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

43–086 PDF 2009

S. Hrg. 110–947 

NOMINATION OF HON. PAUL A. SCHNEIDER 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON THE 

NOMINATION OF HON. PAUL A. SCHNEIDER TO BE DEPUTY 

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

MAY 14, 2008 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BETH M. GROSSMAN, Senior Counsel 

CHRISTIAN J. BECKNER, Counsel 

KRISTINE V. LAM, Professional Staff Member 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JENNIFER L. TARR, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 7 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 8 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 11 

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 

Hon. Paul A. Schneider to be Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Biographical and professional information ..................................................... 29 

Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics ............................................... 37 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 38 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 81 

APPENDIX 

ICE, Public Information, New York Times Death in Detention Article, May 

6, 2008 ................................................................................................................... 97 

ICE, Public Information, Washington Post Detainee Health Care Series— 

Day 1, May 11, 2008 ............................................................................................ 100 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF HON. PAUL A. SCHNEIDER 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room SD– 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman, Akaka, McCaskill, and Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good morning. The hearing will come to 

order. 

We are here today to consider the nomination of Paul Schneider 

to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. 

For the past year and a half, Mr. Schneider has been serving as 

Under Secretary for Management at the Department, and in October he took on the additional responsibilities of being Acting Deputy Secretary. 

Mr. Schneider has obviously been working under a heavy load. 

In fact, he has stated that his portfolio covers everything from 

overseeing preparations to respond to a nuclear terrorist attack to 

ensuring that the Department employees have adequate office 

space, and that is exactly right. I must say that personally I have 

been impressed by his ability to handle such a diverse range of responsibilities and to handle them very effectively. I think he has 

brought a level of stability and experience to the administration of 

the Department that it needs, of course. 

But the journey, if I may paraphrase from a business executive, 

for the Department of Homeland Security to better management 

has no final destination point. The Department must perpetually 

be better and better because our enemies, plotting and searching 

for new ways to attack us here at home, will never, in our generation at least, end. 

When we created the Department of Homeland Security 5 years 

ago, the intention was to unify the Federal Government’s previously balkanized and too often neglected counterterrorism, border 

security, and emergency preparedness and response efforts into one 

cohesive and effective Department to meet the threat that became 

all too real on September 11, 2001. We also wanted to build critical 

new functions into the Department such as a unique homeland security intelligence department and a directorate to focus on critical 

homeland security research and development, to do for homeland 

2 

security what agencies like the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency (DARPA) have done within the Department of Defense for our national security. 

The country is clearly safer as a result of the creation and work 

of the Department of Homeland Security, but as we all know, there 

has been no shortage of problems within this new Department of 

more than 200,000 employees as it has sought to fulfill its critical 

and challenging missions. 

Mr. Schneider, you have tackled many of the big issues in your 

tenure. For the most part, as far as I can tell, when you have tackled them, you have wrestled them to the ground, and the Department and the country are better off for it. I appreciate your willingness to take on these new assignments, and I appreciate the efforts 

of the more than 200,000 Department of Homeland Security employees who work with you every day—and with Secretary 

Chertoff, of course—to keep our Nation secure here at home. 

I am going to put the rest of my opening statement into the 

record, and I will take up the various matters that I mention in 

it in the question period. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lieberman follows:] 

OPENING PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

Good morning and welcome. We are here today for the nomination hearing of Paul 

Schneider to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. For the 

past year and a half, Mr. Schneider has been serving as Under Secretary for Management at the Department and in October he took on additional responsibilities 

when he was named Acting Deputy Secretary. 

Mr. Schneider has obviously been working under a heavy load. In fact, he has 

stated that his portfolio covers everything from overseeing preparations to respond 

to a nuclear terrorist attack to ensuring that DHS employees have adequate office 

space. I have been impressed by his ability to command such a diverse range of responsibilities and I believe he has brought a level of stability and expertise to the 

Department that it sorely needs. 

But the work of the Department of Homeland Security is never done, and we 

must keep pressing forward to improve upon its capabilities, particularly in the 

areas of acquisition and cyber security, while also ensuring that the Department is 

prepared for the upcoming transition to a new administration. 

When we created DHS 5 years ago, the intention was to unify the Federal Government’s previously balkanized and too often neglected counterterrorism, border security, and emergency preparedness and response resources under one banner for 

a more cohesive and effective result. We also wanted to build critical new functions 

such as homeland security intelligence and a directorate to focus on critical homeland security research and development. 

I think the country is clearly safer as a result, but there has been no shortage 

of problems at the Department as it seeks to fulfill its difficult and challenging missions. 

Mr. Schneider, you have tackled many of the big issues in your tenure. I appreciate your willingness to do so and I appreciate the efforts of over 200,000 DHS employees working to keep the Nation secure. 

I am eager to hear about your efforts to help forge a new FEMA within DHS. In 

the past 2 weeks, we have seen the unfathomable destruction caused by a cyclone 

in Myanmar and an earthquake in China. We know from Hurricane Katrina what 

can happen when catastrophe hits. And this year our Committee has held a series 

of hearings on the threats and challenges that would ensure from a terrorist attack 

on our country with nuclear weapons. One of DHS’s most critical responsibilities is 

to make sure our country is prepared, and I know you are heavily involved in that 

work. 

One of the biggest issues facing the Department—acquisition—is a subject you are 

quite familiar with, based on your previous assignments as the top acquisition officer for the Navy and the National Security Agency. Some of the Department’s largest and most troubled acquisition programs—Deepwater, SBInet, radiation detection 

portal monitors—have benefited from your leadership. 

3 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Schneider appears in the Appendix on page 27. 

But the Department’s heavy reliance on contractors to perform basic services 

raises serious questions about whether DHS is building sufficient internal capacity 

and institutional knowledge. DHS still has insufficient capacity to develop requirements and evaluate the technical feasibility of contractors’ proposals. I know that 

you have taken great strides to build up the acquisition workforce in the past year 

and a half. But much remains to be done, and I look forward to hearing your plans 

for improvement in this area. 

The Department’s new initiative to strengthen the security of Federal information 

technology systems—the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative—is another project critical to the security of the American people. Given the Administration’s request to triple DHS’s cyber security budget over the past year, I hope you 

will encourage increased openness and information sharing with Congress, the private sector, and the American public on this project to ensure that it is a success. 

In 7 short months, we will experience a change of leadership here in Washington. 

The time during which a new Administration sets up shop is often one of uncertainty or disengagement as employees wait for new bosses and new directions. This 

is also a time, we know from experience, which terrorists seek to exploit. 

The Department has been working hard on transition planning, for which the Nation should be grateful. I am eager to hear about your plans in greater detail, and 

this Committee will work with the Department closely on this issue in the coming 

months. 

These are just a few of the many challenges ahead for you and the Department, 

but it is essential that they be met and conquered if the Department is to succeed 

in its ultimate mission of protecting the Nation from terrorism and natural disasters. We will work cooperatively with you to support the Department in these endeavors, in particular on an issue that I know you are passionate about, the need 

for a permanent headquarters for DHS. 

If confirmed, you will play a large part in setting the Department on course to 

overcome these challenges. Thank you for your service. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I want to note for the record that Paul 

Schneider has filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire. He has answered pre-hearing questions submitted by the 

Committee and had his financial statements reviewed by the Office 

of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information will be 

made part of the hearing record, with the exception of the financial 

data, which are on file and available for public inspection in the 

Committee offices. 

Our Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination 

hearings give their testimony under oath, so, Mr. Schneider, I 

would ask you at this time to stand and please raise your right 

hand. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to the 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I do. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Please be seated. 

