Hearing Of The Intelligence, Information Sharing And Terrorism Risk Assessment Subcommittee Of The House Homeland Security Committee - Fiscal Year 2010 Budget For The Office Of Intelligence And Analysis Of The Department Of Homeland Securtiy

Statement

Hearing Of The Intelligence, Information Sharing And Terrorism Rsik Assessment Subcommittee Of The House Homeland Security Committee - Fiscal Year 2010 Budget For The Office Of Intelligence And Analysis Of The Department Of Homeland Securtiy

Chaired By: Jane Harman

Witness: Bart Johnson, Acting Undersecretary, Office Of Intelligence And Analysis, Department Of Homeland Security

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

REP. HARMAN: (Strikes gavel.) The hearing will come to order. Good morning, and welcome to the subcommittee's fiscal year 2010 budget hearing for the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis. That is a mouthful.

Let me first take the opportunity to acknowledge the wise decision made by Secretary Janet Napolitano this week to shut down the National Applications Office and its related program. Under her leadership, DHS has recognized what a number of us have advocated for the last two years: that this program offered neither a desired capability for state, local and tribal law enforcement, nor adequate protection for privacy, civil rights and civil liberties.

And with that good start, I am delighted to welcome the acting undersecretary, Bart Johnson, to the subcommittee, and also to acknowledge that sitting behind him in the front row is Tom Finan, who was former counsel to the majority of the subcommittee, who has fled us to join DHS. And in reverse, I'd like to recognize Michael Blinde, who was formerly at DHS, who has fled you to join the subcommittee as counsel. So I'm not sure what all the implications of this are, but I think it's a net plus for both sides.

Mr. Johnson, your distinguished record of more than 30 years as a state law enforcement official gives you special insight into our subcommittee's focus on improving accurate, actionable and timely sharing of homeland security information with state, local and tribal partners.

Your written testimony is excellent. I just commended you personally and heard from you that you wrote most of it personally. It is exceptionally good. And I also told that to your secretary when -- I spoke to on the phone yesterday.

It clarifies a role for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis that I personally completely agree with, one that pulls information from the federal intelligence community, DHS intelligence components, state and local law enforcement and fusion centers, combining it to create products that provide regional and national assessment of threats to the homeland.

I&A, after all, must connect the dots so that cops on the beat, America's first preventers, can get the information they need in a form they can use in order that they will know what to look for and what to do. This is what we've -- saying up here for years and years.

We believe, and I think you would agree, that our first preventers are most attuned to their local communities. And we'll have the best chance, far better than a bureaucrat in Washington or a politician in Congress, to know if something looks suspicious. And if they have the right intelligence products, they will be best positioned to do something about it.

Thankfully, because of your law-enforcement experience, I believe you understand this. And so the question we always have to answer is, how can I&A make our homeland safer? I think a good part of that answer is to develop products and distribution methods to give law enforcement better information.

Let me highlight two issues, though, before I yield the floor to the ranking member, that I also think we have to consider.

One is -- and you mentioned this in your testimony -- and that is the overuse of outside contractors. I was surprised to learn recently from one of those contractors -- and I'm certainly not implying they don't render good service -- but that I think as much as 50 percent of the analysis done at I&A is contracted out.

I don't think that's a good idea at all. It's expensive, and it will not get us to where we need to go, which is to have this hypersensitivity to the needs of local law enforcement. So I know you're addressing this. I'd like you to expand on this in your comments.

Second is the need always to respect civil rights and civil liberties. The dissolution of NAO, your efforts to hire a privacy officer and your requirement that I&A personnel undergo privacy and civil-liberties training are very good initiatives. They are, however, merely first steps. And so I hope you will amplify, again, on how privacy and civil liberties will always be part of the procedures and protocols of your office.

We hope and expect that you will engage with us in a candid dialogue and information-sharing over the next months. This is not an adversary relationship; it is a partnership. And I really believe, Mr. Johnson, that your skill set will make I&A finally into the intelligence functions that many of us who voted for the Homeland department in the first place intended.

