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

63–274 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–788 

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 27, 2010 

Serial No. J–111–86 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 125 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabma ............................ 3 

WITNESSES 

Napolitano, Janet, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security .............. 5 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Janet Napolitano to questions submitted by Senators Feinstein, 

Hatch, Kyl, Leahy, Sessions, and Feingold ........................................................ 42 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Napolitano, Janet, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ............. 127 

Reyes, Silvestre, a Representatives in Congress from the State of Texas: 

March 28, 2010, letter ...................................................................................... 141 

April 16, 2010, letter ........................................................................................ 142 

University Medical Center of El Paso 

March 16, 2010, letter ...................................................................................... 146 

April 16, 2010, letter ........................................................................................ 148 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2010 

COMMITTTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

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

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

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, Cardin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Specter, Franken, Sessions, Hatch, Grassley, 

Kyl, Graham, and Cornyn. 

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

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning, everyone. I know we have several Senators in the back coming in, and I appreciate this, and I 

welcome Secretary Napolitano back to the Judiciary Committee. I 

am delighted to see you here. 

Last year ended with an attempted terrorist bombing aboard a 

commercial aircraft bound for Detroit, Michigan. This attempt exposed deficiencies in interagency coordination and information 

sharing and also in other countries’ screening of airline passengers. 

As a result of that incident, Congress and the administration took 

steps to understand existing weaknesses in our systems and how 

best to correct them. This Committee heard testimony from officials 

from the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, and the State Department, each of whom recognized 

the need to do better. I am encouraged by the Department’s recent 

strengthening of airline passenger screening policies and the decision to move away from a country-specific screening policy in favor 

of a smarter, more flexible approach. And I hope that today we will 

hear more about the Department’s efforts to improve security as 

well as the coordination with the State Department. 

Now, along our southern border, we are experiencing historic levels of drug-related violence that must be brought under control. 

Families are being murdered, law enforcement officers are being 

murdered, officials are being murdered, and brazen shoot-outs are 

taking place. The Department is centrally involved in the fight 

against cross-border drug, cash, weapon, and human smuggling. 

We saw the brutal murders of two U.S. State Department employees in Mexico and a U.S. citizen in Arizona. Americans are rightly 

concerned about the impact the situation in Mexico is having here 

at home. 

2 

The Department has also been involved in aiding the people of 

Haiti following the devastating earthquake in January. Incidentally, Madam Secretary, I commend your decision to provide Haitian nationals in the United States with Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The reconstruction effort will take years, but TPS status 

will enable Haitians in the United States to work and send money 

home to their families and be secure in the meantime. I also want 

to recognize the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for 

granting humanitarian parole to Haitian orphans. 

In this regard, I worked with Senator Lugar to advance the Return of Talent Act, which would allow a Lawful Permanent Resident to return for a limited amount of time to his or her native 

country in order to assist in reconstruction efforts following a natural disaster or armed conflict. I think the legislation will encourage Haitian nationals living in the United States to go back to 

Haiti without suffering adverse consequences to their later application to gain U.S. citizenship. 

The Committee also acted recently to assist refugees who wish 

to serve our Government or military overseas. Again, I worked with 

Senator Lugar to advance the Refugee Opportunity Act, which 

would enable refugees to serve our Nation overseas without losing 

time earned toward a green card, and I hope we can work together 

to enact this legislation. 

Marking the 30th anniversary of the 1980 Refugee Act, which 

was authored by Senator Kennedy, I recently introduced the Refugee Protection Act. It seeks to improve the law where it falls short 

of meeting our obligations under the Refugee Convention. 

I remain concerned about several areas within the Department’s 

jurisdiction. The backlog of refugee cases caught up in the overly 

broad material support and terrorism bars need to be resolved. The 

so-called 287(g) program, which engages State and local law enforcement in the execution of immigration laws, continues to be a 

source of concern. President Obama said recently that we should 

not ‘‘undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that 

is so crucial to keeping us safe,’’ and I agree. Madam Secretary, 

you and I both had the privilege of serving in law enforcement capacities, and we know that law enforcement breaks down if citizens 

fear the police instead of seeing them as protectors and cooperating 

with them. We must have proper oversight to prevent racial 

profiling and ensure that local law enforcement has the cooperation 

of local communities. Police officers have a tough enough job as it 

is, but if they are seen as an ‘‘us versus them’’ with the law-abiding 

community, then they do not get the support and the information 

they need. And I recognize that the Department has recently made 

positive changes to the administration of this program, and I look 

forward to hearing more about that. 

Border issues affect us all. They take on particular importance 

to those of us from border States. And while we normally think of 

border States as being our Southern and Southwestern States, I 

hear from many Vermonters about measures taken by your Department to alter border policies in towns like Derby Line, Vermont, 

which sits on the Canadian border. I regularly hear from 

Vermonters about freeway checkpoints and about Federal use of 

3 

private land. And I think you would find that Vermont farmers are 

as sensitive to their property rights as Texas ranchers are. Federal 

cooperation and outreach at the local level can go a long way toward achieving a mutual understanding. The citizens of border 

States share a great burden. 

Finally, I thank you for your steadfast commitment to comprehensive immigration reform. I share that commitment. I worked 

with President George W. Bush on that, and I shared his commitment to it. And I hope we can see a bill enacted this year. 

Senator Sessions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We 

are delighted to have you with us, and you, I guess, lead next to 

the Defense Department the largest agency as a host of departments and agencies that have different heritages, and you have the 

challenge of melding them together in an effective group, and that 

takes years and determined leadership. I know you are focused on 

that, and you have to be because it is essential. And the whole purpose of creating Homeland Security was to gain better cooperation, 

better cohesion, better effectiveness, and it is just—I am sure a lot 

of people do not realize how many decisions you have to make and 

how many spats you have to assuage to keep that Department 

going well. 

I do remain concerned about a number of issues. I will just mention two that I will be asking you about. One deals with what your 

agents’ understanding is with regard to the potential arrest of a 

terrorist somewhere in the United States or entering the United 

States. Are they going to be treated as civilian criminals? And will 

they be provided the panoply of rights such as Miranda and courtappointed and -funded authorities and that kind of thing. What the 

policy is, there is some confusion, it seems to me, and I believe we 

have got to get this clear. I believe it will be a big mistake if we 

treat these individuals as normal criminals entitled to the appointment of a lawyer, entitled not to speak, and not to be taken to military custody if they meet those standards. And so I hope we can 

work on that. 

I remain concerned about our border. The violence, as you know, 

is increasing and is a serious threat to law-abiding people in Arizona and other places along our southern border. The power of 

these drug cartels is very real. The power of the coyotes who bring 

people in illegally is very real. And it has got to be confronted in 

a very serious way. 

I would note that a lot of people might not recognize how much 

progress has been made in the last, say, 10 years. In 2000, 1.6 million people were arrested at the border. Last year, I understand a 

little over half a million were arrested at the border. So that indicates, I believe, that the flow is down. It may not be a perfect proof 

of that, but I do believe it does indicate that the number of people 

attempting to enter the country illegally is down to a degree. 

Then the question to me is: How do we follow up on that and create a lawful immigration flow into our country that serves our National interest, that is consistent with the rule of law, and that alVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Jan 13, 2011 Jkt 063274 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\63274.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
4 

lows people who want to enter a proper process to enter and, if 

they do not qualify, they do not qualify, they do not get to come 

in illegally if they do not qualify legally. 

So a couple things I have concerns about. I understand in February of this year Jim Chaparro, the ICE Detention and Removal 

Operations Director, authored a memo which encouraged the administration to step up their deportation numbers. It started by 

noting that ICE had removed 56,000 criminal aliens from the U.S. 

as of February 15, 2010. However, the memo went on to detail that 

the pace of removal was insufficient to meet the agency’s fiscal year 

2010 goals of 400,000 total deportations. As a result, the memo 

suggested a number of steps to achieve that goal such as increased 

detention space and increased sweeps or removal of people from 

jails around the country to identify aliens who should be removed 

and increased efforts to identify aliens eligible for expedited removal, increased focus on identifying aliens who had been dishonest in immigration forms or visa applications and unlawfully 

entered the United States. 

I think he should have been commended for making recommendations for progress. Instead, it appears that when the 

Washington Post reported that the administration might, in fact, 

intensify deportation efforts for those who had entered illegally, the 

administration issued a statement basically saying they had no intention to do so. And I know you earlier had indicated that you are 

not favorable to sweeps of businesses who have people in large 

numbers working illegally. We have got approximately 8 million 

people who are illegally in the country working today, and we have 

a substantial amount of unemployment in our country, and these 

are matters that I do believe need clear leadership from you. 

I was glad to see in your testimony that you have submitted that 

you are expect increased support for State and local law enforcement. And we will also talk about the Arizona law and precisely 

what it is that you would disagree with in that. But that is certainly one thing that we need to be doing. But I was disappointed 

to hear that the administration’s plan is to make it tougher for 

State and local law enforcement agencies in effect to assist in enforcing our immigration laws through the 287(g) program. States 

and locals are now prohibited from asking aliens about their legal 

status, and in most instances, State and local enforcement are required to release individuals who are here illegally because the administration does not want to fill up immigration detention space 

with minor offenders. 

So we have got a real challenge. I have always believed that 

State and local law enforcement in the normal course of their duties who apprehend people who are not lawfully in the country 

should turn those people over to the Federal officials, and they 

should be processed. And I have not felt and not advocated that 

they should take the primary role in immigration enforcement. But 

I do believe that it indicates a lack of commitment to enforcing our 

immigration laws when we basically tell local law enforcement, 

even if you know you have apprehended someone here illegally, 

nothing is going to be done about it. 

Those and other questions will be important for our discussion 

today. You have a big challenge. I would say with regard to immiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Jan 13, 2011 Jkt 063274 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\63274.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
5 

gration, the decline in numbers puts us on a path to make dramatic improvements, continued dramatic improvements in immigration enforcement. We have got to get away from the virtual 

fence, complete the fencing that we are required to do, make sure 

we have enough people at the border to enforce the law. If we do 

that, I think people would be surprised how much continued 

progress we could make. And it is only in doing that that we will 

then be able to have a decent, good discussion about what to do 

about people who have been in our country for a long time and how 

to handle them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Secretary Napolitano, it is all yours. 

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you. Thank you, Chairman 

Leahy, Senator Sessions, members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify. I would like to focus my opening statement on 

southwest border security, but I look forward to addressing some 

of the other issues that the two of you raised in your own opening 

statements. 

Let me begin by reiterating that anyone who has worked directly 

on the border knows the enormous challenges presented there. We 

had the murders of the personnel connected with the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez, as well as the recent murder of a longtime rancher, Rob Krentz, in southern Arizona. All of those things 

are tragic reminders of the need to support Mexico’s fight against 

the cartels within Mexico, but also the need, as Senator Sessions 

recognized, to keep up our efforts on the southern border. 

We now have more manpower and technology at that border 

than at any time before. And the challenge, however, is deep and 

it is complicated. We are responding with a partnership among the 

Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the 

Department of States, with the Merida Initiative. This is a partnership, as you know, focused on assisting Mexico in their fight 

against the cartels on their side of the border. 

In addition, we have expanded partnerships between DHS and 

DOJ because for every apprehension that DHS makes, DOJ is responsible for prosecution. In this effort, manpower is important, 

and it is more than just about numbers. We need to help investigate and prosecute the cartels, prevent them from proliferating. 

We also must, as Senator Sessions recognized, assist State and 

local law enforcement responders to problems emanating from the 

border. 

Now, as a result of what I believe to be focused and strategic and 

consistent pressure along the southwest border over the past 

months, we have shut down more and more key trafficking routes 

used by the cartels, and that is what I hope that we can review 

today, the significant steps taken in the past 15 months as part of 

our Southwest Border Initiative, the results of those measures and 

what more can be done. 

First, over the past 15 months, as I mentioned, we have mobilized an unprecedented level of resources at the southwest border. 

6 

This is due in no small part to Congress’ own actions to dedicate 

resources to the border. The Border Patrol is better staffed than at 

any point in its history, more than 20,000 personnel. Since 2004, 

the number of boots on the ground along the southwest border has 

increased by 80 percent. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has dedicated over a quarter of all of its personnel to the 

southwest border region, the most ever. 

