internments. in the current fiscal year of 2009, we estimate there will be more than 7000 funerals conducted at arlington memorial cemetery. 10 formal requests for exceptions to the current policy received. seven were for extended family members to go into existing graves. they were approved at my level. three others were not approved by the secretary of the army. that would require a new gravesite. . . president kennedy of 1963 arlington national cemetery has become a major tourist attraction. during this past fiscal year, arlington accommodated over 4 million visitors, making arlington one of the most acidic historic sites here in the national capital region. also during this year, it will be conducted almost 3,000 ceremonies at the arlington national cemetery.

thousands of letters visitors foreign and american have come to produce pete in various events ranging from a simple ceremony at the tomb of the unknown soldier to the national veterans day memorial programs which are attended to by the president. over 127 fall in service members serving in operation enduring freedom and over 445 paulen service members serving in operation iraqi freedom have been laid to rest at arlington national cemetery. among those buried at arlington is specialist ross mcginnis awarded the medal of honor for his her would act in iraq. sergeant first class paul r. donnelly and other is memorialized in section d at the cemetery for his deeds and operation iraqi freedom. on january 1st, 2009 secretary of army authorized all service members who were killed in action or died as a result of wounds to receive full military honors at arlington cemetery

whether they are in toward, or memorialized. this would include s-corp platoon, culbert team, ban, qassam as well as firing party, casket team, bugler and chaplain. this concludes my remarks and i would be pleased to respond to questions. >> thank you. ms. stevenson, you are=@+fá-ñ)jh

>> in 2007, we reported that a million dollars in project funds had been spent in the prior five years on cemetery repair. in fiscal years, 2008 and 12009, the national park service has invested 4.5 million dollars in cemetery repair projects, and this is in addition to routine maintenance. another $1.9 million in supplement storm and emergency relief is being spent on the visitors center. in each of the last two fiscal years. some recent concerns have been raised about the appearance of national cemeteries managed by the parks service. i wish to assure you that the national parks service takes these concerns very seriously. n.p.s. also follows the manuals

written by the national cemeteries for national cemetery operations. and orders head stones from the same facilities. n.p.s. adheres to standards for placement and alignment of stones and replaces head stones that need second scriptures for spouses. the national parks service places great value on the historic significance, historic appearance and head stones of the national cemeteries we manage. coincidencely, we realign the head stones by hand and maintain the landscape, the con tours, the trees, to the greatest practical extent. our maintenance workers avoid using line trimmers near the head stones as the marble chips, and thus is more susceptible to erosion. we also avoid chemicals in order to avoid the monuments and the

environment. finally, in response to national inquireries, the national parks service has just completed an onsite review of four cemeteries. that is in draft but the study found that they were in good condition overall. this concludes my testimony. i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. i will recognize myself for a round of questions. starting with secretary cleland. your written testimony was just as poetic as your oral testimony. i'll just focus on a couple of things. the visitor center represents the efforts to tell a better story of those brave souls who fought in this historic and

bloody battle. i know the abmc was considering expanding to other sites so the many visitors to properties would gain even further insight into our overseas veteran sacrifice. could you provide us with a status update on this effort? >> yes, sir, we do. >> yes, sir, we do. the wonderful staff that i inherited has worked very hard to get into the third phase of what we do. first of all, we do white crosses and and green grass but the ultimate story that we tell for succeeding generations is probably what we will be remembered by. when we tell that story in various ways through the internet, through interactive internet access. but we also tell that story through what we call the interpretive program.

we stole that idea from the park service. [laughter] and they have a whole series of interpretive programs throughout the park service, and they have an interpreter of promotion system within the park service. so wasteful that idea in order to tell the story. now we have an interpretive program. the first real interpretation of what a visitor sees when they come to an american battle monuments cemetery is at normandy. some $30 million was spent. we thank the house and the senate for putting that together in terms of money. and now it has tremendous visitation. normandy itself has tremendous visitation. i was there with the president on june 6, and he looked at me and said "great job," and i said thank you, mr. president but i have been the secretary for 48

hours. .. there are other programs we want to put together, like our biggest cemetery in the philippines. so it's well underway, as is the brochures, which we have accelerated in terms of production. they are in multiple languages. i guess the only language that is not covered is southern. basically, we have visitors primarily in our operation that they themselves, the visitors speak two or three languages. so, we will be interpreting america's contribution to their security and safety through the

interpretative program, which are visitor centers, and through the brochures that we put together. so that is well underway mr. chairman. s well under way mr. chairman. >> thank you. in june 2009 gao released a report identifying 13 deficits with the internal control procedures several involved the trust fund and banking investments and transactions they then recommended 24 corrective actions. what is the response to the report and what steps have been taken to fix these problems? >> first of all, you are correct and we will provide that for the record one of the things that i found when i came here is there was a number of recommendations. some of them, a lot of it had to do with eight

automatic data processing operation in western europe. i just determined fed chief intimation an officer should be in western europe and healthcare on top of this we will be glad to provide that for the record or if there is a member of our staff present in the audience that would like to speak to that, i will welcome that. >> sens i only have 45 seconds left and this is not a the senate, i will ask one more question after other members have a chance but secretary, one final thing could you explain how the current economic climate has affected the currency fluctuation and has congress given do enough authority to manage those? >> guess we do pay the foreign service nationals to help maintain the cemeteries around the world as monuments and memorials it

is a gold standard around the world in terms of that we do have to adjust our currency to there's to the host nation and shall we say. and to the foreign labor force that we deal with so congress has given us plenty authority for the currency fluctuation and we are in good shape in terms of the foreign-currency. >> thank you so much i will now recognize the ranking member for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman i will give my time to the ranking member in addition to whatever time he may need on his own if that is the case. >> mr. beyer?

>> [inaudible] >> what's extraordinary for them to be here is that it is truly extraordinary. when you step upon the grounds, the grass, it's like a golf course. it is finely manicured, absolutely extraordinary. all the markers in perfect alignment. markers, it is absolutely an extraordinary place that shows true dedication to the sacrifice of so many of these men.

not only were they on the beaches. [inaudible] is there was also a memorial so as is said and the opening statement. >> when you think of the cemetery people really feel those who have sacrificed a minimum of liberty.

>> that is the second standard, the third standard out from san diego. it was beautiful and then it showed an excellent job to make sure seven magma national cemetery, it should not matter of somebody who died in the civil war. this should not matter if they died in the revolution@@@@

in is not the standard we should have in america. i think if you saw that in one of yours, you would just freak out. how's that for an articulation? i would. i did! and now, here's what i love about, if you make a lot of noise, and you complain about something, you'll get a reaction, right?

, i complain about all of these we took a weed record two it. walker to it. >> i just want to say all that we need to do that is the focus. tell us what you need for the requirements going forward. if you need to reset the standard let us know and we will help you. we want to make sure this is an active cemetery we want there to be standards.

okay? >> this is classic and very par fall and one thing i could not articulate that but when you see if you can begin to understand. unasked comment tell the committee here what do you believe your needs are? to raise the standards? >> the report that i just mentioned will have some recommendations for finding and it will have recommendations for increase treatment of cleaning and so on. >> what are your goals? >> the same as the goals set by the national cemetery administration.

we have the same three standards alignment, clean stones. [inaudible] >> how many cemeteries day you go to in the review? >> for. >> company in the system? >> 14. >> why did you go to all 14? >> we wanted to get a sense of what was going on so we took one that was fairly close. >> what are the four? >> andersonville, for donald cent and stone river. >> >> a one and tennessee? >> had do cent increase out? >> nosair no more than usual

>> you have 14. i will not fight you. i want us to raise the standards so when this report comes out i am going through it. , my immediate sense when the secretary tells me he will do a review it is of all 14 cemeteries i don't want something done quick and easy. all right? i want this to be done correctly and if your sense is that for is sufficient that is fine but what you are asking me when you get the report you will be satisfied? >> you can choose any of

these cemeteries or anyone's that are managed by other people some are perfect and some are not and i know that is true in the cemeteries that we manage. we are trying to do our very best for the veterans. >> your standard of the very best does not meet the standards by us because we will make your standard of very best and raise it. we will raise you're very best even higher. okay? i did not got and selectively choose to find the worst photograph. it is easy. i was extremely upset the day that i saw a that to being buried in the cemetery on the day that i saw.

it is one thing. we have all been to cemeteries and we have seen the conditions but to think this is an active cemetery under the stewardship of the federal government is extremely disheartening. pause i will give you the end of the time back. i will await your report to and work with the chairmen and ranking member and mr. miller and others of the committee but in particular because of the appropriations committee. this is not going to be an issue of money but an issue of desire and to achieve the highest standard possible part without will yield back my time. >> thank you mr. buyer. ms. stevens, i want to thank you for coming and testifying before us and a note for the record this committee does not have

jurisdiction over the national park service and we appreciate you coming to testify before us. but we all share the same goal and terms of standards and quality high of the facilities that you manage. says the fsn help with replacing the headstones when they break gordy terrie? >> i do not believe that they do. we order the headstones from the same company, but we do all of that workforce all. >> as on the the a advisory committee do feel this is a good vehicle for addressing the concerns or do they need a more developed in partnership with the the a regarding cemeteries? >> fairly recently in 2004 the interagency committee was established and we look

forward to working with that committee but the head of that committee became ill before it was resolve labor like to see the committee reconstituted so we can discuss some of these concerns. >> when will the review of the cemeteries be complete? when you expect to share that with mca? >> we did a review of the four cemeteries that is complete as it is just moving through formal review through office of management and budget. >> thank you. based on serious issues that are raised regarding the grave marking what has been done to reassure families buried at arlington that their loved ones have them properly entered in a properly marked have you coordinated efforts with the

mba offered -- at the office of survivor assistance and have any of your a real jeffords talked with the counselors to are authorized to see families when there has been a an act of theft? >> we're not chordata with the veterans administration member of the army does have counselors but we are not to my knowledge are not talking to the veterans administration for that. >> when problems arise with the the a providing headstones are markers with the inscription error, what is the records and how is that situation handled? >> we go to veterans of ministration for all headstones when we make an initial mistake we ask for the expedited replacement they are very timely to replace it within a month. >> mr. metzler if there are errors an inscription can make the request for repairs

or does the family have to be informed? >> if we are informed about the mistake we will make an immediate correction to the family satisfaction and. >> are there instances at arlington with a veteran without dependants have requested that benefits be passed to the parent? >> we have been asked that but that does not within the guidance. the burial benefit is to the better and they cannot pass on to other family members >> starting with you mr. metzler is it something you would recommend that the committee do to help you to do your job better or to halt memorialized in our veterans better?

