[Senate Hearing 112-196]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-196
THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR
2012
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
of the
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 17, 2011
__________
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
66-623 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON TESTER, Montana ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARK BEGICH, Alaska RAND PAUL, Kentucky
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Christian J. Beckner, Associate Staff Director for Homeland Security
Prevention and Protection
Mary Beth Schultz, Associate Staff Director and Chief Counsel for
Homeland
Security Preparedness and Response
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Brendan P. Shields, Minority Director of Homeland Security Policy
Luke P. Bellocchi, Minority Counsel
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.............................................. 2
Senator Landrieu............................................. 12
Senator McCain............................................... 14
Senator Johnson.............................................. 17
Senator Tester............................................... 19
Senator Portman.............................................. 22
Senator Akaka................................................ 24
Senator McCaskill............................................ 29
Prepared statements:
Senator Lieberman............................................ 33
Senator Collins.............................................. 35
WITNESS
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Hon. Janet A. Napolitano, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record........... 49
APPENDIX
Department of Homeland Security Budget-in-Brief, Fiscal Year 2012 129
THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR
2012
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I.
Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lieberman, Akaka, Landrieu, McCaskill,
Tester, Collins, McCain, Johnson, and Portman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN
Chairman Lieberman. The hearing will come to order. Thank
you all for being here, particularly thanks to Secretary
Napolitano.
This is our Committee's annual hearing on the Department of
Homeland Security's budget request, in this case, of course,
for fiscal year 2012.
Before we begin, as you know, Madam Secretary, the
Department of Homeland Security emerged as a legislative
proposal from this Committee. We feel close to the Department
and to everybody who works for the Department and in the
Department. In that sense, we felt the loss this week of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agent Jaime Zapata,
who was shot and killed Tuesday in an ambush on a Mexican
highway, and his colleague Victor Avila, who was also shot and
remains hospitalized. Perhaps you could give us a report, but
he is in our prayers, and I gather that he is doing better.
This savage attack--and, coincidentally, a suicide bombing
that killed a retired Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
officer in Afghanistan last week--reminds us of the risks
assumed every day on our behalf by the men and women who work
at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). And so I wanted
just at the beginning to express our thanks to all of them,
each of them for their commitment, through you, their leader,
and tell them how much we honor and appreciate their service.
These attacks also remind us of the variety of threats our
Nation faces and, therefore, the Department's equally varied
set of responsibilities and missions to protect us from those
threats. Clearly one of the most important missions DHS has is
to prevent terrorism against our homeland. It was the
motivating event for the creation of the Department. As you
noted last week, the threat of terrorism today ``may be at its
most heightened state'' since the attacks of September 11,
2001, and I would like to talk to you during the question-and-
answer period about that.
But to get to the bottom line here, the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2012 asks for $43.2 billion in net
discretionary funding. That is an increase of 1.5 percent from
the current level of funding, and it is a decrease of 0.8
percent from the Department's request for fiscal year 2011.
Given the enormous deficits and national debt that we are
struggling with today, it seems to me, generally speaking, that
the President's budget request for the Department of Homeland
Security is responsible and it is fair. It does not include
everything I would have wanted in the best of times, but I
appreciate that we are not living in the best of times
economically, and that the President and you have had to make
some tough decisions in putting the budget together.
I do want to say I was pleased that the budget request does
put additional resources into critical mission areas, such as
terrorist travel security and cybersecurity, and I think those
are the right priorities.
I also want to express my appreciation for the fact that
the budget funds these increases and a few other programmatic
increases by cutting administrative costs by $800 million,
including a significant and, from my perspective, welcome
reduction in personal services contracts. That is just about
the best way to fund some of the critical needs for extra
support in the budget, which is to say by finding economies
within your own budget. And you have also identified selected
programmatic decreases across the Department, as you must in
tough times.
There are some reductions which I am sure trouble other
Members of the Committee, as they do me, and we will
undoubtedly talk about them with you. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) takes a hit in its operating budget.
There are some cuts in the program of Federal grants for local
fire departments, which have a lot of support here in Congress.
But, overall, I repeat what I said at the beginning, in a tough
time for our Federal Government with probably the major focus
that all of us have, as you can see from the day-to-day
developments around here: How do we bring Federal spending back
into balance with revenues? I think this is a fair and
responsible budget. I almost said ``fair and balanced,'' but I
got worried that it would be confused with other activities in
Washington.
So I look forward to your testimony and, of course, to
continuing to work with you in this session Congress, as we
very productively in the last one, to ensure that the
Department of Homeland Security has the resources and the
authority it needs to carry out its critical mission on our
behalf.
Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I am just going to
make a few comments, and I would ask that my full statement be
inserted in the record.
Chairman Lieberman. Without objection.
Senator Collins. First, Mr. Chairman, let me associate
myself with your comments about the two ICE agents, one of whom
was killed, and the other wounded. It does remind us of the
tremendous risks that law enforcement officials at every level
of government face--particularly since we are here today with
the Department of Homeland Security, we want to recognize those
efforts, law enforcement at every level makes on our behalf of
us each and every day.
When Congress and the Administration formulate the budget
for this country, we are in essence establishing our national
priorities. Controlling spending, reducing our ruinous level of
debt, and funding highly effective programs to protect our
Nation are among those priorities.
Many of us are disappointed in the President's budget. We
believe that it does far too little to rein in spending to
bring the Federal debt under control. It spends and borrows too
much. It will lead to a record $1.6 trillion deficit in the
next fiscal year. It would double the publicly held debt by the
year 2013 and triple it by 2020. That is simply not sustainable
and puts our Nation on a ruinous fiscal course.
Today we are gathered to review one component of that
budget: The proposal for the Department of Homeland Security.
Protecting our Nation and our citizens is not just a line item.
It has to be a top priority. In fact, I think most people would
agree that the number one responsibility of a government is the
protection of its citizens. With tight budgets, we must work
together to eliminate wasteful and unproductive programs and to
increase the effectiveness and efficiency of government
operations.
The criteria used by the Administration in making these
decisions for the Department of Homeland Security, however,
seem to be opaque because some very important programs appear
to have been cut while others remain unscathed.
For example, the homeland security grants that help our
local first responders improve their effectiveness and serve as
a force multiplier for Federal resources have been reduced.
That could undermine our State and local partners who are the
first on the scene whenever disaster strikes, whether it is a
natural disaster or a terrorist attack.
In testimony before the House last week, Secretary
Napolitano stated that ``in some ways, the [terrorist] threat
facing us is at its most heightened state since September 11,
2001,'' and that is why we have to take a close look at the
funding levels.
I am also disappointed that the Administration again has
proposed to limit Operation Stonegarden to just the Southwest
Border. This effective program, which relies on partnerships
with State and local law enforcement, should be used to help
secure both our Northern and Southern Borders.
Senator Lieberman and I recently released a Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report that found, shockingly, that
the Border Patrol has effective control of only 32 miles of the
4,000-mile Northern Border and has situational awareness of
only about a quarter of that border. And while the Northern
Border does not have as many problems as the Southern Border,
it is vulnerable, nonetheless, to illegal crossers, including
individuals seeking to illegally come to this country,
criminals trafficking in humans and drugs, and, potentially,
terrorists.
I have mentioned before that the smuggling of
methamphetamine is one example of the growing problem along our
Northern Border, and it is a particular problem in the State of
Maine.
The Stonegarden funds have been extremely successful in my
State in allowing local, county, and State law enforcement to
work with the Border Patrol and other Federal officials.
The Chairman has mentioned the fire grant program, a
program that works with a minimum of bureaucracy to ensure that
fire departments have the support they need.
Let me just finally mention one area of great concern to
me, and that is the budget for the Coast Guard. The Coast
Guard's fleet is among the oldest in the world, yet the men and
women of the Coast Guard continue to perform ever expanding
missions with a high degree of success. They deserve a fleet
worthy of their efforts, but the President's budget proposes a
22-percent reduction in the Coast Guard's Deepwater program.
That is a cut of $259 million. Much of this cut is due to the
fact that no funding is proposed for the sixth National
Security Cutter. This will push completion of the eighth, and
final, cutter back to 2018. And as we know, the High Endurance
Cutters, of which there are 12, are aging rapidly and causing a
great number of problems for the Coast Guard.
I am, like the Chairman, pleased to see the increases in
the cybersecurity budget. I think this is an emerging threat
that is getting worse with each passing day.
Finally, I will be pursuing in my questions that I remain
disturbed that FEMA has done so little to recoup the improper
payments that occurred in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The
investigation we did showed that those improper payments
approached $1 billion, and the inspector general (IG) has
identified more than 160,000 applicants that have received
improper payments totaling more than $643 million that have yet
to be recouped.
Again, I look forward to discussing these issues with the
Secretary. I do want to acknowledge that I appreciate the
efficiencies and business practices that the Secretary has
worked very hard to achieve. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Collins.
Secretary Napolitano, it is great to welcome you back. It
has been a real pleasure to work with you the last couple
years, and we look forward to the next two as well.
