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

75–641 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–513 

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 19, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–48 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement and letter ......................................................................... 103 

WITNESSES 

Napolitano, Hon. Janet, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 5 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Janet Napolitano to questions submitted by Senators Leahy, 

Whitehouse, Grassley, Kyl, Sessions .................................................................. 36 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Napolitano, Hon. Janet, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 107 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, WASHINGTON, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, 

Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Grassley, Sessions, and Hatch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning, everybody. Thank you all for 

being here. It has been another good week for our Nation and our 

Federal law enforcement efforts. Last Tuesday, we learned of the 

foiled assassination attempt in the United States of the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. This case involved the Department 

of Justice, the FBI, and the DEA in a coordinated effort to stop an 

act of terrorism on U.S. soil, and I want to praise the agencies involved in the investigation. I was also pleased to see that, in this 

instance, Members of Congress did not engage in armchair quarterbacking over whether the suspect should be transferred to military 

custody or sent to Guantanamo. 

I remember nearly 2 years ago, when a terrorist attempted to 

blow up an airplane on Christmas Day, some politicians used the 

occasion to criticize the Attorney General after the suspect was arrested. They made all kinds of claims, none of which came true. 

One I recall was people saying, well, why was he given Miranda 

rights? Well, most of who have been involved in law enforcement 

know if somebody is going to confess, they are going to confess 

whether you give them Miranda rights or not. We obtained a lot 

of useful intelligence from the suspect. People complained about 

trying the Christmas day suspect in Federal court. He was tried in 

Federal court and showed the rest of the world that our courts 

work. The suspect pled guilty. He now faces a potential life sentence. The prosecution can feel very happy that they followed it exactly the way they did and did not listen to the Monday morning 

quarterbacks. More than 400 terrorism cases prosecuted by the Department of Justice since September 11, 2001. 

Over the last 21⁄2 years, the President and his national security 

team have done a tremendous job protecting America and taking 

the fight to our enemies. Earlier this year, the President ordered 
2 

a successful strike against Osama bin Laden. He has stayed focused on destroying al Qaeda from his first days in office. I commend the President and the CIA on that success. 

Last month, the administration was also able to locate Anwar al 

Awlaki, a terrorist operative in Yemen who was recruiting Americans to attack within the United States, in one case with horrible 

and tragic effects at Fort Hood. 

Now, do we remain vigilant? Of course. But I think we ought to 

acknowledge that there has been a great deal of progress made. 

In the aftermath of 9/11, the country spent trillions of dollars 

trying to shore up our security. Some of the efforts, especially those 

undertaken in the early years, were wasteful and ineffective. The 

Bush-Cheney administration insisted on shifting our focus from bin 

Laden to Saddam Hussein in Iraq, even though Saddam Hussein 

and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. That cost thousands of American lives and added hundreds of billions, possibly 

over $1 trillion, to our national debt. We continue to take money 

from programs in the United States—including education, medical 

research, infrastructure, and housing—and we dump it into Iraq. 

I hope that the Nation and the Congress are now ready for a new 

discussion about the next chapter in our efforts. 

Secretary Napolitano, you and I first met back in the days when 

you were a prosecutor. I have a great deal of admiration for you 

and the way you have run your office, and I thank you for joining 

us this today. I look forward to hearing from you what you believe 

have been the successes of the past few years and what our priorities should be moving forward. I hope that your Department can 

strengthen its effort to provide help not only to Vermonters but 

others around the country who have been so devastated by recent 

natural disasters. That has been an important and necessary role 

for the Federal Government that is much needed. 

I do appreciate all of the Department’s efforts to help Vermonters 

begin rebuilding after the devastating floods we experienced this 

spring and this summer. I was born in Vermont. I have never seen 

anything so disastrous in my life. It reminds me of the stories my 

grandparents and parents would tell me about a disastrous flood 

from 100 years ago. These emergencies are difficult enough for the 

Americans living through them, especially as winter approaches. 

We should not complicate the situation with the added uncertainty 

that comes from ideological opposition to this fundamental Federal 

role and that results in Congressional inaction on desperately needed funding for disaster relief. The American people waiting for disaster assistance should not be victimized again. Americans should 

help other Americans as we have for generations. 

As somebody said to me, we seem to have an unlimited amount 

of money to build roads and bridges and houses in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then they are blownup. Build them in America for 

Americans by Americans, and Americans will protect them and use 

them. 

We in our State bore the full brunt of Irene. Roads, bridges, 

homes, farms, and businesses were all destroyed when gentle rivers 

became torrents of destruction. I want to compliment Craig Fugate, 

the Administrator for FEMA, and his staff. He came up to 

Vermont, where my wife and I met with him. I have gone around 
3 

and visited a number of the FEMA offices in Vermont, and I thank 

the FEMA staff for doing such good work. 

Border security is another area in which we have progress to report. I think it is finally time to renew a discussion of comprehensive immigration reform, a discussion that went off track after the 

Senate passed a bipartisan bill in 2006. Madam Secretary, I look 

forward to your help on immigration reform. 

Our work is not done. Change has never been quick or simple. 

The kind of change brought about by comprehensive immigration 

reform depends on persistence and determination. I realize it is a 

different world than when my grandparents, my maternal grandparents, emigrated from Italy to the United States, to Vermont. 

But we have to realize we are a Nation of immigrants, and we have 

got to have a better immigration policy. 

I look forward to the day when, to paraphrase President Obama, 

barricades begin to fall and bigotry begins to fade. Then, not only 

laws, but hearts and minds will change. New doors of opportunity 

will swing open for immigrants who want only to live the American 

dream. Our Nation will be stronger, better, and more productive on 

that day. 

So with that, Senator Grassley, I yield to you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Oversight is a critical function of our Government, a constitutional responsibility of Congress. It is often an 

overlooked function for members. It is not always glamorous. It is 

hard work, and it can be frustrating because of bureaucratic 

stonewalling. 

In 2008, I was glad to hear the President-elect talk about the 

most transparent Government ever. Unfortunately, this administration has been far from transparent. Today’s hearing will give us 

an opportunity to ask questions that have gone unanswered. I am 

frustrated by the less than forthcoming answers we receive from 

the administration when conducting our constitutional duty of 

oversight. 

We need a little bit more straight talk. This Senator for one feels 

as though our concerns are often dismissed. An example: Just last 

week, 19 Senators received a response to a letter that we sent to 

the President about immigration policies. The response did not 

come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It did not even come from 

the Secretary before us. It came from a bureaucrat in the Office of 

Legislative Affairs. The response was non-responsive. It is as if our 

concerns are somehow trivial or insignificant. 

We wrote to the President about prosecuting discretion directives 

being issued by the Department of Homeland Security. In June, 

Assistant Secretary Morton released a memo directing and encouraging Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to exercise 

prosecuting discretion. Officers were asked to consider the alien’s 

length of presence in the United States; the circumstances of the 

alien’s arrival in the United States, particularly if the alien came 

as a young child; their criminal history, age, service in the military, 

and pursuit of education in the United States. 
4 

On August 18th, the Secretary announced an initiative to establish a working group to sort through an untold number of cases 

currently pending before the immigration and Federal courts to determine if they can be ‘‘administratively closed.’’ Combined, these 

directives are alarming, especially to those of us who firmly believe 

in the rule of law. 

We have many unanswered questions from this administration 

about their prosecuting discretion initiatives. We want answers. 

We want transparency and accountability. Constitutionally, we are 

a part of the process. The American people are shareholders, and 

they deserve to be consulted when major immigration policy is 

being formulated. Americans also want the truth. 

I am frustrated about the administration’s deceptive marketing 

tactics in claiming that they have deported more undocumented 

people than ever before. The Secretary continues to use statistics 

that are inflated and inconsistent with the official data produced 

by the Office of Immigration Statistics. That office has been around 

awhile—since 1883, to be exact—so I would like to know why the 

Secretary cherrypicks what numbers she wants to use and refuses 

to use the statistics provided by the Office of Immigration Reform. 

And I will point now to all of you to look at the poster. The Department has a credibility problem. The Washington Post uncovered the story last December. The headline says it all: ‘‘Unusual 

methods helped ICE break deportation records.’’ The administration, including the Secretary, uses figures prepared by ICE. ICE 

uses a different methodology, counting deportations from previous 

years and operating a repatriation program longer to pad the numbers. The Office of Immigration Statistics, on the other hand, only 

counts removals that actually took place during that year. 

Let me provide another example. The Secretary gave a speech at 

American University on October 5th saying that in 2010 ICE removed over 195,000 convicted criminals. However, the official statistics of the Office of Immigration Statistics is 168,500, so that is 

a difference of 27,000. 

The point is we do not know what to believe. The Department 

is using different methodologies from 1 year to the next. Homeland 

Security personnel, according to the Washington Post, are encouraging immigration officials to do what they can to increase the 

overall removal numbers. There is funny business going on, and 

the Department’s credibility is at stake. 

But do not just take it from this Senator. Even the President acknowledged that the numbers are dubious. During a recent online 

discussion aimed at Hispanic voters, President Obama said that, 

‘‘The statistics are a little deceptive.’’ 

So I would like to hear from the Secretary why they continue to 

use these deceptive statistics and why the Department chooses to 

use ICE figures which are embellished and inconsistent rather 

than using the data from the Office of Immigration Statistics. 

I would also like assurances again that this administration is not 

using creative ways to keep as many undocumented people in this 

country. We have talked a lot about deferred action and parole, but 

there are many other ideas in the memo. 

For example, one of the most egregious options laid out in that 

memo was a proposal to lessen the extreme hardship standard. The 
5 

amnesty memo states, ‘‘To increase the number of individuals applying for waivers and improve their chances of receiving them, 

CIS could issue guidance or a regulation specifying a lower evidentiary standard for extreme hardship.’’ 

If the standard is lessened, untold numbers of undocumented individuals would be able to bypass the 3-year and the 10-year bars 

that are clearly laid out in the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

I expect to hear from the Secretary if such a plan is being discussed by anyone within the Department. If it is, I will warn her 

that such an action would be another blatant attempt to circumvent Congress and the laws that we put in place. 