>> the continuation of the national shrine commitments that has been a great shot in the arm and helped us to get a lot of things done we have not been able to doing the past. i would ask for your continued support in that program. >> one sentence mr. secretary? the same question. >> we are proud of the cemeteries. the scope of america's involvement around the world in particular the 20th century is staggering. going to normandy or any other cemeteries around the world to realize how much america has paid four. its service and sacrifice around the world. we think the house and the senate for all of the help they have given in the past.

we are honored to serve mr. chairman. i will say that our motto is what was said at the outset of the commission from 1923 talking about the veterans of world war i, that 29 shall not dimmed the glory of their deeds so that is the standard we have tried to adhere two. >> we have a vote to that has been called as a one to quickly ask ms. stevens and i will ask mr. miller but as there something that the subcommittee or the a can do to help you do your job better? >> real-life to see the interagency working group reestablished. >> okay. we will try to make that happen. >> mr. miller? >> two quick questions thank you for your hospitality.

anytime this body can go out to arlington we appreciate what you do. one deals with the policy eye and a stand it took almost 10 years to come up with the policy. could you now quickly describe why it took so long and what the policy is and how you go through that process? >> was an informal process of it is now formalized through the secretary of the army. there is a group of senior officials within the army that would receive the request after they have come to my office with the recommendation i forwarded on to the secretary of army and then turn and they will take that recommendation request and send it to the senior panel. they will make the recommendations back to the assistant secretary of all working independently then

in turn he will bring it to the secretary of the army for a final decision. the process should take some more and the neighborhood of four or five working. >> can you elaborate on the length of time it took to establish the policy? >> several years but was done in conjunction with a rewrite of the federal code of regulations that has been completed and under review right now by the department of defense. >> any other questions we are concerned about the lack of land availability around arlington. are there any other parcels identified that could be available for acquisitions and? >> the two that we currently have better working is the millennium site which is already under our jurisdiction from fort myer and to come on line which is federal building #2 scheduling to come on line

at 2012 rugrats the same time the outgoing secretary of the army has ordered a new master plan to look at the issues that will start next year in 2010. >> if we need to help the new secretary of the army we will be happy to visit with him as well. thank you. >> we have two votes and six minutes remaining so we will ask the second and third panel to be patient. it will be about 20 minutes. thank you to the panel for your work and a service to our veterans and to their memory and to their families felt we are now in recess until we come back from both. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> that is the first time i have ever hit the gavel three times. it felt good. the subcommittee on and disability assistance will come to order again. thank you for your patience. joining us on the second panel is mr. john wilson legislative director for disabled americans and veterans mr. kelly and national legislative director, said chairmen for gold star wives of america and a director from political affairs from the national funeral directors association and john nikolai from local 2241 from the american federation of government employees.

welcome the wall. two hour first panel your statements are already entered into the personal record and feel free to edit or change you're whenever you wish and we will try to keep it up five minutes and we have time for questions. we have boats coming up in one hour i hope to get through both panels before thence you do not have to wait again. mr. wilson? you are recognized for five minutes to my think you mr. chairman and members of the committee i'm glad to be here on behalf of the dav you to share our views of it with the cemetery policy and the way the the a and their services and survivors are served they maintain more than 2.9 million gravesides at 130 cemeteries in 33 installations and in 39 states and in pr. there are more than

7,000 acres established and just more than half is undeveloped. including available gravesite and the undeveloped land there is potential to provide more than 4 million resting places in addition, the state cemetery grant program the head stone marker program, presidential memorial marker program and to the burial receptacle reimbursements. of must be allocated the resources it needs to have graveside men's and related essential elements of cemetery operations in. some such as the one in pr face immediate expansion through and acquisition. we understand the t.r. inc has a project for 2010 that would give added quiet burial space prnc will remain open for second interments after completion

of the project prnc will remain open and two cremations at through 2030 although it is an option veterans and survivors do not make this day by of alternative to religious beliefs they are seeking 100 acres within a 25-mile radius. the rapid acquisition of this land is essential to this veteran population. all those the $250 million shrine initiative was not adopted the nca spent tours the original list as well as other emerging priorities over the last year. it was a large part due to congressional action to reduce years of neglect it requested $181 million fy 2009 congress understanding the sacrifices of the few honored by granting nca

280 million with an additional 50 million of stimulus funds. the administration request for fy 2010 is 242 million granting that will sustain the important progress nca has made and we urge congress to do so. the next subject is burial benefits it was only 6% what was provided when nca started to pay this benefit while it was never the intent of congress to cover the full cost they only now pay a fraction of what was covered 35 years ago. in 2001 plot lines was increased from the original amount of 150 the figure covered approximately 6% of cost the 108th congress increased it by part of this adjustment it has been untouched since 1988 clearly it is time the allowance is raised to make it more meaningful contribution to the cost of burial.

the dav resolution wayne knoll the va provide save burial allowance as previously noted but it is seriously eroded by inflation because of a house not been regularly adjusted for inflation and so we support the legislation to increase the burial allowance and to provide for automatic annual adjustments index two cost-of-living. that concludes my statement mr. chairman it is a pleasure to appear before this honorable committee today. >> thank you, mr. chairman wilson. mr. kelly your recognized. >> thank you for the opportunity to present our views on the national cemetery policy. i will commit my time to two major points. . .

because they will not reach that 170,000 population threshold. they have spent years developing and maintaining a cemetery system based on growing veteran population. in 2010 our veteran population will begin to decline. because of this trend, a new threshold model must be ensured so they will have access. there are two options to modify this threshold. reduce the die am er the of the radius or reduce the population threshold. and of course, supporting the lowering population threshold to 100,000 veterans would immediately make several areas

available to a national cemetery. threshold. the threshold must be implemented so more of our veterans will have access to this benefit. in 1973 nca established a burial allow once that provided partial reimbursements for burial costs. the current payment is $2,000 for burial expenses for service connected death, 304 non-service connected death and 300 for plot allowance. the payout covers 72% of the payout cost for service connected death, 22% from on service connected death and 54% for a burial plot cost. in 2007 these benefits were lowered to 23%, 4%, and 14% respectively. it is time to bring these benefits back to their original value. the national average cost for a funeral and burial in a private cemetery has reached over $8,500. and the cost for a burial plot

is $2,100. at the inception of the benefit the average cost was $1,100, and to enter a $80 respectively. by the cost of a funeral has increased nearly seven times the real benefit has only increased two and a half times. to bring both allowance and plot allowance back to the 73 value the service connected burial benefit payment will be $6,160. dimond service connected benefits payment will be $1,918 the plot allowance will be increased to $1,150. based on accessibility and need to provide quality burial benefits, amvets recommends the va separate burial benefits into two categories: veterans who live inside the accessible the threshold model and those who live of sight the threshold. for those veterans who live outside the threshold, the service connected benefits should be increased $66,160, on service connected benefits

increased to 1,918 and the ploch alliance should increase to 1,150 to match the original value of the benefit. for veterans who live within reasonable accessibility to a state or national cemetery, just able to accommodate the real needs but the veteran would be rather buried in a private cemeteries for burial benefits should be adjusted. these veterans' burial benefits should be increased the average cost for va to conduct a funeral. the benefit for servers connected burial would be to thousand $793 provided for all servers connected burial would be $854 plot elements would be $1,150. this will provide the real benefits that equal percentages but based on average cost for va funeral not on private funeral cost this concludes my testimony. thank you for the privilege to present amvets views and i would

be happy to answer any questions you have at this point. >> thank you, mr. kelley. mize cisneros wersel come you are recognized. >> good morning. im vivian cisneros wersel, chairman of the government committee. thank you for the opportunity to present a statement. we are here to provide input what can be done better to help families of the fallen, our answer is simply this. how families navigate the benefit process, increase benefits for burial and other associated costs this ptc offset include the word survivors and va publications, documentation, speeches and testimony by va personnel. im the surviving spouse of lieutenant colonel marine corps who died suddenly in 2005 when a week after he returned from his second tour of duty in iraq.

