a high profile position that came with a full security details, a u.s.-led team of security personnel@@@ xd escort. i arrived with the first surge of civilian advisors and it was quickly apparent that such escort wasn't available to the

majority of the civilian advisors although we needed to travel to our respective ministries, especially in the early and chaotic period. many of us considered a several-vehicle military convoy with civilians wearing armored vests and helmets projected a high profile target and it was safer to travel quiet lly under the radar, avoiding timetables and taking other security measures, so we did that in order to do our job. fortunately, no disaster occurred. my personal experiences there and in other posts lead me to suggest first the need for more and better internal dialogue or communication between the policy and security sides of the state department on what is the best security posture. secondly, that the one size fits all approach is not the best one for us today. thirdly, that senior officials

on the ground in country should have more flexibility and take more responsibility to determine which mix of security measures is most appropriate in a given situation at a given point in time. and i second the remarks that ambassador neumann made that this can't be left to personal decision. there has to be bureaucratic support, consensus that lays out guidelines for this. you can't expect someone to take a position i'm going to authorize or have somebody take on a risk when the other side of it is you take all responsibility if anything goes wrong. there has to be a better way. finally, the increased prominence of security issues today underscored the need to do more to avoid the experience gaps highlighted in this and other gao reports prepared for this committee. lack of experiences, from my perspective, increases security risk at both the personal and the mission level.

having seasoned, experienced veterans in the right positions decreases those risks. the training now offered at fsi certainly heightened security awareness, but it cannot be expected to substitute for years of accumulated experience. thank you, mr. chairman. i'm happy to respond to any questions that you may have. >> thank you very much. this question is for the panel. as you know, gao found that over half of the regional security officers do not have the language competency that they require. what impact could this have on overseas security for diplomats and what recommendations do you have to improve their language competency? >> i'll go first. it is a help when they have

language. rsos are responsible not only for protection but for negoti e negotiating and working out a lot of arrangements with the host government. being able to do it directly rather than depend on translators that may be inadequate is a big advantage. i don't think we are hurting in a fatal way, but we need to do it. it goes back to the issue of training. you were raising the question earlier. one, the state has to have enough people to take them off the line and train them. otherwise we're just flapping our gums. secondly, they have to have a strategic plan for how they will use the training. i don't yet see that emerging. it's of quite a bit of concern to me. they are drinking out of a fire hose to assign the people they're getting. it's a good problem to have but

i'm concerned if we don't have the plan and budget, it gets more difficult next year. you won't have a template to fill in against for the long term. i see the need to lay out the strategic plan as the next critical piece beyond getting the bodies. >> thank you. ms. johnson? >> i believe there is an impact. it's felt most greatly in the most dangerous or difficult countries. the lack of language skills really depends on which country. in some places it's important and others, less so. i think as part of the planning effort there needs to be a review of criteria for designating language in general and certainly for ds officers and the levels at which that should be taking into

consideration we need higher levels of proficiency in dangerous, sensitive countries and lower levels in countries where that is not the case and where use and knowledge, good command of the english language is much greater. i think to do that, d.s. is now recruiting many people who don't have any experience with learning languages and don't necessarily have any aptitude for learning language. we may have to recognize that it may take longer and we may need to review the approach we have to the language training and reinforcing it once we have given it. so i think that whole approach of the department to language training needs to be more carefully targeted and a little more creative in the way we give the training particularly to differentiate more between those people who have strong language aptitude and experience with learning language and those who don't. right now we don't. we mix everybody together to the

disadvantage of both groups. >> but don't look at me when you talk about strong language aptitude. >> to both of you, gao testified that diplomatic security's workload likely will increase as the military transitions out of iraq. ambassador, you mentioned that also. what should -- the question is what should the state department be doing to ensure that the transition is a smooth one? >> there are several things. some of them they may be doing. remember, i am now out of the department for a couple of years, so i may be behind. first thing is they need a plan for what the post is supposed to do. what are the missions you're going to have to accomplish. in broad terms, how much are you going to have to move as well as to protect the base.

then you backplan from that and say, okay, what does that mean i need in terms of detail people, facilities, vehicles? and from there, you go to looking at your choices for how you're going to fill those needs. i doubt that the process is well advanced. they should be doing it right now because they have to give you the budget because those things are not going to be there, i'm reasonably sure in the current budgets because we didn't have to pay for them. the military paid for them. that process needs to take place at a high level of detail in order to come to the congress with a request for the requisite assets that is solidly documented. i think there is work on that now. i don't mean that they are asleep at the switch, but i think they are probably not up to the speed they themselves would like to be.