Mr. Schneider, I understand you have a few family members 

with you here today. On behalf of the Committee, I would like to 

welcome them, and I invite you, as you proceed with your opening 

statement, to introduce them to us. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL A. SCHNEIDER 1 TO BE DEPUTY 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, I 

am really pleased that my wife, Leslie, is here today; my sister, 

Barbara, and my brother-in-law, Gary. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Great. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. There are many people from the Department 

that are here, three in particular I would like to recognize. They 

4 

are Lieutenant Commander Laura Collins, and she is the one in 

the Coast Guard uniform. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I figured it out. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes. And I have Brian White, who is the counselor to the Deputy Secretary. And last but not least is Barbara 

Lucas. Barbara is the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary. 

These three people are, frankly, the main battery of the organization that supports the Deputy Secretary and responsible for, simply 

put, just making the place run and making whoever happens to be 

the Deputy Secretary successful. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you and we thank them. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. It is an honor to appear before you today as you 

consider the President’s nomination of me to be the Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. I am deeply 

honored and humbled that President Bush has nominated me to 

serve this great country and its people, and I thank Secretary 

Chertoff for his support throughout this process. If confirmed, I 

look forward to the opportunity and privilege to continue to serve 

under his direction in this position of greater responsibility. 

There are many dedicated men and women who are working to 

secure our homeland and defend our freedoms, and it is an honor 

to be able to work with them. 

The specific priorities that I established when I became the Acting Deputy Secretary in October 2007 are the ones that, if confirmed, I will continue to work on. They include: 

First, preparing for the transition of this Administration, which, 

as you know, is the first time that this Department, a relatively 

new Department, will actually undergo a transition of Administrations; 

Second, executing department-wide operations, planning, and coordination. It is how we do work, how we operate as a Department 

on the border, in the ports, and every place else, both nationally 

and internationally; 

Third, executing our major programs; 

And, fourth, being able to respond to a national incident, whether manmade or natural disaster. 

I hope that my continued willingness to serve the public trust, 

integrity, competence, and the ability to accomplish significant and 

challenging objectives demonstrate the skill set and experience 

needed to meet the significant responsibilities required for this position. If confirmed, I commit to working with you and your staff, 

other governmental departments and agencies, businesses both 

large and small, and our international partners to make a contribution to securing our homeland for today and tomorrow. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here today. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Schneider. I 

welcome our colleagues, Senator Akaka and Senator Tester. 

I am going to start the questioning with the standard questions 

we ask of all nominees. First, is there anything you are aware of 

in your background that might present a conflict of interest with 

the duties of the office to which you have been nominated? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. No. 

5 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have 

been nominated? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. No. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do you agree without reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any 

duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. No. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you for those strong and definitive 

answers. We will now start with a round of questions limited to 6 

minutes each per Senator. 

In early 2005, based on reports that I had read, including one 

done by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, 

I began asking DHS nominees and senior-level officials to explain 

how the Department intended to address the abuses and mistreatment of asylum seekers described in that report. I must say that 

I never received satisfactory answers, and in the ensuing years, the 

Department has first opposed and then suggested possible compromises to legislation that I introduced to try to implement modest reforms here. 

I must tell you, this has been frustrating for me. Recently I—and 

I presume you—have seen and been upset to read even more details about the inferior medical care provided to these detainees, as 

documented in articles in the Washington Post and other media 

outlets. And I want to stress that these detainees are not being 

held on criminal charges. These are people whose status is not yet 

determined, and, as a result, processes are going forward and they 

are being held pending that, not on criminal charges, though. As 

some of the reports indicate, they often seem to be treated worse 

than criminals. This is not the way America is supposed to behave. 

I know we can and must do better. 

The documents uncovered by the Washington Post are especially 

revealing because they demonstrate the concerns and protests of 

medical professionals who are used to practicing medicine in a correctional setting. In one memo, a deputy warden at a county jail 

wrote to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office 

complaining that the agency had ‘‘set up an elaborate system that 

is primarily interested in delaying and/or denying medical care to 

detainees.’’ One Department document actually details the cost savings achieved by denying medical care for a variety of serious conditions. 

So, generally, I do not know to what extent you have been involved in this, but obviously as Under Secretary for Management, 

and now Acting Deputy Secretary, everything comes under you. 

Why is it that after years of complaints and reports of improper 

care, the Department appears not to have taken decisive action to 

improve the medical treatment of these detainees? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Senator, let me start by saying I think it is important to put in perspective that it was only, I believe, in October 

2007 that the medical aspects of the detention centers were formally transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. Previously, we did not have direct responsibility for that. 

6 

1 ICE Public Information releases appear in the Appendix on pages 97-108 exclusively. 

What we did upon the transfer of that responsibility was to initiate a series of studies by independent groups, professionals that 

were recognized to be able to examine detention facilities, to do reviews of the types of health care that were being provided, and 

come up with a series of recommendations. They have been compiled. Upon reading the first story in the four-part series, we convened a group of people to examine all the different studies that 

have been done since we assumed responsibility in October 2007. 

We have asked our Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Runge, to review 

these analyses and come up with whatever group of resources he 

thinks is necessary. His job in our Department is, clearly, to oversee the medical care, whether it is in detention centers, whether 

it is the medics that we have in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on the border, whether it is the Secret Service, etc. 

So I think the fact is that when we assumed responsibility in October 2007, we commissioned various efforts to take a look by experts at what needs to be done because we were aware at the time 

of some of these stated concerns. And we have Dr. Runge taking 

a look at that. 

I would tell you that I find myself actually over the past couple 

of days reading each story and then talking to Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement to separate fact from fiction. And I will just 

tell you that, in response to these stories, we have initiated on the 

ICE website what we call a ‘‘Myth Versus Fact Sheet.’’ And I would 

recommend—I would respectfully request that the accuracies of 

some of these stories that have appeared be held in abeyance until 

basically we can get our side of the story out. 

I can tell you that they are riddled with inaccuracies and misrepresentation of facts, and I think as I said, we have already put 

out—I believe it is two Myth Versus Fact Sheets.1 Obviously, the 

article that is in today’s paper regarding the sedation of detainees 

we haven’t had a chance to respond to. 

But we take this very seriously. Some of the actions that we have 

taken, for example, in January 2008, we very explicitly issued direction that no detainee is to be sedated unless there is a court 

order issued. And that was approximately 2-plus months after we 

assumed responsibility for this. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK. I will certainly look at the myth and 

reality document, but I take it that you are not saying that there 

is no problem here. In other words—— 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. The fact that people have stated concerns is 

something we have to take very seriously, and that is why, frankly, 

when we assumed the responsibility for the Division of Immigration Health Services (DIHS), various efforts were commissioned by 

the then-Assistant Secretary of ICE specifically to go look into the 

quality of medical care being provided to detainees. I can tell you 

just the sheer volume of one study in particular—I believe it is 

called the Nakamoto Study—it is literally that thick. And I 

browsed through it because I was interested. It goes into every aspect of medical care, from how are supplies issued to how people 

are examined, when do people get referred, with a series of assessments and recommendations. 

7 

So the fact is that we took this stated concern very seriously 

when we assumed direct responsibility for the medical care. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK. My time is up so I do not want to 

delay turning over to Senator Akaka. I appreciate what you just 

said. My own review of the documents said there is a problem here 

and that DIHS is underfunded and understaffed and it is hard for 

it to meet the normal humanitarian standards that we would want 

to meet. 

I also would say if you get a chance to go back and look at the 

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom report, back 

in 2005, it goes to much more than the health care. And the point 

is that a lot of these people are asylum seekers. They are people 

coming here alleging that if they return to their homelands, either 

for reasons of politics or religious affiliation, they will be subject to 

very bad treatment. They are ‘‘the huddled masses yearning to be 

free,’’ as it says on the base of the Statue of Liberty. 

Obviously not all of them are legitimately entitled to come into 

the United States, but history shows that a lot of them are. And 

I think while we are making that decision, we really have a moral 

obligation to treat them better, generally speaking, than we have 

been treating them. 