And I commend you again for your participation in this and for your excellent testimony, and now yield to the ranking member, Mr. McCaul, for any opening remarks that he has.

REP. MICHAEL T. MCCAUL (R-TX): Thank you, Madame Chair. And let me be the first to congratulate you on your recent victory regarding the NAO. I know you've worked very hard on that effort.

And Mr. Johnson, welcome to the committee. I want to -- enjoyed our visit recently, and I want to echo the chair's comments about this being a partnership, not a game of gotcha. We want to work together with you.

You have a unique background, set of skills for this job. I think it's going to greatly enhance DHS's position with respect to local law enforcement.

Let me also say that since the House Appropriations Committee has already reported out the Homeland Security appropriations legislation for FY 2010, it's important that we use our time here today to talk about how the House Appropriations Committee's funding for the Analysis and Operations account will affect the department's mission. Although the I&A budget numbers are classified, we should be able to get a general sense of whether or not the appropriators are providing adequate resources and funding necessary to fulfill its critical mission.

And let me just say I know that the amount that came out of the Appropriations Committee was roughly $11.8 million short of what the president requested, and I think that's going to be an issue that I'll be focusing on at this hearing.

Of particular significance is the funding allocated for the fusion centers and support for them. I think we can all agree that they play a critical role in facilitating information sharing at all levels of government. We need to ensure that these centers are receiving all that they need to work effectively. We must remember that if the Office of Intelligence and Analysis as a whole is not provided the resources it needs, it will not have the capability to provide adequate support to the fusion centers and countless other programs so important after 9/11.

It's also important to note this is the first budget to fund the substantial increases in authority resulting from the 9/11 Implementation Act, which this committee passed and realigned the responsibilities of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis and added additional responsibilities to the undersecretary. Therefore, again, sufficient funding, in my view, is needed to help realign your efforts and your office's efforts, according to this legal mandate.

Again, I'm concerned that the Appropriations Committee may not have provided enough of the funding necessary to accomplish the goals in what H.R. 1 set out for your office and for the department to do. So with that, I look forward to hearing your testimony, and I yield back to the Madame Chair.

REP. HARMAN: I thank the gentleman for yielding, and now want to recognize the chairman of the full committee for opening remarks, but also to tell him that when I speak of partnership, he has been a terrific partner on this effort to get the department to appreciate the risks of proceeding with the NAO. And I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your enormous effort and support on this issue and many other issues, and I yield to you for opening remarks for five minutes.

REP. BERNIE THOMPSON (D-MI): Thank you very much, Madame Chair. And I'd like to thank you for holding this hearing on the president's FY 2010 budget request for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. I'd also like to thank acting Undersecretary Bart Johnson for being present to testify before the subcommittee for his first time in his new capacity.

First of all, Madame Chair, I'd like to commend Secretary Napolitano for doing the right thing with respect to the NAO. This committee, as you know, has had serious concerns since the (recess ?) announcement of that entity, and we have followed it almost daily with that concern. And while there's significant issues with it, again, Secretary Napolitano, in a lot of our estimation, did the right thing, and I commend her for that.

That being said, Mr. Johnson, you have some challenges. A recent report about right-wing extremism came out. We don't want to get caught up in the semantics of the report, but we think there was some vetting that that report required that was overlooked. And it's that vetting that we had issue with that produced a product that I think would not have been in that same format, had the vetting occurred. I'd like some assurance from you that that is now in place.

The secretary committed it to this member from Pennsylvania, but she also committed to letting us know what -- the personnel actions that were taken as a result of that report.

And I'm not certain, Mr. Carney, if you received any information. But we still are looking for whatever personnel actions did occur relative to that report.

Fusion centers are important. There's a need to have uniformity and connectivity with them. A number of us have been in fusion centers all over the country. The one thing we can say is we've not found one that looks like another, and we just hope that's not indicative of the failure to connect the dots between them. So we're looking for some direction from the department to help us put that whole situation together, because we think it's absolutely important.

Apart from that, the committee's loss, with Tom Finan, is your gain. There's no question about that. You have a first-class expert on your team. We trust you will take advantage of it. If you don't, we'll take him back.