that day was it just like any other day for me, however it was a date to determine here, today, before, after all of my hopes and dreams had to change and was readjusted. my new life, my old life and now my new life as a gold star wife. goldstar why this is an all volunteer organization that provides a service, support and friendship. surviving spouses look to us as a link to benefit information and their ways in congress. we are the vanguards of survivor benefits, educating the public as well as elected officials, on issues relating to military survivors committee's efforts however cannot be accomplished without you and your support. improvements have been made in our benefits process, however the important in staying vigilant as i also know grieving spouse falls through the cracks. important decisions are made by

each grieving spouse immediately after casualty notification. many of these decisions are permanent and impact their future as well as their children. these families need accurate information, procrit documentation and expedited benefits. this information should be provided in more than one format. and on more than one occasion for full comprehension by the surviving spouse. goldstar wives seeks accurate information, pravachol resistance and increases allowable cost associated with military funerals and burials. we understand the va is in process developing a much needed brochure providing more information explaining the use of shelters. another issue being addressed by the va as a possibility of creating new va cemeteries in areas that normally would not qualify. gold start wives seeks and increases the bureau allowance. the number-one concern of our core families is financial

stability. the removal of the dependent compensation dollar for dollar offset of the survival benefit plan s off said would have the impact. additionally h.r. 2243 surviving spouse's benefit improvements act of 2009 introduced by representative would increase the dic to provide payment of 55% of the 100% disability compensation bringing the di see in the line with other federal survive your programs. dic has not been increased since the flat rate dic was established in 1993. this will also remove the dic benefit of the surviving plan. recently the court claims decision with regards too sharp versus united states ordered the department of defense to refund sbp of military spouses also receiving dic. the court found these widows were entitled to sbp benefits

without the dollar for dollar reduction of the dic. we recognize jurisdiction free sights elsewhere on fi sbp dic vrrbbbbr 'r or family members and other publications. documents are even speeches. this group is not new and must be recognized, not forgotten. we commend the v.a. that the new 2009 addition of federal benefits, for veterans -- which i brought here, it now states federal benefits for veterans, dependents on the front cover of the hand book. this is for less a moral

victory. last year, you can look at the difference, it says federal benefits for veterans and dependents, so we have come a long way. thank you for this. thank you for this opportunity to testify. gold start wives and i are appreciative of the compassionate work of the members and staff of the subcommittee accomplishing on our behalf we hope that you look to us as the voice of military survivors. i have 16 seconds i will say something quick. last time i testified i was an audiologist with a master's degree. i'm still an audiologist, but now i have my doctorate. i am a doctorate of audiology and i did it with a va using my chapter 35 benefits and i thank you. >> thank you, ms. wersel. and thank you you and your organization's work to keep the fabric of the support systems

strong for all of our military families. i was at dinner last night with a number of veterans and gold star wives, gold star mothers and one gold star bader and am grateful for the sacrifices you and your loved ones have given for the country. ms. witter, you are recognized. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify before do this morning about how we can better serve america's veterans and their families. i am of leslie witter director of political affairs for the national funeral directors association. i am testifying today on behalf of over 19,000 funeral directors and funeral service personnel who are members of nfda. we help make sure each veteran

has the care and dignity different because their sacrifice in the defense of the freedoms we enjoy today. while the responsibility of providing appropriate funeral and burial benefits and proper military honors falls on the va and the dod is funeral directors who help the family organized a personalized funeral and burial that celebrates the life of their loved one and honors the service to the country. funeral directors contact the va to schedule funeral and burial times come help family filed benefit claims come ensure each veteran receives appropriate grave markers and works with the dod and the veterans service organizations to provide appropriate military honors. in preparation for my testimony today, nfda created and on the scientific survey of membership regarding their opinions on how we can better serve our veterans

and their families. i am happy to report nfda members provided thoughtful and detailed responses on this important issue. i will now highlight some of the key findings of the survey i have supplied detailed findings in my written testimony. approximately half of the nfda members surveyed said that they had assisted in planning 21 or more funerals in 2,008. most funeral directors survey found that the dod and the nfda were responsive to funeral directors. additionally almost 74% felt that the va and the dod were very or extremely responsive to fit in families. however, monica torres, a nfda member, science student at the college and military spouse, commented that gathering information may be an avenue of interest.

if there is no process to collect this important information, nfda will be happy to assist in developing a questionnaire funeral directors can give the families after the funeral and burial are completed. regarding funeral and burial benefits, less than one-third of funeral directors responded the experienced problems obtaining veteran burial benefits. however, over 66% of respondents felt the current federal and funeral benefits are insufficient. several nfda members commented that the funeral benefit has not changed with inflation and that it does not cover the ever-increasing cost of a funeral. as a result, almost to a third of funeral directors stated that they have to absorb the extra cost associated with better in funerals. the average dollar amount absorbed by funeral directors per veteran funeral was $652.

in addition, nfda member of a funeral home in milwaukee, wisconsin, and he believes the va is disregarding those veterans and their families who have chosen cremation as their final form of disposition by offering the burial benefit to these veterans. he indicated the better and families do not understand why if they bury their loved one thing would get a benefit but if they choose cremation they may not receive the terri hail allowance unless the cremated remains are buried. mr. chairman, i would like to take this opportunity to express' nfda's strong support for h.r. 2642, tiberi of ohio that directs the secretary of veterans affairs to assist in the identification of on plant and abandoned him remains to determine if any of these remains are eligible for burial

in the national cemetery. nfda members are acutely aware of the sad story of on plame remains many of whom are veterans throughout this nation. nfda members will be happy to work with the va to identify veterans remains that have gone unclaimed and ensure that these heroes receive the funeral and burial honors they deserve. mr. chairman, distinguished members of the committee, on behalf of the members of the national funeral directors association, i want to ensure you fugal directors threw up the country remain dedicated to do their part to honor the nation's veterans and their families and want to conclude my testimony by thanking you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of va nfda. i hope my testimony has been helpful and i am ready to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, miss witter. mr. speaker, you are recognized. -- before, mr. chairman and

members. for letting me testify about the harmful practice of outsourcing cemetery caretaker jobs up a national cemeteries. i am proud to be a fee on veteran and served the country in the air force. six years ago after many years in the corporate world i was tired of the national cemetery in denver colorado. it is an honor to work cemeteries in the network in my opinion. that is at least until recently when some of the caretaker work was contracted out. i started out at fort lincoln as a cemetery caretaker maintaining cemetery grounds and turning headstones and helping the crew. i currently work as a cemetery representative. the last donner we still on the veterans and their families is to give them a decent fare well continues with perpetual care of the resting place. the weather could be filled with such dignity and dedication without the cemetery caretakers. almost all of whom are veterans

themselves. caretaker's take great pride in their job keeping the cemetery up to national status but their jobs are not just about meticulously maintaining the ground. oftentimes, the cemetery caretaker is the first person the family talks to when they are looking for a loved one's gravesite or have questions about the national cemetery. there are family members who visit their loved ones great almost every day. they are increasing. the caretakers get to know some of them by name and are a source of comfort. at fort logan almost all of the caretakers have been veterans and those who are not veterans are mentored by those who fill the unique rules of the cemeteries. sadly and c.a. contacted the caretaker and trimming work to years ago. that resulted in the loss of three full-time caretaker positions for the next wave of the veterans coming home from combat in need of a job. the remaining caretakers often

have to redo the contractor's work to make it look good for memorial day or business by senior management from washington. next month another contract will be at fort luke in this time for headstone setting and our caretakers currently perform that job. as to more caretaker positions lost for future veterans. our caretaker's take pride in their ability to set headstones and they do a magnificent job. it's very personal to them. most of the time the caretaker headstones in a burial section will be assigned that section until it is completely filled. they consider it a privilege to complete this honorable task. now this job will be turned over to a subcontractor and will no longer be caretaking, it will be just a contract laborer with no connection to veterans or their family is doing the mowing or headstone setting. these recent contracts don't seem legal. we never saw a formal solicitation, we never saw any

evidence of cost savings. management never gave us a chance to compete for that work either in order for us to show that we could do it better and cheaper even though the law gives us that right. nca are due to the cemetery caretaker positions are too hard to fill. but that in my mind is disingenuous. there's no evidence of that. nca has not gone out of its way to recruit veterans looking for work. there are so many veterans who could fill these positions with honor and dignity that the fix them. two years ago nca sent me to west palm beach to help open a new national cemetery. the nca hired a director reps' but no caretaker's workroom. instead they gave all this work to contractors. that is a lot of lost opportunities for today's unemployed veterans. so i am asking you first to please stop nca for taking more caretaker jobs from veterans and

please require nca to work with va's job training programs and veteran's groups to fight on and place it turns to do this honorable work. and finally, nca should start complying with the new omb guidance that tracks agencies to start bringing contractor work back inside the government. it is a bill law, it is the fair thing to do for the jobless veterans and it is the honorable thing for all fallen veterans and their families. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. nicolai. and i will, with the consent of ms. halvorson and mr. lamborn, thank you for your testimony and tell you we are going to submit questions. we do have questions for you but if we ask them now and then you give the answers and multiply it by five we will not get to the next panel before the votes are called. sallai the -- don't take our

underestimating your importance and the importance of your testimony, but we will send you questions and writing and some of the questions frankly that you have raised and that we have for you are questions we want to ask of the next panel. so, thank you very much for your patience and for your testimony, in your service to our veterans and to our country. mr. lamborn, would you like to comment? >> i agree. i would like to say to the gentleman from fort logan i've been there. it's just north of the part of colorado i represent and is beautifully kept and i appreciate your work. >> once again, thank all of you for your service to the country and our, the staff will send you a simple questions and in the interest of getting through the agenda before the next votes are called and we disappear for who knows how long we will thank you

and excuse you and wish you a good day and ask arthur panel to join us consisting of steve muro acting for memorial affairs at the national cemetery at patrician at the u.s. to part one of veterans affairs accompanied by ron walters director of planning and budget and planning services of the national cemetery administration for the u.s. department of veterans affairs. as always, your full written statement has been entered into the record, and so if you feel free to expand or shorten or at it and improvise as you see fit. mr. muro, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, mr. braking member and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about the initiatives of the national cemetery administration to better serve

