tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 15, 2012 8:00pm-1:00am EST
8:00 pm
increase for comparable benefits provided by private insurers and the fact of the matter is that the medicare trust fund can certainly use some more money, but the way to deal with that is essentially to solve the economic crisis. in other words, as more people are med as unemployment goes down, and the economy grows and more people pay into the medicare trust fund the medicare trust fund would just be fine. same thing for social security. the problem with the trust fund is -- whether it's social security or medicare, is that in a slow economy, in a recession, less and less people are working and pay into the trust funds. the answer isn't to get rid of the trust funds and not allow people to have the pension that social security provides or not allow people to have health insurance when they're other 65 but grow the economy, redeuce
8:01 pm
unemployment, more people pay into the trust funds and they become financially solvent for a long time in the future. . that's what the democrats have proposed, the answer to the medicare program is to put more money into the trust fund grow the economy and keep the medicare as a federal program that's guaranteed to all seniors. now, i also heard my republican colleagues talk about how the affordable care act some people call it obamacare the affordable care act, that somehow that was going to destroy medicare. nothing could be further from the truth. the reality is that the affordable care act strengthens medicare. the only cuts in the affordable care act are to providers. there are no cuts to beneficiaries. in fact, programs for beneficiaries and benefits for senior citizens are actually expanded under the affordable
8:02 pm
care act and many seniors have already seen that. the hallmark of the health care reform is prevention. and so what the affordable care act says is that if you have some kind of health care whether it's a mammogram or some kind of diagnose not particular test, you don't pay a co-pay. all prevention methods under the affordable care act are provided without a co-pay. and you know, that is mammogram testing for prostate testing any kind of test or any kind of prevention program. and the reason for that is that we don't want people to go to the hospital, we don't want people to get sick and be diagnosed at an early stage. and if they have to pay a co-pay, they won't have the test done. another may scror benefit
8:03 pm
extension under the health care reform is with regard to part d and prescription drug benefits. many know when the republicans passed medicare part d they left a huge, what we call hole, or doughnut hole so when you pay out of pocket up to a certain amount -- in other words, when you incur medicare expenses up to a certain amount in the course of the year, it was $2,000, now $2,500, whatever the figure is, everything you incur beyond that is not covered. then you have to go to a catastrophic level, something above $5,000. many senior citizens when they start the year, are getting their prescription drugs but by august september october sometimes even earlier, they reach that doughnut hole, and their medicare prescription drugs were not covered under the
8:04 pm
original medicare part d proposal. so what the democrats did in the affordable care act, what the president did in the affordable care act or obamacare if you will was to gradually fill in that doughnut hole over the life of the program. the first year was a $250 rebate and then prescription drugs were discounted 50% and gradually over the next years that doughnut hole will disappear and your prescription drugs will be covered and you won't have a doughnut hole. these are benefit expansions under the affordable care act. so when the suggestion is made by the republicans that somehow the affordable care act is somehow going to hurt or destroy medicare, nothing could be further from the truth. the affordable care act strengthens medicare expands benefits whether it be for
8:05 pm
prescription drugs or testing or prevention also provides a free wellness test every year where there's no co-pay and actually pays money back in to the trust fund. so the life of the medicare program if you go along with what the democrats are proposing you know, whether there are proposals to improve the economy, grow the economy would actually shore up the medicare program. contrary to what some of my colleagues said here tonight. you know they mentioned different organizations the -- there was a group of doctors. they mentioned aarp, most of the organizations -- i didn't listen to the whole hour, but american
8:06 pm
medical society, specialty groups aarp, these are groups that supported the health care reform, because they knew it was strengthening medicare and making medicare more viable for the future and expanding benefits for seniors and the dis abled that are covered by medicare. this is part of the historic nature of the democrats and medicare. we started medicare. we strengthened medicare. we have done everything we can to make medicare more secure as a guaranteed federal program. republicans opposed medicare from the beginning and continued to try to either repeal it or in the words of speaker gingrich, make it widther on the vine and the republican budget in the house of representatives, my very republican colleagues that spoke tonight, all voted for the republican budget that would
8:07 pm
essentially get rid of medicare make it into a voucher and not provide the federal guarantee and make it so that seniors were essentially thrown out with a voucher or a certain amount of money and had to go out and buy private health insurance. so i had to come to the floor tonight, mr. speaker and really tell the truth about the parties and where they stand on medicare and the fact of the matter is that the democrats started the medicare program and continue to make it viable. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. west, for 30 minutes. mr. westmoreland: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. in commemoration of black
8:08 pm
history month, i ry rise to stand up for the rights of african americans. the first black members of congress served during reconstruction and they were all republicans. they won their seats despite fierce threats of violence against groups like the ku klux klan. one of these members was a slave who earned his freedom through service to the union in the civil war. he settled in florida and was repeatedly elected to congress at-large. in some ways, mr. speaker i carry the torch. in 1876, the democrats contested his election and had him replaced mid-term with one of their own. no black republican would again be elected from florida to this
8:09 pm
house until november 2 of 2010 when the voters of that state entrusted me to be their representative. on my desk in my office, there is a book called "capital men" and a biography of those first black members of congress. and i stand with walls and the early black members of congress once stood turner of alabama are long of georgia, delarge and rainy all of south carolina. they were the ones who carried that first torch for my colleague tim scott. they would have stood here urging support for policies of equal opportunity for all. mr. speaker i stand here this evening to recognize their legacy. the republican party has always been the party of freedom.
8:10 pm
today, we understand that our principles are best served when we act as stalwart advocates of free markets. the historyically republicans understood that the value of every human life is diminished when any human life is made to work against its will. free markets are characterized by the free exchange of goods and services and by the free exchange of labor for exen says. see, mr. speaker, without free people, there can be no free markets, where men are not free freedom not does reign. the republicans have always been the party of free men of individual freedom. it was abraham lincoln, the president, the father of the grand old party who signed the emancipation proclamation and brought about the freeing of the slaves and this is the
8:11 pm
republican party's role. but that understanding misunderstands the way that our party went on to better the lives of many african americans and many generations made to the cow of freedom. it was, in fact republicans of their day who worked to pass the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th amendments securing for african americans, deliver rans from slavery, equal protection under the law and the right to vote. each of these accomplishments did its part to submit the fundamental freedoms all americans enjoy today. none of them could have gotten off the ground without g.o.p. support. take the 13th amendment for example. abraham lincoln's request the republican national committee chairman edwin morgan made abolishing slashry an official
8:12 pm
platform. at that year's national convention, he opened with a statement on the topic. he said the party of which you gentlemen, are the delegated and honored representatives will fall far short of accomplishing its great mission unless among its other resolves it shall declare such an amendment to the constitution as will positively prohibit african slavery in the united states. the 14th amendment was no different. little known fact about that law that granted african americans citizenship, every vote was cast by a republican and every vote against was cast by a democrat. in 1968 when the democrat-controlled legislature of new jersey voted to rescind its ratification of the 14th
8:13 pm
amendment, it was the states' republican governor who vetoed that attempt. it was the 39th congress that established the buffalo soldiers, a fighting force of six regular meants of black-american troops and would be known for exhibiting the courage of acornered buffalo in battle. in peace time they were the finest horsemen the army had to offer. in 1907, the 10th cavalry regular meant was sent to the united states military academy at west point to teach the cadets riding skills. mr. speaker, think about that for a second, the commanders of that day so confident in the ability of the buffalo soldiers, that they entrusted them with the training of the next generation of army leaders. and it was the republicans who
8:14 pm
made that happen. it was the republicans who passed the 15th amendment as well. for once, the story is true that not every republican supported it. a few and sustained, saying the measure did not go far enough. it was the democrats who voted against the 15th amendment and when it passed any way it was the democrats that resorted to the use of poll taxes literacy tests, intimidation and other pernicious practices to keep black americans from exercising their right to vote. and this was something my grandparents and my parents experienced growing up in south georgia. it was a republican by the name of senator charles sumner who got the equal rights movement on its feet a leader of the radical republicans, sounds very familiar when they start talking about tea party republicans.
8:15 pm
senator sumner wrote and sheparded the first ever civil rights bill through congress. it was a republican president and the great general grant, who signed it into law the same day that it passed. and that comprehensive bill, the civil rights act of 1875, would become the blueprint for every subsequent piece of civil rights legislation to come before congress despite the fact that it was struck down by a backward-looking court. . it was republicans who called for racial justice in the armed forces, not only allowing black soldiers to serb their country but allowing them to serve alongside their white brothers. it was judge tuttle who ruled
8:16 pm
in favor of civil rights and forced the university of mississippi to admit its first ever black college student tasms republican supreme court justice who offered the decision in brown vs. the board of education that recognized racial segregation for what it was, a violation of the united states constitution. and when a school district in arkansas refused to integrate it was a republican president in dwight david eisenhower, who sent in the 101st airborne division to escort the little rock nine to class. however it was a democrat governor in orville falvus, you may recall who tried to use his national forwardsmen to prevent them from enrolling. mr. speaker, republicans were unphased by the many democrats including john f. kennedy and lyndon johnson who criticized president eisenhower's decision.
8:17 pm
meanwhile, it was the democrats in the senate who filibustered the first civil rights act of the 21st century and the republicans who managed to pass it nonetheless. the law established a civil rights division within the justice department and authorized the attorney general to request injunctions against anyone attempting to deny a person's right to vote. it was written at the behest of president eisenhower after a long drought of civil rights bills under presidents franklin delano roosevelt and president harry truman. it was a senate minority leader every rst -- everett dirksen, who helped right -- write the first civil rights act of 1964, widely regarded as the most influential of them all. in recent years, it's been the republican party that has fought to prevent african-americans from being trapped in a permanent
8:18 pm
underclass through dependence on government handouts. in the 1990's, they have republican-controlled 104th congress that passed the personal responsibility and work opportunity act then democrat president bill clinton signed it only after reluctantly vetoed it twice. this reform changed the face of welfare, ensuring that recipients who were able to work will be required to seek employment. no longer would government checks be seen as an entitlement. no longer would states have a financial incentive to add as many names to their welfare rolls as possible. finally there was an alternative to the cycle of poverty caused by years of misguided democrat policy. it's been republicans who have continued to fight for the underprivileged communities even as we're paint as the
8:19 pm
party of the white upper class. in 2004, another republican controlled congress, under the leadership of republican president george w. bush signed an omnibus bill that included a voucher program for schoolchildren right here in the district of columbia. instead of being shackled to the failed public school system, thousands of students were able to use the first federal government vouchers to escape to high performing private schools. mr. speaker, what republicans have long understood is that poor communities are best served when they're empowered to care for themselves. the more they come to rely on government checks, the less they learn to rely on their own ability and ingenuity. our party firmly believes in the safety net. we reject the idea of the safety net becoming a hammock.
8:20 pm
for this reason, the republican value of minimizing government dependence is particularly beneficial to the poorest among us. conversely the democratic appetite for ever-increasing redistributionnary handouts is in fact the most insidious form of slavery remaining in the world today and it does not promote economic freedom. time after time, the g.o.p. has stood strong as leaders on issues of conscience, even when the positions we have taken have been unpopular, we've he will the line and ultimately brought about liberty and justice for all. from eliminating slavery to securing full citizenship and voting rights for african-americans, calling for desegregation even in the most hostile bastions of the deep south, to implementing school choice in poor communities, to
8:21 pm
helping black families break out of the cycle of welfare dependence. mr. speaker, republicans have been on the front lines of the fight for equal rights and individual manifest destiny since our party's founding under lincoln. so too, has the party led on issues like reducing the size of government, streamlining the federal bureaucracy, and returning power to the states. these positions didn't always garner the most popular support at the time, it's easier to convince a person that a government should be doing something for them it currently isn't than to convince a person government shouldn't be doing something for them it currently is. but real visionary leaders don't retreat from fights. it is said that one evening, as george washington sat at his table after dinner, the fire behind him flared up, leading
8:22 pm
him to move his chair away so as not to end up getting burned. when someone called george washington out saying a general ought to be able to stand the fire, he responded that no general should ever be taken -- taking fire from behind. that is the essence of integrity and conviction the willingness to stand for what you believe at all times. alone if need bfment -- if need be. without the option of retreat no matter how tough the slog ahead may be, it is possible to transform a losing fight into a winning one. for inspiration, we need only to look to the former slave and republican fred lick -- frederick dough last. having -- douglass. having found his way to freedom, he could have been forgiven from retiring from the public eye but he didn't back
8:23 pm
down from the work still to be done he made himself up with of the most stalwart champions of not just the anti-slavery movement but the women's rights movement as well. he wasn't content to lend his political capital to causes that would benefit him he knew what we know that injustice anywhere is an affront to the human spirit. to free african-americans from the bons o-- bons of slavery was -- bonds of slavery was only the first step for frederick douglass and he would not be satisfied until he helped liberate women from the bonds of misogyny as well. in those days, douglass could count on the republican party to be his ally in the fight. today, we remain no less dedicated to the cause of freedom. so therefore, mr. speaker with a core belief in the supremacy and the sovereignty of the individual and the unconditionable -- and the
8:24 pm
unconditional dignity of human life, the republican party is, always has been and forever shall be the party of equality, of opportunity, happy black history month, thank you, and mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. it is such an honor to serve with such an honorable man as
8:25 pm
colonel allen west. i've known him for a few years going back to his previous efforts at election to the house of representatives and i'm just delighted that he's here. i'm delighted to call him a friend, and he has been a fantastic addition here to the house of representatives. i would like to regress -- to address something my democratic colleague had referenced and that was with troord medicare my friend was taking issue with what my republican doctors were addressing here on the floor with regard to medicare. and it was interesting to hear a democrat say that actually
8:26 pm
obamacare strengthened medicare. it's interesting. i guess the definition of is means something to some folks and in this case, i guess the definition of strengthen would have to be what was at issue here. the democrats strengthened medicare. cut $500 billion, with a b, billion dollars out of medicare and are proud to report to the american people that they strengthened medicare. in a bill that i didn't agree with, the debt ceiling bill, it's cuing hundreds of billions of dollars -- dollars from our -- cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from our national security, our national defense. i guess the same reasoning would say we're cutting
8:27 pm
hundreds of billions of dollars from our national defense and under the democratic strategy and definition, i guess of strengthen you could say that, under that logic, that thinking will strengthen our military and our national defense. i don't happen to agree with that definition, i don't believe that's what it does. $500 billion in cuts to medicare that obamacare rammed down america's throats to my way of thinking does not strengthen medicare. it guts it. now, the explanation has been that that -- that the hundreds of billions of dollars that the democrats in the house and senate when they were in the majority took from medicare, we're told, that wasn't cuts to the american people.
8:28 pm
that have only cuts to the health care providers. well lest i become too sarcastic, let me just say, when you cut the payments by $500 billion to those who are going to provide seniors with health care in, we didn't cut the money -- no, we didn't cut the money going to senior, you cut it to the people that seniors need to provide them care. if people haven't gotten out from around this town and gone out and talked to doctors across the country, including doctors in what some would deem flyover country, you find out that doctors say if and when those cuts occur we cannot stay in business. we'll have to close our doors.
8:29 pm
i've had a number of doctors tell me, once obamacare is fully law, i can't live on that . there's so many pieces of equipment that cost so much there's so much med case that costs more and more and the government would require me to provide services and not reimburse me enough to pay the people i have to hire to pay for the equipment i have to purchase and lease, and the medications i have to have in our facilities can't stay in business had doctors tell me repeatedly, i hoped to have more in savings before i retired, but i'm just going to have to do with what i've got there. because i can't stay in the practice of medicine once those $500 billion in cuts are made.
8:30 pm
so i guess someone can make the argument that the $500 billion in cuts to health care providers somehow strengthens medicare for seniors since it only guts the payments to the health care providers, the doctors, the hospitals. but i don't think it takes a whole lot of reasoning to understand seniors will find themselves in the position that the lady at the white house did during the president's town hall when she pointed out my mother was 95, her personal doctor said she needs a pacemaker, the cardiologist said she's too old but he had never met her. once he met her, he realized this is a woman that's going to live a lot longer, she does need a pacemaker. so he installed it and eight to 10 years later she's still
8:31 pm
going strong and the woman's question to the president was, in deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't, who gets surgery and who doesn't, will the people making the decisions under your bill consider the quality of a person's life and de-- in deciding whether they'll get the surgery, whether they'll get the health care they'll need, whether my mother would get the pacemaker she needed? and the president after beating around the bush can be found online, both video and transcript, the president ultimately said, we have to come to the conclusion that maybe we're better off telling your mother she should just take a pain pill. in other words, the woman's mother would be dead but she would have gotten a pain pill under the president's idea of
8:32 pm
good health care. under his obamacare program. so that's what happens $500 billion to medicare as the democrats did to obamacare. and i know my colleague across the aisle pointed out that the a.m.a. and a.h.a. and many leaders of the catholic church encouraged the passage of obamacare and now so many are finding egg on their faces. heck, the big pharmaceutical groups they supported it. every one of those groups that signed on were bought off. it's just the way it is. they thought that they were signing on to something that would help them out because they were given some little bit that they wanted in the bill.