We also have more personnel than ever strategically dedicated to 

efforts like southbound inspections, intelligence, and interagency 

anti-smuggling task forces. We have more K–9 teams searching for 

illegal cash and illegal weapons. And for the first time ever, we are 

scanning 100 percent of southbound rail traffic. 

We have doubled the number of personnel assigned to Border 

Enforcement Security Task Forces, known as BEST teams, and we 

have quintupled the number of border liaison officers assigned to 

the southwest border. 

We have deployed more proven and effectiveness technology 

there than ever before. These include record numbers of ZBackscatters, mobile X-ray units, mobile surveillance systems, and 

non-intrusive inspection equipment—all at our ports of entry, and 

some deployed between our ports of entry. 

We have increased other resources available such as aerial resources. This means more fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and 

Predator Bs deployed than ever before. 

We have fully implemented the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative technology at all of our southwest border ports, and we can 

now biometrically verify individuals entering the United States 

through pedestrian lanes across the entire southwest border. 

We have more physical infrastructure there than ever before. We 

continue to make critical improvements to the ports of entry and 

to the checkpoints between the ports of entry. 

We have finished all of the vehicle fencing that was provided for 

by Congress. We have fewer than 6 miles of pedestrian fencing left 

to complete for a total of 652 miles. I have also asked for CBP to 

re-examine their current budget to prioritize fencing in key areas 

that are in need of bolstering or of repair. 

Let me pause a moment to speak about partnerships with Mexico. They are unprecedented in the history of our countries, and I 

say that as someone who, as a former U.S. Attorney, Attorney General, and Governor of a border State, has been working border 

issues for a long, long time. But I have never seen this kind of robust partnership with Mexico and with its Federal Government 

and Federal agencies. 

Among the historic agreements I have signed just in the past 

months are agreements on sharing cartel-related intelligence and 

sharing the criminal history of individuals who are being deported 

back to Mexico from the United States. 

In addition, our partnerships with State, local, and tribal law enforcement are key, and we continue to help them combat border 

crime. One of the primary tools we have used for that is Operation 

Stonegarden, which received $90 million from the Congress in 

funding last year. That was $30 million more than originally 

planned. We deployed a full 85 percent of the Stonegarden funding 

to the southwest border, and not only that, we broadened the kinds 

7 

of uses to which those funds could be put so they are more flexibly 

used by local law enforcement. 

And if I might, we can look at some of the numbers because we 

are producing results. We have seized 14 percent more in illicit 

cash along the southwest border this year than last year. We have 

increased by 39 percent the seizures of illicit cash going southbound this year over last year. We have increased 15 percent the 

seizure of illegal drugs coming in, and we have increased by 29 percent the seizure of illegal firearms going out. 

As was noted, apprehensions are down. Apprehensions are down 

23 percent between 2009 and 2008, indicating that fewer people are 

trying to immigrate illegally or to cross the border illegally. And 

just a few weeks ago, ICE agents conducted the largest operation 

of its kind, breaking up smuggling rings in Arizona that had transported 80,000 people into the United States illegally. 

So much has been done, much of it the result of actions taken 

by this Congress and the Congress immediately before it. But there 

is much work still to be done. We will continue our efforts to make 

the most of the resources that we have. We look forward to working 

with the Congress to further strengthen the border in the weeks 

and months ahead. And, Chairman Leahy, Senator Sessions, I look 

forward to addressing other concerns you may have, not just along 

the southwest border but along the northern border and in terms 

of interior enforcement and worksite enforcement as well. But I 

thought I would use my introductory time just to review all of the 

things that have happened along that critical part of our southwest 

border. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before you. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Napolitano follows:] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I know we are 

going to have a lot of questions about the southern border. At the 

risk of sounding parochial, let me go to the northern border. 

I live 45 to 50 minutes from the Canadian border, and Canada 

is Vermont’s biggest trading partner. It is the largest trading partner for much of the country. I know you are aware of the situation 

with the Morses Line port of entry and the Rainville family farm. 

Just for people to know, Morses Line is in the province of Quebec. 

It comes into Vermont. It is a very, very small, traditional border 

crossing where people are used to going back and forth, visiting relatives and going shopping and so on. 

Now, the Federal Government believes that it needs to acquire 

5 acres of land from the Rainville farm in Vermont to construct a 

new port of entry at Morses Line. I understand and appreciate the 

Federal government scaled back the size of the port from its initial 

design. But I question whether some resolution could be found 

using the current footprint of the part of entry. In other words, not 

expanding the port beyond the area it presently occupies. 

It seems the Government has initiated condemnation proceedings 

against the 5 acres of the Rainville family’s farmland. I know this 

is an important part of our border, but also we have concerns in 

Vermont, not the least of which is preserving farms, but also preserving the integrity of our State. 

So I asked you in February if you could arrange public meetings 

between the Department and the communityover the Morses Line 

8 

port of entry. I have heard since then from many concerned community members. They want more information. 

Will you commit to arranging a public meeting with the local 

community on this issue in the very near future, a public meeting 

in or along the border with Canada? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, absolutely, Mr. Chairman, and this 

is one of those things where we are trying to work with the owners 

to get down to the footprint. I believe it has actually been reduced 

from 10 acres to 4.9 acres in terms of what CBP has determined 

it needs to actually do the kind of port improvement there that— 

there is a certain minimum amount, unless you do it, you might 

as well not do it at all. So we will absolutely have one more community meeting, and as I said, we have been working there to minimize the amount of acreage involved. 

Chairman LEAHY. And I understand the situation you have, but 

we have had Operation Stonegarden in Vermont, we have had the 

situation where we do have some pent-up concerns over border 

issues. I fully expect it is not going to be the way it was when I 

was a youngster and you would drive up for the day into Canada 

and back. Many of us have family members in Canada. I realize 

it is not quite as easy going back and forth, but Canada is a friendly country. There may be some unfriendly people that come into 

the country, but it is a balancing act that we have to do. 

I know that Alan Bersin, the new Customs and Border Protection 

Commissioner, has been to Derby Line, Vermont, to see things 

firsthand. I want to mitigate concerns when people get stopped 

tens of miles away from the border along our interstate, get 

stopped and have to prove their citizenship, people that have been 

driving back and forth on that road for decades. It is creating the 

animosity between our residents and the Federal Government that 

we do not need to have. I know that the men and women who work 

for the Federal Government are very dedicated, very hard-working, 

very professional. And I want to find ways to lower the tension that 

exists between the government and Vermonters, who are themselves very professional and very law-abiding with regard to the 

border. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate any 

suggestions you have on that score so that we will continue to work 

with your office and work together. And as I said earlier, we would 

be happy to conduct another public hearing or have another meeting with the community up there where the Morses Line is. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Now, let me move across the country to the new law in Arizona that makes it a crime to fail to carry 

immigration papers. It requires police to demand papers from any 

person the police have reasonable suspicion to believe is undocumented. 

I believe that States can pass whatever laws they choose, provided they are consistent with the Constitution. This law will be 

challenged on constitutional grounds. The President called the law 

misguided. He said it violates the basic notions of fairness that we 

cherish as Americans. When you were Governor of Arizona, you 

twice vetoed bills of this type. 

What do you do now with your Department with regard to the 

Arizona law? 

9 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, first of all, the Justice Department 

is reviewing the Arizona law. It does not actually take effect until 

90 days after the close of the Arizona legislative session, so it is 

not, in fact, in effect in Arizona, which permits time, I think, for 

the Justice Department to really look at whether the law meets 

constitutional safeguards or not. 

From an ICE standpoint and from a DHS standpoint, we have 

some deep concerns with the law from a law enforcement perspective because we believe it will detract from and siphon resources 

that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are— 

those who are committing the most serious crimes, in addition to 

violating our Nation’s immigration laws. We have focused on felonies, on felons, on felony fugitives, on gang members. That is where 

we have focused, for example, our 287(g) task forces and the like. 

So we have concerns that at some point we will be responsible 

to enforce or use our immigration resources against anyone that 

would get picked up in Arizona pursuant to this law. 

Chairman LEAHY. This also goes into the obvious question of a 

comprehensive immigration bill. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Chairman LEAHY. Something that many of us worked on with 

former President Bush in a bipartisan way. There is a strong feeling that we need comprehensive immigration legislation just because it would reflect the realities of where we are today. 

Can we move forward on such legislation with the problems that 

are along the border, the murders, the killings, the drug cartels in 

Mexico? And I realize there are a lot of other immigration issues 

involving a whole lot of other countries besides Mexico. But can we 

do both things, secure our border and have comprehensive immigration legislation? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, and this in a way gets to something 

that Senator Sessions’ opening statement had some implications. 

What is the relationship between securing the border and CIR, 

comprehensive immigration reform? 

In my judgment, we need to continue to put strong resources at 

the border and sustain them at the border. They need to be done 

in a strategic way, and it is a combination of infrastructure, technology, and boots on the ground. 

But the plain fact of the matter is from a numbers perspective, 

the numbers at the border have never been better. There have been 

some outrageous crimes—the Krentz murder, for example—but the 

overall numbers border-wide have never been better. We need to 

keep working those efforts, sustaining those efforts, but at the 

same time, comprehensive immigration reform should be in our 

sights. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. I do believe that what we do and say here— 

often what we do is more important than what we say, but it sends 

a message around the world, and I am confident that for too long 

the message was as long as there was a willing worker and a willing employer, we did not care if people came into the country, even 

though that was in clear violation of the law of the United States. 

10 

And this kind of confused message gets us into a real problem. This 

is why we have the problem today. 

What we have got to do first and foremost and what you must 

do, in my opinion, to be the kind of Homeland Security Secretary 

I would like to see and for President Obama to lead effectively on 

this issue is to make sure that the world knows the border is no 

longer open. It is not open. And if you come here, even if you get 

by—and it is going to be very difficult to get by. But if you succeed 

in getting by, you will not be able to be employed. And if you are 

apprehended, you will be promptly deported, and it is a lose-lose 

game for you. And the way to come to America is to apply and 

make application and apply and come legally. So this is so fundamental to me. 

With regard to the comprehensive phrase, that means amnesty, 

legalization, regularization or some form of fashion of it, basically. 

That cannot be done until the American people feel and those of 

us in Congress really feel that we have ended the open border idea 

and we have really made the kind of progress we need. And I think 

they have to be separate. I really do. I see Senator McCain saying 

the American people have spoken. They want border security first. 

And I think that is true, and I think that is good policy. 

So I just would say that to you with heartfelt belief that we can 

do better. You can make this border a lawful border. But you have 

got to continue to improve on the progress that has been made and 

continue to drive the numbers down, and as the numbers go down, 

you have more officers per illegal entrant, and you can do an even 

more effective job with the ones that enter. And as we do, we are 

going to see more violence, also, I think, as we get more effective 

at the border, and you will have to be prepared for that. But you 

have an opportunity to make some real progress on this. 

Tell me about Operation Streamline that was begun before your 

tenure. It is deployed at five of the nine sectors. It seems to result 

in a substantial reduction in recidivism and re-entries. It is a situation in which there at least is some prosecution and conviction and 

short detention before deportation. Do you believe that has proven 

to be effective? And why haven’t you expanded it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Operation Streamline, for those who 

are not familiar with it, does provide for a short period of detention 

and incarceration prior to deportation, removal from the country. 

We have continued it where it was. The plain fact of the matter, 

however, Senator, is that even a short period of detention, now you 

are implicating the court system, the marshals for transportation 

of individuals, the detention system in facilities along the border. 

And so it has to be a coordination between the Department of 

Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. 