Apart from that, I want to echo Chairwoman Harman's challenges you face at I&A. But with your background, you can do it. We are committed as a committee to help make that happen.

And I look forward to the testimony, Madame Chair, and I yield back the balance of the time.

REP. HARMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Other members of the subcommittee are reminded that, under committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the record.

It is now my pleasure to welcome our witness this morning. Bart Johnson is the acting undersecretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. Prior to his appointment at the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Johnson served as the director of homeland security and law enforcement at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. His work focused on bridging the intelligence community with state, local -- with federal, state, local and tribal customers. Before this, Mr. Johnson served as a colonel with the New York State Police. He possesses over 30 years of law enforcement experience.

Without objection, your excellent and lengthy statement will be inserted in the record. And I would now ask you, Mr. Johnson, to summarize your statement for five minutes.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much. I just want to start off by thanking you, Madame Chair, Mr. McCaul and Mr. Thompson and the rest of the distinguished committee -- Subcommittee on Intelligence.

It's my pleasure to be here today to speak about the president's 2010 budget.

As all of you well know, I just started four short weeks ago as the principal deputy undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis. And until such time an undersecretary is selected, I'll also be the acting undersecretary. So basically I'm wearing two hats at this point in time.

You accurately stated that it's my first time in this capacity. But I'm kind of embarrassed to say, it's my first time period of testifying before Congress. So bear with me.

I was to appear back in April of 2007, to testify about controlling classified information. But because of the tragic death of Trooper David Brinkerhoff, trying to apprehend a felon, this group wrote into the record.

And you, Madame Chair, spoke to that issue. And I want to take this time to appreciate very much the kind comments that were shared with the family because of that very unfortunate tragedy.

But having said that, I am very, very honored to be here in this current capacity. I've met with and spoke at length with the secretary. I agree with everything that she's pushing forward, which very fortunately is directly in line with everything that you all have been saying, for the past several years, that I've been operating within, for the past several years, and also agree with 100 percent.

I appreciate the comments regarding -- (audio break). I come from an organization based on pride and tradition, rule of law, accountability, all the things that make a great organization. I also come from a world where it's all operational. So I'm very familiar with those types of activities. So I hope I bring something to the table.

The most striking event that occurred, to me and many of you, were the events of September 11th where foreign directed, foreign supported, foreign born individuals came to this country and let upon us one of the biggest tragedies that we've ever seen. I lost two personal friends in those attacks, firefighter Sammy Oitice and Port Authority officer Paul Jurgens. And I live with that each and every day.

On that same day, Superintendent James McMahon tasked me to build an intelligence operational investigative component within the New York State Police. And I've been doing nothing since that time. So I'm very familiar with a lot of the programs that all of us have been building together, as we move forward.

I also had the opportunity to spend a year and a half as the director of Homeland Security and Law Enforcement with the ODNI, where I got to see and witness the fine work and the bravery of the many members of the intelligence community.

And I also saw how those two worlds collided on September 11th, which clearly illustrated the need to get the right information to the right people at the right time.

In my new role as a principal deputy, or deputy, I often reflect upon the fine work of Charlie Allen and General -- (inaudible) -- in what they set into motion. And I'm going to build upon that. I'm going to learn from them. I've been meeting them already.

And nobody can illustrate to me the importance of getting information to the first-line officers -- it was a Maryland state trooper that stopped Ziad Jarrah on September 9th. They're the people. They're the front lines that really need operationalizing, to see the information. And that's what all of you have been saying since that tragic event.

So what do we have right now? We have 70 fusion centers, and there's a baseline capability that being -- that's being built. They need to be enhanced. They need to be matured. And like the secretary has stated, it's her role to counter terrorism, to leverage those fusion centers in connecting the dots and making sure that we're empowering the people that need to be empowered with the information that they need.

So what am I going to do? I'm going to work with the state and local, solicit their thoughts before I do anything, like I've been doing over the past two weeks. I'm going to embrace and fully support the fusion centers. I'm going to move more assets to the field.

