tv [untitled] April 25, 2012 10:30am-11:00am EDT
passenger advocate on duty at all times. so somebody's faced with a choice, they're lined up, they're asked for an intrusive exam, they think that's uncalled for. i don't expect every tsa agent to be schooled in each thing but if at kennedy airport, a large airport that handles thens of thousands a week there's someone trained to come over within ten minutes, just one, no new people, no new cost, one of the existing employees knows,000 do this and can resolve a sticky situation, it avoids the passenger the choice of undergoing an examination that they think is intrusive or humiliating on not going on the flight. so the do you support the creation of passenger advocates as the airports and will you work to roll those out at airports without the need for an act of congress? >> absolutely. and if i might, just to go through, first, as you know, tsa i think does a very good job. it's a very difficult job.
you fellow, every morning i start my morning with a threat brief of what's facing us in the evolving world of terrorism and aviation security still remains the number one threat. but we've taken steps to try to make it less onerous. we've taken those over 75, children under 12 out of the routine lines. the breast pump incident you mentioned was not in accord with how we do that, and the employee received appropriate retain training. so we keep trying to do that, but the idea of having cross-trained advocates among our tsa personnel in the category x airports is something we will support and tsa is already moving toward that goal. >> that's great news. thank you. and i'll avoid senator collins and i having to pass legislation which is good. since legislation moves so quickly these days through the senate. okay, second is a parochial
issue but of great importance to western new york. it's the niagara air force base. air base. i want to ask you about the possibility of constructing a new border patrol station at ni agrag air base to replace the existing niagara falls border patrol station. as you know, the existing station is insufficient for your current needs. we all agree to that given all the new security. we have had terrorists cross over the buffalo border. it lacks the capacity needed to accommodate the number of agents now housed at the station, doesn't have the space and resources your agents need to do the job. a new station at niagara air base can comfortbly the accommodate 509s agents, even 75. it will also include critical items that the patrol needs such as the main administration building will be suited for mustering and training, wealth include an armory and necessary storage space, ancillary buildings that it will house vehicle maintenance and closed parkings and kennels, obviously
we have the dogs at the border, too. this new station would be a win for the border patrol and the air force base because its mission is being curtailed because of cutbacks in the military. >> would you support the construction of a new air station at the base? >> niagara is very much under consideration. the issue sever money for construction of a new facility. certainly niagara is under consideration. >> you think it's a good idea to have it there and we have to find the funds for it. >> that's one way to put it, yes, sir. >> yes. i like the yes part of that have answer. thank you. mr. chairman, i am finished with mile -- i would yield back my remaining time. if. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first just a statement i want to give you an update on some of the -- first of all, i want to put a statement if the record. i was going to have a long statement. >> senator, i don't know that your microphone is on.
>> i'm not talking. that's the problem. i'm surprised you want to hear me, but thank you. first an update. bchbl 99% of the time when i write you, i don't get a response directly from from you. the response comes from ledge affairs. second and more frustrating many times my questions are rarely if ever answered. third that the delays are unacceptable. and just last night i received a response from the department about cook county six months after my initial letter of inquiry and also you just responded to questions we posed at last judiciary committee oversight hearing which took place last october. that's just to bring you up to date. that's not aquette or i don't want a response to that. both the chairman and i want to get to the bottom of this secret service matter. and i know the chairman has
covered a lot of the issues i wanted to cover. so i'm not going to go back over that. and i thank the chairman for asking those questions. i was briefed by the secret service director and he responded about the inspector general being involved. and i've asked for that involvement. but he said he was already involved before i asked for it. so i compliment director sullivan on that. director sullivan has included the inspector general in the investigation up to this point. but i want to know if the inspector general is truly conduct agindependent and impartial investigation. i think the same independent investigation is necessary from the inspector general and defense and from the white house to get to the bottom of the story for all of the advance team staff that was in columbia. you mentioned that in previous answer to questions, you
mentioned that the ig is supervising the investigation. do you agree that the inspector general should conduct a full scope investigation to determine if this is a cultural problem routinely occurring in an additional cities instead of just reviewing what occurred in columbia? question number one. question number two, do you have any reason to believe that the inspector general isn't receiving full and complete access to the secret service investigation? and three, you referred to previous answers that will as far as you know in the last two and a half years, this has not been a cultural issue. why do you keep saying just two and a half years and don't you think we ought to make sure before two and a half years that it wasn't a problem as much as not being in the last two and a half years. >> yes, senator, let me address
