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

56–843 PDF 2011

S. Hrg. 111–1019 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

PAUL G. KIRK, JR., Massachusetts 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BETH M. GROSSMAN, Senior Counsel 

CHRISTIAN J. BECKNER, Professional Staff Member 

JASON M. YANUSSI, Professional Staff Member 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ROBERT L. STRAYER, Minority Director of Homeland Security Affairs 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 4 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 14 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 15 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 18 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 25 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 30 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 33 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 36 

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

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

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record ..................................... 58 

(1) 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY 

DEPARTMENT’S BUDGET SUBMISSION 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:41 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman, Akaka, Carper, Pryor, McCaskill, 

Tester, Collins, and McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. The hearing will come to order. I thank 

you, Secretary Napolitano, for being here and for your patience as 

we completed a round of votes on the Senate floor. And I thank all 

of you in the room for your patience. 

I thank you for joining us today for our annual hearing on the 

Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) budget—in this case for 

the fiscal year that begins on October 1 of this year, which is 

known as fiscal year 2011. 

In less than a month, the Department of Homeland Security will 

begin its seventh year of operations. I think that any fair assessment of its record in those 7 years would be positive, including a 

great number of notable successes, such as the recent important 

role the Department played in stopping the terrorist plot of 

Najibullah Zazi. But, to say the obvious, the journey toward a better Department of Homeland Security has no single destination. It 

goes on and on to meet the evolving threats and the experiences 

that we have. 

The budget is a set of numbers, but it is also a set of priorities 

and a vision for the future of the Department. Bottom line, it is 

and should be a statement about this Department, about the extent 

to which the Administration, working with us, will press forward 

to strengthen the Department’s ability to detect, deter, prepare for, 

and respond to terrorist threats and natural disasters. 

That, in general terms, is what I believe President Obama’s 

budget for the Department of Homeland Security for the 2011 fiscal 

year does. It proposes in a tough time economically a 2.7-percent 

increase in discretionary spending for the Department, and in a 

change that I think is noteworthy, in this budget the AdministraVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 56843 PO 00000 Frm 000005 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\56843.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
2 

tion has reversed its projections in last year’s budget for a steady 

decline in departmental funding over the next 5 years. This budget 

now projects an increase in Department of Homeland Security 

funding for the next 5 years. 

I want to add that the extent of the increase is probably dependent on a recommendation in the budget which is for increasing 

aviation security fees. Without those fee increases, the budget of 

the Department of Homeland Security in future years, I am afraid, 

will not keep pace with both inflation and the threats that we face. 

For that reason, I want to say to you, Madam Secretary, I will support a request to increase aviation security fees to benefit the budget of the Department of Homeland Security. 

As any budget, this one has pluses and minuses in each of our 

minds. There are parts of it that make me very pleased and happy 

and other parts that are disappointing. I want to start with the 

good news first, which is to say that I appreciate the Administration’s proposal to add $900 million to key aviation security programs, including those that would support more whole-body imaging machines and the personnel needed to operate them. The failed 

Christmas Day terrorist attack is the most recent evidence justifying this increase, which comes along with a recommendation for 

a boost in the number of Federal Air Marshals, behavioral detection experts, and K–9 units. We know from painful experience that 

blowing up airplanes continues to be a goal of the terrorists with 

whom we are at war, so this increased recommendation of $900 

million certainly increases our defenses against attempts to attack 

us on airplanes. 

I also commend the Administration’s efforts in this budget to, in 

various ways, improve the management of the Department of 

Homeland Security. One Department is the goal. A lot of different 

agencies, but one Department really is what we have been striving 

for and are moving closer and closer to. 

In that regard, one example of the commitment of the Secretary 

and the Department to better management is the work that is 

being done now to evaluate the proper balance between the Federal 

workforce and contractor support. The Department has what it is 

calling the Balanced Workforce Initiative, and it is a very important initiative. Our Committee has long been concerned about the 

Department of Homeland Security’s heavy reliance on contractors 

because that raises a question about whether it is the most efficient use of taxpayer money, but also the question of who is actually making critical decisions at the Department. Is it private contractors? Or is it full-time Federal employees? 

Thanks to work that the Department has now begun to do after 

many years in which our Committee has asked for some estimate 

of the number of employees that are working on a contract basis 

in the Department of Homeland Security, Madam Secretary, you 

have now presented us with those numbers, and I will tell you they 

are astounding and unsettling because they say that the Department of Homeland Security now has just about as many contract 

employees as it has Federal employees—about 200,000—so the Department effectively, as I understand it, has about twice as many 

employees as the budget employee positions show. To me this is a 

shocking and unacceptable number because Federal full-time emVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 56843 PO 00000 Frm 000006 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\56843.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
3 

1The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman appears in the Appendix on page 33. 

ployees generally actually cost less than contract employees, and 

the law says that inherently Federal work should be carried out by 

full-time Federal employees. So I am grateful that the new budget 

begins to reflect a conversion of key positions from contractors to 

DHS full-time Federal employees. Obviously, this is just the beginning of a turnaround that is necessary here, and Madam Secretary, 

I am going to have some questions that I would like to ask you 

about that issue this morning at the appropriate time. 

Going on with what I take to be good news in the budget, there 

is also support for significant biosecurity initiatives, which have 

been a priority of this Committee. For instance, the President is 

proposing to double the budget for the Biowatch system of biological pathogen detection sensors, which are already operating in 30 

cities. The new funds will expand coverage to more areas and allow 

deployment of 476 next-generation detectors. I also support the President’s request for $53 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to acquire handheld or portable radiation detection equipment for Department of Homeland Security 

agencies next year. I am going to include my full statement in the 

record to back up the items that I have mentioned.1

Now, what are the disappointments? After years of growing 

budget support for cybersecurity initiatives, this budget cuts the 

spending on cybersecurity by 5 percent, and I want to ask you 

about that because we all know that key information systems in 

the private and public sectors are penetrated every day, and our 

defenses against computer attacks and data theft definitely need 

strengthening and improvement. In fact, as you know, Madam Secretary, Senator Collins and I are working on comprehensive legislation to strengthen DHS’s ability to protect the Nation’s computer 

networks. 

I am also concerned that the budget for the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) unfortunately remains static, and 

that the Coast Guard, as responsible as it is for so much, is 

stretched thin in this budget. For instance, a cut occurs in the 

Coast Guard workforce by over 1,100 people when the Coast 

Guard, in my view, actually needs reinforcement, not retrenchment. 

The budget also eliminates the grant program that Congress created, including Members of this Committee, in the 9/11 Act to promote communications interoperability among first responders 

across the country and also eliminates a program to prepare communities to handle mass casualties in a disaster. Those are the bad 

news parts of this budget, and I hope you can discuss those decisions with us. 

There is also a proposed 22-percent reduction in money for fire 

grants. I think that is a mistake given the 31-percent reduction the 

program suffered in fiscal year 2010. 

So, overall, while I understand that any budget requires difficult 

decisions, particularly one being submitted this year, with the 

economy as stressed as it has been and with our Federal budget 

in the exploding deficit status it is in now, I believe the budget of 

the Department recommended by the President will keep DHS 

4 

moving forward, and hopefully we can figure out a way together to 

do even more than that. I look forward to the question-and-answer 

period and your testimony. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As the Chairman has indicated, last year the Administration proposed a budget for the Department of Homeland Security that actually projected reductions over the next 5 years that would have resulted in a total reduction of 4.5 percent. 

But perhaps in response to the attempted Christmas Day attack, 

as well as the numerous homegrown terrorist plots last year, the 

Administration thankfully has reversed course. The President’s 

budget request would increase the Department’s funding for next 

year by 2.6 percent. While this is a welcome change, the overall increase does not tell the full story. Almost 20 percent of the proposed increase—some $200 million— 

is dedicated to providing security in large metropolitan areas in the 

United States for the trials of suspected terrorists now held at 

Guantanamo Bay. These terrorists could be tried on military bases 

before military tribunals, without incurring this unnecessary expense and security risk. Given all the demands on the budget, why 

spend hundreds of millions of dollars to move the trials to vulnerable locations within the United States when there are safer alternatives? 

There are far more urgent needs going unaddressed in the DHS 

budget. For example, as the Chairman has pointed out, the President proposes to slash the Coast Guard’s funding by $75 million 

below last year’s level and to reduce the number of uniformed personnel by more than 1,100 positions. Keep in mind, these are the 

Coast Guard members who are performing vital homeland security 

duties. Instead of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on civilian 

trials in large American cities for the Guantanamo detainees, that 

$200 million would be better spent on the Coast Guard. 

The Coast Guard took on an expanded homeland security mission after the September 11, 2001, attacks. While remaining responsible for its traditional missions, including life-saving search 

and rescue operations, the Coast Guard now is also responsible for 

protecting our ports from a wide variety of threats, including the 

potential smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As we look forward, it is clear that the Coast Guard’s role in homeland security 

will only become more important. 

The extraordinary performance of Coast Guard members in response to the earthquake in Haiti, where they were first on the 

scene, stands as the most recent reminder of how much we need 

this vital service. As the Coast Guard Commandant, Admiral Allen, 

noted in his final State of the Coast Guard speech, Coast Guard 

personnel are the ‘‘Federal first responders for the Nation.’’ We 

cannot compromise the swiftness and flexibility of the Coast Guard, 

and we cannot afford to cut the Coast Guard’s funding when we 

need them now more than ever. 