america's veterans and their families. thank you for accepting my written -- for the record my written testimony for the record. one critical measure of the@@@@s . philadelphia and southeastern pennsylvania is projected to open in early next year. seven new state veterans cemeteries established the state grant program are also under construction with the opening of these new cemetery is nca

projects that 90% of the veterans will have reasonable access to terri hail, space in a national or state sadr and cemetery by fiscal year 2011. we are responding to the changes in the terri hail preferences of veterans and their families by constructing a great number of cremated remains. we are also developing a new memorial wall in our cemetery to honor the veterans who remain on not available for burial. the va expanding the head start a war eckert program to include a new medallion, an option that will acknowledge the service of the veterans. in private cemeteries around the world. veterans and their families will be able to choose either the new medallion or the traditional hit stone marker for veterans who died on or after november you have you have you have we

are also stream lining the process of burial eligibility determination and internment scheduling to better serve the needs of veterans, their families, and the funeral directors. the centralized national cemetary national scheduling office opened in st. louis in january, 2007, to handle internment requests for all national cemetaries except those located in puerto rico and hawaii as a one-stop scheduling center consists and is available for families and funeral homes for scheduling of bur holds the distinction of erning the highest score ever achieved in the american customer service index survey

for federal agencies, for private cooperation, nca achieved a customer satisfaction rating of 95 out of a possible 100 in 2004 and again in 2007. these results are a testament to the dedication and hard work of the national cemetary employees, and as they serve veterans and their family members during a difficult and emotional times. our programs for employee development, which are centered at our national training center in st. louis, are crucial to maintaining v.a. as national shrines and to preparing providing care and compassionate service to veterans and families in their time of need. we continually access our burial and memorial programs with the goal to serve veterans even better in the future. we look forward to working with the members of this subcommittee as we jointly respond to the changing needs of those who have served.

thank you again for this opportunity. and i would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony and for your work. and congratulations on the high rating you just told us about. it's very compressive. and, first of all, i would like to ask in your testimony you commented on the four strategic goals outlined by the advisory committee in its 2008 report. along with those goals, the advisory committee made 16 recommendations to which the v.a. responded. several items require additional followup. can you provide us a summary of the follow-up actions the v.a. has taken in response to the recommendations? >> we don't have those goals

here. can you provide me those and i can answer? >> sure. we'll do that. we'll send you the recommendations and then you can tell us what you know of the response. it's been almost a year since congress was informed on the activities the advisory committee on cemetaries and memorials. has that committee conducted any other meetings? and what observations have they provided? is the authority outlined in title 38, section 2401 regarding the cemetaries and memorials sufficient or is more authority needed to meet the nca strategic goals and missions? >> yes. they meet twice a year. they'll be meeting again this november. we can provide you notes from the last meeting that they would. >> that would be much appreciated, sir. and i understand that for safety reasons mourners are not allowed at grave site for

funerals. however, this policy contradicts certain religious observances, such as native american burial rituals or jewish grave sithe practices. what is v.a.'s policy, the policy for v.a. funded veteran cemetaries to make accommodations for graveside services in respect to these practices? sort of a multipart question. do state cemetaries have the discretion to restrict or deny for safety reasons? and, if so, would it be possible for v.a. to offer a more concrete policy to its state veteran cremttris to accommodate for religious beliefs? >> first of all, our policy is we normally go to a commital shelter where we conduct services. on occasion we do go to grave site. any time the family would request viewing of the lowering after the commital service we

would take them to the site. at some of our nationals they actually have viewing areas and at others depending on the volume they actually go to within 20 feet of the grave sithe. they take the immediate next of kin. we encourage the state cemetaries to follow that policy also. >> thank you. and has the nca adjusted its planning model to take into account projected population growth, variances and shifts, specifically what resources are there other measures would it entail to reduce the 75 mile raid yuss or lower the 170,000 deleshhold as suggested by the independent budget and various veterans groups? >> the study that we had that we looked at and the records that we maintain, 75 miles seems to be a good raid yass to look at. and we are reviewing the population threshhold at this time.

>> when do you expect that review to be complete? >> it will be entered in our budget as we submit our budget through omb. >> thank you. and in your testimony, you accounted for 2,899 oif/oef burial in which provided either head stones or markers. given those who have died is almost double that number, what has happened to the remaining fallen service members? do you know where their final resting place is? and what contact and interaction did v.a. have with those veterans' survivors? >> between arlington state cemetaries, national cemetaries, and the private cemetaries, many of them have chosen private cemetaries near their homes. and we have provided head stones and markers for those. >> i have a few more questions but at this point i'm going to

recognize ranking member ham born for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman muro, you may know this because representative salazar and i have met with you on this issue. there is a long history of a need for a cemetary in southern colorado. and this is compounded by the fact that fort logan, we heard from someone from there earlier, is scheduled to be at capacity in as little as 10 years. and it can take up to five years to build and establish and prepare for a new cemetary. colorado veterans have been organized for years to bring a national veterans cemetary to this region. since i entered office three years ago i twice introduced a bill with mr. salazar conwould direct a national cemetary in el paso county for veterans of the southern colorado region. and this bill passed the house in the last congress and we're

optimistic about it passing the house this congress. also, last year chairman hall and i had a field hearing in colorado springs to discuss cemetary issues including the potential inappropriateness of the 75 mile rule in a mountain state like colorado. and mr. turk, your predecessor, almost couldn't get there from denver from the airplane where he flew in because there was bad weather and the divide is 7,000 feet. he almost couldn't get to the hearing. and that's what separates colorado springs from denver. what was the -- also, he did promise and this did take place, that someone from the v.a. would come and inspect sites in el paso county for a potential national cemetary that site visit did take place on november 10. so i'm wanting to ask you what the outcome of that visit was. was there a report done?

and what information did you learn from that cite visit? >> first of all, we learned that we need to go out and look at other sites. and we're in the process of putting a team together that does site visits. we will actually be putting a notice in the paper in that area for any sites that are 300 acres or above, whether they -- purchase or donate. and we will be sending the team out to look. because we are looking at how are we going to replace fort logan and where will we replace fort logan before it closes. it's more opt mum for us to open a new cemetary, a replacement cemetary for fort logan. so we will be going that in the next few months going out there and looking in the area. >> that's real exciting. would you be able to -- if there's any way our office can help you in that visit, we would be very happy to do so. >> and, yes.

we'll contact you when we get the team ready to go and work with you. >> i appreciate that very much. and as a follow-up question, i know that in the last fiscal year for the first time a line item was created and $5 million was given to the v.a. to buy land in advance of closures. and i know that there are two to four different sites where that is being anticipated including fort logan. where does that stand in terms of sites you're looking at for that particular line item? and will you be spending the money that you get -- i don't think you've spent the 5 million but you may get up to, if congress agrees with your request, up to another 25 on top of that for this upcoming fiscal year. if you could enlighten me. >> in reference to the funds, we did get 5 million in 2009

and we're requesting another 5. that will be 30.5 million. we're looking for land, we've already sent a team out to pareto reeko. they've looked at about 18 sites. we're down to possibly three sites. once we do that, we'll go up to the secretary and recommend those three sites. we'll do a study and then make an offer on one site that the secretary approves. we'll be doing the same thing and i will -- in oregon. it's about 2019 closure time, so we want to purchase some land. the nice thing about there is there is some property adjacent to the cemetary that we are in the process of negotiating with the owners now. so we may be able to purchase that property. so that's what we'll be using those funds in the near future to purchase property. >> ok. well, thank you for your efforts. and any way that my office can assist you, we would love to do

so. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. ms. hall vorson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for being here and all the other panelists before you. thank you for doing such a good job with regards to a situation that came up in my district. i'm sure you're familiar with the private cemetary burrow in illinois. >> yes. wrr where several of the veterans there, especially their head stones and their entire burial was desiccated. and abraham lincoln national cemetary which is in my district, we worked it out where we could offer them free reburial. so that was something that was very, very wonderful that we were able to do for the veterans. we were able to say, rest in peace, truly means rest in peace. however, i'm really concerned about something that just came up with the fact that of this outsourcing of jobs. can you explain to me what's

happening with outsourcing of our jobs? are they truly being taken away from veterans and going to other companies? and not our veterans? >> well, let me explain what we've done. as we open new national cemetaries, we keep certain jobs inhouse. the internments, the rep work, and we do the head stone and mowing. we contract that out. we have increased fte in our system. we're up to 16 00. so we're doing in-house work and some contracting. the same thing at some of our close cemetaries where it is more difficult to get employment. the gentleman spoke about south florida. it actually took us two years to fully staff that cemetary with veterans. those that were willing to apply. we had a high turnover there because of the cost of living. so in many areas, the cost of living has forced us to look at

other ways to get the work done. but we still each year we've increased our f.t.e. all our new cemetaries open with approximately 15 fte to manage the cemetaries. so we are keeping the internment work inhouse, we're keeping the rep work and all the public affairs type work inhouse. the mowing and setting of head stones we do contract out. >> because we're doing everything in our power to create opportunities for veterans, i don't want to be embarrassed when i hear that veterans cemetaries and groups like yourself are going outside of our veterans groups. >> those that we are hiring are disabled veterans companies. we are hiring with disabled veterans companies. >> because -- >> so we are giving the work to veterans. we work with v.b.a. to hire

oifs, oefs. each network, we have five throughout the system, are required last year and this year to hire five. so we are hiring vets. we're 70% of our employees are veterans. >> i just want to make sure that's happening. i mean, as you know, we're doing everything to make sure that because we're having more and more veterans come back and that i just want assurances that we're doing everything we can to make sure that we are hiring veterans, we're giving incentives to hiring veterans. i don't want to be talking about that our veterans administration of all people aren't doing what -- we can talk all the time, but until we practice what we preach, you know, that's not doing us any good. >> and i understand. and we are. we're making every effort to hire. >> great. one thing that i know that we're interested in exploring and something that's the secretary is very interested in, you know, is homelessness amongst our veterans.