8:33 pm
some from those groups told me gee, we wanted to have a seat at the table. i tried to warn them, you don't want a seat at the table when you're on the menu. when they signed on to gee to obamacare, they signed their own group's death warrants because $500 billion in cuts to health care providers when you don't even eliminate the fraud, waste and abuse, is going to gut the very people financially that are supposed to provide the care. so who suffers? well the doctors, the hell care providers, they retire and go on to do something else. who suffers? the seniors do. that's what the $500 billion cuts to medicare under obamacare do for millions of americans. i had a health care bill in the
8:34 pm
c.b.o.'s effort to help the president get obamacare passed. they scored it originally as being over $1 trillion but since the president promised, it would cost much less than that. there was a meeting with the director of c.b.o. at the white house. we don't know what was said but we understood the president was saying before and after the meeting, that it had to be scored and it was under a trillion dollars and c.b.o. scored it at $800 billion approximately. and after it becomes law c.b.o. rescores and guess what? it's over $1 trillion and anything we get from c.b.o. in the way of scoring has to be considered plus or minus 25% accurate. i think we ought to change
8:35 pm
legislation, get rid of c.b.o. and find entities competitively who are most accurately at scoring bills that can come close or minus than a 25% accuracy. but my bill would give seniors a choice and say, if you like your medicare and especially now with all the cuts that have come in health care, if you like it, great. keep it. but if you would like the best health insurance that money can buy with a high deductible, 3,000, $4,000, whatever we found to be most accommodating then we would buy that for the seniors. your choice, medicare or the
8:36 pm
best private insurance with a high deductible. if we made it -- in my bill it was $3,500. that deductible amount would then be provided to the senior's household in a savings account that they would control with their own debit card so that for the first time since medicare came into existence, seniors would get to control their own health care. they wouldn't have to go begging to an insurance company because insurance companies -- health insurance companies have gotten out of the business of health insurance. they are in health management. i don't want them in health management. i want them in health insurance and insurance is when you pay a small premium to insure against an insureable event down the road and don't know what's coming but in case there is a
8:37 pm
catastrophic accident or disease, you're covered. in the meantime, each year we provide that cash in the health savings account that can only be used for health matters. now, that would put patients back in control, because the most effective government we have found, and yet we have to keep relearning this lesson comes not when government is the referee and the coach and a player doesn't work well. we have to keep learning that lesson. people in this body say well it will work out better if government competes with the private sector. no, it doesn't, it works better if we are a referee. so whether it's a stock market, the referees, people who watch out for people like maddock and
8:38 pm
insured to make sure that people are playing fairly with their consumers, with their patients, so they aren't getting jerked around and the government can go after those who are being unfair in their treatment. that's the government's role, that's a referee. when the government becomes a player coach and the referee, then everybody suffers. there is no reason we should have to keep relearning that lesson. now, i wouldn't mind so much guesswork or permits -- and you hear from some of the farmers in california that say we have to have guest workers come in and harvest our crops, but we shouldn't have to have the rest of the country pay for their health care because they don't have it, so we ought to have a
8:39 pm
new requirement for visas. we'll give you a visa to come into the country but you have to show you are going to have health insurance the entire time you are here. you want guest workers to harvest your crops provide an umbrellas health insurance policy for them so the rest of america doesn't pay for that farmer's that rancher's employees' health care. those are just little things. but one other thing that we need to do to really get health care on track is get competition back in health care. and when a hospital, when a doctor, a clinic cannot tell you exactly what the cost is unless they know what insurance company you have or if it's medicare or if it's medicaid or whether it's cash -- because it is cash the way the system is, you are going
8:40 pm
to pay more than the insurance companies pay. that's no way to have a competitive insurance system. when i grew up in mount pleasant texas my parents switched doctors. one doctor went up, we would go to one that was cheaper because we knew they were good, too. we don't do that anymore because nobody knows what things cost. that ought to be posted. you ought to be able to find it, post it publish it. this one is cheaper. and if you have money in that debit account, then you would be concerned about that. but the government gets so involved that it becomes the problem. so i want to address one other area in which the government ought to be the referee, but it's so busy trying to be the coach and a player, that the job isn't getting done and that is
8:41 pm
in the area of visas. well apparently, we had this e.b.-5 program that in essence says that if you are a non-american but you want to come into the united states and you got $1 million and you are willing to invest it in the u.s. hey, we'll give you a visa one of these eb-5 visas and then you can come into this country and you can be a legal resident. so you buy your way in. well, everybody acknowledges times are tough. things have not gotten any better than they were when president obama took office. we are worst off than when he took office, debt through the roof. but i can understand, makes sense.
8:42 pm
let's encourage outside investment in america. well, it just so happens that the month of february has been quite revealing in this program in that in my hometown of tyler, texas, we have very wary local law enforcement. i know my days as a district judge handling felonies, we have very competent law enforcement in texas and a car was pulled off and no front license plates. that's required in texas. and then the officer found that there was questionable things going on and asking for permission to search, permission was granted $67,000 in cash was in the car. children in the car two individuals in the car with
8:43 pm
another adult driver shotgun in the car strange situation. and they were taken in for their violations. the name was run shotgun was run, lo and behold, i.c.e. says we are in charge and these folks are ours and take them from tyler, texas detention to dallas to the detention there. and we just happen to have the mug shots of these folks. these individuals were hector hernandez villarial and former tax executive service from mexico along with his wife and
8:44 pm
then they had a driver with them coronado. i.c.e. takes over and take these folks to detention in dallas. homeland security gets alerted. we don't know whether it was the shotgun being run or the people's names being run but they get involved. reporting to the submit county sheriff's office wanting to intradebate these individuals and they had just taken them to dallas, 100 miles up the interstate. once they were in dallas -- and there were computer material, different things that were obtained after they were arrested in tyler obtained by warrant and they begin to find out a little bit more about
8:45 pm
them. "san antonio express news" -- and this is in "the tyler morning telegraph," hometown local paper and they reported as did fox and "san antonio express," they report that six other men face charges linked to $3 billion in debt wracked up by the government by a former governor. he is accused of falsifying documents including $325 million in bank loans to the state before he resigned to become president of the opposition revolutionary peert. state police arrested him and another official october 28, charging them in connection with suspicious loans. he was released on bail within
8:46 pm
hours of being daped. i was told that bond was around $1 million and also as our sheriff there said, all we did was make a traffic stop and we didn't realize he was such an important person wanted from mexico and turned over to immigration and immigration law enforcement and released on february 26 on $20,000 bail. the i.c.e.e. supposeman would not comment. they issued a warrant for his arrest. members of mexico ruling national party were asking the same questions why was he he able to enter the u.s. and why was he released? we're giving visas to people because they promise to come in and invest $500,000 or $1
8:47 pm
million in the u.s. to do we need to change the inscription on the statue of liberty, give us your tired, your fugitives, your embezzlers? give us your criminals longing to stay free? some of us have been pretty critical of the mexican government not being tougher on corruption and here we have a case where it appears the mexican government is trying to cack down on corruption. i know from my days as a judge, when someone is released on bond they're not allowed to leave the country. why wouldn't our government, because i was assured today in a hearing, the immigration committee, by the customs and immigration service, the director, that they do a very for row background study on people before they will give them this eb-5 visa. they're very thorough, i was
8:48 pm
told. i'm looking forward to the report from the director that repromed -- that he promised me today in the hearing as to exactly what happened here, why they didn't pick up that these people were being charged in mexico with embezzlement of hundreds of millions, maybe even billions of dollars. i mean, is the economy so in need of help that we welcome people charged with criminal activity to come in as long as they'll invest their dirty money in our country? we need to have better standards than that. we need to be the country that was as it once was a rule of law nation where the law mattered. once they were in dallas, the state department, i was told by the law enforcement officials i talked to, they were told,
8:49 pm
homeland security, i.c.e. you got to let these folks go. we gave them a valid visa. they told the local officials that, now, we did revoke that visa but since they came into the u.s. before we revoked the visa, we have to let them stay so you've got to let them go. they were ordered to let these three individuals go. i was told that upon pulling these folks out of detention, and being told the state department had ordered their release and that they were free to go wherever they wanted in the united states, that villarreal's wife said, but you told us we would be deported back to mexico? where the charges were waiting for them.
8:50 pm
and they said, no, we're told we have to release you in this country, she started to say that didn't make sense, mr. villarreal responded in spanish and very assertively, and she didn't say anything after that. not hard to figure out what he must have said look, if these people are so stupid they're going to let us go when we're wanted in mexico, we're wanted here and they're going to let us go, just shut up and let these stupid people let us go. so they were let go. it was only a day or two later, the state department said, you know what, these people are wanted fugitives, we need to hang on to them. they're gone. and they haven't been found. and they told local law enforcement they had access to private jets so they could come in and out of the united states
8:51 pm
when they were ready to. well i hope they find them. as a former prosecutor former judge, chief justice, the law needs to be addressed. and in the meantime, here in congress, we did have a hearing today with immigration officials including the inspector general of the immigration service, c.i.s., and i was told during the hearing that if the chairman of our immigration committee will request an investigation, the i.g. will do that investigation and i'm hopeful that will be forthcoming. we've got to clean up this administration's mess. it's bad enough the damage that's being done to medicare and our seniors. it's bad enough that a payroll
8:52 pm
tax rate of insurance is being reduced so that there's not enough money to pay social security from the social security tax coming in again this year that it may go from a 5% shortfall last year approximately, to maybe 14% or so shortfall this year. it's bad enough we're doing that to seniors, bad enough we're -- what obamacare will be doing to the seniors in making it difficult for them to find the care they need in the years to come unless we repeal obamacare. but now we have to deal with fugitives coming in from mexico because they're willing to invest money that the mexican authorities allege was stolen,
8:53 pm
embezzled money. at some point, it's time to stop hurting american citizens who have contributed and been law-abiding for their lives. it's time the government became a proper referee and quit trying to divide america, quit trying to be the player the coach, and the referee and got back into the business of making sure americans were treated fairly, that americans were protected from outside evil forces, those who want to harm us and destroy our way of life. it's time to get the united states government back into the business of providing for the common defense, making sure there's a level playing field encouraging competition, not rewarding cronies who have some wild-eyed scheme of something
8:54 pm
that they call green energy, while the rest of america can't even fill up the gas tanks. it's time to do the job that is given to congress, that is given to the president in the constitution and once we get back to that, and concentrate on doing that well america could make another 200 years. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the house stands in recess subject to the
8:55 pm
>> coming up next on c-span it transportation secretary ray lahood and janet napolitano are on capitol hill to talk about the department's annual budget request. later, said today's house debate on offshore house drilling. >> the president's budget request for fiscal 2013 include $74 billion in transportation spending. ray lahood testified about his department's budget at the senate budget committee. separate service transportation
8:56 pm
bills are under consideration in the house and senate. to this hearing is 1.5 hours. -- this>> the hearing will come to order. i want to welcome everybody to the senate budget committee this morning. this is secretary lynn could pose the third appearance before the committee. -- secretary lahood. i want you to know our thoughts are with your son. sam was one of the 16 non governmental workers banned from leaving egypt. he is with the international republican institute.
8:57 pm
one of my constituents is also among those barred from leaving. both the ira and the ndi were created by congress to foster and strengthen democratic institutions and around the world. the fact that egypt has taken this action is beyond the pale. it is completely unacceptable. these young people are doing the important work that is supported directly by the congress of the united states to support constitutional governments and a democracy. i was on the phone with stacy a month before yesterday just
8:58 pm
after they received the formal charges. they are farcical. i do not know any other way to put it. i reached out to the egyptian ambassador to express my concern about these charges. the urge the egyptian leaders to drop them against stacy, sam, and all of their colleagues. we will be taking additional steps to register our very serious concern about these actions that are absolutely out side of the boundaries of the relationships between countries that respect each other. i wanted to begin that way. now, i want to turn my attention -- >> mr. secretary, this is a very
8:59 pm
troubling matter. your son and the others that are held there in egypt to try to help egypt -- to help them and work with the people. it is deeply distressing that we have a nation that i have supported relationships with, believe it has been good for ricky-tick and the united states. we want to see egypt prosper and do well. -- it has been in good for egypt and the united states. i have been briefed on this subject yesterday. i take it very seriously. if i have the opportunity, and maybe i will in the days to come, i will be looking forward to doing so. i take it very seriously.
9:00 pm
it is important. it is your son and we know and respect you. it is also a matter of nast's -- national interest to the united states. this is unacceptable. we have to make that clear. we will not accept it. >> thank you senator sessions. >> thank you for your clear statement as well. we hope people are listening and they understand how seriously we take this. i graduated from high school from the american air force base right next door in north africa. i have lived in that part of the world for several years. i know senator sessions may be traveling to that region in the days ahead. i hope that in a combined effort, we can send a clear message of what is acceptable behavior and what is clearly unacceptable.
9:01 pm
it is completely unacceptable to be detaining young people who are there to try to help the people of egypt. with that, i want to go to our hearing this morning which focuses on transportation. i believe the strength of the nation's transportation infrastructure is one of the most important factors that will determine the future of economic success. transportation infrastructure is really the foundation for our economic growth. it is critical to keep up with our global competitors. even as we look to cut spending to bring down the deficit, which we must do, we need to ensure the transportation funding remains a priority. yes, we have to cut spending. we have to be smart about it. we cannot afford to cut areas that are vital to future growth. that would be counterproductive
9:02 pm
and will worsen our long-term budget outlook as well as our long-term competitive position. investment in transportation can also play an important role in strengthening the economy and creating jobs in the near term. i am pleased the president has called for significant up front investment and infrastructure as part of his economic recovery effort. investing in infrastructure right now also provides a good value to the american tax payer. interest rates are low. in my state of north dakota, investment in our transportation infrastructure is not keeping pace with our growing needs. you have been to my state. i appreciate you going there. we have an energy boom that is unparalleled in the united states. the formation that has made in north dakota the fourth largest oil producer in the country.
9:03 pm
we are close to a time we believe we will be the second- largest oil producer in the country. that has created a demand on infrastructure that is truly staggering. i have just been in that region of my state in the last few weeks. for every well that is drilled it takes 2000 truckloads for equipment, for water, four mud. 2000 truckloads for every well. mr. secretary the major highways in that part of our state are at two lane roads. we have chaos. i met with law enforcement throughout the region just weeks ago. they showed me what has happened to accidents, what has happened to waiting times, what has happened to people trying to get on the highway to get from their
9:04 pm
farm or ranch to the town. i had a guy come and tell us that there have been times he had to wait one hour at his road getting onto the main highway because of truck traffic. no stop signs, no stoplight. we have an absolute critical need that really is a national priority. developing this resource is a national priority. our road network simply cannot handle the extraordinary increase in truck struck -- truck traffic as a development. our reserves can only benefit the nation as significant investments are made to upgrade the roads. i believe there needs to be a national energy corridor funding as part of the next transportation bill. there are places that are simply a national priority, and we have to make them a national
9:05 pm
priority. it is clear there is a need for infrastructure investment throughout the country. the american society of civil engineers created a report card on america's infrastructure. they give our infrastructure a grade of d -- d as in "dumb." that is down. infrastructure is the foundation of our system. the united states ranks 24th in the world in the quality of its overall infrastructure. we even right behind countries like barbados. i would note we fall in one spot from our ranking last year when we came in 23rd. u.s. investment in infrastructure has been falling as a share of the economy. according to the congressional budget office, a total spending of infrastructure has fallen from 3.1% of gdp in 1961 to 2.4%
9:06 pm
in 2007. we risk falling behind our chief global competitors. already we see china and europe are investing for more in infrastructure as a share of their economies that we are as a share of hours. according to the economist magazine, china is spending 9% of its gross domestic product on transportation and water infrastructure. europe is spending 5% of gdp. as i noted, the united states is half of that amount at 2.4% of gdp. there is widespread in bipartisan agreement on the need for further infrastructure investment. last july, there was a study on the nation's infrastructure. it was spearheaded by former senator bill bradley, tom ridge -- somebody you know well.
9:07 pm
and david walker. they concluded in their report the following. integrated efficient and cost effective transportation are the foundation of a 21st century economy. if america is to remain a global economic power while advancing our common aspirations for a better quality of life, we need to reinvest in america. especially in our transportation infrastructure. if living within our means includes good husbandry of our existing system, we need more, not less investment in transportation. that means more revenues that are wisely spent to meet obligations for ourselves and future generations. i hope people take a look at this report. they make the compelling case. here is what the obama
9:08 pm
administration has proposed for transportation. let me just say parenthetically that when we were in the debate over recovery package, i argued for $200 billion package for infrastructure. that did not happen. i regret that it did not. the argument to -- the chief argument that was made against it was it would take time for the infrastructure money to get to the economy. well, it would be coming at the right time. it would be coming at the right time. beyond that, i would say -- i ask those who opposed it, how long did it take to build the pentagon? they were not sure. nine months. we bill to the pentagon in nine months. we have to get back to the american spirit. is it we have a lot of
9:09 pm
regulations. i said there is a time when regulations need to be waived. i understand the need for regulations. i think all of us do. there are times when you have urgent demands and needs when there has to be some common sense applied. i hope very much we are able to find a way to do that. the second piece of the president's proposal is $476 billion for a six year surface transportation reauthorization. that includes 318 billion for roads, improving safety, 100 a billion dollars for transit $47 billion for high-speed rail, and $3 billion for tiger grants to fund high priority transportation projects. i must say, we were the recipient of a tiger grant in north dakota. it is right in the heart of the
9:10 pm
energy boom. it is to have a bypass for that city. it is going to make a world of difference. that is the same community that was hit by the devastating floods. we had 4000 homes destroyed in that town. this bypass -- not only did it make a world of difference for energy traffic, it is going to help the recovery of the town from the devastating floods because it is one of those things. that bypass is going to make the recovery for that city go much more efficiently. it is almost as though some greater power were looking down and got you to make the tiger grant for that particular intersection and bypass at just
9:11 pm
the critical time. it is a godsend. the president's budget proposal for the transportation reauthorization was savings from reduced overseas contingency operations. that is from camping war costs. that is controversial. we all know that is controversial. we need to talk about it. the budget also calls to reclassify transportation spending as mandatory subjecting it to rules that is a proposal the administration offered last year. there are people on this committee who are strongly opposed to that. they will unfortunately not be here this morning to register their views, but i am sure they have registered with a few of you directly. i look forward to hearing more from the secretary about these proposals. with that, i turn to secretary sessions. i have taken a fair amount of time. feel free to consume a like amount of time in your
9:12 pm
statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have a spirited committee, but you have presided fairly. it would cross the line some time the chairman has the right to get us in line. i appreciate that. i appreciate your fairness. thank you for joining us today as we examine the president's budget. i would just first repeat that your family are in our prayers and we intend to be as helpful as we possibly can in that situation. you know, america is faced with a growing fiscal crisis. we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. we are facing our fourth straight deficit. annual deficit in excess of one trillion dollars. we have never had this kind of debt before. all across the country families are tightening their belts.