that. i used that time frame because you know, we're going back now through all of the records. and we've gone backing that far, probably even further at this point. >> okay. >> and in terms of the ig's involvement and supervision of the investigation, i'm sure the ig wobble to answer those questions. but we have an moa, memorandum of agreement with the ig and the secret service that they are in these kinds of cases where there's alled misconduct, they actually, they meaning the ig supervise the investigation but they use the investigatory resources of the secret service. that's how we're managing this one, and i believe the ig has been with the director during the congressional briefings to confirm that point. so the we expect the ig to be conducting a full investigation. >> okay. on another matter, dealing with cybersecurity, specifically one
cybersecurity proposal would place your department the lead agency. overseeing regulations for covered critical infral structure. i have concerns that this proposal because it creates a new regulatory bureaucracy sill, i'm also concerned that this new regulatory power given dhs background on overseeing the chemical facilities security cf app ts program, congress gave your department regulatory power over chemical facilities, regulations were issued 2007. five years later, nearly 4200 chemical facilities have complied with the regulations, but your department has yet to approve a single security plan so far spending a half a billion dollars and not getting anything approved. i've obtained a copy of an internal review by undersect rand beers by two subordinates
that details the problems dhs faces in implementing cfats. this memorandum is the most candid review of a failed government federal program i've seen. this mem dal details failures at an unprecedented level, more hiring, hiring people not skilled, poor staff morale, management leadership fail urz, lack of subject matter expertise it, union problems, ands. catastrophic failure to ensurely personal and professional accountability. the memorandum also states that inspectors lacked expertise to effectively evaluate site compliance with cybersecurity requirements on top of this memorandum, the department has failed to implement ten outstanding gao recommendations. so taken together, these reports paint at agency that cannot control costs, manage employees and effectively implement
mission. if it costs dhs $46880 million to effectively regulate zoerl chemical facilities, how much can we expect it to cost the taxpayers to of the department to regulate you the cybersecurity among thousands of private businesses in. >> senator, let me take those issues both of them. first, the cfats or chemical facilities. yes, we did a candid internal review because we were not satisfied that we were achieving the results that we need to achieve which is the safety and security of our chemical facilities, and their possible of security issues with them. we now have a very aggressive corrective plan in place. be happy to brief you or your staff on that. we have been approving is site specific plans not at final approval, they just about are, but that process is really moving forward with great alacrity. so we've learned a lot from
cfats and we are fixing those problems. we've put new people in charge, done all the things one needs to do to make sure that a program moves it forward effectively. with respect to cyber, this is an area where our deep concern is that the nation's core critical from structure on wilfarmers depend and small business depend and everyone depends on is very susceptible to attack. and the attacks can occur in a variety of ways. and we are seeking some means to, a, basic performance standards by that will core critical from structure, have realtime information sharing so that we can swiftly move in to help mitigate and share information if need be, and we're actually asking the congress to give us some hiring authority so it's easier for us to hire people who are experts in the cyberfield. so as the congress begins to consider and the senate begins
to consider had legislation, we hope they will do it in the sense of what the risk posed is really to the country right now. >> next snoenator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and thank you, secretary napolitano for being here and the good work you've done. i share in senator feinstein's views that you've done a good job with very difficult challenges. and i also wanted to thank you for being here to answer questions about what happened. colombia. in my old job as a prosecutor, i had very positive interactions with the secret service. and i'm hopeful that the actions of a few won't overshadow the good work that they do every single day. >> indeed. >> but i do want to ask some questions about that because i think it really shook the trust of a lot of people, and i think the way you make sure that the
actions of a few don't overshadow the actions of many, the good actions and how they sacrifice their lives every day and put them on the line is by making sure that we clear cup what happened but also make sure that it is -- doesn't happen again. and that we have a clear understanding of what's going on, and i know one of the senators asked about this but there was a "washington post" report recently that talked about the fact that thlg may have been going on before, in fact, one of the -- this nos -- the person isn't identified but one agent that was not implicated in the matter remarked that, of course, it has happened before. this is not the first time. it really only blew up in this case because the u.s. embassy was alerted. and i just wondered if you could comment on that, how you think we need to move forward and how you know, to me, just you this does seem to create a risk when you're in a country like colombia and have you people doing things where they could potentially be bribed.
if you could just generally comment about that. >> right. well, again, the actions were unacceptable. and they were unacceptable taken by themselves. i think every mother of a teenager knows that a common defense is, well, everybody else was doing it, soles i get to do it. first not everybody else was doing it, and second this behavior is not part of the secret service way of doing business. they're very professional. but we are going to get to the bottom of this. we are going to make sure that standards and training if they need to be tightened up are tightened. and we will have moved with great speed to deal in a disciplinary fashion with the 128 agents involved. >> and i don't expect you to reveal things that aren't public but have there been other incidents where other people have tried to bribe or blackmail agents because they believed or they had some kind of interaction with prostitutes or someone with some kind of illegal activity in the.