I thank you. I am now going to turn it over to Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

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

Mr. Schneider, let me say thank you very much for meeting with 

me prior to this nomination hearing. And I also want to welcome 

you and your lovely wife, Leslie, and any of your family and friends 

who are here at this hearing. 

Let me start by saying that I am pleased that you are willing to 

continue serving at DHS through the Presidential transition. As 

the transition draws closer, continuity of leadership becomes increasingly important, and I was glad to hear your thoughts about 

that. Your management and operational experience will be valuable to keeping the Department steady and focused on its mission 

to transition. 

As you know, Mr. Schneider, and many of my colleagues know, 

we continue to have serious concerns about DHS’s management 

and operations. One area of concern is DHS’s human capital management. Senator Voinovich and I introduced legislation last month 

to give DHS the flexibility to hire a career employee to be the Department’s Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO). This would remove a unique requirement that the CHCO be presidentially appointed and make the appointing authority consistent across the 

government. 

DHS’s last confirmed Human Capital Officer served for just 

about a year, and DHS has had a series of Acting Directors in recent months since her resignation. 

Would providing the Department the flexibility to fill this position with a career civil servant improve continuity in DHS’s human 

capital management? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you for the question, Senator. I first of 

all want to say I appreciate the effort on your part and Senator 

Voinovich’s part to introduce that legislation. That is absolutely esVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:51 Dec 11, 2009 Jkt 043086 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\43086.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
8 

sential. Being the Chief Human Capital Officer at the Department 

of Homeland Security is probably one of the toughest human resources or human capital positions in the Federal Government. The 

fact that by law it is a political appointee means that, for the most 

part, that person will leave on January 20. 

You have no idea how difficult it was for us to recruit the gentleman that the President just announced to be the Chief Human 

Capital Officer for what turns out to be the remaining 7 months 

of the Administration. And the fact of the matter is one of the biggest challenges we have in this Department is human capital. Unlike, fortunately, many departments, we are on a hiring upswing. 

Whether it is Border Patrol agents, whether it is trying to increase 

our intelligence capability in what still is a very new Department, 

whether it is to hire contracting officers, the challenges that we 

have in hiring, in professional development, are probably unique in 

the Federal Government. 

Having a career civil servant in that job, especially, frankly, at 

this point in time, where somebody could carry over to the next Administration, would be absolutely essential, I think, to improve the 

management operations of the Department, especially in this very 

critical area. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Schneider, in the last 3 months, 

two U.S.-flagged cruise ships left Hawaii for the last time, causing 

a dramatic economic loss to the State of Hawaii. There is only one 

remaining U.S.-flagged cruise ship operating in Hawaii. Now, these 

ships were forced out of trade by the rapid growth in foreignflagged ships that operate with lower costs by avoiding U.S. tax, 

labor, and employment laws. The Passenger Vessels Services Act 

(PVSA), restricts foreign-flagged ships’ operations at U.S. ports, but 

it has not been enforced adequately. Customs and Border Protection issued an interpretive rule on the PVSA in November 2007, 

but the rule has not been finalized. 

Mr. Schneider, time is running out, and unless CBP acts soon, 

there may not be a U.S.-flagged cruise industry left, and the coastal States of this country will certainly be impacted. Can you assure 

me that DHS is going to promptly implement a rule that addresses 

the situation in Hawaii and other parts of the country? When will 

CBP’s final rule be implemented? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Senator, I just became aware of this situation 

very recently. I understand what the impact is relative to cruise 

ships, where they stop, what the rules are, how dramatically it affects tourism in especially those States that are affected by it. I 

have discussed this with CBP. I would commit to you that I will 

do whatever I have to do to get a speedy resolution of this. 

Senator AKAKA. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka. 

Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to 

thank Mr. Schneider for being here, and thank you for your visit 

to my office, too, earlier. I want you to know up front I intend to 

vote for your confirmation, unless, of course, something awkward 

comes in. We will just put it that way. 

9 

I want to also reiterate our conversation where, if you get a 

chance—Montana has got about 500 miles of border with Canada— 

if you are willing to come up, we would be more than happy to 

show you around. I think it would do us both good. So that invitation still stands. 

On the Southern border, you have established the Shadow 

Wolves. On the Blackfoot Reservation, I think that you had tried 

to do something similar to that, use native resources to help fill in 

gaps. Can you tell me if that is progressing or if it is yet to 

progress, or where are we at? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I, frankly, do not have details on the Shadow 

Wolves—I know who they are. I know what they do. But I, frankly, 

today cannot give you an assessment of that. What I will do is go 

look into that and get back to you. 

Senator TESTER. That would be great. It might be an opportunity. 

We had talked before, there is some stuff going on on the Southern border with a 28-mile stretch of cameras and sensors that did 

not work. They may be available with new testing in about 2010, 

a year and a half from now. What kind of impact does that have 

on the Northern border? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, first I would respectfully disagree—— 

Senator TESTER. That would be fine. You can. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes. I disagree a little bit with the characterization of what worked and what did not work. Given the fact that 

it was a demonstration of critical technologies, we got out of that 

demonstration what we needed to get out, to figure out what we 

have to do to modify the ultimate configuration so that we have an 

enterprise architecture that works. 

That said, the Northern border, as we have discussed, is a significantly different geography, and fences will not work, for the 

most part. What we are doing in the Detroit area is a demonstration for the Northern border. This is where we are going to have 

a heavy interface with air assets and marine assets. The air asset 

piece is really kind of critical because what our initial feeling is relative to the architecture for the Northern border is it is going to 

rely very heavily on air assets, both manned and unmanned. 

Senator TESTER. So you are talking about drones and airplanes. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. So the sensors and the cameras are pretty much 

off the table? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. No. What we need to do is, first, characterize the 

border. And so in my discussions with CBP, what we plan to do is 

to characterize the border. That is by running manned/unmanned. 

Let’s see what our intelligence shows. Let’s see what we can identify as the critical crossing points and then see what the best solution is. 

Senator TESTER. So that technology would be available with the 

right solution? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. And it meets the needs, it is bulletproof—or 

nearly bulletproof? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I am not going to say anything is bulletproof, 

and the reason being is I have had to testify before—— 

10 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER [continuing]. Several committees here about—— 

Senator TESTER. You would be comfortable with it, though. Let’s 

put it that way. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, I am comfortable that once we characterize 

the border, we understand what the threat is, we take a look at 

what the critical areas that need to be protected that we, with a 

combination of different types of assets, will figure out the best architecture. 

Senator TESTER. Well, and the reason is because—I think I told 

you in the office, and I think I made the statement on this Committee. I live 80, 90 miles south of the Canadian border. We are 

talking about implementing things like REAL ID and listening in 

on people’s phone conversations, and the list goes on and on and 

on. And I dare say I could jump on a Honda motorcycle and hop 

across that border if I pick my spot. 

And so it is important that we—and I do not mean that as a negative to what Customs and Border Patrol is doing. They are doing 

great work up there. But you have got 500 miles, and Montana is 

not the only State in the Union that shares a border with Canada. 

What is going on as far as agents go? We are 1,500 short. What 

do you plan on doing over the next 7 months—and that is not just 

Montana. That is across the Northern border; 1,500 manpower 

short is what the studies have shown us. I hope that is information 

you have got, too, because if you do not, then we have got problems. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. First of all, one of our many focuses in hiring 

is the CBP agents. 

Senator TESTER. You have to, because—— 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I forget the exact number that we will hire by 

the end of the year. We are on track to meet that number, and that 

is a number that we look at. It is not just the hiring number, quite 

frankly, but basically it is the throughput of what we have to do 

then to send them to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. 

Senator TESTER. No doubt about that. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. We are currently on track to meet the stated 

hiring goals—— 

Senator TESTER. By when? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. The end of this calendar year is—I forget the 

number. I thought it was 1,200 that we were—— 

Senator TESTER. Well, it is in the ballpark. If you get 1,200 by 

the end of the year, that is a great success. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. We are on track to meet those numbers. 