9:13 pm
cities and counties and states are doing that. the federal government has got to do the same. our support -- severe fiscal challenges presented opportunity to make government leaner more productive and less expensive to achieve more efficiently and effectively. we have to set priorities. priorities be making choices. i am prepared to support and choose transportation as a high priority. unlike so much of what washington does with the money good roads are tangible, long- term quality of life improving matters that make the nation more productive not just for one or two dead years but for decades. it creates american jobs. -- it makes the nation more productive not just for one or two years, but for decades.
9:14 pm
i think it is a way to create jobs and permanent improvements in productivity. the tragedy is that there was a great opportunity as you alluded to to advance the highway system as far as the president stimulus package. instead, nearly one trillion dollars of borrowed money was suck away on failed notions. i do not think it made an improvement on our economy. certainly more people are out of work today than when the bill passed. but the president said his stimulus would be used to repair the nation's crumbling infrastructure. it was sold on that basis. repeatedly we were given stories that the infrastructure is crumbling. at the last minute, i noticed how little of the money was actually going to infrastructure.
9:15 pm
it went to state aid and social programs. it went to all kinds of things. here in the los angeles times just a few days ago, tax payer money used to maintain millions dollar yacht. the yacht of the city -- over $500,000 went to that. we have had those kinds of stories time and again. too little of it went to roads and bridges and crumbling infrastructure. now, the president's it budget will further undermine the american's feature for using for a lot for costly and unnecessary projects in the infrastructure. the present budget includes another $47 billion for high- speed rail, which congress has already declined to fund. we cannot justify a massive nationwide high-speed rail
9:16 pm
system at this time. there may be specific projects that are justified in certain areas, but not nationwide. not the kind of program that would utilize $47 billion. it would 4 -- it would further destabilize a fund that has already been weakened by a lot of gimmicks and difficulties we have in making it funded. the highway reauthorization proposal increases spending $231 billion above in come revenue. that is a lot. $231 billion above the revenues we have been operating under for the trust fund. last year the president proposed to pay for a similar increase in transportation spending with his famous not gas tax and tax. it would not be a gas tax because people would not like that. no such tax was passed.
9:17 pm
cbo scored to bring in $0, and they were correct. it brought in $0 of this mystery tax. this year, the president offset cost of the new spending program for imaginary money that would be obtained from long-term plan reductions in our military operations abroad. i think we should talk about that. there is no dedicated source of funding for the war. the war was funded with borrowed money. we talked about it. we debated it. some people said there should be a tax to pay for the war. no tax was raised to pay for the war. it was borrowed money. when the war comes down, we simply do not have to borrow as much. i was taken aback at the state of the union when the president said we're going to use half of the war savings to fund infrastructure.
9:18 pm
there is no money there. it just means we're going to borrow -- continuing to borrow half as much as we were borrowing before if you assume his assumption is right. this is the kind of gimmick that has put america in this fix. we know there is no money there. we know you are saying when you say we're going to spend were money, we know you mean you are going to borrow the money for the road program. we need the road program on a sound financial basis, not on borrowed money. we have to reduce that. ultimately, as we have established the present budget is a big gimmick. it is not going to save a four trillion dollars. it is not reducing the deficit. it does raise taxes by almost two trillion dollars. to my knowledge, none of the two
9:19 pm
trillion dollars and new taxes is spent on roads. if it is a priority, why do we not use some of the new tax revenue at least for roads? if we raise taxes, they should be used for reducing the deficit, not for new spending. if we are to strengthen america we need to create growth, productivity create american jobs. we have to grow the economy fundamentally and not for the government. we have to prioritize and control federal spending and create an environment where hard-working taxpayers can thrive in their own private sector jobs and where their livelihoods come from. a smart road program however can be an asset to that. i think they can help the economy grow and create some real jobs in the short term.
9:20 pm
i look forward to discussing this matter. i am deeply disappointed in the bill that is moving today. i think there are some gimmicks and it. i supported the bill in committee that is on the floor today. we were promised that there would be selling -- legitimate pay for its and the bill was on a sound basis. i am afraid that is now entirely accurate. we are looking to fix our $12 billion. now we watson and we are going to borrow another 250 out of thin air to spend on infrastructure without any source of income. now, we're also talking about $250 billion $300 billion borrowed for the tax holiday. the government gives a person making $300,000 a $2,000 check. by the way, we do not have to
9:21 pm
pay for that either. not in the short term or in the long term. i am really worried that our people have not gotten the message that this world is dangerous. our financial world is dangerous. our chairman is on the deck commission he came back a little word, were you not? i still think congress thinks business as usual. we just borrow borrow, borrow for the programs. cities counties, and states are thinking differently. i like to blame the president but we have some things going on in both parties that are not as good as they should be, that is for sure. thank you. i appreciate the opportunity. >> thank you senator sessions. chris is the assistant secretary for budget and programs and the chief financial officer for the
9:22 pm
department you so well know. until august 2009, he was here as a senior professional staff member of the staff committee on commerce, science, and transportation. i know in his previous career, he also was at the faa in an important position and also served as staff director for the house of representatives subcommittee on highways and transit. he certainly comes with a tremendous background and somebody who is respected here. we are delighted that he is with you at the witness table. mr. secretary, please proceed. >> mr. chairman and senators sessions, thank you for the opportunity to testify on president obama's 2013 budget proposal for the department of transportation. as importantly thank you for the kindness and your kind words about my son and what is happening in egypt and your interest in that.
9:23 pm
we appreciate that very much. as you know, transportation has been in the news very much lately. that is a good thing. this week but the house and senate will debate long stalled legislation. as i am sure you heard president obama and i are strong supporters of the bipartisan approach. i congratulate those who serve on the epw committee for the work that they have done. at the same time on monday, the president detailed his plan for a six year surface transportation reauthorization proposal, which is part of his blueprint for an america built to last. here are the facts. our budget proposal has three broad goals. number one creating jobs by investing in the infrastructure. spurring innovation across the infrastructure system. and maintaining our laser focus on safety.
9:24 pm
all of this would be fully paid for. president obama's proposed to cap the funding for the overseas contingency operations over the next 10 years. everybody is saving hundreds of billions of dollars. then, we would use half of the savings to pay down the debt and the other half on the six-year transportation bill that lets us do some nation-building at home. let's take these goals one at a time. and america built to last a strong transportation infrastructure. that is why the budget will improve america's highways, railways, and transit networks. it will continue to ensure the systems are safe. of the president's $476 billion proposal $305 billion would fund road and bridge improvements. a 34% increase over the previous authorization. the president's plan will modernize and simplify the power plant structure by consolidating
9:25 pm
more than 55 programs into five programs. of course, investing in our transit systems is another critical need. the president as a budget includes $108 billion over six years for transit 105% increase. it will prioritize projects that rebuild and rehabilitate existing transportation systems and include an important new $45 million transit safety program which we believe is critical. we have been talking to all of you about that for the last couple of years. the president was a budget provides $2.5 billion in 2013 as part of a $45,000,000,000.50- year investment to continue the support of inner-city -- $45 billion 50-year investment.
9:26 pm
the president's 2013 budget will invest in research and technologies that our grandchildren and children will be to boost american oppose economic competitiveness. for example the federal aviation the administration as you all know is in the midst of the largest transformation of air traffic control ever. the 2013 budget request, $15.2 billion to support faa programs. more than $1 billion of these funds will be used to advance the modernization of our air traffic system through next gen. the next generation of air traffic control technology come much we have all talked about for a long time through the use of satellite surveillance and the new methods of pilots, plants, and landing procedures, next gen will change how american's flight. it will significantly reduce travel times and delays. our proposal will also elevate
9:27 pm
the vital research place in transportation decision making by moving our research and innovation technology administration into new office of research and technology under the secretary's office. the change will provide a prominent centralized focus on research and technology, which is very important to the president. it will improve collaboration and coordination along the the department's operating administrations and their research. keeping our transportation system safe will always be our top truck -- will always be our top priority. president obama has proposed a record level investment in safety. it will provide $7.5 billion over the next six years to the national highway traffic safety administration to promote seat belt use, get drunk drivers off of the road, and reduce distracted driving. this will help insure the
9:28 pm
traffic fatality numbers continue dropping from the current historic lows. in addition, we will nearly double the investments and highway safety infrastructure by promoting $17 billion to federal highway administration safety production -- construction programs. it will also dedicate $4.8 billion to the city administration. this will ensure that commercial trucks and bus companies maintain high operational standards and our dedicated safety professionals can get high risk drivers off the roadways. finally, our city focus must also include the transportation of hazardous materials in our network of pipelines. that is what the 2013 proposal requests $276 billion for the pipeline and hazardous safety administration to help ensure that families, communities, and
9:29 pm
the environment are unharmed by the transport of chemicals and feels on which our economy relies. with that, thank you for the last three years for allowing us to come and talk about our budget. it is a privilege always to do that. not every committee affords us the opportunity. we are grateful to your committee for that. >> we think it is an absolute priority. i think senator sessions and i are joined in that. transportation has got to be a priority. it is good for the economy. it is good for jobs. it is good for the competitive position of the united states. let me go right to the question. i have heard a number of rules of thumb for how many jobs are created for each billion dollars of transportation investment infrastructure. you have a rule of thumb you apply to the numbers of jobs created for every $1 billion of
9:30 pm
investment? >> let me just say this. you all give as $48 billion in the economic recovery plan. $48 billion. we spent every penny of that. what we did -- we created 65,000 jobs with 15,000 projects. we started with high-speed rail initiative that the president wanted. we started the tiger program. we give $20 billion to roads and bridges. a billion dollars to transit. all of the money was spent the congress said it should be spent. you have not read any bad stories about any of the $48 billion that we spend. we put 65,000 americans to work building roads bridges transit systems around in america. if you use that as a gauge -- >> how much money could you have spent effectively? >> a lot more. >> i argued strenuously for $200
9:31 pm
billion. we have done a great deal of due diligence on how much money could be spent, and it would not have ended when it did. we would have actually spread it -- it should still be going right now. we believe we could have spent $200 billion more effectively than some of the money was spent. we all know that package was put together as the president was coming into office. a lot of it was putting -- a lot of it was put together before he was ever in office. he was at a disadvantage. i remember that debate so clearly. the arguments be made it would take too much time. my argument was, if you tell the states there is this money, and right now and the economic downturn there was a lot of contractors available at very favorable rates.
9:32 pm
did you find you got very good -- >> we got bids below what we anticipated, which give us additional money. and also, jobs were done way ahead of schedule also because there was a phantom demand with contractors and availability of workers and the great partnerships that we had with the states. whether it is the governors or the the ots or the commissioners were ready to go. -- whether it was the governors or the state dots. there was not one bad story. know your marks any of that. >> i want to join in and say i made several speeches. one of my prime concerns about the bill was it did not do enough for highways. our basic bill is about $40 billion a year. to have $200 billion could have bought -- could have been a
9:33 pm
transformation -- transformative act for our infrastructure. nobody would listen, they just move forward as they did. i. thank you, you did say that at the time. i thought you were right. >> i appreciate that. as i look back, it is one of the things i regret the most. i was not able to persuade certain people who had this idea. i know the economist. i have hired -- i have heard it too many times. the second question i wanted to ask you about this, do you have any measures for how improved transportation strengthen america's competitive position? >> we know now that we are being held competed. your chart shows that by a lot of other countries. china is right now building roadways airports, runways
9:34 pm
high-speed rail, transit systems. 10 years ago that would not have been the case. today it is. we are being out competed by lots of other countries. you look what is going to be happening in brazil with rio -- what they will be doing there with the infrastructure. we need to keep pace. we do not keep pace by extending the transportation bill. we keep pace by passing a 5-6- year bill for what is a blueprint for what we do to put americans to work. build roads. build bridges. build transit systems. that is what america has always done. >> i want to go back to my first question. you gave an answer. the thing that is in my head, i have been told many times that
9:35 pm
for every $1 billion of rhode expenditure, it creates 18,000- 20,000 jobs. is there some rule of thumb like that that you apply? >> i will get that for the record. i would rather do that and say a figure that may not be accurate. >> let me go to the next. on my list which is a high-speed rail. you have $47 billion for high- speed rail. what is the status of high-speed drill? where is it being taken up? what are the prospects? what does it offer us in terms of enhanced competitive position jobs, economic activity? give us your view of this expenditure of $47 billion. >> will start from the premise that anybody who has ever gone to europe or asia and ridden the train and there comes back and says, why do we not have this kind of transportation in america? we have never had anybody with the vision or the willingness to put money into it.
9:36 pm
president obama stepped up really early in to his administration. he just started our opportunity to implement high-speed rail which, by the way many of the states were way ahead of the federal government of. california has been working on a high-speed drill 40 dead decades. we know along the northeast corridor, people have been using passenger rail for decade. what we did, we took the a billion dollars and did what we do with all of our partners -- we've partnered with groups around the country that have been working on high-speed rail. we have invested $3.5 billion in california. i just that one week in california. i met with the governor. he is totally committed and is on board. i met with stakeholders. i met with small business people. they have a good plan. in the midwest, there is a good plan. the governor of michigan, governor snyder has accepted almost $1 billion for a
9:37 pm
connection to fix up the tracks between detroit and chicago. the governor of illinois and missouri have a very good plan. we have invested more than $2 billion in the midwest. we have just made significant investments in the northeast corridor. not just between washington and york but further north in other states that want to get into the high-speed rail business. the president had a vision. he put the money into the economic recovery. you all gave us some additional money. so totally we have invested over $2 billion. the important point to make is, there are a number of companies that were building high-speed rail in europe and asia in california in illinois along the northeast corridor that want to make investments. i have said all along, there is not enough money in washington to do all we want to do with high-speed rail. we need private investment.
9:38 pm
the private investors are in america. they are in california. they are in illinois. there are along the northeast corridor making investments in partnering with states in order to make the kind of investments. this is the next generation of transportation. this is what we are doing for our next generation. the last generation left us a state of the our interstate system. thank goodness they did. it took us 50 years to build it. what we are going to do for the next generation is leave them the next generation of transportation which is passenger rail. >> i personally believe we do need high-speed rail in this country. i have some other countries have done. i see what japan and china have done. i see what europe has done. we cannot fall behind in that area either. any boy it travels in the northeast corridor knows we are way behind. -- anybody that travels in the northeast corridor knows that we are way behind.
9:39 pm
you mention overseas operations. there is a fair amount of skepticism here with respect to that. let me try to capture why there is skepticism. there are many of us that believe while we understand the cbo says this is a savings we understand that. here is what troubles me. it just strikes me that what we commit in terms of war funding has very little to deal -- it has very little to do with will write down on a budget tabled. we commit to more funding as a nation is guided by the national security interest of the united states. -- what we commit to war funding as a nation is guided by the national security interest of the united states. i understand that the cbo says if you cap overseas contingency
9:40 pm
operations because we are drawing down in iraq in afghanistan, the register's savings. i understand that. i have always been reluctant to use overseas contingency operations to pay for something. i always thought that was a bonus in terms of bringing down deficits and debt. i have always been very reluctant. what is your position? >> my position is this. the last two years that i have appeared before congress, i have taken a heap of criticism for bringing proposals forward better not paid for. that is over. we were criticized roily for that.