The homeland security budget also must reflect evolving threats, 

particularly in cyberspace. The Director of National Intelligence reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 56843 PO 00000 Frm 000008 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\56843.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
5 

1The prepared statement of Secretary Napolitano appears in the Appendix on page 39. 

cently testified that ‘‘malicious cyber activity is occurring on an unprecedented scale with extraordinary sophistication.’’ Our Federal 

Government, and the Department in particular, must greatly expand its capacity to take on this threat. Yet, as the Chairman has 

indicated, the budget for the National Cyber Security Division 

would actually be reduced by $19 million next year, a reduction 

that makes no sense whatsoever in the face of the growing cyber 

threat. 

There are additional troubling cuts in the President’s budget. 

Were his budget to be enacted, the Border Patrol would be reduced 

by 181 agents, despite the soaring smuggling of drugs, cash, and 

weapons across our borders. Last year, Senator Lieberman, Senator 

McCain, and I included additional funding in the budget resolution 

for Federal agents and other resources to fight smuggling by Mexican drug cartels along the Southwest Border. We must build on 

that investment. 

But there is also a growing problem of smuggling across our 

Northern Border. In December, I met with Maine’s Federal judges 

who voiced alarm about the influx of methamphetamine into the 

United States from Canada. I am, therefore, very concerned that 

the number of Border Patrol agents would decrease next year for 

the first time if the Administration’s budget is adopted. 

The President’s budget could also undermine our State and local 

partners who usually are the first to respond, whether it is a natural disaster or a terrorist threat. The proposals to deny Northern 

Border States Operation Stonegarden funding and to insufficiently 

fund the FIRE Act and port security grant programs could deprive 

first responders and local communities of the resources needed to 

secure our Nation. 

On the other side of the ledger, the proposed increases for aviation security are welcome, and I agree with the Chairman’s comments. America was starkly reminded on Christmas Day of the 

vulnerabilities in our aviation security system. 

Our Nation’s top intelligence officials recently testified that it is 

‘‘certain’’—that is their word—that al Qaeda is planning to attempt 

another attack against the United States within the next 6 months. 

In the face of this testimony, we must ensure that the Department’s budget priorities are aligned to counter the threat that we 

face from a determined enemy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Collins. 

Secretary Napolitano, thank you for being here. It has been a 

pleasure to work with you in the time you have been at the head 

of this Department, and we welcome your testimony now. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JANET A. NAPOLITANO,1 SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you, Chairman Lieberman, 

Senator Collins, and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to discuss President Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget for the 

Department of Homeland Security. I want to thank the Committee 

for the strong support you have provided to me and to the DepartVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 56843 PO 00000 Frm 000009 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\56843.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
6 

ment this past year. I enjoy working with you, and I look forward 

to this hearing because I think the dialogue we can have on some 

of the concerns you have raised, and other Members of the Committee might have, will be very helpful in clarifying what the strategy is in terms of the smart and effective use of the taxpayer dollars that we are asking for. 

President Obama’s budget for the Department focuses our resources where they can be put to the most efficient and effective 

use in securing the American people. As you have noted, the budget request for 2011 provides for an increase in discretionary spending over last year’s funding. I think it is important to focus on our 

No. 1 priority, the protection of the American people, but at the 

same time, it is our duty to ensure that we are exercising strong 

fiscal discipline and putting our resources where they best can be 

used. 

While this budget will not go into effect until next October, I 

think the events of the past months underscore the importance of 

our investments in our mission and our ongoing activities. The attempted attack on Flight 253 on Christmas was a powerful illustration that terrorists, specifically al Qaeda, will go to great lengths 

to try to defeat the security measures that have been put in place 

since September 11, 2001. 

This Administration is determined to thwart those plans and to 

disrupt, dismantle, and defeat terrorist networks by employing 

multiple layers of defense in concert with one another to secure our 

country. This is an effort that involves not just the Department of 

Homeland Security, but many other Federal agencies with responsibilities related to homeland security, and State and local agencies 

as well. 

As President Obama has also made clear, the Administration is 

determined to find and fix the vulnerabilities in our system that allowed the attempted attack on Christmas to occur, and the President’s budget indeed prioritizes some of those security enhancements. 

This Department is also working hand in hand with our Federal 

partners in responding to the devastation and loss of life in Haiti 

following the January 12 earthquake. We were able, with the panoply of departments that were assumed within DHS, to leverage 

unprecedented resources and personnel to assist with those humanitarian efforts, again demonstrating what this Department can accomplish. 

The President’s budget strengthens the ongoing work across DHS 

in each of the five mission areas that fall under our broad range 

of responsibilities and our priorities as set forth in our Quadrennial 

Homeland Security Review (QHSR): Preventing terrorism and enhancing security, securing and managing our borders, smart and 

effective enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws, safeguarding and securing cyberspace, and ensuring resilience to any 

type of disaster. My written statement includes more detail on 

some of these efforts, but let me, if I might, give a few. 

First, to prevent terrorism and enhance security, the budget enhances multiple layers of aviation security. This is an important 

and critical investment given what we have seen this year and 

what we have been seeing in past years. Part of that, of course, is 

7 

the accelerated deployment of the Advanced Imaging Technology 

(AIT) machines in our Nation’s airports. We also increase aviation 

law enforcement in key areas by boosting funding for the Federal 

Air Marshals service, increasing coverage on international flights, 

and providing for more explosive detection teams, trained canine 

teams, and Behavior Detection Officers at our domestic airports. 

To secure and manage our borders, the budget request strengthens initiatives that have resulted in concrete border security successes over the past year. It expands, for example, the Border Enforcement Security Task Force models, the BEST teams. They have 

helped us increase our seizures of contraband in every major category last year. Utilizing an intelligence-based approach to the 

drug cartels was a critical part of our successes, and this budget 

contains monies to hire or to train more intelligence analysts, the 

intelligence then fueling the operational aspects of the BEST 

teams. 

We also have monies in there to protect Customs and Border 

Protection staffing levels at our Northern and Southern Borders. 

Let me pause there because each of you mentioned a reduction in 

Border Patrol personnel of 187 under the President’s proposed 

budget, and let me just share with you that in our effort to make 

effective and smart managerial use of the dollars that we have, we 

are not reducing Border Patrol at the Southern Border. We are 

meeting our congressionally mandated goals at the Northern Border. We have a staffing plan using some attrition rates and some 

redeployment of agents who were performing other duties that enable us to maintain those goals. So we would be happy to provide 

more detail on that for you, but while I acknowledge that the summary review of the budget would say that is correct, it is, in fact, 

an incorrect assumption. We will be meeting those staffing goals. 

Senator McCain has left, but I want to make a special mention 

about our efforts with Mexico and suggest that in our never-ending 

fight against terrorism and the security of our country, the issues 

with Mexico are quite serious. They demand our utmost attention. 

We have a unique partnership, I believe, with the Federal Government of Mexico. I was in Mexico City again just last week. We 

must continue a concerted and sustained effort against these cartels. 

Ciudad Juarez, a city of 1.5 million people, is right over a bridge 

from our border, and the rule of law has effectively been lost there. 

The cartels in essence have fingertips into communities across the 

United States, and so you will see in different places in the budget, 

we are very concerned about the situation in Mexico, but we are 

very energized by the efforts we are seeing across our Federal Government and across the Mexican Federal Government in that regard. 

The Coast Guard budget has been raised as a concern, Senator 

Collins. We can address that further in the questions and answers. 

Let me just say that with the decisions made in this tight budget 

year, the No. 1 priority was to recapitalize the Coast Guard. I have 

been from Kuwait to Charleston on vessels of every type. Our men 

and women of the Coast Guard are serving in vessels that are 

rusty. The metal is falling apart. There are holes in some of the 

vessels. They have been welded and welded. At a certain point, you 

8 

have to build new vessels; you have to use new technology. We are 

in this budget proposing the decommissioning of a certain number 

of vessels, but we are also proposing at the same time asset capitalization, including the High Endurance Cutter (HEC) No. 5. 

By the way, in terms of personnel, it is actually a net decrease 

of about 783. Part of that, of course, is attributable to the crews 

that will be on the decommissioned older vessels. But even as we 

add on the newer equipment, it is not a one-for-one trade-off. In 

other words, the newer vessels are able to operate with a smaller 

crew than the older vessels because of the greater use of technology, and we can provide information and detail on that. I know 

it is a keen interest of yours. 

With regard to smart and effective enforcement and administration of our Nation’s immigration laws, I want to mention several 

things. One is the President has requested $103 million to 

strengthen the E-Verify Program. This is a critical tool for employer enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws, and we ask 

also for $147 million to continue the expansion of the program 

known as Secure Communities. This is where basically we put into 

local jails and State prisons immigration databases and training so 

that immigration status can be checked at booking and prior to release as opposed to what happened before, which was, of course, individuals would be released and then Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) would somehow have to find them and pick 

them up. 

Let me proceed quickly because I see my time is about up. 

Cyberspace is a key concern. The reduction that you noted is, in 

essence, attributable to several things. One is there were some onetime expenses that we had last year that we do not need to duplicate in 2011. For example, the data center migration and integration that was paid for last year is underway, and we do not need 

to duplicate. We have also eliminated some earmarks that were 

added last year. 

As I said in my earlier remarks, of the five major mission areas 

denoted in the QHSR, we specifically denoted the securing of cyberspace, which was the first time, I think, that any Quadrennial Review has actually mentioned cyber in such a specific way. 

Under resilience to disasters, the President’s budget request includes an increase in support for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). 

It also includes $100 million in pre-disaster mitigation grants, and 

I will be happy to discuss FEMA and the fire grants as well. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do not be pushed if there are some parts 

in the remainder of your statement you want to say on the record. 

