[Senate Hearing 111-1019]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1019
THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR
2011
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 24, 2010
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-843 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
JON TESTER, Montana ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
PAUL G. KIRK, JR., Massachusetts
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Beth M. Grossman, Senior Counsel
Christian J. Beckner, Professional Staff Member
Jason M. Yanussi, Professional Staff Member
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Robert L. Strayer, Minority Director of Homeland Security Affairs
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Patricia R. Hogan, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
Laura W. Kilbride, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Lieberman............................................ 1
Senator Collins.............................................. 4
Senator Akaka................................................ 14
Senator Tester............................................... 15
Senator Carper............................................... 18
Senator McCaskill............................................ 25
Senator McCain............................................... 30
Prepared statements:
Senator Lieberman............................................ 33
Senator Collins.............................................. 36
WITNESS
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Hon. Janet A. Napolitano, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record........... 58
THE HOMELAND SECURITY
DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET SUBMISSION
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:41 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I.
Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lieberman, Akaka, Carper, Pryor,
McCaskill, Tester, Collins, and McCain.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN
Chairman Lieberman. The hearing will come to order. I thank
you, Secretary Napolitano, for being here and for your patience
as we completed a round of votes on the Senate floor. And I
thank all of you in the room for your patience.
I thank you for joining us today for our annual hearing on
the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) budget--in this
case for the fiscal year that begins on October 1 of this year,
which is known as fiscal year 2011.
In less than a month, the Department of Homeland Security
will begin its seventh year of operations. I think that any
fair assessment of its record in those 7 years would be
positive, including a great number of notable successes, such
as the recent important role the Department played in stopping
the terrorist plot of Najibullah Zazi. But, to say the obvious,
the journey toward a better Department of Homeland Security has
no single destination. It goes on and on to meet the evolving
threats and the experiences that we have.
The budget is a set of numbers, but it is also a set of
priorities and a vision for the future of the Department.
Bottom line, it is and should be a statement about this
Department, about the extent to which the Administration,
working with us, will press forward to strengthen the
Department's ability to detect, deter, prepare for, and respond
to terrorist threats and natural disasters.
That, in general terms, is what I believe President Obama's
budget for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2011
fiscal year does. It proposes in a tough time economically a
2.7-percent increase in discretionary spending for the
Department, and in a change that I think is noteworthy, in this
budget the Administration has reversed its projections in last
year's budget for a steady decline in departmental funding over
the next 5 years. This budget now projects an increase in
Department of Homeland Security funding for the next 5 years.
I want to add that the extent of the increase is probably
dependent on a recommendation in the budget which is for
increasing aviation security fees. Without those fee increases,
the budget of the Department of Homeland Security in future
years, I am afraid, will not keep pace with both inflation and
the threats that we face. For that reason, I want to say to
you, Madam Secretary, I will support a request to increase
aviation security fees to benefit the budget of the Department
of Homeland Security.
As any budget, this one has pluses and minuses in each of
our minds. There are parts of it that make me very pleased and
happy and other parts that are disappointing. I want to start
with the good news first, which is to say that I appreciate the
Administration's proposal to add $900 million to key aviation
security programs, including those that would support more
whole-body imaging machines and the personnel needed to operate
them. The failed Christmas Day terrorist attack is the most
recent evidence justifying this increase, which comes along
with a recommendation for a boost in the number of Federal Air
Marshals, behavioral detection experts, and K-9 units. We know
from painful experience that blowing up airplanes continues to
be a goal of the terrorists with whom we are at war, so this
increased recommendation of $900 million certainly increases
our defenses against attempts to attack us on airplanes.
I also commend the Administration's efforts in this budget
to, in various ways, improve the management of the Department
of Homeland Security. One Department is the goal. A lot of
different agencies, but one Department really is what we have
been striving for and are moving closer and closer to.
In that regard, one example of the commitment of the
Secretary and the Department to better management is the work
that is being done now to evaluate the proper balance between
the Federal workforce and contractor support. The Department
has what it is calling the Balanced Workforce Initiative, and
it is a very important initiative. Our Committee has long been
concerned about the Department of Homeland Security's heavy
reliance on contractors because that raises a question about
whether it is the most efficient use of taxpayer money, but
also the question of who is actually making critical decisions
at the Department. Is it private contractors? Or is it full-
time Federal employees?
Thanks to work that the Department has now begun to do
after many years in which our Committee has asked for some
estimate of the number of employees that are working on a
contract basis in the Department of Homeland Security, Madam
Secretary, you have now presented us with those numbers, and I
will tell you they are astounding and unsettling because they
say that the Department of Homeland Security now has just about
as many contract employees as it has Federal employees--about
200,000--so the Department effectively, as I understand it, has
about twice as many employees as the budget employee positions
show. To me this is a shocking and unacceptable number because
Federal full-time employees generally actually cost less than
contract employees, and the law says that inherently Federal
work should be carried out by full-time Federal employees. So I
am grateful that the new budget begins to reflect a conversion
of key positions from contractors to DHS full-time Federal
employees. Obviously, this is just the beginning of a
turnaround that is necessary here, and Madam Secretary, I am
going to have some questions that I would like to ask you about
that issue this morning at the appropriate time.
Going on with what I take to be good news in the budget,
there is also support for significant biosecurity initiatives,
which have been a priority of this Committee. For instance, the
President is proposing to double the budget for the Biowatch
system of biological pathogen detection sensors, which are
already operating in 30 cities. The new funds will expand
coverage to more areas and allow deployment of 476 next-
generation detectors.
I also support the President's request for $53 million for
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to acquire handheld or
portable radiation detection equipment for Department of
Homeland Security agencies next year. I am going to include my
full statement in the record to back up the items that I have
mentioned.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman appears in the
Appendix on page 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, what are the disappointments? After years of growing
budget support for cybersecurity initiatives, this budget cuts
the spending on cybersecurity by 5 percent, and I want to ask
you about that because we all know that key information systems
in the private and public sectors are penetrated every day, and
our defenses against computer attacks and data theft definitely
need strengthening and improvement. In fact, as you know, Madam
Secretary, Senator Collins and I are working on comprehensive
legislation to strengthen DHS's ability to protect the Nation's
computer networks.
I am also concerned that the budget for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) unfortunately remains
static, and that the Coast Guard, as responsible as it is for
so much, is stretched thin in this budget. For instance, a cut
occurs in the Coast Guard workforce by over 1,100 people when
the Coast Guard, in my view, actually needs reinforcement, not
retrenchment.
The budget also eliminates the grant program that Congress
created, including Members of this Committee, in the 9/11 Act
to promote communications interoperability among first
responders across the country and also eliminates a program to
prepare communities to handle mass casualties in a disaster.
Those are the bad news parts of this budget, and I hope you can
discuss those decisions with us.
There is also a proposed 22-percent reduction in money for
fire grants. I think that is a mistake given the 31-percent
reduction the program suffered in fiscal year 2010.
So, overall, while I understand that any budget requires
difficult decisions, particularly one being submitted this
year, with the economy as stressed as it has been and with our
Federal budget in the exploding deficit status it is in now, I
believe the budget of the Department recommended by the
President will keep DHS moving forward, and hopefully we can
figure out a way together to do even more than that. I look
forward to the question-and-answer period and your testimony.
Chairman Lieberman. Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the Chairman has indicated, last year the Administration
proposed a budget for the Department of Homeland Security that
actually projected reductions over the next 5 years that would
have resulted in a total reduction of 4.5 percent.
But perhaps in response to the attempted Christmas Day
attack, as well as the numerous homegrown terrorist plots last
year, the Administration thankfully has reversed course. The
President's budget request would increase the Department's
funding for next year by 2.6 percent. While this is a welcome
change, the overall increase does not tell the full story.
Almost 20 percent of the proposed increase--some $200
million--is dedicated to providing security in large
metropolitan areas in the United States for the trials of
suspected terrorists now held at Guantanamo Bay. These
terrorists could be tried on military bases before military
tribunals, without incurring this unnecessary expense and
security risk. Given all the demands on the budget, why spend
hundreds of millions of dollars to move the trials to
vulnerable locations within the United States when there are
safer alternatives?
There are far more urgent needs going unaddressed in the
DHS budget. For example, as the Chairman has pointed out, the
President proposes to slash the Coast Guard's funding by $75
million below last year's level and to reduce the number of
uniformed personnel by more than 1,100 positions. Keep in mind,
these are the Coast Guard members who are performing vital
homeland security duties. Instead of wasting millions of
taxpayer dollars on civilian trials in large American cities
for the Guantanamo detainees, that $200 million would be better
spent on the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard took on an expanded homeland security
mission after the September 11, 2001, attacks. While remaining
responsible for its traditional missions, including life-saving
search and rescue operations, the Coast Guard now is also
responsible for protecting our ports from a wide variety of
threats, including the potential smuggling of weapons of mass
destruction. As we look forward, it is clear that the Coast
Guard's role in homeland security will only become more
important.
The extraordinary performance of Coast Guard members in
response to the earthquake in Haiti, where they were first on
the scene, stands as the most recent reminder of how much we
need this vital service. As the Coast Guard Commandant, Admiral
Allen, noted in his final State of the Coast Guard speech,
Coast Guard personnel are the ``Federal first responders for
the Nation.'' We cannot compromise the swiftness and
flexibility of the Coast Guard, and we cannot afford to cut the
Coast Guard's funding when we need them now more than ever.
