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

51–026 PDF 2011

S. Hrg. 111–980 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

OF THE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 12, 2009 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BETH M. GROSSMAN, Senior Counsel 

CHRISTIAN J. BECKNER, 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 ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Bennet ................................................................................................. 10 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 12 

Senator Landrieu .............................................................................................. 14 

senator Carper .................................................................................................. 16 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 20 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 22 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 31 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 33 

WITNESS 

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record ..................................... 51 

‘‘Budget-in-Brief, Fiscal Year 2010,’’ U.S. Department of Homeland Security ... 70 

(1) 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:02 p.m., in room 

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

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

McCaskill, Bennet, Collins, and McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good afternoon, Secretary Napolitano, ladies and gentlemen. This may be the latest in the day, Senator Collins, that you and I have begun a hearing. Is that possible? 

Senator COLLINS. I think it is. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So, once again, a first for the three of us. 

The explanation of this is much too long and definitely not worth 

telling. 

Anyway, I want to welcome you, Madam Secretary, to this, your 

first budget hearing before our Committee as the Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS). A budget, of course, as 

you know from your previous work as governor, is more than just 

a collection of numbers. Each line of the budget is in some sense 

a vision of what we expect from our government now and into the 

future. 

I know that you and we on this Committee share a similar vision 

of what we expect for the Department of Homeland Security, which 

is that it become an organization that is simply the best in the 

world at detecting, deterring, preparing for, and responding to disasters, natural and manmade, including terrorism and the threat 

posed by drug cartels—‘‘One DHS’’ whose components work together to keep the American people safe. 

With those expectations in mind, I would say that there is a lot 

in President Obama’s proposed 2010 budget for the Department of 

Homeland Security that is good news. One of the more interesting 

discussions that we may have today or may occur is exactly how 

much does President Obama’s budget increase Department of 

Homeland Security spending. I have heard at least three different 

numbers, based, I gather, as I understand it, on which baseline you 

use. But, in any case, there is a percentage increase in spending 

recommended by the President. In times of economic stress and 

2 

high deficits, obviously, we have to make priority decisions, and 

therefore, I take the increase that the President has recommended 

as a testament to this Administration’s commitment to the Department’s critical mission of keeping our homeland safe. 

I want to point out a few areas in which I was particularly 

pleased by increases recommended and then some others where I 

am concerned. 

I welcome the Administration’s $87 million increase in the Department’s National Cyber Security Division account. As we have 

discussed and heard testimony here, key information systems in 

the private and public sectors are attacked every day, and it is critical that we, therefore, beef up our defenses against computer attacks and data theft. This additional money will obviously help 

that to occur. 

I am also encouraged that the President’s budget recognizes in 

a new way the threat on our borders posed by drugs, weapons, 

cash, and human smuggling by including an increase of $135 million for the Southwest Border Initiative, but I know you will not 

be surprised to hear that I do not think that is enough. 

I am particularly concerned that there is not enough new support 

being directed to inspections of southbound traffic to disrupt the 

flow of illicit guns and cash that the drug cartels use to wage war 

against each other and too frequently against the Mexican government. 

Senator Collins and I introduced, and the Senate passed, an 

amendment to the budget resolution a short while ago for the next 

fiscal year that added $500 million for security at the Southwest 

border, so we will continue to work in this budget process to add 

more money for that purpose. 

I am also glad to see increased support for areas of the Department that are really not high profile but matter a lot, and that goes 

particularly to management and integration of different sections of 

the Department. The Administration has, for instance, proposed an additional $32 

million for the Office of Procurement. That should help to reduce 

the all-too-frequent cost and schedule overruns that have occurred 

over the years in major Department of Homeland Security acquisition programs. 

The Administration’s decision to double the funding for grants 

under the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response 

(SAFER) Act, which enables fire departments across America to 

hire new firefighters, from $210 million to $420 million for fiscal 

year 2010 is really a big step forward. I appreciate it, and I know 

the fire departments and citizenry around the country will appreciate it as well. 

Unfortunately, the Administration has also proposed deep cuts in 

funds for the Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program, commonly 

known around here as ‘‘fire grants,’’ which assist local departments 

particularly in purchasing equipment that is essential for them to 

perform their jobs safely and effectively. Frankly, I am at a loss to 

understand why the Administration not only proposed cutting this 

critical support for first responders, but proposed cutting it by 

nearly 70 percent, from $565 million this year to only $170 million 

next year. 

3 

I would like during the questions and answers to discuss the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) budget, which 

seems to be only a nominal increase and less than I believe will 

be necessary, and also the Coast Guard budget. The Coast Guard 

is really stretched thin today, responsible for carrying out a wide 

range of both its traditional missions and all the new missions associated with homeland security, such as port security. 

Personally, I believe that an increase in the base force of the 

Coast Guard is necessary, but the budget request anticipates actually a slight decline in the military workforce of the Coast Guard, 

and I want to discuss that with you as well. 

So, bottom line, I appreciate the difficult decisions that must be 

made in every budget cycle overall. I think the Department’s budget will keep DHS moving forward. But I also think we can and 

must do more than that. 

Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Madam 

Secretary, to the Committee for your first budget hearing. 

More than 6 years after its creation, the Department of Homeland Security has achieved considerable progress, but we also know 

from this Committee’s oversight work and from Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Inspector General (IG) reports that 

much more needs to be done to integrate, improve, and strengthen 

the Department, and that requires adequate resources. With our 

security at stake, the Department’s mission of prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery must be executed effectively. 

As our Nation confronts the challenges of terrorism, natural disasters, and emerging threats, such as cyber attacks and drug cartel 

violence, I am disappointed that the Administration’s fiscal year 

2010 budget provides only a slight overall increase in homeland security funding for DHS. With the additional cuts proposed by the 

Administration for the next 4 years, the Department may be hard 

pressed to carry out its vital missions, no matter how hard the Secretary and the employees of the Department work to achieve them. 

For example, as the Chairman has indicated, critical resources, 

additional resources are needed to supplement efforts already underway on our Southwest border to combat drug, gun, and cash 

smuggling by the drug cartels in Mexico. As the Chairman indicated, he and I included $550 million for additional resources to 

fight the Mexican drug cartels in the recently passed budget resolution, and I would note that our amendment was adopted without 

any dissenting votes. This is significantly more than the President’s budget proposes. For example, our budget amendment would provide $260 million 

to hire and train 1,600 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

officers and 400 canine teams. These agents and dogs would help 

combat the cartels’ southbound smuggling of guns and cash into 

Mexico. Unfortunately, the Administration has proposed only 65 

additional CBP officers for this purpose. As the Chairman has 

pointed out, when you look at this segment of the President’s budget compared to the Lieberman-Collins floor amendment, the difference is 90 percent less in the Administration’s budget. 

4 

I am concerned that the President’s proposed budget could also 

undermine our State and local partners who are often the first to 

respond to natural disasters and terrorist threats. While I applaud 

the funding proposed for our homeland security grant programs, 

proposed cuts to the Fire Act and the port security grant programs 

could well deprive first responders and local communities of the resources needed to secure our Nation. 

Under the Administration’s proposal, as the Chairman has pointed out, Fire Act grants would be cut by 70 percent. They would be 

slashed. And this is one of the programs that first responders tell 

me over and over again is the most effective, has the best return 

on the dollar, and has the least bureaucracy associated with it. It 

is a peer-reviewed program. The dollars are efficiently and effectively spent, and they reach the first responder. This funding deficit could have serious consequences for ensuring that our Nation’s 

firefighters get the equipment and the training that they need. 

The President’s budget also proposes to eliminate funding for the 

Long Range Aids to Navigation (LORAN) program. This program 

serves as a back-up to the Global Positioning System (GPS). The 

Federal Government has already invested $160 million in modernizing LORAN. Discontinuing the entire program would leave the 

Nation without a back-up to GPS, wasting millions already spent 

on the system. And, indeed, as I will discuss later with the Secretary, the cost of closing out the LORAN program may well approximate or even exceed the cost of upgrading the program, and 

it leaves us without a critical back-up to GPS. 

There is, however, some good news in the budget. It is encouraging that the Administration recognizes the need to increase funding for cyber security, bombing prevention, and technological advancements along the Northern border. An effective response to 

cyber threats will require coordination among several government 

agencies, law enforcement, and the private sector. The additional 

funding requested in the budget will help DHS assume the leadership position needed on cyber security matters. 

I also applaud the Administration’s proposals to increase staffing 

and resources for the offices of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the 

Chief Procurement Officer, and the Inspector General. In particular, let me applaud the addition of almost 100 procurement personnel. Far too often, departments short-change the acquisition 

workforce even though understaffing in that area can compromise 

the ability of the Department to carry out a host of missions and 

mandates. So I applaud the Secretary for realizing how important 

it is that there is a sufficient number of acquisition specialists to 

ensure that the $14 billion spent annually by DHS on contracts is 

invested wisely and the programs are properly overseen. 