We are following every word. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will try to do a dramatic reading of the 

budget. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good. [Laughter.] 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. But I think we could have a conversation 

about the grants and what is contained in those numbers. 

Last, we are, in essence, building the plane while we are flying 

it where DHS is concerned. It is a massive administrative undertaking which is far along but has a ways to go. And the mechanism 

to do that, the administrative infrastructure that will enable us 

over the long term to make even smarter, more effective use of our 

9 

monies, requires some investment now. It requires the investment 

that Congress approved last year and accelerated last year for St. 

Elizabeths. It requires the ability to consolidate leases from 40 to 

10 so that we can move people from being spread literally in four 

dozen buildings across this District into 10. Moving people does 

cost money, but over the long term we will save those lease costs. 

But you will see some of those expenditures reflected in this budget. 

All I will say there, Senators, is that we are penciling every dollar in that area to see what we can do to make sure that this Department has a strong administrative infrastructure, which, as I 

suggested, over the long term will serve the Nation very well indeed. 

So those, in essence, are a few of the highlights, and I tried to 

again respond to some of the issues that you raised in your opening 

statements in my comments. But I would be happy to answer questions and to have a dialogue with you on these and other matters. 

Thank you very much again for having me today. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. 

We will do 7-minute rounds of questioning in this first round. 

I want to go to the $200 million in the Urban Area Security Initiative grant program that Senator Collins referred to, which is in 

the budget to provide security in communities hosting terror-related trials. One of the parts of my opening statement I omitted 

was to state what I think you know, Madam Secretary, which is 

that I have been strongly opposed to trying suspected terrorists in 

Article III civilian Federal courts. So with that background, let me 

begin with a familiar question you were asked in another regard. 

Were you consulted about homeland security risks or costs of providing security for the 9/11 trials in New York City before the Attorney General made that decision? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, we were not consulted before, but we have been part of a process to do cost estimates of 

what the security costs would be after the decision was made. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And, therefore, am I correct in concluding that the $200 million figure is a figure that you participated in? In 

other words, how did you arrive at the $200 million for the coming 

fiscal year to provide security for terror-related trials? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There were personnel from the Department who participated in a cross-government effort to estimate 

what the security costs would be, and the $200 million figure was 

derived in part from those estimates. But they are estimates, as all 

budgets are. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I believe I am correct that Mayor Michael 

Bloomberg and Commissioner of Police Raymond Kelly in New 

York both said that New York itself would require $200 million in 

the coming year if the trials went forward there. So is the $200 

million that is in this budget just for the terror-related trials of 

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and the other 9/11 accused, or is 

it more than that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I believe the $200 million 

figure was done as a result of the estimate on the KSM trial. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. For New York. In recent weeks or at least 

the last couple of weeks, there have been some statements and cerVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 56843 PO 00000 Frm 000013 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\56843.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
10 

tainly some rumors that the Administration is reconsidering the 

question of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 

conspirators in New York City. Have you been brought into those 

discussions in terms of the homeland security implications of that 

decision? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I have not personally participated in any 

discussions in that regard. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And there have even been intimations 

that there has been a decision not to go forward with the trials in 

New York City, but I take it from what you have said, if that is 

the case, you have not been informed of that yet. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I do not know that such a decision has 

been reached, but, no, I have not personally been involved in those 

discussions. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And I presume that if the decision was 

made to take the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trials out of New York 

City and, for instance, bring him before a military commission and 

do it at the facility at Guantanamo, to put it in the most conservative way, it would not cost $200 million? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would think wherever the trial is held, 

Mr. Chairman, that we would want to continue to assess what the 

true costs are. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. But probably, if it was held on a 

military base, for instance, it would cost a lot less. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Again, I think you would do a reassessment. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Obviously, my point is that if the trial of 

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is moved from New York City, insofar 

as our Committee and the Appropriations Committee are concerned, that hopefully would mean that there would be $200 million that could go back into the Urban Area Security Initiative 

grant program for a lot of cities and towns across America. But go 

ahead if you want to respond to that. That is my conclusion. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, let me, if I might, explain what we 

did with the grants overall because I mentioned earlier that what 

we have been trying to do is really look at how we make smart and 

effective use of the dollars we have. And one of the things that we 

heard from governors and mayors is they wanted us to streamline, 

to eliminate redundant grant reports and grant applications. They 

wanted more flexibility in how grant monies could be used. And so 

that is exactly what we did. We consolidated a number of grant 

programs so that States and localities could, I think, eliminate, 

quite frankly, some of their grantmaking overhead, certainly some 

of their reporting overhead. 

We also expanded the flexibility of how those monies could be 

utilized. For example, in the past, Federal grant monies could not 

be used to maintain equipment, so every year monies would be put 

in the budget to buy new equipment; whereas, in fact, it would be 

a better decision to maintain the equipment that already had been 

purchased in earlier years. So we expanded, to the maximum extent we could under the law, the flexibility in the grant programs. 

So when I am asked if that grant program disappeared or that 

program disappeared, well, no. They were consolidated, and they 

were consolidated for a reason. 

11 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Understood. Let me begin another line of 

questioning, and perhaps others will pick it up or I will in a second 

round, and that is about this report, which I thank you for because 

for the first time we have some hard numbers about the number 

of contract employees of the Department of Homeland Security, 

and the shocking thing to me was that it is almost as many and 

maybe by some counts more than the full-time Federal employees. 

My guess is we would find this in other departments. I do not know 

whether the balance would be the same, but anyway, I applaud you 

for this Balanced Workforce Initiative that you have started. 

Can I assume that you had the same reaction Senator Collins 

and I did, which was the fact that there were 200,000 people working under contracts for the Department of Homeland Security in 

addition to the almost 200,000 full-time Federal employees really 

was a shocking number. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is a high number. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. Would you say that it is too high 

from what you know at this point? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think the number illustrates a problem 

or an issue that we have to work through. The Department was 

stood up quickly, and in order to accomplish the many missions 

that it has, getting contractors was a mechanism to be used. We 

are, as you know, working on an initiative to reduce that ratio. Indeed, our chief human resources officer is meeting with John 

Berry, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 

today about how we speed that up. And in the cyber area, we have 

already received direct-hire authority for up to 1,000 cybersecurity 

individuals over the next 3 years. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. One of the real problems we have across 

the government is the length of time it takes to hire a Federal employee, the on-boarding time. It is way too long, and I think it is 

because a number of things have been added to that process over 

time. It is overlong, it is too costly, and it means that not only at 

DHS but at other departments, you receive these kinds of numbers. 

I know that OPM is working on an initiative, the White House 

is working on an initiative to see what we need to do to really dramatically reduce the time it takes, not just to identify somebody 

that you want to hire but to actually get him on board and working. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, I could not agree more, and if there 

is anything we can do legislatively to support that effort, we would 

be happy to do so. But the numbers here are astounding, and obviously, if you have a short-term need for an employee, then it makes 

sense to do it by contract. But to do it by contract for what is really 

a full-time, long-term Federal employee because the current process for hiring permanent Federal employees is cumbersome is just 

not acceptable, and we have to work together to stop that and cut 

that down. And I think in the end, you will be more effectively in 

control of the Department and will be saving the taxpayers’ money. 

Senator Collins. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I agree. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

12 

Madam Secretary, it is a safe assumption that Congress is not 

going to appropriate $200 million to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 

in New York City. It is not going to happen. So accepting that assumption, if you would, I want to talk to you about your priorities 

for reallocating that funding. 

You mentioned—and you are absolutely right—that the Coast 

Guard needs recapitalization, but the Coast Guard also needs people, and decommissioning five of the Coast Guard’s 13 elite Maritime Security and Safety Teams (MSST) that protect waterfront 

cities makes absolutely no sense given the threats to our ports. It 

does not make sense—even if the net reduction is 773, that is still 

enormous—to proceed to reduce the uniformed personnel who are 

the ones who do port security, who conduct search and rescue missions, by more than 1,100 people. 

So, accepting my assumption that there is no way that Congress 

is going to appropriate $200 million to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court in New York City, and you are, therefore, 

going to have some significant funds to redeploy, would restoring 

funding for the Coast Guard rank high on your priority list? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, that is a difficult question. We 

obviously believe and the President believes that in fiscal year 

2011, we are going to have terrorist trials in the United States, and 

there will be security costs that accompany those trials. Those security costs need to be estimated in some place in the Federal 

budget. They have been estimated and placed in the DHS budget. 

As I acknowledged to Chairman Lieberman, if the trials are 

moved from New York City, nonetheless, there will be costs associated with those trials. 

So I must set aside the presumption. I will say, however, Senator, that we have worked with the Coast Guard, with the Commandant, very carefully on looking at how we in this restrained 

budget era make sure that we are focused on the recapitalization 

issue in the appropriate way. And as I said in my opening statement, the majority of the reductions are associated with some of 

the decommissioning. 

May I speak to the regional MSST teams? 

Senator COLLINS. Could I just clarify a point first? That is, it was 

my understanding in response to the Chairman that you said that 

the $200 million was just for the trials in New York City. Is that 

not correct? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I said that was an estimate based on the 

assumption of the trials there. But wherever the trials are held, 

one can assume there will be attendant costs. 

Senator COLLINS. There will be costs, but there will not be $200 

million worth of costs, which is the estimate for New York City 

alone. So I think it is evident that you are going to have at least 

half that amount of money and perhaps much more available. And 

I would urge you to take a look at the Coast Guard. The Coast 

Guard has been the premier agency time and time again, whether 

it is responding to Hurricane Katrina or Haiti, and we will seriously undermine the ability of the Coast Guard to perform both its 

traditional missions as well as its homeland security missions if 

these cuts go forth. 