>> senator, i'm not aware of any. as i said before, the office of professional responsibility in the secret service went back two and a half years. that covers 900 foreign trips and 13,000 domestic trips. and did not have in that period any kind of complaint. at that point in time doesn't obviously include the ig. that's an independent entity. but we are looking to see and make sure this was not some kind of systemic problem, and most importantly, to fix it. >> and there was one agency, one agent that was in the president's hotel, is that correct, that was also that was just identified? >> i believe that's correct. >> okay. another question that was -- and completely different incident. and i think every employer has had incidents of people posting things on the internet. and pictures of themselves like
maybe in their boss's chair drinking a beer. that happened to me five years ago with an intern. it was innocent, but i never think he thought we would see it, but these are things that happen. and so but when they happen with law enforcement, it seems a step above and i think much more of a security risk. i know recently one of the secret service agents reportedly posted photos on facebook depicting himself on duty protecting i think it was then vice presidential candidate sarah palin. could you talk about the screws service rules regarding agentses sharing details of their an inmentes online or otherwise and does the service have policies regarding agents' use of facebook and other social medial web sites. >> yes, we do have a social media policy. we'd be happy to provide you with a copy of that. and yes, to the extent there was such eight posting, unprofessional and unacceptable. >> okay, very good. i wanted to ask you a little bit
about we're working very hard on cybersecurity initiatives here going forward. and can you talk about how homeland security is currently working with state and local law enforcement to prevent and mitigate cyberthreats and discuss the stop think connect campaign and your efforts to educate the public on the role that threw have top play in this important fight? >> right. we are trying, just as we have the see something, say something campaign, sop, think, connect is one of our efforts to educate the publicing about everyone's shared responsibility who's on the internet. everyone has a responsibility to the have the good cyberhabits. just like when you get in a car you should buckle your seat belt. it should be reflexive above anything else. with respect 0 to your p to our coordination with state and local governments, we do that quite a bit, senator. we have the end kick out in northern virginia.
we actually have state and local representatives on the floor. that's our 24/7 watch center where cyberis concerned. so we're working with them very extensively on that. >> very good. and now turning to our borders, i'm chair of the u.s./canadian interparliamentarian group. they're actually coming to washington next month. i know you've been working on some cross bodder crimicious. i wanted to thank you for an issue i've been looking at for a few years, the issue of the canadian baggage screening which has finally been resolved as part of the beyond the border action plan. thank you for working on that. then i know senator schumer asked some things about the tsa, again, i understand that there's always incidents that need to be resolved and new things come up. but overall, i think they also, like yourself, have a very challenging job. and i've been proud of the work that they do at least in the minneapolis airport where i work with them.
you just brought in the precheck pilot program in our state. do you know how that's been going? >> the precheck pilot pramts are very popular. this is the domestic branch of the kind of trusted traveler programs that we began wnl the global entry program, internationally so. we are expanding that precheck program as rapidly as we can. >> very good. and then last the jolt act. i just call your attention to that, this is bipartisan legislation that we've introduced with senator schumer and rubio, blunt, mikulski, kirk, and lee. and i think it's very important to move ahead with that. we've appreciated some of the work you've done on tourism. we're working with the state department to improve the visa wait times, but there's also other things that we can do that are contained in this act. oh we would love to have your help and support with that bill. >> be happy to take a look at it. >> thank you. >> >> senator cornyn.
>> madame secretary, good morning. good to see you. we can all stipulate you have an extraordinaire little challenging job.job. i want to ask you a question about dna testing of detainees. and i know you're a former federal prosecutor and attorney general, so you know how powerful a tool dna can be in a law enforcement investigation. as a matter of fact, to digress a moment, we have an important violence against women reauthorization on the bill probably this afternoon or tomorrow. and i'm offering a bipartisan amendment that will address the 400,000 estimated untested rape kits that currently are sitting in police lockers and elsewhere, whi which, as we all know, is a powerful tool to help identify what, in many instances are serial perpetrators of sexual
assault. let me bring you back to 2005. senator kyl and i sponsored the dna fingerprint act during the last reauthorization during the violence against women act. this legislation gave federal law enforcement authority to collect small dna samples from all federal arrestees and detainees, just like we take fingerprints but, as you know, more accurate. these dna samples, again, as you know, can be checked against the fbi nationwide dna database to determine whether the arrestee or detainee has committed other crimes, perhaps in other jurisdictions. assisting law enforcement officials with more than 169,000 investigations, including 10,000 in my state, in texas. we've seen it to be a powerful tool.