At a time when budgets are tight, difficult decisions must be 

made. We cannot, however, underfund our Nation’s homeland security. So I associate myself with the comments made by the Chairman. In fact, I think it is remarkable how similar our concerns are 

once again. You would think we had compared notes on our opening statements. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. I did note the 

similarity in the parts of the budget that we commented on, but I 

5 

1The prepared statement of Secretary Napolitano appears in the Appendix on page 35. 

did note a really interesting difference, which is that I started with 

the parts that I was—— 

Senator COLLINS. Happy about. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN [continuing]. Happy with and ended with 

the bad news. You started with the bad news and ended with the 

good news. 

Senator COLLINS. And do you know what? In the previous Administration, it was exactly the other way. [Laughter.] 

I find that to be a remarkable coincidence. But, as usual, Mr. 

Chairman, our bottom line is the same. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Exactly. 

Senator COLLINS. You add up the positives and the negatives, 

and we end up at the same place. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. All right. Are we entertaining you more 

than they did in the House today? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Absolutely. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Madam Secretary, welcome, and we 

would be glad to hear from you with an opening statement at this 

time. 

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have a 

more complete statement for inclusion in the record. 

Chairman Lieberman, Senator Collins, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Department 

of Homeland Security portion of President Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2010. The proposed total budget for DHS is 

$55.1 billion, which includes $42.7 billion in appropriated funding. 

DHS performs a broad range of activities across a single driving 

mission: To secure America from the entire range of threats that 

we face. The Department’s leadership in the past couple of weeks 

in response to the H1N1 flu outbreak only proves the breadth of 

this Department’s portfolio as well as the need to make DHS a 

stronger, more effective Department. 

This budget strengthens our efforts in what I see as the five 

main mission areas where we need to focus in order to secure the 

American people. 

First, guarding against terrorism—the founding purpose and perennial top priority of the Department. 

Second, securing our borders—an effort even more urgent as the 

United States looks to do its part to counter a rise in cartel violence. 

Third, smart and effective enforcement of our immigration 

laws—facilitate legal immigration and pursue enforcement against 

those who violate the Nation’s immigration law. 

Fourth, improving our preparation for, response to, and recovery 

from disasters—not just hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, and earthquakes, but also unexpected situations like the H1N1 flu. 

And, fifth, unifying the Department of Homeland Security—needing to work together as one department, One DHS, to ensure that 

we operate at full strength. 

6 

There are three cross-cutting approaches that the Department is 

taking to strengthen its performance in each of these five areas 

and that are also strengthened in this budget. 

First, expanding partnerships with State, local, and Tribal governments—the first detectors and the first responders. 

Second, bolstering our science and technology portfolio, investing 

in new technologies that can increase our capabilities—fully cognizant of our efforts also to protect privacy and the individual 

rights. 

And third, maximizing efficiency—through an Efficiency Review 

Initiative that we launched in March to ensure that every security 

dollar is spent in its most effective way. 

This budget adheres to the President’s major reform goals—government efficiency, transparency, and cohesion—and will play a 

major part in bringing about a new culture of responsibility and 

fiscal discipline at DHS. The DHS budget request was based on 

alignment with the Department priorities, and programs were assessed based on effectiveness and on risk. 

In terms of budget priorities, to guard against terrorism, the 

budget proposal includes: $121 million to fund research for new 

technologies that detect explosives in public places and transportation networks; $87 million for new measures to protect critical infrastructure and cyber networks from attack; and systems to enhance information sharing among Federal, State, local, and Tribal 

law enforcement. 

For border security, this budget proposal includes $116 million to 

deploy additional staff and technology to the Southwest border to 

disrupt southbound smuggling of drugs and cash and to help combat cartel violence; $40 million for smart security technology funding on the Northern border to expand and integrate surveillance 

systems. 

To ensure smart, effective enforcement of our immigration laws, 

this budget proposal includes: $112 million to strengthen E-Verify 

to help employers maintain a legal workforce; a total of $198 million for the Secure Communities program, which helps State, local, 

and Tribal law enforcement target criminal aliens; and it improves 

security and facilitates trade and tourism through $145 million for 

the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) and $344 million 

for U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (USVISIT). 

To help Americans prepare for, respond to, and recover from natural disaster, the budget proposal includes: Doubling of the funds 

from $210 million to $420 million to increase the number of frontline firefighters; a $600 million increase to the Disaster Relief 

Fund to help individuals and communities affected by disasters; 

and it strengthens pre-disaster hazard mitigation efforts to reduce 

injury, loss of life, and destruction of property. 

To unify the Department, this budget proposal includes $79 million for the consolidation of DHS headquarters, which will bring 35 

disparate offices together, generating significant savings in the 

long run. It also includes $200 million to consolidate and unify our 

information technology (IT) infrastructure and bring all of DHS 

under the same system—One DHS. 

7 

In my few months as Secretary, I have seen a number of remarkable accomplishments in addition to challenges. I have seen this 

Department’s potential, and I believe we have a path toward realizing it. DHS is aiming to do even better at achieving our security 

mission. This budget will help the Department do just that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Madam Secretary. We 

are off to a good start. I think we will do 7-minute rounds of questions. 

As I noted in my opening statement, I was encouraged to see an 

increase in the budget for fiscal year 2010. I was surprised at the 

same time to notice that the updated summary tables that the Office of Management and Budget released this week shows the Department’s discretionary budget decreasing in fiscal year 2011 from 

$42.7 billion to $42 billion, and then it would continue to decrease 

$400 to $500 million every year for the next 3 years. Obviously, the 

Administration submits a 5-year plan. 

I am concerned about that long-term budget projection because 

I expect that the needs of the Department will increase, not decrease, and I wonder if you have any explanation for that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, two points. One is part of 

that decrease is not a real decrease because the expectation is that 

there will be fee increases that help fill that gap. But, second, I 

think the charge from President Obama to his Cabinet has been to 

carry out our missions and to find ways that we can avoid costs 

and achieve savings while accomplishing the myriad missions that 

we have. That is why we have instituted an efficiency review process, which I believe will help us find millions in cost avoidances 

without affecting mission accomplishment. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well, obviously we wish you well as you 

try to do all the things that the law and we ask you to do. If you 

can do it more efficiently, that is great. But we will watch that, and 

we will monitor that. That is part of our responsibility, to make 

sure we are not diminishing the effectiveness of the Department 

because we are not funding it enough. 

What kind of fees are we contemplating increasing? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, there would be two. One is in the 

Transportation and Security Administration (TSA) realm, and the 

other will be at the end of this year with another look at the fees 

charged through Citizenship and Immigration Services. Those are 

two areas that I can identify that we will be looking at. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We will keep talking to you about that. 

In the budget process, no department head gets everything he or 

she wants. In our work—several of us are on the Armed Services 

Committee—the services in the Department of Defense have come 

up with an interesting device that they actually submit to the committees of Congress called their ‘‘unfunded priority list.’’ It is pretty 

interesting, and often the Committee gives them some of those and 

maybe takes out some other stuff. 

If I had to ask you what your top unfunded priority was in this 

budget, what would you say? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that the 

budget reflects a good balance of what the Department needs moving forward, at least in the first full year of my term as Secretary. 

8 

That being said, I think there are a few items that we are going 

to continue to look at because they are works in progress. One 

would be the capitalization of the Coast Guard, for example, where 

there have been issues in the past about procurement, procurement 

efficiencies, and the like. We want to make sure that those problems have been absolutely corrected and good program management is in place. But those will be some areas that we may want 

to be looking for in future years. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That is helpful, and we will continue to 

work with you, maybe even this year. 

Let me ask about the fire grants. This is a very unusual situation because the SAFER program, which helps local departments 

hire more firefighters, really has been increased quite significantly, 

and I support that. The fire grants—which can be used for training, but they are mostly used for purchase of equipment by the fire 

departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford—are 

cut, as we have said, 70 percent. Why the cut? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things. One is 

that there was money in the Stimulus package for the fire grants, 

and so we took that into account. 

Second, over the past years, this Congress has funded the fire 

grants basically at a 2:1 ratio compared to the SAFER grants. In 

a way, we went the reverse this year, in part because fire departments were telling us that in a time where localities were having 

to cut back on personnel, they felt that their No. 1 priority was to 

have the firefighters wear the equipment and to drive the trucks. 

And, therefore, there was a change in emphasis for that reason as 

well. 