>> ms. johnson? >> i would agree with the points ambassador neumann just made. one consideration for me representi ining rank and file the people is that whatever planning is going forth or might go forth in the future that perhaps afsa have a role or a seat at the table in some of this so that we can provide a constructive, you know, value added to the process by perhaps filtering in the unfilters views of people who have served in iraq, afghanistan and who have practical firsthand experience and views on what are likely to be the problems, the conditions. it's hard to look ahead and see what analysis we're going to make as to what are the -- going to be the conditions on the

ground after our military withdraws. and therefore what can we take on as civilians. but this is another area where i am not sure what the department is doing. i would agree that if the planning is not far along and i would like to work with management to see that afsa is involved in an ongoing basis in this and that we can figure out together how we can add to the process so that the end product is, in fact, better and better under by the people who have to implement it. >> senator? >> i sit at these hearings in my 11th year. senator, you have been around longer than i have and you will be because i'm leaving next year. i always wonder about the hearingin hearings and what comes out of it. i have asked my staff to go back over the hearings and the

questions that we have had. these folks are here to testify today and in terms of the practical things the two of us and the subcommittee can do, when i think about iraq -- and i was on foreign affairs and i looked back on that. we assumed based on what was told to us that they had figured this out. the fact is, they didn't and we thought they did. i met with richard holbrook and his team. i was impressed. he was saying people are complaining because we're not bringing on people fast enough and we're trying to get the best people. i was impressed with that. but if you were in our shoes,

how would you go about making sure that the plan in terms of iraq has been well thought out in terms of human capital, security and other things. a critical path in terms of the things we need to do and to get an idea of how long we'll be in iraq because we're not talking about that. it's the same thing i mentioned earlier, in terms of afghanistan. i mean, to my knowledge, nobody's talked about the commitment that we're going to make towards nationbuilding. anybody that knows what's going on has to understand that's as important or more important than the military side, but very little attention has been paid to that. how do we get a guarantee that,

in fact, holbrook's got it figured out, the state department's got it figured out how many people, how long, where they are going to be and all the other details to make sure that two years from now when i'm no longer in the united states senate i don't read about some fiasco over there where somebody didn't do their homework and we're in real trouble because the planning wasn't done. how do we get that information? >> best realism i can give you. and i came to iraq just after susan did. i drove the same unarmored vehicles in the same fashion with the same dubious adherence to regulation because they had not thought out the issues. i would segregate it into two pieces. they're not going to think of everything. afghanistan is too much in flux

and too changing. you will read of something that's not thought of. so part of what we have to do is to look at our capacity to react when we come across the thing we didn't think of. >> but you ought to have a plan. >> you ought to have a plan. you ought not to be guilty of not thinking of things that were squarely in front of your nose which we have seen ourselves mess up before. >> if i got ahold of richard holbrook can i say have you thought of how many people, human capital, et cetera, et cetera, you think that's in place? >> i think it is in place in theory. i think some of the theory will be very thin. especially when you talk abo about -- i want to be realistic here. when you talk about new people

doing jobs that have never been done there is a limit as to how much you can think it through in a vacuum. when those people arrive there will be a@@j3%'""gjkjb$j" plann have you learned from your mistakes, how is the plan flexible enough to adapt instead of coming up here on the hill and defend what may have been an inadequate plan because you didn't see something right as opposed to saying i'm learning and fixing it. the other detail is planning

which the staff has to work on. what are the questions -- i think you have to say what are the questions you're trying to answer in your plan. it needs to get down to a level of detail on numbers of -- not just numbers of people but how many people are going to secure. right now the answer being given to how you will handle the civilian surge is the military's going to do it. i am skeptical that will be adequate to add it to the job, but that goes beyond people arguing about views and saying what is it you have to do, how are you going to do it and why do you think the military can do this? i think it will be a lot of grilling from you all, frankly. >> ms. johnson? >> i hope i'm not going out on a

limb, but i know you have been asking and urging the department to produce various plans on various things. those plans may or may not be in the works and may or may not be forthcoming. so it's possible you will have to -- the only thing i know of that ensures that you will get a product is to tie it to money -- getting money. it's an awkward thing to say and i hope that's not the case because it's much better to do it -- i mean, more informally. the other question is the quality of the plan. the thinking is critical. one of the weaknesses is that it's insufficiently inclusive if it's done at all. not enough people get to have input. not enough people get to see it and critique it or -- i don't know, red game it or something or other.