but also, where your concerned with. but can you take us through some of the situations. what happens with burial issues with regards to those who are homeless veterans and what happens when a veteran doesn't have any family members? how do you deal with that situation? >> our cemetary directors work closely with the different corners offices, and they -- we try to determine eligibility. we work with the regional office to determine eligibility. so that if we do find that they are a vet, that they find on the street, the homeless, so that welcome we can ensure that they can be buried in a national cemetary. >> how do you know? >> we get finger prints. so long as they haven't been cree mated they have finger prints. and we go to f.b.i. and we can find files. and we've been really successful throughout the country. >> great. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you.

i just wanted to ask you, secretary, continuing and following up on a comment that was made by the ranking member of the full committee mr. boir, when he was here earlier, talking about artificial or digital bugle machines, and as the token musician on the panel, and a french horn player and decent at one time at any rate a decent trumpeter and bugeler, there are many very accomplished high school band bugle players or trumpet players who can play a bugle just as well. does the -- is this in your purview, is this something that the nca in the process of working with the families handle -- i believe in the -- i

just came from a 9/11 ceremony as did many of us recently where there were two buglars calling answering back and forth to each other playing real bugles and it's a real moving moment with the color guard standing at attention and the crowd and survivors in our -- in one of my five counties, 44 families' survivors, of 9/11 victims, and i can only imagine how much less moving the moment would have been if somebody had pushed a button on the tape or cd or had an artificial reproduction. so i'm just curious how -- have you contacted, do you work with local schools or find people who actually play the instrument? >> a couple of things that we're doing to try to get real bugelers at the cemetaries for not only services but for ceremonies. we work closely the last three

years with taps across america, bugelers across america to get more interest in bugelers to come and volunteer. we work with the local school districts, the rotc that may have bugelers and we try to get them scheduled for our services so we can utilize them to support the families. the artificial bugle is actually a real bugle with an elect ronic device that goes in instead of looking like a mute that sticks in there. >> that's not a real bugle. >> you're right. but it is better than the boom box. >> it looks better. it's the boom box look that's shaped plike a bugle. >> exactly. but we are trying to get volunteers. and there are those that charge the families, unfortunately you see it in the paper. people advertise, i can do a bugle for this amount. we don't encourage it. but we can't stop the families

from hiring them. so we try to work with the vsos and with the schools. >> i appreciate that. i used to get paid to play oringen at mass when i was a teenager. but it didn't mean that maybe i shouldn't have volunteered. but they offered. i was mowing lawns and doing other things, too. but back to normal topics here. are the entitlement rules for national guard or reservists limiting their eligibility for nca benefits? should those rules be changed to accommodate more guard and reservists? >> as long as they serve active duty and they serve honorably for the time they were called up for active duty, they actually have the full benefit of burial. if they're called up for one day, they're eligible for burial as long as they served that one day. if they're called up for a year and they served that year, they're eligible for burial. >> if a veteran with no other

dependents is buried and his or her only survivor is a parent, should that parent be eligible or is that parent eligible for burial with the veteran? >> if the parent either one of the parents were a veteran, then they could be eligible and it would just be a burial arrangement in a national cemetary. >> thank you. also in your testimony, you noticed the current budget authority and the stimulus money nca received this year along with the 928 identified repair projects. if in 2008 nca completed 304 projects and sthrust money h would cover 395, what are the repair plans for the remaining 339 projects and does the 2010 budget cover those costs sufficiently? >> the 2010 will get us more projects completed. we have a goal to try to complete them all in five years that we have. that doesn't just include

raising realign sunken graves. that's building work. some of the old monments. we just completed a project here at d.c. at the congressional cemetary that we part nerd with park service and we did the cremttaffs. and our team has received an award from the district of columbia for historic preservation. >> what challenges, if any, does the nca experience when implementing the states' cemetary grants program? >> the challenges is the states coming up with the funds and the states having the property to develop the cemetary. that's been our biggest challenge. there are some states. kentucky. that have moved ahead and have developed a few of the state cemetaries. some of the states don't want a state cemetary. new york, florida. never put an application in. so really our challenge is

getting buy-in from the states and them having the funds to match so that we can then reimburse them. >> now, i would imagine right now with the states in the difficult fiscal straits they're in it's more challenging than at other times. >> it is. but we have some states that are ready to go for 2010. >> is colorado one of them? >> no. colorado is not one that wants a state cemetary. >> ok. i just want to ask quickly, is the nca paperless processing system and its first notice of death entry into its computer system compatible with the the veterans administration systems, how is the communication handled, paper or elect ronic? and how efficient is that process? >> we took it over in october, and right now we have all of the flag applications first notice of death from all the regional office and the insurance center are sent to us from st. louis in the next four

to six months they will actually be sent to quantico, be scanned into a system so it will be completely paperless at that point. and we then use the vba, the -- we can use their system, the shared program, and we use their system that we actually log in the first notice of death for the veteran. we also get from nca and from the state cemetaries and all the cemetaries that use boss, we get that information and we put that in the first notice of death and we are working to make that process total elect ronic. so once we order a head stone, it will automatically give the first notice of death. >> we have a vote in progress so i just have a couple more questions for you and then we'll be done. but i just wanted to first ask, given the situation in illinois, if families request reburial of a veterans whose

remains were previously interred at the oak hill cemetary, it's my understanding that funeral or burial allowances would not affect eligibility for reinternment at a national cemetary nor the issue bs of a new head stone or marker. so the family would not incur any additional costs. is that correct? >> that's correct. the only cost -- >> it's an unfortunate situation but is there a standard policy regarding reburial? >> yes. that's the standard. if anyone wants to take their loved one from a private cemetary to a national dreamtry, the only cost they would have is the disinternment from the private. they bring them to the national. there's no cost for the internment, service, care and head stone or marker. >> and lastly just following up on the question regarding outsourcing to private contractors. it sounded from your response that i wasn't sure if you're

saying all or most or you were making effort to hire contractors who were using veterans to do the work. do you know or can you state what? >> all of our millenium and maintenance contracts have gone to service disabled veterans. >> those service disabled owned businesses? >> correct. >> but are the workers doing the work -- >> we encourage them to hire veterans. and most of them do. they're a veteran owned company and we encourage that. >> thank you very much, secretary. i remind all members they have five legislative days to revise or extend their remarks. and thank you. i thank all of our panelists for their patients and thank you for the work that you do for our country's veterans. this hearing stands adjourned.

>> later today, supreme court justice ruth bader ginsberg at the northwestern university law school in chicago. she talks about her early days as a law clerk, her judicial philosophy and the importance of oral argument. today at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> now, a senate hearing on legislation aimed at preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. witnesses include two former senators, bb graham of florida and jim talent of missouri who

led the convention of the weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism. this is two hours. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as the chairman has indicated, the recent arrest of a terrorism suspect in colorado is a sobering reminder of the continued threat to our nation. al qaeda and other terrorist organizations have publicly declared their intention to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction against the united states. just last week, another media report highlighted how terrorists might join forces with global drug traffickers in order to take advantage of the traffickers' vast networks of tunnels, black markets, technology, and human intelligence. the terrorists have noted the ease with which traffickers

smuggle illegal drugs across our borders. in the words of a former u.s. embassy official in afghanistan, "when you get to the point where you can smuggle tons of drugs through one border, then you certainly have the capacity to smuggle in weapons of mass destruction or agents. ." clearly, this threat is real, urgent, and evolving. on september 8, the chairman and i introduced legislation to help counter this threat. our bill would improve our nation's ability to prevent and respond to wmd attacks. it would enact many of the recommendations of the commission on the prevention of weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism. the commission that the chairman and i helped to establish in 2007.

i'm certainly pleased to see once again the leaders of that commission in our former colleague senator bob graham and jim talent here today. their report warns us that it is more likely than not that a weapons of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of the 13e. we've repeated that warning a lot in our public statements but i think we cannot say it often enough to convey to the public how urgent action is. the commission's report is a call to action. our bill is the answer. the commission's findings reinforce the agency felt by this committee during our many hearings regarding the terrorist threat to our nation. we've examined many deadly threats targeting the american people and to respond to these

threats our committee has led numerous reform efforts since the terrorist attacks of september 11, 2001. our work has strengthened intelligence gathering efforts, tightened security at our ports and chemical facilities, and vastly improved our emergency preparedness. nevertheless, the commission's report provides a chilling reminder that the terrorists have been active, too. nuclear proliferation and advances in biotechnology are giving terrorists new methods and new means to commit mass murders. so we in turn must continue our efforts to identify risks, and to increase security. as the commission's report explains, the most likely wmd threat to the united states is the biological weapon. it is easier to develop and

disseminate bioweapons than gain access to lethal path jens. further more, terrorists know that a bioweapon can be a stealth attack. we may not immediately recognize that such an attack has even occurred until hundreds of people have been sickened or even died. despite this threat, some of the world's most dangerous path jens are not secure. and that includes path jens in biolabs right here in the united states. the g.a.o.'s alarming report shows that there are deficiencies in basic perimeter security at facilities that how's the world's most dangerous biological agents. diseases such as the ebola virus, and smallpox. the g.a.o. also pointed out that lab regulation for the