The homeland security budget also must reflect evolving
threats, particularly in cyberspace. The Director of National
Intelligence recently testified that ``malicious cyber activity
is occurring on an unprecedented scale with extraordinary
sophistication.'' Our Federal Government, and the Department in
particular, must greatly expand its capacity to take on this
threat. Yet, as the Chairman has indicated, the budget for the
National Cyber Security Division would actually be reduced by
$19 million next year, a reduction that makes no sense
whatsoever in the face of the growing cyber threat.
There are additional troubling cuts in the President's
budget. Were his budget to be enacted, the Border Patrol would
be reduced by 181 agents, despite the soaring smuggling of
drugs, cash, and weapons across our borders. Last year, Senator
Lieberman, Senator McCain, and I included additional funding in
the budget resolution for Federal agents and other resources to
fight smuggling by Mexican drug cartels along the Southwest
Border. We must build on that investment.
But there is also a growing problem of smuggling across our
Northern Border. In December, I met with Maine's Federal judges
who voiced alarm about the influx of methamphetamine into the
United States from Canada. I am, therefore, very concerned that
the number of Border Patrol agents would decrease next year for
the first time if the Administration's budget is adopted.
The President's budget could also undermine our State and
local partners who usually are the first to respond, whether it
is a natural disaster or a terrorist threat. The proposals to
deny Northern Border States Operation Stonegarden funding and
to insufficiently fund the FIRE Act and port security grant
programs could deprive first responders and local communities
of the resources needed to secure our Nation.
On the other side of the ledger, the proposed increases for
aviation security are welcome, and I agree with the Chairman's
comments. America was starkly reminded on Christmas Day of the
vulnerabilities in our aviation security system.
Our Nation's top intelligence officials recently testified
that it is ``certain''--that is their word--that al Qaeda is
planning to attempt another attack against the United States
within the next 6 months. In the face of this testimony, we
must ensure that the Department's budget priorities are aligned
to counter the threat that we face from a determined enemy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Senator Collins.
Secretary Napolitano, thank you for being here. It has been
a pleasure to work with you in the time you have been at the
head of this Department, and we welcome your testimony now.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JANET A. NAPOLITANO,\1\ SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Napolitano. Well, thank you, Chairman Lieberman,
Senator Collins, and Members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to discuss President Obama's fiscal year 2011
budget for the Department of Homeland Security. I want to thank
the Committee for the strong support you have provided to me
and to the Department this past year. I enjoy working with you,
and I look forward to this hearing because I think the dialogue
we can have on some of the concerns you have raised, and other
Members of the Committee might have, will be very helpful in
clarifying what the strategy is in terms of the smart and
effective use of the taxpayer dollars that we are asking for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Secretary Napolitano appears in the
Appendix on page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Obama's budget for the Department focuses our
resources where they can be put to the most efficient and
effective use in securing the American people. As you have
noted, the budget request for 2011 provides for an increase in
discretionary spending over last year's funding. I think it is
important to focus on our No. 1 priority, the protection of the
American people, but at the same time, it is our duty to ensure
that we are exercising strong fiscal discipline and putting our
resources where they best can be used.
While this budget will not go into effect until next
October, I think the events of the past months underscore the
importance of our investments in our mission and our ongoing
activities. The attempted attack on Flight 253 on Christmas was
a powerful illustration that terrorists, specifically al Qaeda,
will go to great lengths to try to defeat the security measures
that have been put in place since September 11, 2001.
This Administration is determined to thwart those plans and
to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat terrorist networks by
employing multiple layers of defense in concert with one
another to secure our country. This is an effort that involves
not just the Department of Homeland Security, but many other
Federal agencies with responsibilities related to homeland
security, and State and local agencies as well.
As President Obama has also made clear, the Administration
is determined to find and fix the vulnerabilities in our system
that allowed the attempted attack on Christmas to occur, and
the President's budget indeed prioritizes some of those
security enhancements.
This Department is also working hand in hand with our
Federal partners in responding to the devastation and loss of
life in Haiti following the January 12 earthquake. We were
able, with the panoply of departments that were assumed within
DHS, to leverage unprecedented resources and personnel to
assist with those humanitarian efforts, again demonstrating
what this Department can accomplish.
The President's budget strengthens the ongoing work across
DHS in each of the five mission areas that fall under our broad
range of responsibilities and our priorities as set forth in
our Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR): Preventing
terrorism and enhancing security, securing and managing our
borders, smart and effective enforcement of our Nation's
immigration laws, safeguarding and securing cyberspace, and
ensuring resilience to any type of disaster. My written
statement includes more detail on some of these efforts, but
let me, if I might, give a few.
First, to prevent terrorism and enhance security, the
budget enhances multiple layers of aviation security. This is
an important and critical investment given what we have seen
this year and what we have been seeing in past years. Part of
that, of course, is the accelerated deployment of the Advanced
Imaging Technology (AIT) machines in our Nation's airports. We
also increase aviation law enforcement in key areas by boosting
funding for the Federal Air Marshals service, increasing
coverage on international flights, and providing for more
explosive detection teams, trained canine teams, and Behavior
Detection Officers at our domestic airports.
To secure and manage our borders, the budget request
strengthens initiatives that have resulted in concrete border
security successes over the past year. It expands, for example,
the Border Enforcement Security Task Force models, the BEST
teams. They have helped us increase our seizures of contraband
in every major category last year. Utilizing an intelligence-
based approach to the drug cartels was a critical part of our
successes, and this budget contains monies to hire or to train
more intelligence analysts, the intelligence then fueling the
operational aspects of the BEST teams.
We also have monies in there to protect Customs and Border
Protection staffing levels at our Northern and Southern
Borders. Let me pause there because each of you mentioned a
reduction in Border Patrol personnel of 187 under the
President's proposed budget, and let me just share with you
that in our effort to make effective and smart managerial use
of the dollars that we have, we are not reducing Border Patrol
at the Southern Border. We are meeting our congressionally
mandated goals at the Northern Border. We have a staffing plan
using some attrition rates and some redeployment of agents who
were performing other duties that enable us to maintain those
goals. So we would be happy to provide more detail on that for
you, but while I acknowledge that the summary review of the
budget would say that is correct, it is, in fact, an incorrect
assumption. We will be meeting those staffing goals.
Senator McCain has left, but I want to make a special
mention about our efforts with Mexico and suggest that in our
never-ending fight against terrorism and the security of our
country, the issues with Mexico are quite serious. They demand
our utmost attention. We have a unique partnership, I believe,
with the Federal Government of Mexico. I was in Mexico City
again just last week. We must continue a concerted and
sustained effort against these cartels.
Ciudad Juarez, a city of 1.5 million people, is right over
a bridge from our border, and the rule of law has effectively
been lost there. The cartels in essence have fingertips into
communities across the United States, and so you will see in
different places in the budget, we are very concerned about the
situation in Mexico, but we are very energized by the efforts
we are seeing across our Federal Government and across the
Mexican Federal Government in that regard.
The Coast Guard budget has been raised as a concern,
Senator Collins. We can address that further in the questions
and answers. Let me just say that with the decisions made in
this tight budget year, the No. 1 priority was to recapitalize
the Coast Guard. I have been from Kuwait to Charleston on
vessels of every type. Our men and women of the Coast Guard are
serving in vessels that are rusty. The metal is falling apart.
There are holes in some of the vessels. They have been welded
and welded. At a certain point, you have to build new vessels;
you have to use new technology. We are in this budget proposing
the decommissioning of a certain number of vessels, but we are
also proposing at the same time asset capitalization, including
the High Endurance Cutter (HEC) No. 5.
By the way, in terms of personnel, it is actually a net
decrease of about 783. Part of that, of course, is attributable
to the crews that will be on the decommissioned older vessels.
But even as we add on the newer equipment, it is not a one-for-
one trade-off. In other words, the newer vessels are able to
operate with a smaller crew than the older vessels because of
the greater use of technology, and we can provide information
and detail on that. I know it is a keen interest of yours.
With regard to smart and effective enforcement and
administration of our Nation's immigration laws, I want to
mention several things. One is the President has requested $103
million to strengthen the E-Verify Program. This is a critical
tool for employer enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws,
and we ask also for $147 million to continue the expansion of
the program known as Secure Communities. This is where
basically we put into local jails and State prisons immigration
databases and training so that immigration status can be
checked at booking and prior to release as opposed to what
happened before, which was, of course, individuals would be
released and then Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
would somehow have to find them and pick them up.
Let me proceed quickly because I see my time is about up.
Cyberspace is a key concern. The reduction that you noted
is, in essence, attributable to several things. One is there
were some one-time expenses that we had last year that we do
not need to duplicate in 2011. For example, the data center
migration and integration that was paid for last year is
underway, and we do not need to duplicate. We have also
eliminated some earmarks that were added last year.
As I said in my earlier remarks, of the five major mission
areas denoted in the QHSR, we specifically denoted the securing
of cyberspace, which was the first time, I think, that any
Quadrennial Review has actually mentioned cyber in such a
specific way.