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 2012
budget for the Department of Homeland Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Secretary Napolitano appears in the
Appendix on page 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The demands on DHS have never been greater. This is
especially true as we remember those at the Department who have
given their lives in service to our mission of securing
America, including, as you have noted, most recently Border
Patrol Agent Brian Terry, ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata, and
our retired CBP agent in Kandahar this past week.
Now, Mexico is leading the criminal investigation into the
death of Agent Zapata, and we are supporting them through a
joint Department of Justice (DOJ)-DHS task force that the
Attorney General and I announced yesterday. I can speak for the
entire Administration when I say we are not only saddened by
the loss of an agent, but we are outraged by this act of
violence against an officer of the United States. And make no
mistake, justice will be brought to those involved. We owe
nothing less to the memory of Agent Zapata and to those who are
still on the job in Mexico.
We remain relentless in our efforts to keep our borders
secure and to assist Mexico in breaking up the cartels that are
plaguing that country. The loss of these brave agents is a
stark reminder of the sacrifices made by the men and women of
the Department of Homeland Security every day. It also
strengthens our resolve to do everything we can in our power to
protect against, mitigate, and respond to threats and to make
our Nation more resilient for years to come.
It is also a reminder of the solemn duty of the Congress
and this Committee to support and oversee the Department. And I
want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
for the support you have shown to the men and women who carry
out our many missions.
Today's threat picture features adversaries who evolve
quickly and are determined to strike us here at home--from the
aviation system and the global supply chain to surface
transportation systems, critical infrastructure, and cyber
networks. We are leading the Administration's unprecedented
effort to strengthen Southwest Border security coupled with a
smart and effective approach to enforcing immigration laws in
the interior of our country. And we continue to prepare for,
respond to, and recover from disasters of all types.
President Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget for the
Department allows us to continue to meet these evolving threats
and challenges by prioritizing our essential operational
requirements, while reflecting an unprecedented commitment to
fiscal discipline that maximizes the effectiveness of every
security dollar that we receive.
Reflecting the current fiscal environment and building the
fiscal year 2012 budget, all DHS components identified savings
associated with the Department's 33 efficiency review
initiatives, and we cut Administration and overhead, including
my own office's budget, by over $800 million. Savings were
realized through efficiencies in acquisition, asset and real
property management, as well as employment vetting and
credentialing, hiring and on-boarding of personnel, and
information technology. And we cut professional services
contracts, travel, and non-mission-critical training.
We also delayed construction of FEMA at the new DHS
headquarters at St. Elizabeths and deferred numerous office
collocations as well as building maintenance and enhancements
that would have furthered our mission.
My written statement includes a comprehensive list of the
operational priorities in our budget request, and today I would
like to highlight a few of them for you here.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, our first priority is
preventing terrorism and enhancing security. This was the
founding mission of the Department and remains our top priority
today.
The budget safeguards transportation modes through a
layered detection system, including the deployment of
additional transportation security officers, behavioral
detection officers, canine teams, and advanced imaging
technology machines at domestic airports. While expanding
watchlist vetting through the Secure Flight Program and
enhancing screening and targeting of international travelers
before they board U.S.-bound flights through the Immigration
Advisory Program.
The budget also strengthens surface transportation security
by supporting 12 new multi-modal Visible Intermodal Prevention
and Response (VIPR) teams which conduct operations throughout
the transportation sector to prevent potential terrorist
activity.
The request also provides funding for the Securing the
Cities Program to protect our highest risk cities from a
radiological or nuclear attack, and it makes a significant
investment in the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility
(NBAF), which will provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities to
protect our country from foreign animal and emerging diseases.
The request expands support for the national network of
State and local fusion centers to enhance baseline capabilities
and provide local law enforcement with the tools to address
threats in their own communities.
Our second mission is to secure and manage our borders. The
request continues the Administration's historic border security
efforts by supporting 21,370 Border Patrol agents and 21,186
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers, both all-time
highs. The budget includes $242 million for the continued
deployment of proven effective surveillance technology along
the highest trafficked areas of the Southwest Border to better
meet the operational requirements of our agents on the front
lines.
For the Northern Border, the budget request supports
investments in technology tailored to the maritime and cold
weather environment, including proven stand-alone technology to
provide immediate operational benefits.
And for our Nation's maritime borders, this budget includes
funding to continue the essential National Security Cutter
program and makes historic investments to recapitalize the
Coast Guard's aging assets, including six fast response
cutters, 40 response boats, as well as a sizable investment in
the renovation and restoration of shore facilities. I look
forward to talking about that part of the budget with you,
Senator Collins.
The budget request also continues the Department's focus on
smart and effective enforcement of our country's immigration
laws, while streamlining and facilitating the legal immigration
process. Building on our record over the past 2 years, the
Department will continue to prioritize the identification and
removal of criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety,
and we will target employers who knowingly and repeatedly break
the law. This request enables U.S. Customs and Immigration
Enforcement to fund 33,400 detention beds, remove over 200,000
criminal aliens, and deploy secure communities to 96 percent of
all jurisdictions nationally in fiscal year 2012, while
promoting compliance with worksite-related laws through
criminal prosecution of egregious employers, Form I-9
inspections, and continued expansion and enhancement of E-
Verify.
The request also funds immigrant integration efforts,
including programs supporting English language and citizenship
education and continues detention reform efforts currently
underway.
To safeguard and secure cyberspace, the budget increases
resources to identify and reduce vulnerabilities in our
Nation's key cyber networks. The request includes significant
investments to expedite the deployment of EINSTEIN 3 to prevent
and detect intrusions on government computer systems, increase
Federal network security of large and small agencies, and
continue to develop a robust cybersecurity workforce to protect
against and respond to cybersecurity threats. The budget also
focuses on combating cyber crime and preventing attacks against
our critical infrastructure.
To ensure resilience to disasters, our next mission area,
the budget request focuses on moving resources out of
Washington, DC, and into the hands of State and local
responders who are often best positioned to detect and respond
to terrorism, natural disasters, and other threats by
sustaining Federal funding for State and local preparedness
grants, providing over $3.8 billion in fiscal year 2012.
The funding includes $670 million for assistance to
firefighter grants, including $420 million to rehire an
estimated 2,300 laid-off firefighters and retain veteran first
responders. And to lead and support essential national and
economic security efforts, the budget expands the Coast Guard's
operational capacity by funding 50,682 military and civilian
positions and establishing the Coast Guard's first Incident
Management Assistance Team, which will be deployed rapidly to
support incidents of national significance.
The request also continues to support ICE and CBP's
enforcement and investigative efforts to protect U.S.
intellectual property rights as well as the Secret Service's
state-of-the-art forensic support to several missions,
including the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children.
This budget is the culmination of a major first-of-its-kind
effort by the Department through the Quadrennial Homeland
Security Review and the Bottom-Up Review to align our resources
with a comprehensive strategy to ensure a safe, secure, and
resilient homeland, while making an unprecedented commitment to
fiscal discipline.
I would be remiss, however, if I did not note that all of
this progress is at risk in the continuing resolution currently
being debated in the House. It is somewhat of a moving target,
as we know, but the current proposal cuts technology
investments and security improvements on the Southwest and
Northern Borders, aviation security measures including new
technology, funding to sustain the progress that has been made
in enforcing our immigration laws, critical cybersecurity tools
and operations, intelligence personnel, and State and local
fusion centers, Coast Guard funding to support the war efforts
abroad, and grants that support counterterrorism and disaster
response at the local level. I would be happy to answer some of
those questions as well.
Chairman Lieberman, Senator Collins, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I ask
that my full statement be included in your record, and I am
happy to answer your questions.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Madam Secretary, and, of
course, we will include the full statement in the record
without objection.
Let me ask you to begin by focusing on, in a sense, the
catalyzing mission of the Department after September 11, 2001,
which is the terrorist threat, and the statement you made last
week that the terrorist threat may be at its most heightened
state since the attacks nearly 10 years ago.
Talk a little bit, if you would, about why you said that,
what you had in mind.
Secretary Napolitano. I said that because, in addition to
core al-Qaeda, we now have spin-off groups of al-Qaeda,
including, I think importantly, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula (AQAP), who have demonstrated their intent to attack
the West and to attack the United States. They continue to
focus on transportation modes, particularly aviation security,
which is why the aviation part of this budget is so important.
But combined with that, we now are seeing the rise in the so-
called homegrown terrorism, which is, I think, accelerated by a
connection with the Internet. So we are dealing with more
dissipated sources abroad, but also from within the country.
That means that we have to be working both things at the same
time. That is why the fusion centers are so important here in
the country and our effort to push information and intelligence
analysis out to States and to cities, but it is also why we are
so focused on aviation security at domestic airports and
internationally, as well as adding support to surface and other
transportation. As we know from the Najibullah Zazi case, for
example, just a very recent one with the attempt to attack
surface transportation.