So the fact that we already had money through the Stimulus bill, 

the fact that this part of firefighting support had been heavily 

funded over the last years, and the need to actually meet personnel 

costs now because of the economic situation around the country 

underlies the request. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I want to ask you to take another look at 

the Recovery Act because I believe the funding in that act for the 

fire departments was for construction and renovation of the fire department buildings, not for the purchase of equipment, which the 

fire grants allow them to do. So I think that does not make it up. 

I understand the pressure on the local fire departments in terms 

of personnel, but it is also great in terms of equipment running out 

because the budgets of all the fire departments are so personnel intensive that a lot of them end up operating equipment that is way 

too old and actually below some of the national standards that they 

have. 

My guess is there is going to be a lot of interest in these two programs. I suppose in a sense we have stepped forward from where 

we tended to be too often under the previous Administration, which 

is that both fire grants and SAFER grants were cut, and then 

Members of Congress came along and restored the funding to both 

of them because there is a lot of support for this. 

My time is up. I thank you, and I will yield now to Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

9 

Madam Secretary, the National Security Presidential Directive 

66 established new guidance for the Arctic Region, and the directive points out that the United States has ‘‘broad and fundamental 

national security interests’’ in the Arctic, and it calls on the United 

States to ‘‘assert a more active and influential national presence to 

protect its Arctic interests and to project sea power throughout the 

region.’’ 

Unfortunately, however, the Coast Guard is in danger of losing 

its polar icebreaking capacity. Both of the Coast Guard’s heavy 

polar icebreakers are nearing the end of their service lives. One of 

the two, Polar Star, is actually not operational. It is tied up at a 

port in Seattle right now. And yet the President’s proposed budget 

would provide no funding for polar icebreakers. More than just trying to reactivate the 33-year-old Polar Star, the Coast Guard really 

needs to move ahead immediately with the acquisition of two new 

polar icebreakers. 

When Senator McCain and I visited Antarctica in 2006, this was 

an issue that the National Science Foundation raised with us as 

well. These two icebreakers are estimated to cost between $1.6 to 

$2 billion, and they will take 8 to 10 years to complete. 

Why is there not any funding at all to start replacing these two 

icebreakers when we know this need is acute? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Senator. In the last fiscal 

year, money was moved from the National Science Foundation to 

the Coast Guard for the polar function, and there is money in the 

pipeline there. And then I believe Congress added another $33 million for the renovation of either the Polar Star or the Polar Sea, 

one of the two. So that work is underway now. 

It was our judgment that for this fiscal year that is the work that 

should be completed as we really look at a longer-term investment 

on the polar side for the Coast Guard. So the decision was made 

that in this year, where budgets are tight and we have to prioritize, 

the funding for new Polar Star ice capacity would not be requested. 

Senator COLLINS. The problem is that the Coast Guard still requires about $32 million to complete the reactivation. The appropriations bill for DHS for this fiscal year has about $30 million, but 

that is only about half as much as needed. It seems to me we at 

least need to fund the reactivation of the Polar Star. It is going to 

take 2 to 3 years to do that overhaul to extend the life of the Polar 

Star for perhaps 7 to 10 more years at most. 

So I would hope you would work with us. If we cannot afford to 

start on the acquisition of two new Polar Star equivalents, which 

I think we need to do, we at least need to provide the $32.5 million 

to complete the reactivation of the Polar Star. And I would hope 

that you would work with us to try to identify that funding, at 

least. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We would be happy to work with you. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Let me turn to another issue that concerns me. Last December, 

our Committee heard testimony from the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism (WMD Commission) that was headed by our two former colleagues, Senator Graham and Senator Talent. The WMD Commission estimated the probability of a WMD attack somewhere in the 

10 

world by the year 2013 as better than 50 percent, and they found 

the greatest threat to be posed by biological terrorism and criticized the efforts in our government to do enough. 

In view of this bipartisan, unanimous Commission’s finding, I am 

surprised that the President’s budget request would cut the Office 

of Health Affairs by 12 percent compared to last year, and in particular, the vast majority of the cut is to the BioWatch program. 

This program is designed to refine technologies so that local and 

State governments can be alerted when a biological agent is found 

in a public place. I understand there has been some problems with 

the technology in New York City, but it seems to me that since 

DHS is continuing to work on a third-generation technology, we 

should not be cutting the funding for this area. 

Could you please explain why, given the findings of the WMD 

Commission, the Administration is proposing to cut this important 

aspect of our defense against biological agents? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Senator, you are right. The defense 

against biological WMD is a key component of our future and our 

existing mission right now, but a couple of points. 

One is we should not be asking for money when we are not satisfied that what we are buying actually works and works in the way 

that it was intended, and there have been problems with the technology that was being purchased. 

And second, because there have been problems, there is a backup of unspent funds, and so rather than ask for new money, we 

continue to work on the next generation, which will be a more autonomous BioWatch—as opposed to requiring a lot of manpower— 

system. That is where we want to get to. But our view is that we 

can make those changes and move in that direction without any 

cessation of our current activities with the budget that we have requested. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Collins. 

Senator Bennet, you are next, and then Senator McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNET 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today, and I want 

to thank you, DHS, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for your prompt response to the H1N1 virus and 

your cooperation and leadership with local law enforcement. I think 

this has made an enormous difference to the country, and I appreciate it very much. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Senator BENNET. I strongly support the increase in funds for addressing violence along the border. We must not only make sure 

that the violence does not spill over, but it is also important to put 

an end to the smuggling by drug cartels of illicit drugs that are 

plaguing communities. My State of Colorado has been hit very hard 

by the trafficking and sale of methamphetamines. The epidemic 

has cost the State close to $1.4 billion, and in spite of the best efforts by local law enforcement, we continue to have one of the highest abuse rates in the Nation. The largest source of methamphetVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:52 Jul 12, 2011 Jkt 51026 PO 00000 Frm 000014 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\51026.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
11 

amine are plants run by these cartels, which then traffick the drug 

through their affiliates in Colorado cities and towns. 

Could you say a word about what is being done to curb the manufacture of methamphetamines in plants that are just across the 

border? Are there any strategies in place to limit not just the ability of cartels to smuggle in massive quantities, but also to produce 

the illicit drugs in the first place? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Senator. One of the key changes 

that has occurred in the last 2 years is that the government of 

Mexico is severely—first it began limiting the importation of ephedrine into the country, which is the precursor chemical that is used 

in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Now they have totally 

banned the importation of ephedrine into the country of Mexico. 

We are already seeing an impact on that in terms of the Mexicanproduced methamphetamine that is there. 

Ironically, an issue we have to confront is ephedrine being smuggled from the United States into Mexico, manufactured, and then 

smuggled back. So we are working the methamphetamine issue 

with local and State law enforcement officials from both directions 

in that regard. 

Senator BENNET. So you are saying that the legal importation 

has been stopped, but the illegal—I do not know if it is importation 

or exportation—is still going on? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. But the fact that the Mexican government itself has banned the importation of ephedrine and has 

law enforcement efforts in that regard now means the methamphetamine manufacturers in Mexico can only rely on ephedrine 

that is illegally imported. That is having an impact on their production capacity. 

Senator BENNET. Are there other steps the Mexican government 

is taking to disrupt illegal smuggling? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am unaware of whether they have a 

major laboratory issue or whether, like the United States, most 

methamphetamine is being manufactured in home shops all over 

the place, which is a different kind of initiative. 

I will tell you that we continue to have methamphetamine 

brought over the border. It has not been the drug increasing the 

most in the last months since I have been Secretary. What we have 

been seeing is cocaine and a little more heroin. But all of them remain a problem, no doubt. 

Senator BENNET. I wanted to also ask you about the efforts on 

immigration that are in your budget. DHS is requesting additional 

appropriations for the naturalization of military veterans, asylees, 

and refugees, as well as money for immigrant integration, which 

includes citizen promotion and learning English. 

Combining these priorities with the resources put in place to address border violence and your request for additional funds for EVerify, it appears you are beginning to create some sort of framework for immigration reform. 

Would you talk a little about how these initiatives are coming together to begin to address this severe problem of illegal immigration in this country? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Senator, what we are working on in 

terms of our budget is a framework that facilitates legal immigraVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:52 Jul 12, 2011 Jkt 51026 PO 00000 Frm 000015 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\51026.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
12 

tion under the existing law. You mentioned the naturalization of 

military personnel. We have now naturalized over 45,000 members 

of the military since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. That is a very 

vigorous program for us, and it is a great one. 