secondly, once you have your plan and as ambassador neumann says, there will be unexpected things that happen, so make sure you have two critical factors addressed. that is good communication and good mobility. thirdly, try to get the best people you can into those dangerous places. if you've got those mix of things there, i think our chances of avoiding any sort of catastrophe and dealing with the unexpected emergencies are rather good. but we often don't have. in fact, right now we're missing most of those ingredients. >> i've got more questions, but it's your turn. >> fine. mr. ambassador, in your testimony, you mentioned that the state department needs more people to do strategic planning

and that's one of your prioriti priorities. this may impact the qddr and perhaps later efforts. my question to you is along with adding more personnel, how will the department's culture need to change to support ongoing strategic planning? >> clearly, there are cultural changes. some of that, i think, is that we have to get a plan right for professional growth in the service as a whole. we have not had that in the past. we haven't had the choice frankly because we didn't have the people. now we're getting, with thanks and for what the congress has done, you know, what this committee has supported, they're

getting numbers. the numbers are going to change the complexion of the department. we have worked on a basis of the old training the young, but the old are retiring and the young are multiplying. so the result is that more and more people are going to be trained more often by people that don't have nearly as much experience and seniority as they used to have. i think we have to grow -- we have to create a new paradigm, a new plan that looks at professional development, not just formal training, language training, but professional development writ large as our military colleagues have thought about it for some time. i think if we get that plan in place, although it will change and shift over the years that we will then begin to grow people with somewhat different attitudes toward a number of the things you're concerned about.

if we don't have a plan for professional development then i think it will all be ad hoc and much of what you're seeking, i think you will get pieces of it, but you will be kind of cramming it down against the grain. >> ms. johnson, you testified that some u.s. ambassadembassie become less ax accessible, have moved to the outskirts of capital cities and have a fortress profile that may send the signal of a militarized america. my question to you is what needs to happen to make our embassies more accessible while continuing to meet security requirements? >> well, that's a tough question

because we have embarked over the last decade in this direction we're currently on of building 60 or fortresses like this outside the center. we often see the properties we sell are taken over by other european powers and they use it for an embassy. i think that's in zagrab right now. one concern is that in trying to defend ourselves from attack and address the security of our d diplomats and people overseas we are going to be fighting the last technology. we are now working with this 100-foot setback and it's my understanding that may have been imposed by congress or perhaps was in the inman report but now appears to be cast into law or something, cast in stone.

i think we are reading about suicide bombers and attacks at 500 feet detonated, still blowing up entire buildings. it's possible that the technology in the hands of people setting off explosions will make the 100-foot setback obsolete. i'm not sure that defensive tactic will serve us well over the long term. we may find we have spent a great deal of money to fight the last war and we'll be confronted with a new set. i'm not sure i have the answer to that. i know it is a problem for conducting diplomacy. from where i sit, in many of the posts i have been in the last decade i'm finding that the business world and the ngo world is becoming better informed and more knowledgeable about what's going on in the country where they are living and working than many of the people in our

fortresses who are handicapped by, you know, many constraints that make it impossible for them to get out and get their finger on the pulse of the country they are in. we need to develop a vision for what's going to be the mission of the diplomatic service of the united states in the coming years. what is the vision? that we will be increasingly involved in nationbuilding post conflict or continuing conflict fragile or failed states and that we are going to build up for that or is there some other notion and how does the role of the u.s. government fit with what the private sector is doing? how do we get a better grip on what's the appropriate and optimal role for the public part of that, let's say the embassy,

and what's the appropriate role for the private part, the private sector. who should be coordinating or a clearinghouse or what should be the role of the embassy in this? i think many of the questions are not being addressed in the sort of -- i don't want to say public square, but aren't being addressed with sufficient thought. we may end up spending a lot of money and training even for the wrong things if we don't figure this out. >> thank you. let me ask embassy neumann this. you recommend that foreign service officers at the state department and usaid should be given risk management training. how do you suggest the department implement this training and who should be in charge of providing that kind of training?

>> new curriculum will have to be developed. this is, i think, primarily a mid-level and senior-level training issue, not a juniio junior-level one. it goes to the question of people not understanding each other that game up with gao and you talked about with the first panel, senator akaka. i think it is not that hard to have professionals invent role-playing scenarios, curriculum training, but right now we're not doing much -- we're doing mid-level training in a series of postage stamp modules we try to cram into people's transfer summer. i think this is the kind of thing that you need in the in-service training to expose officers to broadly across the service. the state department has done team exercises, crisis exercises for years where they have teams

that travel to embassies and do simulations and go through a crisis. you could build training into that, build training here. but right now, we're not doing it. we're getting past the question of misunderstanding that you raised only by accident or by officers who live it, you know, but not everybody needs to do four wars the way i did. >> thank you. senator voinovich? >> i didn't really understand. you're talking about communications and computers that are secure. tell me about that. i'm not -- >> i'm trying to be careful because there are issues that are still forward projection and i have security implications. >> okay. >> but basically right now --

when we first sent officers to iraq, we gave them no deployable security secure computers until they got on the military net they had only unsecure methods of receiving information which means they were blind to a lot of threat information. they could not report appropriate appropriately with appropriate classification in most areas developments in their own areas. that problem has not really been fixed. we have done a work-around now. we accepted them out with the u.s. military using military computers. they have completely different -- it's the same government but they have different standards from state on what they can take to the field and how they can use it. as long as we're with them, our officers can use their computers or similar computers.