13 

I cannot believe you really want these cuts for the Coast Guard. 

I know how highly you think of the Coast Guard. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I think the Coast Guard is one 

of the most underappreciated assets of this country. They were first 

to Haiti. We know what they did in Hurricane Katrina. But they 

perform duties not only around the coasts of the United States but, 

indeed, around the world. So you will have no argument from me 

there. 

But if we are in a restrained budget environment, do we keep 

going where we are going or do we cut some personnel in order to 

pay for, for example, HEC No. 5, and that was the decision made 

in conjunction with the Commandant. 

Senator COLLINS. This Committee worked very closely with the 

Department’s Inspector General (IG) in the wake of Hurricane 

Katrina, and working with the Inspector General, we were able to 

identify nearly $1 billion in wasteful and fraudulent spending, 

which is clearly unacceptable. The Inspector General has told us 

that the budget that you are presenting would ‘‘significantly inhibit’’ his ability to carry out the operations of his office and to lead 

the fight on waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Under a new law that this Committee authored, the comments 

of the IG are supposed to be submitted as part of the budget. In 

this case, apparently there was a timing issue with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and the comments were not submitted. But the Inspector General has expressed concern to us. 

Judging from the reaction on your face, it looks like you may not 

be familiar with this. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I am very familiar with the IG’s 

budget request in 2011, and I can address that. I have not seen his 

comments. But let me, if I might, Senator, simply say that the request for fiscal year 2011 is basically a flat-line budget from fiscal 

year 2010. We did not reduce the budget. We did make one adjustment, however. There were some monies somehow that were put 

or used in the IG budget that came, I believe, from the DRF. 

Senator COLLINS. The DRF, correct. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. And in my view, in terms of honest budgeting, that needed to stop. And so we did not move monies from 

the DRF to the IG budget, but their actual budget should keep 

them basically the same level as 2010. And as you know, in 2010— 

and I believe in 2009 before I was here—they received significant 

increases. 

Senator COLLINS. Because they have a significant mandate with 

a big department—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Senator COLLINS [continuing]. And a lot of programs that have 

been vulnerable. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have many more questions, but I 

will wait for the second round. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Collins. 

The other Senators on the list, some of whom have left and may 

return, but I will indicate for their information in order of arrival: 

Senators Akaka, McCain, Tester, Carper, Pryor. Senator Akaka. 

14 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I also 

want to add my welcome to Secretary Napolitano. 

DHS’s proposed fiscal year 2011 budget highlights the Department’s efforts to improve its operations, strengthen its management, and put resources where they are needed most. In particular, 

I am pleased that DHS is making it clear that investing in its 

workers is critical to protecting the Nation. I have long advocated 

increasing and improving supervisor and leadership training, and 

I am glad that DHS is making this investment. 

I am also pleased that DHS is reducing its dependence on contractors, which has been mentioned this morning. By ensuring that 

contractors are not performing inherently governmental work, the 

Department will build its internal capacity, improve accountability, 

and speed its integration. 

Madam Secretary, the Department’s budget requests $24 million 

to strengthen the capacity and capabilities of the Department’s acquisition workforce, which includes the recruitment and the hiring 

of 100 additional interns. 

What is your strategy to ensure that there will be veterans and 

a diverse pool of applicants for these positions? And what is your 

long-term plan to ensure that DHS retains these new hires? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Senator Akaka. We have a 

very aggressive plan for diversity and veterans hiring, and it is 

something that I personally feel very strongly about. The Department does need more diversity, particularly at the upper levels, 

and so our chief human resources officer is tasked with making 

sure that plan is carried out. And, indeed, our supervisors are 

being evaluated in part on how successful they are in reaching out 

to diversify our workforce and to bring veterans on. That is the 

bringing-on part. And, again, with regard to the on-boarding issue, 

I must say one of the surprises I have encountered moving from 

State to Federal executive office is the length of time it takes to 

bring on an employee on the Federal side, and it is slowing down 

some of those very important efforts. But we are working our way 

through it, and we look forward to working with the Congress on 

how we can improve the overall situation. 

In terms of retention, part of retention, of course, is having a career path once you are in the Department, and we are working, 

particularly in some of our operational components, to improve and 

clarify and in some places create a real career path within the Department. And part of it also involves making sure that people are 

recognized for the work that they do. We hold them to high standards. We are quick to criticize. We also need to be quick to praise. 

Senator AKAKA. Madam Secretary, in 2009, Senator Voinovich 

and I held a hearing on the Federal veterinarian workforce and the 

gaps that could hamper the government’s ability to respond to dangerous foreign animal disease outbreaks. At our request, the Office 

of Personnel Management, along with DHS and other agencies, has 

been working on fixing these gaps. I was troubled to learn that 

DHS no longer has a Chief Veterinary Officer to help address these 

issues and perform high-level coordination with OPM and other 

agencies. 

15 

How does the DHS plan to coordinate with partners across the 

homeland security enterprise on these issues? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Senator, I think there are two 

areas. You are right to designate this, and particularly I can imagine for Hawaii, for example, this could be very catastrophic in the 

animal population. Both through our Office of Health Affairs and 

in our Office of Science and Technology, we have across those two 

agencies really tasked the job of biological, agricultural, food supply 

chain integrity, and that is where the veterinarian population will 

fit in. We need to, obviously, keep working in this area to make 

sure we have qualified personnel on board. 

Senator AKAKA. Madam Secretary, the 2011 budget submission 

shows no increase in funding for the Federal Protection Service 

(FPS), and the Department proposes to remove the FPS staffing 

minimums that Congress put into place to address the severe staffing shortage. This concerns me. The Government Accountibility Office (GAO) repeatedly has found troubling workforce and security 

problems at FPS. 

In light of these longstanding challenges, please discuss how the 

Department plans to make sure that Federal employees and facilities will be sufficiently protected under the Department’s budget 

submission. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator Akaka, this year we did an internal review of FPS. One of the things we have done, of course, is 

to move it into the National Protection and Programs Directorate 

(NPPD). I think it is better placed there than where it was before. 

That movement is occurring, and it has given us the opportunity 

to really look at how FPS works, how officers are trained, what 

standards they are held to, do we have the right numbers in the 

right places. And the 2011 budget request reflects where our FPS 

plan stands and what we think we need for FPS. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your responses. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Akaka. Senator 

McCain is not here. Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

Secretary Napolitano for being here today to explain the budget. I 

particularly appreciate the words you used in your opening statement where you are ‘‘penciling every dollar’’ and trying to make 

sure we are getting the biggest bang for the buck. Along those 

lines, also in your opening statement you had said that the Southern Border will not receive any reduction in personnel, but the 

Northern Border—and I paraphrase—congressionally mandated 

goals with the Northern Border, which tells me that the 180 or so 

patrol members are going to come off the Northern Border. Would 

that be accurate? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, that would not be accurate. The congressionally mandated number for the Northern Border is above 

2,000—2,133 or something. I do not have it, but it is a little bit 

above 2,000. We are on target. We will keep those numbers. We 

will maintain those numbers. We are making that 187 reduction, 

as it were, by looking at some other areas of the Border Patrol 

16 

where we can account by way of attrition, by way of moving people 

around. But, Senator, both the Southern Border and the Northern 

Border efforts will be sustained, and the congressionally mandated 

numbers will be met. 

Senator TESTER. So what you are saying is that the request is for $250 million less, and in this time of budget deficits, I am appreciative of that, personally, as long as it is the right thing to do. 

If there is not going to be a reduction of Border Patrol agents on 

the Northern and Southern Borders, where are we going to pull 

them out of? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We can show you a staffing plan, but 

part of it is some administrative attrition that we are not going to 

replace. Some of it is reduction in training personnel, things of that 

sort. 

Senator TESTER. Which does bring me to actually the real point 

of this. The agency was asked to give a report not later than January 15, 2010, as to what your initiatives, staffing, funding, assessment of investment initiatives, and those kinds of things. When 

can we anticipate that report? Because that report from your perspective and from mine is very critical as to knowing which way 

the agency is going to go and how it is going to meet the needs of 

the Northern and Southern Border ports, etc. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, let me confess, I do not know. 

Did this Committee request the report? 

Senator TESTER. Actually, it was an Appropriations Committee 

request. We can follow up with you on it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We can follow up with you on that. I believe that report is available and has been made available, so let 

me double check. 

Senator TESTER. That would be great. I want to talk about the 

National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) a little bit, one of 

my concerns, actually. Right now, the President’s budget does not 

have any requested funds for NBAF. I have been told by my staff 

that a DHS budget briefing document says that about $40 million 

in unobligated funds will be used for NBAF. I guess the first question I would ask is if there is $40 million 

in unobligated funds that can be used for NBAF, are there any 

more unobligated funds? If so, how much is in this budget? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. In the DHS budget, I will have to get the number for you, but that $40 million will be paired with $40 million from the State of Kansas and will allow the process to proceed 

with construction in 2011, pending, of course, receiving in August 

a satisfactory review by the National Academy, as required, I 

think, by an amendment you offered last year. 

Senator TESTER. That is correct. And you anticipate that risk assessment will be done when? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. My understanding is by August 2010. 

Senator TESTER. All right. And so as we move forward—it is curious. Can you tell me why there were no funds obligated for this? 