I'm look -- going to look at -- to professionalize -- which -- they already are professional -- the federal workforce and become less reliant on the contractors that we're already relying on.

We're going to pull information, integrate the information, translate, where required, information, and really put an operational spin into the hands of the people that need it most.

I understand the rule of law. I've testified in a court of law. I know how to play by the rules and the needs to do that. So I'm going to work with the ACLU.

And finally, with all of your support -- and I appreciate the very kind comments and partnership that has illustrated -- and you have my assurance that I'll be transparent, I'll get back to you on issues that I need to, you know, get back to you on, and I will work fully with you.

Thank you for your support.

REP. HARMAN: The chairman just said "wow," and I think that is a sentiment we all share. For your rookie performance, Mr. Johnson, that's an A-plus -- exactly on time and consistent with much more lengthy testimony. That was superb.

I know for the moment you are the acting undersecretary, but I would say that not only I but a number of us on this committee want to remove that word "acting" from your title as soon as we possibly can. And it's something I urge the secretary to do, and hopefully that will be another one of her wise decisions in the near future. And you are not permitted to comment on that, because you cannot turn this down.

I just want to give you a chance to elaborate on something you didn't mention in your oral testimony, and that is the fact that the FY 2010 budget provides for the conversion of over a hundred contractors into federal positions. I've stated my concern about the overuse of federal contractors, both because it's expensive and because they don't provide the same skill sets in terms of they -- the -- understanding needs of the state, local and tribal entities that I think the employees do.

So I want you to elaborate on that.

I'd also like you to talk about the ITACG, the Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group, which has been the tool, although not as robust as we would like, to incorporate state, local and tribal people in the preparation of intelligence products at the federal level. So could you address those two issues in four minutes, please?

MR. JOHNSON: Certainly. Regarding the contractors, it's right now about 60 percent contractors, 40 percent governmental. I come from a world where there were no contractors. You did what you had to do to make the job work. I do now understand that oftentimes there are a need for contractors, for very specific reasons; but not to run the organization, not to have governmental people defer their decision-making process to those contractors.

So what we're going to try to do by the end of 2010 is to flip that number, as a start point, and develop a plan.

REP. HARMAN: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: I had an offsite yesterday. This was very -- a priority for me. I need to come up with a plan. I don't have a plan now, but I -- I assure you that we will have a plan. And we will work very, very gainfully and proactively and aggressively to try to make that flip, and then use that as a start point. It's not an end point. We need to continue to work forward in that regard.

Regarding the ITACG, I'm very familiar with the Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group. I sat on the other side of the table from the DHS employees, and I sat alongside with Kerry Sleeper, the former director of the Vermont State Police. And we clearly illustrated to the Department of Homeland Security why the needs and requirements, and the thought process of state, local and tribal and the private sector, needs to be borne into the production process, the writing of the reports, and basically the "so what" factor.

And that's not to criticize the expertise of the intelligence community. They write for a different customer. And we are the customer, so you can't have a better integrator, I think, sitting at this table now. I'm now bringing that experience to I&A as a whole, so you have somebody on the inside.

So I have been working with those detailees. I know those detailees. I recruited those detailees to the ITACG, and I'm going to continue to do that. I work very closely with Director Mike Leiter. I respect him and I know him, and I've committed to working with him also.

I actually hosted my first ITACG advisory committee meeting, and we spoke about a lot of the things that we need to refine, refocus on and really then to develop a plan to implement them. I think they've done a good job. Are they there yet? No, I don't believe they are, but it's not for lack of trying. So I'm going to do whatever I can, by providing the support and direction that I need to, to get them to the next level, and then at the same time, build that same type of capability within I&A so everybody within the entirety of I&A are looking towards the needs of the state, local and tribal.

And I see I have a minute 20 seconds left.

And that's not to diminish the federal people, because I view the Customs and Border Protection officer standing at the border, stopping cars, interacting people, falling into that same group -- state, local and tribal law enforcement entities and those type customer base. And that's my goal.