It is my understanding that the Department of Justice is looking 

at Streamline from their resource perspective and the possibility of 

whether it can be expanded. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I would say it has—those same concerns 

were raised initially, and the number of re- entrants and illegal entries went down substantially in those districts, therefore relieving 

other burdens and costs on the system. So I do not think that is 

a particular good solution. Are you working to expand it? Would 

11 

you like to see it at all border sectors? Do you believe it has proven 

to be an effective policy? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, in the sectors where it is, there also 

have been additions in other areas, so there is—we could have a 

debate about whether it is Streamline that is responsible or more 

Border Patrol officers or other things that have been deployed. But 

let me just say this, Senator Sessions: I believe that Streamline 

should be part of our toolbox of things that we use at the border, 

and there needs to be a variety of things that we use at the border 

to get the most effective enforcement strategy. And so, really, it is 

a resource issue more than anything else. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, it is a policy decision, and if you make 

a decision to expand it, you would ask for the resources necessary 

to expand it, and in the long run, the data tends to show that this 

kind of coordinated effort results in a substantial reduction of illegal entries. And if you can spread that across the entire border, I 

think we would have another major progressive step. I hope that 

you will work on that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, if I might just interject, it is not 

just spreading along the entire border. It is being able to do more 

even in the sectors in which we have deployed it, because we do 

not and cannot cover—the Department of Justice, the court system 

in that area of the country cannot do 100 percent of the cases in 

Streamline even in the sectors to which we have already deployed 

it. So it is not just going across to all the sectors. It is really looking at the burden on the court system and the marshals system in 

those Southern District courts. And so I would just make—it is a 

nuance, but it is an important one. 

Senator SESSIONS. I do not doubt that, but in areas where it is 

working, it has had good results, and I believe they justify the effort to figure out what it takes, and I hope that you will ask for 

the resources necessary. 

Tell me about local law enforcement. It seems to me that a local 

law enforcement officer has the authority—and I believe court 

cases have established this—that if they identify a person illegally 

in the country, they have the power to detain them, even though 

ultimate deportation or prosecution would be in Federal court. Do 

you agree with that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, actually there is a—that is 

something, I think, that is being reviewed by the Justice Department now, whether there is inherent authority by any local law enforcement officer to detain. So let me just say that, in my judgment, what we need to be doing is working with local law enforcement so that you have combined and leveraged Federal resources 

with local, and then you do not actually have to—that question is 

moot because you always have a Federal law enforcement officer 

involved. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, the problem with that is there is just 

not enough Federal law enforcement officers. And if a police officer 

in a small town in Texas or Alabama or New York captures somebody that they find to be illegally here, you do not have a Federal 

officer with them. At one point we had three or four Federal officers for the whole State of Alabama, and we have got thousands 

of local law enforcement officers who can arrest a U.S. Senator if 

12 

they violate the city’s ordinances. And I try to behave when I am 

in—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I was going to make a comment there, 

but in any event, in some of those areas, this is really where, for 

example, 287(g) can be useful. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is correct. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. And let me, if I might, provide an example. We recently had a situation in southern Missouri where that 

very issue arose involving a construction worksite, and the individuals were picked up by police who did not have a 287(g). But as 

we reminded them after the fact, the Missouri State Police do have 

a 287(g), and because they have that and have that appropriate coordination and oversight, they can deal with some of those situations. 

And so while I know 287(g) has come under criticism by many, 

there are, I think, some appropriate uses for it to leverage Federal 

authorities with local law enforcement. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I agree 287(g) provides a great opportunity. I do not think it is being aggressively used and not effectively used, and that is my concern. I hope you will reconsider. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Feinstein. 

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

Madam Secretary, I have been noodling your own statistics while 

this discussion has been going on, and let me tell you what I find. 

What I find is really an amazing display of increased assets at the 

border when you look at them. To raise Border Patrol agents by 

10,000, from 10,000 to 20,000, in 5 years is pretty amazing, and resources are doubled and tripled in other areas. It is very impressive. 

Where I look at this is in the criminal aspects of what is happening along the border, and I wanted to ask you to comment 

about this, the number of arrests, the number of drugs and guns 

seized. You have put out some of the numbers in your opening comments: the quintupling of border liaison officers now from just 10 

to 50. Yesterday I spent some time with the DEA talking with 

them about this. 

What it appears to me is that there is increasing drugs, increasing smuggling still along the border, despite the fact that a lot of 

the statistics show that Department Homeland Security has moved 

in the right direction. So there is almost a disconnect between all 

these agents and the increased criminality. 

The signing of the bill in your State is very perplexing. I come 

from the State with the largest number of immigrants. I do not 

support the Arizona law. And it is hard to understand, but I suspect it rests around people’s perception of increased violence. 

Would you comment? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Senator, and let me, if I might—I 

think your question goes to the whole issue of the drug cartels in 

Mexico and the critical importance to the country of our continued 

efforts with Mexico to break them up, because they literally have 

fingertips that go into communities all over the Nation. And because the fight is being taken to them both on the southern side 

13 

of the border and the northern side of the border, it is resulting in 

an environment in Mexico, and in northern Mexico in particular, 

that is more violent. 

There is a concern among people who live just north of that in 

the southern part of the United States, will that spill over? And we 

have not seen generally across that border a wave of spillover violence. Indeed, the criminal statistics in cities like El Paso would 

suggest it is one of the safest cities in the United States. But what 

we want to do is prevent cartel violence in that fashion from spilling over into the United States. 

The problem in Arizona is that they are an exception to that 

rule, where in Phoenix there have been over the last years a record 

number of stash houses for illegal immigration and drugs and the 

like, and battles between kind of the end distributors, as it were, 

for these different cartels in Phoenix. 

And so even though statistically Arizona is better than it was 

several years ago, nonetheless, it is a place where there is a perception that there is spillover violence. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me ask you a question. Smuggling boats 

have become more common off the coast of southern California. 

These boats smuggle both people and narcotics across the border 

and onto public beaches in San Diego and Orange County. According to your Department, the San Diego DHS Maritime Unified 

Command saw a more than sixfold increase in maritime drug interdictions in the Pacific waters extending from the southwest border 

in fiscal year 2009 compared to the amount seized in fiscal year 

2008. They tell us that, despite robust efforts, only 25 to 30 percent 

of these vessels are being discovered by U.S authorities. It is our 

understanding that more maritime patrol aircraft with sensors able 

to detect these vessels may be helpful. 

What do you know about this? And what are you doing about it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Actually, as efforts on land are successful, you see the expansion into maritime, both in the Pacific and 

in the Atlantic. And so with the Coast Guard as primary and lead, 

we are looking at what should our strategy be, how do we intercept 

these both on sea and with aerial surveillance. We are seeing an 

increased use of the submersibles to transport drugs into the continental United States. Those are difficult. We are also seeing the 

use of the ultra lights, which are these very small aircraft, to try 

to ping, if I can use that phrase, you know, drugs across the border. 

So all of those are resulting in us constantly looking at do we 

have the right deployment, the right equipment, the right resources where they need to be, emphasizes our need for absolute 

flexibility to move resources around very, very quickly, but also, I 

think, evidence that statistics are one thing, but we are actually 

having an operational impact on land. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I wanted to go to one other thing before my 

time is up, and this is an area where I have a grievance, and I hate 

to bring it up here. But I wrote you a letter about it a month ago 

and did not get an answer, so I am going to bring it up here. 

In 2005 and 2006, FEMA awarded three grants to the University 

of California-Berkeley to complete hazardous fuel reduction 

projects in the hills surrounding the campus. This is a fire-prone, 

14 

volatile, potentially catastrophic effort. Despite the urgency of this 

project, FEMA has taken 58 months to reach the relatively simple 

conclusion that it required an environmental review. 

I have met with the people. The university has come in. I think 

it is just dreadful that you cannot move a small grant to a university in 5 years. What do you know about it? What is the problem? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. What I know about it is I am very unhappy that this has taken that long. I have asked FEMA to work 

with Berkeley to resolve this. The substantive issue is the environmental issue, but this involves, I suspect, how to handle those large 

eucalyptus trees that ring the campus and, of course, the fires that 

occur in the hills around there. And so I have asked FEMA to light 

a fire under itself, get together with the folks at Cal Berkeley and 

see what we can do. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. My time is up, but would you follow up on 

it? Because it just falls between the cracks. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Got it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that, and I am not going to let 

you off the hook. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Got it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

you, Madam Secretary, and the work that you are trying to do and 

are doing. 

As you know, Utah is the crossroads of the West, and we have 

people coming in and out of there all the time, and we have appreciated the extra help that you have provided. I think it benefits our 

country as a whole. 

As we talk about the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the 

United States, I think of the immigrant community in my home 

State of Utah, those who have followed the law, waited their turn, 

got in line, sometimes even up to 20 years, in order to legally come 

to the United States. Now, it seems to me their efforts to abide by 

our laws would be completely discounted by amnesty or so-called 

pathway to citizenship. 

As a former U.S. Attorney and Governor of Arizona, do you believe amnesty for illegal aliens in the United States is the only way 

we can solve our illegal immigration problem? And does this not go 

against the very principles of our legal system? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I do not believe amnesty is part 

of the solution. However, I do believe that what is being looked at 

and reviewed for those already illegally in the country in terms of 

how they get right with the law is not amnesty. It is a series of 

sanctions that they would have to go through, and I also believe 

that what is being examined would not leapfrog them ahead of 

those who are already in line to get their citizenship. 

Senator HATCH. In other words, you feel that they would have to 

get in line like anybody else and have to comply with the laws. 

Would they have to go back to their own country under your view? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. In my view—— 

Senator HATCH. In order to get in line. 

15 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. In my view, no. In my view, that would 

be a huge administrative task to have people have to go back to 

their countries, re-register with embassies, and cross legally. In my 

view, what we need is a system where individuals pay a fine, register, provide us with their biometrics—we want to know who they 

are; we want to increase that capacity—learn English, have paid 

their taxes, and perhaps pay a sanction in addition on their taxes 

themselves as a fine for breaking the law. 

Senator HATCH. Would you ask at the outset if a system—I am 

sorry. I talk fairly softly. If a system is finally arrived at, Congressionally or otherwise, would you first ask whether they want to be 

citizens? Because my understanding is there is a significant number who would not want to be citizens. They just want a job. They 

want to be able to support their families. But would you think that 

part of a process of resolving these problems would be to ask them 

whether they want citizenship or just want to be a guest worker? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That I think is something that is part of 

the dialog we need to have with the Congress. To me, from an enforcement perspective, in my judgment, the first—you know, the 

goal is to have some mechanism by which those illegally in the 

country are required to come out of the shadows, to register, to give 

us their biometrics, to have a clean criminal and tax record, to pay 

a fine for breaking our laws. You know, there can be—I could see 

different paths taken by those who wish to simply remain versus 

those who seek citizenship. That is something that I think the Congress needs to debate. 

Senator HATCH. Now, you have been Governor of Arizona, and 

you have seen the recent legislation that the current Governor has 

signed. As I view that legislation, of course, I believe States do 

have rights to try and solve their problems. The question is they 

have to do it constitutionally. 

Now, as I view that law, it basically says they have to have reasonable reason to detain anybody, and not only that, it should not 

be based upon ethnicity or gender, et cetera. 

What is your opinion concerning the law there in Arizona? And 

what would you like to see done about it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, as I said earlier, Senator, that law 

does not take effect until 90 days after close of the Arizona legislative session. So I think the first thing that needs to be done is for 

the Justice Department to review whether the law is constitutional 

under the laws governing the Supremacy Clause and under the 

laws governing preemption and the case law governing preemption. 

So that I think really, as you suggest, is the first thing that needs 

to be done: Is it constitutional or not? 

Senator HATCH. Yes. And do you want to venture your personal 

opinion on whether it is or is not? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Not at this hearing, sir. 

Senator HATCH. OK. Now, it is my understanding that, to date, 

$761 million has been authorized for the Secure Border Initiative 

Network, with the actual cost of $625 million. In March, you decided that the virtual fence on the border with Mexico was such a 

failure that it no longer deserved continued funding. Instead, you 

have directed investment in commercially available technology to 

16 

secure our border from illegal entries. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the program’s failure is at the taxpayer’s expense. 

Has SBInet yielded any benefit to the taxpayer? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There are two blocks, Senator, that are 

now at the phase—well, the first block, called the Tucson block, is 

at the phase of operational testing, and I am told that that initial 

testing now looks promising. However, for the amount of money 

spent and given alternative and other kinds of technologies that 

are almost off-the-shelf available, I have really put this thing to a 

severe or a serious analysis as to whether we should build out the 

rest of it or whether those technology dollars should be deployed 

for other kinds of technologies. 

Senator HATCH. When combined the pedestrian fence, how effective are functional portions of the virtual fence in basically stopping the flow of illegal immigrants from entering the United 

States? And do you think we should build more reinforced physical 

fencing along the southwest border? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You mean like double or triple fencing, 

that sort of thing? 