most part relies on self--policing. the fact is that thousands of people right here in our country have access to the most dangerous path jens. more than 400 research facilities and nearly 15,000 individuals are on the select agents list and authorization to handle the most deadly patho jens. we needn't look far. the f.b.i. has determined that a cleared skinet at a regulated research lab most likely carried out the 2001 anthrax attacks. to counter this threat, we must increase the security at biolabs. and our bill seeks to accomplish that goal by identifying those path jens that terrorists are most likely to use and increasing the

security starneds at the biolabs that handle them. a negotiated rule making with federal agencies and research institutions at the table would develop these starneds. this collaboration would ensure that the regulations that make our nation's biological labs more secure do not have the unintended consequence of detering legitimate research. in addition, we provided a four-year grant program to help fund the security enhancements. let me just mention one other part of our bill that i think is very important, and then since the chairman has outlined the rest i'll just submit the remainder of my statement. the commission also found that the federal government is unaware of some research facilities that handle less strictly controlled but still dangerous patho agains to close

that gap our bill would require registration of those labs and facilities security requirements that would be tiered based on the risk that terrorists might use of particular path jen in a biological lab. that is from a biological lab. that is the kind of approach that we use successfully in our chemical facility logs where we had a tiered approach with greater mandates for security to apply to the most high risk facilities. again, i look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today. and i'm eager for us to move forward and advance this bill to the full senate. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. thank you. i'm very pleased that your

commission in some sense took a good lesson from the 9/11 commission and to some extent so did congress because we provided appropriations to continue your work and because in some ways this is the most important chapter because unless something is done with your report it's not going to matter much. so your capacity and that of your staff to continue to be involved in forming and advocating about this problem and a solution to it is greatfully appreciated. and senator graham, welcome back. good to see you. >> [inaudible] of the committee. we very much appreciate this opportunity to discuss a critically important dimension of our report against a biological weapon of mass destruction. and i wish to say to all the members of this committee that

it is our intent to issue an interim progress report next month as to -- [inaudible] -- proceeded. there are some critical words in that 13e statement which is that if we continue at the same pace, it is more likely than not. we have the opportunity to change the probability based on action. the reality is our report was issued approximately ten months ago. ten months of our limited time to reach the position that we can reduce the vulnerability of the american people have now passed and we'll be reporting as to whether we think we have used those ten months prudently. we expect to have a final report early in 2010 prior to the ending of this commission which will be in march of 2010.

i can give you the, i hope, happy news that we anticipate that this committee is going to get very good grades in our progress report. in fact, by far you've been the most energetic committee in the congress relative to dealing with this critical and urgent issue for which we are deeply appreciative. i would also like to thank senator akaka for his recent introduction of the energy development program implementation act of 2009 which puts in place an alternative energy peace corps as was called for 31 years ago by the nuclear nonproliferation act of 1978. we wish to also alert senator akaka that he is likely to get a good grade in our interim progress report.

as we review our recommendations, while we feel positive about what's happening in this committee one of our nagor concerns continues to be as it was with the 9/11 commission and other previous commissions, the question of congressional reform. a world at risk offers a recommendation which reads, congress should reform its oversight both structurally and substanttively, to better address intelligence, homeland security, and cross-cutting 21st century national security mission. today is a good example of why we would make that recommendation. today, in addition to this committee, there are two other committees of congress holding hearings on this very subject. of laboratory security. when the department of homeland security was formed, there were

86 different committees and subcommittees overseeing the new department. today, that number has been reduced from 86 to 82. there are science of the continued dysfunction of congressional oversight identified not only by our commission but by a series of citizens' commissions. congress has been appropriately forceful in demanding reform in the executive branch. we believe it is time to include the house and senate in this process. and you should be pleased that our action plan, one of our action steps under congressional reform is that the senate and house homedse -- homeland security security committees should be enpowered as the sole oversight committees for the department of homeland security and all agencies under that

department's jurisdiction. i would hope that that objective would be achieved and thus place the full responsibility where we believe it should be with this committee and your counter part in the house. i use the word urgentsy. we think there are three clocks ticking. one, the chairman has already discussed and that is the 2013 clock. in addition to that preface, that assuming things stay as they are, that it is more likely than not that there will be a weapons of mass destruction used on earth before 2013. that probability, which we found in december of 2008 to be somewhat greater than 50/50 can go up if time is wasted and is not followed by effective

action. as senator collins said, our adversaries are not sitting in the stands waiting to see what we do. the reason that we've been falling behind is that because, as much effort as we have made to increase our security, it is not been as great as the effort our adversaries have made in order to penetrate that security. we think that relationship continues and, therefore, the probability of a weapon of mass destruction may be greater today than it was ten months ago. but 2013 is not the ofpble clock. there also is a 2010 clock. it's a nuclear clock. every five years, the signatures to the nuclear nonproliferation agreement meet to review what's happened in the next five years and plan for the next five years. we think that the meeting is going to occur in 2010 is of

special importance. we've made a number of recommendations to improve our security against a nuclear attack. most of those recommendations require executive action. the congress has devoted a great deal of attention through things such as the nonluger program to increasing our security on the nuclear side. the other clock, the third clock is the 2011 clock. there will be a similar meeting in 2011 reviewing the 1972 biological weapons convention. we have made recommendations of what the united states should be prepared to do at that conference. one of our action items is the united states should reaffirm that kitcal importance of the 1972 biological weapons convention to international peace and security by proposing

a new action plan for achieving universal adherence and effective national implementation to be adopted at the next review conference in 20 11. the relevance of that to this committee's action, if the united states is going to present itself as being the world leader on issues of control of biological weapons, we need to be the gold standard of such actions on a universal basis. this legislation and appropriate implementation we believe would give us that status as the gold standard. so we think it's critical that this legislation be passed and then a susfisht -- sufficient amount of time provided. so when we get to the 20 11 conference, we will be at the moral, legal, and policy high ground to encourage other

countries to follow our leadership by example. so those are the three clocks that we think dominate this discussion. now turning specifically to the biological threat, we see our adversary as having a continued energized will to use biological weapons and increasing capabilities to do so. these characteristics of the biological threat include first the development and disbursing of biological weapons is not expensive and it is getting cheaper and scientifically easier. second, a biological weapon could rival or exceed the damage caused by an improvised nuclear device. and third there are fewer hurdles to creating an effective bioweapon than a

nuclear device. virtually all dangerous path jens are available in nature. the equipment needed to produce a large quantity from a small seedstock and then weaponize the materials are readly available today on the internet. the most effective delivery methods are well known in the pharmaceutical, agriculture, and insect control industry. this is not speculation. al qaeda was well down the road to producing such weapons prior to 9/11. due to ease in creating a clan destined production community, our community had no knowledge of two such facilities in afghanistan prior to their capture by u.s. troops. facilities with more sophisticated equipment than those found could be in operation today again without our knowledge.

i would like today to focus on two of the titles in your legislation, title one and five. title one enhanced biosecurity measures and u.s. laboratories response to our recommendation in world of risk. certain principles animated this section of our report dealing with laboratory security. we are concerned about the proliferation of high containment labs which were not only unregulated but often unknown to the government. and just this week, the general accountability office has issued yet another report entitled high containment laboratories, national strategy for oversight, is needed. we've been at this business at least since the an thrasm attack in october of 2001, eight years ago, and still a national strategy is not

available. the fragmentation of government oversight among agencies that need for a thorough review and update of the select agent program and the importance of regulating labs in a way that did not discourage robust scientific research in the united states are all reasons why we give the issue that you have labeled as title 1 such primesy. enhanced biosecurity measures should improve security, streamline oversight, and focus our resources on the real risks by correctly applying risk management principles, the united states can increase security without the impending science or -- impeding science or critical u.s. industry. the legislation calls for the establishment of tier one path jens which would be those most readly weapsized and receive the most rigorous level of

review. we would also recommend that there be a tier two and three, each of which would represent a somewhat declining level of risk with an appropriate level of regulation relating to that risk. title 5 of the legislation deals with the issue of citizen involvement. we believe that it is critically important that the american people feel a greater sense of engagement in this issue. we strongly believe that a well informed organized, mobilized citizenry has long been one of our nation's greatest resources. an engaged citizenry is in fact the foundation for national resilience. in the event of a natural disaster or a wmd attack. i recently visited with intelligence, military, law

enforcement, and parliamentry officials in the united kingdom and they unanimously said there had never been a wmd or other terrorist plot in the united kingdom which had been broken without significant citizen involvement. we believe there are models to be foddled. i will present for the record a letter from the business executives for national security, a nonpartisan organization with a 27 year history of facilitating public- private collaboration. this includes seven years of building security and resilience, focused partnerships at the state and local level. this organization has been active in many places in the country has been particularly effective in its work in iowa which occurred approximately 18 months before the very

devastating floods of last year and while that was a natural not a man-made disaster, the benefits of having developed such a private-public partnership were in evident. in conclusion, we commend you for introducing this extremely important piece of legislation and we look forward to participating in a robust discussion on capitol hill and with the administration and the stake holders as we move towards passage and implementation. we stand ready to help where we can to promote have very important stride for our national security. thank you. zveragetsdz thank so very much. that was very helpful testimony. i plashly appreciate the three clocks that h are ticking because you help us put our work on this in the context of ongoing events that have dates that are associated with them.