Facilitate the legal but really help employers comply with the 

law at the worksite, which means having access to something like 

E-Verify, and then continuing smart and effective enforcement, 

which has meant making some changes in terms of what we are 

requesting primarily in the CBP budget. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Bennet. Senator McCain, welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome 

back, Madam Secretary. To follow up on Senator Bennet’s comments, I notice you do have a number of increases in funding on 

a broad range of issues concerning immigration, and I am certainly 

glad to see that. 

On the E-Verify issue, what needs to be done to make it more 

effective? I see where you are asking for $112 million. What is it 

that, from a technical standpoint, needs to be improved? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, what we are doing is improving 

the integrity of the database, the kinds of data improved, and the 

ease with which the data is searched and also adding capacity for 

more and more employers to be on the system simultaneously. 

Senator MCCAIN. Would it be a good idea to require Federal contractors to use E-Verify? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is certainly something that the Administration has under consideration. It was something I did at the 

State level as governor. 

Senator MCCAIN. And probably the pushback by these contractors is that we are not able to implement E-Verify. I am sure you 

got that when you were governor. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There were issues raised about E-Verify, 

which is all the more reason you want to marry those proposals together to say, look, we are going to require that you use it, but we 

are going to keep building and improving the E-Verify system. 

Senator MCCAIN. Now, you announced that you are going to go 

after employers, probably in more pleasant language than that, but 

basically that is what you are going to do. What do you say to the 

employer that says, look, that person came to me with a Social Security card that seemed fine, a birth certificate that seemed fine? 

What is our response to that person as we go after employers who 

have hired someone illegally? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the Federal law, Senator, requires 

that if we are going to prosecute an employer, we have to prove 

that he knowingly hired an illegal. And if he has relied on a forged 

document that is a good forgery and he does not have a pattern of 

doing that, has a good I–9 process for hiring, uses E-Verify, and is 

doing everything that he can to comply with the law, you are not 

going to be able to prove to a jury that he knowingly violated the 

immigration law. 

13 

On the other hand, if you do not start these cases with the idea 

of exploring what the employer knew and when he knew it, you 

will never make the case, and the change in emphasis that we are 

undergoing in the Department is to say, in addition to the employees who are pretty easy to pick up in a way, you have to spend 

some attention ascertaining whether you actually have a provable 

case against the employer. 

Senator MCCAIN. So it might not be a bad idea, using the rationale of a Federal contractor, to start enforcing, at least demanding, 

use of E-Verify. 

Is it true that illegal immigration into the United States in general has dropped off and, in particular, across the Arizona border? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is true. 

Senator MCCAIN. Do you account for that by better enforcement 

or the economic situation or a combination of both? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Probably a combination. That means, 

however, that in this period where we do not have the job demand 

on this side, the economic incentive is not quite as large as it was, 

it is a great time for us to keep on with our enforcement efforts 

and keep building that infrastructure that we need. 

Senator MCCAIN. I do not mean to sound parochial, but at what 

point do you think we would have a fence/virtual fence across the 

Arizona-Mexico border? I know that there is a virtual fence being 

constructed in some of the unpopulated areas of our border. Do you 

have any estimate as to when that might be completed, both the 

fence and the virtual fence? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will get back to you on that, Senator. 

We have just okayed the actual implementation of the first phase 

of the virtual fence. As you know, there are a lot of problems with 

the initial construct, etc. Those have been worked out. It is now 

going into place, and we are now beginning to schedule the second 

phase—the first phase down in the Tucson sector, the second phase 

a little to the west of there. 

Let me not give you a firm date on the whole thing, but it is 

clearly in process now. 

Senator MCCAIN. Has the Department of Justice agreed to cooperate on prosecution of employers that—is this ‘‘crackdown’’ on 

employers associated with that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The Attorney General and I have had 

several express discussions about the need to follow up and the 

ability to get search warrants and the like from the U.S. Attorney’s 

Offices, so yes. 

Senator MCCAIN. Do you have an assessment on the level of violence across the border? Is it getting better? Worse? How is the 

Mexican government doing? And what more do we need to do to cooperate with them? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We are having regular telephone conference calls with the sheriffs and police chiefs in the border communities themselves, and what they tell me is that their levels of 

violence are pretty good—pretty good in the sense of—— 

Senator MCCAIN. There is some improvement or decrease? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. They are decreased. That being said, 

there was some open press today that they are now starting to see 

an uptick in homicides back in Juarez, which had been really on 

14 

a severe downslide after they put the military in there. So I am 

concerned about that. 

We need to do a couple things. One is sustain the commitment 

we have already made along the border. Two is complete our agreements with Mexican law enforcement, for example, on sharing 

southbound inspections on the southbound lanes. Three is facilitate 

the Merida Initiative, getting resources to the Mexican government. 

Senator MCCAIN. Do you think that this decrease in violence is 

attributed to the effectiveness of the Mexican government and our 

level of cooperation? Or do you think maybe the cartels are consolidating power? Or both? Or is it hard to tell at this point? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think it is too soon to tell. That is why 

I keep saying we need to sustain what we are doing because if 

what we are doing is only several months, they will just wait us 

out. These cartels have been around for a long time. This has to 

be a long-term initiative of the United States. 

Senator MCCAIN. Finally, Mr. Chairman, could I just say that I 

know that Secretary Napolitano met with a number of our veterans’ representatives and sort of cleared the air on the issue of our 

respect and appreciation for our veterans, and I thank you for 

doing that, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks for pointing that out, Senator 

McCain. I agree with you. I heard good reports after that meeting. 

Senator Landrieu. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for honoring your commitment to 

come down to the Gulf Coast early in your term and to tour with 

me and others the recovery that is, as you know, well underway, 

and with your help and support, we can move it even faster. So 

thank you. 

I also note in the budget, Mr. Chairman, the continued funding— 

it is very small but significant—for the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding through the next year. We are 

hoping that this office can be stepped up to be stronger in its coordination with the Federal agencies and look to you for your advice as to how to carry that on in the future. 

Also, I want to make note in this presentation of the, I think, 

rather significant increase in pre-disaster mitigation grants, that it 

is penny-wise and pound-foolish when we do not put money in on 

the front end to try to avoid the disasters and the expense of recovery. So I wanted to note that, and I just have three questions. 

Madam Secretary, as you know, we have allocated about $7.5 billion in the Gulf Coast for FEMA Public Assistance. That is a tremendous amount of money. We still have about $3.4 billion that 

has not been spent because we have had a great number of difficulties, as the Chairman and Ranking Member can understand, between FEMA and local officials disputing the value of what the library actually costs to rebuild or the fire station or the police station, which slows it down. To expedite it, we have tried to—and I 

15 

have inserted language into the Stimulus package on this—set up 

some sort of independent arbitration panel. 

Could you give me an update about your views of that and how 

that could be used not just to help our situation, but how it could 

be used in the future to perhaps expedite some of the rebuilding 

that goes on after a disaster, which Homeland Security has some— 

not all—responsibility toward? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Senator—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Under FEMA. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. First of all, it is a goal of the Department to facilitate the long-term recovery and the resolution of 

as many public assistance grants as we can without having to use 

an arbitration panel. And one of the things that has happened 

since my visit to the Gulf Coast is we were able to make some decisions on some matters that were holding up lots of grants because 

they had applicability in a lot of different factual circumstances. 

And so by resolving—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. And we appreciate that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. A few key things, there is a 

lot of movement and working with the people in Louisiana to get 

that money out the door and into the ground where it is supposed 

to be. 

With respect to the arbitration process itself, there will be some 

things that need to be arbitrated. There are just plain differences 

between what we believe FEMA and taxpayers in general should 

be responsible for versus what the claimants view, and those need 

to be arbitrated effectively and expeditiously. 

I do not know if the language of the actual arbitration has been 

finalized, but if not, it will be any minute now because the lawyers 

have all had a chance to go at it. 

In my view, one thing that we are now learning from Hurricane 

Katrina is—we have preparation. We have a national response 

framework, which is kind of the immediate response to a disaster. 

But we do not have the equivalent for our recovery framework, the 

more long-term issues that are much more cross-agency and really 

are about restoring a community to where it was. 

I think that this use of the mechanisms you have now put in 

place to work on this long-term recovery from Hurricane Katrina 

give us an ideal way to test some of these thoughts and build into 

the national recovery framework, that assuming things are going 

well and it makes sense and people feel they have had their day 

in court, in a way, would give us a better situation than we now 

have for long-term recovery issues. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I appreciate that, and thank you very 

much because that will be very helpful. 

The other recovery issue I am sure that you are familiar with is 

this V-Zone issue. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator LANDRIEU. That is affecting Florida, Louisiana, Texas, 

and some of the other coastal States. But the idea is, obviously, it 

makes sense not to rebuild in areas that are low-lying or subject 

to flooding. Makes sense. We all agree with it. 

