the payroll tax cut for workers. they will continue their work on tuesday with a fourth public meeting. the cuts expire the end of the month, and all sides agree they should be extended.

the talks are focused on how to pay for it. >> i do not hear fundamental disagreement in the philosophy that if people get the ged, that enhances their lives and enhances the ability for them to get a job down the road. i do not hear a disagreement with that. i hear an excuse as to why not to do it, but rather, the fundamental philosophy of trying to rearm people with an education so that when they go to the work force, they have an additional tool. >> to link a social insurance program designed, and for 70 plus years, functioning to provide financial support when you lose your job to a requirement that you have to be in this training, i think, first of all, will not work for some of the practical considerations. but, second, it contradicts the notion that you're suggesting that i agree with, the more education you have today, the better off you'll be in this economy. quartz watch the rest of this meeting or the two others online

at the c-span video library. it is at c-span.org/ videolibrary. >> tonight, the third in our series on "the communicators." developments in communications, consumer technology, and policy, with the head of mercedes-benz cars and tour miata's vice president for advanced technology. they will discuss voice command, and internet integration, an increase in car safety, aiming for crash-free cars. "the communicators," 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> again, the houses in at noon eastern for general speeches but right now, a discussion on u.s. manufacturing from today's "washington journal."

host: we see this headlines about manufacturing. talking about 243,000 overall jobs. give us a status report on u.s. manufacturing. guest: manufacturing has been a bright spot over the past couple of years ago in january, we created 50,000 manufacturing jobs, the highest since august of 1998. 13 years, unprecedented rate. over all over the last two years, we have created about 300,000 manufacturing jobs, standing in stark contrast to the last decade and the shedding of jobs that we saw, millions of jobs. att: let's break down 50,000. we have a slightly can put on the screen. 50,000 jobs added in january. in fabricated metal products, the number is 11,000. machinery, another 11,000. motor vehicles and parts, 8000.

give us an idea of the types of jobs created in manufacturing. guest: the automotive sector is a very strong. you have seen a strong indications, profits from ford, gm, chrysler. you have seen hiring, more demand, increased market share. so that means more jobs in the transportation sector. in terms of fabricated metals, consumers have a bit more confidence now, so they are buying durable goods. things like washing machines and refrigerators, and that creates a demand for things like fabricated metal. the weakness that you still see used in construction-related manufacturing, and we know that has been lagging in the construction industry. that shows up in the types of manufactured products that go in the construction industry. otherwise, we have seen relatively good strength over the last two years. >> moving forward to the next

several months or years, where do you see this headed? >> i think there are a couple of things working in our favor and a couple headwinds. the things working in our favor, it looks like the appointment is picking up. that means people will be more likely to buy things. that helps the manufacturing sector. the center for automotive research forecasts that there will be about 160,000 jobs created in manufacturing over the next three years. that is a very positive. however, there are a couple things we do not know. we do not know what congress and the president are going to do on tax breaks pennant in manufacturing. there was a plant and economic deduction that has been very useful to the industry. we do not know what is going to happen in china and how much growth there's going to be in china or how much china is going to try to export its way out of some kind of challenge. third, we do not know what will happen in europe and if there will be a resolution to the debt crisis in greece or if there's going to be something that

approach as calamity like we saw in this country couple of years ago. host: our guest is scott paul. americanmanufacturing.org is at the website to go to. tell us about the alliance. guest: it is you need. the united steelworkers union represents not only steel workers but also workers in the rubber, although part, glass, paper, and also some manufacturers that have a collective bargaining arrangement with the steelworkers in the steel and rubber industries in particular. host: the numbers are on the screen. we will hear from the president in a moment on manufacturing. we look forward to your calls for scott paul. the inserts in today's papers egos on to the dramatic advance

in the super bowl last night featuring clint eastwood. here he is. it is halftime in america. our second half is about to begin. what is he saying? what are you saying? guest: the obama folks certainly interpreted as a campaign ad in a lot of ways. but it has nuances. chrysler, last year, did yearad imported from the jury that was about reviving the industry. i think this is an extension of that. we're back on our feet, we have taken the plunge, we can move forward. you have seen a lot of this from madison avenue. you have seen this vote is on blue-collar work on manufacturing. i think politicians understand, these companies understand that americans have a soft spot in their heart for manufacturing. it has been an important part of our past. they know we have suffered and we're kind of an underdog now. they want to see us get back on our feet. host: here is the president from

friday. [video clip] >> to restore american manufacturing, we need to stop giving tax breaks to companies to ship jobs overseas, give it to companies that are investing in plants and the climate and hiring workers right here in united states of america. that makes a lot of sense. to make sure our businesses do not have to move overseas to find skilled workers, we've got to invest in education to make sure colleges affordable for every hard working america. host: scott paul, i want to pick up on the tax part that he mentioned, that you mentioned. what the look from manufacturers in the area of taxes? guest: a couple things would be helpful. and up from deduction for plant and equipment purchases. that has spurred a lot of innovation, upgrading, and purchasing in the manufacturing sector to make the industry more

competitive. it has been wildly successful, and should be extended in some way. second, there is a deduction in the tax code for manufacturing activity in the united states. the president has proposed expanding that dramatically. that would be incredibly useful to the manufacturing sector, and in some ways, more useful than a corporate tax cut. a corporate tax cut, if you expense it out, a lot of the benefits would go to the financial-services sector and not to manufacturing. if you have a specific tax deduction for manufacturing activity, you're going to target that. it will be in ensuring incentive. the president has talked about this for a few years, but it is in the midday being some features in the tax code that may encourage of shoring, and that is used to pay for some of these tax benefits. i think the tax benefits he is proposing would be useful to the sector, to grow employment. host: will year from its romney in a few minutes. but first, those phone calls.

-- we will hear from mitt romney in a few minutes. caller: i heard the president of singapore being interviewed over the weekend. singapore is ranked as the number one place in the world to do business. i was struck by the fact that when he was asked what he attributed their success to, his number one factor was the fact that they educate all of their children based on marriage -- merit for free. the number two factor was the infrastructure. cutting education has been proposed. the president of singapore never mentioned corporate income taxes or the capital gains rates. it is not even on his list. i would like to know what you're feeling is. how we during those two factors, infrastructure and education versus corporate tax rates, which one is more important for

bringing jobs back to america? guest: i think it is a good point, and i read rank them right up there with tax changes -- i would rank them right up there with tax changes. i would not underestimate the value of reforming education and doing some serious infrastructure investment. the study of education but we have an education system in this country that is built towards getting children a four-year college degree, and the testing regime is around that. for kids to want to go to vocational education and want to work in manufacturing, the system has been decimated. it is a shame. it puts us way behind where other industrialized countries are, like germany and japan. you hear employers talking about the challenges of finding kids with the right skills. i think the larger problem is that our system is simply not built to provide a pool of talented workers, skilled machinists and welders. and factory technicians, especially for these 21st

century manufacturing careers. the president has talked about that in a skills for the future program, but it needs more resources. it has a lot of private sector cooperation, the it is something that we do need to dramatically alter in this country. on infrastructure, absolutely. we have a second or third grade infrastructure. and if we rebuild our infrastructure, and that means our ports, roads, railways, not only are there substantial benefits to obviously construction workers, but also to commuters for reduced congestion and shorter drive times, but also to the manufacturing sector. it makes manufacturing companies and their logistics much more efficient. it makes us globally competitive. the american society of civil engineers gives us about a d in infrastructure. we need an "a." >> you can see the rest of