Chairman Lieberman. Right. Let me ask you outcome about the
threat of homegrown radicalization. As I am sure you know,
Senator Collins and I recently released a bipartisan staff
investigation into the murders at Fort Hood in November 2009,
and in addition to specific recommendations to the Department
of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), etc., we
recommended that there be a review done, preferably under the
auspices of the White House, probably by John Brennan, which
would include DHS, to determine what we can do to better, with
a whole-of-government approach, counter homegrown
radicalization. We had a hearing on our report this week with a
group of excellent witnesses. One of them, Phil Mudd, who as
you know was with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for a
long time and was almost with DHS, was with the FBI, said this
is a needle-in-the-haystack problem. And Charlie Allen, your
former Director of Intelligence and Analysis, was here and he
quoted--I do not remember exactly, but from September 11, 2001,
to 2009, there was something like 46 or 48 cases of homegrown
radicalization, 13 of them in 2009. So there was an increasing
pace. Obviously, 46 or 48 over a 9-year period is a very small
percentage of the Muslim-American population, though an
individual, as we saw with Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood, can
do terrible damage: 13 people killed, 32 injured, some
seriously.
Do you have any ideas about what the Department can do,
along with other Federal agencies, to better identify, counter,
and prevent the existence, certainly the spread of homegrown
radicalization of Muslim-Americans into Islamist terrorists?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, first of all, I read your
report even though it was about the Department of Defense
(DOD), FBI, and the Hasan matter, but I thought it was a very
important report to review. So I thank you for having that
review done. It was very well written, well done. I do not know
if the actual scripter was--you wrote it yourselves.
[Laughter.]
I thought you did a very nice job.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you.
Secretary Napolitano. Here is where we have been focused.
We looked at this, and we had the Homeland Security Advisory
Committee, which is chaired by William Webster, the former head
of the FBI, especially look at this whole issue of homegrown
and countering violent extremism. And we decided that the most
effective way from the homeland security perspective was to
focus on local police departments and techniques that have been
shown to work in the past, neighborhood and community policing,
where you have police who are specially trained, but who really
are located in a particular area all the time. They get to know
the people. The people get to know them. You begin to build
trust. That is how information can flow.
So just this past week at the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC), we test drove a training curriculum on
this kind of homegrown violent extremism, and we had
representatives there from a number of different police and
sheriffs' organizations to give us their comments so that we
can rule that out. But this homeland security architecture that
we are building, I think one of the things we have to recognize
is that the Federal Government alone is not going to be the
only player here. The folks who are really front lines are
State and local police, sheriffs, medical personnel, the people
who are in the detention facilities who work as guards in our
jails and our prisons, these are all people who need to be
woven into what we are doing.
We also met this past week with the FBI and have joined
efforts with them on the detention populations and their
potential when they are released for radicalization. So there
are a whole number of efforts underway there, but our key
focus, Mr. Chairman, is on what we can do to support State and
local law enforcement from a community-oriented policing
strategy to identify tactics and techniques and behaviors that
could be a real tip-off to a terrorist.
Chairman Lieberman. I think that is a very significant
conclusion. It makes a lot of sense to me. We know in a couple
of cases, as in the New York City Police Department (NYPD),
they are operating something like that quite effectively. We
also know, just from years of local law enforcement experience,
that the cop-on-the-beat programs in previous years dealing
with crime have a very positive effect. So I am actually
heartened to hear that.
I guess the final question, bottom line, is: Are there
resources in this budget that will allow you to begin to move
forward on assisting local police departments that do not have
that kind of program going now?
Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, a few things. One,
there are resources in this budget for the fusion centers, and
we have been, first of all, upgrading the quality of the fusion
centers. It is a nascent kind of development. We looked at all
72 of them this last year, and identified which ones were
meeting certain baseline standards, which needed to come up. We
are making sure that they all have access to classified
information, networks, and we are moving intelligence analysts
from Washington, DC, to the fusion centers in the country not
only to help with intel analysis, but to train State and locals
on intel analysis. So there is money in the budget for fusion
centers.
There is money in the budget to support grant programs that
can be used by State and local police and first responders, and
when I get to Senator Collins, I think we can have a colloquy
perhaps about how the grant money is actually budgeted in the
President's budget.
The third part of this, however is the Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) program. That, of course, is not in
our budget. That is in DOJ's. And so that part I do not have.
Chairman Lieberman. That is great. I take you to say you
are going to be driving training, at least, of local police
departments in a counter-homegrown radicalization program.
Secretary Napolitano. That is true.
Chairman Lieberman. That is great. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I get to the Coast Guard and the grant money, there
are two other issues that I want to bring up with you. First is
the improper payment problem at FEMA. Hurricane Katrina was
back in 2005, and the American people were very generous in
responding, as I know Senator Landrieu would attest. But they
are also very frustrated when they see improper payments. It
was disheartening to see the latest IG report which indicates--
and here we are 6 years after Hurricane Katrina--that there is
still outstanding at least $643 million in improper payments
related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Now, I know there were some court developments which slowed
the recoupment process, but the fact is, according to the IG,
FEMA has yet to implement a new process to recoup those
payments.
We just cannot afford to have $643 million in improper
payments at a time when the budget is under such pressure. We
cannot afford it at any time. It is unacceptable.
Why aren't we recouping that money or prosecuting the cases
of fraud that exist within those 160,000 cases?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, Senator Collins, this is an
area that I think we need to work with the Congress on, and you
and I may have a respectful difference of opinion here. But,
first of all, one of the problems is an IG report that comes
out so many years after the fact, and there are, I must say,
some disagreements with their conclusions on some of the
payments.
Second, it is not as if one, two, three, or four entities
received that money. It is spread over literally thousands and
thousands of beneficiaries, most of whom are spread across the
country now. And I am informed by FEMA that the average
overpayment, even accepting the IG's conclusions, would be
about $2,500. So it is a lot of money when you add it all
together, and believe me, I respect the value of a dollar. But
this is now going back years and years after the fact to try to
find people to recoup relatively small amounts of money.
We may want to look at this whole recoupment process as it
affects Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It was such an unusual
disaster with such unusual requirements that I do not think it
should be the pattern. So I really would like the opportunity
to meet and talk with you more about that as we move along in
this budget process.
Senator Collins. I would be glad to, but let me suggest
that I have talked to the IG just within the past week about
this, and he has told me that the discouraging part of his
report is that the same problems and lack of internal controls
that allowed these improper payments to occur have been evident
for decades, literally, and they have just never been remedied.
I think to most people who are struggling right now, $2,500
is a lot of money.
Secretary Napolitano. It is a lot of money.
Senator Collins. And in the aggregate, it is a huge amount
of money.
Secretary Napolitano. Agreed.
Senator Collins. I would be glad to work with you, but FEMA
needs to actually start recovering this money and making sure
that the controls are in place so that when the next disaster
strikes--and inevitably it will--the same thing does not happen
again. In talking to Inspector General Richard Skinner, he said
he could go back to 1993 and show me the same kinds of
problems. I held hearings prior to Hurricane Katrina that
showed improper payments with Florida hurricanes.
So this seems to be a systemic problem in FEMA, and it is
one that we need to correct once and for all.
Secretary Napolitano. And it may be--and, again, I do not
know--that it merits a more substantial conversation,
particularly with the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita victims or
survivors are concerned. But there is a real tension between
getting money out quickly to people who immediately need monies
to get a home, to get re-established and so forth and the
controls on that, versus 4 or 5 years after the fact going back
and saying, well, it should have been this much, not this much,
that sort of thing.
That is different from actual cases of fraud. Fraud should
be prosecuted.
Senator Collins. Of which there were many. I remember in
our investigation that we discovered prisoners who were
applying for housing assistance after Hurricane Katrina and
received checks in jail for housing assistance. I mean, there
really were some blatant fraudulent schemes.
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed.
Senator Collins. Let me switch to another issue. I was
surprised to see that the President's budget includes a
proposal to begin imposing a $5.50 inspection fee on travelers
entering the United States by air or sea from Canada, Mexico,
and the Caribbean. Now, as you know, Canada is our biggest
trading partner. There is $1.5 billion in commerce transacted
between the two nations on a daily basis. People are flying and
arriving by ferry back and forth all the time.
What is the rationale for this fee? My concern, for
example, is that it will discourage cruise ships from coming to
the State of Maine from Canada. That is a popular route right
now. But if there is going to be this additional inspection fee
on the thousands of people who may be on a cruise ship, that
may discourage the cruise ship from even stopping here. And I
am also concerned about the impact on tourism and families
going back and forth in general.
What is the rationale? And did the Department look and
assess what the impact would be on commerce and tourism?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, the rationale is fairness. We
charge that fee for travelers from every other country except
Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. It has always, in my
understanding, been the intent to implement that fee. It is not
for land. It is just for the air and sea. We thought and looked
at potential impacts, but to give you an example, if you have a
traveler coming from London to the United States, they fly
direct, they pay that fee. But if their plane stops in Canada,
so they are coming from Canada, they do not pay the fee. So you
have some real discrepancies in the system.