The problem is some of these communities, particularly in our 

State—Cameron Parish, South Cameron, that comes to mind, 

16 

Grand Isle—are historic communities, they have been here for hundreds of years. They are viable. They are not vacation beach places. 

They are maritime ports for energy, fisheries, and commerce. 

How are we making progress—I hope—in coming to some resolution on building safely in V-Zones so we can get post offices, hospitals, and schools, so we are not asking these communities to function without the framework necessary for them to function? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is a very complicated question, and 

it has applicability in lots of areas around the country. From what 

I saw, Senator—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. And not just coastal areas. Let me correct 

myself. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. 

Senator LANDRIEU. It is many areas throughout the country, including riverine areas. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is why viewing it through the lens 

of Hurricane Katrina does not give one the total sense of what it 

is we are talking about, which is what we are now trying to put 

a framework around. 

So let me say first that in the Hurricane Katrina area, there 

were certain projects that were approved. People relied on that approval, made investments based on that approval, and then several 

years later, new V-Zone maps came out, and all of a sudden FEMA 

was basically saying, ‘‘Give us our money back.’’ I think we have 

now fixed that situation for those areas, or we are in the process 

of fixing that. 

With respect to the larger question, what do we do as a country 

to pay for rebuilding in a now designated high flood area? And 

there we are continuing to work. We will work with you, your staff, 

and the Committee. I do not think we have come to a final resolution on that. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I would just suggest in my 16 seconds 

remaining that there are models that we can find in other countries, Mr. Chairman—in Japan, which has storm surge issues, in 

the Netherlands, where 60 percent of their country lies below sea 

level—that there are ways to think and engineer based on good 

science and smart sustainability models so you can build safely in 

these areas. You cannot build the regular way, but you can build 

in new ways safely. And we might want to look at some of these 

international models, which is why I am proud to be leading a delegation to the Netherlands, with the blessing of the Administration, 

to look at some of these models so that we can have good plans and 

ideas for the future. I thank you very much. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. I am glad 

you are going to explore that, and the Committee will await your 

report. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, how are you 

doing? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Good. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. How many years were you governor? Six? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. A little over 6 years, yes. 

17 

Senator CARPER. Six years, 2 months, 7 days, 3 hours. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Just about. It was a great job. Loved it. 

Senator CARPER. That was a great job. 

As governor, you were required to put together and submit to 

your legislature each year an operating budget, a capital budget, 

I presume. In terms of your involvement as a chief executive of 

your State and your involvement as the Secretary of this Department, compare and contrast the roles that you played in each of 

them in terms of submitting a budget, preparing a budget for this 

Department? And how is your job in this role informed by what you 

did before? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is incredibly informed because the 

budget is the basic operating document that the governor takes to 

the legislature and works from, and it is where you actually see 

whether statements translate into action. 

I was very involved in the budget process in Arizona as governor 

in terms of drafting the executive budget, going through the agency 

budgets, meeting with the directors, and making those recommendations to the legislature. We did not have legislative hearings where I was called on to testify on the budget when it was 

submitted. This is a new thing for me. 

Senator CARPER. But I presume your cabinet secretaries were. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, they were. They were the ones who 

went. 

Senator CARPER. Did you have an operating and a capital budget? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, we did not. They were melded. 

Senator CARPER. Kind of like they are here. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. A little bit, yes. 

Obviously, different issues, different history in terms of why certain accounts look the way they do and monies look the way they 

do. When I took office, Senator, I spent a good part of my first 2 

weeks, I think we booked about 20 hours, just doing budget meetings within the components so I could get a handle on what was 

there. 

Senator CARPER. Was this right after you were confirmed or before? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right after. And then I was able to make 

some changes in the proposal, albeit in a transition year, you are 

really building from a budget that was written by the Administration before you as opposed to a totally new budget. 

Senator CARPER. But you feel you had an opportunity to put your 

imprint on it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. All right. You have been in office now for 3 

months roughly? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. One day less than President Obama. 

Senator CARPER. In terms of what you know now, in terms of priorities, where you need money, where you do not need money, is 

there anything that you have learned that would allow you to suggest to us some different allocation, however modest, of funding 

than what we have seen that is presented to us? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No. I did mention one item at the outset 

to Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins. They asked me about 

18 

things that were not in the budget to the full extent that they possibly were needed, and I talked with them about that. But there 

is one area that is not dramatic, it is not bumper sticker-like, but 

I believe for a new Department it is very important, and that is, 

we need the acquisition, procurement, program management infrastructure. We are uniting 22 different agencies. That part was 

probably underdone when the Department was formed. When you 

look at the 700 or so outstanding GAO issues about the Department, probably half of them involved procurement or program management in one form or another. 

I believe now is the time, after 6-some-odd years, to begin building that administrative skeleton for the Department because we 

now see what we need to have. And so there is money in the budget for that, but it is too loosely characterized as administrative 

overhead. What it is really is giving us the administrative oomph 

to run this Department effectively and efficiently. 

Senator CARPER. I understand some others may have gotten into 

this, but in terms of funding for port security, transit security, I 

understand that just in looking at the numbers, you would say, 

well, they reduced the spending request for 2010 well below what 

was appropriated in 2009. But I understand in the Recovery Act, 

there was actually money included that basically provides for what 

is effectively level funding. Is that a fair statement? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is correct. The Stimulus bill basically acted as a way to speed up the disposition and the money, 

which hopefully will translate into faster jobs. 

Senator CARPER. There are a number of Federal programs that 

we fund to support the work of first responders and firefighters, 

and there seems to be a change, just looking at the numbers roughly, in the allocation of funding. Would you just explain that for me? 

What have you all done here? And just explain to me why it is the 

right thing to do. And I think you have touched on this already, 

but—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. Chairman Lieberman was very interested in this. 

Senator CARPER. I am not surprised. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. What the budget does is it reduces the 

so-called SAFER grant amount, although there was money in the 

Stimulus bill for SAFER grants—for fire stations, not for equipment, as you noted—and then doubles the grant funding for the 

program out of which we actually hire the firefighters themselves. 

That was done out of a recognition that the SAFER grants had 

been heavily funded in prior years about 2:1, equipment to personnel, and the local governments, which are under really bad 

budget pressures, really wanted money for the actual personnel for 

the next year or two, and that is where they wanted us to put our 

emphasis. And that is what the budget does. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

With regard to the issue of your space—I understand your folks 

are going to be in the old St. Elizabeths Hospital grounds? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is the plan, yes. 

Senator CARPER. And when will that likely happen? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. In 2012, I believe; maybe the Coast 

Guard will be going in as early as the latter part of 2011. And in 

19 

the Stimulus bill, there was included $650 million to speed that 

process along as well. 

Senator CARPER. Could you take a moment and explain how your 

Department’s budget plan relates, I guess, to non-St. Elizabeths 

consolidation? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. What we have proposed is some 

millions to allow us to go ahead and consolidate from 35-some-odd 

locales within the district to seven or eight right now. I think you 

can appreciate how difficult it is to manage when everybody is so 

spread out all over the place. And we believe that we can achieve 

cost efficiencies and better management by doing that now, including moving some of our folks out of one or two buildings that are 

just simply awful places to work and in which we should not put 

employees as a working environment while we wait for the St. Elizabeths project to be completed. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Fair enough. 

In terms of the requests you have asked for other than to support 

your budget for your Department, what else can we do to help you? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I have found this Committee very helpful, and like I said, I think we have a very good, strong relationship, and I have no fear of coming to you when I need help on 

something. 

Senator CARPER. Some of your colleagues in the Cabinet are finding it difficult to get the Senators to expeditiously act on nominations. Is that a concern for you? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We do have a few nominations pending— 

Rand Beers, for example, as a potential Under Secretary, and a few 

others that, if we could move them through before the Memorial 

Day recess, it would be helpful. But you have been very fair so far 

in moving nominees forward. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks so much. Good luck. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Carper. 

We are going to work hard. As you know, we have tried to move 

the nominations as soon as we can. I know there were some questions about Rand Beers, but we will move as quickly as we can. 

Senator Carper, in the wonderful way he always begins his questioning, asked you how long you had been governor, so I feel 

obliged to ask you how long you were attorney general before you 

were governor. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Only one term, 4 years. But I was the 

U.S. Attorney for over 4 years before then. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. But is it fair to say you enjoyed your time 

as attorney general at least as much as the time you were governor? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Oh, Senator, it would be so hard to distinguish between the two. [Laughter.] 

Senator MCCASKILL. Let the record show that she rolled her 

eyes. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, whenever I talk to governors 

who are thinking of running for the Senate and they ask, ‘‘What 

is it like?’’ and I tell them, ‘‘My worst day as Governor of Delaware 

was better than my best day in the U.S. Senate.’’ [Laughter.] 