they can talk to our computers. as soon as they go off on their own -- if you have big packages like the team you send out for an embassy bomb, they have a big package but a few officers going someplace, state does not own any releasable, useable technology they can give an officer to put him in secure contact with his embassy. he can use his private account, you know, his yahoo. i don't think that's a very good way to handle what we need to control. so either don't control it or we don't know enough protection on what we control. we haven't figured this out. right now, nato for instance, in staff st afghanistan we have half of the prt thes are state prts. they work on a functionally different computer system that

does not talk -- i mean you cannot cross communicate secure communications between nato a mputers not in the state system, run fiber optic cable off telephone poles and connect. then we had to physically handle

data. you can't electronically move it from one system to the other. i think this is ridiculous. >> so the point is that there needs to be a lot more coordination that you would have secure computers and they are probably going to have to talk with the military part of this. >> exactly. but it is a bureaucratic issue of what standards are acceptable. >> so you would try to have uniform standards so you have quin consistency there and you can talk. it gets back really to the other thing -- i will never forget when i was in iraq, we went out to one of the camps and i don't even know if there were state department people there. there were military people, but the fact of the matter is that they had developed a very, very good relationship with the

sheiks. you could tell. there was a little celebration and it was the kind of thing that makes a difference. it seems to me that if you're going to do the afghanistan and you're going to have your military out there that one of the things you want to make sure is that they are trained in counterterrorism and, you know, they're trying to make friends. but that segues in with the state department people. there is a movement from one to the other that's probably as effective as anything that we can do. lots of challenges. >> yes, sir. >> you talk about the concept of an overall plan for human capital, training and the rest of it. so often we spend time putting out fires and never have time.

>> that's, i think, part of what's happening in state. one way it's a good problem. it's better having a problem of too many people to deal with than not having that problem, but the fact is -- or my impression and remember i am on the outside. i don't speak for the administration. my impression is they are so beleaguered trying to get people assigned that they are having a lot of trouble dealing with the sort of out here big strategic issues, how do you fill the knowledge gap between bringing people in at the bottom and a lot of what we need is not just bodies but a certain level of experience and what is your long-term training? your staffs were both involved with us in preparing the report of the academies on the budget. we made a big deal of the need for a training and transition float.

they, in my judgment state needs though to come up with a strategic plan for training. >> let me ask you one other thing. the last time around, i was disappointed in secretary rice because she had zelik in there and negrapanti in there and kennedy and what's the name -- the lady that was there trying to do the management thing as contrasted with with colin powell and armitage who seemed to have importance of human capital and that type of thing. where do you think we are now, ms. johnson? they have a new organization. secretary clinton decided to have one person in terms of policy and another in terms of management. from your observations, is there anybody getting up early and staying up late working on

management things, working on developing the capital, training, looking at the big issues the department has to undertake to get the job done overall? >> i think they are all up early and staying up late at night. whether they are thinking about the correct issues, i think they are trying to. i don't know if i can answer the question. we'll have to see what comes out. >> who's in charge of that? >> qddr -- well, it comes under lou. >> we have two deputy secretaries. lou is doing that with anne-marie slaughter. they are co-chairing the qddr effort and there are five or six working groups under that that are working on different things and we at afsa are trying to see how we can relate to theffect u. we're concerned with getting our

usaid folk in touch with the people doing that kind of planning. >> in terms of the plan, the recommendations you made, do you know if anybody's spending time looking at the recommendations from the academy to see if they are implementing them, following through or responding? >> not very much. they are certainly interested in the numbers. i don't think they are using the plan. we are talking to the director general's office about having the academy take on another planning -- try to help, don't feel proprietary about it. if they can do it without us, we don't need to be horning in, but we have a lot of experience in the academy and an awful lot of knowledge. we would like to find a way to work with them to make some of the knowledge -- you know, tom

pickerings favorite joke, 200 members with 7,000 years of experience and we would like to make that available to help with the effort. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank you very much. i don't have any other questions. this has been a great hearing. i'm fired up, mr. chairman. >> well, thank you very much, senator. let me ask my final question. in trying to reach in to maybe something you didn't have a chance to mention and this is to both of you. what are your top three recommendations for improving the diplomatic security efforts within the state department? >> i'll let you go first for a change.