i don't want to take a lot of time on this but i also appreciate your not -- i appreciate your going back to the question of congressional reform or the handling of homeland security issues. senator collins and i -- and this committee, really, we're proud of the work that we did with the house on the 9/11 commission report because we really got put into legislation almost every one of the recommendations that the 9/11 commission made to do everything we could to avoid another 9/11. but the one that we suffered a total and embarrassing failure on was the attempt to reform us. we're very good at reforming the executive branch but this gets into turf battles here and i appreciate your mentioning at some point you and the senator

and members of the committee ought to talk about how we could try this again. it's not so much that we appreciate -- we appreciate that you say the homeland security security committee should have jurisdiction here but it's really the question that tom ridge first raised which he spends so much of his time as secretary of homeland security security going to too many committees and subcommittees and they were redundant. it's not that he was avoiding oversight. i appreciate your mentioning it. hope springs eternal. senator collins and i are both very stubborn people and we're going to not give us on this. so you've encouraged us to not quit being stubborn. >> thank you mr. chairman. and just a followup on that. not only does the redundant oversight consume too much of the executive's time but as we point out in the report, oversight done properly can be hugely helpful.

and this committee is a perfect example of that. but you can't do it properly when you have dozens of different committees doing it. so we would not only stop doing something that's interfering with the executive but congress could really play an even more effective role if we got the oversight correct. i have a written statement which i'll submit for the record and then just make a few comments. i have to echo and want to echo what senator graham said about this committee's work. the biggest enemy i think we confront in this is inertia. and it takes tremendous leadership and perseverence, stubbornness i think you just called it and this committee has shown that kind of perseverence from the day we issued the report. and really in fairness although everybody has been supportive, i don't think anybody on the hill has not supported our report. but you're the reason. so i want to congratulate you on that.

i think part of the reason is that the committee understands and keeps in front of it the strategic nature of what this threat is. i find in the public and even within government it's so easy to slip into the idea that because the enemy or the people that we're opposing in this don't represent a first-world economy, don't even have a nation state, that therefore they can't really be that dangerous. but i think they understand -- they have a more accurate strategic view of the world than we do. they understand that the world is a mate ricks of systems that are very important to the system. not just the quality of life but the ability to live of the average person, the american and person thrussout the world, and that those systems are easy to attack, particularly using asim metric weapons. and they understand very well. that's one of the reasons why what the intel community was

telling us, the expert opinions, the actual evidence we saw, the development of this threat was so applausible because it's logical for them to be trying to get weapons of mass destruction. i would be in surprised if they weren't. and they have evidence that they think it's a priority for them. so this committee gets that. i think part of our job is to try to make certain everybody else does. the other thing is we have to do something even at the risk that doing something may produce some side effects that we didn't intend. rather than do nothing out of fear of the side effects. we have to move forward. if we don't do something, i mean, the current trajectory of risk does not favor us so we have to disturb the inertia and move forward. and you understand that. it's across the broad front. it's not one thing. it's a series that needs to be done at the same time. i'm very strongly supportive of it and appreciative of your

leadership. just a few individual comments with the time that i have. and this is reflected in my statement. the bill addresses the issue of how we distribute medical counter measures usually important i think the bill is going to help achieve progress in that area. but i just want to remind the committee we have to have the medical counter measures to distribute as well. we have to have the vaccines and antibiotics or the distribution system doesn't do us any good. there are a couple programs that have been established to establish that. to encourage investment or to provide for government investment in the development of these vaccines. and we want to point out that the office of management and budget seems to have gotten it into its head to try and cut those programs. and i understand they're to watch the budget and that's a good thing but those programs are usually neverry and i would ask the committee to watch for

it and particularly watch for it, the appropriators. there is a pretty direct and proven connection between funding development of vaccines and actual vaccines. the scientific community knows how to produce vaccines if they have the money to do it. so we really will get something for this investment. we will get the vaccines and anthrax and medical counter measures. secondly, i want to applaud the committee for taking on the issue of the workforce issue, how we can plus up our, the person until we have who have language skills, who have knowledge of nuclear issues and biological issues. we found all throughout the government people sounding the warning that, look, we don't have enough of those people already. unfortunately, there's a cohort of people in the government about five years away from retirement who possess a lot of the knowledge that we do have

and we really have got to replace those and we're not replacing them. and i think a big part of the problem, mr. chairman, is the fear of doing something. we have these security regulations in place so that we're so worried about hiring somebody who might be off in some per spebt that we don't hire anybody. and we have to -- particularly with language skills. it takes years and years in many cases to process people through security. so we can hire someone. process people through security so that we can hire someone. people are not going . . issue that needs to be addressed and the bill addresses that. the -- i'm particularly pleased at how the bill addresses the issue of citizen awareness and response which i think is a huge untapped resource in this whole field. you talk to the authorities in new york city where they do a new job of this. new job of this. the public is erating.

that just pluses up our ability to deal with this. i really like the idea you put in here. and i hope there is a way, and believe there is a way, to work with that so the general public can accessing as well. i think it's hugely important idea that you have. finally, i'll just -- i'll close with one thing. the chairman mentioned that there are people who tend to discount the danger of a bioattack. the department of defense, as you all know, had biological weapons programs in the '50s and '60s. and they did a number of important tests on the edthicsc of weapons. and i just suggest if the committee is not had a brief on those, ask the department of defense to -- i don't think it ever studied them and put it all together in one brief. but it's a real eyeopener.

it was effective even then. and people who think that people who think that this is not a weapon that will be effective against civilian populations just have a look at their studies and what we ourselves are doing. as a battlefield weapon, it's questionable because a lot of them don't take effect necessarily enough, but as a way of attacking populations it's extremely plausible and very effective and i'm greatful that you have a strong omnibus bill to deal with it. >> thank you very much, very helpful testimony. mr. goods, welcome back and thanks for all your service. a somewhat different look at this problem, but directly relevant and we welcome your testimony now. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you for discussing bio safety laboratories. today highlights the assessment of preliminary security for level four labs. my testimony has two parts.

first, i will discuss our findings, and second i will discuss our recommendation. first, we found significant differences in perimeter security at the nation's five level 4 labs. these labs handle the world's most dangerous agents and toxins that cause incurrable and deadly disease. as requested by cdc, our report and my testimony do not specifically name these labs. the posterboard which is on my right and you should have this in your packet. >> i have it, thank you. >> the posterboard to my right shows our assessment of the controls at the five labs. the black circles indicates the controls in place during our 2008 assessment. as you can see, three of these five labs had all or nearly all of the 15 key controls that we evaluated. specifically, what we referred to as lab b if 15 controls in

place while lab d had 13. the presence of multiple layers of security at these three labs reduces the risk of unauthorized access to the labs. examples of controls in place at all three of the labs include a blast stand area between the labs and perimeter barriers. barriers to prevent vehicles from approaching, a command and control center, rolling armed guard patrols and screening at building entrances. the posterboard also shows that in stark contrast to these three lab, the other three lab his little to no perimeter security. specifically what's shown as lab c had only three of the 15 controls in place while at e had four. examples of control at these two labs did not have in place include a blast stand off area

between the lab and perimeter barriers. barriers to prevent vehicles from approaching, a command and control center, x-ray screening at building entrances and vehicle screening. moving on to my second point, based on my 200 assessment we recommended that cdc take actions to enhance the perimeter at these level 4 labs. cdc agreed that the perimeter security was important and it was the result of risk-based planning. they also questioned whether the 15 controls that we looked at were relevant and appropriate for these labs. one year later in response to our second report, cdc told us that they will consider our recommendations in developing future security plans. we understand that the perimeter security is only one piece of the overall security picture and that a comprehensive approach to

select agent security should be taken, however it is discouraging that it would question the relevance of basic controls such as last standoff areas, intrusion detection system and x-ray screening at building entrances and visitor and vehicle scening. despite cdc's limited actions in the last year, three of these labs have enhanced their perimeter security. for example, as shown by the red circles on the posterboard, lab c now has a command and control center, camera coverage if exterior lab entrances and visitor screening. other initiatives under way at this lab would leave them with eight of the 15 controls in place and two others partially in place. also, as you can see, lab e made improvements and now has six of the 15 controls in place. further, lab d recently informed us that they've made

improvements and have all 15 of the controls in place. in conclusion, we are encouraged that three of these labs have made improvements in perimeter security in the last year. we believe that an active and layered system of security can prevent unauthorized access to these labs. this is particularly important as several level 4 labs are either operating today or will be in the near future. mr. chairman, this ends my statement and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. a normal good job from you. we'll do seven-minute rounds of questions. let me start with you to follow up what you've said. this is very disappointing that two of the labs, of the five labs, with the most dangerous pathogen, meaning they're the most likely to be weaponized still have even on their own

still have great gaps in their security and particularly disappointed in what you say is the nonshal apartment attitude, i'm characterizing it way about the centers for disease control of this. how do you explain that reaction by cdc? >> i can't explain the reaction by cdc because the controls we're talking about are fairly basic and most security experts would agree that it's a reduced risk on the labs so i can't explain that. if you look at, for example, lab b there, they have additional requirements outside of the cdc for security of those labs so the requirements that they all three met, they met the baseline requirements and it's hard to believe and lab a and b had other requirements from additional hhs requirements and what you saw there were strifrmgent requirements from other parts of the requirement than for the select agent

program. so lab c and lab b were the only two of the five that were only part of the select program under cdc? >> yes, lab c and lab e. >> and those are the ones that are really lacking. i state my own intention and maybe the committee can do it toec press the displeasure about the state of affairs and these two labs which have dangerous pathogens in them are at risk and when they're at risk, so are we. >> let me go to senator graham with baseline questions and we're focussed and for good reason based on your report, particularly at security at the laboratories, but let me step back and answer a question. i know you're considered, accepting your premise that a wmd attack is probable somewhere in the world in the next four