Under resilience to disasters, the President's budget
request includes an increase in support for the Disaster Relief
Fund (DRF). It also includes $100 million in pre-disaster
mitigation grants, and I will be happy to discuss FEMA and the
fire grants as well.
Chairman Lieberman. Do not be pushed if there are some
parts in the remainder of your statement you want to say on the
record. We are following every word.
Secretary Napolitano. I will try to do a dramatic reading
of the budget.
Chairman Lieberman. Good. [Laughter.]
Secretary Napolitano. But I think we could have a
conversation about the grants and what is contained in those
numbers.
Last, we are, in essence, building the plane while we are
flying it where DHS is concerned. It is a massive
administrative undertaking which is far along but has a ways to
go. And the mechanism to do that, the administrative
infrastructure that will enable us over the long term to make
even smarter, more effective use of our monies, requires some
investment now. It requires the investment that Congress
approved last year and accelerated last year for St.
Elizabeths. It requires the ability to consolidate leases from
40 to 10 so that we can move people from being spread literally
in four dozen buildings across this District into 10. Moving
people does cost money, but over the long term we will save
those lease costs. But you will see some of those expenditures
reflected in this budget.
All I will say there, Senators, is that we are penciling
every dollar in that area to see what we can do to make sure
that this Department has a strong administrative
infrastructure, which, as I suggested, over the long term will
serve the Nation very well indeed.
So those, in essence, are a few of the highlights, and I
tried to again respond to some of the issues that you raised in
your opening statements in my comments. But I would be happy to
answer questions and to have a dialogue with you on these and
other matters.
Thank you very much again for having me today.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
We will do 7-minute rounds of questioning in this first round.
I want to go to the $200 million in the Urban Area Security
Initiative grant program that Senator Collins referred to,
which is in the budget to provide security in communities
hosting terror-related trials. One of the parts of my opening
statement I omitted was to state what I think you know, Madam
Secretary, which is that I have been strongly opposed to trying
suspected terrorists in Article III civilian Federal courts. So
with that background, let me begin with a familiar question you
were asked in another regard. Were you consulted about homeland
security risks or costs of providing security for the 9/11
trials in New York City before the Attorney General made that
decision?
Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, we were not consulted
before, but we have been part of a process to do cost estimates
of what the security costs would be after the decision was
made.
Chairman Lieberman. And, therefore, am I correct in
concluding that the $200 million figure is a figure that you
participated in? In other words, how did you arrive at the $200
million for the coming fiscal year to provide security for
terror-related trials?
Secretary Napolitano. There were personnel from the
Department who participated in a cross-government effort to
estimate what the security costs would be, and the $200 million
figure was derived in part from those estimates. But they are
estimates, as all budgets are.
Chairman Lieberman. I believe I am correct that Mayor
Michael Bloomberg and Commissioner of Police Raymond Kelly in
New York both said that New York itself would require $200
million in the coming year if the trials went forward there. So
is the $200 million that is in this budget just for the terror-
related trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and the other 9/
11 accused, or is it more than that?
Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, I believe the $200
million figure was done as a result of the estimate on the KSM
trial.
Chairman Lieberman. For New York. In recent weeks or at
least the last couple of weeks, there have been some statements
and certainly some rumors that the Administration is
reconsidering the question of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and
the other 9/11 conspirators in New York City. Have you been
brought into those discussions in terms of the homeland
security implications of that decision?
Secretary Napolitano. I have not personally participated in
any discussions in that regard.
Chairman Lieberman. And there have even been intimations
that there has been a decision not to go forward with the
trials in New York City, but I take it from what you have said,
if that is the case, you have not been informed of that yet.
Secretary Napolitano. I do not know that such a decision
has been reached, but, no, I have not personally been involved
in those discussions.
Chairman Lieberman. And I presume that if the decision was
made to take the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trials out of New York
City and, for instance, bring him before a military commission
and do it at the facility at Guantanamo, to put it in the most
conservative way, it would not cost $200 million?
Secretary Napolitano. I would think wherever the trial is
held, Mr. Chairman, that we would want to continue to assess
what the true costs are.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes. But probably, if it was held on a
military base, for instance, it would cost a lot less.
Secretary Napolitano. Again, I think you would do a
reassessment.
Chairman Lieberman. Obviously, my point is that if the
trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is moved from New York City,
insofar as our Committee and the Appropriations Committee are
concerned, that hopefully would mean that there would be $200
million that could go back into the Urban Area Security
Initiative grant program for a lot of cities and towns across
America. But go ahead if you want to respond to that. That is
my conclusion.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, let me, if I might, explain
what we did with the grants overall because I mentioned earlier
that what we have been trying to do is really look at how we
make smart and effective use of the dollars we have. And one of
the things that we heard from governors and mayors is they
wanted us to streamline, to eliminate redundant grant reports
and grant applications. They wanted more flexibility in how
grant monies could be used. And so that is exactly what we did.
We consolidated a number of grant programs so that States and
localities could, I think, eliminate, quite frankly, some of
their grantmaking overhead, certainly some of their reporting
overhead.
We also expanded the flexibility of how those monies could
be utilized. For example, in the past, Federal grant monies
could not be used to maintain equipment, so every year monies
would be put in the budget to buy new equipment; whereas, in
fact, it would be a better decision to maintain the equipment
that already had been purchased in earlier years. So we
expanded, to the maximum extent we could under the law, the
flexibility in the grant programs.
So when I am asked if that grant program disappeared or
that program disappeared, well, no. They were consolidated, and
they were consolidated for a reason.
Chairman Lieberman. Understood. Let me begin another line
of questioning, and perhaps others will pick it up or I will in
a second round, and that is about this report, which I thank
you for because for the first time we have some hard numbers
about the number of contract employees of the Department of
Homeland Security, and the shocking thing to me was that it is
almost as many and maybe by some counts more than the full-time
Federal employees. My guess is we would find this in other
departments. I do not know whether the balance would be the
same, but anyway, I applaud you for this Balanced Workforce
Initiative that you have started.
Can I assume that you had the same reaction Senator Collins
and I did, which was the fact that there were 200,000 people
working under contracts for the Department of Homeland Security
in addition to the almost 200,000 full-time Federal employees
really was a shocking number.
Secretary Napolitano. It is a high number.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes. Would you say that it is too high
from what you know at this point?
Secretary Napolitano. I think the number illustrates a
problem or an issue that we have to work through. The
Department was stood up quickly, and in order to accomplish the
many missions that it has, getting contractors was a mechanism
to be used. We are, as you know, working on an initiative to
reduce that ratio. Indeed, our chief human resources officer is
meeting with John Berry, the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM), today about how we speed that up.
And in the cyber area, we have already received direct-hire
authority for up to 1,000 cybersecurity individuals over the
next 3 years.
Chairman Lieberman. Good.
Secretary Napolitano. One of the real problems we have
across the government is the length of time it takes to hire a
Federal employee, the on-boarding time. It is way too long, and
I think it is because a number of things have been added to
that process over time. It is overlong, it is too costly, and
it means that not only at DHS but at other departments, you
receive these kinds of numbers.
I know that OPM is working on an initiative, the White
House is working on an initiative to see what we need to do to
really dramatically reduce the time it takes, not just to
identify somebody that you want to hire but to actually get him
on board and working.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes, I could not agree more, and if
there is anything we can do legislatively to support that
effort, we would be happy to do so. But the numbers here are
astounding, and obviously, if you have a short-term need for an
employee, then it makes sense to do it by contract. But to do
it by contract for what is really a full-time, long-term
Federal employee because the current process for hiring
permanent Federal employees is cumbersome is just not
acceptable, and we have to work together to stop that and cut
that down. And I think in the end, you will be more effectively
in control of the Department and will be saving the taxpayers'
money.
Senator Collins.
Secretary Napolitano. I agree.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, it is a safe assumption that Congress is
not going to appropriate $200 million to try Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed in New York City. It is not going to happen. So
accepting that assumption, if you would, I want to talk to you
about your priorities for reallocating that funding.
You mentioned--and you are absolutely right--that the Coast
Guard needs recapitalization, but the Coast Guard also needs
people, and decommissioning five of the Coast Guard's 13 elite
Maritime Security and Safety Teams (MSST) that protect
waterfront cities makes absolutely no sense given the threats
to our ports. It does not make sense--even if the net reduction
is 773, that is still enormous--to proceed to reduce the
uniformed personnel who are the ones who do port security, who
conduct search and rescue missions, by more than 1,100 people.
So, accepting my assumption that there is no way that
Congress is going to appropriate $200 million to try Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court in New York City, and you
are, therefore, going to have some significant funds to
redeploy, would restoring funding for the Coast Guard rank high
on your priority list?
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, that is a difficult
question. We obviously believe and the President believes that
in fiscal year 2011, we are going to have terrorist trials in
the United States, and there will be security costs that
accompany those trials. Those security costs need to be
estimated in some place in the Federal budget. They have been
estimated and placed in the DHS budget.
As I acknowledged to Chairman Lieberman, if the trials are
moved from New York City, nonetheless, there will be costs
associated with those trials.
So I must set aside the presumption. I will say, however,
Senator, that we have worked with the Coast Guard, with the
Commandant, very carefully on looking at how we in this
restrained budget era make sure that we are focused on the
recapitalization issue in the appropriate way. And as I said in
my opening statement, the majority of the reductions are
associated with some of the decommissioning.