>> i listened to secretary boswell give his testimony on what they are planning and trying to do. i would go back to, i think, the suggestions that i made in my oral testimony earlier. one i think is kwint with what mr. ford from gao was saying. -- consistent. i say better communication between the policy side and the security side. these misunderstandings or miscommunications and i think that communication has to happen at multiple levels. some could be by having more joint training where ds people and other officers are taking or addressing the same issues together in the same room from their different perspectives. i think that always adds value to both sides. so one is just to find ways to pay more attention to that dialogue because i don't think it really exists in any kind of consistent, systematic or formal

way. it's ad hoc, unrecorded and out of date. we need a new one. secondly, i think, would be some discussion about whether this basically one size fit all approach needs to be changed. the fact that we have these unique situations in iraq and afghanistan, i think, give a good opportunity to reassess that and say, we need a more differentiated approach. and the last thing has to do with finding a way to take advantage of afsa's connection and ability to get the unfiltered views of members and compare those with whatever else is being -- coming up through the more hierarchical system. we often hear very different things from our members than what apparently management is hearing when they ask the question.

so i think we need to, you know, confront that a little bit and see what's happening. why is it that people feel that they can say and do say one thing to us where it's not necessarily for attribution and another thing in their more official capacity. we need to narrow the gap. there will always be a little bit of a gap, but we need to narrow it a little bit. if it gets too far out of whack it's a signal that we need to -- as secretary clinton said early on, she encourages and wants to hear different points of view. i don't think people have internalized that yet. i turn it over to you. >> you know the real state joke about three things that are most important -- location, location, location. in this case, i'd say plan, plan, plan. also picking up ms. johnson's issue of the need to talk across

substantive lines, but if one doesn't plan then you're always react i reacting and our budget cycle is not conducive to acting in a reactive mode because then you can't get the resources to, in fact, react. then you have to pull from someplace else. you just cascade your problems, shuffle them from one place to another. so of the things i laid out, i think planning is my overall priority. >> thank you. well, i want to thank you both very much. and thank all the witnesses today. diplomats repeatedly have been targets of attacks and d.s. is charged with keeping them safe so they can advance u.s. interests abroad. you have provided key insights and support of this effort. additionally, i'm hopeful that

diplomatic security will begin taking a strategic approach to addressing its staffing and operational challenges. this is critically important since the department must be fully prepared for new challenges in iraq and afghanistan as well as other crises that may emerge. the hearing record will be open for one week for additional statements or questions other members may have. this hearing the adjourned. of vermont tears

in this judiciary committee, it is two hours and 15 minutes. >> [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. thank everybody for being here and i welcome secretary napalitano back to the committee for a second oversight hearing since her confirmation hearing in january. in the first-ever loss of the secretaries tenure, the department of homeland security, we have seen some market changes in the with the immigration security is in conducted, i hope this will serve as well as we consider broader immigration reform legislation in the new

year. i know that senator schumer as chairman of the subcommittee will be will it working on that and we will try to have an immigration reform legislation. we often hear that we can't begin a comprehensive reform of our immigration laws to deal with control of our borders. since the senate last considered immigration reform, many of us republicans and democratic members alike worked with the former president george w. bush to try to get a comprehensive reform and i several times publicly applauded him for his efforts on that pier and but most of the enforcement benchmarks include in prior legislation were substantially met. indications are illegal immigration has receded and madam secretary we commend you

and in the men, women of their eastern their efforts and border control. it has been more pragmatic and effective to -- conducting targeted audience and were properly the groundwork for meaningful prosecution of employers. the prior administration launched large-scale immigration raids, disrupting business operations, depriving arrested workers of due process. i think that was an overreaction and it madam secretary you have adopted a sensible approach to immigration enforcement. the department reflects your significant experience as a prosecutor before you were here. and as a governor. sensible enforcement in the current law will not by itself solve our problems and we do need reform and comprehensive

reform. an example from my home state of vermont, demonstrates how badly we need broadbased reform of our immigration laws. three weeks ago poor in vermont firms were visited by enforcement agents as part of a nationwide workplace immigration on it. a vermont dairy farmers, law abiding people, want to respect the law, they want to higher unlawful workers, but they struggle to find american workers and unlike other agriculture businesses they are not eligible to hire temporary foreign workers under abc programmer. we do hire temporary workers and vermont for apple picking and things like that. unfortunately in dairy farms you need a year round, you can't tell the house will be back to milky in six months. doesn't work that way -- they are forced to choose between

