falo 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. >> 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 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. >> 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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 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 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. >> 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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. >> 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. 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. >> 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. 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. >> 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 -- 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. 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 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 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 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 put in a 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 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 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 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. >> 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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? 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 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 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 we have spent billions of dollars looking at by a metric entrance and exit systems. that is still, i believe the wish of a lot of us that somehow we should perfect this and make it part of the system. the uc that happening at some point? -- do you see that happening at

some point? >> i think it entry is a possibility. but exit is a different kettle of fish. one reason it is up the ports are not designed to have biometric equipment and the exit lanes. that will be a very expensive process. to compensate for that, we are as you know, making a visit to cbt. we want to get greater leverage out of those resources that we have but cbp at the exit stage with ice but we have also combined a number of different data bases for a very layered and robust biographical information at the exit stage.

it is not the same as biometric but it is very close to the same and we think that will be a good bridge until ultimately biometric becomes feasible to do. >> the gentlemen yields back. with some trepidation i yield to the gentle lady from texas one question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your courtesy. madam secretary, i sit on two subcommittees that both deal with the issue of cargo, the transportation security committee, and the border committee that deals with land and the ports. i am frankly disappointed and concerned about what we have come to, in light of the situations dealing with not doing it 100% cargo inspection. my question, i heard an earlier

answer but a clearer understanding -- my question is with the concern as it relates to air cargo and the lack of 100% inspection, can we and will use at actual time frames with which we could work together as a committee and department to see what the alternatives are or, in fact, to see whether or not on how to% cargo inspection is still viable -- whether or not 100% cargo inspection is still viable even if the deadline is pushed back? that i was talking about the maritime environment. with respect to air cargo we are at the stage of 1/2% of cargo put on passenger planes, leaving from u.s. domestic airports whether they are leaving on a domestic flight or international flight. >> that is what i wanted you to clarify. >> yes, and we did not do screening at international

airports so we are working with the international airports for foreign flag carriers to cover the higher risks from abroad. >> and the other aspect, you will work with the committee? the other aspect of screening? >> screening and/or scanning. at all right thank you. i yield back. >> madam secretary thank you for your testimony today. thank you for accommodating our schedule. sorry for the like, we were on the floor voting. thank you for your testimony and if members of the committee have additional questions, we ask you to respond to those in writing. it without objection, the committee stands adjourned. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> at 9:30 a.m. eastern, the senate energy committee hears from energy secretary stephen to. at 2:00 eastern, treasury secretary testifies before the budget committee. you can watch both events live. "washington journal" is next with your phone calls and today's session of the u.s. house. to morning business, members are expected to continue work on an oil exploration bill. in about 45 minutes, we will talk with congressman barney frank and the co-authors of the book "