we have got to get past this political correctness. we have to focus on those who would harm us. it is starting to take intelligence from people on the ground to do so. as well as those that try to prevent these kinds of attacks. mr. chairman? >> mr. clark is recognized for five minutes. >> [inaudible] >> i do not think it your microphone is working. i do not think that it is being picked up. sorry. try the of the microphone. >> all right. >> is it turned on? >> all right.

[laughter] >> this one was just used by mr. richardson. this is yours? we will go from clark to clark. >> thank you, mr. chair. secretary, thank you again for recognizing and protecting the system for the key priority of the illustration. as you are well aware -- well aware, this is a high risk area. if the underwear bomber had been successful, a huge commercial aircraft would have blown up over metropolitan detroit. my concern is how to best warn

the public about an imminent danger like this so that they can take cover immediately. i feel that one of the most reliable ways to do so is to alert the public through the free vocal broadcasting media tv and radio. while many people in detroit rely on televisions, there are economic issues facing the region. many are struggling financially. we are looking to stop the evictions of homeowners currently in foreclosure. many households cannot afford cable, but they do have commercial television broadcasting accessible to them. many folks have cell phones.

when our power grid was shut down and a blackout was introduced, many wireless networks became overloaded and we could not communicate with our cell phones. it is important to have access to radio broadcasting through cell phones. holding a hearing to examine how we can best alert the public by continuing free and local television broadcasting, enhancing the public access to radio broadcasting. any thoughts on how we can best alert the public, by continuing to offer free local television and enhance radiobroadcasting? >> we have done quite a bit of

work in this area. the fact of the matter is that we have used multiple media to get your message out. as you have noted, cell phones go out for radio and television. there are other ways that people receive information through and there has been quite a lot of work done here. >> thank you. a look forward to making sure our public has access to free local broadcasting television and radio. thank you very much. >> regarding the question about media, the training that is being done is in local communities.

part of that training involves law enforcement and their response to that kind of incident, but also the messaging that goes on in the event of an attack and the actual workshops that run through the exercise through capability in those communities. >> thank you. mr. chair? >> wheeled back the gentle lady -- to the gentle lady from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. hopefully this microphone is working. you have asked a number of excellent questions today. i would mention that the subcommittee i am sharing has had a number of hearings about this. i will give you a line from the testimony that we had. it is in the 1 digit numbers.

it has been explained to our subcommittee that the costs of compliance would be 15 million to $20 million. the house just recently passed a piece of legislation that really talks about the risk based assessments and etc., but that is not my question. my question is -- i want to ask you a question about the overstatement. in the subcommittee some of the things that have been startling is we have thought about the amount of illegal aliens in the country. everyone seems to assume that they somehow came across the desert. but the truth is that 40% of the illegals in the country currently came through virtually our front door. we saw that with the recent capitol suicide attempts over the last decade.

certainly it was the case with 9/11, more were guaranteed overstay. i am wondering if you can talk a little bit about the criteria for your department's. when you discover and overstay someone that you think might be a high-level risk, and you support them because of those criteria. in some cases someone might have been even pulled over for a routine traffic stop. i do have concerns about that and wonder if you can address them. >> i think that i have explained in many settings that we have said many priorities. we have resources, but not an endless pocketbook.

we have focused on criminals, recent border crossers, repeat violators, and others who may be a national security risk. that process is going very well. with respect to visa overstay, i had elected that we go back to identify that population and that it against law enforcement and intelligence community holdings. as we did that, we learned that quite a few of them actually had left the country. we have now completed that and priority cases have been referred. >> i appreciate that, actually. there has been a backlog of several hundred thousand that

has been eliminated. >> good to hear that. >> one question that i would have, as the community has ruled out almost everywhere around the country now, which has been tremendous for the first responders when you look at the various agencies under your umbrella, eliminating those court recordings through secure communities, you can still see that there are several areas, cities in california, as well as alabama -- but that will be rectified by a october. i think the people of alabama look forward to that. what has received a particular

amount of attention is cook county. they have declined to participate, but federal law, do secure the community. hi wondering if you have had a conversation with the department of justice about that. something they would have had initially is the state criminal assistance program -- alien assistance program. they're saying -- which you mind giving us secure federal money? if you continue to give them the funding, i guess i would look respectfully for how we could do that.