their livelihood or adhering to our immigration laws. and i have urged the department of labor to modify this to a program in the current bull making process to continue to fight for enactment of the enforcement and i would urge you madam secretary to enforce these. another example again from vermont that demonstrates how we can use immigration laws to promote job creation and foreign investment in the united states, we found a hearing in july, saw how the investor program known as eb5 is three millions of dollars of foreign investments to the state of vermont helping create jobs. i want to commend senator sessions, a strong supporter of the eve d5 process. we work together in legislation on this. and i want to thank the secretary of the department's recent approval an expansion of the ed5 center program in

vermont. long advocated making this a permanent program. extended for another three years, i think it should be permanent. it has soared across the country, alabama, new york, oklahoma, illinois, pennsylvania, south carolina, wisconsin and, of course, vermont. it creates jobs. we also have to have immigration laws that haven't reflection of our american heritage and that is why appreciate the secretary napalitano, who has addressed the shameful detention system. it should have systemic reform with enforceable standards of detention systems internal independent oversight, broader use of security and alternatives to detention, expanded access to legal counsel for the detained. we want americans to live up to our ideals of welcoming and protecting the asylum seekers the refugees.

the problem has made progress, resolving the harm to genuine refugees caused by overly broad application of material support. we are a nation of immigrants. my maternal immigrants -- grandparents immigrated here from italy and my maternal great grape and parents from ireland. that is what makes this country what it is, but more still needs to be done. in i heard the secretary to expeditiously issue r r r r rul on severe gender based persecution's on the basis for asylum claims. these matters have been pending for 14 years. we need regulation to protect other victims. but i want to commend the secretary for working in a constructive manner to address the impending december 31st

real id compliance deadline. the residents of the state's that are not materially compliant with the real idea mayn't be denied access to airplanes in federal buildings, the national governors' association failed to comply by december 31st i can just think of thousands and thousands of americans from the state's will get them on planes to go visit relatives over christmas. and if there is a strict enforcement of the laws when they go to fly back, they will be told they can't. ..

the coble that together. it takes some strong leadership from the top and you have the background that would qualify you for that and we want to be supportive when we can, and provide the oversight that we are required to provide. the primary mission of the department is to lead a unified national effort to secure america to deter terrorist attacks and protect against threats. i believe the attorney general

holder testified before us not long ago his decision to bring khalid sheikh muhammad and other terrorist in new york city for civilian trials is inaction that makes your mission more difficult, bring foreign nationals into the united states allows them to take a definitive the immigration laws and certain rights and federal courts, though our last department of justice oversight hearing, the attorney general seemed unfamiliar with these consequences when asked about them, so i would hope that you can clarify that for us today. and see what we can do about this action that i think would bring into our country some very dangerous people. and it has the potential of resulting in dare being released in the united states. a major component of your mission is securing of the

nation's borders, deterring those who attempt to enter illegally and finding and removing those who have come here in violation of the law while facilitating entry of illegal immigrants in a fair and timely manner. so, i am disappointed by some of the actions that you have taken that i think undermine the enforcement measures for those in the country now illegally, which i think is critical to the during illegal immigration in this country. at a time when the unemployment rate is 10%, i believe it is not responsible to invite our allow illegal workers to take jobs that should be available to american citizens and legal immigrants. by pushing for the legalization of an estimated 12 million people here illegally or by turning a blind eye to the estimated 11, 8 million illegal workers who are now displacing americans from jobs i believe

that your policies are not helping. earlier this year, i told the president at a meeting we had that there should be a real possibility for us to reach an agreement on a number of the important immigration issues. the american people however, cannot and will not accept a bait and switch like the 1886 bill, where it in effect provided immediate amnesty to millions of people who entered illegally in exchange for provinces-- promises for enforcement that never occurred, so i do think it is important that we demonstrate in you demonstrate an enhanced and improved enforcement if we are going to be able to ask the american people to support any kind of comprehensive bill in the future. we have i am pleased to say, made some important strides in

securing our borders and i know the department took some effective steps in the final years of the bush administration to strengthen the interior enforcement through the construction of fencing and increased border patrol agents. we have seen a dramatic agent-- in the amount of apprehensions at the border and i hope and believe this indicates that fewer people are trying to enter illegally. in fact the number of people caught illegally attempting to enter the united states dropped by more than 23% in 2009, and 556,000 apprehensions made in 2009 represents an almost 50% decrease from the 1.1 million arrests made at the border in 2005 and 2006. the department homeland security

has over 340 miles a pedestrian fencing and almost 300 miles of vehicle barriers and this in addition to almost doubling the amount of border patrol agents seized in 2005, so these are developments that have been critical to this progress but to be frank, the leadership did not come from the executive branch. it came from congress and the american people, who insist that these things be done. the fact is that the current dhs policies are systematically beaconing i think our interior enforcement. we need to talk about that. i believe the american people rejected this philosophy in 2006 and 2007 come and we need to be able to assure the american people that laws will be in force and we are not going to just look the other way.