The other thing is, as I believe the Secretary has testified in 

front of this Committee, our plan—— 

Senator TESTER. How many of those are going to be in Montana? 

Could you get back to me on that? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. All right. Thank you. We have other issues that 

I need to talk to you about, airplanes and that kind of stuff. But 

you have 7 months left—and I appreciate your service for the last 

6, by the way, and before that. But you have 7 months left, and 

you could really make a difference, and there are things that need 

11 

to be done that do not cost a lot of money in the overall spectrum 

of things. And I hope you grab the bull by the horns and you ask 

me to support you in it, because I will. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, just if I may follow up, you asked me when 

I met with you about that radar. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And so I have actually been trying to understand a little bit more about it. So I have gone back, and I found 

out, in fact, that there has been—it was last summer—a National 

Guard demonstration of the radar, and the results were inconclusive. 

Senator TESTER. Inconclusive, by the way, means it did not work. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, I am trying to understand why it did not 

work, quite frankly. It is one of the things I intend to get into, and 

the reason being is based on your description of the geography—— 

Senator TESTER. It should have worked. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. It should have worked. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. So that is why I need to get into that, and I will. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Tester. Senator McCaskill, good morning. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to talk a little bit about ICE. I saw that you had 

another huge raid in Iowa a few days ago where 300 different people were taken for immigration violations. I guess what I am most 

frustrated about is that there are ways to make a case. And the 

Federal Government, because they do not answer 911 calls, they 

get to decide what kinds of cases they are going to focus on. And 

I am talking about all of Federal law enforcement. 

Now, in the area of immigration, there is a decision that is made 

somewhere: Are we going to focus on the employers or are we going 

to focus on the immigrants? 

What I am waiting for and what I am curious about, there was 

no need to go out there and round up these 300 people. You could 

have probably pulled a dozen of them out of the workplace, interviewed them, gotten the documentation, or lack thereof, and built 

a case against the employer. So the headline would not be ‘‘300 illegal immigrants arrested at a processing plant in Iowa.’’ The headline would be ‘‘The plant manager is taken out of the place in 

handcuffs and charged with a felony.’’ 

And what I do not understand is what is it going to take to get 

the focus of ICE on the employers. There is no way the people running that plant were not fully aware that it was full of illegal immigrants with flawed documentation. And a rookie prosecutor right 

out of law school, if given the assignment, here are three or four 

investigators, see if you can figure out how to make a case against 

the knowing hiring of illegal immigrants en masse across this country, it would not take that much to do it. 

12 

And I am not saying—I pounded the table about George’s in Missouri, and finally, there was an indictment, some kind of criminal 

charge against someone in management at George’s, the chicken 

processing plant in Missouri. 

But I keep seeing these headlines, and what it does is we round 

up these people, we put them in administrative hold, we have the 

kind of questions like the Chairman asked about how they are 

being treated. It costs a lot of money, and if we saw the people who 

were knowingly hiring illegal immigrants because of the cheap 

labor costs going to prison in this country, it would overnight have 

a miraculous impact on the problem of illegal immigration. 

Why are you as a leader at this Department not saying, ‘‘Hold 

off on the massive raids, and build a case against the boss?’’ 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Senator, I think we are trying to do all this. As 

you know, we have this E-Verify system, which we are actively trying to get the employers—I think somewhere between 250,000 and 

300,000 employers have already signed up—to actually check their 

people to make sure—in fact, it is relatively easy to do—that the 

people that they hire are here legally. 

What we have not done a good job of advertising, quite frankly, 

is our outreach program to the various industry sectors to get at 

the people and the employers. We spent a tremendous amount of 

effort, and whether it is the livestock, whether it is toys, whether 

it is in agriculture, we have an extensive outreach program that is 

key to getting at the employers. 

So it is really to get them to verify their people. It is outreach 

to basically say, look, you have a problem, we need to work with 

you; you need to police your own. In an ideal situation, our effort 

ought to ultimately be just one of checking compliance. 

That said—and I am obviously not a law enforcement expert, but 

I know within our organizations on the law enforcement side, they 

go and painstakingly put together what they consider to be a valid 

case. And that case concludes at a certain point in time. If they believe that they have sufficient justification to go take an action like 

they have, they go do it. 

So I think in an ideal situation, I would like to see every employer in the United States sign up to E-Verify. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You will get them to sign up a lot quicker 

if you take some of them to jail. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I am with you on that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, it does not appear that you are, honestly. And I do not mean to be hard to get along with here, but 

these are people who are knowingly making these decisions, and 

these cases could be made, and they simply are not being made a 

priority. And I will guarantee you could take 15 or 20 of those illegal immigrants, and you could pull them aside quietly and say, 

‘‘You know what? We are not going to deport you, but you have got 

to help us build a case. What were you told about the need for documentation at this plant? Who told you this? Did they tell you you 

could bring in the same Social Security that somebody else brought 

in and it would not be a problem?’’ And you just start following the 

evidence. It is called ‘‘turning witnesses against the bad guys,’’ and 

it is how law enforcement operates in this country. It is how we 

get the big whales instead of the little fishes. 

13 

And all we are doing in immigration right now is getting the little fishes, and nobody has their scope on the big whales. And until 

we land a couple of those big whales, we are going to continue to 

spend more money than we need to spend, and we are going to continue to be more inefficient than we need to be in clamping down 

on illegal immigration. The walls are not going to do it. The border 

fences are not going to do it. As long as those people think they 

can come and feed their families in this country and can get a job, 

they are going to come. They are going to come because they care 

more about feeding their families than they do about whether or 

not they are going to be shipped back in 6 months. 

On the other hand, if they come over and cannot get a job, they 

are going to not come over. And it is the only way—and I do not 

understand why there is not a sense of urgency. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that we may have another round. I have 

some specific concerns about answers about the ICE pictures that 

were in the responses that were given to the Committee, and I will 

be glad to wait until both of you question again to go into that. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator McCaskill. We will do a 

second round. I will begin it now. 

Mr. Schneider, I want to talk to you about national preparedness. As you may know, this Committee has been holding a series 

of hearings on the difficult but, nonetheless, realistic threat of nuclear terrorism within our country. We have established, based on 

the testimony of senior American Government intelligence officials, 

that there is a credible threat that al-Qaeda or other Islamist terrorists will attempt to detonate a nuclear device within an American city. 

We have heard testimony from the Commission on the National 

Guard and Reserves that there are ‘‘appalling gaps in our preparedness’’ for such a catastrophic event, and that the Department 

of Homeland Security in particular, according to the Commission 

report, has not demonstrated the necessary urgency to plan and 

prepare for a nuclear scenario. 

Tomorrow, the Committee will be holding a hearing in which we 

will take testimony from experts in medical care, that is, medical 

surge capacity in the case of such a catastrophe, mass care and 

communications. 

What we are trying to accomplish in doing all this is to make 

this difficult scenario, difficult to even focus on, more realistic, because we believe it is realistic as a threat, and then to see that we 

are making real progress in preparation as a government and a society, obviously, first of all to prevent it, but, second, to be prepared 

to respond to it. 

So I wanted to ask you generally, in your view, what is the state 

of preparedness to respond—leave aside the prevention for a moment—to such a catastrophic terrorist attack using nuclear weapons and focus, if you will, on some of those questions we will consider tomorrow, such as the capacity of our public health system 

to surge and also communications capabilities. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Senator, first, let me say that is a scenario that 

we worry about. I believe we have 15 national scenarios that we 

worry about and we plan for. 

14 

In the case of the detonation of a nuclear device in the continental United States, what we do is—we summarized in a letter 

to you, I think it was on March 26 or April 26 of this year, basically a compilation of all the interdepartment responsibilities and 

plans, and that covers intelligence, detection, incidents, and incident response and recovery. 