May I speak to the regional MSST teams?
Senator Collins. Could I just clarify a point first? That
is, it was my understanding in response to the Chairman that
you said that the $200 million was just for the trials in New
York City. Is that not correct?
Secretary Napolitano. I said that was an estimate based on
the assumption of the trials there. But wherever the trials are
held, one can assume there will be attendant costs.
Senator Collins. There will be costs, but there will not be
$200 million worth of costs, which is the estimate for New York
City alone. So I think it is evident that you are going to have
at least half that amount of money and perhaps much more
available. And I would urge you to take a look at the Coast
Guard. The Coast Guard has been the premier agency time and
time again, whether it is responding to Hurricane Katrina or
Haiti, and we will seriously undermine the ability of the Coast
Guard to perform both its traditional missions as well as its
homeland security missions if these cuts go forth.
I cannot believe you really want these cuts for the Coast
Guard. I know how highly you think of the Coast Guard.
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, I think the Coast Guard is
one of the most underappreciated assets of this country. They
were first to Haiti. We know what they did in Hurricane
Katrina. But they perform duties not only around the coasts of
the United States but, indeed, around the world. So you will
have no argument from me there.
But if we are in a restrained budget environment, do we
keep going where we are going or do we cut some personnel in
order to pay for, for example, HEC No. 5, and that was the
decision made in conjunction with the Commandant.
Senator Collins. This Committee worked very closely with
the Department's Inspector General (IG) in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina, and working with the Inspector General, we
were able to identify nearly $1 billion in wasteful and
fraudulent spending, which is clearly unacceptable. The
Inspector General has told us that the budget that you are
presenting would ``significantly inhibit'' his ability to carry
out the operations of his office and to lead the fight on
waste, fraud, and abuse.
Under a new law that this Committee authored, the comments
of the IG are supposed to be submitted as part of the budget.
In this case, apparently there was a timing issue with the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the comments were
not submitted. But the Inspector General has expressed concern
to us.
Judging from the reaction on your face, it looks like you
may not be familiar with this.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I am very familiar with the
IG's budget request in 2011, and I can address that. I have not
seen his comments. But let me, if I might, Senator, simply say
that the request for fiscal year 2011 is basically a flat-line
budget from fiscal year 2010. We did not reduce the budget. We
did make one adjustment, however. There were some monies
somehow that were put or used in the IG budget that came, I
believe, from the DRF.
Senator Collins. The DRF, correct.
Secretary Napolitano. And in my view, in terms of honest
budgeting, that needed to stop. And so we did not move monies
from the DRF to the IG budget, but their actual budget should
keep them basically the same level as 2010. And as you know, in
2010--and I believe in 2009 before I was here--they received
significant increases.
Senator Collins. Because they have a significant mandate
with a big department----
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed.
Senator Collins [continuing]. And a lot of programs that
have been vulnerable.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have many more questions, but I
will wait for the second round.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much, Senator Collins.
The other Senators on the list, some of whom have left and
may return, but I will indicate for their information in order
of arrival: Senators Akaka, McCain, Tester, Carper, Pryor.
Senator Akaka.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
also want to add my welcome to Secretary Napolitano.
DHS's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget highlights the
Department's efforts to improve its operations, strengthen its
management, and put resources where they are needed most. In
particular, I am pleased that DHS is making it clear that
investing in its workers is critical to protecting the Nation.
I have long advocated increasing and improving supervisor and
leadership training, and I am glad that DHS is making this
investment.
I am also pleased that DHS is reducing its dependence on
contractors, which has been mentioned this morning. By ensuring
that contractors are not performing inherently governmental
work, the Department will build its internal capacity, improve
accountability, and speed its integration.
Madam Secretary, the Department's budget requests $24
million to strengthen the capacity and capabilities of the
Department's acquisition workforce, which includes the
recruitment and the hiring of 100 additional interns.
What is your strategy to ensure that there will be veterans
and a diverse pool of applicants for these positions? And what
is your long-term plan to ensure that DHS retains these new
hires?
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Senator Akaka. We have a
very aggressive plan for diversity and veterans hiring, and it
is something that I personally feel very strongly about. The
Department does need more diversity, particularly at the upper
levels, and so our chief human resources officer is tasked with
making sure that plan is carried out. And, indeed, our
supervisors are being evaluated in part on how successful they
are in reaching out to diversify our workforce and to bring
veterans on. That is the bringing-on part. And, again, with
regard to the on-boarding issue, I must say one of the
surprises I have encountered moving from State to Federal
executive office is the length of time it takes to bring on an
employee on the Federal side, and it is slowing down some of
those very important efforts. But we are working our way
through it, and we look forward to working with the Congress on
how we can improve the overall situation.
In terms of retention, part of retention, of course, is
having a career path once you are in the Department, and we are
working, particularly in some of our operational components, to
improve and clarify and in some places create a real career
path within the Department. And part of it also involves making
sure that people are recognized for the work that they do. We
hold them to high standards. We are quick to criticize. We also
need to be quick to praise.
Senator Akaka. Madam Secretary, in 2009, Senator Voinovich
and I held a hearing on the Federal veterinarian workforce and
the gaps that could hamper the government's ability to respond
to dangerous foreign animal disease outbreaks. At our request,
the Office of Personnel Management, along with DHS and other
agencies, has been working on fixing these gaps. I was troubled
to learn that DHS no longer has a Chief Veterinary Officer to
help address these issues and perform high-level coordination
with OPM and other agencies.
How does the DHS plan to coordinate with partners across
the homeland security enterprise on these issues?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, Senator, I think there are two
areas. You are right to designate this, and particularly I can
imagine for Hawaii, for example, this could be very
catastrophic in the animal population. Both through our Office
of Health Affairs and in our Office of Science and Technology,
we have across those two agencies really tasked the job of
biological, agricultural, food supply chain integrity, and that
is where the veterinarian population will fit in. We need to,
obviously, keep working in this area to make sure we have
qualified personnel on board.
Senator Akaka. Madam Secretary, the 2011 budget submission
shows no increase in funding for the Federal Protection Service
(FPS), and the Department proposes to remove the FPS staffing
minimums that Congress put into place to address the severe
staffing shortage. This concerns me. The Government
Accountibility Office (GAO) repeatedly has found troubling
workforce and security problems at FPS.
In light of these longstanding challenges, please discuss
how the Department plans to make sure that Federal employees
and facilities will be sufficiently protected under the
Department's budget submission.
Secretary Napolitano. Senator Akaka, this year we did an
internal review of FPS. One of the things we have done, of
course, is to move it into the National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD). I think it is better placed there than
where it was before. That movement is occurring, and it has
given us the opportunity to really look at how FPS works, how
officers are trained, what standards they are held to, do we
have the right numbers in the right places. And the 2011 budget
request reflects where our FPS plan stands and what we think we
need for FPS.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your responses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Akaka. Senator
McCain is not here. Senator Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank Secretary Napolitano for being here today to explain the
budget. I particularly appreciate the words you used in your
opening statement where you are ``penciling every dollar'' and
trying to make sure we are getting the biggest bang for the
buck. Along those lines, also in your opening statement you had
said that the Southern Border will not receive any reduction in
personnel, but the Northern Border--and I paraphrase--
congressionally mandated goals with the Northern Border, which
tells me that the 180 or so patrol members are going to come
off the Northern Border. Would that be accurate?
Secretary Napolitano. No, that would not be accurate. The
congressionally mandated number for the Northern Border is
above 2,000--2,133 or something. I do not have it, but it is a
little bit above 2,000. We are on target. We will keep those
numbers. We will maintain those numbers. We are making that 187
reduction, as it were, by looking at some other areas of the
Border Patrol where we can account by way of attrition, by way
of moving people around. But, Senator, both the Southern Border
and the Northern Border efforts will be sustained, and the
congressionally mandated numbers will be met.
Senator Tester. So what you are saying is that the request
is for $250 million less, and in this time of budget deficits,
I am appreciative of that, personally, as long as it is the
right thing to do. If there is not going to be a reduction of
Border Patrol agents on the Northern and Southern Borders,
where are we going to pull them out of?
Secretary Napolitano. We can show you a staffing plan, but
part of it is some administrative attrition that we are not
going to replace. Some of it is reduction in training
personnel, things of that sort.
Senator Tester. Which does bring me to actually the real
point of this. The agency was asked to give a report not later
than January 15, 2010, as to what your initiatives, staffing,
funding, assessment of investment initiatives, and those kinds
of things. When can we anticipate that report? Because that
report from your perspective and from mine is very critical as
to knowing which way the agency is going to go and how it is
going to meet the needs of the Northern and Southern Border
ports, etc.
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, let me confess, I do not
know. Did this Committee request the report?
Senator Tester. Actually, it was an Appropriations
Committee request. We can follow up with you on it.
Secretary Napolitano. We can follow up with you on that. I
believe that report is available and has been made available,
so let me double check.
Senator Tester. That would be great. I want to talk about
the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) a little bit,
one of my concerns, actually. Right now, the President's budget
does not have any requested funds for NBAF. I have been told by
my staff that a DHS budget briefing document says that about
$40 million in unobligated funds will be used for NBAF.
I guess the first question I would ask is if there is $40
million in unobligated funds that can be used for NBAF, are
there any more unobligated funds? If so, how much is in this
budget?