REP. HARMAN: Well, thank you very much. You again stopped before time ran out.

And I just want to say a couple of things. Number one, we share your assessment about Mike Leiter. We think the NCTC is a critically important entity. I now recall that some of that function was supposed to be in the homeland Security Department. And first, former President Bush set up the Terrorist Threat Integration Committee, and then it morphed into the NCTC. But the close collaboration between your office, I&A, the ITACG and the NCTC is what's going to make this whole function work best.

I think one of the things we may want to do soon is take a little road trip to see the NCTC -- I have been there on several occasions -- but to see it and to meet the ITACG folks, who are now in place. And I take you at your word you're going to add to their number and diversity, because I think that will make all of your products better.

My time has expired, and I now yield five minutes to the ranking member, Mr. McCaul.

REP. MCCAUL: Thank you, Madame Chair.

And let me commend you on your testimony and your experience. State and locals are the eyes and ears on the ground and in the best position to apprehend any threats -- terrorists, certainly. And experience shows that and history shows that.

Let me -- two quick -- I want to hit some issues on the budget. I offered an amendment to restore the funding. Your -- the Appropriations Committee came out with the $345.5 million number for this division. The president's request is 357 (million dollars). I had an amendment to restore that to the president's request. It was not made in order, unfortunately. So with the writing on the wall, how are you going to deal with that gap in funding? And how is that going to affect your office?

MR. JOHNSON: First of all, I appreciate your efforts. Second of all, we will work within the president's budget and whatever funding we're provided.

We had an offsite yesterday. First off, we're going to start to convert contractors to full-time governmental employees. That should result in a cost savings. We're reevaluating the workforce, setting the priorities, and the priorities are going to be state, local and tribal fusion centers. Priorities are going to be the suspicious activity recording. Priority's going to be training for analytical expertise within those fusion centers.

There's going to be training for our own cadre. We're going to be cross-fertilizing detail people into I&A, to get people from Commander McNamara, who's seated behind me, from the LAPD, to have them understand, you know, what the needs and requirements are on a more timely basis, so instead of spending a year there, they're going to be dropped in for a month or two, then depart, have new people in.

And I'm confident that the president's budget -- and whatever amendments and adjustments that have been made, we could work within that, and I'm confident that no program will suffer any harm, and we'll continue to move forward.

And I would just like to add I know this committee as a whole is very, very committed to state and local fusion centers at its current situation, and there have been some enhancements to it, and I very much recognize it, appreciate it, and I know that's where it needs to be, and I'll continue to do that.

REP. MCCAUL: Well, thank you. And one other brief issue, the border intelligence efforts that you have in your office -- I know there's -- the department initiated a Southwest border surge that would triple the number of intelligence analysts working at the Southwest border to deal with the growing violence in the region. I come from a border state. Madame Chair does as well. This is a real concern for us.

Can you talk a little bit more about those efforts? I know you've created a new division. And of course, you know, from a resource standpoint, I wish we could give you more. But can you comment on what you're doing?

MR. JOHNSON: Certainly. We have the border focus group. It's run by Tim Sampson (sp). I'm very familiar with the Northern border, coming from New York state, and all the challenges associated with it.

I'm somewhat familiar with the Southwest border. I was there once. I plan on going back there again. We have the Homeland Intelligence Support Team situated at EPIC. I know Mr. Art Doty (sp). He's a real champion at EPIC for all these efforts. Assistant Secretary Ted Sexton (sp) is very much involved. Mr. Burson (sp) I've met with.

And the one concern that I had was the number of intelligence efforts that are under way and whether or not they're connected to one another. Through those conversations and interactions, I no longer have that concern. I believe they are interrelated.

I'm tasked with developing a plan to come together with the intelligence efforts. I spoke to Mr. Tony Placido of the DEA, whom I've known for a period of time, long period of time, from New York, and we're going to be connected at the hip to co-chair that effort, to make sure that whatever intelligence needs to get into the hands of the state, local and tribal -- and really let them know what we want, why we want it, where to send it; when they send it, what they could expect in return and really develop a more robust feedback mechanism so they know that the information that they're providing is having value to solving the issues that exist.