faith in the system is a message sent worldwide when we fail to enforce our laws and the message is if you can just get into this country, you are safe, don't worry about it. cqynar or later they are going to give you a legal status.@@@ãc reduction in worksite enforcement efforts is not healthy, and it is not going to be made up by ini audits that

have not proved historically to be effective. under current policies, dhs has rescinded the noam rule, weakened the 287 local law enforcement cooperation program and pressed for passage of a bill that was unacceptably weak in the real id act. these actions are troubling, because they indicate the administration is saying that if illegal aliens are able to get into their country, they will not be bothered, so this is i think a wrong policy and it's wrong message. this country is a nation of immigrants. we do welcome millions of people, millions each year who follow the law and into our country to the lawful channels.

this country is the nation also of loss and the cannot refuse to enforce those laws. it undermines respect for the great tradition and heritage of american law. so i look forward to discussing these issues with you during the hearing, the important questions i really and truly believe we have an opportunity to continue to make progress and immigration far greater than a lot of people have thought and at this time with the surge in unemployment i feel it is important we do so. thank you for your work. thank you for the skills and talents to bring to the office and i look forward to working with you on matters on which we can agree and to raising matters to which we don't agree. thank you. >> thank you senator sessions. madam secretary. >> thank you chairman leahy, senator sessions, members of the committee. securing our borders in enforcing immigration laws is

made top priority for the department, and security. over the past year, we have taken the unprecedented action to achieve our goals and the results have been striking. as part of the southwest border initiative we have added more manpower, technology and resources to the border. wit implemented a southtown strategy to prevent illegal weapons and cash from crossing the border into mexico supporting a large drug cartels there and expanded our partnerships with their federal, state and local wittstock was border and mexico and mexican law-enforcement. compared to last year, seizures and all categories, drugs, smuggle cash, illegal weapons are up dramatically as a result of the southtown strategy. as noted, apprehensions are also at decade lows, down 23% this year, and senator sessions i

agree with you, interior and enforcement as part and parcel of immigration enforcement. we have in the last year identified and removed criminal aliens, fugitives and gang members in record numbers. and fiscal year 2009, i.c.e. removed a record number of illegal immigrants, 387,000 of which 136,000 were criminal aliens. secured communities, which we are expanding throughout law enforcement agencies in the united states. it checks the biometrics booked in local jails, identified more than 111,000 criminal aliens just in this first year. we have improved oversight in the 287 gee program and renegotiated the agreements there to make them more effective. we have enhanced in expanded e-verify. this is also part of interior and enforcement. over 175,000 employers and more

than 600,000 work sites are using the system with thousands more joining every week. and that is important because that provides a way for the american worker to know that the legality of workers is being checked. we have taken action to reform immigration detention systems to ensure that those in custody are treated humanely, given appropriate time the medical care. we are improving federal oversight and management including more direct supervision of detention facilities by i.c.e. and we are also developing strategies for alternatives to detention to be used where appropriate. these efforts are part of our enforcement but as we both noted, we also facilitate the illegal entry into the united states, and mr. chair, i had the honor of being at ellis island last friday and swearing in 140 new citizens to the united

states including ten active duty military and one is the great pleasures of being secretary of homeland security and while i was there they gave me the ship registry where my grandfather came over and emigrated, so it just illustrates once again that we are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. with respect to that, we have eliminated the name check backlog. we have launched a very customer oriented web site. we also have eliminated the so-called widow's penalty and other things that were not consistent with our overall immigration values. finally, we are continuing to ensure that lawful travelers and commerce move across the border as quickly insecurely. is unimplemented that land, sea and airports. complaints remains very high, but 95%. we are strengthening u.s. visit and then lastly on the issue of

the driver's licenses, 9/11 commission recommended that there be more secure provisions surrounding issuance of driver's licenses. there was a provision tacked onto an appropriations bill called real i.d., to do that. unfortunately, it was tacked on without adequate consultation with the state's elected minister the driver's license program for the working with the national governors' association, working in cross party lines, it was developed and i urge you to see if you can move this legislation forward. the deadline is fast approaching and as mr. jimminy noted, this is something even if we extend the deadline, we have to for the 9/11 commission report which is to get to a more secure driver's license system. >> but you do support the pass id? >> absolutely and we are very interested and i think national