Secretary Napolitano. In the DHS budget, I will have to get
the number for you, but that $40 million will be paired with
$40 million from the State of Kansas and will allow the process
to proceed with construction in 2011, pending, of course,
receiving in August a satisfactory review by the National
Academy, as required, I think, by an amendment you offered last
year.
Senator Tester. That is correct. And you anticipate that
risk assessment will be done when?
Secretary Napolitano. My understanding is by August 2010.
Senator Tester. All right. And so as we move forward--it is
curious. Can you tell me why there were no funds obligated for
this? We have been talking about this NBAF since I got here 3
years ago. Why was it done this way? Why was it zeroed out and
then you are using unobligated funds for it?
Secretary Napolitano. You probably need a budgeteer at the
table, but there are unspent funds and then there were funds--
originally the idea was to use the sale of Plum Island to fund
the construction of the NBAF. Plum Island has not yet been
sold, but Kansas has now made a substantial investment. We
moved unobligated funds in order to match that investment so
the project can move along.
Senator Tester. If that risk assessment comes back and it
does point out that NBAF poses a problem, a significant danger,
are you willing to reconsider the siting in Kansas?
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, I do not think that is what
it is going to come back with because that work was done prior
to the decision made to move the NBAF and where to locate it.
But I think new and substantial information, of course, would
have to be considered.
Senator Tester. I will continue to express my concern, and
not because I do not like Kansas. I think Kansas is a great
State. It is just that building a facility of this nature in
the middle of Tornado Alley does not compute in my head as a
production agriculture guy. I just want to make that clear.
Secretary Napolitano. Understood.
Senator Tester. Another issue, and then I will turn the
microphone over. The Montana Department of Commerce has been
getting information, as well as the University of Montana, on
Canadian-U.S. border crossings, the number of cars that are
coming across. They use this data on a semiannual basis to
develop tourism plans, to develop private sector business plans
for businesses that depend on tourism in the State of Montana.
Recently, at least during the last year, late last year,
they could not get it locally. They could not get it
regionally. They had to go get that information from some folks
in Washington, DC. And, in fact, I am not sure that they ever
could get it.
What we were told was--and let me see if I can find the
exact statement. We were told that the senior staff at the
customs office of field operations has been tasked with
drafting new rules regarding the release of very simple
information. On the Northern Border, if I have any complaints--
and there are a few, and you are doing a great job, but there
are a few--it is with communication. It is communication with
local law officials. It is communication with highway patrol.
It is communication with everybody. Because I think the more
eyes you have on the border, the better off you are. I think we
get a big bang for the buck for it. I understand there are
security concerns.
But this particular issue is once again communications, and
it looks like the Department is pulling back on information
that, quite honestly, does not make a hill of beans as far as
the security of this country. They are pulling back because
they should. Are there not better things for some of these
folks to do than that?
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, that question is making my
hair go on fire. Yes, we should be sharing that information.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
Secretary Napolitano. We will get it out--we will work with
you on that, and I will check into that.
I would note, however, the President's nominee to actually
head Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is still awaiting a
Committee hearing, and any assistance the Committee can give to
help us fill that important position would be much appreciated.
Senator Tester. I agree the unnecessary holds on many
people are getting on the verge of ridiculous from my
perspective, so I appreciate your concern over that. And I want
to thank the Chairman for the opportunity, and I want to thank
you for your service, Secretary Napolitano. We very much
appreciate it.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Tester. You know, I was
about to run for the fire extinguisher there.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, well, it is----
Chairman Lieberman. I am glad it was a metaphor you were
using. But I understand your displeasure, and it was
appropriately stated.
Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thanks very much. What happened to your
foot?
Secretary Napolitano. I broke my ankle playing tennis.
Senator Carper. Did you really? Did you win?
Secretary Napolitano. I do not think the shot even went in,
to add insult to injury. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Thanks for coming off the disabled list to
be here with all of us today, and thank you also for your
service.
Do you know whose birthday we are celebrating today? A guy
who was born--I will not say how many years ago, but he was
born on February 24, 1942. He actually sits on this panel. Do
you know who that might be?
Chairman Lieberman. It is not George Harrison, who also has
a birthday today.
Senator Carper. It is our Chairman.
Secretary Napolitano. Happy birthday, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much.
Senator Carper. My wife said to me the other day, Secretary
Napolitano, that she had seen Senator Lieberman. She said, ``He
looks better than I have ever seen him look.'' And I said,
``Senator Lieberman?'' [Laughter.]
He used to look really good. Actually, he still does. So
happy birthday, pal.
Chairman Lieberman. I am just going to sit here and blush.
Thank you.
Senator Carper. Very nice of you to join us on this
birthday.
On a more serious note, there was some earlier discussion
on trying terrorists in this country, and it is my
understanding that we have done a few of those, and I do not
recall how many. Do you have any idea how many terrorists we
have actually tried in this country, we have imprisoned in this
country?
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, I do not have the numbers
off the top of my head, but----
Senator Carper. I understand it is quite a few.
Secretary Napolitano [continuing]. We have a clear track
record on doing it. A clear track record of successfully trying
them here and getting substantial sentences here, and the most
recent example--not a trial, but the most recent example, of
course, was Najibullah Zazi, who pled this week. And I
understand that the plea will have a life sentence.
Senator Carper. We like to learn from our mistakes. What
have we learned from the trials of terrorists that we have
actually held here and the folks we have imprisoned here?
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, I think that is probably a
question better addressed to the Attorney General. It is his
responsibility to make sure that these individuals are brought
to justice. I will just simply say as a former prosecutor
myself, both in Federal and State courts, that I am very
confident in the American system of justice.
Senator Carper. All right. I have a question I am going to
submit for the record regarding the Administration's proposal
on grant programs to aid local firefighters and first
responders. Others have expressed a concern with that proposal.
I have, too. So you can look forward to that question, and I
would appreciate your prompt response.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The response from Secretary Napolitano appears in the Appendix
on page 102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning to another subject now, I have always felt that it
would be hard to make much progress on comprehensive
immigration reform until the Congress and, frankly, our
constituents felt that we had done all we could to secure our
borders. But I have been disappointed that we have not been
able to effectively control the illegal activity that occurs
along our borders. I think, in part, that we are doing a better
job due to your great efforts as a former governor. And I know
you have been very involved in this. But I think the continued
failure to do even better can be attributed to what I am told
is the poor performance on an information technology project
called the Secure Border Initiative network (SBInet). And I
understand that the Department that you lead began the overall
Secure Border Initiative in 2005, and to date, we have spent
about $3.7 billion. Some of that money has been spent on things
like fences and barricades. In fact, I was actually down a
couple of months ago and looked at some of those fences and
barricades and talked to the folks who work down there.
But I understand that a significant portion of the
spending, that $3.7 billion, has gone toward technology, and I
am told that this investment has not worked out nearly as well
as we had hoped.
To the best of your knowledge, why is this investment
experiencing so much difficulty, so many setbacks? When do you
expect that the technology will be effectively deployed across
our southwestern border and maybe along some other stretches of
our international border?
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed, and you are right, Senator,
that border security involves boots on the ground; it involves
technology; it involves actions also in the interior of the
United States to reduce demand for illegal labor and illegal
narcotics.
With respect to technology, if I might, in the budget
request, you will see money for what is called SBInet. This was
a project begun years ago to basically build towers along the
Southwest Border that would facilitate the ability to detect
moving individuals, not animals that go back and forth across
that border but individuals, so that the Border Patrol then
could go out and pick them up.
The project had, I think, several major failures, and we
will in this budget complete the first tranche of it, which is
in Arizona. First of all, operations was not fully integrated
in the project design, so it was not really matched with how
the Border Patrol really works and what actually happens.
Second, it is a very rough area of the country, and there are
lots of logistical issues with the kind of project they had in
mind and the vendor had in mind. Third, there have been in some
instances environmental and other concerns with building large
towers all along the border, which have been problematic to the
individuals who live at the border.
Every major deadline has not been satisfied, and I am not
satisfied with SBInet. So what I have done this year is to say
we will finish Section 1, but before we go across that border
with these big towers, SBInet, we are going to re-evaluate how
those technology dollars are used and whether there are other
technologies perhaps that have been developed since SBInet was
contracted that would be more mobile, better, easier to
maintain, and easier to operate.
So we will complete the first tranche. We will continue to
invest in things like mobile radar at both the Northern and now
Southern Borders. We are adding not only BEST teams but also
more canines and other types of protection at the actual ports
of entry. But between the ports, I think we need to really look
this year at what our technology dollars are buying and are we
better off continuing what was contracted for a number of years
ago or recalibrating.
Senator Carper. All right. I think we are all in favor of
using technology to complement, to supplement the work that is
being done by boots on the ground. I just want to make sure
that when we spend that kind of money, it actually works.
Secretary Napolitano. Right.
Senator Carper. The second subject--as you know well, our
government information systems are constantly under attack by
hackers, criminals, and even other sovereign nations. I believe
that the Department of Homeland Security plays a role in
helping to protect other civilian agencies by providing an
extra layer of defense on their networks through a program
known as Einstein. However, I understand that most civilian
agencies are not being monitored by this program despite our
previous investments and that this year's budget is being
deferred to fund what have been characterized as higher
cybersecurity efforts.