REP. MCCAUL: Well, thank you. Now I want to follow up with you on that specifically on the future.

With the 20 seconds I have left, I do have to throw out the -- as the chairman brought up, the report that came out of your office regarding right-wing extremists. Secretary Napolitano came forward and very candidly admitted that the ball was dropped, that mistakes were made, and that the vetting process would be applied next time.

But can you tell us briefly what would occur with that report?

MR. JOHNSON: Certainly.

First of all, I believe that report could have been much better written. And it should have focused on violent extremism, violence, crime. That's where the linkages need to be made.

The ball was dropped as it relates to not following the procedures that were established. And people need to be held accountable to that, because I believe that's an anomaly, an anomaly that occurred.

I believe that we need to do better than that, that we have the professional staff and the expertise to do better than that. I've been the recipient of many very fine, resource-cited products. And that's where we are and need to go. And it's going to be enhanced.

So what am I doing about it? This afternoon at about 1:30, we're going to be meeting on that clearance process, to make certain that it has tenets that are necessary, without diminishing the outflow of information and the analytical assessments that need to take place, without it being influenced, to have people encumbered and be reluctant to produce what they need to produce.

So it's a balance. But I think we're moving in the right direction, to get what everybody needs in that regard.

REP. MCCAUL: I look forward to your leadership on that. And I yield back.

REP. HARMAN: Thank you.

The gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize Ms. Kirkpatrick of Arizona for five minutes.

REP. ANN KIRKPATRICK (D-AZ): Thank you, Madame Chair.

Mr. Johnson, thank you for your excellent testimony. I too represent a border state, Arizona. And my district is largely rural. Rural law enforcement has seen an increase in human trafficking, drug smuggling, almost more than they can handle. And I just want to know what efforts the fusion centers are making, to work with rural law enforcement.

MR. JOHNSON: Certainly.

I just want to share a story with you. I stood up what I thought was the first intelligence center in the country, the New York State Intelligence Center, until I shared that conversation with Secretary Napolitano. And she said, I beg to differ, the Arizona center was the first center. So I stand corrected in that regard.

REP. KIRKPATRICK: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: But Arizona has one of the most mature centers in the country, as do several locations. And I know there are a number of them in Texas also. And what the fusion centers need to do is, they need to engage with the county sheriffs. They need to engage with the smaller law-enforcement organizations.

The federal government can't do everything, everytime, for everybody.

So they need to rely on the fusion centers to really look at that anomalous behavior that reaches reasonable, sufficient, that could be criminal in nature, and really have a reporting mechanism so it's received at the ACTIC, the Arizona fusion center. And it's based on requirements, needs, awareness and collection processes that -- (audio break) -- rule of law, and then know where the -- where to send it then.

So what we're doing is we're working with the EPIC, the El Paso Intelligence Center, with Art Doty, to really be that clearinghouse to receive that information for one-stop shopping, and then sharing it with the federal law-enforcement community. And there are dialogues going on, which I don't believe I can talk about -- I apologize -- in this venue, on the other side of the border.

So it's the lawful passing -- you know, U.S. person, reasonable suspicious information back and forth on the border, because you know that it's going to be a(n) Arizona road trooper or a county sheriff who's going to start -- stop an individual with marijuana, with human smuggling, that's going to have pocket litter of the names of the individuals and the phone numbers, and there's going to be investigative leads. So that -- investigative leads need to go to the right person to be looked at, deconflicted, so that that's -- a possible solution could come from that information.

So it's all about awareness and networking and getting everybody on the same page. But they perform a vital role in that regard, the fusion centers.

REP. KIRKPATRICK: Thank you. I appreciate your understanding of that. And, you know, they're going more and more to the back roads to traffic rather than using the highways, which causes even more stress on our local law enforcement. So I look forward to working with you on that. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

REP. HARMAN: Thank you, Ms. Kirkpatrick. We have a vote on a motion to adjourn. So what I think we'll do is have questions for Mr. Dent for five minutes, and then we will recess this hearing and reconvene it in the visitors' center in a setting where we can review the classified budget.