I would say that, in general, what we do is we work across all 

of the departments. This is not unlike what we are doing, frankly, 

as we speak, in terms of preparedness for this current hurricane 

season. And so while the scenario is different, I can just tell you, 

since we spent a fair amount of time the other day in hurricane 

preparedness, it works like this: 

It is all the departments, and that includes Lieutenant General 

Blum from the National Guard; that includes General Renuart 

from NORTHCOM; that includes HUD, HHS, ourselves, DOD. We 

take a look at every aspect in terms of capacity. We look at it in 

terms of housing. We look at it in terms of sheer logistics. We understand State by State. 

For example, we know precisely in hurricane season State by 

State how many National Guard people are basically available 

within each State. We know in terms of the major commodities, 

whether it be water, food, blankets, tents, power generators, etc., 

we know what the Federal Government has and we know State by 

State. And so we are planning for it. 

I think with the issuance of the National Response Framework 

in early January, it sets the basic framework for how we do this 

interdepartment coordination as well as the framework for how we 

deal with State and local officials. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do you have similar plans and have you 

had similar meetings with regard to a weapons of mass destruction 

attack? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. No, I am not aware that we have. I would say 

that once we issued the National Response Framework, we have 

work underway on each of the 15 scenarios. Ultimately, we will get 

down—and this ends up being the hierarchy of plans. You have 

strategic plans, tactical plans, and then detailed operational plans. 

I mean, it is to the point where, for example—and I get back to 

the hurricane season only because it is something we live every 

day. But we know, for example, State by State on the Gulf Coast 

how many people each of the other States could house, for example, 

if we have to evacuate them. We know what resources are required 

to evacuate them. We know how to get to those people. We know 

how to get them out, and we know how to get them back. Ultimately, that level of specificity would be part of each one of these 

scenarios at the detailed deck-plate operational level. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. The great challenge of this Department is 

that this is a big, open country, and that is part of what makes 

America, America. It makes us also vulnerable. The range of attacks that one could imagine in this current threat climate is very 

wide, so there is a lot of pressure on you. I remember the day that 

somebody on the Committee asked Secretary Chertoff the classic 

question, the familiar question: What keeps you up at night? And 

he said the fear of a terrorist detonation of a nuclear weapon in 

an American city. 

15 

So I urge you in this position to drive planning and preparation 

for a response to a nuclear terrorist attack which will not be totally 

dissimilar to what you need to respond to a natural disaster, but 

I think you would agree would involve elements that go beyond 

that. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I am a nuclear engineer 

by profession. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I understand the severity and the magnitude if, 

God forbid, something like this should happen. And when I had my 

staff interview with your respective staffs, one of the folks asked 

me, well, what is your biggest worry? And that is my biggest worry, 

exactly just like the Secretary. I am very acutely aware of what one 

of those devices could do, and, frankly, it is very scary. 

And so I will commit to you that I will personally go take a look 

at where we are on the detailed planning for that particular scenario and see what I can do to expedite it. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And then I want you to promise to come 

back and tell us what more you need to be truly prepared for it. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator Akaka. 

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

Mr. Schneider, as Senator Tester suggests, the Department’s 

SBInet Project 28 (P–28) has been criticized for many problems. 

DHS did not adequately spell out the contract requirements. The 

timeline was unrealistic, and DHS did not manage and oversee 

Boeing’s contract performance adequately. 

Because DHS tried to do too much too quickly without proper 

oversight, problems with the software were not understood until 

very late in the process, and the entire project did not function as 

expected. 

According to a recent Washington Technology article, DHS has 

stated that it expects to begin operating the first two permanent 

segments of SBInet radar towers in Arizona as early as December. 

These sections will span 83 miles of the border. 

Is this timeline realistic? Should we be worried that DHS is still 

trying to push this project forward too quickly without enough 

oversight? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Senator, first, thank you for the question. That 

article points out what is basically a problem I have to wrestle with 

every day, which is what is in the press and what do I have to do 

to fix it if it is not correct. So, unfortunately, they ignored the complete statement, the information that Customs and Border Protection provided. 

Quickly, on the SBInet, what we are doing is we are basically developing—and, actually, we are in the middle of integration testing 

in Huntsville right now—the software build for the next generation 

of SBInet. 

We also learned from the testing what problems with hardware— 

whether they be unmanned ground sensors, whether they be cameras, whether they be radars—need to be fixed. Once we do the 

software testing at Huntsville, then we are going to integrate it 

with the land-based hardware, satisfy ourselves that it is going to 

work, and then, and only then, go back to Tucson and basically reVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:51 Dec 11, 2009 Jkt 043086 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\43086.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
16 

configure the site in Tucson, which we are now calling Tucson–1, 

to reflect the upgraded hardware, the upgraded software, that has 

been land-based tested. 

I might point out that because of the press of schedule early on, 

that land-based testing was not done. It was not done, and many 

of the problems that we found out on the mountains, we could have 

found out in the lab. But we did it under the press of schedule. But 

only when we are satisfied that the software testing, the landbased hardware integration software testing, is satisfactory will we 

go back there. 

That is the section in Arizona that is referred to in the Washington Technology article. We have said that all along. When our 

folks have briefed the Committees, the staffs, we explained we are 

going to do this land-based testing and go back to Tucson. And we 

have identified a second site, which I think it is—we call it Ajo– 

1. But it is only after we complete this land-based testing and satisfy ourselves that the system is satisfactory. 

So this is the plan. When we basically said in December, time 

out, we have got to get this right, stop the deployments, let’s go 

back, fix all the problems. We delayed acceptance of what we call 

P–28 until the most egregious deficiencies were corrected. Then we 

ran operational testing with Border Patrol agents. We identified 

more deficiencies that needed to be fixed. The Secretary and I personally went through every one—I think it was 52, 53 deficiencies—to satisfy ourselves that the ones that were not fixed—it 

boiled down to four—were because it was not worth the money or 

because we knew we were going to have a software fix in the new 

software build. We satisfied that. Then we took basically control of 

final acceptance. We did this, limiting, frankly, our expenditures to 

only $20 million. 

So now I think we have restructured the program properly. We 

are restructuring the contract. As you said, frankly, when this program was started, I do not believe we had the numbers nor the 

skill set of people to adequately manage this particular contract. 

We have changed that around. The mix is substantially different 

with a large number of Feds that are technically competent to go 

direct this effort. 

So this is the plan that we have said all along that we are going 

to do as a part of restructuring the program. The unfortunate thing 

is it came out in the press—and I have to tell you, the first thing 

I did when I read that thing one night, I said, ‘‘What is this?’’ Because it did not sound anything like our plan. Then what I found 

out was what Washington Technology abbreviated, condensed, 

frankly, with serious omissions, was our plan. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Schneider, Director McConnell 

recently testified that the National Counterterrorism Center has 

trouble obtaining detailees from DHS’s Office of Intelligence and 

Analysis. I understand that the amenities in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) are much more attractive, 

and DHS worries about losing needed staff to the ODNI if its intelligence officers see where the grass is greener, so to speak. 

Are there issues in addition to DHS’s need for better facilities? 

For example, have you done surveys of morale in the DHS intelVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:51 Dec 11, 2009 Jkt 043086 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\43086.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
17 

ligence components to see if your staff is satisfied or frustrated 

with their work? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, yes, and thank you for that question. I had 

to testify in front of the House Homeland Security Committee, and 

they asked me a question in general somewhat related to this, and 

I basically said our place is a dump. And it is very hard, especially 

in the intelligence area, to recruit. So let me answer this in a couple of parts. 