>> this is a department of justice program. we are evaluating all of those options. it even precluded those communities from sharing any information with us to make sure that they were released back into the community for possible removal. it was a very broad ordinance. >> i appreciate that. i think it is a bad message to be sending to everyone in the country, to look at those kinds of things, and i would hope that you and the attorney general would work together to bring that and resolve for everyone to make sure that if there are violators in the system, they need to be dealt with. >> the time has expired.

we now recognize the new ranking member for a moment. >> thank you. i just passed by one year anniversary in congress last week, look at me now. [laughter] thank you, chairman. there is a theme going on in this hearing this morning. many of you are aware of that. there is the issue of cargo scanning and screening. certainly it is an issue that still concerns a lot of us. where much or, the cargo in this country comes through, congress passed a law that required 100% standing by

july 14. that has come and gone and you have indicated fairly strongly that that is not going to happen, probably. even with a waiver. the first thing we ever had in here was the 9/11 report card. i remember asking, simply, or we do enough to import security? we recall that it was an area where we were still lacking and on that, with the chairman's help, we were able to pass that a couple of weeks ago. we asked the department of homeland security to take a comprehensive look again at our nation's port and the gaps that may exist and comeback and tell

us in a classified setting, you know, where are the gaps? what can we do in the future to collect those? i know you have spoken about this a lot, but did you discuss or elaborate on -- give us some comfort as to where you see us going, particularly with the scanning of our containers. i know that a big issue is the economy, jobs, and commerce. we do not want to tear that down yet. one is a major force that could actually cripple our economy. where do you see this going, the technology that emerges, without slowing down the congress? >> i think that as the representative heard with

regards to nuclear type material, there are technologies and things in play -- i will not go into the unclassified settings. obviously it we have paid a lot of attention to the port. we obviously think that a higher percentage rule is not the only way to reach the goal here. we are also more than willing to work with the committee on the safety level of america's courts. one thing these said was that there is one thing that happens, art -- armageddon will occur. i think that one of the hallmarks of really being prepared for these incidences is the ability to get right back to work soon. you will see that a lot of our work has to do with precise

resilience. >> i agree and hope that that is part of which maybe bring back to congress, a better plan for all of us. let me switch quickly to airports. i know that the los angeles international airport, we have a big issue with unacceptable high wait times for people entering. we were able to get 20 more officers there, which was specifically requested. could you speak to long-term staff shortages and how that will be addressed in the future? >> if we look at the fiscal year 2014 budget now, in the conference of the other restrictions and the number of

hours that we have for inspections, looking at the staff model, seeing if we can adjust that, we have had problems at other big international airports. all that i can say is that we are doing everything we can think to do to rectify that situation. >> thank you very much. >> i know that a number of airlines coming in and out of jfk do feel the same in terms of the shortage of customers. >> mr. chairman, one of the things we have requested in connection with the fiscal year 2013 budget is for us to receive participation and payment from airlines and port authorities. say that some airline wants to bring in a 3:00 a.m. flight from china, they have subsidized that

cost. there are other ways that can work. things that i hope the committee can help us with. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> do not let john boehner hear that. >> i was hoping that you're kind goodness would produce something for the future for me as well. thank you, mr. chairman. let me go back. there have been leaks in this administration. we do not know who, we do not know why. but there have been. to rehearse the list, there have been strikes against al qaeda, pakistan, and yemen. leaks concerning the reported cyber-campaign. leaks that included terrorist

plans to destroy american airliners. leaks of the details of cia and special operations forces. and others. i guess what i want to ask, madam secretary, director, were dhs or ncts consulted in advance of these disclosures? >> well, we certainly were not consulted. as far as i know, nothing within nctc was involved in any of the leaks that she referred to. i think that for us, congressman, the main point, without getting into the specifics of the allegations, this is something that we, specifically, within the counter-terrorism sector, had

made a number of comments about, publicly. the importance of this issue and the reality that leaks have the potential to interfere with ongoing operations, endangering the lives of american officials. so, it is something that within the intelligence community and know we take extraordinarily seriously. -- i know we take extraordinarily seriously. >> we had promised our full cooperation for whenever investigations occurred. also with the fbi. >> what is your position on -- have these disclosures impacted national security veil >> they're certainly not helpful. i will just leave it there for now.

>> that is what i would say as well. this can be very damaging. these leaks are now the subject of investigation. >> let me move on to that. you are both former senior prosecutors. the attorney general has refused bipartisan requests to appoint special counsel to investigate these explosions and instead rely on prosecutors to do the job. in your professional opinion, is it realistic to expect a u.s. attorney to question senior members of the administration regarding these explosions? -- exposures? >> as a former united states attorney, they are not presidentially appointed or senate confirmed. they act independently in a number of matters.

that is a prudent way to proceed. >> i agree. >> you do not see that it would be a challenge for a person in this position to question senior members of the obama administration? >> i anticipate that there will be several investigations, and they will involve members of the ministration. as i said before, we have pledged our full support. >> we will all be cooperating with the investigation. >> i have asked questions of the attorney general in number of times and have received no answer. i would appreciate getting answers, but we can all work with what we have. >> we do have confidence in the

u.s. attorney's office to carry out these investigations. >> so, when you serve at the u.s. attorney for national security division, you would have authorized to take sworn testimony from the president's national security adviser? >> i am not sure that it is appropriate for me to comment on a hypothetical like that. >> my time has expired. thank you. >> gentleman from arizona, five minutes. >> thank you for the welcome. thank you so much for your testimony, madam secretary, mr. olson. i appreciate it very much.