Senator HATCH. Right. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, I have asked the CBP to look at that 

very question and also a related question whether some of the existing fencing that is single layer should be double or triple. And 

they have promised to get back to me soon with their look at that. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary. I appreciate 

your testimony here today. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this very important hearing. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I am going to turn to Minnesota for a second. Four years ago, 

ICE carried out actions in meatpacking plants in Minnesota and in 

five other States. One second grader in Worthington, Minnesota, 

came home that night to find his 2-year-old brother alone and his 

mother and father missing. For the next week, the boy, a U.S. citizen, no less than you or I, stayed at home caring for his brother 

while his grandmother traveled to Worthington by bus to care for 

them. 

Current ICE guidelines allow States social service agencies to 

interview new detainees to help identify if there are abandoned 

children. This is important because many detainees are afraid to 

tell ICE officials that they have children at home, afraid that they 

may be detained as well. But these guidelines only cover enforcement at worksites and target 25 or more individuals. 

Do you have any plans of expanding these guidelines to other 

smaller enforcement actions? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, let me check with you, but I believe informally, if not formally, that is the principle on which we 

act to make sure that any child—and as you know, we have 

changed how we do worksite enforcement, and that will probably 

be the subject of some other questions. But we have changed how 

we do enforcement actions at—— 

Senator FRANKEN. But that has not occurred formally, has it? 

17 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me see if it has actually been put on 

paper. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. Thank you. Get back to me on that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Senator FRANKEN. As you mentioned, your State of Arizona 

passed—and as members have mentioned—a new law requiring 

law enforcement officers to verify the immigration status of every 

individual they encounter if they think the person might be undocumented, and it does not matter if it is a victim of domestic violence, an injured person in a traffic accident. No matter what, their 

status will be checked. 

You have spoken about the constitutionality of the law. I want 

to ask you a separate question. Can you tell me what impact you 

think this will have on the relationship between law enforcement 

and the communities that they serve? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed, Senator, and let me be very clear. 

The constitutional analysis is a separate analysis from whether the 

law is misguided or not. And the constitutional analysis is being 

done at the Justice Department. I have already said—and my 

record will demonstrate—I think these kinds of laws are not valueadded to law enforcement. There is a reason why most law enforcement groups, chiefs of police and the like, oppose them. And your 

question relates to one of those reasons, which is the undue barrier 

it puts between crime victims, human-trafficking victims, for example, a growing problem that we are trying to deal with in the 

United States, and law enforcement. 

So constitutional or not, there are some real law enforcement 

reasons why laws like that are misguided. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. I noticed in both your written testimony and your testimony here today that you are using more K– 

9 teams along the border to detect both currency and weapons. 

When I was at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport a couple months 

ago—it was actually not long after the Christmas incident—the 

issue in the public discussion was these full-body scanners. And I 

talked to the director of the airport there, and I asked if dogs might 

be more effective in detecting explosives. And the director of the 

airport said that, in fact, they—he was very excited about the fact 

that they were getting some dogs. And he was just very happy for 

the reason that I had indicated. 

Could you speak for a moment to the effectiveness of dogs in 

homeland security, both at airports and along borders, and whether 

we are going to be scaling up their use? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I love dogs. Dogs can be trained 

to—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Me, too. Me, too. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, dogs can be trained—— 

Chairman LEAHY. We all love dogs. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We all love dogs. Well, dogs can be 

trained to sniff narcotics, bulk cash, arms. We are using them—explosives, and we are using them in all those ways, in airports and 

at ports of entry along the land, in the land ports. And the President’s budget and our internal deployment of resources is increasing the number of dogs as fast as we can. 

18 

Senator FRANKEN. Good. You mentioned human trafficking. A recent Kansas City Star article found that many undocumented victims of trafficking are being deported before they are screened for 

trafficking. I find this disturbing. These people are victims of horrible crimes, but we are not even taking the time to figure that out 

and to prosecute the people who traffic them. 

How are you making sure that potential trafficking victims are 

identified before undocumented individuals are deported? Overall, 

how does the Department of Homeland Security promote cooperation between ICE, the DOJ, the FBI, and community organizations 

to build trust and promote successful prosecutions of human traffickers? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, we have embarked on a very 

significant anti-human-trafficking campaign. A signal part of it is 

training law enforcement and providing law enforcement training 

on how to distinguish or detect the symptoms of trafficking, find 

victims, and deal with victims. Indeed, I just taped part of a law 

enforcement training video just this week that will be used. Demi 

Moore will also be in the video. We will probably get confused, but 

that is another question. 

Senator FRANKEN. You should just put a little chiron or super 

underneath. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think so. 

Senator FRANKEN. To make sure that does not happen. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. But that is part of our program. That 

program will be offered also at FLETC, which is where we train 

Federal law enforcement officers. They will be being trained on 

some of these issues about human trafficking, and we are going to 

embark over the course of the year on a public campaign on how 

to tell the difference, and also how human-trafficking victims can 

get access to law enforcement. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Kyl. 

Senator KYL. Thank you. Welcome, Madam Secretary. 

Let me just begin, I am going to focus on the southwest border, 

particularly Arizona, as you might expect. I thought Senator Feinstein made an important point earlier when she noted that, at least 

over the last 5 years, we have devoted a significant amount of resources to trying to control the border and enforce the law, and yet 

troubling that progress seems to be somewhat uneven. I think overall we have made significant progress. Part of that is undoubtedly 

due to the recession. One of the big concerns is when we get back 

to a need for more employment, what will happen. And I think everybody is concerned about that. 

But I suggest that the employment of the various things that you 

have mentioned here do work. The question is: Have we done 

enough of it yet? I think we know what works, and what I would 

like to do is just focus on the three key elements of what I think 

works. It is a combination of things. It is having adequate resources in terms of personnel, particularly Border Patrol; some degree of fencing, which is a big assistance to the Border Patrol; and, 

19 

third, detention of violators, Operation Streamline, which I will 

focus on in a moment. 

I think we can conclude this by a tale of two sectors, both in Arizona—the Yuma sector and the Tucson sector. Now, to be sure, the 

Tucson sector is large by some number of miles, although they both 

have proximity to interstate highways. One of them, the Yuma sector, has reduced illegal immigration to virtually nothing, while the 

other, the Tucson sector, represents about half of all of the illegal 

immigration in the entire United States, right through Nogales, 

Tucson, Douglas, the other cities along the border there. 

What is the difference? In the Yuma sector, we have now completed the double fencing, in some cases even triple fencing. It is 

tremendous. I know your agents all believe it has done a lot for 

them. Two, they have an adequate number of Border Patrol. By the 

way, there is some concern that because they are short in other 

sectors, some of them might be transferred, and I hope you can 

commit that they will not be, that now that we have Yuma under 

control, we will keep it that way. And, third, Operation Streamline, 

which over the course of time meant that anybody that crosses the 

border will go to jail. And because a fair number, at least 10 and 

upwards of 15 or 16 percent, are criminals, obviously that is a good 

thing if they go to jail. For those who want work, they cannot make 

money while they are in jail, so they tend not to want to cross in 

those areas where they know they will go to jail. And that is exactly what they know will happen in the Yuma sector. 

So the combination of those three things has worked to bring immigration down, illegal immigration down in the last 5 years. The 

number was about 118,500 apprehensions 5 years ago; it is now 

down to about 5,000 so far this year. Tremendous progress. Whereas, in the Tucson sector, we still have about 241,000 apprehensions 

so far this year. Now, that is down from what it used to be, but 

still, obviously, far too many. 

We know that we need additional fencing in the Tucson sector. 

I know that your agents, for example, would like to replace—and 

I think you alluded to this a moment ago maybe generally—to replace the old fencing with a fence that they can see through because it is dangerous for them right now and not very effective. We 

need additional personnel there, and the Operation Streamline is 

virtually non-existent in the Tucson sector. 

Madam Secretary, you are right that resources are a key issue, 

and it is significantly a matter of court resources—judges, clerks, 

U.S. marshals, and so on. But I think Senator Sessions was right, 

that it is not just a matter of resources but of our will to make it 

work. And in that regard, we have requested—and as you know, 

the Congress is supposed to receive a study or was to receive it on 

December 27th from the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security detailing what would be necessary in 

the way of resources and what the costs would be to effectuate a 

more complete Operation Streamline in key areas of the border. 

Now, I have got three basic questions here. In the 2011 budget— 

let us just talk about Border Patrol—first, there was going to be 

a cut of 187. You then since asked them to amend that so that 

there would be no cut, but no increase either. In the 2010 conference report, there is a requirement that the northern border inVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Jan 13, 2011 Jkt 063274 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\63274.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
20 

crease the number of agents from 1,525 to 2,212. You have said 

that you would maintain a force of 17,000 along the southern border. Actually, it is 17,400 right now. 

Question: How can you increase the number on the northern border, keep the number on the southern border the same, with a 

budget that does not increase any agents? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, first of all, going to your list of 

three, I would add a fourth, and that is technology in addition to 

infrastructure, Streamline, and personnel. 

Senator KYL. By fencing, I include technology in that with all of 

the cameras, the sensors, the radars that are—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. There is the mobile system. 

Senator KYL. Sure. You bet. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. They are somewhat different. 

The answer is—and we can provide your staff at the briefing that 

is, I think, set for later this week—moving people who are in nonon-the-line positions to on-the-line positions. It is in reducing travel 

costs so we can deploy those costs to personnel. It is in really looking at how we move folks around. 

Let me just suggest, however, Senator, it is very difficult in the 

end when there are mandates that you have to have X here and 

Y there, because people move and the immigration moves. 

Senator KYL. Right. If I could just interrupt because I want to 

get to the other two questions. My understanding is DHS helped 

to write the law that requires the additional troops on the northern 

border. I think we need more Border Patrol. I hope that you will 

ask for them. Congress will provide them if you do. 

Second, on fencing, the budget has enough fencing for 1 mile of 

physical fence. That is inadequate, isn’t it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am sorry. I could not hear your question. 

Senator KYL. The 2011 budget includes enough funding for 1 

mile of physical fence. We need more than that, do we not? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Senator, it includes the budget to 

complete what Congress has originally before it. We can and should 

look at what other areas could require fence, but I also think we 

need to be looking at what areas need new kinds of fence for additional—— 

Senator KYL. Yes, of course. You yourself testified, though, 

that—I forgot the numbers, but there would at least be 30, 40, 50, 

or 60 miles of fencing yet to be concluded under the original Congressional intent. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the original Congressional intent 

was to match up with the DHS operational plan, which was 700 

miles. What has happened is as fencing has gone in with other 

technology, the 700 miles has become 653.3, or right around there, 

and we are just about at that number. 

Senator KYL. Well, we know we need more fencing in the Tucson 

sector, and I hope that that will be part of your recommendation. 

Let me, because my time is up now, just mention on Operation 

Streamline, the whole point here—you said it is a matter of resources. Senator Sessions said it is a matter of policy. It is both. 

I think our policy should be to expand it. We have asked you to 

21 

tell us what resources are necessary. Please do that. If you do, I 

suspect Congress will provide them. 

Until that is done, we are going to continue to have numbers like 

we do in the Tucson sector, and you are going to continue to have 

efforts like the Arizona law because the people realize we are not 

doing everything that we could do to stem illegal immigration 

through our border. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator Kyl, I appreciate that. As you 

know, Streamline, I think, is an important part of a toolbox of 

things that need to be done. I am not sure that I would equate 

Streamline with the Arizona law. I think there are a lot of other 

reasons for that. But I will certainly get with the Attorney General 

to report back to you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. [Presiding.] All right. Just to recap, since 

I have taken the chair, Senator Schumer will be next. After that, 

Senator Grassley has the right, but if he is not available, Senator 

Graham. And we will bring Senator Grassley back into the rotation. And then Senator Cardin on our side and Senator Cornyn. 

Senator Schumer. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, and I want to thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. You have done an excellent job so far chairing this hearing, as usual. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SCHUMER. I want to thank you, Secretary Napolitano. 

You have done an excellent job so far as well, and you have a little 

longer tenure than Chairman Whitehouse has as Secretary. 