Can you elaborate more on why additional funding for
Einstein is being deferred despite agencies still not being
protected? I recall being told a couple of years ago that this
program was absolutely essential. And, last, could you take a
minute or so to explain what the Department's higher
cybersecurity priorities are?
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, let me be careful in my
answer here because I do not want to stray into some classified
issues. I will share with you, as I shared earlier, that what
looks like a reduction in cybersecurity really is not. It is
the elimination of some one-time expenditures that we had last
year and some earmarks. We continue to view cybersecurity as
one of our top five mission priorities in the homeland security
enterprise. We have restructured and streamlined how
cybersecurity is done within the Department. And we have the
dot.gov and the dot.org and dot.com intersections to work on.
We are moving forward with different types of detection and
protection technology, and beyond that I think I should not
stray in an open setting.
Senator Carper. I am going to follow up in writing on the
same question----
Secretary Napolitano. Please.
Senator Carper [continuing]. And ask you to respond,
please. And I will certainly follow up with respect to the
funding for the firefighters and the first responders. Thanks
for being here. Thanks for your good work.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Carper, both for
your astute questioning and your kind words about my birthday.
I want to come back briefly to the question of the large
number of employees of the Department that are contract
employees and just ask you to give us a bit more detail on how
this Balanced Workforce Initiative is going to go forward
within the Department. Are you going to look across the
Department, or are you going to focus on some sections where
you think there is the most obvious need to convert positions
from contract to full-time Federal equivalents?
Secretary Napolitano. There are some areas where it is more
clear and easier to convert, and there will be some
prioritization there, Mr. Chairman. But we are asking all of
our components and directorates to participate in the
initiative and to identify areas that ought to be part of a
conversion plan, if not this year, in the out-years.
Chairman Lieberman. Do you have a sense now of what areas
of the Department are using contract employees most?
Secretary Napolitano. I think we can set aside Coast Guard
and Secret Service.
Chairman Lieberman. Right.
Secretary Napolitano. I believe we are using contractors in
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), in CBP, and,
to some degree, in ICE, particularly in the detention area,
would be one area I would point out.
Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I will provide you more specific
information.
Chairman Lieberman. I appreciate that. That is important,
and we look forward to working with you on it.
I want to focus in on the Secret Service. I have had some
concern for a while based on a National Security Agency (NSA)
Blue Team evaluation of the information technology (IT)
infrastructure at the Secret Service, which said--and it is
more than a year ago; I do not remember exactly how long ago--
that the NSA found that the Secret Service systems, IT systems,
were fully functional only 60 percent of the time when they did
the Blue Team's analysis compared to industry and government
standards that are around 98 percent generally, and they
recommended 30 critical reforms.
According to the supplemental budget document submitted to
Congress last year and the agency's 5-year plan, the Secret
Service was expected to receive $187 million in fiscal year
2011 toward the problems identified with their IT.
Unfortunately, the budget as submitted by the President cuts
that down to $69 million, or roughly one-third. I do not know
whether you have the details on this, but obviously we have
here a premier law enforcement organization in our country,
which is responsible for the security of the President, the
Vice President, and other officials of our government, and they
have to have better IT than they have.
Are you familiar with the problem generally? And why did
the amount of money get cut back from what we thought it would
be last year?
Secretary Napolitano. Again, this is an area where we can
provide you more detail in a non-public setting, Mr. Chairman.
But part of it is a reassessment of how much IT would actually
cost and also what can be purchased and what is needed on a
priority basis.
Chairman Lieberman. Well, we will keep following that one
with you because that is a real concern.
I want to take the occasion of your appearance here to go
back to something I think you and I have talked about. I guess
in an earlier day this would have been called a pet peeve of
mine, but it is the reluctance that I see within the
Administration generally to use terms like ``Islamist
extremism'' or ``Muslim terrorists.'' In other words, we are at
war, and part of the reason why the Department was created,
obviously, was to defend the security of the American people in
this war. And the Department has done a great job, and you have
done a great job in the year you have been there. But it seems
to me that we have to know our enemy, and my concern about it
was aroused again in my membership on the Armed Services
Committee after the Defense Department's internal review of the
Fort Hood murders where the terms ``radicalization'' and
``extremism'' were used, but the term ``Islamist extremism''
was never used, even though all the record on Major Hasan is
clear, which is that is what motivated him. And in this case,
the Department of Homeland Security's Quadrennial Review is a
very good document, but, again, there are a lot of references
to terrorism and violent extremism, but there is not a
reference to Islamist extremism or Muslim terrorism.
Personally, as you know, I have said this before, I do not
think we do a favor to Muslim Americans or people who are
followers of Islam anywhere in the world by not saying that
this is an extreme expression, a violent expression of one of
the world's great religions. It is not Islam as most Muslims
practice it and as most of us who are not a Muslim know it.
So I know that there are other forms of terrorism that the
Department has to be concerned about: White supremacist
extremism or terrorism, animal rights extremism or terrorism,
and even eco-terrorism. But that is not what we are in the war
with now and what you spend most of your time defending
against. So you happen to be here, so I am asking you: Has the
Administration made a decision to avoid any public reference to
violent Islamist extremism or Muslim terrorists--which is
really why they are terrorists. That is what motivates them.
Secretary Napolitano. No, there has been no such decision.
The words that you refer to, ``violent Islamist terrorism,'' is
something that we fight and deal with every day at the
Department of Homeland Security.
Chairman Lieberman. Right.
Secretary Napolitano. There is no doubt about that. It was
the motivation on December 25, 2009. It was part and parcel of
the Fort Hood killings and other incidents that we have seen
this year within the United States.
Chairman Lieberman. Right.
Secretary Napolitano. It is part and parcel of why we are
working internationally to increase aviation security.
The QHSR is a different type of document, as you know--it
is an overall vision statement--and we did not specify one type
of terrorism or another because this Department, as you say,
has to deal with many forms. But you are correct, there is
violent Islamist terrorism, be it al-Qaeda in Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Yemen, or anywhere else that is indeed a major
focus of this Department and its efforts.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes, and I guess I appreciate you
saying that. My point is we should just not hesitate to say
that. I mean, obviously, as the President and President Bush
before him have said, we are not at war with Islam. We are at
war with a particular extremist, violent terrorist expression,
which is, in my opinion, a corruption, a perversion of Islam.
And we ought to be willing to say so.
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to return to the issue of the budget for
cybersecurity because I am really concerned about this. Earlier
this month, we saw Google turn to the National Security Agency
to determine the nature of the sophisticated attacks that it
had experienced, which apparently originated in China. But DHS
is actually supposed to be the focal point for cooperation with
the private sector.
We have our Nation's top intelligence official telling us
that there has been an explosion of cyber attacks both on
government computers and in the private sector. So when I hear
that the cyber budget is cut by $19 million, it really concerns
me, and I want to emphasize that I am still concerned even
though you have described it as an area where the Department
has been able to implement certain efficiencies. And to that I
would say good for you, but that money needs to be reinvested
to expand our capabilities because this threat is not static.
When Dennis Blair testified before the Intelligence Committee,
he listed cybersecurity as a top threat to our country.
So even if savings permit a more efficient operation within
DHS, should we not be reinvesting these savings to expand our
capacity?
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, first of all, the data
migration occurred. That was included in the fiscal year 2010
budget. The National Cybersecurity and Communications
Integration Center has been opened. Some of the money that was
in the cyber budget last year was moved to the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center because it is being used to train
more individuals on how to do cyber forensics, which is an
important part of the process. I think there are a number of
initiatives that are underway in the cyber area.
It is difficult where the intersection with the private
sector is concerned. This is a challenge for us because we do
not control them, we cannot tell them what to do, etc. But it
is an area where I think over this next year we are going to
see a lot of activity because when a company like Google
basically says, ``Help,'' then you know that it is starting to
pierce the public's perception that this is an issue.
Another area that we are working on is improving
individual, for lack of a better phrase, computer hygiene.
Anybody that gets on the system is on the system, and we need
to do a massive public education job in the next year or so
about every individual's responsibility once they are on the
system.
I think that it would be helpful perhaps to provide for you
a classified briefing on all the cyber activities that are
underway at the Department and how we are moving forward, if
you think that would be of assistance.
Senator Collins. I do, and I would look forward to that. It
has been some time since we have had that briefing. Your point
is well taken. When Google is asking for help, you know that
this is an extraordinarily sophisticated attack. And I worry
that we are waiting for a cyber 9/11 before taking this as
seriously as we must. So I look forward to that briefing.
I want to turn to the Administration's proposal that would
make only the Southwest Border States eligible for Operation
Stonegarden funds. This has been an extraordinarily successful,
collaborative effort in my State of Maine. On the Northern
Border, obviously, we have far fewer CBP officers than we do on
the Southwest Border, despite the fact that the Northern Border
is far longer than the Southwest Border. So you have a
relatively lean Federal presence on the Northern Border.
Operation Stonegarden has allowed the cooperation of county,
State, and local law enforcement to help compensate for that
lack of presence. And if, in fact, you are going to proceed
with a reduction or redeployment of Border Patrol agents, it
makes no sense at all to prohibit that collaboration funded by
Operation Stonegarden on the Northern Border.