subsequently, i am honored to be here, to add my voice, an arizona voice, to this committee, to discuss something that we all share, increased security worries for our citizens. as you know, there have been anecdotal reports regarding material evidence on the presence of terrorists along the southern border. my question is, is there any credible evidence that these reports are accurate and that terrorists are in fact crossing our southern border with the intent to do harm to the american people? >> first of all, welcome to the committee. good to see you here in washington, d.c.. with respect, there have been a number that i would refer to that are currently being adjudicated within criminal court.

we are constantly working against different and evolving threats involving various terrorist groups attempting to enter the country. what i can tell you is that the southern border, the u.s.-mexico border, is heavily, heavily staffed. a record amount of manpower, material, infrastructure and the light. we are constantly making sure that we're doing everything we can to make the border as safe as possible. >> thank you. >> the chairman from arizona at yields back. >> thank you. can you hear me? thank you. >> thank you to the gentleman. >> you are welcome. thank you for being here today. last time we had a little bit of

an exchange and i said the last word would be ffdo. would you care to comment on that? >> i think it plays a part in air pass security, which involves multiple layers of making exchanges. we have talked about the cockpit door. >> it was referred to as the last line of defense. >> the last line of defense in that regard, but i would say that trained personnel know how to respond and are always, always an important factor. >> today in testimony you said that regarding risk analysis, which we talked about last time as well, you said it was not prudent. that said, given the different layers of security that we just talked about, where a person can

come through the normal security process, in this hearing room we heard not long ago about the various holes around the aircraft and in the shadow of the aircraft, where people could possibly leave devices. with that understanding that a person comes through the air for a clean can hookup with a device on the aircraft and plant it on the tarmac, we see a lot of problems. i see the program as being absolutely vital, with 1.5 million sorties being flown annually. i think that that is one of your keys. as a pilot that flew for 17 years, i can assure you that

federal officers are not only the last line of defense, but a chief deterrent for those who want to use the aircraft as a human guided missile. -- the house also voted to increase this funding. proposals brought up by the administration basically cut the program in half, essentially eliminating it. will this administration works to clear the backlog for increased funding? call >> first of all, the reason the administration submitted that budget report, we are all working under severe constraints and the program, compared to the air marshal program, is not a risk based program. that is what that decision was made. certainly, if that appropriation

goes through, we will work to make sure the program as well run. >> your intention is not to phase out the program? >> we will see what happens. >> i will ask you again, to make sure that i understand what you're telling me. if the program is not run out of the level of funding that is approved by congress, it is your intent not to phase out the program? >> if there is funding for the program, it will be carried out. yes, sir. >> switching gears, members of -- members of fort hood have been denied for parts on the basis of the judgment that it was in workplace violence. in your opinion, but before her

shooter described himself as a soldier of allah, an agent of al qaeda, and to cry ou who cried h akaber? >> i will say that an act can be a terrorist act and silent at the same time and this has the hallmarks of both. >> do you think that these service members deserve the purpleheart? >> i have described how we would look at that act. >> you would classify it as a terrorist act? >> as both. >> one being a terrorist act. my time has expired, i will yield back. >> the gentleman yields back.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, madam secretary, director, for both being here. madam secretary, i wanted to ask you a question, hoping you could work through a problem with us that i am sure you are aware of. somehow this just keeps getting passed from person to person. this have to do with a border crossing on the border of california and mexico. my mother grew up in mexicali, so i am very aware of that area. they have some of the best chinese food in the world, by the way. there is a new and expanded border crossing going between the two.

one of the hallmarks of mexicali is that in december it can easily get to 110 degrees. people are waiting to cross the border there for up to three hours, with no shade, standing in line. that is the pedestrian crossing. so, there is an effort to make a crossing that which all of the mexican side of the crossing has been built. meanwhile, we have failed to move from our end to get this land bridge opened. part of the problem is that it is a gsa facility. i understand this. how do we do what we need to do? it is still so that we can meet the mexican side and so that commerce can move at a faster pace than three hours in line

and people crossing back and forth -- we need them for work and family purposes, and purchasing purposes also. how do we do that? will you work with us? get the same meeting with the administrator? can we all sit down? this is a very big, frustrating problem for the people in that area. >> i concur. the physical ports along the southwest border, many of them are inadequate for going back and forth. probably the number-one thing that you can do is apply funding to support the projects. we will be happy to work with you. >> as a matter from the board of supervisors in imperial valley on the border, they have less for some resolution to this.

it is incredibly embarrassing to see a brand new built facility from mexico having done their part with nothing happening on our side. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania? he is recognized for five minutes. >> let me thank both panelists for your distinguished service to our country. i appreciate it when you come here and i appreciate the service to you perform for our nation each day. i know the some questions have been of great importance to meet. let me start with you, first. mr. olson. you know, you're there every day.