Anyway, my first question relates to something that is bothering 

me, and that is the Securing the Cities program. Securing the Cities is a federally funded effort to protect New York City from the 

threat of a makeshift nuclear device or dirty bomb. Every time 

New Yorkers hear about the threat of a potential terrorist attack 

from al Qaeda or other extreme groups, of course, it sends chills 

down our spines. Everyone remembers 9/11. I think of the guy I 

played basketball with who died or a businessman who helped me 

on the way up or a firefighter who lived in my neighborhood who 

I worked with closely. 

So this is really important, and New York has taken extraordinary efforts on its own. Ray Kelly has done a great job to make 

sure that we are never attacked again, and I know that obviously 

is mostly a Federal responsibility. 

But one of the things that we have done is set up this Securing 

the Cities program, and it provides New Yorkers with the reassurance that their Government is working hard to protect them from 

a radiological or dirty bomb. It uses the available technology at all 

the bridges and tunnels and major highways to prevent that from 

being brought into the country. It is expensive. And we already in 

New York shoulder far too much—an unfair amount of the burden 

in protecting our city from terrorism. 

For instance, I live in Brooklyn. We have to station police officers 

24/7 on the Brooklyn Bridge because it is mentioned—it is now 

public; we are not giving anything away—as a target for terrorist 

attacks. 

And so I was truly upset when, for the second year in a row, the 

President eliminated funding for Securing the Cities in the fiscal 

22 

year 2011 budget. It would be a tragedy. The program has now 

reached a critical near-operational stage. The New York Police Department has developed a fully operational mobile detection program and completed a substantial amount of work toward putting 

in place the radiological defensive ring around Manhattan and the 

city. 

Without continued investment, all this work will go down the 

drain. This is obviously important, and I do not understand why 

OMB zeroed this out. I recently requested $30 million in appropriations for it, and I would like to get your support for this program. 

You are head of Homeland Security. You know the dangers of a 

dirty bomb. You know New York is far and away the No. 1 target. 

This idea, well, we will let everyone apply and see who should get 

some money, it does not work because we have to plan. And this 

year-to-year existence does not allow long-term planning. It does 

not allow investing in things that cost more in the second year and 

the third year. I thought we had been through this fight last year 

when we eventually got some money, but it took a lot of work. 

So what is going on here? Why the heck would OMB zero it out? 

What can we do to get it restored? And can we have your support? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Senator. If I could get myself into 

the head of OMB, I believe that their reasoning is because there 

had been 50-some-odd million appropriated in fiscal year 2009 and 

30-plus million of that still was yet to be drawn down, that there 

did not need to be another tranche of money added to that. I am 

just telling—— 

Senator SCHUMER. I know. I—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am speaking as OMB. 

Senator SCHUMER. I had long talks with Peter Orszag. The 

money is all accounted for. We know what it will be drawn down 

for, but you cannot say you have to get it down to zero before you 

get more money as you are negotiating contracts and figuring out 

what to do with it, and that is the stupidity—that is what I would 

call it—of what OMB is saying. They know that is not good budgeting. They know that you should not let something go to zero and 

then start all over again when you have an ongoing program that 

takes several years to put together, 1 year building on the next. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I will be happy to re-engage 

with OMB on this, but there is another point your question has in 

it that I think is very important for the Department as a whole, 

and that is, being able to look at how grants are done in a way that 

is more than year to year to year to year, but to really look at them 

structurally in terms of how cities and States really operate and 

what needs to be done there. That is something that I have asked 

our folks to begin really looking at. The current methodology may 

not be the best kind of methodology, but I will be happy to re-engage OMB. 

Senator SCHUMER. Can you help us? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will be happy to re-engage OMB. 

Senator SCHUMER. In a positive way? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. In a positive way. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. I consider that good enough to say 

you will help us, so thank you. 

23 

All right. And I am not asking you to do it publicly, although I 

just did. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. What else do you need? 

Senator SCHUMER. Yes. Well, I have got a few other items here. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Senator SCHUMER. Northern border strategy. My friend Senator 

Kyl was talking about the southern border. When we are sitting on 

the northern border, we think the southern border is getting most 

of the resources and attention, and I understand the problem of 

drug interdiction across the southern border is real. But as you 

know, the numbers for Canada are going way up. I think the number of arrests in New York for crack and cocaine that has come in 

from Canada is in large multiples. I do not remember the numbers, 

but almost like 1:18 or 1:10 compared to 2, 3 years ago. 

And so we have set up—and this has worked out well—HIDTAs, 

the High-Intensity Drug-Trafficking Areas, and we have several 

counties in upstate New York that are part of this. What do you 

think of HIDTA? What can we do to further prevent drug interdiction on the northern border? And to begin with, do you agree it is 

a growing and serious problem? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, and I would add methamphetamine 

to that mix. 

Senator SCHUMER. Yes, for sure. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I used to be Chair of a HIDTA. I used to 

be Chair of the Arizona HIDTA. I believe when, well done, it can 

be an effective way of leveraging resources and also leverages Federal, State, and local monies. And so the answer is—what do I 

think of HIDTAs? On the whole, I think HIDTAs are very effective. 

Senator SCHUMER. Can we get any more help? There is a cut in 

the HIDTA for the northern border. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me take a look at it. 

Senator SCHUMER. Would you? Thanks. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. 

One thing I wanted to say, and then I want to read a statement 

about a bill I have introduced and not ask you to comment on either one of my first two statements. Then I will go to questions. 

No. 1, I just came back from the spring break with 24 town meetings, and one of the strong messages that came through was people 

irritated because they feel that the immigration laws are not being 

adequately enforced. And I just want to bring that message back 

to you. 

Then the second point I would make in regard to the Christmas 

Day bomber attempt. It highlighted the need to review our visa 

policies, especially how our agencies handle visa revocations when 

alarming information is provided authorities. You, Madam Secretary, have the authority to revoke a visa to any individual who 

is a threat to this country. Revocations are done frequently. However, if the foreign national makes it to our U.S. soil, there is concern about that person accessing our court system and challenging 

revocation. 

24 

So I introduced a bill that would treat visa revocations similar 

to visa denials because the right of that person to be in the United 

States would no longer be valid. My bill applies the same standard 

for an individual on U.S. soil who should not have been granted a 

visa, limiting their rights to judicial review of such a decision. The 

Christmas Day bomber reminded us that, despite our best efforts, 

foreign terrorists can obtain a visa and make it to the United 

States. 

Given this vulnerability, I hope that you would look at and view 

judicial review for visa revocations for known terrorists on U.S. 

soil, that if they should not have been here in the first place, they 

should not have access to our courts. And I would hope that you 

would agree that a change in law, if it is needed and you cannot 

do it on your own, that the visa revocations would not be reviewable in a court and that people who wish to harm Americans could 

be deported immediately. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Two things, Senator Grassley. One is I 

would like to offer to give you and your staff the most current numbers on immigration enforcement, because I think there is a difference between perception and reality. The enforcement numbers 

have never been more robust in terms of our Nation’s immigration 

laws, and so I think that would be helpful when you have town 

meetings to actually provide the actual numbers. 

Second, I would be happy to look at your proposed legislation. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Thank you. 

Now, I am grateful that there has been a lot more attention to 

the problems of the H–1B visa program. I applaud your Department and Director Mayorkas for working to eliminate abuses by 

employers and stop third-party placements, so our success in highlighting the problem with the H–1B visa program has led some to 

seek other avenues to enter and remain in the United States. 

So this is how I see it. I see companies now resorting to the L 

visa, a program that allows workers from one company to work in 

their branches in affiliates in the United States. It is understandable why companies would go around the H visa and use the L. 

There are no wage protections, no annual numerical limits, fewer 

obligations on employers, and, thus, fewer protections for American 

workers. 

The Inspector General found problems in 2006 with the L visa 

program, stating, ‘‘It is vulnerable in several respects.’’ Department 

of Health and Human Services agents would agree with the Inspector General, so I would give you a few examples. One case showed 

that an individual petitioned for himself, came in on an L visa, created a shell company that did not exist, and thanks to a site visit, 

was obviously not doing business at the claimed address. Another 

case showed that a petitioner never worked at the foreign affiliate, 

forged documents to enter our country, and the office he claims to 

be working in in the United States never existed. Another case 

showed that managerial experience, while required, was not a prerequisite for visa issuance. In fact, an individual from Turkey was 

running a pizza parlor, claiming to supervise two employees, and 

I am pretty sure that you do not—pizza would not qualify for an 

L visa. 

25 

So questions. Let me ask five questions kind of related. Fraud 

Detection and National Security Directorate is working on a report 

on the L–1 visa abuse. Could you tell me if that has been finished? 

And can you share that information with me? Let me stop there 

on those two questions before I go on to the other two. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sitting right here, Senator, I do not know 

the answers to those questions, but I will get that to you. 

I will say that Director Mayorkas and his group have really been 

working on making sure those visa programs are really run well 

and that we are really looking at the whole issue of fraud. 

I would also say that on the H–1B visas that you mentioned earlier, it is very interesting that the actual number of applications is 

down substantially this year. That in and of itself allows us to 

focus more on making sure that these programs are scrupulously 

run. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. I think you just answered the other two 

questions of three, but the extent to which I say there are problems, I described the problems. You might disagree with whether 

or not there are L visa problems. But if you would agree with me 

that there are problems, would you consider administrative action 

to fix the program? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, and let me, if I might—first of all, 

I was just mentioned, I think the IG report was 2006, and we often 

have this issue where their reports——changes we have already 

made are in advance of when the reports come out. There is a disconnect in terms of timing. But let me commit that we will look at 

that and get back to you as soon as possible. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. I have got several questions on E-verify. 

Let me pick out one here because my time is pretty much up. I recently sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget about 

my concern that economic stimulus dollars were going to foreign 

companies or to companies that manufacture products abroad. The 

purpose of the Recovery Act was to stimulate the U.S. economy and 

bolster our employment. So in that vein, we should also be making 

sure that recipients of these dollars are hiring workers that are legally authorized to work within the United States. The Executive 

order signed by President Obama requires that contractors of the 

Federal Government use E-verify. 

Could you confirm that recipients of stimulus dollars are using 

the E-verify system? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, and I can confirm that the number 

of companies using E-verify is growing by great multiples every 

week and that the accuracy of the system, the system itself, is 

much better than when it was originally started. So a lot of the reports of error rates and the like are, in fact, erroneous. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. If you would look into that further, I 

would appreciate it. Then I have another question I will give you 

for answering in writing. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. OK. 

[The question appears under questions and answers.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

26 

Secretary Napolitano, it is a pleasure to have you before the 

Committee. Thank you very much for your service on this very important area of our homeland security. 

I want to go into cybersecurity for a few moments, if I might. In 

November of last year, the Terrorism Subcommittee of this Committee, which I chair, had, I think, a very interesting hearing in 

which we heard from Government witnesses as well as private sector witnesses as to the vulnerability of America in regards to cyber 

attacks. We all know about the criminal elements that are used in 

cyber attacks to steal money from the people of this Nation. There 

is more money stolen from banks today through cyber theft than 

there was during the bank robbery days. 

We also know that there are cyber terrorists out there who would 

like to compromise our country in many different ways. If they can 

disrupt our air traffic for just a short period of time—you know 

what the volcanic ash caused. Bringing our cyber down for a few 

days could run havoc with our National economy, or getting into 

our banking system or getting into our utility grid. 

We also know that there are foreign states that are trying to attack our country through cyber. So this is of an interest not just 

to the Department of Justice for crime or your Department for terrorists but also the Department of Defense on national security 

issues, all of which is involved. 

So our hearing showed that there has been a long-time neglect 

of the coordinated efforts between all the agencies of Government 

and that we are not as safe as we need to be, that we do have the 

best technology in the world against cyber attack, but we still are 

vulnerable. The number used at that time is that we are only stopping about 80 percent of the attacks on cyber crime or cyber issues 

in our community. 

My question to you is: With the development of a cyber person 

in the White House, with that appointment, with the President 

moving forward with a cyber command within DOD with General 

Alexander, can you tell us how your role and your Department’s 

role will be in the cybersecurity issues? This is not just a military 

issue. This is an issue that affects our homeland security. And I am 

interested as to what type of priority this has on your agenda and 

what you are doing in relationship to what the President has announced for a cyber head in the White House as well as what is 

happening in DOD? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Senator. First of all, in our Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, which was the first ever for DHS, 

we actually identified protection of cyberspace as one of our five 

major mission areas, in addition to counterterrorism, border security, immigration, disaster preparation and response. We did so because of the things that you laid out. 