On a final matter related to immigration, I am very concerned 

by the administration’s inconsistent position when it comes to 

suing States for enacting various immigration laws. The administration has sued Arizona and Alabama, and now news reports 

claim that the attorneys are considering challenges in other States, 

including Utah, Georgia, Indiana, and South Carolina. But what 

about cities and States that ignore Federal law? Will the administration turn a blind eye to them? 

Finally, I have asked Secretary Napolitano in the past about the 

involvement of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers 

being detailed to Phoenix to the ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious. 

I also asked the Secretary at a hearing back in June about whether 

she had had any communication about Fast and Furious with her 

former chief of staff, Dennis Burke, who was the U.S. Attorney in 

Arizona responsible for Fast and Furious. I did not get any response back. 

Mr. Burke is to be commended to some extent for being the only 

person to resign and take responsibility for a failed operation. Of 

course, I do not believe that he should feel obligated to be the only 

fall guy. If there are other higher-ranking officials in the Justice 

Department who should also be held accountable, they should also 

step up to take responsibility. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you. 

Now with all those greetings, Secretary Napolitano, please feel 

free to start. We have Senators Coons, Durbin, Schumer, Feinstein, 

myself, Grassley, and Hatch here. Others will be joining us. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member Grassley, members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. 

I would like to update you on the progress we are making, particularly with respect to our efforts to prevent terrorism and to enhance security, to secure and manage our borders and to enforce 

and administer our Nation’s immigration laws. In these and other 

areas, we have continued to grow and mature as a Department by 

strengthening our existing capabilities, building new ones, enhancing our partnerships across all levels of Government and with the 

private sector, and streamlining our operations and increasing efficiency. 
6 

Nonetheless, we know the terrorist threat facing our country has 

evolved significantly over the last 10 years, and it continues to 

evolve. Perhaps most crucially, we face a threat environment where 

violent extremism and terrorism are not defined or contained by 

international borders. So today we must address threats that are 

homegrown as well as those that originate abroad. 

Over the past 21⁄2 years, DHS has worked to build a new architecture to better defend against this evolving terrorist threat. For 

one part, we are working directly with law enforcement and community-based organizations to counter violent extremism at its 

source, using many of the same techniques and strategies that 

have historically proven successful in combating violence in American communities. 

We are focused on getting resources and information out of 

Washington, D.C., and into the hands of State and local law enforcement, to provide them with the tools they need to combat 

threats in their communities. 

We continue to participate in Joint Terrorism Task Forces, provide support for State and local fusion centers, and work with our 

partners at the Department of Justice on the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative. 

We are encouraging the public to play a role in our shared security through the nationwide expansion of the ‘‘If You See Something, Say Something’’ campaign. And we have replaced the colorcoded alert system with the new National Terrorism Advisory System, the NTAS, to provide timely information about credible terrorist threats and recommended security measures. 

These steps provide a strong foundation that DHS and our partners can use to protect communities, better understand risk, engage and partner with the international community, and protect 

the privacy rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of all Americans. 

Over the past 21⁄2 years, this administration also has dedicated 

unprecedented resources to securing our borders, and we have 

made the enforcement of our immigration laws smarter and more 

effective, focusing our finite resources on removing those individuals who fit our highest priorities. These include criminal aliens as 

well as repeat and egregious immigration law violators, recent border crossers, and immigration court fugitives. The efforts are 

achieving unprecedented results. 

Overall, in fiscal year 2011, ICE removed nearly 397,000 individuals, the largest number in the agency’s history. Ninety percent of 

those removals fell within one of our priority categories, and 55 

percent, or more than 216,000 of the people removed, were convicted criminal aliens—an 89-percent increase in the removal of 

criminals over fiscal year 2008. This includes more than 87,000 individuals convicted of homicide, sexual offenses, dangerous drugs, 

or driving under the influence. 

Of those we removed without a criminal conviction, more than 

two-thirds in fiscal year 2011 fell into our other priority categories: 

recent border crossers, repeat immigration law violators, and fugitives. 

Now, as part of the effort to continue to focus the immigration 

system’s resources on high-priority cases, ICE, in partnership with 

DOJ, has implemented policies to ensure that those enforcing im-
7 

migration laws make appropriate use of the discretion they already 

have in deciding the types of individuals prioritized for removal 

from the country. This policy will help immigration judges, the 

Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Federal courts to focus on 

adjudicating high-priority removal cases more swiftly and in greater numbers, enhancing ICE’s ability to remove convicted criminals. 

This policy will also promote border security as it sharpens ICE’s 

focus on recent border entrants and allows for the expansion of ICE 

operations along the southwest border. 

We have also stepped up our efforts against employers who 

knowingly and repeatedly hire illegal labor and take action to identify visa overstays, enhance refugee screening, and combat human 

trafficking. 

Smart and effective enforcement is just one part of the overall 

puzzle. This administration is also committed to making sure we 

have a southern border that is safe, secure, and open for business. 

We are more than 2 years into our Southwest Border Initiative, 

and based on previous benchmarks set by Congress, it is clear that 

the additional manpower, technology, and resources we have added 

with bipartisan support are working. 

Illegal immigration attempts, as measured by Border Patrol apprehensions, have decreased 36 percent along the southwest border 

over the past 2 years and are less than one-third of what they were 

at their peak. We have matched decreases in apprehensions with 

increases in seizures of cash, drugs, and weapons. 

Violent crime in U.S. border communities has remained flat or 

fallen in the past decade. CBP is developing a comprehensive index 

that will more holistically represent what is happening at the border and allow us to better measure our progress there. I look forward to updating this Committee as those new measures are developed. 

Finally, USCIS continues to improve our ability to provide immigration benefits and services to those eligible in a timely and efficient manner by streamlining and modernizing its operations. 

We know more is required to fully address our Nation’s immigration challenges. President Obama is firm in his commitment to advancing immigration reform, and I personally look forward to working with this Committee and with the Congress to achieve this goal 

and to continue to set appropriate benchmarks for our success in 

the future. 

So I would like to thank this Committee for its support of our 

mission to keep the United States safe, and I want to thank the 

men and women who are working day and night to protect and defend our country, often at great personal risk. 

I am happy to take your questions, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Napolitano appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary. 

To begin with, you have been attacked for issuing the new prosecutorial discretion policy. All prosecutors, as you know, having 

been one yourself, have to make at least some decisions based upon 

resources, whether you are a State’s attorney in Vermont or Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General. So I think 

we have to be realistic about the situation we face. 
8 

It would be impossible to deport all of the immigrants in the 

United States who are undocumented. Nobody is asking the Government to redirect billions of dollars to try to remove 10 million 

individuals, even if that would be possible. That is not an amnesty 

policy. Recipients of deferred action do not receive lawful permanent residence. Not all people are going to be granted authorization 

to work. Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, DHS is still deporting a 

record number of immigrants each year—in fact, over a million in 

this administration since President Obama took office. 

So let me ask you this: How does this prosecutorial discretion 

policy strengthen law enforcement and border security? Is it a 

smart use of our Federal resources? Is it a good use of our Federal 

resources? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Mr. Chairman, you have hit the 

nail on the head. Any prosecution office has finite resources, and 

you have to set priorities. What has been a bit surprising is the reaction that somehow the prosecution memo that Director Morton 

issued this summer was something new. In fact, if you go back historically in the immigration area, there is U.S. Supreme Court case 

law; there are memos from directors in both Republican and Democratic administrations; and it makes common sense. 

So when we look at the fact that there are 10 million or so illegal 

immigrants probably in the country and the Congress gives us the 

resources to remove approximately 400,000 per year, the question 

is who are we going to prioritize, and we are very clear: We want 

to prioritize those who are convicted criminals; we want to 

prioritize those who are egregious immigration and repeat violators; we want to prioritize those who are security threats, those 

who have existing warrants. And what you see happening now, 

particularly over the last year, fiscal year 2011, is that while the 

number, around 400,000, remains about the same, the composition 

of those within that number who are being removed is now really 

shifting to reflect the priorities we have set. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let me talk about another issue: what comes 

across our borders. Right after 9/11, a large number of Department 

of Agriculture people who checked for invasive pests, and plants 

coming across our borders were shifted to look for terrorists. We 

now find that invasive wood-boring pests, such as the emerald ash 

borer beetle, cost homeowners an estimated $830 million a year in 

lost property values; local governments, almost $2 billion; woodlands that are destroyed; as well as that these pests do to our environment. These pests cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year, plus 

irreparable damage that cannot be quantified. Too many pests have 

slipped undetected into the country since U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection took over these inspections from the Department of Agriculture. They threaten the quality of our Nation’s food supply in 

some agricultural areas, specially items like specifically Vermont 

maple syrup. 

Some Senators in both parties would like to see the inspections 

return to the USDA. Others say we ought to elevate the agricultural mission within Customs and Border Protection. 

What do you recommend that we do? What kind of assurances 

can you give us that the inspections we need at our airports, our 
9 

border crossings, our seaports, even rail, are going to be done the 

way it should be? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have 

within CBP I want to say somewhere between 2,300 and 2,800 agriculture specialists located at the ports of entry to search exactly 

for what you are suggesting, different kinds of pests, invasive species, things that could wipe out an entire crop or actually an industry very quickly should they take hold in the United States. 

We also work with our international partners at the last points 

of departure for the United States in this regard. I do not have an 

opinion to express now on whether the Agriculture Department 

should take over this role, but I will say—— 

Chairman LEAHY. I understand, but you would accept the fact 

that it is an important issue? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Oh, absolutely. 

Chairman LEAHY. And I would hope you would look at this very 

carefully. I just want to make sure that we have the best people 

possible do it, because the danger to this country is significant. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would agree, and the people who do it 

are specially trained in this regard. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let me talk about H–2A agriculture visas. 

There is considerable unhappiness about how the H–2A program is 

administered. We in Vermont—and I am sure it is the same in 

some of the other States represented here—have dairy farmers and 

other agricultural businesses, such as apple growers, who have experienced very difficult challenges within the Department of Labor 

and USCIS, and I am afraid we are maintaining something that is 

fundamentally unfair. I am not alone in my frustration with the 

situation that dairy farmers and others face. A seasonal visa for a 

dairy farmer does not do much good. 