9:41 pm
-- royally for that. the president said debate it, figure it out. no more excuses about not being paid for. we have one. we take the highway trust fund, which is $230 billion, and we take half of the money from the iraq bank afghanistan fund and we pay for what we are talking about here. -- iraq, afghanistan fund and we pay for that year. -- that here. >> i have exceeded my time. >> you do not have it paid for in any realistic sense. we were basically told that there is no real money in the war. the way cbo scores matters, if you had $100 billion for the war
9:42 pm
last year, they assume it will continue for 10 years. if you reduce that trend, then you have saved money under their scoring. it is unrealistic in terms of the debt of the united states. it is totally unrealistic. there is no money there. there is no kind of money there. it is not paid for. this money you say is going to be paid for from the war funding is going to be borrowed. it is money we no longer are borrowing for the war. instead of having to take a deep breath and relax, you propose to spend half of it on the roads. that is just not common sense. it is the reason the country is going broke. i remember asking mr. hellman door on the eve of the health care vote -- i remember asking him on the eve of the health care vote, what we counting $500
9:43 pm
billion to justify the health care bill and make a look like it will make money for the government instead of cost money for the government? he said, yes, you are double counting. i asked them, will you put it in writing? he said, i will put it in writing. he put it out the next morning. he said, you are double counting the money. i am quoting here -- even though the conventions of accounting would suggest otherwise. i will say to you, if you may say you have paid for this. it is not reality even though the conventions of accounting might suggest that it is. this is important. you indicate in your remarks that it represents a 34% increase over the previous authorization. that is a pretty substantial
9:44 pm
increase at a base level is it not? >> center, america is one big pot hole right now. we have not paid attention to the roads and bridges. we have not. >> i know that. if we were not buying motors for yachts, we could fill a lot of pot holes. >> i agree with you. it is significant. it is billions of dollars. we are way behind. >> with regard to california, i see now the numbers are coming in that instead of the early estimates of $30 billion for this plan, it will be $100 billion more. this is a program that is being rejected by governors all over the country. we are not going to start out a massive nationwide high-speed
9:45 pm
rail program. it is a debt -- it is dead on a rival. we do not have the money. we are not seeing any numbers that would justify the traffic count -- we are not seeing that the traffic count would justify such a program. there may be some areas of the country that could certainly benefit from high-speed rail. they need to be justified item by item. with regard to consolidating the 55 programs, i think it is a good step. it is mainly your headquarters. your administration as i understand it, it would be improved. it could save money. i think that is important. what i am hearing is, the real problem out there is the long arduous expensive regulatory federal planning process. it is driving up cost for the state, county, and local officials when they tried to execute a project that is now
9:46 pm
from planning to cutting the ribbon as much as 13 years. the chairman made a reference to some of that. how can we reduce that time? you have any plans that you believe could actually reduce the time and any statistics that would back it up? >> yes, sir. on the highway side, we have a program called "every day counts." was implemented more than two years ago. it does speed up highway projects. we have had lots of compliments and kudos from our partners in that program. the transit administrator just announced a way to speed up new starts program. it is on our web site. we reduced the amount of time dramatically from which somebody submits a new starts to when it is approved and to when we cut the ribbon.
9:47 pm
both of those programs are certainly -- every day counts has been in place. new starts is just being implemented. i believe it will speed up dramatically. >> we have seen run programs take too long, i think. some of that may be unwise management by certain state and local governments. i do hear a lot of complaints. i am glad you are focusing on that. i think it will be a great way to get more highway capability sooner and less cost. that is one of the things that would make the taxpayers happy instead of spending more money. on high-speed rail, wisconsin and ohio have given back their money. they have realized it is too costly for them to participate. florida, the tampa to orlando project was rejected by the
9:48 pm
governor. they calculated it could be cost overrun as much as $3 billion. gov. kay sick in ohio rejected a $385 billion passenger rail to connect cincinnati and cleveland. the governor of wisconsin rejected a hundred 10 million to connect madison and milwaukee. -- the governor of wisconsin rejected $810 million to connect madison and milwaukee. $5 billion was awarded for the first segment to connect them to bakersfield basically in the california desert. estimated cost of grown from $33 million in 2007 to as much as
9:49 pm
$100 billion as estimated by the state review board. -- $100 million as estimated by the state review board. the writer should members according to the review board to justify the projects were overblown and costs were wildly exaggerated to make the line of better. i know it sounds good to have a nationwide high-speed rail project. at this point in history, we do not have the money. we do not have the possibility of anything close to paying for that plan. i wish to say to you, i think that is the reality you will face in congress. we do understand there are traffic jams and cities. some cities could use mass transit. some cities could use improvement to the interstates.
9:50 pm
most of them could use high- speed interstate improvements throughout. i will give you a chance to respond to that. thank you for your commitment to the program. we should have a person in this office that is committed to transportation. i have to tell you, when you are talking about these kinds of increases and these kinds of programs where we are running the largest deficits in history, you have to understand congress is not going to be able to agree to everything. >> having served in congress for 14 years, i know that. during the 14 years, five of those years we had balanced budgets. thank you to the work of senator conrad and others. we still had priorities. you have priorities. one of the priorities is pay down the debt. that is what we did during the five-year period.
9:51 pm
one of the priorities is implementing passenger rail. we had $10 billion worth of requests. some of that came from republican governors. one in michigan that we just give almost $1 billion to so he could fix up the tracks from detroit to chicago so people could get to higher speeds. we have invested in the northeast corridor. a lot of people in this town use it from washington to new york to get to higher speeds, to fix up. we will continue to make these investments. this is what america wants. the one the next generation of transportation. >> use it to fix of the -- >> detroit to chicago? >> in the northeast corridor. >> we have invested about $1 billion just recently. >> will that do? >> it will buy new cars, and the
9:52 pm
tracks in a position where they can go higher speeds. >> catenary. >> that is the electrification. >> fixing up tracks, identifying systems that are cost-effective. i say do that and report to us and we will see if it can be justified. what you are talking about is major rail system's rigid new ones across florida or some of these other areas. governors are running the cost totals. the costs are coming in much higher than projected. the writer ship and income is below of what is projected. it would be a massive colossal error to try to build a nationwide system right now when the cannot be possibly justified in my view. >> can i just one thing? >> yes. >> america has always been about vision. particularly when it comes to
9:53 pm
transportation. now, i am glad when president eisenhower signed the interstate bill, there were a few visionaries here in congress and in subsequent administrations. what they did was they built larger chunks of concrete that did not really connect for a while. there was a vision. there was a vision to connect america. 50 years later we have a state of the art at interstate system because of visionaries like eisenhower, members of congress. that is the kind of vision that president obama, some governors some people in america have for getting to the next generation of transportation -- to protect -- to connect our kids and grandkids and they can get out of cars and congestion so they can ride in a train that does a decent speed. if we do not have that vision, we are going to short circuit our ability to get what other
9:54 pm
generations did for us. >> to have a vision, it is just not connected to reality in my opinion. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we are doing 7 minute rounds today. we have a few members here. we can do seven minutes around and still get done by noon, which we have promised to do. >> thank you for being here. i join the chairman and the ranking member sending our best wishes to your family. we hope becomes home safe and sound and soon. -- we hope he comes home safe and sound and sen. we were one of the states that were able to rapidly to use some of the $2.3 billion that florida declined. that will expedite the speed of trains coming through rhode island and serving our boston
9:55 pm
and new york markets. the northeast corridor does go north of new york, and i appreciate your recognize that. i think the boston to washington corridor is an area heavily used, and it should be a national priority to bring it up to speed. there are still many areas where the orioles need improvement. i want to appreciate my pre -- i want to express my appreciation for that. i know you are coming up to a rhode island to speak at brown university. we will probably be stuck here so i will not be able to welcome you in person. if you have a free moment, i would love for you to have a lot just down the hill from brown university. it is a quarter mile long the bridge that goes through the middle of providence right by the big providence place mall where people come to shop and enjoy the wonderful new shopping mall that we have.
9:56 pm
it was built in 1964. when you go underneath it, you look up and you will see there are planks across the beams. the plants are there to keep the road which is falling in from landing on the car's driving underneath it to go into the mall. if you go to where amtrak shoots down underneath the highway same thing. they have the plans under the highway to keep the road that is falling in from landing on the tracker from landing on trains. this is a really important project to get rebuilt. it is way overdue. rhode island is a small state with significant budget issues. there are zero -- there is a zero shot the state will be able to pay for it. in the bill a kid out of the public works committee is a provision of projects of national and regional said significance. -- regional significance.
9:57 pm
i have no doubt it will be able to compete successfully for the funding in the authorization. we do not presently have funding for it. i would urge your assistance, if you could i would request your assistance to locate funding for that project of regional and national significance. >> first of all, i will be happy to visit the bridge. we will work with your office on that. i will also be happy to work with you and your staff on may be some opportunities to jump- start this project. we will pay attention to it when we go there. >> i appreciate that. let me also just say i think the budget committee reflects a variety of different economic views. my economic view is that when home corporate municipal and
9:58 pm
state economies are shrinking and collapsing, that is a good time for the federal government to spend to avoid adding to the negative economic cycle and worsening the situation. i have seen reports that say if we had a balanced budget act of the time being proposed now and had been in place in the recent meltdown, we would have lost 17% of gdp. we would have been in a serious cataclysmic depression rather than just a recession. i do not think it is so easy to throw keynesian economics over the side and pretend there is no truth to it. austerity is the way to help people when in the economy is in recession. in particular, it seems to me it makes sense to invest at infrastructure at that point. unlike spending that goes out the window, you are left with
9:59 pm
something. you are left with a hard, tangible assets. if you have been smart about it, america is actually richer for having an asset -- some assets are more valuable when they were built and the money that went into it. that is how people make money investing into tangible assets. i think the notion that if it is spending, that is the only thing we can look at. we can never look at the positive side of the balance sheet where you end up with a highway system so that everybody can get to visit their grandmother, to get their goods to the market, to travel safely and smoothly, to have a train system that can be equal to what is developed in asia and europe. i think it is a misguided economic theory both with respect to the countercyclical value of spending and with the national value that solid infrastructure creates. we have not talked about it but
10:00 pm
one other place to look at as water and wastewater. we have $600 billion worth of water and waste water infrastructure needs in this country. that is clean drinking water for people. proper disposal of sewage. that is reaching to meet the growth in our population. we are simply behind the ball on that. i agree with the chairman about this, i think we have $6 billion and waste water out of the need that we have. thank you for agreeing to make that stop in rhode island. my barry that -- best wishes to your family. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator white house. >> we are praying for your son and appreciate what he had done
10:01 pm
for democracy. we hope he comes home soon >> i wanted to ask if you would follow up on the question of high-speed rail funding. in other areas of the world where there is a high-speed rail, including where we have rail in the united states, has it been able to sustain itself? >> certainly the northeast corridor has. last year they made money. ridership is up on amtrak this year. >> between boston and washington, does it make money? >> i will put this in the record -- amtrak on the northeast corridor ridership was up and they made money last year. quite just to be clear, that will sustain itself without any federal subsidies? >> if it is subsidized by the
10:02 pm
federal government about 43%. >> that is my question. where can you tell me we can sustain rail by what people pay to use the rail so we do not have to continually federally subsidized it? >> we subsidize transit. we subsidized highways. >> my simple question to you is can you tell me where we have a trail where we do not have to continually provide federal subsidies to sustain it? >> no, it has not. >> there are only two lines in the world where that happens -- tokyo and paris -- where the result can pay for itself. >> you are right about that. just to be cleared we are going to have to continuously subsidize -- >> just like we do transit and highways. >> i just want people to
10:03 pm
understand. you cited california as an example of productive -- example of where we should build high- speed rail, yet the estimated cost for the program, which would be the line that connects medeira to bakersfield has grown to at least $100 million estimated in 2012. therefore, the cost of building it has a triple top -- tripled pre times what it was estimated when this issue was put to the voters in california. there are serious questions that have been raised by california by independent individuals who of look at it, including the state auditor, who has said that the california bullet train
10:04 pm
project has become increasingly risky because of fiscal issues. with respect to california, the california high-speed rail peer review group, and export -- expert body mandated by state law, and expressed serious doubts and concluded that it cannot at this time recommend that the california legislature approved appropriations for the bonds because the project represents an immense financial risk. why would we designate additional federal dollars for something that in california, is designated as an immense financial risk? >> because the governor supports it. the elected leaders support it. i just met with the president which is called the protests of the senate, and also the speaker
10:05 pm
of the house. i just met with the two u.s. senators from california. this is what the elected officials in california would like to do for the next generation. they would like to have passenger rail in california because california is one big traffic jam. they want to get people out of cars and into passenger trains. >> you are asking the rest of the country to put up billions of dollars or something that has been described as an "immense financial risk?" we have to look at the entire hall and i do not think we should provide taxpayer dollars to something we will have to continuously provide federal subsidies for, number-one. second, we are taking immense financial risk. that is the issue with high- speed rail. if you look at those that are up right now, one in the house, one
10:06 pm
in the senate, neither body included money or this purpose. congress is concerned about, i think, this issue as well in terms of what is the financial measurement, what are the outcomes we are going to get from the investment? i think the fact that it is in neither bill speaks volumes in terms of where we are on this issue. that is my concern with it. i do have a question for you -- but the president believe we are going to be fighting the wars -- we have taken ourselves out of iraq. does he believe we are going to be fighting in afghanistan for the next 10 years? >> that is not in my portfolio. i never talk to the president about this. wethe criticism for the last two
10:07 pm
years from this committee and committees on the other side of this capital was where is the pay for? we provided one. >> you assume we are going to be fighting wars or the next 10 years. in the absence of some indication that is really going to happen, -- >> we are not in iraq. >> we were not planning on being in iraq. how is that? the notion that we were going to be somehow having a full contingency in iraq for the next 10 years, i do not think anyone would come to that conclusion brigid but particularly in afghanistan, the notion you you vote -- you will use savings from something we were not going to spend in the first place -- groups that have looked at this called it to take credit for a
10:08 pm
policy that is already funded at -- i understand that you do not have a pay for but the pay for in this budget is a budget gimmick. it does not solve the problem. to take credit for savings that were never going to happen, i cannot go home and tell my constituents with a straight face that this is paid for. i hope that we will be working on a real way to pay for the funding. i know that you said we are certainly facing a situation where you are concerned about the infrastructure in this country. i respect that. i think that is very important. we also have great physical challenges here as well. we have to look at these things in a serious fashion. >> senator begich.
10:09 pm
>> thank you are coming to alaska as you did. we had a conversation. i wish your son the best. my brother did work over there also to try to create stability. he has been there maybe five times. as we think about your son, we hope it all works out. >> thank you, senator. >> absolutely. >> i came in a little late. i apologize. >> the pay for as the highway trust fund. in addition to the iraq money. >> this body has a habit -- if you do not like cbo -- i have a lot of problems with cbo, but when they score something, they
10:10 pm
score something. it brings value to it. i am at all for the pay for. we have no intentions of being in afghanistan for 10 years. that is a poor policy. if we get out by 2013, great on that. again, i want to make the point that cbo has scored the project. i missed it. the paraphrase the country as one big pot hole. i agree with you. there is no greater investment than the infrastructure of this country. we built more roads in 20 years when i was mayor. also, the work we did on the recovery money -- i was on the body here that did not do anything.
10:11 pm
i can show you where we put that money to work building roads. roads that cleaned up ingestion, which in turn made people more productive. they get to work or school on time. they are saving fuel. it is a win-win. cbo never scores that, but that is the value from my perspective. i am a builder. i'd love to build everything. rhodes verticals, whatever it takes to improve and economy. i think it is important. let me ask you specifically, you noted the integration of unmanned aircraft at in airspace. the defense authorization bill, an element we offered, was making sure there is language in their designating these areas. the faa had the role to designate. i assume the two are
10:12 pm
coordinating. >> absolutely. >> there is no better airspace in the country than open air space, especially for unmanned aircraft. what is your timetable? -- timetable faa is looking at at? -- looking at that will be analyzed? >> i will get it for the record but -- >> just a schedule. the university of alaska fairbanks is doing some incredible research. we have an enormous amount of air space that no one competes against and no neighbors to complain. i will be looking for that schedule. the senate bill did not have
10:13 pm
the $100 fee. we've had this discussion on general aviation. general aviation -- i want to differentiate between leer jets, big jets, and small general aviation. most general aviation folks i talk to understand they have to participate. but creating more permits does not seem logical. they have all volunteered in the past to adjust. they need a better mechanism to deal with revenues than a another system. i wonder% agree with them. i tried this when i was mayor. i got my head kicked in i worked with the general aviation to come up with a better sex -- at a better solution. do you have any comment on that?
10:14 pm
not the fee, but the method? $100 versus the tax on the gas? >> in terms of the $100 fee, that was never proposed to be applied to general aviation. that was for commercial aviation. we never proposed that for the lower end. >> your budget that you propose -- can you give for the record -- will probably have some issues but we can have that conversation another time. >>in the transportation bill that we are now starting, in theory, as you know i was one of a few who voted against moving it forward. there is a reason.
10:15 pm
we need road components. it takes alaskan roads and cuts them in half. it is hitting the most impoverished area of this country, which has the least ability to for the development and an infrastructure. we are working now with the chairwoman of the committee and others to try to get something rational. we recognize budgets are tight but ap% reduction is severe for our system -- but a 50% reduction is severe for our system. i am sure your folks will be asked a lot of questions about the distance and the variety of things. senator boxer's bill. we are working with them at. the tribes in minnesota are now
10:16 pm
concerned. we know there is some reform that needs to be there, but we need to do it on the right kind of path. >> we will get in touch with the committee to provide some technical assistance on that. >> excellent. let me close and say mr. chairman, just to make sure -- i have some views on high-speed rail and the efficiency of it -- but i want to emphasize your point. i know all the bombs i passedthe objective was to create a system a network that moves people from commerce to individual people. i understand the senator's concern about high-speed rail, but the point is -- we subsidize all of it. raged -- trains, roads, ferries
10:17 pm
-- you name it, we subsidize it. when we get goods delivered, we can pay for some of those with federal dollars. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning. i also want to express my concern for your son. it sounds like you has some pretty capable individuals going over there to resolve the situation. >> congratulations on your bridge by the way. >> thank you for that. thank you for your help in breaking the logjam. >> absolutely. >> that is a prime example of how important infrastructure is. i would just start out with that. government is the only entity that really can provide certain types of infrastructure. in the case of still water, we
10:18 pm
had to break through a log jam. the question really is who should pay for the infrastructure? should it be the federal government state, or local government? stillwater is funded by the state of minnesota and the state of wisconsin. when we talk about subsidizing what senator begich just said is if we do it right. that is the main question -- who is making the choice of subsidizing things when we are running a $1.30 trillion deficit? i think these are legitimate questions. i want to throw that over to you. in terms of a highway spending what is the percent the federal government provides in funding for basic infrastructure versus state or local government? >> i am not sure of the current percentage, but i believe generally off the interstate,
10:19 pm
the majority of funding comes from state and local governments. most of the federal money goes to interstates and federal highways. >> part of the concern isn't when we -- is when we make these decisions, we really are subsidizing one state at the expense of others. how effective do you think that has been going on over the years? >> it has helped, i think, build an interstate system. it did not start in all 50 states. you know that. was one state disadvantaged over another when they started in new york and not my home state of illinois it? maybe temporarily, but over 50 years, we ended up with a state of the art interstate system. when you look at transit systems in america every community has some sort of transit -- buses,
10:20 pm
light rail, or street cars. a lot of that was subsidized by the federal taxpayer. when one committee got one and another did not have one, does that mean one was disadvantaged? over time, i think it has pretty much even it out. -- evened out. eventually, i think the country has benefited from a national transportation of view which almost every president has had and it really congress has had. we passed two transportation bills. 400 votes in the house and 80 votes in the senate. it was bipartisan. >> a lot of that is bipartisan pork going into different areas. in terms of wisconsin -- >> if it did help the development of transportation
10:21 pm
systems for america. >> i am supportive of infrastructure. >> i know you are. >> the question came for governor walker in terms of a high-speed rail. the annual operating costs were about $15.50 million. the estimates were you would cover about 9 million of that by fees and fares leaving money to be subsidized by the wisconsin taxpayer and they rejected it. the articles i have read on the california a high-speed rail, we have airlines. we've already invested in that infrastructure. air travel can take care of some of that. how long can government subsidize operations is something -- in something that will never be economically viable? there are real questions as to whether or not this will ever be economically viable.