In terms of effects on tourism and travel, I think we can
look at the Electronic System For Travel Authorization (ESTA)
fee, which went into effect. These are things that get added to
the ticket price, and so that the travelers from other parts of
the world are not essentially underwriting travelers who are
from Canada or Mexico.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Collins.
In order of both arrival and seniority at the gavel,
Senator Landrieu, Senator McCain, Senator Johnson, and Senator
Tester. I asked about that, and I was reminded that when the
gavel falls, it goes whoever is here by seniority on the
Committee. It is the Armed Services rule.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here today, and I look
forward to having you before my new Appropriations Subcommittee
very soon, March 2, as I am taking the chairmanship of that
subcommittee. I have to say I want to commend you. This has
been a very tough year for the Department. The Coast Guard has
fought to contain the largest oil spill in American history.
The Department has responded to terrorist attacks at Fort Hood
and Times Square. ICE and Border Patrol agents mobilized to
quell unprecedented violence along the Southwest Border. The
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) learned of a
terrorist plot to detonate air cargo. FEMA has responded to 106
separate incidents this year. So I want to say I appreciate
your leadership of this Department.
I also appreciate your willingness to cut, reduce, and
modify based on the challenges before us. But I do want to say
that we have to be very careful about how we go about that
exercise so that we can continue to provide the security that
our Nation needs and has come to depend on under your
leadership and with this Department.
My first question has to do with disaster relief, and it is
concerning because it is a big number. The Senator from Maine
was just referring to a number associated with failure to
recover in large measure $2,000 payments equaling about $640
million. That is a lot of money, and I want to comment on that
in a minute. But there is an issue over $1.6 billion in this
year's budget, and I think you are aware that in the House
continuing resolution that is being debated and in the
President's proposal, they are both recommending that we
basically fund disaster recovery out of the base budget of
homeland security, which in my mind is a radical departure from
the past and will absolutely, if left unchecked, undermine your
Department's ability to respond to all the threats that I just
mentioned and that have been pointed out.
Could you comment? And what is your position on that? And
are you prepared to work with us and the President to fund
known recovery costs for previous disasters on an emergency
basis?
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Senator, and I do look
forward to appearing before you at the Appropriations
Subcommittee hearing.
Yes, what is going on, this is the Disaster Relief Fund
(DRF), and the way we budget the DRF is to take a 5-year
rolling average of what is basically the emergency response
cost. But added to that, then, you have so-called catastrophic
disasters, and those are disasters that are over $500 million.
And, it is difficult to predict when you are going to have
those, how many you will have in a given year, or if you will
have any. And so historically what the Congress has done is
approve the 5-year rolling average, and then via supplemental
when we know what we are looking at, then they appropriate the
rest.
By not proceeding in that fashion, you have two challenges.
One is it requires us to have perfect crystal balls to tell how
many disasters of a catastrophic type we will have in any given
year. And our crystal balls are not that clear.
Second, we have to pay for disaster response. It is really
non-negotiable. So what that means is that if you do not have a
mechanism to fund them, it is just a hidden cut to FEMA, and it
is a substantial one, as you have noted.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I just want to bring this to the
Committee's attention. Of course, as the Appropriations
subommittee chair, I will be focusing on it, but I really want
the Members to fully appreciate the numbers here. It is $1.56
billion in fiscal year 2011 that is missing from this year's
budget. But for fiscal year 2012 through 2014, FEMA is
estimating $6.7 billion. Those are outlying bills from
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, and flooding in the
Midwest, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. These costs are not
accounted for in the President's budget request. And it most
certainly cannot come out of the basic homeland security
budget. We have to designate this funding as the emergency that
it is so that this Department can adequately support its other
components, including the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, etc.
So I just really wanted to bring that up.
The National Disaster Recovery Framework is very important,
Madam Secretary, and I understand that it is not yet fully
operational. And it gets a little bit back to what Senator
Collins was saying about we know Hurricane Katrina was an
exception. It was not blanket fraud, but it was just
mismanagement of distribution of monies, of $2,000 on average
per family. We did not have the right software to verify
addresses. We double-paid some families. It is going to be
difficult. But we can find a better way, a more accurate way to
make sure we are making appropriate payments. But for this
National Recovery Framework, I understand that it is still not
in place.
So do you know what the status of that initiative is? Does
this budget include sufficient funding to complete it? Because
it is very important that we get it completed before we have an
earthquake in Memphis or some other catastrophic event.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Senator. But it also crosses
many lines and many agencies, and it also crosses State and
local. So there has been, as you might imagine, a lot of
consultation that has gone into drafting recovery framework
responses. The immediate stuff you do right away. Recovery is
how you restore communities, housing, small businesses, and the
like.
In terms of the departments that are impacted, we have made
a strong recommendation to the White House about how this
should appear and be organized. We are waiting now for the
White House to agree, concur, amend, or disagree. And my
understanding is at that point we may need to make some
adjustments. But under the current practice with what we have
now, the budget request is adequate.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. Senator
McCain.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Madam
Secretary, for being here. Thank you for your hard work. Thank
you for the frank and very candid conversations we have
concerning the issue of border security. And I also want to
appreciate the time and effort you take to keep me and the
other Members from the Border States informed as to the efforts
you are making on border security. And I think it is important
that we continue the conversation, and I appreciate the
briefing that you gave me just the other day.
As you know, there is a February 15, GAO report that
contains some very interesting information, and in that report
it says, ``As of February 2011, CBP did not have an estimate of
the time and efforts that are needed to secure the Southwest
Border as it transitions to a new methodology for measuring
border security.''
I think this is part of our problem and our dialogue,
because you, I think very appropriately, point out that there
has been an increase in assets, an increase in apprehensions,
certainly increases in efficiencies. And yet at the same time,
if you look at the same situation from another viewpoint, we
have seen the violence in Mexico grow dramatically. As I
predicted to you, an American was just killed and another one
injured, and I am convinced, tragically, that if the status quo
remains, that violence will continue to spill over onto our
side of the border.
Everyone knows that these drug cartels have become more
aggressive, better armed, better equipped, more efficient, and
the level of violence in Mexico continues to go up
dramatically. Some 30,000 Mexican citizens or more, have been
killed during President Felipe Calderon's presidency. So you
can look at it from one viewpoint that we have made some
significant improvements and investments. But I also find, when
I go to the Southern part of my State, as you have on numerous
occasions, one, they do not feel safe; two, they are still
subject to home invasions; three, in the Tucson sector, 91,000
illegal aliens were apprehended on Federal lands, and the
estimates are by almost every objective observer that three
times as many get through. Well, if you do the math on that,
you still have over 200,000 people crossing through the Tucson
sector illegally and not being apprehended. I do not think that
is acceptable.
And then last week I had a meeting with the High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program office, friends of
yours, in fact--the great U.S. Attorney, a former assistant of
yours, was there--and they said that there is anywhere from 100
to 200 spotters positioned in mountain ranges of Arizona using
two-way radios to communicate with marijuana load drivers or
human smugglers.
Now, it does not give my constituents a feeling of
confidence if there are 200 spotters in Arizona living on
mountaintops directing drug smugglers. And they maintain that
Arizona has become the funnel from Nogales up through Pinal
County into Maricopa County and then all over the country
because the Sinaloa cartel is a major distributor to the entire
country of these drugs.
Again, I have had the privilege of visiting with your
people and knowing them. They are outstanding, hard-working,
and dedicated. Those that are working in the forward operating
bases on our border, it is a hardship duty. And obviously we
have seen cases where it is not without danger.
I am sorry for the long opening comment. We have to agree
on certain criteria on what is successful securing of our
border. Senator Jon Kyl and I have a 10-point plan. We think
that secures the border. I think it would be very helpful to
all of us if you could lay out what assets need to be devoted
and what statistics would show us that the border is being
secured. And at that time, I think we could move forward with
comprehensive immigration reform. Thank you.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, thank you, and there is no one
more committed to securing that border than I am. I have spent
the greater part of my professional life on border-related
issues. I used to chair the HIDTA to which you refer, and a
number of the same members are there. And I know the men and
women that we have working for us and that you have helped
supply for us are so committed as well.
We can talk about and arrive at some common metrics, and
that also merits probably a different and longer conversation.
But I think, of the metrics we do have, they are all going in
the right direction. The problem is they are not going in the
right direction fast enough in the Tucson sector, and that is
the sector to which you refer.
And so our plan is to increase and to be pouring even more
resources into that sector from supplying monies for State and
locals down there--this is the Operation Stonegarden issue to
which Senator Collins referred--to radios, to other technology
that they can actually work.
When we get to discussing SBInet, as we might during
another round of questions, I would be happy to explain how
some of those monies have been redeployed on the ground for
front-line detection.
I will say that it is a system. You have to have troops or
boots on the ground at or near the border, you have to have
checkpoints, and you have to have interior enforcement. And, it
is a three-legged stool. And so it is boots, it is technology,
it is that infrastructure that gives us security. And at a
certain point--and I do not know if it is subject to an actual
absolute number, because these numbers jump around all the
time. But at a certain point, we have to be able to agree that
the Tucson sector has become akin to, say, El Paso, for
example, and at that point proceed with the other discussion to
which you refer.