So Mr. Dent, you are now -- it is now your turn to ask five minutes of questions of the witness.

REP. CHARLES W. DENT (R-PA): Thanks, Madame Chair, for accommodating me.

Mr. Johnson, glad that you're here. And could you please explain the role of the -- DHS's intel and analysis and how it relates to the intelligence components of homeland security such as the TA -- TSA's office of intelligence? I'd like to just hear what you have to say about that issue.

MR. JOHNSON: Certainly. What I look at is, the number-one customer for me is the secretary, to support her. And then other customers and partners are the state and local fusion centers, which I spoke to, and then certainly the component agencies.

In my current role, I wear two hats, number one being the undersecretary, with the intelligence community, and then equally important is the chief intelligence officer for the department, building the intelligence enterprise. And each of the component agencies are part of that.

So I had a meeting on that the other day, the Homeland Security Intelligence Committee, during which time there were representatives from TSA, CBP, ICE, Secret Service and all the other component agencies. And what I said to them is that as the CINT, the CINT has the responsibility to coordinate activities, not take over activities, not run activities, but to try to coordinate them, very similar to what the ODNI is doing with the intelligence community.

And I think it's a very good thing, because it creates efficiencies and a general understanding of issues, elevating those issues, getting the support in the issues, whether it be through the secretary or a venue such as this.

So what I need to do is just make sure that they get the intelligence support, the training, the connectivity working with the intelligence community; get them the access to the information that they need, the clearances, the processes; the right to release tear line information, all of the different issues that you're -- you've been working with.

And what do I expect from them? I expect to have access to their information, so then it can be synthesized and translated for the state, local and tribal, and then shared, as appropriate, with the intelligence community, because a lot of information resident within the country does -- and I know it does -- has an impact on the activities going on overseas. And conversely, the information over there is very, very relevant to what TSA is doing and all of the other component organizations that you mentioned.

REP. DENT: I'd also like to ask you too -- that this committee used to continuously receive weekly unclassified intelligence summaries from TSA, highlighting significant security incidents around the country. In February, we stopped receiving those reports.

These unclassified reports were, I think, very useful in highlighting real security threats that TSA has to manage and helped us make better informed decisions on the need for new technologies, like the whole-body imaging -- (inaudible) -- which, by the way, we had a problem with on the floor the other day.

Could you please tell me why these reports stopped coming into the committee? And would you commit to working with us to once again including us on the distribution?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

And I have heard that also, and I understand that. And I'm reluctant to say why they stopped on January 21st.

REP. DENT: Could you help us resume them?

MR. JOHNSON: They're going to resume.

REP. DENT: Oh, they are? Thanks.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes. Just please bear with me. Give me a little -- a little bit of time, and we'll work through it. We'll work with your staff to get you the items and issues and topics that are relevant to you. But we'll work with you on that point.

REP. DENT: I thank you, and I'll yield back at this time.

REP. HARMAN: Thank you, Mr. Dent.

So Mr. Johnson, thank you for your testimony in open session. It was a "wow." And we do have the sense -- I think I can say this on a bipartisan basis -- that you will be an able partner with this subcommittee focusing on accomplishing this -- the mission that we share. There will be, obviously, a lot of work to do in accomplishing the mission fully. There is no such thing as 100 percent protection.

But I think you will improve the odds by preparing products that are better suited to the questions that local law enforcement asks, by including the private sector in the distribution of materials and by bringing your own street-cred to the game. And that is something that I think will be a game changer, the background that you bring to this and the credibility that you have.

So again, welcome. And we will now adjourn the public session for the public part of this hearing and reconvene shortly after this vote in the House Visitors Center Room 301.

We will have staff off the House floor to lead those, like me, who never can find their way around that place. I'm sure you already know where it is, Mr. Johnson, but for the rest of us, we're -- we'll hope to find you there probably in about 15 or 20 minutes.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

REP. HARMAN: The open hearing is adjourned. (Sounds gavel.)

Source