Our facilities are absolutely terrible. We are bursting at the 

seams. It is a 62-year-old facility. We are digging up the roads 

every day. I really appreciate, Mr. Chairman, as a result of my conversation with you about a month ago, your letter to the appropriators. That actually resulted in the appropriators going out and 

visiting St. Elizabeth’s, I think it was last week. And I want to 

thank you on behalf of the 3,000 people that work up at the National Advisory Committee (NAC). The facilities are terrible. It 

really does affect morale. 

Now, specifically with regard to intelligence, hiring people in intelligence is very difficult, and the reason being is we have a very 

difficult time competing with the other intelligence agencies, be it 

NGA, DIA, NSA, or CIA, and the reason being is this: Our facilities 

are not conducive to good work and good morale. Just go to the 

CIA, go into the cafeteria, take a look at the beautiful campus-type 

facility. And if you were an intelligence analyst, would you rather 

work at the CIA or would you rather work at DHS? And so we 

have a hard time competing with other intelligence agencies. 

It is even worse when you take a look at the private sector, and 

the reason being is there is a substantial cost differential between 

what we can pay somebody, a journeyman intelligence person, 

versus the private sector. Based on my experience in NSA, my estimate of the delta in cost is roughly 30 percent, and I do not care 

whether it is a GS–12 earning $66,000 a year, the private sector 

on a contracting officer will pay him $95,000. I used to lose a lot 

of contracting officers because they are 27 years old and they want 

to make $95,000 instead of $66,000. And the delta only goes up 

with more experience. 

So the problem is this: I have a hard time competing within government, and so then I get these bright young folks from the private sector, and we get them in, and then they look at us, they look 

at CIA, NSA, beautiful—at NSA they are building a lot of new 

buildings at Fort Meade as a result of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). Who is going to get the talent? We have a hard time 

getting the talent. 

That said, what we have been doing is growing our own. We go 

out to the colleges and universities. And I would say the Under 

Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, Charlie Allen, is very personally involved in this, actively going out there. And the only 

thing we have going for us, frankly, in the competition is the mission. This is a mission that people understand in this country— 

keeping our country safe and secure. And so people relate to the 

mission, and that is what attracts them. So we have had success 

in getting at the entry level—but it takes, I think, 5 to 6 years to 

be able to fully develop a journeyman intelligence analyst. 

18 

Let me answer the last part of your question. I have been to the 

National Counterterrorism Center. We work very closely with the 

Director, Mike Leiter. I have been there. I have talked to our people that are on the floor, and I think the NCTC does a wonderful 

job. I will work with Charlie Allen to see if we can make sure that 

we provide as many people as we possibly can to meet his need because the work that they do is very valuable, and we and everybody else in leadership and, frankly, in this country benefit from 

it. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank Mr. Schneider for his response. It is great to hear that response, and it can 

come only from someone who is a career person and who has been 

servicing our Federal Government for 40 years. Thank you very 

much. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Akaka. I agree. I was 

thinking that the transcript of your answer to the last question will 

not reveal the passion with which you answered it, and I appreciate the passion. We almost had the money for the St. Elizabeth’s 

site, for a new headquarters in the supplemental appropriations, 

but the so-called domestic spending, for reasons that you understand, got cut down. I think people are aware of this. This is a very 

urgent need. There is a chance it will be included in a second economic stimulus. I do not know what the prospects of that are for 

passage. If not, we are going to make a real effort to get it into the 

fiscal year 2009 appropriations or an omnibus appropriation, if that 

is what it is. Because, as you can see by the range of questions we 

are asking, or anybody here can see—you live with it—we are asking a lot of this Department and the people who work in it. And 

to put you in really substandard facilities is just wrong. So we have 

got to change that quickly, and I will do the best I can to make 

sure that happens. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I really appreciate it. If I could just add one 

thing about this, this move to St. Elizabeth’s, it is not just about 

a physical real estate move. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. What we did—and I think it was a smart thing 

to do—is we as part of this move figured out and totally restructured how our operation is going to work. It is a business process 

restructuring. So it is not just the physical collocation of roughly 

14,000 people. It is what ought to be in the front room? What ought 

to be down in the back room? This enables us to fix a lot of problems that we have been criticized about relative to IT infrastructure and operations coordination. 

The other thing it enables us to do, quite frankly, is we are scattered all over the DC area, and so the problem we have is we are 

paying a fortune in these leases. And so what we did, as part of 

sequencing our move in three distinct steps, was to sequence them 

so we could benefit, if you will, and not have to renew a lot of these 

leases that, frankly, would be at somewhat unfavorable prices. 

So it is not just a space thing. This is the business process that 

we think the Department needs for the future, and we want to get 

out of being captive to these leases, which, frankly, are going to 

cost us in the long run probably more money than we have currently budgeted because of the fact we planned on St. Elizabeth’s. 

19 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well said. Thank you. Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate 

the testimony you just gave about the lease issue. It is a huge issue 

across government, how the lease-purchasing is going on and getting around the capital needs budget. It is a huge problem in the 

Department of Defense. There are more temporary buildings in the 

Department of Defense that have sprung up over the last several 

years, and it is not a good cost-benefit analysis for taxpayers. 

I want to revisit an uncomfortable situation, and that is the photograph of the ICE employee taken at the Halloween party. And 

here is my problem with what has come to light. 

You said in your questioning to the Committee that you were informed of the Committee’s request for copies of the photograph the 

week of November 12, 2007. So at the very highest levels of the Department, there was an awareness that there was a congressional 

request for a photograph. You also were aware that they were trying to restore the photograph based on the report that you received 

at or about that same time. 

So we know the middle of November that Congress wants the 

photograph, and we know that it is trying to be restored. And, 

frankly, restoring a digital photograph is not something that takes 

weeks. 

Now, the problem is that the only time this photograph was produced was when we got it from CNN after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request delivered in February. And the problem 

with that is that Julie Myers’ position was being held. She was not 

going to be confirmed, and it was not until after the hold was released that we saw the picture. 

Now, that is a set of facts that are troubling to me. I would hate 

to think—and I am not making the accusation—that is what occurred. But this is the kind of thing that gets your nose a-twitching 

in terms of trying to figure out what happened because it smells. 

It looks like the photograph had been restored and that the Department was aware that we wanted a copy of it, but yet waited until 

after her confirmation had gone through. 

I want to give you a chance to respond to that. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, once the request was made, as I indicated 

in my question where I was informed of the Committee’s request 

for the copies of the photograph approximately the week of the 

12th—that is the best of my recollection. The fact of the matter is— 

and I was aware based on the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) report that they were trying to restore the photographs. 

From that standpoint, first, when I read the report that was 

given to me, I made a note, ‘‘Fine, they are trying to restore the 

photographs,’’ and that was it, frankly. The Committee’s request 

for photographs, fine, I was aware of that. But I did not take any 

deliberate action personally to see that the Committee received 

those photographs, just like I do not take, usually, any specific action in response to what might be tens or twenties of hundreds of 

requests—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Sure. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER [continuing]. For information over a period of 

time. I just do not do that. 

20 

Senator MCCASKILL. You should be aware that—and I understand that, and I am not holding you personally responsible. There 

is a little of ‘‘the buck stops here’’ that I could draw up. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Right. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But you should be aware that the response 

from the people directly involved was that they were not aware we 

wanted a copy of the photograph. So if you were aware it—— 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I was aware. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, and so it is a little troubling that they 

are now trying to maintain that we did not request it in writing 

or there was not—there is some sense that we are getting from the 

people directly involved at ICE that we did not go far enough to 

request this photograph, that it took a FOIA request from CNN for 

this photograph to surface. And, clearly, that is not the way it 

should work. 

Let me also just briefly, before we finish today, I am a little worried about the relationship of the Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security. I recently learned that a subpoena had 

to be issued by the IG in the Department of Homeland Security to 

acquire contract data from FEMA. Now, it is troubling to me that 

we would have to have a subpoena by the IG to get contract data, 

and I wanted to get your response to that troubling reality. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, that is troubling, and it is unacceptable. 