Senator McCain. Well, thank you. I would like for you to
think about certain benchmarks and certain criteria that we
could use to gauge success or failure that both of us could
agree, all of us, and we could say we have achieved X amount of
apprehensions, a certain amount of fencing, whatever it is,
which obviously the results would be obvious from that.
Mr. Chairman, I have overstayed my time. I just wanted to
say one word about SBInet. It is a colossal failure, a waste of
over $1 billion, and that cannot be fixed. I still think that
the contractor ought to be held responsible, but maybe that is
a subject for a conversation another day. But I would urge you
to look at what the Armed Services Committee has passed
legislation which helps us track better the progress or lack of
progress of weapons systems that we purchase, such as the Nunn-
McCurdy trigger that Congress has to be notified once there is
a certain cost overrun. There are certain benchmarks and
criteria which the Congress has to be informed of and
participate in decisionmaking. So I would like for you to look
at what we do as regards to weapons procurement in DOD because
I think maybe it would be very useful and helpful to us in
tracking these situations.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, Madam Secretary,
for your hard work.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Madam Secretary, as we discussed the other day, we did
announce at our organization meeting the other morning that
border security is going to be one of our priorities this year,
and we are going to start a series of hearings, hopefully in
March--that is, we will start in March. And the point that
Senator McCain raises is an important one, which is whether we
can find a metric, a set of standards we can agree on where we
can say we are doing as much as we all agree together we can do
to secure our border. And that will not only achieve security,
it may also here in a broader context enable us to deal with
the possibility of comprehensive immigration reform, which I
know you are also interested in.
Secretary Napolitano. Very good.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Nest is Senator Johnson,
then Senator Tester, and then Senator Portman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
it was nice meeting you earlier and welcome to our hearing.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Johnson. Are you aware or have you been watching
what has been happening in my home State of Wisconsin in terms
of public sector employees?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, I have seen a few clips.
Senator Johnson. Does that give you any pause in terms of
the announcement to allow the TSA employees to collectively
bargain?
Secretary Napolitano. No. I think this is a totally
different situation. First of all, we were ordered by the
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to conduct such an
election, and I think the way the administrator, who is the
former Deputy Director of the FBI, has gone about it is the
right way, which is to say we will have an election, but issues
that affect security are off the table from a collective
bargaining standpoint.
As you know, a number of collective bargaining units are in
law enforcement already, including some that are within the
private airports that have been discussed. I want to say San
Francisco and Kansas City have privatized the security, which
have collective bargaining units in those companies. So I did
not find that argument particularly persuasive, and I think the
way we are going about it is legally mandated and the right
way.
Senator Johnson. I would hope it would never get to this
point, but TSA Administrator Pistole was asked, I believe last
week, if work stoppages or slowdowns occurred, would he be
willing to fire TSA screeners en masse, and he answered yes.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes.
Senator Johnson. If it got to that point, would you support
that decision?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. This is a security organization,
and the bargaining will take place in that context. It will
also take place in the context of the need to be able to move
people around quickly when we need to to supplement particular
areas of the country.
Senator Johnson. Well, I appreciate that answer.
Let us go back to border security. I am a new kid on the
block here, so these may be some basic questions. But I am
interested in metrics. What metrics are we currently using?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, we the number of apprehensions
of illegals. We use seizures of drugs. We use seizures of guns.
We use seizures of what we call ``bulk cash,'' which is
normally associated with drug smuggling. So those are four of
the major metrics that are used.
Senator Johnson. Do you estimate number of crossings? Do
you use any type of----
Secretary Napolitano. Well, it is hard. As Senator McCain
said, for every one we pick up, there are two or three who get
through. There is a difference of opinion in the law
enforcement world. They actually think we are picking up a
greater percentage than that now. The one-in-three metric is an
outdated metric. But when we look at where the high point was
in illegal immigration, particularly over the Southwest Border,
we see now that apprehensions are at their lowest point in
decades. And so as apprehensions go down, we extrapolate that
illegal crossings have gone down as well.
Senator Johnson. What would that number be then based on
the current extrapolation? What is your estimate of current
crossings?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I can give you those actual
numbers, let me see if I have it right here. The apprehension
number is around 196,000 in the Tucson sector of the Border
Patrol, which is the most heavily trafficked. The others are
much smaller.
Senator Johnson. In your estimation----
Secretary Napolitano. So you have to assume that the Tucson
sector represents about 45 percent of the apprehensions. So
take 195,000 and then do the math.
Senator Johnson. Now, I will say at the onset I realize it
is not an easy problem, but we have been talking about securing
our borders for years. I would just like to ask your opinion.
What is the number one problem preventing us from doing that?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, you have to look at borders not
just as the physical line on the map, but what needs to be done
before people get to that border and then after they get into
the interior of our country. So we absolutely need to be
working with Mexico to prevent, detect illegal immigration,
drug smuggling, human smuggling, and money laundering. A number
of efforts are underway in that regard.
At the border itself, you need manpower, you need
technology, you need infrastructure. Some of the things in the
President's budget will really assist in this regard because
they will allow us to complete some interoperability projects
in terms of communications along the border. And also we put
more into technology and boots on the ground nearer the border
than at sector stations, for example. So we have increased the
number of forward-operating camps. We have an agreement from
the Tohono O'odham Nation that we can put more camps on their
lands, those sorts of things.
And then you have to deal realistically and very firmly
with creating a culture of immigration compliance among
employers in the United States. That is why we support E-
Verify. That is why we are doing more and more audits. That is
why we are referring more companies for debarment and for
prosecution because that is the incentive for much illegal
immigration. It is narcotics, but the big numbers are people
coming in search of work.
Senator Johnson. So those are three different issues. One
of those would be resources, correct?
Secretary Napolitano. Sure, yes.
Senator Johnson. How much do you think it would cost to
secure the border?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think the President's budget
gives us the resources we need to fit into the plan we have for
the Southwest Border. That is our part. The budget for the DOJ
part in terms of what you do by way of prosecution, detention,
and so forth, that is in the DOJ budget. But I think the
President's budget is adequate to meet our plan. I would not go
below that, that is for sure.
Senator Johnson. Well, thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Johnson. Next is
Senator Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, it is good to see you again. I think the
last time I saw you, we were enjoying a steak in Great Falls,
Montana.
Secretary Napolitano. No; I was dropping you off in your
pasture by helicopter.
Senator Tester. That is true. I forgot about that. Yes,
that is right. [Laughter.]
And I appreciate that, too.
Secretary Napolitano. I was giving you a ride.
Senator Tester. That is right, you were. And I appreciate
Commissioner Alan Bersin coming in. I know that his nomination
is still hung up, and I would hope that gets through--
yesterday, as a matter of fact, because I think he has done a
great job, and I think a reappointment with a different person
would not help you and your position at all. So hopefully we
can get that moving.
We recently had some issues--and this might seem parochial,
but I do not think it is, actually--with the CBP policy that
would prohibit airports from processing planes that had
international flights with over 20 or more passengers. They
have been doing it for years and years and years. I arrived in
Great Falls last week, and they informed me that the airport
there in Great Falls was not going to be able to process those
international flights anymore. It saved a lot of time, a lot of
headaches for folks to avoid some of the larger, busier
airports. It generated revenue. And quite honestly, as I think
about it, a plane flying and landing on a place further south
does not make a lot of sense from my perspective. So it is not
just parochial. I think it is a homeland security issue.
I do not know if the decision was made locally or if it was
made above the chain, but it was made somewhere in the chain
where they found a rule that said we cannot do this anymore,
and so they decided not to do it. I am a little upset with
that. That is the bad part. The good part is that your staff
helped clear a flight for us, but we need to work on a long-
term solution.
What further compounds the fact that I was a little upset
with it--and it is the second time this has happened--the
person in Customs declined to make a meeting with my staff in
Great Falls. And, quite frankly, when they declined a meeting
with one of my staff members, they have declined a meeting with
me. So we will take it to a higher person, you being the one.
Secretary Napolitano. That will not happen again.
Senator Tester. That would be really good. Quite frankly, I
have zero tolerance for that personally.
Secretary Napolitano. I understand.
Senator Tester. Could I get a commitment from you--I mean,
this needs to be solved. I think from a homeland security
standpoint there are a lot of small airports along the Northern
tier that have done this in the past, and if this is just in
the sector in Great Falls, that is not good. And if it is all
the way across the Northern Border, I do not think it is good
either. I think these stations that have been doing this work
need to continue to do it, and all I am asking for is your
ability to work with us to make sure that happens and
continues. You got the drift on the whole thing?
Secretary Napolitano. I will look into it, and we will
respond to you directly.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
I recently sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates and you on the increased rate of drug smuggling across
the Northern Border by low-flying aircraft. Low-flying aircraft
is a real problem. We have heard from folks on the ground that
you can hear them but you cannot see them. And we have been
working for low-level radar for some time now. It is something
that I think that you need to work with the DOD. I think it is
the same report that Senator McCain talked about. It talked
about the Northern Border not being as secure as we wanted by a
long shot. So we need technology as a comprehensive part of
that.