Within our Department, it is primarily located in NPPD because 

of the intersection with critical infrastructure and with the private 

sector. We view ourselves and the President’s review puts us as 

primarily responsible for the civilian side of Government in terms 

of protection and the intersection with the private sector, which is 

where 85 percent of the critical infrastructure of the country is. 

And so we have lined up there. 

27 

The one principal exception to that is that the Secret Service has 

a very effective and longstanding cyber crimes and cyber forensic 

capacity within the Secret Service, so that remains there, but virtually everything else is within the NPPD. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I just urge you to give this the highest priority because I think we have the technology to do a lot better than 

we are doing today. We just need to make sure that like all intelligence information is shared, we have a common objective on cybersecurity. And you are absolutely correct. The private sector vulnerability is clear. The Government is in better shape, but we still 

are vulnerable. And we are vulnerable to what happens in the private sector. So this is all very much interrelated and comes very 

much under homeland security. 

I want to go back to one of the principal recommendations of the 

9/11 Commission that has yet to be implemented. The 9/11 Commission correctly concluded that the choice between security and 

liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger 

America’s liberty than the success of a terrorist attack at home, 

which I strongly support. But then it recommended that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board be reconstituted to ensure 

that liberty concerns are appropriately considered in the implementation of laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to 

efforts to protect the Nation against terrorism. 

Now, I have been in the Senate long enough to know that when 

we deal with the tools necessary that agencies need to protect us 

against terrorist attacks, we still have a fight going on here, and 

it has been difficult for us to move legislation because of the concern as to whether these tools will be used properly and whether 

civil liberties will be protected. It seems to me having this board 

in place would help us in dealing with legitimate concerns raised 

by the civil liberty issues so that we do not have this continuous 

fight every time we try to extend a sunset provision or to deal with 

this issue generally. The administration has requested $2 million for salaries and expenses. However, we do not have the nominees for the board. 

Can you just update us as to the status of the reconstitution of 

this board that was recommended by the 9/11 Commission? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, that is probably a question better directed at the White House. All I will say is, A, it is a false 

dichotomy between security and civil liberties, and we build privacy 

and privacy protections into really the outset as how we are looking 

at technologies and different things that we are doing. 

Second, we have suggested to the White House some appropriate 

names for possible nominations, but I think the actual status of the 

nominees should be directed at the White House. 

Senator CARDIN. I understand that the responsibility is with the 

White House to make these appointments, but I know that you 

have the opportunity to weigh in on this. I would just urge you that 

if you want our cooperation on budget support, et cetera, it is a lot 

easier if we have nominees to consider. And it may take some time 

for that process to go forward. I would urge you to use your position and voice within the Cabinet to get this issue moving forward. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

28 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, welcome. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Senator GRAHAM. You have one of the toughest jobs in America. 

You are dealing with so many issues. And I would argue there is 

no more challenging issue facing America than immigration reform. 

Would you agree with that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would say it was among the top issues, 

yes, indeed. 

Senator GRAHAM. Having been involved in trying to find a solution in the past, I can assure you it is difficult politics, but here 

is where I have come down on this issue. I think 70 percent of 

Americans are in the camp that illegal immigrants need to be fairly 

and firmly dealt with, and fairly and firmly does not mean mass 

arrests. Do you believe we can put 12 million people in jail? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No. 

Senator GRAHAM. Nor do I. And I believe that is not a required 

solution. Do you believe that we are going to deport 12 million people? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No. 

Senator GRAHAM. I do not believe that is going to happen either. 

And I would say to what Senator Sessions said, all of us kind of 

look the other way as long as the labor needs are being met. After 

9/11, illegal immigration takes on a different flavor. It is not about 

people helping our economy. It is about broken systems that could 

lead to attacks on the country. 

Isn’t it true that all the hijackers, 9/11 hijackers, did not come 

across the southern border, they overstayed their visas? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I believe that to be true. 

Senator GRAHAM. And isn’t it also true that one hijacker had, I 

think, up to 18 or 19 multiple driver’s licenses that were faked? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would have to double-check. 

Senator GRAHAM. Just say yes because I know I am right on this 

one. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It sounds like you are asking me a real 

question. 

Senator GRAHAM. Just go along with me here for a while because 

I can prove what I am saying on this. And the point of the matter 

is that there are two problems in America: an unsecured southern 

border and a visa system that is completely broken. 

Do you agree with me that the worst thing we could do is bring 

up immigration reform and it crash and burn politically? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You know, Senator, I think that, as you 

and I have discussed and I have discussed with other members of 

the Committee, the administration looks forward to taking up immigration comprehensively and dealing with the visa issues, the 

enforcement issues, workers—— 

Senator GRAHAM. And so do I. I look forward to it. Do we have 

60 votes to bring up comprehensive immigration reform between 

now and November? Are there 60 United States Senators ready to 

deal with this issue between now and November? 

29 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I am not going to presume to 

put myself in the place of counting votes of—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, the only reason I would suggest that we 

need to know is because it is important. Somebody needs to talk 

to Senator—Republicans—but Nelson, Lincoln, Webb, Baucus, 

Byrd, McCaskill, Tester, Dorgan, Conrad, Pryor, and Bingaman. 

Some of these people voted no in 2007. And I am not saying they 

were wrong to vote no. I am saying that the 2007 bill would not 

pass. Do you agree with that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. As you state the question, I would give 

you a tentative yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. I would bet everything I own that the answer 

is this 2007 bill will not pass. And you agree with that or not? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will bet you everything I own that the 

Congress needs to take up immigration reform because it is not 

going to go away. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, ma’am. It will not go away. But I bet you 

everything I own, if you bring it up in this environment, not having 

done anything that is going to reassure the American public that 

we will not have 20 million more, that you are going to crash and 

burn, and that immigration comes up this year is absolutely devastating to the future of this issue, and the southern border is not 

only not secure, there is a war in Mexico that is bleeding over to 

America. The mayor of Juarez has moved out of his city, and he 

is living in the United States. And I think most Americans think 

we will have lost our mind if we move forward without securing the 

border, because the biggest change between 2007 and now is that 

there is a war in Mexico threatening the Mexican Government that 

also threatens people who live along the border. And your State of 

Arizona is made up of a lot of good people. You would agree with 

that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Absolutely. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, look what good people will do when they 

are under siege. What happened in Arizona is that good people are 

so afraid of an out-of-control border that they had to resort to a law 

that I think is unconstitutional and does not represent the best 

way forward. And it is impossible for me and any other serious 

Democrat to get this body to move forward until we prove to the 

American people we can secure our borders. And, quite frankly, 

Madam Secretary, we have got a long way to go. But once we get 

there, comprehensive reform should come up, will come up, and I 

believe we can do it by 2012 if we are smart and we address the 

big elephant in the room, and that is that our borders are broken 

and there is a war going on that is going to affect the future of this 

issue until we get that solved. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, may I respond to that? 

Senator GRAHAM. Please. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. And I say this, again, as someone who 

has—I have walked that border. I have ridden that border. I have 

flown it. I have driven it. I know that border I think as well as anyone—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you think it is secure? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO.—And I will tell you, it is as secure now 

as it has ever been—— 

30 

Senator GRAHAM. My question—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, please, let me—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, please. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me answer the question. Every marker, every milepost that has been laid down by the Congress in 

terms of number of agents, deployment of technology, construction 

of fencing and the like has already either been completed or is 

within a hair’s breadth of being completed. And one of the questions I think we need to talk about is whether securing the border 

is ever going to be reached before the Congress, in the sense of the 

Congress, or whether that goalpost is just going to keep moving. 

And I also believe that we need to communicate better with the 

American people. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. All that the Congress has already done 

along that border—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I totally agree with that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is a very different border now. 

Senator GRAHAM. I totally agree with that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You know, 6, 7 years ago, the number of 

illegal apprehensions in the Tucson sector of the border was over 

600,000. Now it is 200,000—too many, I agree. But the securing 

the border aspect has moved forward, and the issue then is will 

CIR move forward, too? 

Senator GRAHAM. Under the law that we tried to pass in 2007, 

it required border State Governors to say that the border was secure along their border, their State border. Knowing what you 

know about Arizona—and, Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me 

a little bit, I would appreciate a little more time—would you say, 

would you certify that the Arizona border is secure? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. If I were asked that question now in this 

position—first of all, it is an unfair question, and that is why the 

border Governors—— 

Senator GRAHAM. If that is an unfair question, then it would be 

news to the—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, let me finish my answer. 

Senator GRAHAM.—people of the United States and Arizona. If it 

is unfair to ask a simple question, is the border secure, then we 

are never going to have the confidence to get it secure, because it 

is a fair question, and I will give you my answer. I do not think 

it is. I think since the last effort to solve immigration, the border 

security has deteriorated. Along with your best efforts, there is 

more to be done, and there is a war going on. You cannot ignore 

the fact that the border is more dangerous because of the war in 

Mexico, which requires more action not less. So I—I am sorry. Go 

ahead. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator Graham, let me, if I might. 

Senator GRAHAM. Please. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me respond the way I heard the 

question. Maybe you were answering a different question. 

Senator GRAHAM. OK. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. What I would say is that we need to continue with all of our efforts to secure the border, and the numbers 

are better than they have ever been. But that does not mean we 

31 

stop and that there is not more progress to be done. But I would 

also suggest, sir, I would also say that the passage of laws like that 

at the State level illustrate the need for Congress to move ahead 

on CIR. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, and I agree with you, and I will end this. 

The Chairman is right. Here is my view. I think the border is less 

secure because the circumstances of Mexico make it less secure. 

You have done some good things. A lot more needs to be done. For 

anybody who is watching this issue who wants relief in the Hispanic community, you deserve it. But the last thing that can ever 

happen, in my view, to get that relief is to bring up a bill where 

there is no hope of it passing. In this environment, there is no hope 

of it passing. Let us get this environment corrected on border security, move forward in a comprehensive fashion, secure the border, 

protect America, and be fair to the 12 million people, but also be 

firm that we are never going to have 20 million more in the future. 

That is the winning combination. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I thank my colleagues for allowing Senator Graham the extra time. Given the remarkable extent of his involvement in this issue, I think he was entitled to it, and I hope 

my colleagues understand. 

It has now come to me, Secretary, and I wanted to talk with you 

about two things: FEMA and cyber. I want to first thank you for 

your visit to Rhode Island after our flooding. I do not remember 

whether I called you on a Tuesday or a Wednesday, but I think you 

were there by Friday. It was a very, very quick response. You came 

up in person. It was important for Rhode Island to see that kind 

of attention. This was a very significant flood for us. There were 

places where the flooding exceeded the Army Corps of Engineers 

500-year flood lines. So your presence was very important, and I 

want to commend the effort of FEMA in deploying rapidly, in deploying widely, in deploying effectively. The presence has been 

first-rate, and the people who have come in from all across the 

country to help have been very good to work with. 

There is inevitable disappointment about the fact that the program that FEMA can deliver has statutory and regulatory restrictions. You get what you get, and not more. But the speed and the 

effectiveness with which you came in to deliver what FEMA can 

deliver was very commendable, and I wanted to say that. 

There are two areas where we are still having some problems 

that I wanted to focus on, and if you could pass on to one of your 

staff people to follow up and try to help us work through it, I would 

appreciate that. One is that some of our disaster victims—we have 

2,000 Rhode Islanders still not back in their homes. It has been 

quite a while now. This is a long time to still be out. Some of them 

are having problems finding temporary housing and have reported 

being moved from hotel to hotel and having difficulty funding 

monthly rentals, particularly monthly furnished rentals since all 

their furniture is under water. So anything that can be done to 

help us work through that problem I think would be helpful. 

The other problem that has emerged is some cases in which 

FEMA inspectors have disagreed with the local determination by 

municipal building officials whether a building is inhabitable or 

not. It puts the occupant of the building in an impossible position 

32 

to be told different things by FEMA inspectors and local inspectors. 