20 

That is not true. But whenever I am trying to dissuade people 

from running, that is what I say. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I always look forward to the beginning of 

your questioning, which is always very personal. 

Senator CARPER. A lot of times people look forward to the end of 

my questioning as well. [Laughter.] 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, let me compliment you, Secretary Napolitano, on the new 

employer enforcement policy that you announced. It was incredibly 

timely. It happened quickly. It is an example of you getting it, that 

we have to put some resources into the investigation of those who 

have knowingly and purposefully violated the law continually as it 

relates to the hiring of illegal immigrants. And so I want to compliment you first. 

Second, I do want to be sensitive to the fact that it is like you 

have been there 10 minutes, and you have major problems you are 

trying to solve. So understanding that I do not expect you to move 

a mountain in that 10 minutes, I do want to ask you today if you 

can tell me how many Federal employees work in the Department? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is roughly 208,000. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And can you tell me how many contractors 

work in the Department? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I do not have that number right now, but 

I can tell you that we have embarked on work to really relook at 

how many contractors are being used compared to full-time employees (FTEs) because, as you know, when the Department was 

stood up, it was done so quickly that they really had to use contractors to get the mission done. 

We are now beyond that. We really need to be looking at what 

does Congress need to appropriate to the Department to carry out 

all the missions that it needs from an FTE basis. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Do you have any idea how many contractors 

are there? I mean, even ballpark. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I do not even want to ballpark it right 

now. That is how many there are. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I would like to get a ballpark as 

quickly as we could because we need to have some benchmarks 

here. If we do not figure out what we started with, then I will not 

be able to give you as much credit as you deserve as you begin to 

fix the problem. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Fair enough. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So to the extent that you can run down how 

many are there—it took us, believe it or not, months to figure out 

how many contractors we had in Iraq. Now, there were challenges 

with that also, but this has to be easier than Iraq, figuring out how 

many contractors we have. I am looking forward to your giving me 

a number so we can then continually bug you about this. 

In that light, I am curious, as you request things in this budget, 

were you focused on asking for the FTEs you need? I think that 

over the last 8 years, unfortunately, in too many cases it was, we 

do not have to ask for FTEs if we hire contractors. It is like the 

21 

secret growth of government. We do not have to own up to the fact 

that government size has exploded because it is all being done 

through contracts. 

In this budget for the increases you have sought, have you 

sought any increases in contractor personnel? Or have you asked 

for the slots to hire Federal employees to do this work? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, Senator, I think that is a project that 

will be more fully reflected in the fiscal year 2011 budget request, 

which will be really the first full year budget that I will have had 

my hand in. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Let me ask about the acquisition reform. I 

notice that you have done the increases in workforce intern program, which is terrific. You have done some selective acquisition 

transaction increases in program management policy. I am curious 

about whether or not you have begun to look at the GAO report 

that came out in November 2008 that cited DHS, and the contract 

procurement officer particularly, for not having any kind of performance review goals, as it relates to acquisition. 

Are you on it, so to speak? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Because I think having those, it is like 

knowing how many there are. If you do not know what you are 

striving for, I think it is really hard, particularly for an agency as 

large as yours, to get there. 

The last thing I want to talk to you about today is about your 

senior career executive attrition. From 2004 to 2007, you lost 70 

percent of your senior career executives, and according to the Partnership for Public Service, there were no exit interviews, which is 

mind-boggling to me that you would watch senior career executives 

walk out the door in those kinds of numbers without anybody saying, ‘‘Wait a minute, wait a minute, we need to know why you are 

leaving.’’ 

Could you share with the Committee what plans you might have 

as it relates to assessing what the problems may be in the workplace that would cause that kind of loss of senior career people? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. One of the areas that we really are taking a look at is what we can do to create One DHS, as I said in 

my opening statement, a set of career paths within the Department, improve morale where morale needs to be improved within 

the Department, and how do we improve the personnel practices 

across the Department. Intake, outtake, exit interviews, all of that 

as part of that process, all of those are the kinds of administrative 

things that were not built into the Department in its early days 

but now need to be put in place. 

One of the things I will tell you, Senator, is how overall I have 

been so impressed with the men and women I have met at this Department. By and large, they joined it, many of them joined right 

after September 11, 2001, but others have continued to come in. 

This is a very devoted group of Federal employees. We want to 

keep training them. We want to give them a career path, and we 

want to keep them. So that is what we are looking to build. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator McCaskill. 

Good line of questioning. 

22 

Senator Akaka, welcome back. You were with us this morning. 

You are with us this afternoon. Lord knows where we will be this 

evening. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. Well, we will see. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We will see. But thanks for being here. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Collins. Good to be back with you. Secretary 

Napolitano, I would like to compliment you on what you have been 

doing and tell you that you look good at this time, even after the 

100 days. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. From what I have read, you have been doing 

well. Personally, I am pleased with some of the things that you are 

doing. 

At your confirmation hearing, I urged you to focus on the Department’s management challenges, and I am pleased to see that the 

President’s proposed fiscal year 2010 budget reflects greater attention to management. This includes additional resources for the 

Under Secretary for Management’s operations, which support 

human capital planning and contract management among other 

tasks, and also increases the funding for the Inspector General to 

enhance oversight efforts. Investments in management will, no 

question, help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the integration of DHS, and I am pleased about that. 

With respect to contract management, I want to highlight the request for additional funding to recruit and train more acquisition 

personnel and increased funding for the oversight arm of the Office 

of the Chief Procurement Officer. However, even with this additional funding, the Department would review less than half of 

major acquisition programs each year. 

Should all major acquisition programs be reviewed annually to 

ensure proper management and combat waste? And if you do that, 

how much annual funding would be necessary for such an annual 

review? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, let me follow up with you on 

that, but let me just say that the review process is fairly formal 

and extensive. That is a little different than oversight on a day-today basis, which obviously you have to do for everything the Department is doing. But that is certainly something we can get back 

to you on. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for that, Secretary Napolitano. 

I would like to discuss the DHS budget request for the conversion of many contractor positions back to civil service positions. 

Senator McCaskill also touched on contractors. I believe that DHS 

currently relies—my belief—too heavily on contractors and uses 

them for tasks that should be done by government employees. This 

may have been necessary to help the Department start up as it did, 

but now DHS must develop the internal capacity to perform its ongoing programs. 

How is DHS identifying positions for in-sourcing? And how many 

positions does DHS plan to in-source? 

23 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I think that is a process that we 

are just beginning to get underway and will probably be more fully 

reflected in the 2011 budget as we have a chance to really drill 

down in these departments and know what has been contracted out 

or not and how many FTEs it would take to bring it in-house and 

the like. But that is something that we have put the wheels in motion to really look at that. 

It is not the easiest process in the world, but we need to get it 

started, and we have. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes, I am glad you are working on it, and I was 

concerned about how much more it is going to cost if you do that. 

In the 2010 budget request, DHS Science and Technology univer- sity programs would receive over $4 million less than was enacted 

in fiscal year 2009. Among these university programs are the DHS 

Centers of Excellence. These centers allow for research into concepts that help improve our homeland security. 

Why has DHS decided to reduce funding levels to these centers? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Again, that is something I will give you 

more detail on, but I think the thinking was that there was 

unspent money in prior years that could just be pushed forward, 

so that the budget request is really kind of a steady funding request. It is not an increase, but it is not really a decrease either. 

Senator AKAKA. The total funding proposed for Emergency Man- agement Performance Grants is $315 million for fiscal year 2010, 

the same funding level as the past 2 years. However, State emergency managers have said that they need at least $480 million in 

funding to meet their needs. 

Why did the Department determine that funding should remain 

flat for this program? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I think our view was, in looking 

at cost to capability and looking at risk, that this was a fair and 

balanced number to request of you at this point in time. 

Senator AKAKA. Secretary Napolitano, I am pleased that the De- partment is requesting an increase of $60 million for Pre-Disaster 

Mitigation Grants. I also see that you proposed administering these 

grants under the Operations, Management, and Administration account. Beyond the increase in funding, what impact do you expect 

this transition will have on the effectiveness of DHS pre-disaster 

mitigation efforts? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think, Senator, what I would hope to 

see is—in part because there will be money available, that will 

itself incentivize more thinking at the local level about what they 

should be doing in terms of pre-disaster mitigation, which has all 

kinds of ramifications—zoning decisions and the like at the local 

level. So $60 million spread across a whole country, it is a big number outside this room. Inside this room, we know it is a small number. But as an incentive number, I think it can be very helpful for 

us. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Again, I am pleased 

about what you are doing. From your responses, I can tell that you 

are working on some of these important issues, and I wish you 

well. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

24 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Akaka. 