The National Guard in Montana has done a pilot project up
there. I think they have done some good work. I really think
that if a low level of radar was implemented, it may save some
manpower and may make that border more secure. I do not know
how you move forward on it, but I think we need to get started
on it. Any thoughts on this at all, on the low-level radar?
Secretary Napolitano. There is actually money in the
President's budget for a low-level radar project, and we have
that in mind for both borders.
Senator Tester. Good. And I was going to ask you, you
talked about the President's budget as applied to the Southern
Border. What about the President's budget as it applies to the
Northern Border and getting it secured?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, the President's budget actually
has a lot of enhancements for the Northern Border, but it is a
different border, so we need different types of equipment.
Senator Tester. Absolutely.
Secretary Napolitano. We need equipment that can survive
extreme cold. We need more maritime equipment up there. And so
that is where you will see the enhancements, is in that sort of
thing. It does recognize and provide agents at the Northern
Border but it meets all of Congress' requirements there. It is
not just the agents. It is really the technology and the
maritime assets that we need to augment that agent support.
Senator Tester. I could not agree more. In fact, I think
that if we were to get some more technology up there, in the
long haul I think it is going to make the border more secure.
And I think that it really would not have to cost us more
money. In fact, it could save us more money in manpower. I
really believe that. You are the professional in that area, and
I respect your perspective. But I am just saying that from my
perspective I think if we could get some of that technology
implemented, it could really save us some money and make the
border more secure in the process.
The next question is one that you and I have visited about
a number of times. No one is more firmly aware of our Nation's
responsibility to protect animal agriculture and public health
from biological threats and foreign animal diseases, but I
still have some major concerns about the $150 million that is
included in the President's budget for the National Bio and
Agro-Defense Facility to be built in the middle of Tornado
Alley, where I think about 10 percent of this Nation's cattle
are within 200 miles of it. And I think food security is
critically important. The economic harm that could happen if
there were to be an exposure is incredible. We received a risk
assessment, and one of the things it found was that there was a
70-percent chance that a release of foot-and-mouth disease
would result during this 50-year lifetime. That would be
catastrophic. Whether it happened next year or 25 years from
now, it would be catastrophic.
It is a lot of money. I would ask you to reconsider the
proposal. And I was just wondering if you have looked at the
report, if there was any redesign that was done, or if you are
going to move forward.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, I read the report. You are
talking about the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report?
Senator Tester. Yes, I am.
Secretary Napolitano. I reviewed it. Actually, we responded
to it. I think you have to view it, Senator, as a preliminary
report based on a preliminary design. And that allowed us or
enables us to make adjustments or changes in the design to deal
with some of the issues that were raised. It has not caused us,
however, to revisit the basic decision of that, Tornado Alley
aside. I do not make light of that except to say that was
already taken into account when this project was peer reviewed
up the wazoo when it was originally awarded. Then we have re-
reviewed it and re-looked at it compared to the alternatives,
and now we have the NAS report, which we will be very
responsive to as this project moves forward.
But we think overall this is the best place to host such a
facility, these three and four labs, and so we do intend to
proceed, and the President's budget has finances in there for
that.
Senator Tester. My time has run out. I have said this
before. And I have to say it again. I very much respect the job
you are doing. I think you have a very difficult job, and I
think you have done a remarkable job. There is always room for
improvement. You know that. And I think you are working hard on
doing that. But as far as the animal defense, as a farmer I
cannot figure it out. I would not want it at Bozeman, Montana.
I think where it is at on Plum Island is right--and the New
Yorkers might be unhappy with me, but it is off the shore of
the mainland. And I know it is hard to get researchers out
there, but there is a bigger issue than even that here. I mean,
these are highly contagious diseases, and if they have an
outbreak, it could--the economic and the food security issues
that revolve around that are huge, and I cannot get that off of
my front burner, to be honest with you. I cannot get the
assurances, and then compound it by being someplace where they
have some pretty doggone wicked weather patterns. Anyway, the
decision has been made, but I really wish it would be
revisited.
With that, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Madam Secretary. I appreciate your work.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Tester.
I want to share with both of you that I have a vision,
after one of your exchanges, that your helicopter has picked up
that recalcitrant Customs employee official, and he is now
being dropped on the roof of the building in which Senator
Tester has his office. The meeting is about to begin.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Napolitano. From a very high height. We will deal
with that particular issue. You know what, Senator? That one I
can deal with.
Chairman Lieberman. I am going to stop myself from
suggesting he may be dropped onto Plum Island. [Laughter.]
Senator Portman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN
Senator Portman. That poor person.
Madam Secretary, thank you for appearing before the
Committee and for your willingness to go through some of the
tough issues that you face every day. We talked a lot about
border security, the Northern and Southern Borders, and I
appreciate the fact that you have asked for an increase in
funding for Border Patrol again. And I think there is a
consensus that border protection is important here, not just
for immigration but, of course, for drug smuggling, guns, and
particularly with the violence that we have seen on the
Southern Border.
But having said that, I continue to believe that money is
better spent on trying to avoid the magnet, which is getting at
what I think is the fundamental cause, which is primarily jobs,
and, therefore, employer sanctions and, therefore, some kind of
verifiable identification. And I think the more effort and time
we put against that, the more success we will have ultimately
in dealing with our immigration problem.
I think in a sense you have seen the proof of that with our
economic downturn and the reduction in the number of people
even attempting to cross. Much of it is, of course,
economically driven.
So my question to you is about E-Verify. It expires next
year, and I am told that only 11 percent of the 7.7 million
employers in the country participate in E-Verify. And I would
ask you today two things: One, do you support a permanent
reauthorization of E-Verify? And, second, how can we improve
the participation rate? Do you think it is the right program?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, indeed, Senator. We are adding
companies to E-Verify at approximately 1,300 per week. When I
was Governor of Arizona, I think I was the first governor in
the country to require our contractors to use E-Verify. And I
think one of the things we want to be looking at is not only
its permanent reauthorization but, as I said earlier, a culture
of compliance in the employer community, that this is something
that they need to do--they do not like it, but they have to pay
their taxes. I mean, it is just part and parcel of being in
this country. You have to make sure that your employees are
legally residing in the United States.
Senator Portman. Different than taxes, though, because
having that verifiable identification is a challenge,
particularly for smaller employers.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes.
Senator Portman. People are showing a Social Security card
and showing a driver's license, and it is fraudulent, and they
accept it on its face.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, and so there are a couple of
things to consider.
First of all, E-Verify itself, the system is being improved
to be less susceptible to identity theft, for example, if
somebody is using a Social Security number that has also
appeared somewhere else, it will be able to pick something like
that up.
Second, I think in its early iterations there were some
false entries into the system or inaccurate entries. The
accuracy of the system now is very high. We have also wanted to
make it easy for small businesses to have and to operate, and I
have seen it and used it myself. As people who work with me
know, I am not exactly the world's best computer person, and it
is pretty easy to operate. So that is part of it.
And if and when--and we hope it is sooner rather than
later--the Congress takes up immigration reform, one of the
things we would like to work with Congress on are the actual
charges that can be brought against employers and the elements
of the burden of proof because the way the statutes are written
now, even when we have somebody that everybody knows very well
that has been hiring illegal labor, actually proving that under
the elements of the current statute is very difficult.
Therefore, it is difficult to get U.S. Attorneys to take those
cases and so forth. So we look forward to working with the
Congress on improving those statutes.
Senator Portman. Likewise, and it takes resources and it
takes focus in coming up with a system that is, as you say,
easy to use and relatively low cost for the employer. Given our
economy, we do not want to burden employers more, but we do
need, I think, to get at the issue where it is most effective,
and that is going to be through the employer and through the
interior enforcement.
I was involved in the Department of Homeland Security
organization, consolidating 20 or so agencies and departments
when you were still governor, and I cannot say that I am proud
of everything that has happened in the interim period. There
have been some management challenges, obviously, including with
the way FEMA was brought in, including with just some of the
different cultures--I will use that word again--that had to
mesh together.
Now I am in the position with Senator McCaskill to be on
the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight which deals
with acquisitions. I have noticed in the budget proposal we
have before us that you have made a request to provide more
funds, $24 million more, to strengthen your acquisition
workforce, 150 new positions throughout the Department.
First, I guess I would ask you, Why are you asking for
those additional resources? And what can we do to ensure that
those additions, should they be approved, actually promote
efficiency, transparency, avoid some of the management
breakdowns we have seen and, therefore, save taxpayer dollars?
If you can talk a little about that.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Senator. Actually, this is part
of creating the department, having that internal management
structure and the assets with which to do that. It is a big
department. We do a lot of acquisitions, and we are often
criticized for some of those acquisitions. There have been
different standards used by different elements of the
Department, different requirements employed, different
oversight done. But what we want to do is create a
professionalized acquisition workforce that knows the DHS
missions, that understands how things fit together. So part of
bringing the additional workforce in is also training into the
department and consistency of training so that anybody who is
working in the acquisitions area is--there is some consistency.