We have been talking about this NBAF since I got here 3 years 

ago. Why was it done this way? Why was it zeroed out and then 

you are using unobligated funds for it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You probably need a budgeteer at the 

table, but there are unspent funds and then there were funds— 

17 

originally the idea was to use the sale of Plum Island to fund the 

construction of the NBAF. Plum Island has not yet been sold, but 

Kansas has now made a substantial investment. We moved unobligated funds in order to match that investment so the project can 

move along. 

Senator TESTER. If that risk assessment comes back and it does 

point out that NBAF poses a problem, a significant danger, are you 

willing to reconsider the siting in Kansas? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I do not think that is what it is 

going to come back with because that work was done prior to the 

decision made to move the NBAF and where to locate it. But I 

think new and substantial information, of course, would have to be 

considered. 

Senator TESTER. I will continue to express my concern, and not 

because I do not like Kansas. I think Kansas is a great State. It 

is just that building a facility of this nature in the middle of Tornado Alley does not compute in my head as a production agriculture guy. I just want to make that clear. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Understood. 

Senator TESTER. Another issue, and then I will turn the microphone over. The Montana Department of Commerce has been getting information, as well as the University of Montana, on Canadian-U.S. border crossings, the number of cars that are coming 

across. They use this data on a semiannual basis to develop tourism plans, to develop private sector business plans for businesses 

that depend on tourism in the State of Montana. 

Recently, at least during the last year, late last year, they could 

not get it locally. They could not get it regionally. They had to go 

get that information from some folks in Washington, DC. And, in 

fact, I am not sure that they ever could get it. 

What we were told was—and let me see if I can find the exact 

statement. We were told that the senior staff at the customs office 

of field operations has been tasked with drafting new rules regarding the release of very simple information. On the Northern Border, if I have any complaints—and there are a few, and you are 

doing a great job, but there are a few—it is with communication. 

It is communication with local law officials. It is communication 

with highway patrol. It is communication with everybody. Because 

I think the more eyes you have on the border, the better off you 

are. I think we get a big bang for the buck for it. I understand 

there are security concerns. 

But this particular issue is once again communications, and it 

looks like the Department is pulling back on information that, 

quite honestly, does not make a hill of beans as far as the security 

of this country. They are pulling back because they should. Are 

there not better things for some of these folks to do than that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, that question is making my hair 

go on fire. Yes, we should be sharing that information. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will get it out—we will work with you 

on that, and I will check into that. 

I would note, however, the President’s nominee to actually head 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is still awaiting a Committee 

18 

hearing, and any assistance the Committee can give to help us fill 

that important position would be much appreciated. 

Senator TESTER. I agree the unnecessary holds on many people 

are getting on the verge of ridiculous from my perspective, so I appreciate your concern over that. And I want to thank the Chairman 

for the opportunity, and I want to thank you for your service, Secretary Napolitano. We very much appreciate it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Tester. You know, I was 

about to run for the fire extinguisher there. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, well, it is—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I am glad it was a metaphor you were 

using. But I understand your displeasure, and it was appropriately 

stated. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. What happened to your 

foot? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I broke my ankle playing tennis. 

Senator CARPER. Did you really? Did you win? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I do not think the shot even went in, to 

add insult to injury. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Thanks for coming off the disabled list to be 

here with all of us today, and thank you also for your service. 

Do you know whose birthday we are celebrating today? A guy 

who was born—I will not say how many years ago, but he was born 

on February 24, 1942. He actually sits on this panel. Do you know 

who that might be? 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. It is not George Harrison, who also has 

a birthday today. 

Senator CARPER. It is our Chairman. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Happy birthday, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. My wife said to me the other day, Secretary 

Napolitano, that she had seen Senator Lieberman. She said, ‘‘He 

looks better than I have ever seen him look.’’ And I said, ‘‘Senator 

Lieberman?’’ [Laughter.] 

He used to look really good. Actually, he still does. So happy 

birthday, pal. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I am just going to sit here and blush. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Very nice of you to join us on this birthday. 

On a more serious note, there was some earlier discussion on trying terrorists in this country, and it is my understanding that we 

have done a few of those, and I do not recall how many. Do you 

have any idea how many terrorists we have actually tried in this 

country, we have imprisoned in this country? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I do not have the numbers off 

the top of my head, but—— 

Senator CARPER. I understand it is quite a few. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. We have a clear track record 

on doing it. A clear track record of successfully trying them here 

and getting substantial sentences here, and the most recent examVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 56843 PO 00000 Frm 000022 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\56843.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
19 

1The response from Secretary Napolitano appears in the Appendix on page 102. 

ple—not a trial, but the most recent example, of course, was 

Najibullah Zazi, who pled this week. And I understand that the 

plea will have a life sentence. 

Senator CARPER. We like to learn from our mistakes. What have 

we learned from the trials of terrorists that we have actually held 

here and the folks we have imprisoned here? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I think that is probably a question better addressed to the Attorney General. It is his responsibility to make sure that these individuals are brought to justice. I 

will just simply say as a former prosecutor myself, both in Federal 

and State courts, that I am very confident in the American system 

of justice. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I have a question I am going to submit for the record regarding the Administration’s proposal on grant 

programs to aid local firefighters and first responders. Others have 

expressed a concern with that proposal. I have, too. So you can look 

forward to that question, and I would appreciate your prompt response.1

Turning to another subject now, I have always felt that it would 

be hard to make much progress on comprehensive immigration reform until the Congress and, frankly, our constituents felt that we 

had done all we could to secure our borders. But I have been disappointed that we have not been able to effectively control the illegal activity that occurs along our borders. I think, in part, that we 

are doing a better job due to your great efforts as a former governor. And I know you have been very involved in this. But I think 

the continued failure to do even better can be attributed to what 

I am told is the poor performance on an information technology 

project called the Secure Border Initiative network (SBInet). And 

I understand that the Department that you lead began the overall 

Secure Border Initiative in 2005, and to date, we have spent about 

$3.7 billion. Some of that money has been spent on things like 

fences and barricades. In fact, I was actually down a couple of 

months ago and looked at some of those fences and barricades and 

talked to the folks who work down there. 

But I understand that a significant portion of the spending, that 

$3.7 billion, has gone toward technology, and I am told that this 

investment has not worked out nearly as well as we had hoped. 

To the best of your knowledge, why is this investment experiencing so much difficulty, so many setbacks? When do you expect 

that the technology will be effectively deployed across our southwestern border and maybe along some other stretches of our international border? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed, and you are right, Senator, that 

border security involves boots on the ground; it involves technology; 

it involves actions also in the interior of the United States to reduce demand for illegal labor and illegal narcotics. 

With respect to technology, if I might, in the budget request, you 

will see money for what is called SBInet. This was a project begun 

years ago to basically build towers along the Southwest Border that 

would facilitate the ability to detect moving individuals, not aniVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 56843 PO 00000 Frm 000023 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\56843.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
20 

mals that go back and forth across that border but individuals, so 

that the Border Patrol then could go out and pick them up. 

The project had, I think, several major failures, and we will in 

this budget complete the first tranche of it, which is in Arizona. 

First of all, operations was not fully integrated in the project design, so it was not really matched with how the Border Patrol really works and what actually happens. Second, it is a very rough 

area of the country, and there are lots of logistical issues with the 

kind of project they had in mind and the vendor had in mind. 

Third, there have been in some instances environmental and other 

concerns with building large towers all along the border, which 

have been problematic to the individuals who live at the border. 

Every major deadline has not been satisfied, and I am not satisfied with SBInet. So what I have done this year is to say we will 

finish Section 1, but before we go across that border with these big 

towers, SBInet, we are going to re-evaluate how those technology 

dollars are used and whether there are other technologies perhaps 

that have been developed since SBInet was contracted that would 

be more mobile, better, easier to maintain, and easier to operate. 

So we will complete the first tranche. We will continue to invest 

in things like mobile radar at both the Northern and now Southern 

Borders. We are adding not only BEST teams but also more canines and other types of protection at the actual ports of entry. But 

between the ports, I think we need to really look this year at what 

our technology dollars are buying and are we better off continuing 

what was contracted for a number of years ago or recalibrating. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I think we are all in favor of using 

technology to complement, to supplement the work that is being 

done by boots on the ground. I just want to make sure that when 

we spend that kind of money, it actually works. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. 

Senator CARPER. The second subject—as you know well, our government information systems are constantly under attack by hackers, criminals, and even other sovereign nations. I believe that the 

Department of Homeland Security plays a role in helping to protect 

other civilian agencies by providing an extra layer of defense on 

their networks through a program known as Einstein. However, I 

understand that most civilian agencies are not being monitored by 

this program despite our previous investments and that this year’s 

budget is being deferred to fund what have been characterized as 

higher cybersecurity efforts. 

Can you elaborate more on why additional funding for Einstein 

is being deferred despite agencies still not being protected? I recall 

being told a couple of years ago that this program was absolutely 

essential. And, last, could you take a minute or so to explain what 

the Department’s higher cybersecurity priorities are? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, let me be careful in my answer 

here because I do not want to stray into some classified issues. I 

will share with you, as I shared earlier, that what looks like a reduction in cybersecurity really is not. It is the elimination of some 

one-time expenditures that we had last year and some earmarks. 

We continue to view cybersecurity as one of our top five mission 

priorities in the homeland security enterprise. We have restructured and streamlined how cybersecurity is done within the DeVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 56843 PO 00000 Frm 000024 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\56843.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
21 

partment. And we have the dot.gov and the dot.org and dot.com 

intersections to work on. 

We are moving forward with different types of detection and protection technology, and beyond that I think I should not stray in 

an open setting. 