Senator Lee, who is a member of this Committee, recently introduced a bill to provide dairy farmers access to the H–2A program. 

Senator Enzi and I previously introduced a similar bill. 

Now, if I had my druthers, it would be to tackle immigration in 

a broad manner, which I tried to do with President Bush, and I 

praised him in the effort to do it. For now, would you support us 

in a bipartisan effort to provide some basic fairness in the H–2A 

program for dairy farmers and sheepherders? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. With the caveat that we always want to 

see the actual language, the answer is yes. We have had this dairy 

issue for a couple of years now, and our hands are tied until the 

law is changed. 

Chairman LEAHY. And I realize I have gone over my time, but 

I want to look also at another thing, the question of material support for terrorism. We have seen a case of a refugee who sold flowers, or gave a bowl of rice to a member of a terrorist organization, 

who is then barred. If somebody gives a donation of $1, that is one 

thing. Somebody who gives hundreds of dollars is another. Somebody who sells flowers to a terrorist is not providing support to a 

terrorist, but actually taking money out of that terrorist’s pocket. 

Can we take a look at the interpretation of what is ‘‘material’’ support so that we are dealing with truly material contributions and 

not immaterial support? 
10 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. And it is also something that obviously 

involves the Department of Justice, but the answer is yes. For example, I think we have recently been providing some clarification 

with respect to those who provided medical care. So the answer is 

yes, we do need to look at some of these on a case-by-case basis. 

Chairman LEAHY. With that, Chuck? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for coming. I am going to start out 

by asking you for some memos that you just referred to that previous administrations have exercised prosecutorial discretion both 

in Republican and Democratic administrations. I would like to have 

copies of those, if I could, please. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Absolutely, Senator, and these memos 

were actually referred to by date and author in the PD memo that 

Director Morton issued. But we will give you copies of all of them. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Exactly 2 months ago, you announced the prosecutorial discretion initiative focusing on high-priority cases. While you say that 

the working group is still finalizing the implementation details, 

this Committee needs some answers about what has been discussed and decided up to this point. We hear estimates of 300,000 

cases could be reviewed. Some say it is upward to 1 million. Could 

you give us an estimate of how many individuals or cases could be 

reviewed, at least as roughly as you can? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Senator. Just referring to the master 

docket of what is pending in immigration courts now, it is roughly 

300,000. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Will those with final orders of removal 

be eligible for relief through this process? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Absent unusual circumstances, no. This 

is for cases that are pending are clogging up the docket and preventing us from getting to the higher-priority cases. 

Senator GRASSLEY. According to information from your Department, some individuals who are given relief will obtain work authorizations so people with no right to be in the country will be allowed to work here. Is that correct? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Senator, since around 1986, there 

has been a process where those who are technically unlawfully in 

the country may apply for work authorization. This goes to CIS. It 

is not an ICE or a CBP function. And those cases are reviewed by 

CIS on a case-by-case basis. So there is no change in that process— 

it goes back to the mid-1980s and is contemplated now. 

Senator GRASSLEY. But, yes, some of them could have an opportunity to work here even though they are here illegally? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, that happens now, Senator. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. My staff sent over a request for answers 

about this new process. I would like to have those questions answered in a timely manner, please. Would you do that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would be happy to. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Will you commit to keeping the Committee informed as the process unfolds, including providing realtime data on how many people are considered and how many are 

provided relief, biographical information and the number of work 

authorizations approved? 
11 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will be happy to keep the Committee 

staff apprised. I do not know what you mean by ‘‘real time.’’ With 

300,000 cases, obviously you can not apprise a Committee each 

time a decision is made. But I think we can reach an agreement 

as to how to keep the Committee appropriately briefed. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Periodic updates. Thank you. 

When Congress created your Department, there was some discussion about taking away the Department of State’s consular function 

and giving it to Homeland Security. As a compromise, Congress allowed State to keep it, but gave Homeland Security final authority 

over visa policies. Congress also dictated that all visa applicants 

between the ages of 14 and 79 be interviewed in person with only 

a few extremely limited exceptions. This was because 17 of the 19 

September 11th hijackers got visas without an interview and despite putting nonsensical answers on their visa applications. I am 

concerned about attempts to do away with the required in-person 

interview. I am concerned about the State Department possibly reinterpreting the law in order to exempt some more people from the 

requirement. Frankly, this is a September 10th mentality that 

risks our national security. 

Do you think all visa applicants should be interviewed by consular officers abroad? And if you do, will you push back on an attempt by the Department of State to roll back the in-person interview requirement? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I need to look into that. You are 

giving me some new information. I will say this, however: We have 

our own people in many embassies as visa security program officers 

who do separate security checks. I think we need to not only support that but look at that function because that is a check against 

many relevant databases, and we need to do it at least on a riskbased basis. 

Senator GRASSLEY. As you heard in my statement, I have got serious concerns about the proposal outlined in a memo released last 

summer that suggested the Department lessen the definition of 

‘‘extreme hardship.’’ I brought this issue up when the memo was 

released and find it to be an egregious option that we need to discuss. The authors of the memo suggest that some people could 

apply and receive a waiver to stay in the United States and not be 

subject to the congressionally mandated 3- and 10-year bars if this 

definition was watered down. 

Changing the standard would be a huge policy change resulting 

in relief for millions of people who are here unlawfully. Are you 

aware of any discussion to change or lessen the definition of ‘‘extreme hardship’’ ? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I think what you are putting 

your finger on is the fact that the existing immigration law is very 

difficult. It is something that we would really urge the Congress to 

take a look at holistically. We are ready to work with the Congress 

on that. 

My discussions have focused primarily on making sure that as 

we exercise our enforcement functions, we are really prioritizing in 

a common sense way consistent with what I have been informing 

this Committee since I first became Secretary. 
12 

Senator GRASSLEY. Have you received any memo on that proposal? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Not that I am aware of, no. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, if such a memo would arrive at your 

desk, would you consider it dead on arrival at your desk? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, again, I am not going to speculate 

on a memo I have not seen, but I understand your concerns. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, you understand—and I think you expressed it—that Congress needs to deal with that. And if Congress 

has to deal with it, it would seem to me you can not deal with it 

through administrative action. That is my point of view. 

I mentioned former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke in my opening 

statement. This is an issue that I asked you in June to respond to 

in writing. Have you had any communications with Mr. Burke 

about Operation Fast and Furious? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No. 

Senator GRASSLEY. So you then obviously did not talk to him 

anything about Agent Terry’s death, and then I will go on to—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, that is a different question. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Then answer that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I might—— 

Senator GRASSLEY. You have had some communication—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, not about Fast and Furious. When 

Agent Terry was killed on December 14, I went to Arizona a few 

days thereafter to meet with the FBI agents and the Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys who were actually going to look for the shooters. At that 

time nobody had done the forensics on the guns, and Fast and Furious was not mentioned. But I wanted to be sure that those responsible for his death were brought to justice and that every DOJ 

resource was being brought to bear on that topic. 

So I did have conversations in, it would have been, December of 

2010 about the murder of Agent Terry. But at that point in time 

there, nobody knew about Fast and Furious. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. So that is a different question. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Then the last point here is: Since I first asked 

you about Fast and Furious in March, have you done things beyond 

what you just told me looking into it in any way? If you have not, 

it is OK. If you have, I would like to know about it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I did ask ICE to look into whether there 

had been any involvement there. I think we responded last night 

to you with respect to that, but that is all. We are waiting for the 

Inspector General. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I will ask you one last question, and then my 

time will probably be about what the Chairman used. 

As you heard in my opening statement, I have concerns that this 

administration chooses to sue some States, like Arizona and Alabama, and chooses to turn a blind eye to places that are like, I will 

say, Cook County, Illinois, as an example, that refuse to cooperate 

with Feds on immigration matters. Have you had any discussion 

with the Department of Justice about suing cities or States that 

harbor undocumented immigrants? And what do you think about 

Cook County’s ordinance? Have you had any contact with them 

about their ordinance? 
13 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I have not had any discussions at this 

point in time, and I have not had any communications myself with 

Cook County. But I will say that one of the key tools we are using 

to enforce the priorities we have set with respect to removals is the 

installation of Secure Communities throughout the country in jails 

and prisons. 

The huge majority of jurisdictions have no problem with this. We 

have been improving the system as we have been doing the installation. We intend and expect to be completed by the year 2013. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, and having removed 397,000 last 

year alone, you are removing a lot. 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, welcome. You run 22 departments with 

240,000 employees, certainly one of the biggest departments in the 

U.S. Government. I just want to say I think you are doing a very 

good job. I think the times are tough. I think leadership is very 

hard in this time, and a lot of things are controversial, but I just 

want you to know that you have my support. And I also want you 

to know that I want to do everything we can to prevent guns from 

going to Mexico because I know where they end up, and that is not 

good for anyone. 

So having said that, I want to concentrate on two programs 

which I have kind of been at Immigration for for the 18 years I 

have been here, certainly following 9/11. One of them is student 

visa fraud, and the other is the Visa Waiver Program. 

Let me begin with student visa fraud. I got into this many, many 

years ago where there was a storefront school next to our San 

Diego office, and, voila, it turned out to be a phony university, essentially attracting people from abroad illegally to come to the 

United States on a student visa, and then they just disappeared. 

Well, that was a long time ago, but it is still going on, and as 

late as, I believe, January of this year, there was Tri-Valley University, which is in California, which was apparently authorized for 

30 students and ended up with some 1,500. And it was really a 

scam because they collected up to 5 percent of the tuition—well, 

each foreign national collected up to 5 percent of the tuition of any 

new student, and there was profit sharing and really visa fraud. 

Today I understand that there are more than 10,500 schools approved by DHS to accept non-immigrant students and exchange 

visitors to study at their institutions through the Student Exchange Visitor Program. I am concerned about the number that 

have turned out not to be operating for student purposes. My understanding is that an internal risk analysis performed by ICE determined that 417 schools have showed evidence of being a highrisk school for fraud. 