It is a real part of the professional development of the
department.
I think you can tell by the money we have already saved
through the efficiency review process, where part of that has
been acquisitions reform and also some comments made in some
recent--even I think the GAO has made some comments about
improvements they have already seen in the way that we do
acquisitions and acquisition oversight.
Senator Portman. We look forward to working with you. Our
job is to look at, of course, all agencies and departments, but
because this is the Homeland Security Committee, DHS may get
special attention, which I am sure you are looking forward to.
But I look forward to having you or your representative before
the Subcommittee at the appropriate time to talk more about
that.
Secretary Napolitano. Very good.
Senator Portman. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Portman. It is great to
have you and all the experience you have had on our Committee.
Thank you very much.
Senator Akaka.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to welcome Secretary Napolitano to this hearing today.
Before I begin, I want to express my deepest sympathy and
condolences to the families of the ICE special agent who was
tragically killed and his colleague who was wounded in the line
of duty this past Tuesday. Our thoughts and prayers are with
them.
I am pleased that, despite budget constraints, DHS is
making investments in the workers who are critical to
protecting the Nation. DHS is taking positive steps to develop
its acquisition workforce, recognize collective bargaining
rights for Transportation Security officers, and create a
wellness program.
Madam Secretary, TSA proposes to remove the statutory cap
on airline security fees so it can raise them without Congress
acting. As an initial increase, TSA would lift airline security
fees by 60 percent to raise more than $1 billion annually. I
understand that TSA needs substantial funding to address very
real air security threats, but that is quite a large increase.
Has the Department analyzed what effect an airfare tax
increase of $1 billion a year would have on the airline and
tourism industries?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think, Senator, the request
is for $1.5 per enplanement. That fee has not been increased
since 2002, and I think we all recognize that the security of
aviation, international and domestic, is absolutely key. And
given the kind of threats that we have seen just in the past 2
years, we know it remains a concern, and it requires constant
evolution of technology, manpower, and the like. So the fee is
associated, the $1.50 per enplanement is associated directly
with the threat we confront.
With respect to impact on the industry, we already have, as
I mentioned earlier, the ESTA fee, which has already migrated,
and we did not see any impact that I could see on that.
The way I looked at it, Senator, was when the airlines
charge fees for checking a bag or for buying a Coke, we can
certainly have a fee to protect the safety and security of the
passengers. And that is what this is about. Or Pepsi. I did not
mean to pick.
Senator Akaka. Madam Secretary, the Department's budget
requests $7.3 million for security costs for the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. This national security
special event will take place in November in my home State of
Hawaii and includes earlier events in Montana and California as
well. The summit requires extensive coordination between
Federal, State, and local officials to protect President Obama
and other world leaders attending. Please discuss why these
funds are necessary to enable the Secret Service to fulfill its
responsibilities.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, thank you, Senator Akaka. We
requested those monies because of the importance of the summit,
because of the protection issues that it entails. The money is
based on estimates from other similar type events where you
have groups of international leaders combining in one place. We
want to make sure safety and security is taken care of and is
done very smoothly, is done in cooperation with the State and
local entities, and that everybody can rest assured that that
part of the summit has been taken care of, as I said. So the
actual money request is based in part on our experience with
other similar events.
Senator Akaka. Madam Secretary, in its budget submission,
the Department proposed pay and retirement changes for certain
CBP employees. However, draft language to make these changes
has not been provided to this Committee. I have focused on pay
and retirement issues as Chairman of the Federal Workforce
Subcommittee. In the months ahead, will you pledge to work
closely with your authorizing committees on your proposal?
Secretary Napolitano. Absolutely, Senator, and part of this
is our process, and it goes to something Senator Portman
referenced, is from a management perspective, how you unit all
these disparate pay systems that we have as well. And one of
the big changes that the Congress approved last year was the
conversion or the eligibility to journeyman pay in CBP. And so
part of what you are seeing is that conversion over and now
streamlining how we are organizing pay, whereas, before ICE and
CBP were treated very differently, trying to harmonize all
those systems. So we will look to working with your Committee
on that. But that is the underlying purpose.
Senator Akaka. Madam Secretary, our focus today is, of
course, the fiscal year 2012 budget, but I want to ask you
about the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution (CR) the House
is considering. While I support responsible and targeted
reductions to address our budget deficit, I am troubled by
draconian cuts that would harm job growth and may hamper the
government's ability to keep this country safe.
How would the proposed cuts in the continuing resolution
put forth by House Republicans affect the Department's mission?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, it is not good, and, of course,
it is a moving target. So changes are being made even as we
speak. But it cuts technology investments that we need for both
borders, Southern and Northern. It cuts new technology for
airports that we need to make sure that individuals who are
trying to move explosives onto planes are not able to do that.
It cuts cybersecurity, which is a very important area that we
have large responsibilities for. It cuts the intelligence
personnel for the fusion centers and for State and locals that
I referenced earlier as part of the architecture that we need
to have. And it cuts grants to state and locals. Now, one
amendment restored some of those grants this morning, I
understand, but not the bulk of them. So that is just a few of
the things that the House CR would do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your responses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Akaka.
If your time allows, we will do one more round of a couple
of questions each. We will do it with a maximum of 7 minutes.
Let me ask you about two items relating to DHS that were on
the GAO's high-risk list yesterday. One was what I would
describe as cybersecurity, government's efforts to protect
Federal systems and critical infrastructure. As you know,
cybersecurity legislation is a top priority for this Committee.
Senator Harry Reid has made it a top priority. Senator Collins
and I are working on reintroducing the bill that we introduced
last year.
It is very important to note, as you have, that the
President's budget before us now proposes increasing the
Department's, your Department's cybersecurity funding by 17
percent, a very sizable increase in these times, but in my
opinion definitely a necessary increase. And to the extent that
you can in open session, I wanted to ask you to spend a minute
or two just describing what that increase in funding will
enable the Department to do that you are not doing now to
protect our cyber systems.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, it will enable us to deploy
EINSTEIN 3, which is the name for the new protection and
prevention of intrusion technology across the Federal family,
including the medium and smaller sized agencies. Without the
money, we will not be able to do that. That is probably the
most important thing.
Chairman Lieberman. OK.
Secretary Napolitano. I think the second thing is that it
will enable us to continue to expand the cybersecurity
workforce. We are pretty bare bones on that now. It is
difficult to bring cyber experts into the Federal Government,
much less into a new Department. But we have been given direct
hiring authority by the Office of Personnel Management, and we
are making some headway there. But we want to make sure we have
the resources for that full time equivalent employee.
Then the third thing is that it will enable us to
strengthen the obligations we have undertaken pursuant to the
memorandum of understanding we forged with the Department of
Defense this summer on how we each can use the technological
resources of the National Security Agency (NSA).
Chairman Lieberman. Well, we will follow that. Obviously,
this Committee, Senator Collins, and I are very focused on
strengthening the Department's role as the lead agency for
protecting Federal Government non-defense Web sites and the
critical private infrastructure.
I received a note that you have to leave at 4:30, so let me
ask----
Secretary Napolitano. I think I have a meeting at the White
House with----
Chairman Lieberman. Do you think that is more important?
Secretary Napolitano. No, never.
Senator Collins. The old White House excuse. [Laughter.]
Secretary Napolitano. And I will be glad to come back.
Chairman Lieberman. That is OK. So you have a number of
programs focusing on assisting critical infrastructure owners
in identifying and remediating cybersecurity risks. But they
proportionally receive a lot less funding, those programs, than
the ones focused on protecting the Federal Government Web sites
in cyber space.
Do you have enough to do what you need to do in that area
since so much of our critical infrastructure is in private
hands?
Secretary Napolitano. It is, but it also is getting
resources from the private sector. The operators, for example,
of the grids know--the operators of our financial institutions,
the big critical infrastructure institutions, as we all know,
are so important to us and potentially subject to cyber attack.
They are putting resources into this as well. We are working
closely with them. But this is going to be a multi-year and it
is probably going to be an ongoing type of expenditure that we
have. And I think where we were prioritizing is where we think
we need to start and where we have the greatest need, and that
is, making sure that the Federal Government itself is
protected.
Chairman Lieberman. And the note has now been amended to
say you have to be at the White House at 4:30. I am going to
wrap up and give my colleagues----
Secretary Napolitano. We have to leave at 4:30.
Chairman Lieberman. Well, I am much relieved.
Secretary Napolitano. I will try to keep my answers
shorter.
Chairman Lieberman Rather than ask you another question, I
am going to end with an appeal. The second item on the GAO I
was going to talk about, the high-risk report, is implementing
and transforming the Department of Homeland Security. It has
been on the high-risk list since the beginning, since 2003,
remains there in this new report, although GAO says the
Department has made progress in the last years toward an
improvement in the management and integration of the
Department. I want to set a joint goal with you that, as we
approach the 10th anniversary of at least September 11, 2001,
that we work together to see if we can get you off the list
next year.