Senator CARPER. I am going to follow up in writing on the same 

question—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Please. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. And ask you to respond, please. 

And I will certainly follow up with respect to the funding for the 

firefighters and the first responders. Thanks for being here. 

Thanks for your good work. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Carper, both for your 

astute questioning and your kind words about my birthday. 

I want to come back briefly to the question of the large number 

of employees of the Department that are contract employees and 

just ask you to give us a bit more detail on how this Balanced 

Workforce Initiative is going to go forward within the Department. 

Are you going to look across the Department, or are you going to 

focus on some sections where you think there is the most obvious 

need to convert positions from contract to full-time Federal equivalents? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There are some areas where it is more 

clear and easier to convert, and there will be some prioritization 

there, Mr. Chairman. But we are asking all of our components and 

directorates to participate in the initiative and to identify areas 

that ought to be part of a conversion plan, if not this year, in the 

out-years. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do you have a sense now of what areas 

of the Department are using contract employees most? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think we can set aside Coast Guard and 

Secret Service. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I believe we are using contractors in the 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA), in CBP, and, to 

some degree, in ICE, particularly in the detention area, would be 

one area I would point out. 

Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I will provide you more specific information. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I appreciate that. That is important, and 

we look forward to working with you on it. 

I want to focus in on the Secret Service. I have had some concern 

for a while based on a National Security Agency (NSA) Blue Team 

evaluation of the information technology (IT) infrastructure at the 

Secret Service, which said—and it is more than a year ago; I do 

not remember exactly how long ago—that the NSA found that the 

Secret Service systems, IT systems, were fully functional only 60 

percent of the time when they did the Blue Team’s analysis compared to industry and government standards that are around 98 

percent generally, and they recommended 30 critical reforms. 

According to the supplemental budget document submitted to 

Congress last year and the agency’s 5-year plan, the Secret Service 

was expected to receive $187 million in fiscal year 2011 toward the 

22 

problems identified with their IT. Unfortunately, the budget as 

submitted by the President cuts that down to $69 million, or roughly one-third. I do not know whether you have the details on this, 

but obviously we have here a premier law enforcement organization 

in our country, which is responsible for the security of the President, the Vice President, and other officials of our government, and 

they have to have better IT than they have. 

Are you familiar with the problem generally? And why did the 

amount of money get cut back from what we thought it would be 

last year? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Again, this is an area where we can provide you more detail in a non-public setting, Mr. Chairman. But 

part of it is a reassessment of how much IT would actually cost and 

also what can be purchased and what is needed on a priority basis. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well, we will keep following that one with 

you because that is a real concern. 

I want to take the occasion of your appearance here to go back 

to something I think you and I have talked about. I guess in an 

earlier day this would have been called a pet peeve of mine, but 

it is the reluctance that I see within the Administration generally 

to use terms like ‘‘Islamist extremism’’ or ‘‘Muslim terrorists.’’ In 

other words, we are at war, and part of the reason why the Department was created, obviously, was to defend the security of the 

American people in this war. And the Department has done a great 

job, and you have done a great job in the year you have been there. 

But it seems to me that we have to know our enemy, and my concern about it was aroused again in my membership on the Armed 

Services Committee after the Defense Department’s internal review 

of the Fort Hood murders where the terms ‘‘radicalization’’ and ‘‘extremism’’ were used, but the term ‘‘Islamist extremism’’ was never 

used, even though all the record on Major Hasan is clear, which is 

that is what motivated him. And in this case, the Department of 

Homeland Security’s Quadrennial Review is a very good document, 

but, again, there are a lot of references to terrorism and violent extremism, but there is not a reference to Islamist extremism or 

Muslim terrorism. 

Personally, as you know, I have said this before, I do not think 

we do a favor to Muslim Americans or people who are followers of 

Islam anywhere in the world by not saying that this is an extreme 

expression, a violent expression of one of the world’s great religions. It is not Islam as most Muslims practice it and as most of 

us who are not a Muslim know it. 

So I know that there are other forms of terrorism that the Department has to be concerned about: White supremacist extremism 

or terrorism, animal rights extremism or terrorism, and even ecoterrorism. But that is not what we are in the war with now and 

what you spend most of your time defending against. So you happen to be here, so I am asking you: Has the Administration made 

a decision to avoid any public reference to violent Islamist extremism or Muslim terrorists—which is really why they are terrorists. 

That is what motivates them. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, there has been no such decision. The 

words that you refer to, ‘‘violent Islamist terrorism,’’ is something 

23 

that we fight and deal with every day at the Department of Homeland Security. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There is no doubt about that. It was the 

motivation on December 25, 2009. It was part and parcel of the 

Fort Hood killings and other incidents that we have seen this year 

within the United States. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is part and parcel of why we are working internationally to increase aviation security. 

The QHSR is a different type of document, as you know—it is an 

overall vision statement—and we did not specify one type of terrorism or another because this Department, as you say, has to deal 

with many forms. But you are correct, there is violent Islamist terrorism, be it al-Qaeda in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, or anywhere else that is indeed a major focus of this Department and its 

efforts. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, and I guess I appreciate you saying 

that. My point is we should just not hesitate to say that. I mean, 

obviously, as the President and President Bush before him have 

said, we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with a particular extremist, violent terrorist expression, which is, in my opinion, a corruption, a perversion of Islam. And we ought to be willing 

to say so. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to return to the issue of the budget for cybersecurity because I am really concerned about this. Earlier this month, we saw 

Google turn to the National Security Agency to determine the nature of the sophisticated attacks that it had experienced, which apparently originated in China. But DHS is actually supposed to be 

the focal point for cooperation with the private sector. 

We have our Nation’s top intelligence official telling us that there 

has been an explosion of cyber attacks both on government computers and in the private sector. So when I hear that the cyber 

budget is cut by $19 million, it really concerns me, and I want to 

emphasize that I am still concerned even though you have described it as an area where the Department has been able to implement certain efficiencies. And to that I would say good for you, but 

that money needs to be reinvested to expand our capabilities because this threat is not static. When Dennis Blair testified before 

the Intelligence Committee, he listed cybersecurity as a top threat 

to our country. 

So even if savings permit a more efficient operation within DHS, 

should we not be reinvesting these savings to expand our capacity? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, first of all, the data migration 

occurred. That was included in the fiscal year 2010 budget. The 

National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center 

has been opened. Some of the money that was in the cyber budget 

last year was moved to the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center because it is being used to train more individuals on how 

to do cyber forensics, which is an important part of the process. I 

24 

think there are a number of initiatives that are underway in the 

cyber area. 

It is difficult where the intersection with the private sector is 

concerned. This is a challenge for us because we do not control 

them, we cannot tell them what to do, etc. But it is an area where 

I think over this next year we are going to see a lot of activity because when a company like Google basically says, ‘‘Help,’’ then you 

know that it is starting to pierce the public’s perception that this 

is an issue. 

Another area that we are working on is improving individual, for 

lack of a better phrase, computer hygiene. Anybody that gets on 

the system is on the system, and we need to do a massive public 

education job in the next year or so about every individual’s responsibility once they are on the system. 

I think that it would be helpful perhaps to provide for you a classified briefing on all the cyber activities that are underway at the 

Department and how we are moving forward, if you think that 

would be of assistance. 

Senator COLLINS. I do, and I would look forward to that. It has 

been some time since we have had that briefing. Your point is well 

taken. When Google is asking for help, you know that this is an 

extraordinarily sophisticated attack. And I worry that we are waiting for a cyber 9/11 before taking this as seriously as we must. So 

I look forward to that briefing. 

I want to turn to the Administration’s proposal that would make 

only the Southwest Border States eligible for Operation 

Stonegarden funds. This has been an extraordinarily successful, 

collaborative effort in my State of Maine. On the Northern Border, 

obviously, we have far fewer CBP officers than we do on the Southwest Border, despite the fact that the Northern Border is far longer 

than the Southwest Border. So you have a relatively lean Federal 

presence on the Northern Border. Operation Stonegarden has allowed the cooperation of county, State, and local law enforcement 

to help compensate for that lack of presence. And if, in fact, you 

are going to proceed with a reduction or redeployment of Border 

Patrol agents, it makes no sense at all to prohibit that collaboration funded by Operation Stonegarden on the Northern Border. 

Let me just cite one example that both Customs and Border Protection officials and local officials told me about in Maine. There 

has been a fair amount of smuggling across the border of drugs and 

cash, and it was a Fort Kent, Maine, police officer participating in 

an Operation Stonegarden operation who was able to apprehend a 

suspect far from the confines of the town of Fort Kent because that 

officer was patrolling the area and the individual had $137,000 in 

cash that he was smuggling across the border. But for Operation 

Stonegarden, that Fort Kent police officer would not have been in 

that area near the border to apprehend this individual. 

So I would ask you to take another look at the policy decision 

here, particularly if you are proceeding with the plan to reduce the 

overall number of Border Patrol agents. I do not agree with that 

decision, but to do both seems to me to be really undermining the 

border efforts. 

When the Federal judges in Maine asked to meet with me to talk 

about border smuggling of methamphetamine, that was a real 

25 

alarm call. It was a real wake-up call as far as our need to redouble our efforts on the Northern Border. So I would ask that you 

take another look at what the combination of the policies in this 

budget would produce. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I am happy to take a look at 

Stonegarden and how it can be deployed at the Northern Border. 

You are right about the methamphetamine issue. We see a lot of 

methamphetamien coming over the border from Canada. 