at your 2009 confirmation hearing, i asked you to see that the detainee are fully -- you applied appropriately the dhs will fully comply with the statutory and regulatory framework. nearly three years after the hearing, how do you feel like that's going? >> well, i think, senator, we have deported a record number of individuals, as you know. i will be happy to go back and look at all the regulations to make sure we're in compliance, but we have had a very gr aggressive plan to deport those who should be removed from the country. >> and my question is a little more narrow than that. we want to see if detainees have committed other crimes and aid those other agencies in the course of those investigations, not just enforce the immigration
laws, which is important but is not the complete rationale. would you be willing to, on a voluntary basis, submit to the committee sort of the department's evaluation of how it has complied and handled this requirement of 2005 in the dna compliant act? >> i would be happy to supply that. >> that would be helpful. the reason for my concern is, of course, we know the fbi has used taxpayer money to prepare hundreds of thousands of dna samples as a result of the passage of this act in 2005. we're told that the fbi is prepared for and expected to receive between 120,000 and 240,000 samples from the department of homeland security in the year 2012. to date, they report only having
received 4,000 samples. so, i hope you'll help us. >> yeah. let's get to the bottom of that. >> identify what the disparity is between the number of samples and number anticipated by the fbi as a result of this, because while i'm aware that, for example, in afghanistan and iraq when our military captures detai detainees, they get biometric identifiers from them that can be used by law enforcement agencies and the department in the united states when identifying people coming across, let's say, the southwestern border without the appropriate visas, to make sure that they're not coming in for -- you know, to commit acts of terrorism and other violence. >> senator, if i might -- >> it strikes me -- >> it's a different question. >> it strikes me as if this dna evidence -- i'll be glad to let you answer. >> sure. >> this dna information would be
vitally important and enormously useful in terms of border security and immigration enforcement but also to help law enforcement at large in terms of identifying people who come into the country and commit the crimes that are currently unsolved. please go ahead. >> thank you, senator. i didn't mean to interrupt, but we do run illegal immigrants against a variety of databases. and i think i should supply you with that information. and then i will look specifically into the issue of dna with the fbi. >> to my knowledge, and i look forward to your report, that's more fingerprint and other biometric measures and did not extend to dna testing of detainees until congress passed the dna fingerprint law in 2005. you understand, i know, the issue. and i would very much welcome
your response. to me and the committee, so we can get to the bottom of that. >> good. >> chairman, i'll yield back my remaining time. >> senator, thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, secretary napolitano. >> thank you. >> just one question on the secret service episode. what opportunityies did this behavior create for compromise of the president's security? for instance, if the prostitutes had connections with foreign intelligence services or -- i'm not saying it did, but it seems like it's the kind of behavior that would render an agent vulnerable to blackmail and influence, if criminal networks and foreign intelligence services were aware of it. and that is a potential avenue for compromise of the
president's security. >> senator, we are still completing the entire investigation and there are still interviews to be conducted. but i think we have planned to keep the committee briefed on what we find. and whether there could, on a future basis, be that kind of risk. but as i -- >> certainly a risk. >> i testified earlier, the first question i posed to the director was, was there any breach to the president's security in this instance, and the answer was no. >> but there was a risk of breach along those lines, if those questions existed, correct? >> there may be a risk. that's why this behavior cannot be tolerated. >> yep. let me switch to cyber. and let me thank you for your energetic work and persistence on this issue, as we, in congress, try to pass the legislation that we need. there are a variety of different
approaches that are being looked at here. let me ask you this. if we were to pass a bill that failed to protect american infrastructure, our electric grid, financial processing systems, our communications networks and so forth and, indeed, if that bill even failed to define critical infrastructure or provide a process for defining critical infrastructure, so we actually knew what it was and what it wasn't, how well would that bill have met the threat that you see us facing in this realm? >> well, it would leave a significant gap, given the kinds of attacks we already see. that's why we think the nation's core critical infrastructure should have some basic performance standards to meet. that's why we think a bill needs to have real-time information sharing in it. and identify that is information sharing. those are the kinds of things that really should go into a
comprehensive cyber bill. >> and would you be able to say that the national security needs of the united states had been met by a bill that did not include any protection for our critical infrastructure? >> senator, based on what we know now, the risks we already see now and the kinds of attacks we already see now, the failure to address core critical infrastructure would be a significant gap in any legislation. >> thank you. my last question on this same subject but switching from the national security and public safety side of cyber attack to the intellectual property and economic competitiveness side of our cyber vulnerability, i said about two years ago that i thought we were onhe