Secretary Napolitano. I am with you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am mindful of
the fact that Senator McCaskill is here and undoubtedly has
very tough questions, so I am going to submit most of mine for
the record, but I do want to ask you one question about the
Coast Guard, which, as you know from our conversations, I am
very concerned about whether the Coast Guard has the assets for
its very important maritime security role which has been so
critical since September 11, 2001. And the plan is to replace
12 high endurance cutters with only eight National Security
Cutters. And the problem is that, as I understand the budget
request, it provides no funding for the sixth National Security
Cutter and pushes the completion date for all eight from 2016
to 2018.
I am told that every 1-year delay in the acquisition
program increases the cost per cutter by $45 to $60 million. So
if this plan goes through, it is going to cost $180 million
more than it would if you stayed on schedule. And we see this
in navy shipbuilding all the time, that when you push off the
acquisition, you end up paying more.
It strikes me that this was a short-term decision that buys
you some budget relief this year but ends up costing more in
the long run.
Secretary Napolitano. I would disagree, Senator, and I will
tell you what we did. The budget does pay for some of the
after-acquisition costs associated with number five, and so
that is all paid for by 2012.
What we did not do was set aside for 2012 what are called
the long lead time expenses for number six, and the reason we
did not do that is because, while we fully intend to build them
and we fully intend to build them on the current schedule--and
the schedule has been pushed back not by money as much as it is
just taking longer to build these things than was originally
predicted. But the reason we did not set aside the long lead
material is that there was no way it was going to be spent in
fiscal year 2012. So rather than spending it on long lead
material and just parking it, we decided we would rather buy
more response boats and smaller boats, as I described in my
opening statement.
So we put the money there. OMB has issued a letter saying
that we intend to fund number six, so if there is any hesitancy
by the contractor, they have us and OMB all saying we intend to
fund number six, but we are not going to simply park that
precious fiscal year 2012 dollar. So you have extra assurance
that we are going to do that.
Senator Collins. Well, I am glad to hear that. I still
think a 2-year delay in the overall acquisition is going to end
up costing us more, but that is a discussion we can continue.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, and if I might Senator?
Senator Collins. Yes.
Secretary Napolitano. It is not a delay caused by this. It
is that the construction of these cutters has become--their
missions have expanded, and so their actual construction is
taking longer than was originally predicted.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I am going to submit the rest
of my questions.
I regret we did not get into air cargo security given the
Yemen package plot. There are so many issues. But I do want to
allow time for questions.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator
McCaskill.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL
Senator McCaskill. Thank you both, Chairman Lieberman and
Ranking Member Collins.
Let me start with how excited I get when I see an Advanced
Imaging Technology (AIT) machine.
Secretary Napolitano. Or when it sees you?
Senator McCaskill. Yes, because that means I get to go
through fairly quickly because I have an artificial knee, and
so I have to be patted down everywhere there is not an AIT
machine. So I am always disappointed when I see it approaching
in an airport--and I have been in four different major airports
in the last 6 weeks, and then I see the little tape in front of
it, and I realize it is not operable. And so I have now started
asking every time as these machines are sitting idle, and
without fail, Madam Secretary, I ask for the supervisor. I am
always very polite and tell them what a great job they are
doing and how friendly they are and how efficient they are. But
why isn't the machine operating? And they always say, ``We do
not have the personnel.''
In fact, the supervisor in Miami actually said to me, ``Can
you help us? We never have personnel to operate it because it
takes too many people, and we just do not have enough people
here.''
One supervisor told me it took seven people to operate it.
Another one said it took five. I am confused why we would be
spending money on deploying these machines, and I look and
there seems to be an inconsistency in the numbers, because at
one point it says 6.25 people to operate one of them, and then
in your budget request it looks like it is 2.5. So I am
confused as to how many people it takes to operate the AITs,
and we should not deploy them if we cannot run them, right?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, first of all, it does not take
two. It takes more than six because it is not just the machine.
It is the people who are reviewing the screens. Sometimes they
are not operable because the machines are installed while they
are still building out the area for where the actual images are
going to be screened, and a lot of this differs airport by
airport.
I will get for you the list because typically when they are
installed, it comes with it, the training for the personnel in
how to operate and screen via the AIT. And, quite frankly, you
are the first person that has ever raised this with me. So I
think overall the transition has been going very well. So we
are going to have to follow up with you on the specifics.
Senator McCaskill. That would be great. I assumed it was an
isolated event because it happened to me a couple times in St.
Louis in the Southwest terminal because we do not have them in
the concourse. My typical concourse is American in the other
terminal. And so a couple of times I went out of my way, and
they said, ``No, it is not that they are not trained. They just
do not have enough manpower on the floor at any given moment.''
And none of these had a problem with operability in terms of
buildout. They all just said, ``We do not have enough people on
shifts to operate them.''
Secretary Napolitano. Well, that may be a different issue,
so let us look into that.
Senator McCaskill. Yes. I think that is the theme I am
hearing from people, that they are not able to manage the shift
power to make them work. So we will stay with that and talk and
figure that out.
I know you have made a real effort about the contractors. I
know you have. And I know that you identified 3,500 contractor
positions last year that you are converting to Federal
positions. Can you tell us if there has been cost savings from
the conversions from contractor personnel to Federal personnel?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, and we can give you some
numbers, but there have been cost savings, and we are this year
accelerating that conversion because as contracts come up, we
can review and not renew. So I will get you some actual
numbers, but when this Department was established, just because
of the various mission sets it had and just the business of
standing up a department, it had to rely a lot on outsiders to
help. But as we mature, then we can start reducing that, and we
are being very aggressive about that effort.
Senator McCaskill. Well, the cost savings is really
important, frankly, I do not have anything against contractors.
I just want to make sure that they are saving us money if we
are using them.
Secretary Napolitano. Right.
Senator McCaskill. So if we are saving money by converting,
I would be thrilled to hear about that. And I bet we are.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, we are, and in some--it is not
just saving money. It is, ``Are they doing work that we can do
with our own folks?''
Senator McCaskill. Right. I know you also did an efficiency
review that you initiated in March 2009. My staff has attended
many if not all of the budget briefings that you presented this
week about the various components. It is clear from those
presentations that your 2012 budget request, that cuts were
made. Can you identify the areas where the efficiency review
has provided the savings to the Department? Because I would
like to carry this message to other departments and tell them
that there really is savings that can be realized by this kind
of effort.
Secretary Napolitano. Contracting, acquisition,
procurement, on-boarding--i.e., vetting and identifying--also
simple office expenses that when you extrapolate to a large
department save a lot of money. There are several others. We
have a whole briefing just on this that we can provide for you.
The contractor conversion saves money and will save more money
over time.
Senator McCaskill. Right.
Secretary Napolitano. So we have identified in this budget
$800 million or so, and that is a lot.
Senator McCaskill. That is a lot; $800 million is a lot.
Finally, I know you have to go, but I wanted to ask you--
last year, Senator Chuck Schumer and I were successful in
getting some legislation passed that provided for additional
Border Patrol personnel. It is my understanding that the House
in its action yesterday on the CR, or the day before, has cut a
lot of that money that we identified as additional resources to
be brought to the border.
I have to tell you, I get whiplash sometimes around here. I
listen to sanctimonious speeches about more resources for
border security that is the only thing that we must focus on,
securing our border as it relates to all the immigration issues
in our country. And then 5 minutes later, the same people that
are giving the sanctimonious speeches are yanking out the money
in the budget that we need to secure the border.
I assume that what they did yesterday basically wiped out
what we were able to add to this effort last year?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, it was an experience in
whiplash.
Senator McCaskill. Yes. I just think we have to call folks
on this. I am sick of hearing lectures about border security
and people not being willing to put the resources behind it.
This is nobody's responsibility but the Federal Government's.
We could probably afford to pull back a little bit of the big
checks we are writing to the oil companies to secure our
borders. And I would like someone to get that set of priorities
straight and say, maybe we give a billion less to the oil
companies this year. Maybe they will not be the most profitable
corporations on the planet, but almost the most profitable
corporations on the planet, and we actually put real resources
into securing the border.
But I for one am sick of hearing them talk about it if they
are not going to put their money where their mouth is, and I
wanted to get that out of my system, and I knew that you would
let me. Thank you, as always, for the great work you are doing.
I think you are a shining star in the Administration and doing
very good work. And I want you to stay on those contractors.
Secretary Napolitano. All right. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Chairman Lieberman. I cannot top ``shining star.''
[Laughter.]
I think you are good. Anyway, thanks, Secretary Napolitano.
What we have tried to do after these hearings is to sit and
reason ourselves, we will talk to you and your folks, and then
make recommendations to the Budget Committee and the
Appropriations Committee as we go through the process. But
thanks for your time, and good luck on the trip to the White
House.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, thank you, and I think the
Appropriations Subcommittee hearing is March 2, so we have some
time to work together.
Chairman Lieberman. Excellent. We will keep the record of
the hearing open for 15 days for additional questions and
statements.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6623.260
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