If that is one that occurred months ago, I do not—because I am 

aware of an instance that occurred months ago, and, frankly, when 

I heard about it, I was outraged for a couple reasons. 

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the IG. I do not understand if he is not getting information—and he and I have had 

this conversation, frankly, as a warm-up to a hearing in front of 

this Committee, I think it was last October or November with the 

GAO. We established what I considered to be protocols, which is 

basically that if the GAO or the IG cannot get information from one 

of our component organizations, I told them, ‘‘Pick up the phone 

and call the head of that organization. And if you do not get an answer from them, then pick up the phone and call me.’’ And the Secretary has basically said the same thing: ‘‘If you do not get an answer from me, then pick up the phone and call him.’’ 

What I was troubled by and outraged by, to the best of my 

knowledge if this is the instance, the situation where that was not 

raised to the head of the agency. That is unacceptable. The IG is 

an integral part of our Department. There should be no assuming 

proper markings and all that—there should be absolutely no reason 

that I can think of why that should not have been provided. And 

I was very upset, frankly, when I heard about that instance. I 

picked up the phone and I called the head of FEMA, and I said, 

‘‘What gives?’’ He said, ‘‘I know nothing about it.’’ 

So I have to agree with you, that is unacceptable, and I am hopeful that does not happen. As a general rule, I, as the Under Secretary, used to meet monthly with the IG, and the reason is the 

Under Secretary for Management is responsible within the Department for coordination with the GAO and the IG. And one of the 

things I say is: Who is not cooperating with you? Because I want 

to know. And so that specific was not brought up at that particular 

point in time. 

21 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, thank you for being concerned about 

it, and I do know that you and all the other people that work there 

are not working there for the big money you are making. You have 

a sense of public service, and you want to try to do the right thing, 

and I hope you appreciate that in our role it is our job to try to 

bring down the thumb of accountability every place we can. And I 

do thank you for your service to your country, and I wish you well 

over the next few months. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you very much. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator McCaskill. Senator 

Akaka, I think you have a few more questions. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Not at all. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Schneider, the Federal Protective Service 

(FPS) is facing significant budget difficulties since it was transferred from the General Services Administration to DHS. Previously, GSA made up the deficit with money from the Federal 

Buildings Fund. FPS now is entirely fee-funded. 

In the past, the Department has stated that it does not need an 

appropriation to cover some of the FPS’s general expenses. What 

is your view on this matter? And should Congress appropriate 

money for some of FPS’s general expenses? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Senator, let me tell you what I know. 

First, you are absolutely correct. The FPS was transferred to the 

Department without the full cost of operation. They covered with 

other funds an annual operating loss that was, frankly, a substantial amount of money. So right from the get-go, we were behind the 

power curve, and we were expected to eat that out of DHS resources, which, frankly, was not a good deal for us. 

So what we have done is a series of rate increases. We have, we 

believe, in terms of what our fees are to the customer, to pass it 

on to the customer, and some of these customers, to be honest with 

you, are not happy about the fact that we are increasing their 

rates. But the fact is they got a free ride, frankly, because GSA 

picked up the operating loss. 

So we have adjusted our rates based on square footage to where 

we believe that we are fully solvent, and we can, frankly, hire up 

to the mandated level—I think it is 1,200—by the end of this year. 

We are on track to do that. We believe we have a sound financial 

basis to go do that. 

Now, when I have asked this question because in some of my visits around the country, I get rave reviews about the performance 

of the FPS. And some of the folks that are their customers have 

personally gone out of their way to come up to me to talk about 

the great job that they do, and they wish they could give them— 

get more services for them, and they are willing to provide money. 

So that led me to—and I have not completed this yet, but there 

is like three different funding streams that fund the FPS. One of 

them is almost like a base support; then there is another that is 

a reimbursable; and then there is a third strain that I cannot remember what we call it. 

What I have not got the answer to is this: Whether or not we 

have within our authority to take on all the customers that would 

22 

like to fund FPS, or whether or not I need legislation to fix that. 

Right now, from what I have read and studied, it does not appear 

that we need legislation. It appears it is within our authority. But 

one of the things I would like to do, only after I do that review, 

and if, in fact, I do conclude that we need some more flexibility 

from a funding standpoint, I would like to come back and talk to 

you about how we do that. And the reason is because they provide 

a very valuable service. From everything I can tell, their service is 

highly valued by their customers. And if more people want more 

service than are willing to pay, then I want them to be in a position to be able to accept that money. 

Senator AKAKA. I know you have been quite passionate about 

personnel. Over the next 5 years, the Office of Personnel Management estimates that approximately one-third of the Federal workforce will retire. Last week, we held a Subcommittee hearing to discuss the barriers to entry for the next generation of Federal employees. Agency leadership and reforming the recruitment and hiring process were among the central recommendations. 

What plans do you have to improve the recruitment and hiring 

process to ensure that DHS is removing barriers to attracting the 

best and the brightest to DHS? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you. I think the exodus that people are 

talking about is somewhat precipitated by baby boomers and shortly thereafter. The situation, quite frankly, is exacerbated by the 

fact that in many departments, from the late 1980s to the mid1990s, there was a hiring freeze, basically, and the way the hiring 

freeze worked is you basically cut off the spigot and basically 

achieved your reductions that were mandated by attrition, which is 

the worst way to do this. 

And so the fact of the matter is it just compounds the situation 

where you have this exodus of people based on age and what people 

typically do when they retire, as well as this void in the pipeline. 

So we have recognized that along with the other departments in 

government, and so what we have been doing is we have a massive 

hiring campaign. We are out, frankly, with job fairs, with ads. We 

have had one-day job fairs in the Reagan Building. We had 1,200 

people show up. We go out to the Midwest, we go out to the Southwest, we go up to the North to try and attract people. 

Our Department is working together not just one agency going 

out trying to recruit, but basically it is a department-wide recruitment effort. We have many entry-level programs where—we have 

intern programs, for example, that we have started, primarily to 

build up our acquisition workforce and other specialty areas. In the 

case of our policy people, we have scholar programs that we have 

initiated with Harvard to get some of the bright minds that are out 

there interested. 

I continue to be encouraged by a lot of very bright people who 

want to come work in our Department, either from a law enforcement standpoint or from a policy standpoint, and the reason being 

is from a policy standpoint, where people realize that many of the 

issues that this country is going to wrestle with over the next couple of years are going to be major policy issues regarding security 

of the homeland—this trade-off between what you have to do to 

protect and defend versus privacy. And so we are attracting some 

23 

of the best minds from some of these really top-notch schools that 

want to work in these areas. 

So I am encouraged, but that does not totally alleviate my concern with the sheer numbers. The sheer numbers are dramatic. 

When we are trying to ramp up—and we are trying to convert from 

a contractor workforce to a Federal workforce—and we are probably in the most unusual situation compared to the rest of the Federal Government, which is why my charge to the new Chief Human 

Capital Officer and, frankly, to Elaine Duke, who you have met, 

who is the Deputy Under Secretary for Management, is we have to 

fix the staffing. We have to get these people on board. And it is not 

just our internal processes, what we do, but how well do we work 

with OPM and the others. How well can we get people cleared? 

I think we have done remarkably well in cutting the time frame 

it takes to get somebody cleared, even at the top secret SBI/SCI 

level. It is a problem I spent a lot of time on, and we have—I can 

tell you, one of the things we have done is basically almost like a 

stop-gap measure, plugging holes in the dike, is we have taken a 

large percentage of our folks that work in the Chief Human Capital 

Office and said it does not matter what you were doing yesterday, 

today you are working on staffing, because we have got to get these 

people on board. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, I want to thank you very much, Mr. 

Schneider, for your responses, and I know that with your experience and your background, you understand how important personnel and personnel hiring is to our Federal Government. 