So here is the question: What type of enforcement measures have 

been brought to bear and initiated by the Department to get at 

these high-risk schools and shut them down if they are not doing 

the right thing? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I share your concern. We have 

increased the number of individuals who are looking at the whole 
14 

SEVIS program and these institutions. Tri-Valley was obviously 

one of the cases we brought to light. There have been others. We 

are working with the Department of Justice on prosecuting the perpetrators and really tightening up on the whole student visa program in that regard. 

I would be happy to send you a longer answer as to all of the 

efforts there, but I think for the purpose of the hearing, yes, this 

is a concern, and we have been putting additional resources to it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I can tell you, more than a decade ago, when 

I looked into it, universities that took these students were not even 

verifying that they, in fact, were in the university. We had an 

agreement then through the University Association that that would 

change. I suspect now that schools have so many financial problems that there may be an inclination, you know, to accept more 

foreign students who really do not turn up but pay a large amount 

of money. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Pay tuition, right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So I think it is a very good thing to be on 

your guard, and I appreciate the fact that you are. 

My other interest was in the Visa Waiver Program. I believed— 

and this is over 18 years now—that a number of illegal entries 

came in through the Visa Waiver Program. If you come from a visa 

waiver country, you come in without a visa. You are supposed to 

leave in 6 months. We have had no exit system. We could not tell 

who was leaving and who was staying. 

So a new database system, SEVIS-II, that is supposed to—well, 

wait a minute. That is the—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is the students. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right, right. So the elec ESTA, the Electronic 

Travel System, in a recent report by GAO identified several measures that you should take. I sent a letter to you dated August 15th 

requesting information on your efforts to implement the GAO’s recommendations. I am sorry to say I have not received a response. 

So here is the question: What are the Department’s efforts to implement the GAO recommendations to improve the Visa Waiver 

Program, in other words, so that we know that someone that comes 

here leaves when they are supposed to leave? It is supposed to be 

a visitor program, not a permanent program. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right, and I apologize that you do 

not have a response. You will get one forthwith. But I will say that, 

first of all—and this is very common in the GAO. I am not being 

critical, just descriptive. A lot of times there is a lag between the 

data they have and what is currently happening, and so as we have 

improved our systems and as we have been able to merge or develop search engines that can quickly search different databases on 

a real-time basis, the ESTA numbers have gone up. The checks 

have gone up, and we have developed a very robust biographic system to measure overstays and to prioritize overstays in terms of 

who we are going to direct ICE to go out and find. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. How many visa entrants are there a year, 

visa waiver entrants? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I do not have that number. I will get it 

for you. It is a lot. 
15 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Could you get me that? Could you show me 

the trend line? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And could you show me the estimates that 

you have pursuant to this data program of people not returning to 

their home country? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would appreciate that. Thank you. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Madam Chairperson. 

Welcome. We are happy to have you here. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator HATCH. We appreciate the tough job that you have to do. 

It is a difficult job. 

Recently, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, officials 

conducted an audit on the Weber County, Utah, jail that concluded 

that the facility did not meet some of the established ICE detention 

standards. Now, as a result, the Weber County jail can no longer 

house approximately 30 to 60 ICE detainees. 

Now, they claimed that ICE mandates their detainees do not undergo strip searches, do not have to pay the $10 co-pays for medical 

treatment, cannot have their mail read like other inmates, and deserve their own barbershop. The sheriff said that is disparate treatment. He said that gets around immediately. The other inmates resent it, and that gets staff hurt. That gets inmates hurt. 

Now, what are the options, in your opinion, and hopefully speaking for the Department, for local jails that are unable to comply 

with some of the more costly or onerous detention standards? And 

do you agree that there is a role for some of these noncompliant 

jails in assisting ICE officials in identifying and removing criminal 

aliens? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Senator, I would have to look at 

this Weber jail situation. We use a lot of jails around the country 

who have no problem complying with the standards. 

Senator HATCH. Would you look at it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. But we will look into that one. 

Senator HATCH. Please look at it, because it just seems ridiculous 

to me. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It does not sound completely accurate, if 

I might say so. I am pretty familiar with the detention standards. 

So we will take a look. 

Senator HATCH. Well, if you would, I would appreciate it because, 

as far as I know, they are humane and conduct good jails in that 

area. 

Now, one of the recommendations from the 9/11 Commission report is to create a Visa Exit Program for foreign visitors to the 

United States. Departure information is vital for determining 

whether foreign visitors are leaving the U.S., maintaining their 

visa status, and evaluating future visa eligibility for these visitors. 

Now, not to mention the ability to track departures goes to the 

heart of keeping our Nation safe. 

That is why I reintroduced the Strengthening Our Commitment 

to Legal Immigration and America’s Security Act, which would re-
16 

quire the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a mandatory 

exit procedure for foreign visitors to the United States. You have 

approached this to a degree here today, but without such exit procedures, the task of determining whether aliens have overstayed 

their visas in the United States it seems to me would be nearly impossible. 

Now, it is my understanding that since 2004 the Department of 

Homeland Security has been testing various exit programs and departure controls at U.S. airports for visa holders leaving the United 

States. And in July 2009, another pilot program was conducted by 

DHS. Yet we have not seen any implementation of exit procedures 

for our country’s visitors, nor have we seen any final conclusions 

made by the Department. Or at least I have not seen them. 

I would prefer not to create an exit procedure legislatively, but 

it seems like that may be the only way we are going to get the results that we need on this important matter. And if technology is 

available to implement an exit procedure, why hasn’t DHS acted on 

this? It has been over 7 years since the first pilot program was 

completed, and I guess my question is: How many more years do 

we have to wait until we get this going? Or am I right on these 

things? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think we have to, Senator, distinguish between biometric exit and a very robust biographic exit system that combines a lot of different databases now that we did not 

have even 2 or 3 years ago. These are new developments. 

We have piloted biometric exit. It is very expensive, and in these 

fiscal times I do not see how, unless Congress is willing to give us 

billions of dollars, we can actually install it over the next few 

years. But I think we can basically get to the same point using the 

biographic exit systems we are beginning to deploy. And we have 

also been able to go back—and we started this project last spring— 

and look at the backlog of visa overstays. 

One of the things we have discovered using our enhanced biographic system is about half of those people actually have left the 

country. And now we have run the other half against our priorities—criminal convictions, recent border crossers, fugitives and the 

like—and that way we can prioritize ICE operations on the 

overstays to meet our other priorities. 

Senator HATCH. OK. Thank you. I have been getting a lot of complaints lately about the checks as you pass through the monitoring 

stations where people do not want to go through the x-ray station, 

so they line up on the one side where just the open-door station is. 

And some of your people force them to go over to go through the 

x-ray station. And then if they say, ‘‘Well, I do not want to do that. 

I would rather go through the other one,’’ they say, ‘‘Well, you can 

do it, but then you are going to have to be patted down.’’ 

Now, my question that they want me to ask is: Why do you need 

a patdown if they go through that smaller station? Is that just a 

way of forcing them to go through the other? Or can’t they have 

their choice? And give me the reason why a person cannot have his 

or her choice if they are just afraid of getting a shot of radiation 

or whatever it is that they are afraid of or just plain do not like 

to go through that particular station? 
17 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I can say the answer in one word, 

and that is Abdulmutallab and others like him who have been trying to bring explosives onto planes or other material that does not 

have a metal component, and, therefore, the magnetometer will not 

pick it up. So that is why you see the patdown procedure has been 

adjusted to reflect, that plain reality. 

We actually have been looking nationwide at how we can move 

people through—we handled about 1.5 to 1.8 million passengers a 

day in the U.S. air system and things that we can do to make it 

easier for passengers to process through the system, and we continue to look for ways. But the reason for that basic choice and 

where we are is the actual threat that we are dealing with. 

Senator HATCH. Why can’t a person, if they line up to go through 

the smaller station because that is what they prefer to do, why 

can’t they just do that? Why do they have to be forced to go 

through the other? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I do not know about that. I mean, 

they should usually have a choice. And most people opt for the AIT. 

Senator HATCH. No, they do not. I am telling you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will speak with Director Pistole about 

this. 

Senator HATCH. It seems to me, you know, there is—people ought 

to be able to use either one. Now, admittedly, if somebody looks 

suspicious, you have got to have that right to have them go 

through the more serious station, I guess. But the vast majority of 

people are not suspicious at all. I have just had a lot of complaints 

from that, and that is something—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I will be happy, Senator, to look 

both into the Weber County jail situation and some of those complaints and see what can be done. 

Senator HATCH. OK. It is ‘‘Weeber,’’ by the way. We have got to 

get that right. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I apologize for that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HATCH. If you would look into that, because that seems 

ridiculous to have to provide facilities that they are not providing 

for regular people, and yet they are a humane jail. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Got it. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. I might note, I would like to work with the 

senior Senator from Utah on the TSA issue he raises. He is absolutely right. You know, many pilots will not go through the x-ray. 

I realize that some former officials of the Department of Homeland 

Security have lobbied to get the U.S. Government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the x-ray machines. But I have seen 

exactly the same situation the Senator from Utah has. I have 

known people, member of my own family, who are cancer survivors 

and will not go through the x-rays, and then have to wait to clear 

security. Children have to go through x-rays and patdowns. There 

is almost an arrogant disregard at TSA for real Americans who 

have to put up with this screening. 

Senator HATCH. Could I add something? 

Chairman LEAHY. I share the frustration of the Senator from 

Utah, and we will work together on this. 
18 

Senator HATCH. If I could just add, my wife loves to go through 

the larger station. I do not know how else to refer to it. I do not. 

But I have been forced to—I line up to go through that, and I have 

been forced twice, at least twice. And I always comply, but I am 

just saying—and I do not ever raise a fuss about it, nor would it. 

But it seems to me if you do not—maybe I look like a terrorist. I 

do not know. But I do not think so. I am really very kind and loving, you know. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I do provide a lot of amusement for people who 

are taking cell phone pictures of me getting the patdown. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I do have a great crew working at 

TSA. But I appreciate these concerns. 

Chairman LEAHY. At the very top of TSA there is a disconnect 

with reality. 

Senator HATCH. Well, let me just add that I agree with that. I 

think that your employees have been great. And I will always comply with whatever they say because—— 

Chairman LEAHY. As do I. 