Let me just cite one example that both Customs and Border
Protection officials and local officials told me about in
Maine. There has been a fair amount of smuggling across the
border of drugs and cash, and it was a Fort Kent, Maine, police
officer participating in an Operation Stonegarden operation who
was able to apprehend a suspect far from the confines of the
town of Fort Kent because that officer was patrolling the area
and the individual had $137,000 in cash that he was smuggling
across the border. But for Operation Stonegarden, that Fort
Kent police officer would not have been in that area near the
border to apprehend this individual.
So I would ask you to take another look at the policy
decision here, particularly if you are proceeding with the plan
to reduce the overall number of Border Patrol agents. I do not
agree with that decision, but to do both seems to me to be
really undermining the border efforts.
When the Federal judges in Maine asked to meet with me to
talk about border smuggling of methamphetamine, that was a real
alarm call. It was a real wake-up call as far as our need to
redouble our efforts on the Northern Border. So I would ask
that you take another look at what the combination of the
policies in this budget would produce.
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, I am happy to take a look at
Stonegarden and how it can be deployed at the Northern Border.
You are right about the methamphetamine issue. We see a lot of
methamphetamien coming over the border from Canada.
I must disagree, however, and say once again that we are
not reducing agents at the Northern or Southern Borders. We are
doing some restaffing within the interior of the Border Patrol
that, on a superficial reading of the budget, looks like we are
reducing 187 agents at the border. We are not.
Senator Collins. Mr. Chairman, if I could just clarify
that. I want to submit for the record the Department's own
budget justification and read to you from it. I am not trying
to be argumentative, but these figures----
Secretary Napolitano. I know what you are reading, and I am
glad you are because I want to correct it right now.
Senator Collins. Good because it is titled, ``Reduction to
Border Patrol Premium Pay and Agent Staffing--CBP requests a
reduction of $31.7 million in premium pay and agent staffing.''
And it says, ``It includes a staffing reduction, which
translates into a decrease of 181 Border Patrol agents in
fiscal year 2011.''
That is your language, not ours.
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, do not assume that 187
positions in CBP or Border Patrol, writ large, means at the
Northern and Southern Borders. There are positions all over
this country. There are positions that are not operational in
nature. And there are attrition monies that we have that we can
deploy.
I can tell you again, we are not reducing the numbers that
Congress has asked to have at the Northern Border, nor are we
at the Southern Border.
Senator Collins. But are you reducing the overall number of
Border Patrol agents by 181?
Secretary Napolitano. Are we making more effective and
smart use of the monies you give to the Border Patrol by
reducing and reallocating agents so they are actually at the
border? Yes.
Senator Collins. I think it is great that you are getting
people out of headquarters, but I need an answer. Are you
reducing the overall level by 181 Border Patrol agents?
Secretary Napolitano. Positions, but not agents at the
border.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Collins. Senator
McCaskill.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL
Senator McCaskill. Thank you. I apologize. If it is any
consolation, I was in an Armed Services hearing where we were
having real fun with Blackwater contractors, so that is why I
am late.
We have a problem, and I get it, but it is really a
problem. And I do not know how we deal with this problem. In a
county in Missouri, St. Francois County, we have over 11-
percent unemployment. The local sheriff went out on a job site
for a new hotel in St. Francois County and picked up 13 or 14
illegal immigrants that were working on the job site, evidently
making $13 an hour. The sheriff called ICE and said, ``What
should I do?'' And ICE, of course, told him to let them go.
Well, you can imagine what kind of furor this is causing in
this community. One man was quoted in the local paper as
saying, ``I have lost my job, and I would love to have one of
these jobs, and it just does not seem fair that nothing
happens.''
I understand that what we always try to do with all of the
government agencies is say we want to give you less, but we
expect you to do more. And I get that part. But this perception
problem out there is a real issue that we need to figure out.
And I know you have spent more time working on this issue than
probably anybody in this building or any building within 10
miles of here because of where you come from and the problems
with illegal immigration in Arizona.
But what really worried me about it is that nobody followed
up with the employer. I guarantee you that those guys went back
to the site and picked up their tools. Well, they did not pick
up their tools because they thought they were going home. They
picked up their tools because they were confident they could go
somewhere else to another employer and get hired on, and that
is what worries me, that we are not even making an
investigative attempt to go after the employer when we have a
situation like this with a local sheriff.
Secretary Napolitano. May I clarify the record?
Senator McCaskill. Yes, you may.
Secretary Napolitano. All right. First of all, there were
two incidents in Southern Missouri that I am aware of--one was
in St. Francois County; I think the other one was in Ozark
County--where sheriffs went out and picked up illegal workers
and then say that they called ICE and ICE was not there. I have
talked to the Assistant Secretary of ICE about this situation.
There is, as you might imagine, a very serious dispute by the
ICE agents about what they told the sheriffs. And so we have a
certain ``he said, she said'' aspect to this.
There is nothing that I think would be more aggravating to
an American worker who has lost his or her job than to see
somebody in this country working illegally at a job they could
have. That is not an acceptable situation, and that is not what
we are doing with illegal immigration enforcement and at ICE.
We have had over the last year a massive amount of
workplace audits. They are called I-9 audits. We have increased
the number of employers who have been sanctioned. We have
deported more criminal aliens this year than ever before. We
have removed more aliens from this country than ever before.
Our numbers at ICE are unbelievable.
This situation in Southern Missouri, however, reflects, I
believe, a communications issue with the sheriffs, with ICE,
and, quite frankly, with the Missouri State Highway Patrol. The
Missouri State Highway Patrol have a 287(g) agreement. They
have the authority, absent an underlying State or local
violation, to go pick up these people, as does ICE. So somehow
we have to get those sheriffs used to either asking the police
or ICE to go out to get these individuals.
This does not preclude an I-9 audit of the employers who
are involved. And I have spoken with the Assistant Secretary of
ICE. He is in touch with the resident agent in charge in St.
Louis, and they are not only willing to brief you, but to
really get into Southern Missouri and see what is going on.
Senator McCaskill. I think Senator Engler, who is the State
Senator from that area, deserves to be in on this conversation.
I think that clearly there needs to be a better line of
communication between the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the
ICE office that was called, and the local sheriffs in Missouri.
And it seems to me that is something we could get fixed. If the
Missouri State Highway Patrol had the authority to come out
there and get them----
Secretary Napolitano. They do.
Senator McCaskill [continuing]. And I guess if they were
not criminals, then what would they do with them? Hold them for
a while, then let them go?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, no. They have the authority to
hold them so that we can remove them from the country.
Senator McCaskill. And I guess the other thing is that when
those things happen, I would love to work with your folks in
St. Louis because what I think would be important for the
community to see is that something is going to happen
immediately in terms of investigation of the employer--that
kind of accountability, even if it is just saying we are
sending somebody out to look at their employment records. But
there seems to be a disconnect in terms of information being
received on the ground and what you want the policies to be.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, that occasionally happens, and
when it does happen, I think it is fair to have it brought to
our attention so we can fix it, and we will.
Senator McCaskill. Good. One of my favorite curmudgeons on
television is Jack Cafferty. He is usually cranky----
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, I have noticed that.
Senator McCaskill. And almost always funny.
Secretary Napolitano. I have not noticed that.
Senator McCaskill. Well, I think he is funny. [Laughter.]
Senator McCaskill. You probably do not think he is funny
after yesterday, but when the television is on in the
background, my ears perk up when Cafferty comes on because he
usually always makes me laugh or smile when he is making fun of
the incompetence of our government in many different ways. And
yesterday he did a piece that caught my ear because I knew this
hearing was coming up.
You have asked for a lot of money for more scanners in this
budget.
Secretary Napolitano. Are you talking about the AIT
machines? Which ones are you talking about?
Senator McCaskill. The Whole Body Imaging machines.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, well, that is the same thing.
Senator McCaskill. AIT, yes, 500 more. You have requested
an additional $214 million on top of the request for 300
machines that you had before. Obviously, we had a bunch of them
in the stimulus act.
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed.
Senator McCaskill. And, obviously, they are not out there
yet.
Secretary Napolitano. There is where the facts would be
helpful for you to have.
Senator McCaskill. Once again, I am ready to be informed.
And I will call Jack Cafferty.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, here is what--how do I say
this? Congress correctly put money in the stimulus act for AIT
machines. They are the next wave of aviation security at our
domestic airports. We want to deploy them even more quickly
this year than we previously had planned. We have adjusted our
plans in light of what we have learned. Also, the technology
keeps improving.
We had to go from 0 to 60 in a very short time, design the
Request for Proposal and competitively bid, which is, I think,
a better way to do government than sole-source contracting. We
went from 0 to 60 in months, and those machines are now built.
We also had to work at the same time with airports to design
how they would be reconfigured to take the machines because
they do not occupy the same amount of space as a magnetometer.
You need the space for the machine, and you need the space for
where the reviewers are going to be. So there is construction
work that is associated with putting an AIT machine into
airports.
Those machines are moving out now. We can give you the
delivery schedule. You will have gone with that Recovery Act
money from almost nothing to hundreds of machines that are out
and are going out as we speak.
The contracts are written such that as the technology
improves, as the algorithms for detecting anomalies improve--
and they will now because there is a worldwide market for these
things--the contract requires that the vendor give us all of
those improvements and that these machines be designed to be
able to have those new improvements put in so that we do not
have to continually come back and ask for new hardware to go
with the software that we have.
