U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66–623 PDF 2012

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 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

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 

(III) 

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 

(1) 

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 

2 

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. 

3 

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 ilVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:42 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 066623 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\66623.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
4 

1The prepared statement of Secretary Napolitano appears in the Appendix on page 38. 

legally 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. 

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, 

5 

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. 

6 

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 fisVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:42 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 066623 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\66623.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
7 

cal 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 EVerify. 

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. 

8 

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 alQaeda, 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 

9 

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 assistVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:42 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 066623 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\66623.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
10 

ing 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. 

11 

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 

12 

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. 

13 

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 

14 

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 

15 

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 SenVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:42 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 066623 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\66623.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
16 

ator 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. 

17 

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 

18 

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. 

19 

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? 

20 

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 

21 

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 

22 

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 EVerify? 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. 

23 

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, difVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:42 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 066623 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\66623.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
24 

ferent 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, 

25 

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. 

26 

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). 

27 

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 

28 

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 in- creases 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. 

29 

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. 

30 

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. 

31 

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.] 

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 


66623.001
34 


66623.002
35 


66623.003
36 


66623.004
37 


66623.005
38 


66623.006
39 


66623.007
40 


66623.008
41 


66623.009
42 


66623.010
43 


66623.011
44 


66623.012
45 


66623.013
46 


66623.014
47 


66623.015
48 


66623.016
49 


66623.017
50 


66623.018
51 


66623.019
52 


66623.020
53 


66623.021
54 


66623.022
55 


66623.023
56 


66623.024
57 


66623.025
58 


66623.026
59 


66623.027
60 


66623.028
61 


66623.029
62 


66623.030
63 


66623.031
64 


66623.032
65 


66623.033
66 


66623.034
67 


66623.035
68 


66623.036
69 


66623.037
70 


66623.038
71 


66623.039
72 


66623.040
73 


66623.041
74 


66623.042
75 


66623.043
76 


66623.044
77 


66623.045
78 


66623.046
79 


66623.047
80 


66623.048
81 


66623.049
82 


66623.050
83 


66623.051
84 


66623.052
85 


66623.053
86 


66623.054
87 


66623.055
88 


66623.056
89 


66623.057
90 


66623.058
91 


66623.059
92 


66623.060
93 


66623.061
94 


66623.062
95 


66623.063
96 


66623.064
97 


66623.065
98 


66623.066
99 


66623.067
100 


66623.068
101 


66623.069
102 


66623.070
103 


66623.071
104 


66623.072
105 


66623.073
106 


66623.074
107 


66623.075
108 


66623.076
109 


66623.077
110 


66623.078
111 


66623.079
112 


66623.080
113 


66623.081
114 


66623.082
115 


66623.083
116 


66623.084
117 


66623.085
118 


66623.086
119 


66623.087
120 


66623.088
121 


66623.089
122 


66623.090
123 


66623.091
124 


66623.092
125 


66623.093
126 


66623.094
127 


66623.095
128 


66623.096
129 


66623.097
130 


66623.098
131 


66623.099
132 


66623.100
133 


66623.101
134 


66623.102
135 


66623.103
136 


66623.104
137 


66623.105
138 


66623.106
139 


66623.107
140 


66623.108
141 


66623.109
142 


66623.110
143 


66623.111
144 


66623.112
145 


66623.113
146 


66623.114
147 


66623.115
148 


66623.116
149 


66623.117
150 


66623.118
151 


66623.119
152 


66623.120
153 


66623.121
154 


66623.122
155 


66623.123
156 


66623.124
157 


66623.125
158 


66623.126
159 


66623.127
160 


66623.128
161 


66623.129
162 


66623.130
163 


66623.131
164 


66623.132
165 


66623.133
166 


66623.134
167 


66623.135
168 


66623.136
169 


66623.137
170 


66623.138
171 


66623.139
172 


66623.140
173 


66623.141
174 


66623.142
175 


66623.143
176 


66623.144
177 


66623.145
178 


66623.146
179 


66623.147
180 


66623.148
181 


66623.149
182 


66623.150
183 


66623.151
184 


66623.152
185 


66623.153
186 


66623.154
187 


66623.155
188 


66623.156
189 


66623.157
190 


66623.158
191 


66623.159
192 


66623.160
193 


66623.161
194 


66623.162
195 


66623.163
196 


66623.164
197 


66623.165
198 


66623.166
199 


66623.167
200 


66623.168
201 


66623.169
202 


66623.170
203 


66623.171
204 


66623.172
205 


66623.173
206 


66623.174
207 


66623.175
208 


66623.176
209 


66623.177
210 


66623.178
211 


66623.179
212 


66623.180
213 


66623.181
214 


66623.182
215 


66623.183
216 


66623.184
217 


66623.185
218 


66623.186
219 


66623.187
220 


66623.188
221 


66623.189
222 


66623.190
223 


66623.191
224 


66623.192
225 


66623.193
226 


66623.194
227 


66623.195
228 


66623.196
229 


66623.197
230 


66623.198
231 


66623.199
232 


66623.200
233 


66623.201
234 


66623.202
235 


66623.203
236 


66623.204
237 


66623.205
238 


66623.206
239 


66623.207
240 


66623.208
241 


66623.209
242 


66623.210
243 


66623.211
244 


66623.212
245 


66623.213
246 


66623.214
247 


66623.215
248 


66623.216
249 


66623.217
250 


66623.218
251 


66623.219
252 


66623.220
253 


66623.221
254 


66623.222
255 


66623.223
256 


66623.224
257 


66623.225
258 


66623.226
259 


66623.227
260 


66623.228
261 


66623.229
262 


66623.230
263 


66623.231
264 


66623.232
265 


66623.233
266 


66623.234
267 


66623.235
268 


66623.236
269 


66623.237
270 


66623.238
271 


66623.239
272 


66623.240
273 


66623.241
274 


66623.242
275 


66623.243
276 


66623.244
277 


66623.245
278 


66623.246
279 


66623.247
280 


66623.248
281 


66623.249
282 


66623.250
283 


66623.251
284 


66623.252
285 


66623.253
286 


66623.254
287 


66623.255
288 


66623.256
289 


66623.257
290 


66623.258
291 


66623.259
292 

Æ 


66623.260