do you believe that the bobo karam should be designated a terrorist organization? >> we have certainly seen the rise over the last several years. particularly over the last year, if you recall. >> i am aware. the record reflects that. do you believe that they should be a foreign terrorist organization? >> that is the question. to designate the group within the province of the state. >> what do you believe? i am having trouble getting an answer. >> our role is to provide intelligence on that group, of some of the. from the sheer perspective of the definition of terrorism, it

engages in acts of terrorism in nigeria. >> the me take a second and just ask, madam secretary, your opinion on this? >> i have to concur with the director and everything that he said. >> let me go through. i am not kidding the ability for the state department to make a decision. but they a for an organization ? really, the question is -- is there terrorist activity a threat to u.s. national security? either foreign relations or economic interests. mr. " -- mr. olson, you testified that they remained focused on local and regional

attacks. you further testified that they are primarily focused on attacks against nigeria, but in april the publicly threatened to attack the u.s. space news -- u.s.-based news -- u.s.-based news outlet. according to my interpretation of your testimony, this meets all criteria for the designation of a foreign terrorist organization. would you agree? >> i would not say that the acts meet the criteria in terms of terrorists and ultimately the decision of whether to designate the group is a policy call. >> why would we not do that? madam secretary, i'm sure you

appreciate, as i do, the ability on all of these parts to have testimony as well. most significantly there is a letter from the department of justice looking to speak to the deputy attorney general saying specifically that they would represent the specific concerns and hopes that this would be accomplished. general ham has talked himself about the concerns that he and others are collaborating. given those facts, why would they not designate them as a foreign terrorist organization? >> representative, that is a good question. >> well, i appreciate that.

but i think the facts speak for themselves. for the record, my concern is that we took the same stance with ccp and aqap and did not designate them until after they attempted to carry out terrorism in the united states. madam secretary, are we doing enough to try to deal with the the issue of the? can we do more? -- of visa overstay. can we do more? >> we are open to ideas or suggestions and other things that we do. from a department standpoint, for the last 13 months quite a

bit has been done to look at that. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> madam secretary, i have just been informed that you have to leave, but we have four members left. >> thank you, mr. chairman. last week we talked a lot about your june 15 memo. one thing that wheat -- did not talk about, and i have spoken to a number of sheriff's in the southeastern arizona area, they have been talking about reports where they turned illegal entry profiles back south, so they did not pose a threat. with the on cent of the ordinance of your memo, and i

recently got a copy of the memo, saying to be used with prosecutorial discretion. they are, again, prioritizing people as being in terrorist organizations or could present a threat of smuggling. they say you can exercise discretion when it is confirmed that the alien does not fall within the categories. they list a number of different examples or key factors where they took into account taking them back rather than processing them. one of them is the likelihood of a temporary permanent status as removed from rule or the tied to their home country provision.

one of the things they are allowed to do is have voluntary return and things they have encountered along the border. how is it that these agents will be able to determine these different factors if they are adjusting countering them when they're making those entries between the ports? >> what they do, and i think we can provide you with a briefing on line, but i think what they do is they bring the illegal alien to the central center. we need to distinguish when they make a referral or when there are constant applications along the border with respect to the attention and movement back to the country of origin. that is different than i think what you're thinking of. we do not do turned away at the border.

>> this actually does say that they have within the enforcement context a broad range of decisions that are included to but not limited to the following regarding ports of entry and voluntary return. >> that is right. that is not turned away. it means to maintain the border control -- border patrol process. >> but this says language, which does matter within these memos. it says that even though the review should be made at the second line supervisor level, it does not say that it must be made. the agent at that time of apprehension actually processed the individual and had the voluntary return to where they came from. that is the disturbing thing that has been saved from this memo, that they have the ability

and discretion that was not given to the statutory authority. >> i think that that is inaccurate, and we will be happy to provide you with specifics on that. >> but it says that initial exercise discretion review should be made. if you are an attorney, you know that language matters. using a sure to, these are the things and are troubling when we try to grasp this legislation here and avoid the enforcement of laws. having prosecutorial discretion, we will leave that the work climate for welfare,

even when we put these you must waive it for you cannot do it, the executive branch continues to say they have discretion. if you could just answer -- where do they get this discretion to have the ability to have the voluntary removal of the legal interests when it is not stated by any statutory authority. >> your question, representative, i could not identify a prosecutor or former prosecutor who would tell you that they did not have discretion. that is why attorney's offices typically do not do check cashing cases. you have to force the law in a strong manner, they were more

aggravated. >> the jones time has expired. understand that the witness may have to leave before we finish. the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i stepped out of the room to speak to some students from joplin, missouri. i wanted to thank you for your efforts regarding the tornado and my constituents. you all were exemplary and