Madam Secretary, I think Senator Collins and I have a few more 

questions. I know you have had a long day, but you are doing well. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We are in there. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I must say, I am impressed by your ability to respond to the questions in some detail after having been on 

the job for just over 100 days, so I appreciate that. 

Let me take you back to where we were, I believe, the last time 

we met, which was on the H1N1 flu. I will ask you a question off 

the budget and then one on. 

Just generally, it seems to me that both in the media and in our 

lives, we have kind of stepped back from the high anxiety, and yet 

as we read the numbers that come out, the confirmed cases are 

going up. That is certainly happening in Connecticut, and it is happening nationally. 

So how would you describe where we are at this point in terms 

of the H1N1 flu? Is it an epidemic? Where are we going from here? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We continue to see 

the number of confirmed cases go up. That is partially because the 

CDC has now got diagnosis tests distributed across the country, so 

now it is much easier to do a swab and do a confirmed case quickly 

for this strain of flu than at the initiation of the outbreak. So we 

anticipate we will see numbers continue to rise. We anticipate that 

we will see some more deaths out of this flu. 

You are right. The kind of media attention that was going on a 

few weeks ago has dissipated. But I have directed our operations 

center to put forward a plan on what we need to be doing over the 

course of this summer across the Federal Government and with 

State and local school districts and others to really think through 

what our national response is going to be if this flu comes back in 

a more virulent form in the fall. And we will be working particularly with the CDC and the Secretary of the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) and also with the White House on 

that. 

But we are kind of relooking at what planning had been done before, what lessons we learned over those 2 weeks, and working now 

across all those areas to prepare as much as we can for what may 

happen in the fall. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good. That is reassuring. And I take it 

the folks at CDC and the people with whom they are working are 

still going full force ahead on trying to create a vaccine, should we 

need it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is correct. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. The President indicated at one point a 

few weeks ago that he would be asking for $1.5 billion to deal with 

this potential flu outbreak and potential epidemic or pandemic. 

That is obviously not reflected in this budget, but do you have any 

idea about how that money will be divided among the agencies? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I do not. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I have forgotten for the moment whether 

it was requested by the President—it will be part of the supplemental? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, that is correct. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That is what I thought. 

25 

Somewhat related, the budget makes an interesting move, and I 

do not know to what extent you were involved in it. It proposes 

moving all the remaining balances, approximately $1.5 billion, in 

the Department of Homeland Security’s BioShield Special Reserve 

Fund from DHS to the Department of Health and Human Services. 

This is the fund from which we purchase biodefense countermeasures against some of the most troubling potential biological 

agents that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 

has determined could cause a public health emergency. 

So this has been a program in which the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services 

have worked together, and I wonder if you could just indicate—if 

you have been involved in this—what is the thinking behind this. 

My concern here is that you are the Homeland Security Secretary; 

this is the Homeland Security Department. Obviously, preparing to 

defend against a potential biological weapon is your primary responsibility as compared to other departments. I am concerned that 

in this move of the money, DHS may end up playing a lesser role 

than I think we would like it to. 

So tell me what went into the decision and how you feel about 

the continuing role of your Department in biodefense. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. This was a recommendation that came to 

me that I agreed with, the thinking being that this was never a 

complete move from HHS to DHS to begin with, and there was a 

lot of confusion of roles, that this was really something that was 

a HHS primary level, which is the identification, purchase of, distribution of various antivirals or other types of medications—which 

is kind of what they are doing now for the H1N1 flu. They will 

have the lead in making decisions about vaccine and distribution 

of vaccine and the like. 

We retain the lead in making decisions about prevention of biological WMD, things to detect weapons of biological WMD and the 

like. This is really the public health side of it. What happens if 

something were to occur? And given that, by and large, the medical 

expertise for that resides within HHS, it was my view—and I think 

supported in both Departments—that this was a migration to the 

Department that would be better served migrating back. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So are you confident the homeland security perspective will be maintained if this BioShield fund is no 

longer at DHS? And are there any understandings you have with 

HHS about how that will happen? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We do not have them in writing. We certainly have them, and we can confirm them. Obviously, HHS understands as well the role that DHS needs to play, and I will share 

with you, H1N1 flu also being an example, we really worked hand 

in glove together on that. I think that model will continue. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Last week, the GAO issued a report that raised serious concerns 

regarding the reliability of the GPS network. The report is alarming in many ways. GAO said that it is uncertain whether the Air 

Force will be able to acquire new satellites in time to maintain current GPS service without interruption. And GAO goes on to warn 

26 

that, if not, some military operations and civilian uses would be adversely affected. 

It is ironic that this alarming report by the GAO was released 

the same day that the Administration’s budget was released, which 

calls for the elimination of LORAN-C, which is the network foundation for eLORAN, the leading proposed back-up for GPS. 

The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of 

Transportation established an independent assessment team to 

look at eLORAN and to look at what should be the appropriate 

back-up for the GPS system. And the team found that eLORAN 

could be deployed nationwide with an additional investment of 

$143 million. There has already been about $160 million invested 

in the modernization over the past 10 years. 

It is going to cost approximately $146 million to decommission 

the existing LORAN-C infrastructure, so for approximately the 

same amount of money, you could go to the deployment of the 

eLORAN system and avoid the disruption that could occur because 

we are proceeding without a back-up to GPS. And, again, the independent assessment team’s recommendations were unanimous, and 

they recommended that the government should complete the 

eLORAN upgrade. 

It does not make sense to me that DHS is recommending the decommissioning of the LORAN-C system when the same amount of 

money—in fact, a little less—could be used to get us to the upgraded eLORAN system when we know that we need a back-up to 

GPS. Could you explain to me why the Department is proposing to 

terminate this system rather than using the same amount of 

money to invest in the upgraded LORAN system, which is needed 

as a back-up for GPS? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Senator. First, there is uniform 

agreement that LORAN-C, the existing system, is out-of-date, antiquated, and not sustainable in its current form. The view in the 

budget itself that was put forward was that the model, the paradigm being used of having one back-up system for GPS, was not 

the better way to go, that you needed to have a lot of different 

things that overlap and different kinds of fail-safes as opposed to 

two systems—one being the full back-up for the other—because 

from a prevention and protection standpoint, it would be better to 

have multiple smaller systems as opposed to one uniform back-up 

system, which is what eLORAN is designed to be. 

I am happy to have someone from the Coast Guard come give 

you a technical briefing, but that was the recommendation that underlay the budget request. 

Senator COLLINS. But when I talked to the Coast Guard about 

this issue, and I asked the question—What is the back-up going to 

be?—there is not an answer to that. And, in fact, while there is 

agreement that LORAN-C is outmoded, there is also unanimous 

agreement that we need to proceed with the eLORAN system, with 

the notable exception of whoever put together the budget at DHS. 

But if you look at the public comments that were taken on this 

issue, they overwhelmingly point to the value of a LORAN-based 

system that is modernized and upgraded. And, again, DHS’s own 

assessment team, which worked with the Department of TransporVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:52 Jul 12, 2011 Jkt 51026 PO 00000 Frm 000030 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\51026.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
27 

tation, was unanimous and unambiguous in supporting the transition to eLORAN. 

My concern is that the Administration is really putting the cart 

before the horse here. You are terminating the old system before 

you have a new system in place. And the GAO’s report is alarming 

as far as the consequences of not having a back-up to GPS given 

the Air Force’s problems in launching satellites, one of which is 3 

years behind schedule and way over budget. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Senator, first of all, I think, again, 

as in so many of these things, there is money to sustain things 

through fiscal year 2010 as we look at the transition. But, again, 

there is disagreement about what really should be the replacement 

there. What I would look forward to doing over the next weeks is 

really working with you and your staff on that. 

Senator COLLINS. I look forward to doing so. I think if you look 

at the independent assessment team’s report and the public comments, you will not see much disagreement on the direction in 

which we should go. 

Mr. Chairman, I know my time is running out, and let me just 

say that I am going to submit two questions for the record. One 

is on the interagency operations centers that were established by 

the SAFE Port Act. The law, which we wrote, requires there to be 

centers at all the high-priority ports no later than October 2009. 

The Chairman and I both wrote to the Budget Committee in support of full funding, which is $60 million. The Coast Guard has a 

spend plan which it cannot implement because there is no money. 

How are you going to meet the legislative mandate of the SAFE 

Port Act with regard to the centers at high-priority ports when you 

are zeroing out the funding? 

And the second issue that I am going to raise for the record has 

to do with a system called the Transformation and Systems Consolidation initiative. Basically, it is to bring together all the financial systems of all the components of the Department so that they 

are operating on common platforms using commercially available 

software. The Department has gone down this road before with the 

eMERGE-2 project, which spent $52 million and then was canceled. 