10:22 pm
>> governor walker decided he did not want high-speed rail, probably for the reasons you just stated. but other governors have said they want it. they wanted it in michigan. >> elected officials do like bringing bacon home to the state. they are not going to be around to be paying the bills in four a, or 12 years. there term is over. that is a basic fact. >> my point is this senator we did not show of high-speed rail down anybody's throat. we did not. when governor scott, governor walker, a governor case it made their decision, we said, fine, you are the ones who got elected. there is a pent-up demand in america from the governors.
10:23 pm
"i would say for bringing home the bacon and respected of how economically viable this project will be long term. we would have liked to have seen that money in wisconsin go to deficit reduction. let's talk about, in general the transportation bill we are arguing over right now. in terms of the level the gas tax is not funding it, what is that amount that is being covered by the lco? >> about half. $230 billion. >> part of the reason our gas tax revenue is down is because of fuel efficiency is up. it is politically poisonous to consider increasing the gas tax to refund -- increasing the gas tax. why not look at utilizing energy
10:24 pm
resources as a funding mechanism? >> when the president puts out a pay for, i assume that is what the debate is going to be about. that is what they are debating over in the house. they had to split the bill into three. one is transportation and one is energy. they are trying to figure out a pay for. >> to you think that is a good idea? >> i like the idea the president put out. i like half highway trust fund and half iraq money. i think it is a pretty good formula. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank all senators who ever participated. i think the secretary very much for being here. you ought to give seminars in how to justify. i have been here 25 years. i do not think i have ever seen a more able witness than secretary lahood.
10:25 pm
10:26 pm
>> janet napolitano testifies about our department's budget. a house debate on offshore oil drilling. we will bring you trepidations secretary ray lahood's testimony before the senate subcommittee. congress has scheduled several more hearings tomorrow on the white house budget. at 9:30 a.m. eastern the senate energy committee hears from the energy secretary. timothy geithner testifies before the house budget committee. you can watch both hearings live on c-span3 and c-span.org. >> there has been honest contingent, there has been disagreement, and i believe considerable argument. but do not let anybody be misled by that. you have given here in this hall a moving and dramatic proof of
10:27 pm
how americans who honestly differ can move forward for the nation's well-being, shoulder to shoulder. >> as candidates campaign this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website c- span.org/theconteneders, to see contenders who made a lasting impact on politics. >> do you have a comfortable backlog in the bank? are you paying this to the things that you buy? do you really think things cannot be better? of course they can. working together, we can and will make them better. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> the white house has requested homeland security budget for the coming fiscal year. this recommends a cut from the
10:28 pm
10:29 pm
hear secretary janet napolitano. i want to thank the secretary for flexibility in rescheduling this hearing. i would like to acknowledge that the president has recently signed into public law 112-86 a bill that calls on the tsa to setup expedited procedures for active duty personnel. i would like to present the bill for signature. [applause] madam secretary, i would now
10:30 pm
recognize myself far an opening statement. time flies when you're having a good time. thank you for meeting with our side of the aisle. ranking member thompson and his members as well. i also want to thank you for the level of cooperation you have had. i know you spoke with commissioner kelly earlier this week. i thank you very much for that. today, we are going to be looking at the president's request, which is almost the same as last year. in this time of budget austerity, i commend you for getting that amount. i believe all the money is required. these are difficult times, but the budget is still there. obviously we have now an
10:31 pm
emerging threat with hezbollah which i will discuss with you later. anyone who looks and its debriefings note it is a dangerous world we live in. it is important the department has the funding to do the job it needs to do as well as work with local and state governments. i also note that budget money is being cut back is a burden on you. it makes it more difficult to allocate the money. everybody wants some piece of it. your job is to allocate it to the areas with the most threat. i know the extensive effort you have put into that. i commend you on that. i know you've changed the funding system this year. i will have questions on how that will implement the united states government, city governments, etc. i know you are trying to fine-
10:32 pm
tune it and make it more responsive. again, i want to make sure that as we do that, things do not fall between the cracks. also, we have the cyber security legislation, which this committee -- committee will be marking up before the end of march. senator lungren has been working on that. we will try to move that this spring to get a line bill to go to the floor. we will work with the department and the administration to assure that we handle it as well as we can. in your appearance before the subcommittee this morning, you had an exchange with congresswoman on the department's uppercuts -- efforts on working with the financial services industry. the financial-services industry is vital to the state of new york and the nation. we could do more to create a
10:33 pm
better relationship. one area many of us have concerns about is the decrease in funding for the coast guard. approximately $600 million for fiscal -- from fiscal year 2012 funding levels. i do not know of any agency in the federal government that has had to respond more after september 11 that the coast guard. by all accounts, they have done an outstanding job. i am really concerned that cut which would eliminate over 1000 personnel and the commission numerous units and have significant reductions in operational hours could have a very detrimental effect on our security. i will not go on with a long statement. i want to hear your priorities
10:34 pm
on combating radicalization, strengthening a budget -- border securities, avoiding duplication, and also discussed with you the eminent threat from hezbollah which some see as being annette, and what the dog -- eminent, and what the department will do on that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good afternoon, madam secretary. it is good to have you back before the committee. it has been a while. welcome. i expect you will answer a wide range of questions today about fiscal year 2013 budget request. i certainly am quite a few questions myself. but before we turn to fy 2013 request, i take it is important to acknowledge your starting point. that measure which many of us oppose in a number of ways.
10:35 pm
it was predicted that we can demand that dhs carried out a wide range of homeland security and non security missions without providing the resources. from my perspective it was tantamount to congress running up a long path, ordering more robust homeland security efforts, particularly with respect to water security, immigration security, and then stiffing you when the bill right. when this -- with this backdrop and the prospect of an even less favorable budget for 2013, i can understand your desire. the fact that you are able to do so and come up for the first time run the disaster relief
10:36 pm
fund at $6 billion is really remarkable. i do not imagine that doing so was an easy task. i also expect that getting all the components on the same page without cutting expenses and resources was not easy either. it seems unlikely, however, that this is a savings account for the full $1.60 billion reduction. we need to know which programs are going to be losing capacity or capability under your request. if you are not going to have the resources to fully implement programs within a mandated period you need to tell us. we have a stake in seeing programs like the coast guard fleet and modernization implemented. we need to know the time lines will have to be adjusted or more resources will be necessary
10:37 pm
from the appropriations process. i am concerned the budget does not seek enough coast guard fleet modernization acquisition to keep pace with the decommissioning. i am concerned the budget seeks to consolidate state and local grant programs into one small pot. i have trouble understanding how $1.50 billion will set to sustain and develop new core capabilities. i am concern that while new resources are being provided in ppd, the other side of the house, the infrastructure protection side, seems to be shortchanged. given the problems at cpac, it is troubling to see that the budget is asking for less money in fy 2013. i have to acknowledge that the budget proposes a number of organizational changes.
10:38 pm
while the rationale behind some of these changes is not as yet clear, i commend you for taking the committee's advice and finally transferring the u.s. visit program. it floundered. i believe this border program may actually be positioned to achieve its mission and finally allow us to identify and prevent overstays. thank you are appearing today. i look forward to discussing the budget proposal and work with you to ensure we keep our nation secure during the conduct -- during the difficult economic times. i yelled back. >> thank you, mr. thompson. opening statements may be submitted for the record. i will also remind our witness that your entire statement will appear in the record. we will ask you to summarize your statement at this time.
10:39 pm
we now recognize the secretary of homeland security, the net napolitano. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity to discuss president obama's fiscal year 2013 budget for the department of homeland security. 10 years after the september 11 attacks, america is more secure today thanks to the strong support of the president and the congress, thanks to the work of the men and women of the department of homeland security and the local state and federal partners. while we have made significant progress, threats from terrorism, including but not limited to al qaeda and al qaeda-related groups, persist and continually evolve in the demands on dhs continue to grow. these threats are not limited to any one group or ideologies ander not contain by international borders.
10:40 pm
terrorist tactics can be as simple as a homemade bomb and as sophisticated as a biological threat or cyber attack. we have had success in thwarting numerous plot, including the attempted bombing of the new york city subway in times square foiled attacks against air cargo, and other attempts across the country. nonetheless, continued threats from abroad and at home demonstrate how we must constantly remain vigilant and prepare. the 2013 budget for dhs allows us to continue to meet these evolving threats and challenges by reserving authorities, the redirection of a hundred $50 million in basic resources from administration admissive -- administrative and mission support areas. this proves we are committed to fiscal discipline, which has led us to reductions of over the past three years through
10:41 pm
efficiency review and other -- through efficiency review. dhs is approaching these partnerships in new and innovative way. for nine years, we have been supporting state and local efforts across the homeland security enterprise to build capabilities, awarding more than $35 million in funding. as we look ahead in order to address evolving threats the administration has proposed a new vision for homeland security grants through the national prepared this grant program to create a robust national preparedness capacity. using a competitive risk-based model, this program will use a comprehensive process to assess gaps identify and prioritize capabilities work quickly and
10:42 pm
require grantees to regulate their progress. my written testimony includes a comprehensive list. today, i would like to highlight a few of them. one, preventing terrorism and enhancing security. this remains our top priority today. the 2013 budget safeguards the transportation system through a layer of protection system focused on wrist as based screening, and that targeting and information-sharing efforts at the earliest possible time. the budget supports the administration's global supply chain security strategy across the air, land, and see modes of transportation, by stripping efforts to prescreen high risk containers before they are shipped to the united states. we continue our strong support our state and local partners for training pugin centers
10:43 pm
intelligence, analysis, and information sharing on a wide range of missions. second, to secure and manage our borders, this budget continues the administration of the unprecedented focus on border security travel, and trade by supporting our board -- our border patrol agents on the front lines as well as the continued deployment of effective surveillance technology along the highest traffic areas of the southwest border and continued improvements along the northern border. to secure the maritime borders -- including the six national security centers of -- cutters fast response cutters, and the renovation and restoration of short facilities. third, the budget request continues the department's focus on smart and effective enforcement of our immigration laws. in 2013, we will complete
10:44 pm
nationwide implementation of secured communities. through this initiative and our continued collaboration with the department of justice, we are expected to continue to increase the number of criminal aliens who aren't identified and removed. this budget provides the resources needed to address this change in population while continuing to support alternative detention reforms and immigrant immigration efforts. the budget also caucuses on monitoring and compliance, promoting it parents to workplace laws with criminal prosecutions of a egregious employees -- employers. next to safeguard and secure cyberspace this budget makes investment in cyber security, including funds to expedite deployment of einstein iii an increase federal network security, and continue to
10:45 pm
develop a robust cyber security work force to protect and respond to national saba security threats. in 2011, the department responded to a record number of disasters. to ensure continued resilience are disasters the president's budget focuses on a whole committee approach to emergency management. it includes resources for the disaster relief of fund which provides significant portion for victims and is funded largely through a party provided under the budget control act. the budget also continues to provide support to national and economic security by supporting the coast guard's operations in the polar regions and continuing to support international property rights and collection of customs revenue. the budget proposal reflects
10:46 pm
this administration's strong commitment to protecting the homeland and the american people through the effective and efficient use of resources. as outlined in my testimony today, we will continue to preserve frontline priorities across the department by cutting costs, sharing resources across components, and streamlining operations wherever possible. chairman keane ranking member thompson, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. i am happy to answer your questions. >> thank you for your statement secretary napolitano. we now begin a round of questions. we have been faced with a series of threats party passed him. five years. the threat of has a lot has emerged. we -- the threat of hizbollah has emerged. we have had indictments in
10:47 pm
washington. now with the increased tensions in the middle east, i believe there is a growing threat from hezbollah. can you tell us what the department is doing to address the spending or possible threat from hezbollah, specifically are you reaching out to religious and institutions? >> yes, mr. chairman. we share your concerns about hezbollah. we are constantly monitoring their activities around the world. we are working very closely with the fbi and the intelligence community in this regard we are reaching out to, particularly jewish communities across the country that have been the intended targets in the past. just this past week, which convened a very large conference call with leaders of the jewish community from all around the
10:48 pm
country. we remain in constant touch with them. right now we have no specific or credible and threat against any organization or target in the united states. but this is certainly a situation that bears watching. >> thank you, secretary. you've referenced this in your opening statements, but the grant system it is basically taking 16 former programs and merging them into one. the national prepared this grant program -- preparedness grant program. ollie states and territories are mentioned as recipients. urban areas, transit authorities -- will they be eligible to apply for this funding? >> what we have put in the budget documents is our vision part how these grant programs could be consolidated and
10:49 pm
organized. we work with the members of the committee in terms of how you see the appropriate recipient. right now, we do not envision any changes but because this is such a major alteration in how we handled grants, we probably need to work with the committee on that. >> i would take so. there are large states like teleport and new york. it is important we -- like california and new york. all could have unique problems to their state. as it goes forward, i would ask that you have a "ray to work with all of those entities. >> to accomplish our vision, we will require legislative change. we will be working with the committee on that. >> also, i am pleased to see that the security city's program is being fully funded this year.
10:50 pm
-- secure the cityies program is being fully funded this year. >> we saw a securing the cit ies -- it was a pilot program originally in new york. what the budget has money for is to add a second site to it. i think there are a lot of good lessons learned from the experience in new york. we can begin the process of expansion. >> back to the point i raised before about the grant system -- we were contacted by a number of local organizations international association of emergency managers -- cities that are concerned that the funding may be too state center.
10:51 pm
we've been contacted in the last 24 hours about groups that have a problem with that funding. >> it is our intent that the funding be consolidated to streamline, remove administrative costs. we want to focus on the national preparedness goal. how do we make sure there is a basic homeland security net, so to speak building on the $35 billion of capability the congress has already invested in. my view is that this should be -- that we ought to continue to inform grant decisions by evaluation. >> she has real security concerns of the northern border. we have security concerns in the new york city area. both are legitimate.
10:52 pm
i do not know at the state is fully equipped to differentiate the differences. keep that in mind as we go forward. with that, i recognize the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as well as other states in the united states other than new york we join in the concern. with respect to the referenced the chairman made of a letter from the national association of counties u.s. conference of mayors international association of fire chiefs, and others i would like to have it added into the record. also, with respect to the fema grant, there is some concern these stakeholders have not been included in the process of developing guidance from grants and its consolidation proposal.
10:53 pm
will you commit to the committee that if it has not been done that you make your best effort to work with those groups? >> yes. we have had a lot of discussions with stakeholders over the last year. some of them have actually, i think, said they support the vision. the question is going to be the details. how do we spell it out? that will be something we will work on with the congress. >> we have the record and i will ask also that we provide you with a copy of the electors. -- letters. your best guess as to when we will have the guidance for the readers? >> they are right on the verge of the guidance for the
10:54 pm
readers. i am putting pressure to get these out. we want to avoid the situation where people are having to renew cards. >> if we get to the deadline and it is time to renew, do you see yourself extending the card rather than having people come back and pay $133.50? >> i asked my staff to give me a set of options of what we would do if that were to happen? >> there are a lot of committees -- communities that are hearing from a number of people that paid money for the card. it is no more than a flash card right now because there is no reader.
10:55 pm
i would encourage you to look seriously if the department does not meet the time line for producing the readers that that period be extended until the readers are in place. the other point is, we would like for you to look at not requiring people who apply for a quick card to come back and pick it up. that second trip for a lot of individuals cost a lot of money. some people have to take off of work to pick up the card. there are some alternatives out there. we understand the security challenges. but it is a concern. we would like for you to look at it. >> i would be happy to. i share those concerns.
10:56 pm
we will work through all available options within the department. >> for the sake of the record, is the problem with the readers -- where have the breakdown been for the last 4 + years? >> it is hard to say where in fact. there have been a lot of operational issues with some of the test readers with respect to their liability and their ruggedness and the like. there have been things tested that have not played out. it has been a real process to a finally arrive at something that will be good guidance. >> your testimony escapeis -- in
10:57 pm
>> i would like to get her best guess as to when we can expect something from the department. >> we can make that request of the secretary right now. >> i will be happy to get something back to you. >> i yield back. >> mr. hagen is also a from new york. how could we ignore him? >> there is another new yorker there, too. [laughter] >> we do not always agree on the ny0pd. i now recognize mr. rogers. quite a would like to offer for the record at the alabama delegation delivered to the secretary yesterday. >> without objection. >> thank you madam secretary for being here and thank you for
10:58 pm
your service to the country. i know it is not a 40-hour a week job. i want to talk to you about secure communities and 27g. my understanding from looking at the memo on the budget is these programs were reduced by 25% which basically a halt additional training of additional communities going forward. is that correct? >> for task forces, yes. we began this migration last year. we are moving forward as we install secure communities throughout the country. that is the preferred way to identify those in the country illegally and get them removed. >> i agree secure communities is a great way, but the 27g has been great and it is relatively inexpensive.