unwavering, and steadfast. i want to thank you for that. i do have a couple of questions on today's issue. the representative, a while ago, was asking you about the fort hood shooting. in his questioning about the shooting, he pointed out that they were e-mail in the second leading terrorist and his question, as i understood it, was -- how was this missed? how could people not look into it when you have got a major leading terrorist group in this country, and i hope i was wrong in understanding your answer, but to me your answer was that what is going on as a society,

we need to be more concerned route that and will lead to violent extremism. >> those constituents are amazing. with respect to that, i would say that within the universe of zero violent extremism it would need to have a very strong community based early warnings tactics, behaviors, and techniques that could be employed. i hope the you did not interpret my answer as suggesting some sort of sociology issue. clearly, questions to be learned.

with respect to that tragedy, all of us are going to be reading the report with a great tension. >> as has been thoroughly gone through to see where the jobs were not correct -- not connected and why. he was talking to the second leading terrorist. has anyone said that they could not get into that, because it was a civil right or a civil liberty? i am concerned for a rights of the people ever killed. >> we all have copies of that situation now. >> i would like you to add, the

fort hood tragedy continues to be a touch point for us as an event that we need to learn from on how to share that type of information and make sure that it represents the hub of the kind of information. we need to continue to make sure that those types of communications find their way into the hands of individuals who can take action. but again, the webster report is one of the after action report says, but it is all part of the overall effort. >> let me get back to my second question for the secretary. however you pronounce the name, on that visit to the white house last month, apparently testified

that he had been true 3 vetting processes -- through three my question is this -- when he has been vetted a third time, those people who did that. this guy had it on his facebook page. do we do that? do we go back to those people and say -- how did you miss this? and what happens, and will be will see from the arab spring, and other developments, is that

organizations named terrorist in the past, all the members may or may not be terrorists themselves. that is what needs to be looked at. these organizations and parties have evolved considerably. we have seen this historically as well. if the question is, united stat- did somebody get into the white house who was whovetted? -- was not vetted? no. we can absolutely look at that. >> i am not interested in the process. i am interested individuals that did the vetting. if my friend mr. duncan did the vetting, i want someone to go to it -- i do not care if it was not on the list. i would like to hear that from

the guy who did the vetting to tell me, the reason i did not like that he is a member of a known terrorist organization, because after the arab spring are we have taken that group off -- the arab spring, we have taken that group off. if mr. duncan is held accountable, then when something like this comes up, we might protect our citizens a little bit more. does that not make sense? >> representative, that particular case has been looked at. there were no mistakes made in the vetting. >> three separate vettings and no mistakes. a guy had on his facebook page that he was a member of unknown terrorist organization -- of a known terrorist organization and he was at the white house. >> i will provide more

information offline. >> i would not want to see a flow chart of all of your responsibilities. you have an extremely complicated and tough job. i appreciate what you do. sometimes, it is little things that matter. i just cannot get through my head that three groups of people vetted this fellow and on his facebook page -- >> it began with the state department. this is a state department sponsored trip to bring individuals who are now going to be potentially part of the leadership of a country with whom we have dealings to washington, d.c. and it was vetted at every appropriate time. >> i would like to hear from the people hooted the vetting. aussies for your testimony -- from the people who did the vetting. thank you for your testimony. >> the organization may have devolved, but it is on the

foreign terrorist organization list -- have evolved, but it is on a foreign terrorist organization list. it should not have had your name or mrs. clinton boss' name on it. mr. duncan is recognized. mr. duggan is not on the terrorist watch list. -- mr. duncan is not on the terrorist watch list. >> i appreciate you continuing down that path. i think it is very important. i would like to have -- hear somebody from this administration and not been made a mistake and own up to it and seek some disciplinary action if necessary. madam secretary, you're the secretary of homeland security. somebody who is a member of a foreign terrorist organization coming into this country is absolute your responsibility. the buck stops right there. homeland security is something that i know you take a grave responsibility for. we take very seriously on this committee and in congress.

let me just say that is not the path i wanted to go down and i will stop right there. in the final report of the webster commission on the -- and the fbi and event at fort hood that was recently released, at the time of the attack, the fbi did not have access to all the relevant d.o.d. databases. they did not have access to search for relevant information on major hasan. were they not checking all of the databases because there were so many of them? agents had not received formal training on how to use them. some did not even know that certain data bases existed. even when putting in a query for information on major hasan, the databases did not produce all of the relevant information necessary for clarity on that case. i know the fbi is a separate organization, but -- in 2009, you broke ground on a $3.4 billion facility housing 15,000