This is an example of a failed IT project. And I am concerned that 

the Department has committed itself to entering into a contract for 

this new system and did so before the Acquisition Review Board 

completed its review. 

I am very concerned that we are going down the road of yet another expensive failed IT project. So I am going to submit that to 

the record as well. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Good. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. Senator Akaka. 

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

Madam Secretary, I was looking for the costs that would have 

been reflected in the budget, and let me explain what my question 

is on that. The fiscal year 2010 budget places the Federal Protection Service (FPS) under the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). NPPD seems like a logical fit for FPS because 

both are focused on infrastructure protection. I understand that 

28 

FPS currently relies on Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) for things like contract guard payment services. 

How much has the Department budgeted for transition costs of 

moving FPS from ICE to NPPD? Where are these costs reflected 

in the budget? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There is a transition budget. I do not 

know where the line item is precisely, but we will get that to you, 

Senator. Let me just say that I did not really look at a wholesale 

reorganization of this Department. It has suffered from reorganization fatigue. Nonetheless, this particular issue caught my attention 

because there were just a lot of comments inside the Department 

and outside the Department: Was FPS really in the best place 

given its mission? And also whether the administration of FPS was 

distracting ICE from its central mission, which is the enforcement 

of the Nation’s immigration and customs laws. 

And so we did make the decision to make this one move, and yes, 

there are some transition costs. I think we can absorb many of 

them. We have a team in place now that is working directly on the 

transition in hopes that Congress agrees with us that this is a better place for FPS. 

Senator AKAKA. Madam Secretary, FPS has requested a new offsetting collection authority, which would allow FPS to determine 

appropriate staffing levels instead of mandating staffing numbers 

in statute. However, GAO has identified a number of personnel 

challenges within FPS, including understaffing and poor human 

capital planning. 

Congress determined that minimum staffing levels were necessary to address security risks created by President Bush’s plan 

to continue downsizing FPS. 

What has FPS done to address its human capital planning 

needs? Can you assure us that FPS will not be understaffed if it 

were to eliminate the staffing floor? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, I think not only that, but I think I 

can tell you that with a focus on FPS—which is not the highestprofile part of the Department, and part of this is just the process 

of creating One DHS and really uniting things, but looking at mission as well—we will maintain it at appropriate levels for the many 

facilities that it is charged with protecting. 

Senator AKAKA. As you may know, I am concerned about the diversity of the DHS workforce, in particular, in the Senior Executive 

Service. A diverse workforce, of course, can enhance the Department’s performance by bringing a greater variety of perspectives 

and approaches to policy development. I am pleased to see that the 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer has requested funding 

for a human resource specialist to focus on enhancing diversity. 

What do you envision the roles and responsibilities of this position to be? And how will you ensure that all DHS components work 

with the specialist to increase diversity? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, one key area we want to focus on 

is how we are recruiting and outreach on recruitment; how we let 

people know that there are good jobs within the Department, as opposed to relying on the standard places where we attract recruits. 

And then we also, as I mentioned to Senator McCaskill, need to 

29 

have career paths and a real retention plan for our very good employees. 

Senator AKAKA. In 2008 and 2009, the Government Accountability Office reported that the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 

(DNDO) is operating without up-to-date strategic plans for its critical investments in nuclear detection technologies at our borders or 

for its overarching nuclear detection efforts. 

What is the status of your nuclear detection strategic plans? How 

will you ensure that funds requested for DNDO will be spent effectively without up-to-date strategic plans? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we have obviously a strategic plan 

always underway, particularly in that very important area. But 

you might be interested in knowing, Senator, that we did not request funds for DNDO to purchase new technology this year, and 

the reason is because we were not persuaded that the technology— 

neither the plan but particularly the capacity of the technology— 

we needed was actually there that we wanted new money for. We 

have enough back-funded money to continue current operations 

through fiscal year 2010, but before we come to Congress and ask 

for money for new technology, we needed to see something better 

from the science community and from the vendors for what we 

need. 

So we have gone back into that community on that basis, and it 

is my hope that moving forward, working with this Committee, we 

will have some credibility when we actually come forward and say 

we need this for this new thing, that we do not do that lightly, that 

we actually have a solid basis for that. 

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

responses. Again, you seem to be on the right course in what you 

are doing, and I want to wish you well. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Senator. 

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

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Akaka. 

Madam Secretary, we thank you for your responsiveness. It has 

been a good exchange. The Committee is intent on doing an authorization bill for the Department this year, and we will see how the 

timing goes. 

In the normal course, we have usually sent a communication and 

had verbal communication with our colleagues on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. So I expect that we will do the same. 

Without objection, I am going to leave the record open for 15 

days just to allow you that time to answer Senator Collins’ two 

questions, and any others. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I look forward to that. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do you have any final comments you 

would like to make? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No. Thank you to the Committee for the 

hearing. I appreciate your adjusting the schedule since I had several hearings today and tomorrow on the budget, so I appreciate 

that courtesy as well. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Understood. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. 

30 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:45 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(31) 

A P P E N D I X 


51026.001
32 


51026.002
33 


51026.003
34 


51026.004
35 


51026.005
36 


51026.006
37 


51026.007
38 


51026.008
39 


51026.009
40 


51026.010
41 


51026.011
42 


51026.012
43 


51026.013
44 


51026.014
45 


51026.015
46 


51026.016
47 


51026.017
48 


51026.018
49 


51026.019
50 


51026.020
51 


51026.021
52 


51026.022
53 


51026.023
54 


51026.024
55 


51026.025
56 


51026.026
57 


51026.027
58 


51026.028
59 


51026.029
60 


51026.030
61 


51026.031
62 


51026.032
63 


51026.033
64 


51026.034
65 


51026.035
66 


51026.036
67 


51026.037
68 


51026.038
69 


51026.039
70 


51026.040
71 


51026.041
72 


51026.042
73 


51026.043
74 


51026.044
75 


51026.045
76 


51026.046
77 


51026.047
78 


51026.048
79 


51026.049
80 


51026.050
81 


51026.051
82 


51026.052
83 


51026.053
84 


51026.054
85 


51026.055
86 


51026.056
87 


51026.057
88 


51026.058
89 


51026.059
90 


51026.060
91 


51026.061
92 


51026.062
93 


51026.063
94 


51026.064
95 


51026.065
96 


51026.066
97 


51026.067
98 


51026.068
99 


51026.069
100 


51026.070
101 


51026.071
102 


51026.072
103 


51026.073
104 


51026.074
105 


51026.075
106 


51026.076
107 


51026.077
108 


51026.078
109 


51026.079
110 


51026.080
111 


51026.081
112 


51026.082
113 


51026.083
114 


51026.084
115 


51026.085
116 


51026.086
117 


51026.087
118 


51026.088
119 


51026.089
120 


51026.090
121 


51026.091
122 


51026.092
123 


51026.093
124 


51026.094
125 


51026.095
126 


51026.096
127 


51026.097
128 


51026.098
129 


51026.099
130 


51026.100
131 


51026.101
132 


51026.102
133 


51026.103
134 


51026.104
135 


51026.105
136 


51026.106
137 


51026.107
138 


51026.108
139 


51026.109
140 


51026.110
141 


51026.111
142 


51026.112
143 


51026.113
144 


51026.114
145 


51026.115
146 


51026.116
147 


51026.117
148 


51026.118
149 


51026.119
150 


51026.120
151 


51026.121
152 


51026.122
153 


51026.123
154 


51026.124
155 


51026.125
156 


51026.126
157 


51026.127
158 


51026.128
159 


51026.129
160 


51026.130
161 


51026.131
162 


51026.132
163 


51026.133
164 


51026.134
165 


51026.135
166 


51026.136
167 


51026.137
168 


51026.138
169 


51026.139
170 


51026.140
171 


51026.141
172 


51026.142
173 


51026.143
174 


51026.144
175 


51026.145
176 


51026.146
177 


51026.147
178 


51026.148
179 


51026.149
180 


51026.150
181 


51026.151
182 


51026.152
183 


51026.153
184 


51026.154
185 


51026.155
186 


51026.156
187 


51026.157
188 


51026.158
189 


51026.159
190 


51026.160
191 


51026.161
192 


51026.162
193 


51026.163
194 


51026.164
195 


51026.165
196 


51026.166
197 


51026.167
198 


51026.168
199 


51026.169
200 


51026.170
201 


51026.171
202 


51026.172
203 


51026.173
204 


51026.174
205 


51026.175
206 


51026.176
207 


51026.177
208 

Æ 


51026.178