Senator HATCH.—it is certainly right, and I know you will, too. 

But there is a ridiculous nature to it, too, sometimes, and they 

have always been very gracious and nice to everybody I have—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think we can continue to look into 

it and to improve, and we will work with you. We will look into 

your complaints. I understand that and why people get concerned 

and frustrated when they travel. But I also think we have the 

safest aviation system in the world, and there is a reason for that. 

But, Senator, I will give you that. You look kind and loving—— 

Senator SCHUMER. He usually is. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO.—and we should be able to handle this, 

and also look at some of the things that are coming in. 

Chairman LEAHY. I understand the people that work there are 

some of the nicest people I have ever met. I just worry about some 

of the directions they are getting from on top, which are so unrelated to reality it is frustrating. 

Senator HATCH. Sometimes. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Grassley reminded us of the risks our 

Federal law enforcement officials face. Since the beginning of 2009, 

12 Department of Homeland Security law enforcement officers have 

lost their lives in the line of duty. I am going to put in the record 

their names, because that is one thing that unites every single one 

of us on this panel, the grief we feel when they have lost their 

lives. 

It is also a reminder that people in your Department put their 

lives on the line every single day for all of us, including the TSA 

folks. I just want to note that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Schumer. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, let me pay you a compliment to start off, Secretary 

Napolitano. I think your administration is doing—I want to pay a 

compliment on immigration enforcement because your administration is the first really to take a rational approach to this issue, and 

the statistics speak for themselves. You are using scarce enforce-
19 

ment resources to deport many more dangerous criminals than 

prior administrations, and you are focused very carefully on making us safer rather than causing disruptions to the economy or families to placate critics who will look for reasons to fault you regardless of how you enforce the law. It makes a great deal of sense 

when you have scarce resources to focus on those who are dangerous criminals, not willy nilly across the map, and that is what 

you are doing. So keep up the good work on that. 

I sent you a letter on April 14th that asked you to implement 

these changes. You are doing it, and you are doing a good job. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Senator SCHUMER. Now, a couple of questions, one about the 

Peace Bridge up on the Buffalo-Canada border, of great importance 

to the western New York economy. In yesterday’s Globe and Mail— 

I take it that is the Toronto Globe and Mail—there was an article 

indicating there is an imminent border security agreement between 

the U.S. and Canada. The article specifically quotes CPB Commissioner Alan Bersin, who says he thinks, ‘‘The United States needs 

to find ways of expediting low-risk cargo and travelers to focus resources on high-risk traffic.’’ 

Nowhere is that more true than on the two bridges we have in 

western New York—the Peace Bridge and the Lewiston-Queenston 

Bridge. They are respectively the third and fourth busiest commercial crossings in the Nation, handling $30 billion in commerce between the U.S. and Canada. But my office has been fielding lots 

of complaints from business leaders and average citizens about the 

length of time it takes for commercial traffic to enter the U.S. from 

Canada, and that is mainly because the space on the New York 

side of the border is very small. There is plenty of space on the Canadian side. If we could do the inspections on the Canadian side, 

which everybody wants, it would be good. 

So can you commit to me that as part of any future border deal 

with Canada you will expedite commercial truck traffic to the 

United States from Canada by prescreening trucks on the Canadian side of the Peace Bridge and that this prescreening will begin 

soon? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator SCHUMER. Great. There is no better answer than that. 

Yes and yes. I will take it yes to both, right? Good. OK. Let us go 

on to our next one. See, it always pays to start off with a compliment. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You can do that again if you want. 

Senator SCHUMER. Nanotech threats. Recent reports have highlighted—but, no, I am glad to hear it because this, as you know, 

has been a nightmare for us on the Peace Bridge, long before you 

were—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I might, let me expand. I thought your 

question permitted a yes-or-no answer, and I thought I would give 

you one. 

Senator SCHUMER. Great. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We really are very interested in how we 

can expedite the free flow of goods on both borders, northern and 

southern, and looking at ways where we can do pre-inspections, if 
20 

not actually preclearance, on the Canadian side and to facilitate 

that into some of the smaller areas onto the U.S. side. So you have 

clearly got our attention. We have been working on this with—— 

Senator SCHUMER. This is just what we need because you could 

have a whole lot of booths on the Canadian side; you cannot on the 

New York side, just by the geography. 

OK. Let us go to nanotech. Recent reports have highlighted an 

emerging threat to the U.S. There is a growing concern that universities with nanotechnology research programs could be attacked 

by package bombs from Mexican terror groups who oppose nanotechnology for religious or cultural reasons. These same terrorists 

are already linked to attacks in Mexico, South America, and Europe. Praise God, none of them have happened here so far, but they 

clearly have an ability to cross international borders. 

New York State is one of the leading nanotechnology hubs with 

facilities in Albany and Troy—the capital region is probably number one in the country—and in Rochester. At the moment it is my 

impression that the Department of Homeland Security is not participating in efforts to keep schools and other hubs safe from attacks. 

Can you commit to working with and helping our New York universities and nanotechnology hubs with their ability to detect and 

thwart potential threats? And is your Department assisting the 

FBI to try and go after these groups? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, without commenting on investigations in an open setting, I will say that we are working with universities and schools across the country on a number of things to 

increase their security measures. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. We have not had that with the New York 

schools. Can you commit that you will work with the New York 

schools? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me look into this, Senator, and we 

will get back to you on that in terms of exactly what is going on. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. Good. But I am sure you would have no 

problem working with our New York schools to make them safer. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No. 

Senator SCHUMER. Good. Thank you. And, finally, this is about 

fake IDs from China. I wrote you a letter in August, you may remember, about companies in China who produce exact replicas of 

driver’s licenses from various States for sales to people who might 

be terrorists, illegal immigrants, or probably primarily underage 

teenagers trying to drink illegally. These licenses are very well 

done, with the bar code and everything else, so it is very hard for 

the person at the bar, or wherever else, to actually detect that they 

are false. Sometimes you can detect it by a false address, but they 

usually give an out-of-State one. So if a New York bar in Syracuse 

gets a driver’s license that says 123 Elm Street, Altoona, PA, he 

has no idea that there is no 123 Elm Street, Altoona, PA. 

Last week, Western Union gave me good news by agreeing to 

work with the DHS to refuse payments to businesses who, when 

you indicate to them that they are providing fake IDs from China— 

this is the only way to cut it off if we do not allow them to wire 

money. That is what they do. And Western Union took a big step 

forward there. But despite this accomplishment, the work is not 
21 

done. These new false IDs pose a major threat to the security of 

the U.S. as anyone who is on a no-fly list and terrorist watchlist 

can now evade our defenses by using these licenses to fly on airplanes with a false identity. A TSA agent who has the backlight 

is incapable—it is not their fault; I think they do a good job—is 

simply incapable of detecting whether these IDs are real or fake. 

So I am asking you to begin installing integrated electronic ID 

readers at TSA security points that can electronically scan and 

verify that the identification provided by an airline passenger in 

order to board a flight is indeed valid lawful identification. The 

readers should also electronically scan the name against terrorist 

watchlists, no-fly lists, et cetera. 

Are we on any path to doing this? What is happening? Can we 

expect it to happen? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, we are on a path. There is an installation plan. Part of it may be dependent on what we get in the fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 budgets, obviously, but we are 

on a path to have these integrated readers and are doing a number 

of other things for the detection—not just detection of fraudulent 

documents, but the flip side of that is verification of actual identity. 

Senator SCHUMER. Yes, OK. That is great. Well, thank you for 

your very fine answers on every question I asked. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. If you need to go, I will pass. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Sessions, and thank you, 

Madam Secretary. 

Congress has dealt you and the President an impossible hand. 

The United States has a confusing, dysfunctional, and often cruel 

immigration system, and you are charged with executing the laws 

that are associated with it. We all know as Senators and Americans that undocumented workers are an essential part of our economy, from the fields and orchards of California, Arizona, Utah, and 

Florida, to the meat and poultry plants of Iowa, Illinois, and across 

the Midwest, to the major restaurants in Washington, D.C., and 

Chicago. We avert our eyes and pretend these workers are all legal. 

We know better. They are an essential part of our economy, and 

yet there is this revulsion, aversion, and negative feeling about 

this, and you are caught in the middle. You are given these laws 

and are told, ‘‘Make them work.’’ 

I think you are right to speak about the issue of prosecutorial 

discretion. Every President and members of the Cabinet under the 

President have that responsibility, even recognized by the Supreme 

Court. And I certainly think you were right on August 17th when 

you sent me a letter saying that DHS will review all pending deportation cases, and that cases involving criminals and threats to 

public safety will be given priority while low-priority cases will be 

closed in many instances. You also said DHS would issue guidance 

to prevent low-priority cases from being put into deportation proceedings in the future. 

I appreciate your commitment to this process, but I am concerned. It has been 4 months since the Morton memo was issued 

and 2 months since you announced the process for implementing 
22 

it. The review of pending deportation cases, as I understand it— 

correct me if I am wrong—has not yet begun. In fact, we do not 

even know what the criteria will be for the review, and you have 

not issued guidance on who will be put into deportation proceedings in the future. 

So when will your review of pending deportation cases begin? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the review of pending deportation 

cases—I think it is important to segregate cases coming into the 

system versus those that are on the master docket already. That 

is the 300,000 that I was referring to with Senator Grassley earlier. Those cases, that process involves not just DHS but DOJ as 

well. 

There has been an interagency group working on how you actually accomplish that. My understanding is that within the next few 

weeks they will begin piloting in certain districts the actual review 

and hope very shortly thereafter to begin going through the master 

docket cases. 

The goal, of course, is to administratively close some of the lowpriority cases so that we can facilitate handling the higher-priority 

cases. In a way, we are kind of reverse—we are trying to adjust 

the line in terms of who goes through. 

Now, in terms of—— 

Senator DURBIN. What is the timeframe? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I do not have an end timeframe, but I 

can share with you that I would expect the full review process to 

be—the pilot will start in a few weeks. I would say 2 to 3 weeks. 