employees, the largest building products in the district of columbia region in 68 years, since the pentagon was built. you said we would have 1 dhs atmosphere. the dhs has a large amount of data bases. each of them does not look to be linked to a central database with the google-like interface allows and a simultaneous searching of all the relevant data bases within dhs' system. in january, 2010, the fbi employed this data visualization integration system, dvis. the webster report points out very clearly that the washington field office and pfo -- i am not sure which office that was -- did not search the dwi as, -- dwis, or these others, although he was a member of the -- it has

been redacted. it goes on to say that -- let me finest. at the time of the fort hood shootings, each database was using discrete search engines and passwords. you are not supposed to write your password down. it is a frustrating system for everyone involved at every level, not just in your agency, but every agency within the federal government. the historical evolution of the multiple fbi and other u.s. intelligence community databases as discrete platforms has impeded the fbi and the ability to access electronically-stored information in an efficient manner. in this one dhs mindset that you talk about, does dhs have any plans to expedite a similar

process to dvis for consolidating and integrating information? we have folks coming in on the says. we cannot know when they leave the country because there is not -- in on visas. we do not know when in the country because there is not enough information sharing. this goes back to the 9/11 commission report. the territorial disputes, the turf wars of agencies responsible for protecting this country have got to end. secretary of the department of homeland security, it is your responsibility. i will wait for an answer. >> well, representative, first of all, as you correctly note, those are comments made by the webster report as to the fbi. let me comment as to dhs. and extend an invitation to you. we have done a massive amount of work over the last three and a half years, particularly since the christmas day bombing attempt in 2009, to unify

databases and do so in such a fashion. data comes from all over the place. you need the data, but you need some analytics with it, or else the data is just there. there is so much of it matter olsen -- much of it. matt olsen and speaks to that. you can see how we can process and analyze 1.8 million to 2 million passengers per day as they seek to fly into this country or around this country. data can always be improved. it is never perfect. i am not saying that it is. what i am saying is i do not think there is a recognition by the committee at of how much work is actually being done, with the committee's support. >> do you have to go from one system to another? is there no cross sharing? >> your time has expired.

we will be finished in 10 minutes. if you could both state. the jump from alabama, mr. -- the gentleman from alabama. >> it is good to see you here. i appreciate your service and your recent visit to alabama, the center for domestic preparedness. we really do know it is difficult for you to make those visits. i appreciate it. you are aware that last wednesday, the subcommittee -- the tsa subcommittee had mr. wilson, the head of the general aviation department, along with someone from gao, testify about a study not just completed about white school training -- testify about a study that was just completed about flight school training. the report was upsetting. it showed that this has been a very -- it will not go into the

number -- but not an unusual occurrence. it made several recommendations. gentleman from the tsa acknowledged all the recommendations were accurate and that his department had started working on repairing several of them. on the very next day, you testified and disagreed. can you tell me why you disagreed with the gao report and mr. wilson? >> the disagreement was on another point, but with respect to the gao report, the flight school that it was focused on in those -- as of 2010 and before. what i was taking note of was that we had already fixed that problem.

what we had not done and which is what the gao recommended was institutionalizing away with it memorandums of understanding. that is in process now. >> you were talking in regard to that one school, not across the flight school system? >> with respect to the flight school system. >> after your testimony, we reached out to jail. they said that is flatly not provable. -- we reached out to gao. they said that it is flatly not provable. >> what we had done is a practice that was not committed to writing. it is in the process of being drafted. >> that was not their observation. i would love to get at reconciled. it is disturbing. we are 10 years after 9/11 and we have evidence that, on a regular basis, people are in this country illegally and they can get a flight school training. >> respectfully, if you have

such evidence, please share it with us. if we have any problems, we want to fix them. >> we will share it with you. i would like these things reconciled. i take this stuff very seriously, as you know. i missed part of this hearing. i understand that they raise the issue about u.s. citizens -- they raise the issue about u.s. citizens and those who are here legally being able to get flight training. i agree with the effort to remedy this. i want to take a little bit more time to study what we need to do. i asked the crs to look at this. they say you already have the power, that the secretary can designate an individual or a category of individuals that must be vetted under current statutes. but i understand you told him that you probably do need some additional statutory authority. >> what i told the

representative was that it would be nice to tidy it up. there is a lack of clarity. with three spect -- with respect to discover when somebody is on the no-fly list as a u.s. prison, we have -- with respect to this, when somebody is on the no-fly list as a u.s. person, we have not formally that it or pay them against the system -- we have not formally that divettedr pinged them against the system until they apply for their license. >> we found that some just want to take off and fly. they were not interested in getting their license. we want to make sure if somebody is applying for training, whether they are in this country or not legally, they should have to be balanced against the no- fly list. we want to add that in. i would work with you on any proposed language. we will work to get that done.