And so a resolution of that quickly between those two, some mechanism for resolving it I think is very important. Otherwise, I mean, 

these people are pretty frustrated to begin with to be flooded out 

of their homes from flooding that they had never foreseen, never 

experienced in their lives, and then all the inconvenience and 

delay, and now, ‘‘It isn’t inhabitable. It isn’t inhabitable. Your benefits are going because we say you can move in, but the building 

inspector says you cannot.’’ So if you could help us work through 

that, I would appreciate that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will, and we will get in touch with 

FEMA after this hearing to see what can be done. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Great. I appreciate that. 

On cyber, I guess I would like to ask two questions. One is, you 

know, we have got maybe three dozen cyber pieces of legislation 

pending in Congress right now. In the professional community that 

looks at cyber as a national security issue, there is intense interest 

and activity. It is an area in which I think you and I both believe 

an enormous amount needs to be done in order to prepare America 

better. But partly because what we do to protect .gov and .mil is 

classified and what the private sector experiences in .com and .org 

is not something they want to talk about because it reveals 

vulnerabilities that competitors can take competitive advantage of 

and so forth, my contention is that the American people are way 

behind this discussion. 

My first question is how you think—should we try to formalize 

some way for getting the American people more involved in this 

discussion? There are very significant questions we are going to 

have to answer about the use of the Internet, about protecting our 

companies, about what their rights are to defend themselves, about 

protecting our own Government, acts about the extent of the cyber 

piracy that we are being engaged in. I contend that cyber piracy 

is the biggest transfer, the biggest theft of value in the history of 

humankind, and we are on the losing end of it. So I think a lot 

needs to be done. How do we get the American people more engaged? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think your question actually lays 

out some of the—that the private sector needs to be more engaged, 

that we need greater connectivity on the civilian side. And one of 

the things, Senator, that we have been looking at is just plain old, 

good cyber hygiene by any individual who is getting on the Net. We 

actually have a competition under way right now—I think it closes 

next week—for some simple sloganing, some simple messaging that 

can be used to engage anyone who is on the Net, because now they 

are part of the system. Once you are on the system, you get the 

advantage of the system, but you also get the disadvantages. So it 

is, as you say, something that much work needs to be done. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I look forward to working with you on it, 

and the statistic that I have heard is that 80 percent of the cyber 

attacks that America sustains that succeed could be blocked if people simply took very basic, very common, standard preventive 

measures and that, in effect, we are not applying to our computers 

and laptops anywhere near the same degree of duty of care that 

we require Americans to do when they get out on the regular highVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:44 Jan 13, 2011 Jkt 063274 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\63274.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
33 

way with their vehicles. And we need to find a way to bridge that 

gap. 

The second question has to do with emergency response in the 

event of a very significant cyber attack. If a bank, for instance, 

crashes because of solvency concerns, the FDIC can come in on a 

Friday; by Saturday it is opened under new management. Everybody feels comfortable. The institution continues. It goes right back 

into the private sector. But it is saved because there was a brief 

and effective Government intervention that carried it from one private owner to another. 

If that same bank is hit by a cyber attack that renders confidence in it suspect and it faces the same run on the bank, or if 

an electric utility is hit in a way that compromises its ability to 

continue to deliver services and its own information systems cannot 

withstand the attack, how ready are we as a Nation to step in behind that bank or that utility and sustain them through the sustained cyber attack, help them defend their network, help them 

make sure that their billing and electron flow and deposit records 

and all those things are maintained, and then when the situation 

is back under control, step back out again so that it remains in private hands? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think, you know, we have the CERT 

teams, we have other mechanisms there, but they are not set up 

in the same way, in the same kind of a takeover type of facility or 

capability as you would in a bank receivership, for example. 

You know, I think these are all ideas that now need to be discussed within the Congress and that we need to move—really need 

to be exploring a lot of these different ideas that are—some of them 

are expressed in the multiple pieces of legislation that are being 

proposed, but I think you are right to say that, look, this needs to 

be a very high priority of us both at the individual level but also 

at the private and institutional level as well. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I look forward to working with you 

on it, and I very much appreciate and salute your leadership of the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

I believe Senator Cornyn is next, followed by Senator Klobuchar, 

and Senator Specter will take the gavel. 

Senator CORNYN. Madam Secretary, I know you share my concern with the escalating drug violence in Mexico, and, by the way, 

I appreciate your reaching out and calling me and giving me some 

insight into your meetings recently—you and Secretary Gates, the 

DNI, the Secretary of State and others. I was very impressed by 

the high-level nature of that delegation, which I think speaks to 

the seriousness of the challenges the Mexican Government is having with the cartels—a challenge that threatens not only their safety and security but ours as well. 

I think most Americans would be shocked to learn that there 

have been about 23,000 people killed in Mexico since 2006. There 

is a war going on, as you know, and I worry that the Mexican Government may not be poised to win that war. 

I support the Merida Initiative, which I know you support and 

are responsible for implementing in large part. But I worry that 

what we are doing is not turning the direction of the escalating violence around, and there is more that we need to do. 

34 

I went to El Paso on Friday and had a good briefing from all the 

Federal authorities there, which was very informative. But one of 

the things that I learned there is that there are substantial spillover effects into the United States, and particularly into El Paso. 

For example, Silvestre Reyes, the Congressman who represents 

that district, has written to the President citing 150 victims of violence in Ciudad Juarez who have been paroled into the United 

States and hospitalized at the University Hospital at a cost of 

about $3 million. He also notes that 32 percent of the associated 

physicians’ fees—only 32 percent have been paid and that many of 

the hospital employees worry, with some justification, that the cartels if they have not finished the job in Juarez will come over to 

the United States and complete it. 

So it is with an eye to all of this that I want to ask you specifically about Predators, unmanned aerial vehicles, and other assets 

which we can deploy to help provide intelligence and other assets 

that could be used not only by the United States to secure our border, but also by the Mexican Government to defeat the cartels. 

My understanding is that U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

has five unmanned vehicles currently in operation—three Predators on the southern border and two on the northern border. I will 

tell you that I am upset that there are none in Texas. We have a 

1,200-mile border with Mexico, and as I understand, none of those 

Predators are available or are being used by the Border Patrol or 

Customs and Border Protection in Texas. 

Specifically what I was told is that the Federal Aviation Administration has failed to issue a certificate of authorization for the 

flight of these unmanned aerial vehicles in commercial airspace, 

and I wonder if you could tell us what the hold-up is and what the 

plan is to fix that, because it seems to me that getting those Predators, those drones available to fly and provide intelligence, is very 

important and the FAA appears to be blocking it at this point. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, this is an issue pending in the 

FAA. The plain fact of the matter is that the Texas airspace is 

more crowded than the other airspace that needs to be protected 

along the border and had more predetermined certifications already in place. And so the FAA now has to go in and carve out, 

as I understand it, space for the Predator. But that is under way, 

and we have urged them and said that we would very much like 

to be able to deploy the Predator there. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I know we have been talking about this— 

not you and me, but all of us here—for some time, and it seems 

like the delay just keeps extending on and on and on. And I would 

ask for your help to try to expedite approval. I intend to ask the 

FAA to come to my office and explain to me what their posture is 

and what the delay—why the delay, because I am very concerned 

that some of the assets that could be deployed not only to help 

quell the violence in Mexico, but also keep our borders secure, are 

not being deployed because of unnecessary foot dragging. 

I mentioned some of the spillover effect of the violence in Mexico. 

I also was advised in some of my meetings in El Paso that there 

are as many as 20,000, perhaps more, displaced Mexican citizens 

that are living with relatives and others in El Paso on the U.S. 

side. Senator Graham mentioned the fact that the mayor of 

35 

Juarez—a city where 700 people have been killed so far this year, 

and which is right across the river from El Paso, that mayor lives 

in El Paso. He lives in the United States because he fears for his 

own safety and security in Mexico. 

And I mentioned the spillover effect on hospitals, but it also is 

having an affect throughout Texas. It’s obvious in schools where 

children are being registered for public school in the United States 

in El Paso, and in people moving into U.S. homes and rental property in order to protect themselves. This is a very, very serious 

problem, as I know you recognize, and we have got to find a way 

to do more to help Mexico, and to help ourselves. 

One last thing. What kind of cooperation does your Department 

get from the Department of Defense? I am thinking not just about 

troops. I am talking about assets, niche assets. I mentioned unmanned aerial vehicles, other radar assets that the United States 

military has developed in the course of our conflicts in Afghanistan 

and Iraq, which could be state-of-the-art technology that could be 

a big help. Could you explain to me what the conversation has 

been, what kind of cooperation? Or is there no coordination or collaboration or cooperation between DHS and the Department of Defense? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Two points, Senator. One is I think your 

observation bears repeating, and that is, by helping Mexico we help 

ourselves, and that particularly our assistance through Merida and 

other means in this issue on the cartels helps us. These cartels impact us, and that is why we view them as a homeland security 

issue. 

Second, we have good cooperation with DOD. As you noted, Secretary Gates was with us when we had the high-level contact group 

meeting in Mexico City. There are ongoing operational things that 

are being done and exchanges of things like technology. So we have 

very good cooperation there. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I again commend you and the Administration for treating this problem so seriously. I would just like to 

respectfully suggest to our Chairman and our current Chair that 

it might be good to have all Members of the Senate, on a bipartisan 

basis, briefed in a classified setting on what is going on in Mexico, 

what the United States involvement is, because, frankly, I think 

this represents a huge threat not only to Mexico but also to American citizens, and not just along the border. 

Finally, let me just say that I note that in fiscal year 2009 there 

were 556,000 apprehensions of people coming across the southern 

border—I believe my number is correct—which is down considerably from its height. But I do not think it is anywhere near the 

point where we can say that our border is secure. Would you agree 

with that? And if you do, what additional resources do you need in 

order to secure our border? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think we always are working to 

make the actual physical security of the border more complete, but 

I would say that not only has significant progress been made, but 

in all of the sectors of the border you can show that it is better now 

than it was 2 years ago, 3 years ago, 5 years ago, and the like. 

I think we need to continue to make sure that we sustain the 

Border Patrol presence, that we continue to look at the technology 

36 

dollars you have appropriated and make sure they are being deployed in the right way with the most effective kinds of technologies and that there will be different technologies in different 

areas of the border because of the different terrain involved, among 

other things, and that we look at infrastructure in the right way 

to deploy infrastructure. And interior enforcement is an important 

part of the puzzle as well. So it is what we do at the border, it is 

interior enforcement and how that is done, and that is the package 

that we are implementing. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I look forward to working with you to 

make sure you get the resources you need in order to get the job 

done, and I appreciate your commitment to that objective. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that three 

letters be made part of the record. One is from Hon. Silvestre 

Reyes to the President of the United States, dated March 28th, and 

then two other letters from the University Medical Center of El 

Paso, dated March 16th and April 16th that all pertain to the spillover effects of the ongoing cartel-related violence in Juarez into El 

Paso. 

Senator SPECTER [presiding.] Without objection, they will be 

made a part of the record. 

[The letters appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Specter. 

Hello, Madam Secretary. Thank you so much for being here. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I was thinking, as I know there has been 

a lot of focus on the southwest border, I think I will ask one question about that. I have to tell you I came in from a hearing on national tourism with Ken Burns to Senator Graham’s questioning of 

you, and it was quite an alarming change of pace. And my first 

question actually is about—and first is a thank you for the work 

that you did with the orphans in Haiti and the adoptions and 

granting humanitarian parole and working with us. There are 

many very happy kids and happy Minnesota families that had 

pending adoptions that were nearly complete when the tragedy 

happened there, and if it was not for your good work and Secretary 

Clinton’s, I do not think that those kids would be there with those 

families. And I know you will probably never meet those kids or 

their families, but you changed their lives forever, so thank you for 

that. 

I wanted to specifically ask about the follow-up on some of the 

Christmas Day bombing work. I know that we talked about that 

the last time you were here. We talked about the disclosure of the 

airport screening procedures and things like that. I wondered what 

is the update on the security lapse with that document being 

shown. This would be the disclosure of the TSA airport screening 

procedures when the confidential document was placed online. And 

I think there is going to be some looking at that, and so that would 

not happen again, and then also what is happening with the airport screening and the installation of some of the new screening. 

37 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me get back to you on the TSA issue 

because I think there has been action taken, but I do not have it 

at my fingertips. 