The pilot is not going to be one of these 6- or 12-month typical pilots. It will be very short in its design to find logistical issues that 

happen when you are trying to do a massive review of lots of cases 

all at the same time. So we all want to move as quickly as possible 

once we have kind of identified that we have got the logistics down. 

Senator DURBIN. So let me ask you this: There are troubling reports that there are ICE and CBP field offices which have announced that these new deportation priorities do not apply to them. 

Is that true? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, if there are some, I would like to 

know about it. I have personally, by VTC, spoken with the heads 

of the ICE ERO offices across the country and the heads of the 

OPLA offices across the country, which are the regional counsel. 

My understanding is that they are very excited about having clear 

priorities, that the priorities are the right ones. The priorities actually, Senator, I gave this Committee—in May of 2009 I said we 

were going to start moving the system so we could focus on criminal aliens, and that is what we are doing. 

Senator DURBIN. I was going at this point to show the faces and 

tell the stories of three DREAM Act students whom I believe most 

people would agree, having been brought to this country at a very 

early age, have made an amazing record in their short lives and 

are being held back from contributing to the United States. And I 

certainly believe the President’s criteria and your criteria are the 

right criteria. Let us focus on removing those people who are a 

threat to our Nation. That should be our highest priority, and it 

certainly will not include these college graduates desperate to go to 
23 

work and make this a better Nation. So I hope that you will continue along this line on an expedited basis. 

Last night, you may have seen or heard about the ‘‘Frontline’’ 

program that—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Oh, I have heard about it. 

Senator DURBIN. Yes. It went into some detail about the immigration detention facilities. It focused on a number of them, but 

particularly on the Willacy Detention Facility in Texas. I learned 

a lot about—’’Frontline’’ always does a great job. But I learned a 

lot about the situation as I followed this program, that some 85 to 

90 percent of those who were detained under civil charges—not 

criminal charges but civil charges—do not have benefit of counsel, 

that the due process requirements are very limited on their behalf, 

and that many times they are in facilities that are privatized—private businesses that are doing them and we do business with them. 

It has become a huge industry. I understand it is about $1.7 billion 

a year that your agency spends on these immigration detention facilities. 

There was an aspect of this program, though, that was particularly troubling. Maria Hinojosa in part of that program had a 

woman who was a victim at this Willacy Facility. She had been 

raped, and her identity was hidden from the camera, and she told 

her story about how it was virtually impossible for her to even seek 

justice in this circumstance because she was totally at the mercy 

of the guards in this privatized facility. 

Now, I joined with Senator Sessions and some of my other colleagues in passing the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, and 

I thank Senator Sessions for his leadership on this, to eliminate 

sexual abuse in custody in the United States. We wanted to create 

a zero tolerance policy. The ‘‘Frontline’’ episode was not the first 

time we have heard troubling reports about sexual abuse suffered 

by those in immigration detention. The National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission said in its report, ‘‘Accounts of abuse by 

staff and by detainees have been coming to light for more than 20 

years. As a group, immigration detainees are especially vulnerable 

to sexual abuse and its effect while detained due to social, cultural, 

language isolation, poor understanding of U.S. culture and the subculture of U.S. prisons, and the often traumatic experiences they 

have endured in their culture of origin.’’ 

The Commission issued proposed standards. The Department of 

Justice is now finalizing its national standards to prevent, detect, 

and respond to prison rape. In April of this year, I wrote a letter 

to Attorney General Holder emphasizing the importance of strong 

standards. 

What is the Department of Homeland Security doing to ensure 

that immigration detainees are safe from sexual abuse whether 

they are in ICE facilities or contract facilities? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. When I took over as Secretary, Senator, 

we found that there were little or no standards being applied uniformly across all of the many detention facilities that we use in the 

ICE context. Some of them are public jails, like Weber County, as 

Senator Hatch referred to. Others are privatized, companies like 

CCA. We have to have beds and, in particular, given our priorities 
24 

and how we are managing the system, we need beds that are near 

the southern border. 

We have as part of that process brought in someone to actually 

look at standards, and we redid our contracts with some of the private providers. We do have a process by which we are regularly auditing and overseeing what is happening there, but that is not to 

say that there are not cases that are particularly horrific. 

We also have, Senator, really tried to emphasize the availability 

of visas for those who are victims of crime, particularly victims of 

sexual crime and domestic violence, and we are trying to get out 

into the field the fact of the matter that the Congress and the regulations do permit these visas. 

So we will obviously review the documentary that was on last 

night and follow up appropriately. 

Senator DURBIN. Please do. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. And we will keep you posted about that. 

Senator DURBIN. I am going to send you a letter, and I thank the 

Committee for its patience here. I just want to make one last point. 

We spend, annualized, about $40,000 a year for each of these detainees when you figure $120 a day is the number that I have been 

told, and I am trying to discount that thinking some are probably 

not that expensive. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is probably a good average number. 

Senator DURBIN. A good average? $40,000 a year. It is not that 

they are charged with a crime. They are in for a civil offense. They 

have no benefit of counsel, 90 percent of them, and very few due 

process rights, limited command of the English language, and they 

are easily victimized. I think we have a responsibility to treat them 

humanely and fairly in this situation. So my follow-up letter to you 

will not only address this issue of standards to protect them from 

sexual assault and rape, but also to go into questions about those 

with mental disabilities who have been brought into this system. 

There was this awful, awful case in San Diego that was prosecuted or raised just a few years ago where they have two individuals who suffer from serious mental illness who had been in the 

ICE system, lost in the system for 4 years. Four years. What I read 

and learned since the program last night and my study, there are 

totally inadequate medical facilities and staff for the people who 

are in these detention facilities, from psychologists and psychiatrists to nurses and dentists. 

I mean, really, if we are going to take the responsibility of incarcerating them, we have a responsibility to treat them humanely. 

And I want to work with you to make sure that happens. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I concur. Thank you. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a criminal offense to enter the United States illegally. It is not a civil matter. And we do provide health care for people who are captured entering the country illegally that need it, do we not, Madam Secretary? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, we do. 
25 

Senator SESSIONS. So here you have got somebody entering the 

country and they have got a health problem, and we apprehend 

them and then we give them health care. I think in general they 

are being treated well. And isn’t a fact that under Operation 

Streamline, people that are apprehended and prosecuted through a 

misdemeanor usually, I understand, prosecution, unless it is a repeat offense, are deported in far less than a year’s time? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think that is right, Senator. I would 

have to confirm, but I think that is right. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think it is except for people from distant 

lands who you have difficulties returning them. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The country may not want to accept 

them. That is right. 

Senator SESSIONS. Madam Secretary, I am very concerned about 

the morale of our ICE officers. I have spent 15 years as a Federal 

prosecutor working with customs officers and Border Patrol agents 

and others. You like to see them motivated, excited about their 

work, believing in their work, and they have to believe that people 

at the top support them and believe in the mission they have been 

given. And there is a real problem with this. 

In June of last year, the ICE union cast a unanimous vote of no 

confidence in the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mr. Morton, and the Assistant Director of ICE Detention 

Policy and Planning, Phyllis Coven. That was just last June. And 

they found that, ‘‘Senior ICE leadership dedicates more time to 

campaigning for immigration reforms aimed at large-scale amnesty 

legislation than advising the American public and Federal lawmakers on the severity of the illegal immigration problem, the need 

for more manpower and resources within ICE and ICE ERO to address it.’’ They are currently, they say, ‘‘overwhelmed by a massive 

criminal illegal alien problem in the United States.’’ 

They go on to say—this was in 2010—‘‘ICE is misleading the 

American public with regard to the effectiveness of criminal enforcement programs, like the Secure Communities programs, and 

using it as a selling point to move forward with amnesty-related 

legislation.’’ This is their statement. 

Then, again, in June of this year, they report in this release, 

‘‘ICE Union leaders say that since the no-confidence vote was released problems within the agency have increased, citing the Director’s latest Discretionary Memo as just one example.’’ 

‘‘1A‘Any American concerned about immigration needs to brace 

themselves for what’s coming,’ said Chris Crane, president of the 

National ICE Council which represents . . . 7,000 ICE agents, officers and employees.’’ It goes on to say, ‘‘This is just one of many 

new ICE policies [in queue aimed at] stopping the enforcement of 

U.S. immigration laws in the United States. Unable to pass its immigration agenda through legislation, the administration is now 

implementing it through agency policy.’’ 

And he goes on to note that while immigrants’ rights groups and 

other were involved in this policy, no input in these policies was 

received from the agency and its employees, which is one of the 

previous complaints that they have had. 

So, Madam Secretary, first, are you concerned about this? For 2 

years now, it appears that the representative group for these offi-
26 

cers has voted no confidence in your leadership. And to what extent 

have you confronted this question, met with them, examined the 

charges that have been made, and made a formal response to 

them? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, let me, if I might, Senator, I like 

you have worked as a prosecutor for many years, particularly on 

border and immigration-related matters, and I believe that the priorities we have set are actually enhancing morale amongst our 

troops. And I think results matter, and the results are really incontrovertible now. We are—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, let me say—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. Removing more criminals 

from the United States than at any prior time. 

Now, with respect to priorities that have been set, when you actually read what Director Morton sent to the field, he refers in that 

document to a number of prior memos by prior directors that were 

in his or similar positions back in the old INS days, and the priorities set are very similar historically. And that is because they 

make common sense, and they reflect the reality that we have 

never had enough resources to remove everyone who is in the country illegally. And so you have got to have priorities and give guidance to the field across the country about what the priorities are. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I am just focusing mainly on the problems within the Department. I am told from the leaders of the ICE 

officers that morale is very low, and that they believe the new 

standards calling on them to consider DREAM Act-type issues in 

determining whether or not the person they detained ought to be 

released or not, whether they have got a high school diploma or 

whether or not they might be a witness to a crime, that these are 

very confusing directives and that it makes it more difficult for 

them to act effectively to apprehend people here illegally. 

I see you look with—you are very disdainful about—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Not disdainful. I am not disdainful—— 

Senator SESSIONS. I would just say that these are people on the 

front lines. You have not been out there having to deal with these 

arrests every day. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let the Secretary answer the question. 