>> indeed. >> the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for five minutes. that will close the hearing. >> i appreciate your flexibility in allowing me to participate in the hearing. secretary, i am a former eod tech. i'm very concerned about the threat to our national-security from these devices. despite repeated requests, state and local police bomb squad to remain without the, electronic the jammers, -- without the electronic countermeasures, the jammers, that i used to protect against these. -- that are used to protect against these. we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to give these to afghanistan and pakistan. according to a gao report, half of them will collect dust in storage. what is your plan to help local and police -- local and state

police bomb squads? >> we meet with them all the time. i meet with them when i travel around the country. i have never heard the issue about the jammers raised. i will be happy to look into it. >> i hear it a lot. being chairman of the d.o.d. caucus here in the house, they have raised that to me. -- of the eod caucus here in the house, they have raised that to me. your attention would be greatly appreciated on that. >> thank you for raising that. >> thank you, secretary napolitano and director olsen, your time, your testimony, and your answers. for the record, members of the committee may submit additional questions to witnesses and we will ask for responses in writing. the record will be held for 10 days. this meeting stands adjourned. [gavel] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] and tomorrow, the director of the white house drug control policy discusses the obama administration's efforts to combat drug trafficking in the americas. in 2010, the white house shifted its focus to prevention and treatment rather than law enforcement. we will be life from the center for strategic and international studies beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. but it was clear that when that -- >> it was clear that when the eighth amendment was ratified, the eighth amendment -- the death penalty was not considered to be prohibited. indeed, the death penalty existed in all the states and was the only penalty for a felony. for somebody today to say that somehow the american people have prohibited the states by ratifying the constitution -- they have prohibited the states

from applying the death penalty, i do not know where this comes from. the american people never did any such thing. >> supreme court associate justice antonin scalia reflects on over 25 years on the bench in interpreting legal documents in his latest "reading law." tonight at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." . rights in china continue to deteriorate according to michael posner. he briefed reporters at the state market after a -- at the state department after the annual u.s.-china dialogue. this is about 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. thank you for joining us. as you know, we have a special briefing today by assistant secretary of state michael posner to talk about are just completed annual dialogue with china on human rights. without further ado.

>> thanks, tori. before i begin, i want to say how much we welcome the appointment of by the european union of a new position, a special representative for human rights, and we welcome the first appointee, stavros lambrinidis. we have a long record of working with the european union on issues of human rights, and the creation of this position strengthens their commitment and we look forward to working with him. i want to make a short statement and then i'm glad to answer questions. on monday and tuesday of this week, we hosted our annual human rights dialogue with the chinese government. i was pleased to lead the u.s. delegation to these meetings for the third time. our delegation included representatives from the department of justice, usaid, the department of labor, u.s. trade representative, the

office of the vice president, national security staff, and the department of state. my counterpart, chen xu, is the director general for international organizations in the chinese foreign ministry, and he led a chinese delegation which also included representatives from a range of government ministries. these meetings take place in the broader context of u.s.china relations. as president obama and secretary clinton have made clear many times, we welcome the rise of a strong, stable, and prosperous china, and we're committed to building a cooperative partnership with china. we recognize china's extraordinary record of economic development over the last three decades. during this period, hundreds of millions of chinese citizens have been lifted out of poverty, and this is a remarkable achievement.

at the same time, we see that political reforms in china have not kept pace with economic advances. like people everywhere, chinese people want to be treated with dignity. this means they seek economic opportunity and jobs; at the same time, they seek a lawful way to voice legitimate grievances and have a meaningful role in the political development of their own society. in our human rights dialogue, we focus particular attention on the growing discourse on human rights in china today. we discuss restrictions on free expression and internet freedom, on religious and ethnic minorities, and on internationally recognized labor rights that chinese citizens are raising with their own government. we also discuss legal reform issues in china. this dialogue is about applying universal human rights standards, and indeed regular news from china makes clear that the subjects of our

discussion are matters of great concern to millions, many millions of ordinary chinese citizens whose voices are increasingly being heard around the world. let me say what this dialogue is and is not. it is a chance for us to engage on human rights issues and to do so in an in-depth manner focusing both on specific issues and specific cases. it's not a negotiation. rather, it's a forum where we meet to engage frankly and candidly. and most importantly, it's the only forum among many where we it's only one forum among many where we raise these issues. these issues are and will continue to be raised by numerous senior u.s. government officials in a variety of settings. for example, secretary clinton addresses human rights as part of the u.s.china strategic and economic dialogue each year.

the overall human rights situation in china continues to deteriorate. over the last two days, we've focused on a number of cases where lawyers, bloggers, ngo activists, journalists, religious leaders, and others are asserting universal rights and calling for peaceful reform in china. a number of these individuals have been arrested and detained as part of a larger pattern of arrest and extralegal detention of those who challenge official actions and policies in china. among the cases we raised were lawyers like gao zhisheng and ni yulan, who have been imprisoned because of their legal advocacy on behalf of clients who espouse controversial positions and who are critical of official actions. we urge the chinese government to release such lawyers as well as imprisoned democracy activists like liu xiaobo, chen wei and chen xi, who have actively pursued political openness and the promotion of fundamental freedoms for chinese citizens.