10:59 pm
i hate to see no additional committees being added. >> in terms -- communities being added. >> in terms of task forces, we have task forces in the country that have picked up maybe one or two illegals. when we actually calculate out the average cost of removing some body, which is picked up by a 27g task force it is 10 times more expensive. there is a cost factor involved, you are correct. >> michael -- i know we retold in alabama that the remaining 37 counties were to have it installed by november of last year then it was back up to december of last year.
11:00 pm
now i am told it has been stopped. it is that the case? >> it has been delayed, that is correct. >> why? >> several reasons, but one reason is, as you know, the alabama state law is in litigation. it is at the 11th where it is turned off and covers seven buys certain -- 75%. we decided to hold off on the remaining quarter. it is our intent to complete a by the end of the year. >> why was it relevant? my understanding is that you have not altered it in arizona or georgia and have similar legislation. >> it was already turned on
11:01 pm
before the litigation commenced. we left it there. >> talk about procurements. i have a lot of business groups come into my hearings and we've had open sessions off the record where different groups come in and talk about their experience. uniformly i hear of a cult it is to work with -- how difficult it is to work with procurement. they're saying there's never any interaction. that often creates a circumstance where there is unrealistic expectations about what can be done. are you familiar with the problem of the concerns the private sector has? >> a sum in the same people have
11:02 pm
visited with me as well. -- some of these same people have visited with me as well. we need to center like it more. one of the problems has been agents agencies. we're used to dealing with a different category of vendors. with taken steps to have an acquisition approval process and to reach out with the private sector. we just held a procurements fair undersecretary for management to improve the channels of communication that we need. we are on it. >> my time has expired. i yelled back. -- yieldf back.
11:03 pm
>> thank you for being before us. i recently was on the mexico border. from the mexico site, they have built more roadways to come over to make another inland port --- land port. it was agreed to by both sides. the funding has not come where the cuts in the budget are making this happen from our side. it is amazing to see it happening. the first thing would be the locals ask me to come and take a look at it.
11:04 pm
what is going on? what can we do? they tell me it is three hours standing time if you are a pedestrian to go across that section right now. i happen to know because i have a family there. they said it takes away too long two or three hours. sometimes in the summer it is 130 degrees with the cover. what you're doing with respect to that? this january the media reported that two tourists from the united kingdom were denied entry to the united states bybecause of comment on twitter. do you know anything about this incident? is this determining their
11:05 pm
admittance to the u.s.? >> i can look specifically here. the ports come through gsa. we give the northern ports but not the southern. did this does not fare well. it has slowed down in number of important projects. these are necessary for a travel and trade in all the things that go on. i think that is probably where it is caught up. >> what is the mechanism? >> the question is trying everything we need to do within the confines of the budget control act. we are all dealing with that.
11:06 pm
the all recognize that. because gsa is governed by a different set of committees, it does become a little bit too ships passing in the night. we are in constant touch. they know the priorities but only have so much money. >> thank you. >> then the question of a foreign national from england. >> about getting too much in the weeds, we are not sitting there monitoring social media looking for stuff. that is not what we do. in that instance there was a tip that led to a secondary inspection of the individuals. that govern the judgment of exclusion not just the tweet. >> was the tweet taken into
11:07 pm
account when they're thinking about whether to let them and are not? >> it was but i am not at liberty to say all of the reasons. the impression was left that they were just sitting around wondering the blob is they're looking for things. that is not what they do. they do have an obligation to follow tips. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from texas. >> thank you. it is important to note that today marks the one-year anniversary of the birds go killing of an agent and shooting of another. it is appropriate to remember
11:08 pm
that event and remember them here today in this committee. there has been some speculation that the weapons used to kill him may have been linked to the operation fast and furious. do you have any information that would indicate a connection? >> i have no information to that effect. >> i do not know one way or another. >> you cannot conclusively say one way or another whether there is a link to these weapons? >> that is true. >> we know the weapons were used to kill brian. >> they were found at the scene of that murder. >> i know that the organized
11:09 pm
crime enforcement task force had an ice.c.e. agent participating that was participating in fast and furious. can you tell us the role that agent was with respect to a fast and furious? >> my understanding is that it is very minimal. this is all learned after the fact. this was an atf operation. >> and you believe the atf may have led your organization? >> i hope they did not. >> do you know he was informed about the operation? i do not. i do not know whether the full extent and the number of guns being allowed to walk on supervised was disclosed.
11:10 pm
i believe the size and management of that operation had lot of serious mistakes made. >> i certainly agree with you. the next question i have is a long management. we had hearings -- we heard from several secretaries. itthe idea of the model you'll actually said the have a book on this. it seems like there are always lessons learned from events in the past and the federal government. there may be a lot to learn from the growing pains and mistakes of the department of defense had in consolidating their efforts as you are trying to consolidate
11:11 pm
22 different tasks. there are high-risk operations that had performance problems. as you testified earlier it seems to make a lot of sense. you have made some progress. can you tell me your thoughts in terms of looking at the model? >> i do have a volume on my desk. it shows you what they read in their spare time. theit took about 40 years from the creation of the department of defense and the consolidation of management that they represented. we're going to be that hard to appear in.
11:12 pm
we also have a much broader set a missions that we have to perform. how you manage procurements, and things like looking at how you buy the software, how you buy vehicles. >> i do want to mention the hearing. out of all the agencies, dhs only gets 50% of the funding. that is important. i think perhaps we can change that. >> i will say these are the kinds of efficiencies that we can encourage and grow.
11:13 pm
>> the gentlemen europe'syields back. >> thank you. it is good to see you again. i believe you're going to my district next week. i will be in the same area you are. thank you. in dealing with the budget is always hard. i thank you for looking up here. i have several questions. the first has to do the reports that came out on march of 2011 that talks about a $639.4 million of an audiblyon obligated accounts. it is been going on since 2008.
11:14 pm
there is no authorization. that is a lot of money that is available. why can we get that money out? >> i do not know. >> we're holding a for a particular reason. i will be happy to get back to you. >> you can use it as authorized for a lot. it can get back to the committee, the budget is not as from any officers. -- does not ask from any officer spirited they would even get our talk to you about long lines. at the same time we're opening up new ports of entry.
11:15 pm
we've always done a good job. especially since you're also cutting it over time by $20 million. how are we going to handle tha ose lines that we had? >> that is one of the reasons why i'm going back to the border, to talk to people who live there about problems they see. the problem withis twofold. it is often a lane availability issue appeared to the ports are not big enough to handle the amount of traffic. we have to work on both of those things. the overtime pay issue congress that what that last year by
11:16 pm
allowing us to use the league system among other things. it will allow us to manage the situation and keep it under control better. the president has analyze officers that were put in in fiscal year 2012. they are being hired and trained now. there should be released in net -- relief and that. >>-- in that. i think have more bridges and any other congressmen and a country. i look forward working with you and looking at alternatives as we go up there. the private sector and local governments are willing to do that. they want to step up and do
11:17 pm
that. did they want to put in some of the local incomes. i will ask you to work with the. the last thing is over time. -- i'll ask to work with you. the last thing is over time. we had $1.4 million in daily overtime. especially now that we have the lowest border crossings i understand the whole argument. you never know when they have to try for one part. it included your 250 agents signed at the border control headquarters were they made a combined $4.8 million -- $4.8 million. i can understand border control but to have to enter 50 agents in washington and to pay them overtime is something i do not understand. my time is almost up. i have been trying to get that information.
11:18 pm
i said i would directly talk to you. i think members of congress want to see them at the border and said of having them wrapped up -- rack up millions of dollars. >> i share that concern with the number of agents. it is something i am talking about with the commissioner. it makes sense to have border control agents get some rotation so they get an appreciation of how the system works and what is going on, particularly those that are moving up the ladder. >> i am in full agreement. 250, we can work with you. thank you. i look forward to working with you. >> the gentleman from minnesota the author of the bill. >> i have a great staff.
11:19 pm
>> thank you. thank you for being here today. in the president's budget cuts from $25 million down to $12.5 million is approximately a 50% decrease. in includes volunteers that pay more out of their pockets and it cost them to be to protect our nation. to provide the protection for each officer each flight cost the nation $15. it that is how efficient the program is. i have to believe that it is one of the most cost-effective programs. they basically volunteer their time and money to be a vital deterrents to our country.
11:20 pm
there the last line of defense when it comes to air piracy. my question would be what prompted this tax? >> it is not risk-based. you will have its whether someone is on a flight or not. we are moving to rest base systems. those are the ones we will put money into. >> i fully agree with risk of a system. i also fully believe a $15 per flight deck officer is a last line of defense on an aircraft and is essential. would you agree that the officers would be the last line of defense? >> there are many layers of defense. it is before people even get
11:21 pm
their ticket. one of the things i continue to emphasize is the checkpoint at the gate which has caused some concern is only one of many other layers. the ffdo's have been useful. and not know about the $15 million figure. as we look around, we have to find places to cut. that is one of them. it is not risk base that was put on the table. >> i understand risk-based. again i will ask the question period is the flight deck officer the last line of defense for our traveling public? >> i think the armed cockpit door probably is. >> speaking as a pilot, and also as a a federal flight deck
11:22 pm
officer, i know about the cockpit door. i will tell you speaking from the position i have flown as pilots and as a federal flight deck officer, you may think it is the line of defense but it is the armed pilot in the cockpit that will be the last line of defense. thank you for your comments ago. is your intention that this program be phased out? i think if the budget request shows, it is our intention to reduce it. we have not predicted its demise. we just do it with less. >> what kind of message do you think it sends it to pilots on there on time, i take personal vacation pay for their own lodging to train for the honor protecting their fellow citizens how you think it will affect the program? >> obviously, in a difficult
11:23 pm
budget we have to make difficult decisions. this was one. >> going for the last line of defense in the program that you have i would strongly encourage you to reevaluate that position. also it does come to my attention recently that they have proposed alert sites to be eliminated. there were chosen to be active association where active duty combined with the international guard there. now they're pulling a vital mission from thisese two fighter wings. how will this affect you? after 9/11 they were flying
11:24 pm
24/7. they deployed a lot of different places. i see my time has expired. >> there are several other similar things are rounds the northern border. these operations can be covered elsewhere. >> thank you. i will yield back. it's>> thank you very much. we forgot to add mr. turner to our discussion about upstate/downstate new york. it is one of our newest members here. there is no doubt in my mind
11:25 pm
that your commitment to partnership and cooperation with our local law enforcement has been extraordinary. we are truly grateful for that. we had an opportunity through having been the no. 1 terrorist targets in the nation to have those partnerships strengthened over time and build up searching capabilities and los municipalities and would have no reason out of necessity. i wanted to raise a couple of issues with you. is there a point where the department of common security looks at the implementation of
11:26 pm
various policies and its impact on the municipality? dollars that we have provided for home and security have been over reaching in terms of their usage and what the impact is for the local municipality. there have been a number of practices that have been highlighted most recently an hour zealousness to apprehends the lone actor or anyone who has been radicalized that may be in the population. that has extended its seven to the live of average everyday new yorkers to do not fit any profile under any circumstances. it clearly, there is a profile out there. there are individuals who mouths
11:27 pm
are open to surveillance, where individuals sit there just to observe whether there is a terrorist tendency. we have even seen videos produced that have high ranking officers of our city. there have been some things that i think have gone askew. i am wondering what role it is in the collaboration that we have the conversation about civil liberties. i hope me raising this to you is that there needs to be some discussion. there needs to be some serious discussion. when you are a new yorker, the
11:28 pm
town of diversity our police department has become so empowered to the civil liberties become something that is secondary. i wanted to share that with you and hope that you will look into that. my question is that when you testified before the committee actedat the congress, you testified that it is they must tighten state since 9/11. it is a basis for many hearings on radicalization and recruitment but then the muslim community. a recent report issued by the center says that concerns about the potential wave of a homegrown terrorism have not materialized over this and those with and the communities.
11:29 pm
do we remain in the same posture given what we know? given the intelligence are we tightened the? >> we live in a very volatile world. we are dealing with threats. they can be from al qaeda related groups. terrorism and extremism is not let him by national boundaries. it is not limited to one ideology. to itit requires us to look at it in a number of ways in
11:30 pm
order to minimize risk while incorporating the inc's that our nation has under the constitution. we want to make sure we incorporate those. >> thank you. >> i like to stay for the record that general petraeus testified that the inspector general to the full investigation and found a relationship between the nypd and cia to be legal.
11:31 pm
it involves any dealing with the cia. they said the nypd is at full compliance with the law. >> thank you. thank you for being here today. we have seen a wide range of reports from the gao and from the house a transportation infrastructure committee identifying hundreds of millions of dollars in annual waste and inefficiencies at tsa. in your proposed budget, you are seeking to triple the $2.50 a passenger security tax to ultimately $7.50 , would you say would generate $25 billion over the next 10 years. they have a $100 user fee. it seems to be costing more and more for americans to fly which
11:32 pm
affects all sectors of our economy. government taxes make up around 20% of this. this is more than any other title out there. we're singling out the airline customers and possibly even discouraging travel. how do you balance that with the need for security? >> you have to do both. travel trade and tourism are important economic values and not to keep this economy moving to repel the recovery. they're always looking for ways
11:33 pm
to look for travel of trade and maintain security posture. we are doing it a couple of ways. one way is as we move to more risk-based approach, expanding the traveler type program global entry for international travel. it is called rodentia say -- tsa recheck. as we do that, that allows us to prescreen passengers before they get to the airport so they go and a separate line and we can expedite the processing. as we go one it is our intention to be able to do more
11:34 pm
and more in that direction. we are going carefully and slowly because we do not have room for mistakes. our pilot projects had been very productive. >> i per numerous concerns from folks in and around the industry concerned with the exorbitant taxes on flying out these days. with my remaining time, when and how are you looking at the other aspect of the equation the millions of potential waste and inefficiency right now that have been identified within tsa? >> we have already identified $850 million worth the administrative efficiencies. we believe we can take and put that money redeployed into operational activity. that is along with the $3
11:35 pm
billion via found already. we're constantly looking for ways that we can meet their obligations and do it more quickly. any avenue we have of doing that sir our employees have ideas. we have no monopoly on good ideas. if people have them we will listen. >> thank you. >> the gentleman yield back. >> thank you very much. thank you for being here. i want to ask you about two things. one is the beyond the borders action plan that was announced by the president of canada. it has one pre inspector. this is very important border
11:36 pm
crossing for commerce and for our shared communities. i wanted to urge you to consider the bridge for the pilot project. to the other issue is the urban areas security initiative program. and fiscal year 2011, your department removed 32 high risk urban areas including buffalo new york. these communities and not used to be goneon that program. they met a criteria that it posed a considerable threat. they were given the resources to work in a collaborative way with other law enforcement agencies. you have a new program.
11:37 pm
i asked that these 32 communities be there. toronto is in close proximity. niagara falls is the destination for a million people all over the world. the community produces the cheapest electricity in all of new york state. all of which become high impact targets for potential terrorism. i think it is very important that the department consider allowing these community the resources they need to sustain the capabilities they have established. i want to echo something the chairman made reference to. that is the threat of hezbollah. they are a shia group committed to violence geoid -- jihad.
11:38 pm
they have a presence that is growing. there are four major cities in canada as well. it was indicating the response to the chairman as well. you are working with the fbi and intelligence committee. we have had previous hearings here. witnesses said we should not be that concerned. hezbollah is present in the western hemisphere. north america is really limited to a fund-raising activity. i do not much see the distinction. i think that presence is a very severe threat. i think it means to be addressed. >> i believe we are constantly monitoring hezbollah and we are
11:39 pm
in touch with the fbi. it is where it is appropriate. we are conducting a lot of outreach to tardivetargeted communities. we are working with canada on the identification of staff to do the pre inspection. a strong case has been made for the peace bridge but no final decisions have been reached. >> i want to associate myself with the perspective comments of my colleague and asking to replace the outdated niagara falls borders station with a new facility at the niagara falls
11:40 pm
air reserve station. i am sure my colleague will be talking about that later on. the two centers have joined us. we thing that is a very important move for a lot of reasons including the good work that the border patrol does. >> i should warn you that you would be double teams. the gentleman from prince of the pena is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for appearing with us. i want to thank you in advance for the cooperation of your agency. tomorrow they will be working in to further inquiry of the social media. i am grateful for the work you have already done in helping us understand. i want to take a moment to follow up on some issues that
11:41 pm
mr. mccall raised. you testified today that fast and furious was an atf operation. what does that mean with respect to the cooperation are coordination of d.h. espns.? >> that is where it is. >> that is where it is. i know from your experience, you understand what it means. this implies and requires that there be a collaboration among multiple agencies. it has been identified.
11:42 pm
to what extent are there reporting requirements for the participation of your agents on most of the cases? >> if you are asking is there every porting requirements that any participation has to be reported all the way up to and including washington headquarters, no. there is way too much action for that to be feasible. if you are asking how they enter agencies are handling it, my understanding is that there is a lead agency that is running the operation. in this instance it was the atf. >> there is participation.