I must disagree, however, and say once again that we are not reducing agents at the Northern or Southern Borders. We are doing 

some restaffing within the interior of the Border Patrol that, on a 

superficial reading of the budget, looks like we are reducing 187 

agents at the border. We are not. 

Senator COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, if I could just clarify that. I 

want to submit for the record the Department’s own budget justification and read to you from it. I am not trying to be argumentative, but these figures—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I know what you are reading, and I am 

glad you are because I want to correct it right now. 

Senator COLLINS. Good because it is titled, ‘‘Reduction to Border 

Patrol Premium Pay and Agent Staffing—CBP requests a reduction 

of $31.7 million in premium pay and agent staffing.’’ And it says, 

‘‘It includes a staffing reduction, which translates into a decrease 

of 181 Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2011.’’ 

That is your language, not ours. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, do not assume that 187 positions in CBP or Border Patrol, writ large, means at the Northern 

and Southern Borders. There are positions all over this country. 

There are positions that are not operational in nature. And there 

are attrition monies that we have that we can deploy. 

I can tell you again, we are not reducing the numbers that Congress has asked to have at the Northern Border, nor are we at the 

Southern Border. 

Senator COLLINS. But are you reducing the overall number of 

Border Patrol agents by 181? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Are we making more effective and smart 

use of the monies you give to the Border Patrol by reducing and 

reallocating agents so they are actually at the border? Yes. 

Senator COLLINS. I think it is great that you are getting people 

out of headquarters, but I need an answer. Are you reducing the 

overall level by 181 Border Patrol agents? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Positions, but not agents at the border. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. Senator McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. I apologize. If it is any consolation, I was in an Armed Services hearing where we were having 

real fun with Blackwater contractors, so that is why I am late. 

We have a problem, and I get it, but it is really a problem. And 

I do not know how we deal with this problem. In a county in Missouri, St. Francois County, we have over 11-percent unemployment. 

The local sheriff went out on a job site for a new hotel in St. FranVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 56843 PO 00000 Frm 000029 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\56843.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
26 

cois County and picked up 13 or 14 illegal immigrants that were 

working on the job site, evidently making $13 an hour. The sheriff 

called ICE and said, ‘‘What should I do?’’ And ICE, of course, told 

him to let them go. 

Well, you can imagine what kind of furor this is causing in this 

community. One man was quoted in the local paper as saying, ‘‘I 

have lost my job, and I would love to have one of these jobs, and 

it just does not seem fair that nothing happens.’’ 

I understand that what we always try to do with all of the government agencies is say we want to give you less, but we expect 

you to do more. And I get that part. But this perception problem 

out there is a real issue that we need to figure out. And I know 

you have spent more time working on this issue than probably anybody in this building or any building within 10 miles of here because of where you come from and the problems with illegal immigration in Arizona. 

But what really worried me about it is that nobody followed up 

with the employer. I guarantee you that those guys went back to 

the site and picked up their tools. Well, they did not pick up their 

tools because they thought they were going home. They picked up 

their tools because they were confident they could go somewhere 

else to another employer and get hired on, and that is what worries 

me, that we are not even making an investigative attempt to go 

after the employer when we have a situation like this with a local 

sheriff. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. May I clarify the record? 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, you may. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. All right. First of all, there were two incidents in Southern Missouri that I am aware of—one was in St. 

Francois County; I think the other one was in Ozark County— 

where sheriffs went out and picked up illegal workers and then say 

that they called ICE and ICE was not there. I have talked to the 

Assistant Secretary of ICE about this situation. There is, as you 

might imagine, a very serious dispute by the ICE agents about 

what they told the sheriffs. And so we have a certain ‘‘he said, she 

said’’ aspect to this. 

There is nothing that I think would be more aggravating to an 

American worker who has lost his or her job than to see somebody 

in this country working illegally at a job they could have. That is 

not an acceptable situation, and that is not what we are doing with 

illegal immigration enforcement and at ICE. 

We have had over the last year a massive amount of workplace 

audits. They are called I–9 audits. We have increased the number 

of employers who have been sanctioned. We have deported more 

criminal aliens this year than ever before. We have removed more 

aliens from this country than ever before. Our numbers at ICE are 

unbelievable. 

This situation in Southern Missouri, however, reflects, I believe, 

a communications issue with the sheriffs, with ICE, and, quite 

frankly, with the Missouri State Highway Patrol. The Missouri 

State Highway Patrol have a 287(g) agreement. They have the authority, absent an underlying State or local violation, to go pick up 

these people, as does ICE. So somehow we have to get those sherVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 56843 PO 00000 Frm 000030 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\56843.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
27 

iffs used to either asking the police or ICE to go out to get these 

individuals. 

This does not preclude an I–9 audit of the employers who are involved. And I have spoken with the Assistant Secretary of ICE. He 

is in touch with the resident agent in charge in St. Louis, and they 

are not only willing to brief you, but to really get into Southern 

Missouri and see what is going on. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I think Senator Engler, who is the State 

Senator from that area, deserves to be in on this conversation. I 

think that clearly there needs to be a better line of communication 

between the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the ICE office that 

was called, and the local sheriffs in Missouri. And it seems to me 

that is something we could get fixed. If the Missouri State Highway 

Patrol had the authority to come out there and get them—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. They do. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. And I guess if they were not 

criminals, then what would they do with them? Hold them for a 

while, then let them go? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, no. They have the authority to hold 

them so that we can remove them from the country. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And I guess the other thing is that when 

those things happen, I would love to work with your folks in St. 

Louis because what I think would be important for the community 

to see is that something is going to happen immediately in terms 

of investigation of the employer—that kind of accountability, even 

if it is just saying we are sending somebody out to look at their employment records. But there seems to be a disconnect in terms of 

information being received on the ground and what you want the 

policies to be. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, that occasionally happens, and 

when it does happen, I think it is fair to have it brought to our 

attention so we can fix it, and we will. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Good. One of my favorite curmudgeons on 

television is Jack Cafferty. He is usually cranky—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, I have noticed that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And almost always funny. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I have not noticed that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I think he is funny. [Laughter.] 

Senator MCCASKILL. You probably do not think he is funny after 

yesterday, but when the television is on in the background, my 

ears perk up when Cafferty comes on because he usually always 

makes me laugh or smile when he is making fun of the incompetence of our government in many different ways. And yesterday 

he did a piece that caught my ear because I knew this hearing was 

coming up. 

You have asked for a lot of money for more scanners in this 

budget. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Are you talking about the AIT machines? 

Which ones are you talking about? 

Senator MCCASKILL. The Whole Body Imaging machines. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, well, that is the same thing. 

Senator MCCASKILL. AIT, yes, 500 more. You have requested an 

additional $214 million on top of the request for 300 machines that 

28 

you had before. Obviously, we had a bunch of them in the stimulus 

act. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, obviously, they are not out there yet. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There is where the facts would be helpful 

for you to have. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Once again, I am ready to be informed. And 

I will call Jack Cafferty. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, here is what—how do I say this? 

Congress correctly put money in the stimulus act for AIT machines. 

They are the next wave of aviation security at our domestic airports. We want to deploy them even more quickly this year than 

we previously had planned. We have adjusted our plans in light of 

what we have learned. Also, the technology keeps improving. 

We had to go from 0 to 60 in a very short time, design the Request for Proposal and competitively bid, which is, I think, a better 

way to do government than sole-source contracting. We went from 

0 to 60 in months, and those machines are now built. We also had 

to work at the same time with airports to design how they would 

be reconfigured to take the machines because they do not occupy 

the same amount of space as a magnetometer. You need the space 

for the machine, and you need the space for where the reviewers 

are going to be. So there is construction work that is associated 

with putting an AIT machine into airports. 

Those machines are moving out now. We can give you the delivery schedule. You will have gone with that Recovery Act money 

from almost nothing to hundreds of machines that are out and are 

going out as we speak. 

The contracts are written such that as the technology improves, 

as the algorithms for detecting anomalies improve—and they will 

now because there is a worldwide market for these things—the contract requires that the vendor give us all of those improvements 

and that these machines be designed to be able to have those new 

improvements put in so that we do not have to continually come 

back and ask for new hardware to go with the software that we 

have. 

I think from a government perspective, making sure it was competitively bid, good standards, working with where it has to go in, 

and all the rest, this is actually, I would say, one of the fastest 

projects I have ever seen at such a massive scale. So I would disagree with any characterization that there was an inefficiency here. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And with that background, it does seem 

more reasonable, although to the average American, a year and a 

half—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It was not a year and a half. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, if they do not get out until June, I was 

under—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, they are starting now. But they are 

not all going out simultaneously. I mean, there is a schedule. And 

part of that is the airports have to be ready to receive them. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, do we have the kind of airports ready 

to receive 300 that you have announced procurement of and another 200-some that you are asking for—500 more? So we are talking about 800 more in the pipeline. 

29 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Are they going to be able to get out more 

quickly? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And are airports—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Part of it is, again, Senator, you are 

going from 0 to 60, but once you have done that work—in fact, I 

met with the Airport Executives Association just this past week. 

That preparatory work either has happened or is underway. They 

know it is coming. But this thing all had to be knit together in an 

accelerated period of time. It is an important security project. It 

was an important job project. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I appreciate the explanation, and my 

hope is that when we check back in on this—if we get all of these 

machines in this budget and the ones we got last year—they are 

moving out as quickly as they are purchased. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, we would be happy, again, to 

provide you with a schedule or to brief you or your staff at your 

desire on what the plan is. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator McCaskill. 

You will be happy to hear, as the former Governor of Arizona, 

that I have been asked not to adjourn the meeting because the senior Senator from Arizona is returning. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is great. [Laughter.] 