I think from a government perspective, making sure it was
competitively bid, good standards, working with where it has to
go in, and all the rest, this is actually, I would say, one of
the fastest projects I have ever seen at such a massive scale.
So I would disagree with any characterization that there was an
inefficiency here.
Senator McCaskill. And with that background, it does seem
more reasonable, although to the average American, a year and a
half----
Secretary Napolitano. It was not a year and a half.
Senator McCaskill. Well, if they do not get out until June,
I was under----
Secretary Napolitano. No, they are starting now. But they
are not all going out simultaneously. I mean, there is a
schedule. And part of that is the airports have to be ready to
receive them.
Senator McCaskill. Well, do we have the kind of airports
ready to receive 300 that you have announced procurement of and
another 200-some that you are asking for--500 more? So we are
talking about 800 more in the pipeline.
Secretary Napolitano. Right.
Senator McCaskill. Are they going to be able to get out
more quickly?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. And are airports----
Secretary Napolitano. Part of it is, again, Senator, you
are going from 0 to 60, but once you have done that work--in
fact, I met with the Airport Executives Association just this
past week. That preparatory work either has happened or is
underway. They know it is coming. But this thing all had to be
knit together in an accelerated period of time. It is an
important security project. It was an important job project.
Senator McCaskill. Well, I appreciate the explanation, and
my hope is that when we check back in on this--if we get all of
these machines in this budget and the ones we got last year--
they are moving out as quickly as they are purchased.
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, we would be happy, again, to
provide you with a schedule or to brief you or your staff at
your desire on what the plan is.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator McCaskill.
You will be happy to hear, as the former Governor of
Arizona, that I have been asked not to adjourn the meeting
because the senior Senator from Arizona is returning.
Secretary Napolitano. That is great. [Laughter.]
I am honestly not very mobile, so I am kind of here.
Senator Collins. I do not think that was a credible answer.
Chairman Lieberman. We will wait just a minute because I
have been told Senator McCain is outside in the hallway.
Maybe I can fill the time briefly by asking you about the
cuts in the cybersecurity budget. I am particularly interested
in and there was some mention of the Einstein program, the
system of network sensors to protect the dot.gov domain. It
looks like there is some decrease in funding for Einstein. Is
that correct? If you know now. If not, obviously you can tell
us.
Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, we are moving ahead
with Einstein and its successive iterations. Let me, if I may,
again suggest that it might be an ideal time to do a classified
briefing for the Committee on all of the cyber efforts.
Chairman Lieberman. Good. That is very important.
Secretary Napolitano. That might put it in context.
Chairman Lieberman. Particularly as we work on
cybersecurity legislation, so we will definitely do that.
Incidentally, for the record, I am going to give you a
question which will bring both you and Senator McCain back
home. I actually met a man recently who has a business in
Nogales, Arizona, and he complained--and I bet you this will
sound familiar--about the time it takes people to come across
the border and the way in which it is affecting his business.
So I am worried about the cuts in CBP that may affect that. I
will submit that question to you for an answer for the
record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The response from Secretary Napolitano appears in the Appendix
on page 84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With that, I yield to Senator McCain.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN
Senator McCain. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Collins. Thank you for your indulgence. Thank you, Secretary
Napolitano. It is great to see you again. I know that you have
been here a long time already. I apologize for the delays.
For the benefit of the Committee and for the record,
describe to us, as briefly as possible, the incredible crisis
that exists in Mexico and on the border, the struggle we are in
with the drug cartels, and the threat that a takeover of
Mexico, or at least of certain areas in Mexico, by the drug
cartels poses to the government of Mexico as well as to the
national security of the United States of America. And, by the
way, I know you are very familiar with this issue.
Secretary Napolitano. Very, and I was just in Mexico City
again last week, and I had a very good meeting with the
president there, as well as the Minister of Interior and the
National Security Adviser in Mexico.
In my view, this is an urgent security matter. There have
been some significant successes over the past years. There is
significant work to be done. I think it is a fair assessment to
say that the rule of law is missing right now in Ciudad Juarez
and the state of Chihuahua. The Mexican Federales are inputting
2,700 more Federal police there. That may not be enough.
We are using every tool we have at our disposal to work
with the Mexican government across the border, but particularly
in that area, and then in the Sonora, Arizona, area, which
continues to be the lead corridor for trafficking.
These cartels are big; they are organized. They have
fingers that reach into hundreds of American communities. And
there needs to be a sense of urgency about this, if for no
other reason than because the presidency of Mexico will expire
in another year and a half, and also because, quite frankly,
people are dying.
But when you have that situation and you have these
cartels, it requires a joint effort. By the way, Senator, I
might say that it is not just the Department of Homeland
Security in the Federal Government that is engaged now. There
are other departments engaged.
Senator McCain. So if the drug cartels succeed, then it
would be just a matter of time before the violence spilled over
onto our side of the border, not to mention the free, basically
free, access they would have to bring drugs, as well as humans,
into our country.
Secretary Napolitano. We have not seen spillover violence
in that sense yet. It is a risk. The ability to traffic in
drugs causes its own damage to lives in the United States. Our
ability to curtail that would be affected.
On the human-trafficking side, it is not solely illegal
immigrants coming to work, but the ability of people from
countries of special interest to immigrate into Central America
and then be ferried up to the border and over into the United
States that is also a concern.
Senator McCain. People could come up through our Southern
Border from countries of special interest?
Secretary Napolitano. Potentially, yes.
Senator McCain. Well, I thank you, and now I would like to
ask you about the border fence issue. I know you have already
been asked about this, and I am not blaming you, Madam
Secretary, because I know this problem has been with us for
some years. But this border fence issue has been a waste of
billions of dollars. One huge effort failed several years ago,
and now apparently this one has as well.
I asked the Chairman of this Committee if we could have a
hearing about the border fence and the waste of billions of
dollars in what appears to be an abject failure.
I quote from a news article from the Associated Press: ``An
ambitious $6.7 billion government project to secure nearly the
entire Mexican border with a `virtual fence' of cameras, ground
sensors, and radar is in jeopardy after a string of technical
glitches and delays.''
I know you have been asked about that, but maybe you could
talk to us a little more about it.
Secretary Napolitano. I think we are talking specifically
about SBInet, and what I have shared with the Committee is that
the concept--we can debate the concept as originally designed,
but the plain fact of the matter is that the major milestones
embodied in that concept have not been met. Dates have not been
satisfied. We will finish the first part of it because it is
too far along to stop, and we should finish it.
But what I have done, Senator, is say, look before we say
we are going to do this along the entire border plus the
Northern Border, we need to re-evaluate and see if there is
other, better, smaller, more mobile, easier-to-maintain,
easier-to-operate technologies that will pair with our actual
boots on the ground in a more effective way to secure that
border between the ports of entry.
Senator McCain. Is this not the second failure of a virtual
fence over the past 10 years, I think?
Secretary Napolitano. I do not know what you are thinking
of as the first virtual fence.
Senator McCain. A few years ago we had a contract, and they
just were not able to succeed. We will go into that more, I
think, in hearings.
Secretary Napolitano. OK.
Senator McCain. Now, I read that illegal immigration into
Arizona and across the border has been reduced, right?
Secretary Napolitano. The numbers of apprehensions are
down, yes.
Senator McCain. And you attribute that to, one, the
economy; and two, better enforcement. And what do you see might
happen when the economy recovers?
Secretary Napolitano. I think we have to be thinking ahead
when our economy recovers that we could see another major wave
of illegal immigration, and we still want to drive those
numbers down. So we are working in preparation. That is why not
just sticking with the old technology but looking at other,
better things to do needs to be done now. That is why improving
the ports of entry and how we actually manage the ports of
entry needs to be done now. That is why increasing work-site
enforcement using I-9 audits, among other techniques, to cut
down on that demand issue needs to be done now, and that is
what we are doing.
Senator McCain. Thank you. I would point out that only 53
miles of the fence is complete, and the contract was for up to
2,000 miles of fencing.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes.
Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, again, 53 miles complete. The
contract was for 2,000 miles, and we have spent I do not know
how many billions. I guess we will find out.
Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, you have two Arizonans
who are joined in their frustration.
Chairman Lieberman. Well, this is a welcome moment of
bipartisanship here. [Laughter.]
Senator McCain. I thank you, Madam Secretary, and it is
good to have you before the Committee again. Thank you.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator McCain. We got the
request from you yesterday about the hearing, and the staff is
evaluating it, but I think it is a good idea. We have done a
couple in the past, but we have not done one for a while. So
our staffs will work together on that.
Secretary Napolitano, thanks very much. It has been a good
exchange. The bottom line, as I said at the beginning, I think
this budget continues the Department moving forward. Obviously,
we have some areas we are concerned about. We will continue to
work on that with you.
As we have done in the past, we will probably end up making
some recommendations on behalf of the Committee to the
Appropriations Committee on the budget and hope that will be
helpful to your leadership of the Department.
The record of this hearing will stay open for 15 days for
any additional statements or questions. Do you have anything to
say in conclusion in your defense?
Secretary Napolitano. Happy birthday, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Collins. Very smart.
Senator McCain. A wise comment.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6843.108
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