With respect to airport screening, quite a bit has been done. As 

you know, we have accelerated the deployment of the AIT machines. We have also increased explosive trace detection machinery, 

K–9 teams, behavior detection officers in our domestic airports. We 

have also embarked on a very ambitious global initiative in terms 

of raising world aviation security standards because what was clear 

on Christmas or became clear on Christmas is that once you get 

into an airplane in any airport in the world, you potentially have 

access to the entire system. And so working with ICAO, which is 

the UN’s aviation branch, we have had meetings with the EU countries in Spain, with the Western Hemisphere countries in Mexico 

City, Asian countries in Tokyo. We just had a meeting with the African nations in Nigeria. We will have a meeting in the Mideast 

in the next coming weeks—all geared toward an international, 

global consensus on what everybody needs to do to increase aviation security. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. I wanted to, like Senator Whitehouse, thank you for the work of FEMA. As you know the Red 

River flooding and the near miss last time and this time, I think 

the planning and all the work that we had done with FEMA and 

some of the work that was done in the interim, smaller things, 

helped out. Obviously, we have a bigger issue with flood diversion 

that we need for the long term. But I wanted to ask you about the 

levee certifications. 

As you know, FEMA is working with communities across Minnesota to recertify their flood protection levees. One example, Oslo, 

Minnesota, literally for months they have had—they get into their 

community by boat because they are surrounded by a ring dike. 

And Oslo was given 2 years to complete the certification process, 

until April 30th, in order to be in compliance with FEMA requirements. Although Oslo fully intends to comply, there have been 

some issues with finding the funds necessary to pay for the expensive technical advisers and engineers necessary to complete the certification, not just in Oslo, some other towns. 

In addition, in most instances the Army Corps of Engineers constructed these levees, but does not have the resources or capability 

to complete the work necessary for FEMA certification. 

So I know this is not unique. Do you know how the Department 

has been handling these situations? My fear is while they are doing 

their best to comply, we do not want them to be unnecessarily punished as they are surrounded by water? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, my understanding is that there are 

several pieces of legislation moving through looking at the National 

Flood Insurance Program overall, which is really the connect with 

the whole levee issue and levee certification. As you suggest, Senator, this is enormously complicated, it is enormously expensive, 

and it is enormously important. And there are lots of issues that 

we are going to need to work through with the Congress and with 

people like you to get this right, because there are many, many 

communities across the country that are now looking at that April 

30 deadline and going, ‘‘What do we do next? ’’ 

38 

So, again, I know there is some legislation moving through. We 

are providing assistance with that legislation. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Back to travel. As you know, we finally 

passed the Travel Promotion Act. You and I have talked about this, 

and I am not certain if I got you that movie I wanted you to see, 

but if I did not, we will get it there tomorrow. But it is a movie 

for greetings, just a continual feed with no voice to be potentially 

used in the airports where international visitors come. It is a beautiful film. We showed it a year or so ago, just wonders of our country. That plus trying to process these foreign visas quicker with 

hopefully some resources we will have now from that $10 fee on 

foreign visitors. I just wanted to encourage you to work with us on 

that. I know given all the questions of my colleagues it is not the 

No. 1 thing on everyone’s mind, but I remind them that every 1 

percent we lost in international tourism since 9/11, we have lost 20 

percent of the market, is 170,000 jobs in this country, every 1 percent. 

So as we are looking at ways to further this economy, we are 

really excited about the Travel Promotion Act and look forward to 

working with you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed, and as the former Governor of a 

State that relies heavily or relied heavily on tourism dollars, I really appreciate the importance of that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. The last thing is just to follow 

up, listening to Senator Graham’s questions, and a little of Senator 

Cornyn’s. It is just my impression, having only been here for 4 

years, that since you have come in, you have worked very hard on 

these border issues, specifically some of the drug enforcement 

issues, and really have had a laser focus on that that we had not 

seen before. And I just wanted to give you an opportunity to talk 

about the difference between what was going on under some of 

your predecessors with the border and with some of the law enforcement issues with Mexico and what you have been doing now. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you, and let me just say that 

one of the key things that is going on now is the cooperation with 

Mexico, and one of the things that does not get counted is the 

amount of law enforcement resources Mexico itself is deploying to 

the border. Just on our southern side, for example, we are about 

to begin helping them train their first ever Border Patrol. So it is 

not just going to be our Border Patrol on this side. They will have 

Border Patrol on their side. It is those kinds of things that give 

us—what we want to have is a 21st century, really a border zone, 

protected south and north, but it needs to marry up with an immigration system that works. And as we know, that immigration system itself needs to be reformed by the Congress. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

Madam Secretary, thank you again for your service. I note in 

your resume that you lived for a while in Pennsylvania, born in 

New York, and lived in New Mexico. How much credit can Pennsylvania take for you? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, probably some Pennsylvanians 

want to take a lot and probably some would rather not. But I 

39 

learned how to read in Pennsylvania. I lived there for several 

years, nursery school, kindergarten, and first grade. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, we are proud of you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. 

Senator SPECTER. The issue as to what has happened in Arizona 

has caused a great deal of concern in many quarters, and I know 

that President Obama has been anxious to move ahead on immigration reform. We came very close in 2006 when both Houses 

passed bills. The Senate passed a comprehensive bill. The House 

bill focused only on border protection. And we could not get a conference convened, and nothing happened. And now Arizona has legislated in a way which has drawn a lot of questions, a lot of criticism. 

The impact of what the law contains could be very, very serious 

in terms of what happens with the relations between the Latino 

community and the people who are so heavily pressing on enforcement measures which may be unconstitutional. On their face, they 

appear to have that significant risk of racial profiling. 

You, of course, have intimate knowledge there, having been Governor two terms. How serious is it, as a matter of race relations 

in Arizona and the temper of the community, that the Federal Government move ahead to legislate to impose appropriate standards 

contrasted with what the Arizona law has? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, in my view, one of the motivations behind the Arizona law was frustration with the perception 

that Congress was not moving on this issue at all, and that the 

State would have to move in the absence of Congressional movement. I know the President is very interested in reaching out for 

a bipartisan consensus to see if we can move an immigration bill 

through. Senator Graham expressed some doubts as to whether 

there were 60 votes in the Senate for that. But I think the message 

sent from Arizona was that movement needs to occur that this 

issue should not be allowed to languish. 

Senator SPECTER. Madam Secretary, to what extent is there a 

concern about civil unrest with what may occur with the enforcement of this law? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think there are a lot of issues. If this 

law goes into effect—and, again, the effective date is not until 90 

days after the session ends. But if it goes into effect, I think there 

are a lot of questions about what the real impacts on the street will 

be, and they are unanswerable right now. 

Senator SPECTER. My State has a considerable Latino population, 

and I hear a lot of concern and a lot of anger. And when you start 

getting really tough with the high-handed tactics which are authorized by this law and the racial profiling, it puts added stress on 

Congress. We have been derelict, flatly derelict, in not acting up 

until now. And those who search for 60 votes might find it easier 

to locate them in the face of that kind of a problem. So I am interested in what you think about it because you know the temper 

down there a lot better than those of us who have only been inside 

the Beltway. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Senator, I really appreciate it. I 

think there is a lot of cause for concern in a lot of ways on this 

bill and what its impacts would be if it is to actually go into effect. 

40 

And I think it signals once again a frustration with the failure of 

the Congress to move. 

I will work with any Member of the Congress and have been 

working with several Members of the Congress on actual language 

about what a bipartisan bill could and should contain. 

Senator SPECTER. What can the Federal Government do, Madam 

Secretary, to deal with the potential for racial profiling and other 

unconstitutional aspects of the Arizona law short of superseding it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think the Department of Justice, 

Senator, is actually looking at the law as to whether it is susceptible to challenge, either facially or later on as applied, under several different legal theories. And I, quite frankly, do not know what 

the status of their thinking is right now. 

Senator SPECTER. Shifting to the issue of our overall relations 

with Mexico, we passed NAFTA over a lot of concerns and over a 

lot of objections. And the thought was expressed at the time that 

to stimulate economic development and prosperity and the raising 

of the standard of living in Mexico would be very beneficial to the 

United States, would limit immigration, limit illegal immigration, 

could have an impact on the drug wars, which are ferocious. 

How helpful has NAFTA been, Madam Secretary? You have been 

very close to it. Aside from being better than it might have been, 

has it had any real significant effect on improving the situation in 

Mexico so that we were looking for that collateral benefit in the 

United States? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I believe that NAFTA has had 

some beneficial impacts. But I also believe that the Mexican economy still has not created the number of jobs that it needs to create 

overall so that we still must be aware not just of illegal immigration but jobs that are created by the drug cartels themselves, including the production of drugs, not just the trafficking in drugs. 

So, again, it is very important for us, I believe, to work closely 

with Mexico. They are the No. 1 or two trading partner of 22 States 

of the United States, and so to the extent that their economy and 

our economies have trade and other relationships ongoing, that 

needs to be an important part of our dialogue. 

Senator SPECTER. There is no doubt that NAFTA has benefited 

Mexico. Has NAFTA benefited the United States? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, I believe it has in the sense that 

it has added to the trade and commerce in Mexico, and that relates 

to jobs within the United States itself. 

Senator SPECTER. Do you think economically it is a net plus for 

the United States? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would say, Senator, that I check numbers—in part, because it is hard to say how the recession and the 

global recession has affected everything, but I can say that it would 

be a lot worse without NAFTA. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, no doubt it would be a lot worse without 

it. But the question looms, and there is still a lot of undercurrent 

of dissatisfaction with NAFTA from the start. And then the question arises as to what extent has it benefited the United States economically, and then the collateral question, has it really helped 

Mexico on the other items which we had hoped for, the drug war, 

the border migration, et cetera? 

41 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, some of these questions might 

better be addressed to some of my colleagues on the economics side, 

but let me tell you on the security side and on the cooperation and 

the need to be able to work closely with Mexican Federal law enforcement, that relationship right now is as strong as I have ever 

seen it. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. We 

appreciate your being here and staying so long and seeing so many 

Senators come and go. Thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Senator SPECTER. That concludes the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

42 


63274.001
43 


63274.002
44 


63274.003
45 


63274.004
46 


63274.005
47 


63274.006
48 


63274.007
49 


63274.008
50 


63274.009
51 


63274.010
52 


63274.011
53 


63274.012
54 


63274.013
55 


63274.014
56 


63274.015
57 


63274.016
58 


63274.017
59 


63274.018
60 


63274.019
61 


63274.020
62 


63274.021
63 


63274.022
64 


63274.023
65 


63274.024
66 


63274.025
67 


63274.026
68 


63274.027
69 


63274.028
70 


63274.029
71 


63274.030
72 


63274.031
73 


63274.032
74 


63274.033
75 


63274.034
76 


63274.035
77 


63274.036
78 


63274.037
79 


63274.038
80 


63274.039
81 


63274.040
82 


63274.041
83 


63274.042
84 


63274.043
85 


63274.044
86 


63274.045
87 


63274.046
88 


63274.047
89 


63274.048
90 


63274.049
91 


63274.050
92 


63274.051
93 


63274.052
94 


63274.053
95 


63274.054
96 


63274.055
97 


63274.056
98 


63274.057
99 


63274.058
100 


63274.059
101 


63274.060
102 


63274.061
103 


63274.062
104 


63274.063
105 


63274.064
106 


63274.065
107 


63274.066
108 


63274.067
109 


63274.068
110 


63274.069
111 


63274.070
112 


63274.071
113 


63274.072
114 


63274.073
115 


63274.074
116 


63274.075
117 


63274.076
118 


63274.077
119 


63274.078
120 


63274.079
121 


63274.080
122 


63274.081
123 


63274.082
124 


63274.083
125 


63274.084
126 


63274.085
127 


63274.086
128 


63274.087
129 


63274.088
130 


63274.089
131 


63274.090
132 


63274.091
133 


63274.092
134 


63274.093
135 


63274.094
136 


63274.095
137 


63274.096
138 


63274.097
139 


63274.098
140 


63274.099
141 


63274.100
142 


63274.101
143 


63274.102
144 


63274.103
145 


63274.104
146 


63274.105
147 


63274.106
148 


63274.107
149 

Æ 


63274.108