I just want to add that I hope in your considerations of hiring, 

the diversity of the Federal workforce would be one of your priority 

concerns. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes, it is. And, in fact, let me just say that we 

are obviously very concerned about diversity. It is an established 

fact our numbers are not as good as they ought to be, especially 

in the senior leadership positions. It is something that we actively 

work at. 

I think what we do not get a lot of visibility on is a lot of the 

development programs where, in fact, if you take a look at the people that are selected to these programs, we have a very high percentage of minorities and women that have been selected for these 

programs. And so I am encouraged by the fact that, as we look to 

the future, the programs that we have put in place to develop these 

future leaders that will be in a position so that they compete successfully for the senior executive level jobs in the Department, we 

will have a solid population from which to choose from. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Schneider. 

Mr. Chairman, I would urge this Committee to move quickly on 

the confirmation of our nominee. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Akaka. Thanks for your 

contribution to the hearing this morning. I have one more question 

to ask Mr. Schneider, but it certainly is my intention to move 

quickly and see if we can possibly confirm the nomination, both 

through the Committee and the Senate, before the Memorial Day 

break next Friday. 

One of the big concerns that we all had when we created this Department—and it is an ongoing concern; I know you share it—is 

24 

the enormous administrative challenge of integrating more than 20 

pre-existing Federal agencies and more than 200,000 people. 

I was very interested to learn from my staff that in your interview with the Committee staff, you explained that one strategy you 

have for dealing with this challenge was a plan to expand the role 

of the Operations Directorate, and that in particular you were 

thinking of setting up a joint staff from the component agencies 

through the Operations Directorate, as I understand it, to do operations, coordination, and planning—somewhat like the model of the 

joint staff at the Department of Defense. 

I wanted to ask you if you could briefly explain what you have 

in mind here, because I find it very interesting. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes, sir. One of the things that—when I became 

the Acting Deputy Secretary, I found myself involved with things 

that previously I was not involved in. I worried about—I call it ‘‘the 

business of the business’’ aspect from the management standpoint 

of what the Department did. I was really not that heavily involved 

in what I would call the law enforcement operations. 

By and large, we are a law enforcement operation. Not unlike the 

Secretary of Defense and the Department of Defense, the chain of 

command for, I call it, ‘‘fighting in the war,’’ is from the Secretary 

directly to the combatant commanders. And so that is very similar, 

frankly, for how we operate. We have, obviously, a headquarters 

staff, and they work on policies and procedures and business. But 

the fact of the matter is our law enforcement operation, the chain 

of command is directly from the Secretary to the heads of TSA, 

Coast Guard, all the above. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. The issue came up, frankly, when in a situation 

that required us to assemble our forces and figure out a coordinated approach to a specific problem, I found myself, frankly, sitting at the head of the table as the Acting Deputy Secretary shortly 

into this, trying to understand how do we put together a coordinated operational law enforcement plan for the specific scenario at 

hand. And what I immediately realized was we did not really fully 

have the equivalent of a joint staff. We needed, not somebody that 

had direct line of control of authority over the combatant commanders, but, rather, somebody who would work with all the combatant commanders, figure out what the threat was, work with the 

intelligence community, etc., work with the operational type people, 

and put together a comprehensive plan, or at least a set of alternatives that could be considered by the Secretary. 

So I talked to the Secretary about it, with others, and what we 

concluded was we needed that type of capability. Now, the Secretary in some of his testimony or in some of his speeches has been 

talking about a J–3/J–5 type operation, and for those that are familiar with Pentagon lingo, J–3/J–5 is operations and planning. 

And so what we have done is we had a team that was put together that was headed by a Coast Guard two-star admiral, that 

was made up of all the operational deputies from across the component agencies, to figure out what should we do, how do we do business, can we do it better, what ought to be the structure. They 

worked this by themselves, frankly, and briefed me and the heads 

of the operating components on a monthly basis. 

25 

About a month ago, they came in with their final recommendation. We sat down and went through it. We briefed the Secretary, 

and he agreed with it, and it was something that they came up 

with on their own. These are the operational deputies saying we 

think we can do a better job of how we do our planning and how 

we coordinate our operations. 

This is really at the deck-plate level. And so we are in the process right now of making that happen. And our plan, frankly, is to 

do it a couple of ways. Our plan is to rely, frankly, on the operational expertise that is inherent in each of the operating components to staff this operation at headquarters with detailees. This 

brings some of the best and brightest operational people that have 

already developed, frankly, a good operational working relationship. It exposes them to other areas of the Department, and one 

of the Secretary’s initiatives is that we expand the experience base 

for all of our employees, much like what the Director of National 

Intelligence is doing and much like what the Deputy Secretary of 

Defense is doing. And so this will get them exposure and in the 

long run helps solidify the Secretary’s goal of one DHS. 

So we are in the process of doing that. We are in the process of 

getting detailees, and, frankly, we hope to have this up and running next month. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I appreciate that. That is very refreshing 

and I think will definitely help in the goal of integration. 

I would ask you in regard to that, and more broadly in terms of 

what you are doing, to keep in mind that the Committee is working 

now on a Department of Homeland Security authorization bill. The 

House, as you know, passed one earlier. We are not quite sure 

whether we are ready to go to an annual authorization as the 

Armed Services Committee does for the Department of Defense. 

Maybe we are. Maybe in these early years that is important. 

Maybe we will aim for having one every Congress. 

But, in any case, we are working on that now, and if there is any 

legislative language that you would like to kind of institutionalize 

that or other changes you have made or think should be made, I 

urge you to let the Committee staff know as soon as possible. 

That is it for me. My staff tells me that in those first three questions that I asked, the routine questions, that either because of the 

way I asked the third or perhaps you did not hear, that you gave— 

I do not want to quote you too much, Paul, but you said ‘‘No,’’ and 

the answer, I think, is different. So let me ask that third question 

again to remove any doubt. Do you agree without reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any 

duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. 

We are going to keep the record open just for a day until the 

close of business tomorrow for any additional comments that you 

want to add and any additional questions that Committee Members 

may have of you. We are going to do it just for a day because, as 

I indicated earlier, my hope is to get you confirmed before the Memorial Day break. 

I thank you very much for your testimony today and, in general, 

of course, for your long record of distinguished public service. 

26 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(27) 

A P P E N D I X 


43086.001
28 


43086.002
29 


43086.046
30 


43086.047
31 


43086.048
32 


43086.049
33 


43086.050
34 


43086.051
35 


43086.052
36 


43086.053
37 


43086.054
38 


43086.003
39 


43086.004
40 


43086.005
41 


43086.006
42 


43086.007
43 


43086.008
44 


43086.009
45 


43086.010
46 


43086.011
47 


43086.012
48 


43086.013
49 


43086.014
50 


43086.015
51 


43086.016
52 


43086.017
53 


43086.018
54 


43086.019
55 


43086.020
56 


43086.021
57 


43086.022
58 


43086.023
59 


43086.024
60 


43086.025
61 


43086.026
62 


43086.027
63 


43086.028
64 


43086.029
65 


43086.030
66 


43086.031
67 


43086.032
68 


43086.033
69 


43086.034
70 


43086.035
71 


43086.036
72 


43086.037
73 


43086.038
74 


43086.039
75 


43086.040
76 


43086.041
77 


43086.042
78 


43086.043
79 


43086.044
80 


43086.045
81 


43086.055
82 


43086.056
83 


43086.057
84 


43086.058
85 


43086.059
86 


43086.060
87 


43086.061
88 


43086.062
89 


43086.063
90 


43086.064
91 


43086.065
92 


43086.066
93 


43086.067
94 


43086.068
95 


43086.069
96 


43086.070
97 


43086.074
98 


43086.075
99 


43086.076
100 


43086.077
101 


43086.078
102 


43086.079
103 


43086.080
104 


43086.081
105 


43086.082
106 


43086.083
107 


43086.084
108 

Æ 


43086.085