11:43 pm
we have agents who are out on matters of all types. i think we all recognize the serious mistakes that were made that should never be repeated. this was an atf operation. >> that was the question. this included the participation. do you know who lane france is that >> i do not. >> he was an i.c.e. agent. >> i did not know this was a fast and furious hearing. >> i did not come to get into it. >> i think there the issue is to make sure that it's in my shop
11:44 pm
we are not running gun walking cases with under supervisedunsupervised policies. emphasize the policies. we do not want that happening. >> do you know what was happening from your agent to was a co agent on this case with the anticipated activities? >> let's not confuse this with co lead. you can have people on the task force. they may be listed as a co-case agent and have no contact. this is the guy who does this and a particular office. i cannot speak with specifics to the question.
11:45 pm
i did not know this was a faster furious hearing. >> have you done any participation yourself in the fast and furious? >> when i learned about fast and furious, i instructed our department to make sure that we were not running gun walking cases and that our policies were clear and that there is a common understanding. >> have been investigated the activity that took place tax -- have you investigated the activities that took place? have you looked independently of what is going on in the department of justice. >> i believe the director of ice has.
11:46 pm
this implies that everybody was equal on this. >> how do we know if you haven't lived into its? >> there have been enough hearings. >> have you spoken to attorney general holder about this case? >> no. it has been under investigation. >> my time is up. >> the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. >> let's go back to the grant program in louisiana. is it your expectation that the jurisdictions that receive the
11:47 pm
bulk of the money pursuant to your risk assessments would receive the same or even more support under the program? >> it is difficult to prejudge. what we intend is that we want to look at what the $35 billion that we have already spent on home and security grants, where that has put us so that we can look across states and regions across the country and identify where we have gaps, critical and richard sure that need hard mean -- infrastructure that meets hardening. >> they have an identification of risk assessment that will have a large parts in devising a new formula. that analysis will go into who receives money. >> yes. it is intended to be a risk base, consequence based
11:48 pm
evaluation. there still will be retained some base level of funding dependent on population. we believe that we ought to be building and sustaining a national capacity for terrorism and disaster prevention and mitigation and response. if that is what we are combining these grants to achieve. >> where you give them the ability to comment or challenge or appeal their assessments in the event that they feel there are some things left out or were not considered spend their risk assessment? >> i think our relationship is such that there is just an exchange all the time even as a potential grantees are preparing
11:49 pm
their applications. >> this is a little bit outside the realm. since we have departed, i might as well do it. i am getting from my mares and school boards and everyone a disaster loan issue we have in louisiana. the vice president of the united states came down to say the disaster loans would be forgiven in those municipalities. many municipalities are not getting loan forgiveness from those disaster loans. and do not know if you can comment about it, but can you at least advocate on our behalf that the of the commitment was made. it would be the right thing to
11:50 pm
do to the up to the commitment to wave the repayment of those loans. >> i will take a look at that. >> i will yield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you. hopefully the microphone will pick me up. >> i can hear you fine. >> as he pointed out, this is the one-year anniversary of the death of the agents. before i get to the budget, i would like to take a moment to thank you for what you have done for the family. we're starting to recede and consistent information from various agencies about how it progresses -- receive inconsistent information from various agencies about how it progresses. with respect to the budget, i know he talked about the fact
11:51 pm
and despite the overall budget decrease we are looking at doubling the feed passengers pay for the tsa. i applaud you for cutting spending but i'm concerned about raising taxes, especially when we are not really saying a need there. the we have the tsa working better than it has in the past. we have a lot of our technology expenditures under control. why the need for increasing that the? >> thank you for your kind words about them. they have made a lot of progress. it it is a fee and not a tax. it does not increase since 2002. they have been incorporating dollars so we can make sure we have technology.
11:52 pm
we have increased costs since 2002. just a pure facts for -- just the seat for checked baggage has caused them to load on their carry-on. >> if i had my way, they would charge for the carry-on and not the checked bag. >> like i said, you are experts on airplane travel. we think it makes screening more complicated. that probably offloaded about $250 million of cost on the tsa. we think it is time to probably properly raise the fee but not to do its per in plan meant
11:53 pm
-- but to do it per one way trip. if the have to take different segments it is still only 1 feet. then this go but up over the next years to a maximum of $7.50. we think that will take weight off the general taxpayer and allow us to sustain what we have done. >> and other efficiency i would encourage you to look at, it regards a high lag time in supplying the equipment when it comes to getting out to the airport. i would encourage you to consider the model was some technology companies. it included installation as part
11:54 pm
of the process rather than having them shipped to a warehouse. >> that is a procurement issue. we can take a look at that. a lot is it should be shouldattributed to reconfiguring lanes and new construction at the airport itself. that has to be done before the equipment can be installed. i think the issue is something we can take a look at for some. >> i will yield back the remainder of my time. >> thank you. i recognize the gentleman from michigan for five minutes. >> thank you. it was great seeing you first of all as a frequent traveler. i wanted to thank the daily commitment.
11:55 pm
people have lost their home property values. as a result, many local units of government have had to lay off vital first responders. my question is, how can the department of common security work with prior year safer grantees to help make sure the new firefighters and first responders that they hired with the federal grant money can keep these employees on and not have to lay them off when we really need them. did they are from mind defense against any other emergency. >> week released the grants and
11:56 pm
that particular area for do we released the grants in that particular area on a -- we released the grants and that particular area. we have for those grants anf d were made retroactive able to grant a waiver to the cost than they previously have been allowed to do. the reason it is important is because it helps do this. >> it is gun to make a difference. thank you -- it is going to make a difference. >> thank you.
11:57 pm
i recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> where do we have common ground of? the topic today for me is the 287g task force. when you mentioned earlier that a program might have been in existence for a year and led to one apprehension, you have my full agreement that the program should be reviewed and most likely terminated. some are being continued. can wedo agree to me that some are affected? >> they are relatively affected.
11:58 pm
i would suggest that secure communities is more effective and cheaper. >> i would not say it is affected. virginia represents the second district parent -- i live in virginia and represent the second district. i know the governor and his administration have been very clear on this matter. they intended to have 24 state troopers who are not just booksfolks to stop people on the road, but the targeted task force of violent crimes drug dealers rapes, murders, those areas. they believed and i do as well that way 287g task force would
11:59 pm
work for them. i am expressing my disappointment here. in the spirit of transparency in government may i see thethe data that supported your decision on this? >> yes. this request have been pending for some time. in the meantime they can deploy more agents into the areas where we were told the task force would primarily be focused on the theory that full-time federal agents would actually be more productive. i will be happy to see you briefed on that as well. >> we thank you for that.
12:00 am
i know you have a lot of things on your plate. can you describe for us generally what those expenses would be and what savings are being realized by discontinuing the program? >> training is a big expense. travel for training. some overtime in those areas. there are buckets, but they add up to a substantial number when you reduce it to a cost per removed individual. >> it is still difficult for me, and i cannot fully reconcile this. maybe it will take some additional work here. a good governor is saying we can help you hear, and yet under the administration, not one task
12:01 am
force application has been approved, at least to my knowledge. it is difficult to reconcile house a force multiplier, just thinking about the value of a highly trained virginia state trooper, for example his or her willingness to assist in a key law enforcement area, and we have turned down that help. >> we work a lot with state and local law enforcement. i have had several discussions with the governor in the past about the 287 g task force. i think in conclusion, we believe in making sure you have the right number of full-time federal agents and that we have a secure community turned on and we just turned on for more states last year for secure communities. that is a much more effective way to go and helps us target appropriately the population
12:02 am
that we want to prioritize and removal, which are criminal aliens. >> i think you for your testimony and your service. >> i recognize the gentle lady from upstate new york. >> thank you for all your service to our country and everything you do to protect americans and keep us safe. we appreciate your efforts to put together a budget during these very challenging times. a few initiatives, some of them mentioned by my colleague. thank you for including $10 million for northern border technology which will help implement the be on the border action plan. a second request to have the pre inspection station. this is such an important issue for us with our proximity to canada and toronto. we are the source of commerce everyday.
12:03 am
this could be a huge boost to the upstate economy which is not faring so well. we appreciate all the attention you get to that as well. we are sending a letter urging to find the funds in the budget for this idea of a station at the niagara falls area station. we have been told it is a joint area but the guard station will be leaving. this is an ideal opportunity to have a federal -- the proximity and collaboration that already goes on with our canadian partners is already going. we are just looking for approval from yourself as well. you'll be getting a letter from us on that.
12:04 am
there was an amendment proposed that i was grateful to my colleagues for accepting it. it was proposed that the department only purchase uniforms that are made in america. the bigger picture is to ensure that our national security and economic security are tied together. i had this conversation this morning during a hearing with secretary panetta who shared my belief that we do much better when we rely on our national suppliers not just for military but domestic protection as well. this has not been enacted but i am wondering if there are voluntary steps you can take to help us do this for the jobs it would create back here in america. and economically secure nation is better for all of us. can you speak to that issue as well, and what can be done on your end? >> i agree and economically secure nation is better than one that is not and we are all
12:05 am
interested in making sure we maximize job creation in our country. i will have to look into what we are doing on the procurement and availability of uniforms. i think you make a valid point. i don't know of steps have been taken to lead in that direction or not. >> i want to echo the request to include buffalo and rochester areas. we are off the list. people come from all over the world to see all our resources niagara falls, hydroelectric power source that is up there. our portion of the state is represented very well and we can make our best arguments on what we want to continue to have a good relationship with the department of homeland security up there. but that i yield back the balance of my time.
12:06 am
>> i recognize the gentle lady from michigan. >> which of fast in michigan, too. -- we talk fast in michigan, too. i want to follow up on a couple of comments made by some of my colleagues about various things in regard to the department of defense and how they might have some overlap with the department of homeland security as well. i think as a nation, as i have been following some of the dod budget hearings also this week, we miss the boat sometimes. maybe i am just offering some thought for the future. we could have looked at some military facilities, inventory domestically and it could have been utilize. as we go forward, talking about the possibility of additional
12:07 am
brac's, you might just think about that. i think there is potential, and i say that because i have been a proponent of having regional homeland security facilities around the country. tom ridge was the original guy who was talking about that. i think it still makes a lot of sense. that might be one thing. when we look at all the various types of off-the-shelf hardware that the taxpayers have already paid for that has been utilized effectively and theater as we are out of iraq and have a drawdown in afghanistan we want to make sure that your department is looking at all the potential kinds of things we will be bringing back here that may have some application that you can get on the cheap.
12:08 am
>> we are constantly interchanging with dod to see if there are technologies or things we have already paid to have developed that we can use in our civilian missions. that is an ongoing process. with respect to materiel that was in afghanistan and iraq that is coming home, we are getting both helicopter and aircraft from that that we will be using primarily at the southwest border. we have been working on that issue as well. >> i think there is a lot more. i just ask you to think about that and for a bit. even some of the land systems and robots, there may be some application at the southern border as well and you might want to take a look at that. besides that you have the
12:09 am
personnel that know how to operate all these things. so that is one thing. on our committee we have had recent hearings in regard to the global supply chain to the screening process at the nation's ports. i would just mentioned last week we had a hearing and we will have another hearing in two weeks about the current legislative mandate for 100% scanning. i know you have said that is probably not possible. we had a conversation and testimony that was about $20 billion to do something like that and that currently there is only 4% actually being scanned. i certainly understand the
12:10 am
circumstances that happen and the costs. what i would say is, we are looking forward to working with you for a legislative fix to that, if there is one forthcoming. maybe you can tell me, do you have some ideas on how you might want to address that issue? i think you'd find people who are willing to work with you on that issue. >> we have total agreement on the goal of the 100% scanning requirement. what we do not have -- the goal is to prevent harmful material from entering the united states. we don't have agreement as to whether 100% scanning is the best way to achieve that or is even feasible from a diplomatic and logistics point of view. it is my conclusion that this cannot currently feasible, but there are other ways that get us to the same place.
12:11 am
it means looking at a targeted shipment programs, working with international organizations on common standards for moving security in the cargo environment. a whole global supply chain initiative is designed in part to give us a better sense or a better way to get to the goal of making sure we minimize the risk of dangerous cargo entering the united states. we would be happy to work with the committee on some of this. my current intent will be to extend the deadline that presently is in the statute. the statute gives me the ability now to extend the deadline. >> the gentle lady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> it is great to have you here and listen to testimony.
12:12 am
i am glad that we have the additional $5.50 billion for the disaster relief fund in the budget representing california. we seem to every year have disasters, fires floods, occasional earthquakes. last year we had a waterless hurricane i had never even heard that before, but we had it. i don't think i can remember as many disasters in our country as we have had recently, so i appreciate the extra funding so that americans have the resources they need to recover in the event of a disaster. i also have some concerns about some of the changes in the budget and in your department. i have always been a strong advocate for poor security grants. even before i came to congress, i worked with my predecessor in working to change the criteria for port security so, there was
12:13 am
risk vulnerability and consequence as part of how we appropriate that. i advocated to keeping the port security grants as a separate program. i am unhappy they were lumped into one large grant program and concern that the administration is attempting to do the same thing. nothing's port security this crucial. i still feel like our ports are some of our most multiple entryways into this country. i just want to go on record and maybe you can talk a little bit about how you still make this is an adequate way to fund security efforts that's our seaports across this country. i heard from our ports that currently they have a hard time utilizing some of the grants that have been awarded. they are concerned about some of
12:14 am
the of bureaucracy particularly in terms of reimbursement. sometimes they are willing to purchase equipment and programs that they know definitely are going to be reimbursable as opposed to getting what they think is the most appropriate equipment or program to secure the port, because of some insecurity on how they will be reimbursed. you might want to just look at how we streamline the current grant programs in the future so they can utilize that better. >> first, one of the things, and the committee was very strong on this. the cuts congress made to grants last year really deep. we are talking and 40% 50%. my options were very limited in terms of what i could do.
12:15 am
with respect to the ports they were really sliced very deeply. however, port authorities can work with -- in terms of hardening infrastructure at the ports. that is another way to go about it. with respect to red tape or a bureaucracy, i would say that fema is now turning around applications on average in 30 days or less. there really have tried to cut through that, and with respect to what is reimbursable and what is not i would think that support of los angeles, would be in regular conversations with the month in terms of what they need most and how it fits within the grant structure. >> commerce one miller convened a hearing we had last " weak on specifics for security, and the
12:16 am
issue of 100% cargo scanning did come up. we understand that the administration has pretty much set at this point it is not feasible. that is something we will continue to strive toward. i know there are a lot of levels, point of origin, the safe and secure ports initiative. i hear that. 14 million containers come in and out annually and i am still concerned that we are not standing more than 3% or 4%. i think what we need to look at its investment in the technology that might be out there that actually could help us achieve this without slowing down commerce and without being a burden. i am so very worried about those containers coming in and out of our ports and whether or not we
12:17 am
truly know what is inside of them. >> there have been a lot of significant improvements made in the safety and security of cargo particularly container shipments, over the last couple of years especially. those improvements are going to continue. if somewhere down the road the technology evolves in the international situation is such that you could get to something that looks like 100% scanning of course that would be something we could look at, but i have to be frank with the committee that i think that is so down the road and so slight a possibility that we are better off focusing on how we attain the goal of minimizing the risk that something unsay comes into the country and looking at other avenues for getting there. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes.
12:18 am
>> thank you for being here and in during along the ground of question. -- in duringenduring the long rounds of questioning. >> using the tools that we are seeing reduced in the military right now, such as the c27j which was slated for use because of its medium-sized carrying and transport capabilities and multiple other things that had been programmed to come to a base in my district. it is a worthy craft and i would encourage homeland security to consider that. in relationship to the northern border and may certainly be
12:19 am
helpful. let me move on to my main question that also is a concern in my district with the president's request to reducing the number of detention beds to 1200 for illegal immigrants. >> reduce it by 1200. >> the intent as i understand it is to use those savings to enhance alternatives to the detention program which is less expensive when you think of $122 per day on average for a detention bed. yet there is concern that the alternatives to detention generally leads to higher levels of absconding which adds additional support and security problems as well. with the memory of some high- profile cases of alternative
12:20 am
detention situations where an individual, for instance in massachusetts, took off the electronic device and absconded will there be guarantees put into this program, stronger guarantees stronger preventive tools to make sure that if we are going away from the beds, we are not having as gondar's -- absconders wasting resources we are down already. >> first of all, i think his bill important to make clear that we would only put in low- risk individuals, that those who oppose any kind of risk to public safety would not be considered for atd.
12:21 am
there are a variety of ways to undo it, everything from a reporting mechanism on a regular basis all the way to wearing a bracelet and having to call in at certain intervals and the like. there is a broad range of ways it can be done. our role is obviously not to have atd used as a back door to absconding. our goal also is to make sure that we have available the best we need for detention, so the budget request includes language that as we go through the year, if we need to lose some of those resources -- move some of those resources back into detention, i would be allowed to do so as the secretary. >> is there any serious looking at using contacted, private facilities for detention? >> we do have some private facilities used for detention.