Senator SESSIONS. And I say for me, as a person who has worked 

with Federal agents for years, when you hear this kind of comment 

and votes of no confidence—I have never heard of that—you should 

be paying real attention to them, not rolling your eyes at them. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am not rolling my eyes. What I am suggesting is that results matter here, and priorities really matter, 

and that the results reflect the priorities we have set. And these 

are priorities that are consistent with prior administrations and, 

indeed, with what I testified to this Committee my first months in 

office, that this is what we were going to do. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I am told the ICE carried over from last 

year 19,000 removals, and they are counting them this year, and 

it is sort of a gimmick to making the removals look higher than 

they are. Are you aware of that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Oh, I think what you are referring to, 

Senator, is in the movement from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 

2010, we made the decision that we would not count a removal 
27 

until there was an actual verified departure from the country. And 

that had the effect of moving some removals from 2009 into 2010 

because there was a calendar—you know, there was the removal 

order, but we did not actually verify the departure until fiscal year 

2010. We have continued that practice into fiscal year 2011, so that 

the comparison between the 2010 and 2011 numbers are exactly 

the same. 

Senator SESSIONS. What I am hearing is that while claiming to 

arrest more criminal aliens, internal ICE documents show that 

DHS leadership has ordered field officers not to arrest fugitives 

and re-entries, and leadership efforts to conceal this from the public have led to confusion in the field. Officers are afraid to arrest, 

and suspected illegals have been aggressively pushing back, even 

showing agents the memo that you have. When they stop them, 

they show the memo and say, ‘‘President Obama says you cannot 

arrest me.’’ 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, if they say that, they are not reading it correctly because that is exactly not the case. They can be 

arrested. But at some point in the process, there need to be decisions made about who is to be removed. 

Now, we just had a discussion with Senator Durbin about how 

much it costs to detain somebody. It costs in the neighborhood of 

$23,000 to $30,000 to actually remove somebody. That is our cost. 

That does not include Justice Department costs. The Congress 

gives us the ability to finance removals of 400,000 people a year. 

We can just remove anybody without any priorities, and that would 

be one way to do it. Or the other way and the better way, and probably the way you ran your office when you were a prosecutor, is 

to say we want to focus on expediting the removal of those who are 

criminals, of those who are fugitives, of those who are repeat violators, of those who are recent entrants, meaning within 5 years, into 

the United States. And what you are now seeing is that the numbers reflect those priorities. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you have a problem with morale. I am 

confident—I think the officers feel like you have spent more time 

talking with the activist groups than the officers themselves and 

drafting guidelines that help them do their job. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry to run over. You were patient. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your testimony in front of this Committee and for your disciplined and determined leadership of this remarkably far-flung and broad agency in 

these very difficult times. It is always a source of some pleasure 

and pride for me to see a fellow Truman Scholar also do well. And 

as other members of the Committee have commented, you face 

some enormous challenges, and I just want to commend you for the 

work you are doing given the limited resources you have got available to you and given the great pressures to keep America safe and 

to secure our borders and to respect our Constitution and to advance our national interests. 
28 

Of the six priority mission areas for DHS, there is one that has 

not been touched on at all, and I wanted to take some time with 

it today, which has to do with ensuring the safety and security of 

cyberspace for the United States. 

I earlier today was at a secure briefing that was hair-raising— 

probably not in my case hair-raising, but was deeply concerning— 

about cyber attacks and the coordination between the intelligence 

community and DHS. Recently, a University of Delaware instructor, actually the man who also wrote ‘‘Black Hawk Down,’’ came 

out with a book, ‘‘Worm: The First Digital War,’’ which lays out a 

fairly disconcerting picture of the connection between the private 

sector and Government and how we are doing at coordinating our 

defenses and preparedness. 

Tell me if you would just at the outset how you see your Department coordinating with DOD, with the intelligence community, and 

with the private sector in making sure that we are sufficiently prepared defensively for the assaults that I really think are coming at 

us on a regular basis. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Senator. In fact, I was just 

in New York yesterday meeting with a number of individuals from 

the private sector, the financial institution sector, and the FBI on 

how we are coordinating in the protection of the cyber networks on 

which their operations depend. 

We really view ourselves, and I think the analysis is coming out 

and, legislation will come out, that DHS will have a primary responsibility with the protection of dot-gov networks and with the 

intersection with the private sector. We also through the Secret 

Service do crimes that are committed on the Internet, and we also 

do through ICE other kinds of things like child porn, for example, 

on the Net. 

But with respect to the protection of critical infrastructure networks, that is in our NPPD Division. We have a memorandum of 

agreement with the Department of Defense on this, and we also 

have a memorandum within them as to how we can both utilize the 

technological resources of the NSA. 

This is an area where, in my judgment, we need to grow. I think 

we will have a continuing and expanding threat. There is not yet 

any kind of international framework on which to hang our hats, 

and so there are a lot of challenges here, but it is definitely an area 

that we are moving forward on. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. Two things, if I might. In your written testimony, you reference a number of very successful partnerships with local law enforcement, with local communities, the ‘‘See 

Something, Say Something,’’ Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative, the Secure Communities Initiative. What do you 

see as the future role for local law enforcement, for local first responder communities, and, frankly, for the National Guard and Reserve in providing some of the first points of contact and a trained 

workforce to help provide the sorts of security for infrastructure, 

for local communities, and for local government as we build out towards a future where you are literally policing an online border? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. We are discussing it with our local 

and private sector partners. But I think this will be a unique area 

for the fusion centers to help. The fusion centers are designed to 
29 

be kind of an all-hazards collocation center. Almost all of them now 

have access to real-time classified information. I think through the 

fusion centers we can expand our local and private sector reach 

into the cyber arena. 

Senator COONS. One of my larger concerns about cybersecurity 

long term is the protection of American intellectual property as 

well. A number of the more egregious recent intrusions have been 

not just to access banking data or financial data or to steal people’s 

identities for financial gain, but also to download or take very large 

quantities of American innovation and invention. So I just wanted 

to point you to a number of initiatives that folks on this Committee 

are taking. I hope to work with you and your Department in making sure that the legal infrastructure we put together makes sense 

and is responsible. 

I am also particularly concerned about infringing shipments, so 

I will move to that for a moment. My impression is that there are 

some ongoing challenges with Customs and Border Patrol when it 

intercepts shipments that it believes contain counterfeit goods and 

whether or not they share that information promptly and appropriately with the rights holders in a way that allows them to determine whether what is being blocked at the border is, in fact, counterfeit. That is something that some questions have been raised 

about whether CBP really has the necessary authority to share information about suspected infringing shipments with the rights 

holders and whether they can actually successfully protect shipments in a timely way. I would be happy to follow up further with 

your office if that is not something that is clear. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let us do that. 

Senator COONS. A last question, if might. The EB–5 Immigrant 

Investor Visa Program can be a real opportunity to attract to this 

country foreign nationals with significant resources who want to invest them in American companies or in American communities. 

Our State Director of International Trade has been trying to be 

successful in this, but the areas that have been most successful 

have been through regional centers where they are able to aggregate significant numbers of EB–5 applicants. And he has found real 

difficulty in getting clear information about which regional center 

models are more successful, which have had the greatest success, 

and so I just wanted to leave with you a question about whether 

DHS might release more information about which of the regional 

centers and which models have been more successful than others. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Senator, I think we would be happy 

to have someone meet with the individual you refer to and really 

look across the country and see what is going on. 

Senator COONS. And I look forward to questions from my colleague about visa programs and how we can help advance tourism 

in the United States. I think there are good opportunities for us as 

well as challenges. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Chairman LEAHY. We yield to your colleague from Minnesota, 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here and for the work 

that you are doing every single day. I want to mention two things 
30 

that I do not know have been discussed. I have been here for most 

of the questions, but just first is the good work that you have done 

in our area on flooding issues that FEMA has done in the Red 

River Valley and Administrator Fugate for his assistance during 

the Red River floods. It was very much appreciated. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Great. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And then the second piece of this is the 

work that I do not think many people focus on that you do with 

adoption when things come up and helping parents adopt children 

from other countries and some of the issues that come up. I did 

want you to know—at the last hearing I asked you about a family 

from the Philippines. Senator Sessions and Senator Inhofe and I 

worked together to pass a bill, as you know, which allowed older 

siblings, if they turn 16 or 17, to still be adopted if they have a 

younger sibling that is adopted. This literally allowed 10,000 kids 

retroactively to come into loving homes in our country. One of them 

was the Mikouras family that I brought up, and thanks to the help 

of your agency—they were going to have to leave the two older kids 

that had held this family of nine together when the mom died, and 

thanks to the work of your agency, the two older kids were able 

to get on that plane with the family. I met all nine children at a 

celebration in the community, and it would not have happened 

without the work of your agency, so I want to thank you for that 

on behalf of the family. 

Now, I am also on the Commerce Committee, and so I wanted 

to focus on some of those related issues. The first of which I know 

we have been talking about is the aviation security. It has been my 

impression—as someone with a hip replacement, that I deal a lot 

with your TSA people, and there has been a great improvement in 

morale over the last few years. They especially appreciate the vocal 

defense that you and Director Pistole have given to them when 

questions have been raised. And obviously questions should be 

raised, but overall they are protecting the security of the people of 

this country, doing incredibly difficult jobs. And the issue that I 

wanted to raise was just the new stick-image body scanner. Obviously that has been a concern of some people with the new security 

that is there. I have not had a problem with it at all. I think it 

is a great thing because it goes faster. But could you discuss this 

new software and give your assessment of how it has been working? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. We have begun installing software 

that, rather than the smudged photo-like image, is just a stick figure, and it identifies where there may be an anomaly that requires 

something needs to be checked. They may have forgotten to take 

something out of their pocket. Initially when this was being deployed in, I think it was, Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, there 

were a lot of false positives. But those problems have been rectified, and so we are now in the process of installing that type of 

software throughout the country. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Good. And what is happening with the PreCheck pilot, which is, I think, implemented to—it is, again, some 

pilots that are going on to speed things along. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right. ‘‘Pre-Check’’ is the name for 

the program. That is the domestic version of Global Entry. It is the 
31 

process by which people can voluntarily provide information and 

biometrics, and then that will help speed them through the checkin or the security lines. Obviously, one of the issues with the pilots 

is going to be scalability given the number of passengers we have 

on a daily basis. But my initial reports are the pilot is very popular, and people really like it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Senator Coons mentioned the tourism 

work. I chair that Subcommittee of Commerce along with Roy 

Blunt, and we just introduced the International Tourism Facilitation Act, which we worked with the State Department on those 

issues to make sure that we were doing something that had a 

chance of passing. We have also seen some improvements. We are 

waiting to get the exact numbers in the consulate offices on the 

State Department side and processing some of those. 