years ask it's more likely to be biological than nuclear. it seems to me, i'll imagine three ways for the components of such an attack against the united states to be brought together. one, obviously, is to manufacture the actual biological agent for attack elsewhere in the world. as you said, bob, we than there were two active laboratories in afghanistan that al qaeda was running. a second, i suppose, would be going to mr. kurtz's point were to steal pathogens from a laboratory and from an existing laboratory supervised by the government that is not so well and take it pack to a secret location and develop it into a weapon. in the third, in case we had an

anthrax where the department of justice determined in 200 that the biological researcher was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks. so for somebody within the labs to be compromised. basically, to be doing conversion of weapons within the labs. we're focused here on the security of the labs. i want you to talk about your evaluations and the commissions of the probabilities here or is it impossible to do that. from whence of the three that i've mentioned is that most likely that a terrorist intending to do a biological attack against the u.s. would get the biological materials. the commission did not attempt to make such an assessment. i will be sufficiently either

indice crete or courageous to try to do so. i would suggest it's the third option. that's the only one that has actually been to which they've been exposed. that's a scientist inside the lab who passed a plethora of security background checks and takes the material. he weaponized them in a crude manner such that they can be sent through the mail and ended up killing half a dozen people and creating significant disruption in a variety of our lives including those of us who work in these buildings. >> right. >> so i think while all three of those are potentials that need to be protected against, that of the three the more likely is the one that has already occurred

which is the rogue scientist. >> well, i appreciate your directness on that and that is the evidence we have. so not to say that there's any sole path to this, better perimeter security would not impact that individual. i would not stop that individual. what more, and of course, in the case of mr. ivanz, presumably, he went through all of the personal security checks. what more can we do to deter or discover that kind of exploitation of the system for anti-american purposes? >> well, as you know, the department of homeland security has a program which is specifically targeted at the rogue scientist. that in itself has been a source of some controversy because it has resulted in what many would describe as an overly

bureaucratic and delayed process to get people cleared to work in our scientific laboratories. one of -- while@@@@",)@ r$" the vast majority of what goes on in these laboratories is very positive, contributory, particularly to our health. therefore, we do not want to make these centers of creativity and innovation so entangled with restraints that they cannot carry out their basic mission. i wish, mr. chairman, i could give you five specific things that we could do to increase the confidence in the individuals who are working in the laboratories.

i cannot do so. laboratories, i can't do so, but i can say the kind of recommendations you're making for comprehensive oversight of these facilities, this report focuses on the physical aspect that comprehensiveness of oversight is also needed for the personnel issues, that that would lead us to some thoughtful and constructive proposals to avoid another bruce ivans. >> i appreciate that answer. >> i agree with senator graham, by the way, that if i had to guess, that they would get it from a lab because as we emphasized in the report they're likely to try and recruit bioscientists and life scientists and the people they'll try to recruit is people active in the field which means they're working some place and it seems logical that the first

thing such a person would try and do is see if they can get the material from the lab where they were working, okay? so i think that's a string of assumptions, but i think they're reasonably plausible. i think there are three things we can do, but what the bill is doing is reasonably important. the first time we'll have comprehensive rule making in which all of the various agencies are involved. >> right. >> that's going to promote, i hope, i think this is very important, a culture of cooperation within the private, scientific community and the agencies responsible for this. so they're going to begin talking and not that there aren't now, but more systematically and formally talking about this, and you will see better regulation and better procedures growing out of that, almost in an evolutionary way, and i think that's the genius of the bill, and i hope that crow eights writh in the scientific community, a real acceptance of the need for an enhanced culture

of security. i think there is still resistance. we really do have to be aware of what the person next us to is doing and if somebody is next to him saying, it's hard because as they pointed out, you can just put your pencil down and get a passage in, but this is hard, and them i do want to point out the importance of having an effective system because the better way to offer at respo respondi responding, the more we tend to turn it back. the chairman and i made a decision when we started up the commission that we would focus on prevention rather than remediation because you can't do anything. the more likely you are to prevent. >> i appreciate your answer, and it seems to me also n this matter we're dealing again with the attention that we dealt with

from the beginning of america. this is very specific. we don't want to discourage the extraordinary advances that come from the liberty of research and innovation, but on the other hand, we've got to create surveillance here, monitors and measures to try to ferret out anybody who's gone astray and gone wild. i do think the idea that we share, and it's in the bill, of hearing t-i-e-r-i-n-g, the regulation is important, and we're trying to isolate here for the most intense scrutiny a relatively small number of labs where the highest risk pathogens are the ones that can be turned most easily into the most devastating weapons and to,

frankly, let up a little bit on surveillance in a lot of the other labs where we judge, that the risk of conversion to weapons is less serious, and i think that may be a good balance as we go forward. yes, bob? >> mr. chairman, if i can just offer a couple of rays of hope. there has been a fairly distinct divide between the nuclear scientist and the biological scientist. the nuclear scientists largely came in existence after the first two nuclear weapons were actually utilized and therefore, there has been, from the beginning, this culture of securi security. it was clear that the mushroom cloud was a potential outgrowth of nuclear and therefore security was an assumed part of the community.

we had no iconic figure for the biological side. so we can take some lessons from how the nuclear scientists have managed this joint issue of innovation and creativity, versus appropriate security and maybe apply those lessons to the biological. >> good point. >> second thing, some of the most scientifically-committed universities in this country, i have now formed a coalition to work precisely on this issue of security within our university setting. and i commend those institutions for their initiative. i hope that what they are doing will not only be successful in the member institutions and they'll help set a standard for other higher education institutions and they're engaged in this work as we've seen

recently. sadly, from your alma mater. >> yes. >> the potential consequences of inappropriate action by people in these laboratory. >> thank you. thanks, senator graham. senator collins? >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator graham's last comment is actually a good lead-in to a series of questions that i want to ask you because he talks about that nuclear scientists have a culture of security. that is their focus and that has not always been the case with scientists who are dealing with biological agents. i suspect that that kind of culture that the cultural differences are also requested in the regulator. i don't think that it's a coins

dense, that they were doing work for dod had higher security than labs that were under the sole restriction of the cdc. did you find, in dealing with the cdc, that there was more focus biosafety than on secureity? >> yes. there was more of a focus safety which isn't a bad focus, by the way, but there were no people that had actual security backgrounds that were doing the oversight and were going out and approving the actual plans for the security at these five level 4 labs. so that clearly was something that we noted. >> and indeed, it's my understanding that the 15 standards that you used as an assessment were developed by the gao, is that correct? in other words, did the cdc have a similar set of mandatory

standards that needed to be met? >> no. there were more guidelines and much easier it meet. ours were more stringent and more consistent with what you saw from dod, for example. >> and when your report was issued a year ago and found such serious deficiencies in two of the labs that answered to the cdc, did the cdc order security improvements at the two labs? >> no. they tried to explain that what we saw was actually part of a plan that resulted from risk-based analysis. so they tried to rationalize it or justify it rather than say something that needed to be done. as i mentioned, they did it all on their own. there was no government assistance, and it was the labs themselves. >> that's really worrisome to me. it seems to mae thme.

it seems that when you went to the cdc a yore ago and showed such glaring deficiencies in basic security measures that the agency should have acted immediately. and are you telling us that the improvements that were made such as they are, were initiated by the labs themselves and not the result of any order or even direction by the cdc. >> correct. the six red dots you see on that board were all self-initiated by labs c and e, and as i mentioned lab d went from 13 to 15 and that was on their own, and i think that that demonstrates that the department of homeland security be involved in the regulation because that department has the commissioners, as mentioned to us previously has as a focus and

omission homeland security. it's startling to me that cow can present the regulator with the report showing such serious problems and no action was taken, but that is what happened. >> that is correct. that is what happened. >> thank you. senator talent and senator graham, i want you both to respond to this issue. we talked a lot this morning about the worry that terrorists could gain access to pathogens at these bio labs and we talked about the possibility of a rogue scientist, but isn't this also a concern that these labs may contain specialized equipment and technology that could be valuable to terrorists in

weaponizing a pathogen? in other words, it's not just the people and it's not just the biological agents. it's the specialized equipment as well, is it not, senator graham? >> it is, and one of the many strengths of your legislation is to recognize that and begin the process of registering and providing some control over this equipment, and it goes beyond equipment which is capable of weaponizing. it also relates to equipment which can actually be used to produce pathogens. most of these high-risk pathogens occur in nature. anthrax, for instance, is the product of delaying cattle, primari primarily. the word anthrax is a russian word that means siberian boil because the first place it was discovered was dead cows in siberia, but there are other

pathogens which are now being man created, and the equipment to do so is also a security r k risk, and your legislation would provide for some registration and control over who has access to that equipment. >> thank you. >> i really agree. i think it's one of the major step forwards in the bill is the provision of the registration authority and the focus not just on the pathogen, but on the equipment that could be misused. right now, if the lab is not handling something on the select agent list, then we just don't know anything about them. we don't know who is out there and that to me is irresponsible, and i think it should be done in a way, and this is very important, we believe, it should be done in such a way that whoever is directing that lab who will now have to register because of that equipment doesn't think of it as, oh, this is another dumb government thing

i've got to do. i'll just fill this out as quickly as i can and hope they never contact me again and hope that i'll never have to do anything again having to do with this subject. i hope this is done in such a way, and i hope you'll achieve that where that person says, you know what? maybe this is something they need to not just comply with in the most bare minimum way possible. maybe i need to read indstroh things like this and be more concerned and circulate something to my employees about this because this is something i have to care about. that's the attitude we want out there and the way to get it is the cooperative kind of rule making which you provide for in the legislation. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator collins and then senator mccask il. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank you very much for holding this