12:22 am
we do contract with some, yes. >> any expansion of that for cost purposes as well? we expect them to provide adequate care, but have we looked at the cost comparisons for using our own facilities were subcontracted and private facilities? >> a lot of work contracts are with other -- we have a mix of private and public in that sense, not just federally operated facilities. we are always looking at cost and bad cost and availability as we make these determinations. >> the cox comparison between the contractor facilities? >> undoubtedly they are on a project by project basis because they compete for contracts. whether there is something overall that looks private versus public, that i do not know. >> i would appreciate that
12:23 am
information. thank you. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentle lady from texas, ms. jackson lee for five minutes. >> that me thank the ranking member and secretary for visiting lone star college in houston. they expressed their appreciation. i am also very happy of the disaster aid increase in the president's budget and i would ask on the record for someone in the department for some issues that are still going on in houston, texas that are still going on. if i could get that, i would greatly appreciate it. you said something earlier that i would very much appreciate hearing again as you open. you said the issue of radicalization terrorism, and i am paraphrasing your words is not attended to the label by it any religion our particular group. would you want to just clarify
12:24 am
that for us? i think it is very important to the many diverse groups and our nation how we address the issue of terrorism and terrorist threats domestically in our nation. >> what i said is terrorism is not narrowed to any ideology or nation. it is islam as, the hottest, it can be based on other ideologies. it can be internationally based or homegrown. it requires those of us in the terrorism prevention area to be looking at all the known threats all the time, and looking closely at behavioral characteristics. i know that intelligence looks at many factors in our war against terror. >> we are looking for techniques, behaviors, tactics early warning signs, anything that will enable us to prevent a terrorist act from being completed.
12:25 am
>> thank you very much for that. some of us agree with that approach. i just wanted to be clear that our budget is framed in that way as well. having sat through a hearing on fast and furious with the attorney general and one being held in the oversight committee i would prefer the testimony of my colleague in both of those meetings. i want to go to the transportation security administration and i know that through the f. a. a. bill, i will not even set compromise was made, but what i think is a provision that is really questionable. we wanted to move on the bill, and that is to undermine the discretion of the tsa administrator as relates to privatization. the language was may and it is now shout.
12:26 am
can you speak to the issue of the testimony given that suggests that privatization would cost taxpayers up to 9% more if the entire system was not privatized or the value of having a federal cso officers professionally trained and under the supervision of the united states government? >> i believe that the tsa has studies indicating that the cost of the private facilities is 3%- 9% more than what we would ultimately pay on the federal side, and that given the security needs that we have that and how we manage the t s o work force, it is much easier to have them all in one chain of command. that being said, we will work with the language and abide by the law.
12:27 am
>> i would expect you to say that madam secretary, but the law was a compromise to get a larger bill passed. i would make the point on the record that i think it is disastrous and i would hope that you would use your discretion or your authority to interact with the white house on how best to address the issue of securing the nation's airports and to make sure that is the case. i also would like to ask the question about these aip machines and the fact that there is going to be some new technology. are you familiar with the funding would need to retrofit these machines? >> yes, and we have planned for that. our expectation is the atr will be in of the machines by the end of the year. >> and now you are moving away from total dependence on contractors, and i certainly think there is value to that.
12:28 am
opportunities for work are being created and i hope will be diversified. in the course of that, small minority, and women owned businesses are in the eye of the storm. many of them have worked efficiently and effectively as contractors for the federal government. how are you seeking to make sure they are not disproportionately impacted when you move to this kind of approach? >> we continue to work on making sure that we conduct good out reached to the small business community. last year, i think almost 30% of our contract and dollars went to small businesses. what we are going to do is make sure that as we issue rfp's and so forth, that we continue to look at ways we can facilitate small business interacting with the department to try to get some of those contracts in dollars.
12:29 am
>> i look forward to meeting with you on these issues. i think this is very important >> i recognize the gentleman from new york city, mr. turner, for five minutes. >> thank you chairman. nice to see you again. earlier in the hearings, you and chairman king discussed the increased threat from iran. again, soft targets of synagogues and such in new york, a city where we have a large concentration of them. these organizations have been eligible and are eligible for the national grant program. can you tell me the status of that? >> yes we have set aside some money in the 2012 grant awards for the national preparedness --
12:30 am
for ngo's, excuse me, under the national preparedness grant program. our vision is to consolidate everything under one major grant program. that would be one of the grants consolidated. to summarize, there will be a separate car about in 2012 as we bridge to 2013. our brit -- our vision is they will be merged under one umbrella grant program. >> this year versus last year increases? >> i am not at liberty to say because the rules of the body require us to provide adequate nervous it is adequate notice. >> we will wait for that. -- require us to provide adequate notice.
12:31 am
we talked about the 287 g and the cooperation between local departments. in new york city, and i think this is in other municipalities as well, perhaps chicago, the city council has directed the department of corrections not to inform ice when a felon is released after serving his time. so we have a three-strike rule, strike one you enter the country illegally, strike to, you committed a felony. now we are giving the third opportunity in new york. is the federal government interested in this? >> yes, and there are a few communities and places around the country where for a variety
12:32 am
of reasons, secure communities has run into some opposition. 95% of the country is doing well. we will be working with these localities. cook county is one and new york city the other, seeing if we can make it clear that honoring the ice detainers allowing their to be a seamless move from incarceration and detention at the local level to our ability to remove from the country makes sense at a lot of different levels. so we will be working with those communities. >> common sense, a very uncommon commodity. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentle lady from california, miss
12:33 am
richardson, for five minutes. >> thank you for your service and the steady hand we have with this department. i first question is to build upon ms. miller's committee hearing. you spoke a little bit about your intentions of requesting the two-year extension for the 100% screening and i am sure your staff has briefed you on our concerns. i want to speak to what was set on the record, that 4% of containers that are identified through the screening process as high-risk containers are then allowed to leave foreign waters and to come here to u.s. land. my question is i realize it will take us time to get through this 100% issue, but clearly i wanted to find out what were your thoughts on what we would do to prevent those high-risk containers that go through your process that are getting to our
12:34 am
shores without being scanned or inspected. >> there are a number of things underweight in that regard to make sure that before those containers are unloaded in our ports and shipped across the country, that we ascertain what is in those high-risk containers and we know what is in them with confidence. in our ports we have individuals to look for radiological contents among other things. really from the point of time when something is put into the supply chain to the point time it is actually pu container and loaded on a ship and delivered to the united states and unloaded in the united states, there are lots of ways now in our supply chain initiative that we have the opportunity to make sure we have
12:35 am
information and have confidence in the information. if not, we have the ability to do more by way of vietor screening are scanning. >> specifically what i am asking is can you provide information to this committee that the 4% of high-risk containers were in fact stand and/or inspected prior to getting on u.s. soil, since they were not done so in the foreign? >> part of that is randomness. one of the ways we have found -- one of the ways we confound our adversaries is we always do some checking truly at random. >> the question is, of the ones that were identified as high risk and should have been properly stand or inspected had the relationships or resources been in place in those foreign ports, the question is, for
12:36 am
that 4%, what assurance do we have in this committee at as those were unloaded on u.s. soil that they were scanned and/or inspected? >> we will get that information for you. >> my other question has to do with -- you have gotten a lot of questions about the grant program and that is near and dear to all of our hearts because that is our way of ensuring our local communities that safety is there. the intent to maintain the tier system in the national grant program? >> our vision is to do things based on risk. we are not thinking of it in the same way overall that we do in other contexts, but we look at it as a primarily risk based
12:37 am
grants program. >> could we anticipate something similar to that as you evaluate risk, that you would be looking at cities and communities as they qualify of how that all along that level? >> yes. i think you can anticipate that we will be looking at the area of risk very thoroughly in terms of these grant dollars. again, i want to emphasize the president has requested in the 2013 budget moret than congress enacted last year. i know a number of you really were very strong in your opposition to the grants. you see how they actually get used out in communities and how useful they are. i am hopeful as we go through the budget process that we get more money to put into the brent spar to begin with.
12:38 am
>> can i follow up? adams secretary, i am the ranking member on emergency communications preparedness and response and fema did conduct our first national test of the emergency alert system. the test message broadcast in some areas but lady gaga ruled the day in some other areas. are you prepared to share the results with the committee at this time? >> i have not yet done a full review. that is still within the month. obviously there were some issues with the test. i have not yet consulted with lady gaga on how she achieved her results. >> are recognize the gentleman from california. >> thank you for being here and thank you for your service both
12:39 am
on the state and federal level. what we are doing here is in the backdrop of the terrible economic circumstance facing us and the budget crisis facing us. as one of the top leaders in our national defense i said a year or so ago the greatest threat to national security is the deficit. i understand have some tough decisions to make and i appreciate your emphasis on risk based analysis all the way. i will disagree with you on some things but i understand the tough job you have here. at me ask you about one area that i have specific concerns about and that is the area of cyber security. we have been working with you and others in the area and looking at the budget you submitted, there is a large increase in funding for
12:40 am
cybersecurity activities in the apartment. that seems to be focused specifically on responsibility you have of coordinating the cybersecurity efforts across different executive branch agencies and departments. yet there seems to be little in the budget for the coordination effort in cooperation with the private sector. does that indicate a lack of concern for that or a lesson priority for the responsibility -- we have been moved out of our subcommittee and hopefully will be considered by the full committee. it makes it clear that dhs would be the main focus and platform of the federal government working with the private sector on the civilian side. >> we have quite a bit in the budget for coordination with the
12:41 am
private sector. it is very important part and i appreciate the work on cyber security. i will be testifying on the senate side tomorrow on that area. it is urgent and needed and very important. i think perhaps because the court nation work across the federal family and the deployment of einstein ii and the rating of einstein ii, they can be segregated from other cyber protection activities. it is not to suggest that the work with the private sector is any less robust. >> we are starting over again in judiciary committee on the sopa act.
12:42 am
i think it is essential for us to insure the integrity of the internet and i would just ask your permission to work with your people as we work in other committees to try and get an appropriate fix, once we establish with public policy ought to be. we did not do a good enough job in understanding the technology. you have some expertise in your department and i would hope we can work with them in attempting to come up with a fix to protect against intellectual property theft, but at the same time not do unintended damage to internet security garrett kern >> we would be happy to provide technical assistance to the committee in that regard. >> thank you very much. on the area of tsa, the screen partnership program. we had the tsa appear a couple
12:43 am
of times and i think he does an overall good job. there does seem to be a plant in the department against that program, and i notice that in your budget you have a slight decrease in that program for fiscal year 2012. it has been a very small program in part because the department has been reluctant to expand it. indeed reauthorization conference report that was passed earlier this month by both the house and senate, it requires the administrator to make a decision whether or not to accept applications within 120 days of exceed it -- of receiving include. -- of receiving it. that would anticipate additional airports requesting that. i would hope there would not be the response that you don't have the budget to be able to respond
12:44 am
to those requests since i am personally aware of a number of airports that wish to at least apply for that. >> as i said earlier we understand the language in the faa reauthorization and we will seek to comply with it. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. davis is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for being here and for your testimony, and for the tremendous service that you provide to our country. i understand from the budget that for the first time a major focus of homeland security will be grant funding will be a sustainment of capability for and just to clarify and help me understand, does this mean that you intend to focus more on
12:45 am
sustainment of capabilities and will this may be over support new developments? >> it depends on what a particular community needs. it may need to buy something new, of what we have found in the past is that there used to be a prohibition on being able to pay for maine and over time. there was a constant emphasis on buying new stuff for lack of a better term. we think with $35 billion out the door, it is time to look at how we maintain those resources as well as purchasing new ones. >> would you see the sustainment
12:46 am
support as being transitional, or would it be perennial? >> again with respect to the past years that are allocated and not get out the door, we see sustainment as being part of getting those monies out the door. how that is calculated for 2013 and beyond is something we will work on with the committee. >> earlier today you testified before the house appropriations committee regarding the proposed national preparedness grant program. you explained that a small portion of the funding would be distributed based on the portion of the funding population and that the rest of the money would be awarded to grantees based on risk.
12:47 am
you suggest that the state's would expect to receive less money based on a formula funding because the program would be primarily risk based. is it your expectation that the jurisdictions that currently receive the bulk of money pursuant to risk assessment would receive the same or even more support under the new program? >> again, it depends. i do not want to be premature in saying how the awards will be given now but unless a higher risk jurisdiction somehow becomes a low risk, that would be the conclusion. >> the budget proposes $650 million to fund important research and development advances in cybersecurity
12:48 am
explosives detecting, and chemical biological response systems. both chicago and new york have had some problems. how do you see -- how optimistic are you that these new technologies that program are going to help rectify those problems? >> again, it depends but by focusing the research and development dollars to three or four areas, with which we plan to do and are doing we have actually stopped about 100 different programs and projects in order to focus and concentrate. we think we raise the odds we will get some significant are better technologies. the research cycle is not 01 or 2-year cycle, but over time. >> thank you very much. we have noted what i think to be some rather important
12:49 am
advances, and again, we appreciate your work. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes. >> thanks for sitting here. i know you have been here a long time. i appreciate your patience. this is my second round of the president's budget request and budget hearings, and it has been an eye opening experience for me. one thing i am reminded of is that washington loves to talk with flourishes. it generally calls for more bureaucracy as the answer to problems. how is the public -- how is it the rhetoric is so at odds with the actual action? guarding against terrorism was the founding mission of homeland security and remains our top priority. you state the importance of border security but cbp has no
12:50 am
plans to build any additional miles of fencing. it does not use operational control as a measurement and fails to include an alternative standard to measure its effectiveness. in the budget proposal, the coast guard eliminate 1056 personnel including active-duty personnel and 772 people from the front line operational units. and it decommissions numerous front line operational units which lessens the interdiction of illegal aliens, the amount drug captured. this budget request will result in a reduction of 10% of all of the 110 foot patrol boat operations. you talk about the importance of partner in with other countries the round of world, yet you include no funding to expand the visa waiver program to provide additional screening in high- risk countries. yet your departmental management
12:51 am
operation and pressed a $10 million increase. your own personal budget includes a million dollar increase from fiscal year 2012, and you transferred and combined three other offices including an office of international affairs with 44 positions and a budget of $8 million, with no explanation as to what they will do who they will answer to, and that is about $180,000 per employee. my question is, how can you justify taking people away from the bill with regard to the coast guard and other areas to create duplicity with the work that the state department does? there are a lot of things within the office of international affairs that i would think the state department is already doing, so there is some redundancy and duplicity. if you could justify that for me. >> the budget does sustain all
12:52 am
the existing plus-ups and personnel. our numbers speak for themselves trippi we have not seen this few illegal immigrant at 10th at that border since the 1970's. numbers continue to go down. let me ask you, do you think the economy has anything to do with the number of illegals wanted to come here for work? correct the record we also have is that with the added personnel and equipment, and allows us to do a lot more. i go down there regularly. i will be going back in the next couple of days and i will go to arizona and south texas. to request allows us to sustain those very strong efforts. with respect to the coast guard we are not laying off any one or
12:53 am
removing anyone. what we are doing is not filling some attritted positions. that fall within had quarterstaff some of the recruitment staff that are unnecessary, but again the front-line personnel that i think you are thinking about. what was that third one? >> we were just talking about some of the duplicity in the international affairs office. >> we have an enormous international portfolio. most people don't realize but we actually have personnel in 75 countries right now. they do everything from screening cargo they work in airports, they do training mission, they do a whole host of
12:54 am
activities that we are required to do. one of the things we have been focused on is pushing of the work of the department out from the actual physical borders of the united states to other places in the world. it has a number of benefits. it maximizes our opportunity to interrupt something, but also takes some of the pressure off the line at our airports and land ports. that international work has become more and more important at the department has matured. >> i appreciate you not taking people out of the field the front line operatives. i understand the need to trim budgets and personnel but the taxpayers expect us to make sure that every dollar is accounted for and spent wisely eric cantor that was the purpose of the line of questioning. having visited the port with ms.
12:55 am
miller in baltimore and seeing what the coast guard is doing, i appreciate the efforts to keep our country safe. thank you. >> madam secretary you have been here for well over two hours and i want to thank you very much. or the record, mr. smith had to leave this hearing. he had three questions he would like responses to it possible by the end of february. i submit them to the record with unanimous consent and without objection. in october 2011, there was a select group of mexico based trucking carriers allowed access threw out the united states. section 703 of the sake port act requires the secretary of homeland security and secretary of transportation to draft guidelines for cross border trucking no later than april 2008.
12:56 am
the department has yet to issue those guidelines. last year we road and oversaw a letter to you expressing security concerns about the pilot, and january 20 you said that back to us and said you anticipate a timely resolution of the issue. can you provide a time line when you can expect the department to issue these guidelines? how has it impacted the volume of trucks at the border, and to the extent you can disclose in an open setting are the mexico based carrier's subject to significant levels of additional scrutiny, and does the presence of mexican trucks and personnel with access throughout the united states result in any additional vulnerability, and if so, how is this mitigated?
12:57 am
the gps device allows for remote monitoring of the vehicles. how do you collaborate ensuring that the relative dps components have access? >> why don't we get back to you. some of that requires us going into some classified information, but i will be happy to send you something in writing, if you wish. >> with that, i yield to the gentleman from mississippi, the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, at several hearings we talked about recruitment and the concern that a lot of people, through no fault of their own receive reimbursements for expenses. what we needed was some clarity
12:58 am
on whether or not those individuals would be pursued for possible prosecution. i think other saw that issue too, and i like to thank your operation for understanding the sensitivity of what those many families went through during katrina, and some several years later received a bill, and the fact that since you now have devised a notification procedure and some appeal procedure i would encourage you to make that as robust as possible so that individuals who probably do not have the money to pay back can pursue the
12:59 am
waiver provisions of it, and i would encourage you to be as aggressive in public-service announcements and a lot of other organizations who worked with many of those families to include them in part of the strategy so that they can not become victims of a system that was not designed to make them victims. so i would encourage you to look at that. >> yes, i appreciate that. we have the ability now to grant waivers for these disasters katrina and rita being among them. the met is preparing a process now. a think what -- fema is preparing that process now. >> the other issue basically
110 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on