I am honestly not very mobile, so I am kind of here. 

Senator COLLINS. I do not think that was a credible answer. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We will wait just a minute because I have 

been told Senator McCain is outside in the hallway. 

Maybe I can fill the time briefly by asking you about the cuts in 

the cybersecurity budget. I am particularly interested in and there 

was some mention of the Einstein program, the system of network 

sensors to protect the dot.gov domain. It looks like there is some 

decrease in funding for Einstein. Is that correct? If you know now. 

If not, obviously you can tell us. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, we are moving ahead 

with Einstein and its successive iterations. Let me, if I may, again 

suggest that it might be an ideal time to do a classified briefing for 

the Committee on all of the cyber efforts. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good. That is very important. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That might put it in context. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Particularly as we work on cybersecurity 

legislation, so we will definitely do that. 

Incidentally, for the record, I am going to give you a question 

which will bring both you and Senator McCain back home. I actually met a man recently who has a business in Nogales, Arizona, 

and he complained—and I bet you this will sound familiar—about 

the time it takes people to come across the border and the way in 

which it is affecting his business. So I am worried about the cuts 

30 

1The response from Secretary Napolitano appears in the Appendix on page 84. 

in CBP that may affect that. I will submit that question to you for 

an answer for the record.1

With that, I yield to Senator McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Collins. Thank you for your indulgence. Thank you, Secretary 

Napolitano. It is great to see you again. I know that you have been 

here a long time already. I apologize for the delays. 

For the benefit of the Committee and for the record, describe to 

us, as briefly as possible, the incredible crisis that exists in Mexico 

and on the border, the struggle we are in with the drug cartels, 

and the threat that a takeover of Mexico, or at least of certain 

areas in Mexico, by the drug cartels poses to the government of 

Mexico as well as to the national security of the United States of 

America. And, by the way, I know you are very familiar with this 

issue. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Very, and I was just in Mexico City again 

last week, and I had a very good meeting with the president there, 

as well as the Minister of Interior and the National Security Adviser in Mexico. 

In my view, this is an urgent security matter. There have been 

some significant successes over the past years. There is significant 

work to be done. I think it is a fair assessment to say that the rule 

of law is missing right now in Ciudad Juarez and the state of Chihuahua. The Mexican Federales are inputting 2,700 more Federal 

police there. That may not be enough. 

We are using every tool we have at our disposal to work with the 

Mexican government across the border, but particularly in that 

area, and then in the Sonora, Arizona, area, which continues to be 

the lead corridor for trafficking. 

These cartels are big; they are organized. They have fingers that 

reach into hundreds of American communities. And there needs to 

be a sense of urgency about this, if for no other reason than because the presidency of Mexico will expire in another year and a 

half, and also because, quite frankly, people are dying. 

But when you have that situation and you have these cartels, it 

requires a joint effort. By the way, Senator, I might say that it is 

not just the Department of Homeland Security in the Federal Government that is engaged now. There are other departments engaged. 

Senator MCCAIN. So if the drug cartels succeed, then it would be 

just a matter of time before the violence spilled over onto our side 

of the border, not to mention the free, basically free, access they 

would have to bring drugs, as well as humans, into our country. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We have not seen spillover violence in 

that sense yet. It is a risk. The ability to traffic in drugs causes 

its own damage to lives in the United States. Our ability to curtail 

that would be affected. 

On the human-trafficking side, it is not solely illegal immigrants 

coming to work, but the ability of people from countries of special 

interest to immigrate into Central America and then be ferried up 

31 

to the border and over into the United States that is also a concern. 

Senator MCCAIN. People could come up through our Southern 

Border from countries of special interest? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Potentially, yes. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, I thank you, and now I would like to ask 

you about the border fence issue. I know you have already been 

asked about this, and I am not blaming you, Madam Secretary, because I know this problem has been with us for some years. But 

this border fence issue has been a waste of billions of dollars. One 

huge effort failed several years ago, and now apparently this one 

has as well. 

I asked the Chairman of this Committee if we could have a hearing about the border fence and the waste of billions of dollars in 

what appears to be an abject failure. 

I quote from a news article from the Associated Press: ‘‘An ambi- tious $6.7 billion government project to secure nearly the entire 

Mexican border with a ‘virtual fence’ of cameras, ground sensors, 

and radar is in jeopardy after a string of technical glitches and 

delays.’’ 

I know you have been asked about that, but maybe you could 

talk to us a little more about it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think we are talking specifically about 

SBInet, and what I have shared with the Committee is that the 

concept—we can debate the concept as originally designed, but the 

plain fact of the matter is that the major milestones embodied in 

that concept have not been met. Dates have not been satisfied. We 

will finish the first part of it because it is too far along to stop, and 

we should finish it. 

But what I have done, Senator, is say, look before we say we are 

going to do this along the entire border plus the Northern Border, 

we need to re-evaluate and see if there is other, better, smaller, 

more mobile, easier-to-maintain, easier-to-operate technologies that 

will pair with our actual boots on the ground in a more effective 

way to secure that border between the ports of entry. 

Senator MCCAIN. Is this not the second failure of a virtual fence 

over the past 10 years, I think? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I do not know what you are thinking of 

as the first virtual fence. 

Senator MCCAIN. A few years ago we had a contract, and they 

just were not able to succeed. We will go into that more, I think, 

in hearings. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Senator MCCAIN. Now, I read that illegal immigration into Arizona and across the border has been reduced, right? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The numbers of apprehensions are down, 

yes. 

Senator MCCAIN. And you attribute that to, one, the economy; 

and two, better enforcement. And what do you see might happen 

when the economy recovers? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think we have to be thinking ahead 

when our economy recovers that we could see another major wave 

of illegal immigration, and we still want to drive those numbers 

down. So we are working in preparation. That is why not just stickVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jul 20, 2011 Jkt 56843 PO 00000 Frm 000035 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\56843.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
32 

ing with the old technology but looking at other, better things to 

do needs to be done now. That is why improving the ports of entry 

and how we actually manage the ports of entry needs to be done 

now. That is why increasing work-site enforcement using I–9 audits, among other techniques, to cut down on that demand issue 

needs to be done now, and that is what we are doing. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. I would point out that only 53 

miles of the fence is complete, and the contract was for up to 2,000 

miles of fencing. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Chairman, again, 53 miles complete. The 

contract was for 2,000 miles, and we have spent I do not know how 

many billions. I guess we will find out. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, you have two Arizonans 

who are joined in their frustration. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well, this is a welcome moment of bipartisanship here. [Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you, Madam Secretary, and it is good 

to have you before the Committee again. Thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator McCain. We got the request from you yesterday about the hearing, and the staff is evaluating it, but I think it is a good idea. We have done a couple in 

the past, but we have not done one for a while. So our staffs will 

work together on that. 

Secretary Napolitano, thanks very much. It has been a good exchange. The bottom line, as I said at the beginning, I think this 

budget continues the Department moving forward. Obviously, we 

have some areas we are concerned about. We will continue to work 

on that with you. 

As we have done in the past, we will probably end up making 

some recommendations on behalf of the Committee to the Appropriations Committee on the budget and hope that will be helpful 

to your leadership of the Department. 

The record of this hearing will stay open for 15 days for any additional statements or questions. Do you have anything to say in 

conclusion in your defense? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Happy birthday, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] 

Senator COLLINS. Very smart. 

Senator MCCAIN. A wise comment. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 


56843.001
34 


56843.002
35 


56843.003
36 


56843.004
37 


56843.005
38 


56843.006
39 


56843.007
40 


56843.008
41 


56843.009
42 


56843.010
43 


56843.011
44 


56843.012
45 


56843.013
46 


56843.014
47 


56843.015
48 


56843.016
49 


56843.017
50 


56843.018
51 


56843.019
52 


56843.020
53 


56843.021
54 


56843.022
55 


56843.023
56 


56843.024
57 


56843.025
58 


56843.026
59 


56843.027
60 


56843.028
61 


56843.029
62 


56843.030
63 


56843.031
64 


56843.032
65 


56843.033
66 


56843.034
67 


56843.035
68 


56843.036
69 


56843.037
70 


56843.038
71 


56843.039
72 


56843.040
73 


56843.041
74 


56843.042
75 


56843.043
76 


56843.044
77 


56843.045
78 


56843.046
79 


56843.047
80 


56843.048
81 


56843.049
82 


56843.050
83 


56843.051
84 


56843.052
85 


56843.053
86 


56843.054
87 


56843.055
88 


56843.056
89 


56843.057
90 


56843.058
91 


56843.059
92 


56843.060
93 


56843.061
94 


56843.062
95 


56843.063
96 


56843.064
97 


56843.065
98 


56843.066
99 


56843.067
100 


56843.068
101 


56843.069
102 


56843.070
103 


56843.071
104 


56843.072
105 


56843.073
106 


56843.074
107 


56843.075
108 


56843.076
109 


56843.077
110 


56843.078
111 


56843.079
112 


56843.080
113 


56843.081
114 


56843.082
115 


56843.083
116 


56843.084
117 


56843.085
118 


56843.086
119 


56843.087
120 


56843.088
121 


56843.089
122 


56843.090
123 


56843.091
124 


56843.092
125 


56843.093
126 


56843.094
127 


56843.095
128 


56843.096
129 


56843.097
130 


56843.098
131 


56843.099
132 


56843.100
133 


56843.101
134 


56843.102
135 


56843.103
136 


56843.104
137 


56843.105
138 


56843.106
139 


56843.107
140 

Æ 


56843.108