we also expressed concern about the denial of access to legal counsel, to criminal defendants such as chen kegui, whose lawyers ding xikui and si weijiang have not been able to meet with him. we continue to state our position that china's policies in ethnic minority areas are counterproductive and aggravate tensions, and that preceptions. of human rights activists trying to give these communities a voice violates their human rights. we've raised and will continue to raise our deep concern about more than 40 self-immolations in tibetan parts of china. we believe that societies that respect human rights and address aspirations of their own people are more prosperous, successful, and stable. in china as elsewhere, we strongly believe that change

occurs from within a society. these discussions then are ultimately about chinese citizens' aspirations and how the chinese themselves are navigating their own future. in every society, we believe it's incumbent on government to give its own people an opportunity to voice their concerns and pursue their aspirations. let me end with that thought. i'm pleased to take your questions. >> you mentioned, i think, chen guangcheng's nephew and that he's been denied legal counsel. how did the chinese delegation respond to that? and more generally, how would you characterize their responses to the individual cases that you've raised, and did you get any assurance that they would take any taking action? inwe, in a range of i- discussing a range of issues, the general approach we take to these discussions is it's important to talk about the broad subject and then to use specific cases to illustrate

and to get into a deeper discussion. we did that in the case of chen's nephew and the denial of access. a number of his lawyers who the family have reached out to have tried to meet with him, tried to represent him actively, and been denied access. we raise those concerns openly. we will continue to raise those concerns. at this stage, i'm not going to characterize every response we got from the chinese government, but i can assure you that's an area of great concern to us. >> but in general, i mean, did you get any assurance that they would they were mindful of your concerns? >> they're certainly mindful of our concerns and they're mindful of our concerns and they're mindful of the fact that these are issues we will continue to raise. these are issues that address fundamental human rights

protections. every individual charged criminally, especially with a felony, is entitled to a lawyer of his or her choosing, and that lawyer needs to have access to represent them. so that's a broad concern we have. we raised it in the particular case of the nephew, and we'll continue to do so. >> andy. >> as a step back, this is maybe the third of these that you yourself have been in this seat. i'm just wondering if you could tell us, from your perspective, what this dialogue has accomplished in concrete terms. i mean, every year you come up, you say that they take on our complaints or our things onboard. but i've never seen but you, yourself, are saying the situation is deteriorating. for those who are interested in human rights in china, why is this dialogue really worth the time that it takes to do it? and secondly, can you tell us if the chinese raised any issues that they might have with the u.s. human rights record? and if so, what were they and what was the response? >> we take our lead from those within china who are advocating for human rights and who are on the receiving end of improper actions.

what people in china tell us lawyers, activists, people whose family members are detained is that it's critically important for us to raise these issues, raise specific cases, to do so privately, to do so publicly, to do so on an ongoing basis, and not forget about them. this is a piece of that effort. it's not the only effort. we work on these issues 365 days a year. i'm not the only one raising these concerns. but this is an opportunity for us to go into these cases and these issues in greater depth and to appear, as i am here today, to make clear what our concerns are. we will continue to raise these issues throughout the year, and i think over time we're responding to a very heartfelt desire by people living in china that these issues that their cases, their issues, not be

forgotten. we're amplifying their voices, in effect. and as i said in my opening statement, there's greater attention to these issues by chinese people on the web, in the blogs. these are issues that are now commanding greater attention. the i'm sorry. the second -- >> any chinese concerns about u.s. human rights? >> yeah. as always, there's back and forth, both about issues in china and the united states. there were some questions and discussions raised about issues,or example, of discrimination, prison conditions, and the like, which we discussed openly. and i think the point that we made, which i feel very confident and proud to make, is that we have human rights issues in the united states, but we also have a very strong system to respond to them. we have an open press. we have lawyers who are ready to represent unpopular defendants, and they do so

without fear of retaliation. we have a political process that is robust, to say the least. and so we're open to that discussion. we also had some visits yesterday. we took them to politico. we took them to the american arab-american anti- discrimination committee to get a better sense of how our free press works and how minority communities are represented by advocacy groups. and i think that also is part of the dialogue that's important. >> jill, do you have something? . >> yes, thanks. two questions: was the case of li wangyang raised the hunanman who dies in hunadied n province last month and whose death has been described by chinese authorities as a suicide? but i think there's a certain amount of disbelief as to whether it really was a suicide. >> i'm not going to i don't remember, honestly. i can come back to you on that particular case. we raised several dozen cases, honestly, and i'm not going to get into every one of them. i mentioned a few in my opening statement, but i think in

general, we in addition to the cases we specifically described and discussed, we have a list of broader number of cases of people in detention whose cases we continue to follow and whose and information we continue