As you know, since 9/11 we have lost 16 percent of the international tourism market, which is about 467,000 jobs, and so while 

we want to keep all those security measures in place, as my colleagues have discussed, we also want to see if there are ways, 

while keeping them in place, that we can make them more efficient. Even if we had one more point of that international tourism 

market, it is 167,000 jobs in this country, and they are going nowhere else. They are jobs in the country. 

And so my question was about the background checks for tourist 

visas. They are performed by the State Department, but DHS does 

play a role in running background checks when a tourism B–1 or 

B–2 visa holder applies for an extension. Are you familiar with 

that? And how can we make that run more smoothly? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me, if I might, Senator, check into 

that and perhaps have someone meet with you. When you say 

‘‘more smoothly,’’ that suggests that there are some problems. Let 

us figure that out and see what is going on. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Senator Blunt and I view this whole thing 

as workable. We do not want to change your security, but we really 

believe—and it is mostly consulate officers on the State Department side—that you can process these faster, and this is one issue 

that has come up with the DHS side. So we would love to work 

with you on it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right, and as the former Governor of a 

State that was heavily dependent on tourism, I appreciate the fact 

that this is a jobs issue. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes, it is really a big jobs issue, and we are 

actually excited about the new efforts going on, which we have just 

had no change for the last 2 years, and suddenly there seems to 

be a lot of interest in making some changes. So we are excited 

about that. 

The last thing I just want to follow up on was the cybersecurity 

issue. I share Senator Coons’ view that this has got to be a publicprivate partnership. When you look at the fact that the private sector owns more than 80 percent of the networks, the cyber system 

networks, what more do you think we can do to encourage businesses and institutions to work with the Government on 

cybersecurity challenges? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think this is one of the key issues 

that the Congress will have to take up when it takes up, hopefully, 
32 

cybersecurity legislation. But the extent to which particularly private business that is controlling critical infrastructure of the country should give notice if there has been an intrusion or an attack, 

what kind of notice, how is it shared, what is the Government’s 

role, is this an incentive, is it a mandate, these are all things, I 

think, that are appropriate for Congressional resolution. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think people were kind of shocked a few 

weeks ago, months ago, when that one worker working on the 

power grid—was that in Arizona? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It was in southwest Arizona, yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK, not to mention Arizona in that light, 

but that the power grid had gone down, affecting the power for people in Southern California and other places. And I do think more 

has to be done to protect the power grid and what should our priorities be there, and I am looking at this from a cybersecurity issue. 

Obviously, that was an accident, but it does highlight that we 

should be doing more. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. That was a situation where I 

think 2 million people were without power for 6 hours because of 

the accident of one worker. So I have asked my staff to look into 

what actually happened and why there were not redundant or failsafe systems in place to deal with that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you very much. And I also 

have—I noted Senator Schumer discussing his Buffalo bridge. I 

have a few questions that I do not know that the other Senators 

would really care to hear about with northern Minnesota, and so 

I will put those on the record and ask that you answer them at a 

later time. Thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would be happy to. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. I would note to the distinguished Senator from 

Minnesota that it is not without precedent that questions that may 

appear to be parochial have been asked here. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, I think I have asked a few of them, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Note the one about maple syrup earlier. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think I have asked a few, but I really appreciated the earlier answers, and I know my colleague Senator 

Whitehouse is here, so I will ask those on the record. 

Chairman LEAHY. I would also note that there has not been a 

single time that I have called the Secretary that I have not been 

able to get a response. So this is not a Department where we have 

a difficult time getting answers. She has always been available. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, your remarks about the cybersecurity legislation that we ought to be and shall be undertaking fairly soon make 

a good segue into my questioning. Let me first ask you what level 

of urgency and dispatch would you advise that we proceed to this 

legislation with. 
33 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would hope that you proceed quickly. 

This is an area that is evolving very rapidly. I think having a basis 

in statute for jurisdiction, authorizations, and the like is very important. Work has been done on the Senate side. Work has been 

done on the House side. I would hope that Congress can move very 

quickly to resolve this and give us a bill. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And you hope that we can do it quickly because what? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, because this is an area that deserves some foundation in statute. Right now we are moving administratively, and things are moving, and they are moving expeditiously. But it does seem to me that there is a lot happening here, 

which ultimately needs to be established not just jurisdictionally 

but fiscally as well. And so this is something that Congress is going 

to have to take up. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you think that the legislation that has 

been proposed, the ideas that have been proposed, particularly for 

allowing more protection, more Government support for protection 

of our critical infrastructure can be implemented quickly and will 

make a real difference in terms of the safety and security of the 

American people? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I believe so. But I want to be frank with 

you, Senator. One of the areas where the Department of Homeland 

Security needs to keep expanding its capacity and capability is in 

cyber. It is very difficult to hire professionals in this area. There 

is a lot of competition for these individuals. It is one of the reasons 

we initially made the decision that we would not try to replicate 

a civilian NSA with a military NCS, that there would be arrangements made to share some of that technological expertise. But this 

is an area, even in a period of restrained fiscal resources, that 

needs a focus. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. At the moment, if our NSA folks were 

aware of an attack that was targeting, say, an American bank, a 

financial processing center, an electric utility network, would they 

need, would you need the kind of authorities that this legislation 

can provide in order to be able to intervene and protect that civilian infrastructure? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, it is hard for me to answer that 

hypothetical as posed. What I can say is right now, particularly 

with the financial institution sector, we have a lot of cooperation. 

Whether we have the authority of command and control ultimately 

in the event of an attack, no, that would be something that needs 

to be looked at legislatively. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So, hypothetically, the Government could 

be aware of an attack that was taking place, but be unable to do 

anything as the Government to respond and head off that—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Again, Senator, I am reluctant to answer 

the hypothetical as posed because in those extreme events, my experience now over the last years as Secretary is that, statute or no 

statute, we work things out. But the world would definitely be a 

better, more clear and focused place if we had a basic cyber statute 

to work from. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I will leave it at that. 

Thank you, Chairman. 
34 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you. Senator Whitehouse has 

worked a great deal on this, and we are actually having a meeting, 

I think this afternoon, with some of us on cybersecurity. We passed 

a bill out of this Committee. There are other committees—Intelligence and Commerce and others—that are involved. I think we 

have to do it. 

I am not as concerned now that somebody is going to try to hijack the passenger plane as much as I am that in the middle of 

the winter, when it ranges from 10 above to 30 below zero throughout the Northeast, and all the power grids get shut off through a 

cyber attack. You are talking about hundreds of thousands of people could die if it lasted any period of time. 

What happens if our air traffic control is turned off? Not only the 

image it would give to the rest of the world, but the huge, huge 

commercial disruption, plus the very real possibility of loss of life, 

depending upon where the planes are and what the weather is. 

These are things we have to look at. Communications, for example. What if all the phones all go dead? We move trillions of dollars 

worth of commercial activities each day in this country and overseas. If commercial transactions are closed down here or closed 

down overseas, these are things that we have to worry about. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is true. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If I could add, Mr. Chairman, it is not 

only the risk of cyber sabotage to our critical infrastructure in finance and the electronic grid and communications, the places that 

you mentioned; it is also the question of the private sector’s intellectual property being stolen and siphoned out through the Internet 

by some of our major international competitors in order to avoid either having to pay licensing fees to Americans who design stuff or 

to do their own research and development. How much more easy 

it is to hack into an American corporation’s database and simply 

siphon out their trade secrets and rebuild a factory of your own. 

And it is being done by the terabyte. I contend that we are on the 

losing end of the single greatest transfer of wealth through piracy 

and illicit behavior in the history of humankind, and we are doing 

awfully little about it. Frankly, I had hoped to hear a little bit 

stronger clarion call from the Secretary about the urgency of passing this legislation and the kind of change that it can make if we 

get it passed. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, if I might—— 

Chairman LEAHY. And, remember, a lot of these attacks are 

state-sponsored. Everybody wants to dance around that, and we 

will not go into it more, but some of it is state-sponsored. And that 

is a form of warfare, one way of looking at it. 

You wanted to say something, Madam Secretary? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I just wanted to clarify, Senator, I hope 

my answer did not suggest to you at all that we do not view this 

as urgent legislation. We do. The Department has participated, I 

think, in 80-some-odd briefings about the need for the legislation. 

We have testified 20 different times about the need for the legislation. We have participated heavily in the drafting of the legislation. 

We obviously believe there is an urgent need for the legislation. 

I was interpreting your question as what are you doing now and 

how are you getting by, but the plain fact of the matter is that our 
35 

authorities, our jurisdiction, and moving forward the path would be 

much more clear, and there is an urgent need for legislation in this 

regard. And I am hopeful now that both chambers have been addressing this. That this is one area where the Congress is able to 

move. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good. It did sound a bit tepid, so I am 

glad you clarified your remarks, and I appreciate it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You bet. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you. I understand that we are 

going to have votes here very soon, so I will wrap this up. I am 

going to have questions for you about the Secure Communities 

Task Force. I want to have a written response on that, and I have 

asked you previously about how DHS handles cases of U.S. citizens 

arrested and detained by ICE. I would like statistics on all U.S. 

citizens arrested under Secure Communities, the duration of their 

custody, and the resolution of these cases. 

[The information referred appears under questions and answers.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I thank you very much. Do you want to add 

anything else? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, Mr. Chairman. I have enjoyed being 

the witness here today. 

Chairman LEAHY. Yes, I am sure. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. That would fall under ‘‘a New 

England understatement.’’ Thank you very much. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 

Æ