security as we build the architecture of it, requires the take on that recommendation a move the agency forward. finally, we need to no, or we look forward to working with you on immigration reform. the president is committed to that. he is committed to reform that includes serious, effective been sustained enforcement that includes improved legal flows for families and workers, and a firm way to deal with those already illegally in the country. we need to demand responsibility and accountability from everyone involved, the department, and security, our law enforcement partners, businesses and we must be able to find the workers they need here in america, and immigrants themselves, as we enforce the law of moving forward. so i look forward to working

with you mr. chairman, senator sessions and others on this committee to develop a path forward early next year to reform the immigration system as a whole. >> thank you very much. were going to go around to ask one question. i have already discussed it with senator sessions. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you secretary napolitano. just a brief question. this is on the western hemisphere travel initiative that went into effect on june 1st in buffalo new york and rounder nor them border. we have seen a precipitous drop off on border crossings in the good part of that, at least the people there believe is because of the lack of education. that canadians believe they need a passport to travel across the border. obviously they don't. was put together to make easy to travel across the border but the problem is they believe that and a good number of our americans believe the same.

western new york and buffalo depends on cross-border traffic. it is probably the number-one thing in their economies so would you be willing to work with me and commit to working with you and your canadian cully to get an education campaign on both sides of the border informing people with the requirements are of witi that you don't need a passport and it is not very hard to travel across the border because it is hurting our economy up there pretty badly. >> senator schumer yes. in fact we have had an extension campaign for several months including when people get to across point they are giving you sheet sing this is all you need to do and you can get over here and get your witi card, one-stop shopping but we are more than willing. >> they think they need a passport. less than one-third of canadians and slightly higher percent, less than one-third of americans and slightly higher percentage of canadians have a passport, so

we need to get that education to the people who have not gone across the border and if you could help us with that and work with your kannady and colleague and would be most welcome. mr. chairman and my colleagues thank you. >> i hear the same questions in vermont. many of us go back and forth regularly to canada as though we are going to another state, and it does affect commerce considerably on both sides of the border, and others-- my wife does, family members and can the and i know it is just a personal thing but i know hundreds and hundreds of people in our state of vermont where it becomes an issue with family, said the education, the canadians doing the same would be very helpful. last, apparently the tsa, the

transportation security administration, you and i discussed this before you came in, poston airports grading manual on line last spring and detailed procedures for screening passengers, how certain materials can be masked and so on. they described x-ray machines and explosives, listed the countries from which passport holders would be subject to greater scrutiny. apparently tsa learned of this last sunday after a blog varon put it on the internet. then they initiated an internal review. who should be held accountable? >> first of all, mr. chairman, let me say two things about the posting itself. and that is that the security of

the traveling public has never been put at risk and the document that was posted was an out of date document. nonetheless the posting of it did not meet our own standards for what should be available on the net and not available on the net, so we have already initiated personnel actions against the individuals involved in that. we have already instituted an internal review to see what else needs to be done so the incident never occurs, and i have directed that not just to tsa but that we delay rereview of departmentwide, all of our departments because as you know we have got one of the the biggest apartments around, to make sure that we are being rigorous and very discipline in what is posted in what is not. >> am i correct that this involves a contractor?

>> the individual involved was a contractor. some of the supervisors ultimately were ntsa. i should also say with respect to this particular incident we have also asked the inspector general to do his own independent review to supplement and complement what we are doing. >> thank you. this week new terrorism related charges were filed in the case against david hadley, a u.s. citizen who was originally rested for conspiring to commit terrorist attacks in denmark. but now he has been charged with helping to plan the didley mumbai attacks in india last year. darrah binnun number brass within the united states. persons charged with plotting attacks. i'm not going to ask you to going to the individual cases but as you can imagine, this raised a great deal of concern among americans when we have people plotting attacks from the

united states even though they may be conducted outside of the united states because it is just as easy to apply such attacks inside the united@@@pjjjjá >> well, mr. chairman, with respect to hadley, i will keep my remarks restricted on the nature of the case and the justice system as you yourself noted, but we coordinate and are

coordinating extensively with the fbi, the cia, the dni and other intelligence agencies in terms of cases that emanate from broad-- from the interior of the united states. secondly we are increasing our sharing of information at the state and local, so those are the eyes and ears, local law enforcement that need to be more fully engaged and plug in, watching for those who would seek to do us harm and have the information and situational awareness to do it. one of the ways we are doing that mr. chair is through support of fusion centers across the country. >> support of what? >> fusion centers where we have a federal state and local law enforcement collocated and to give you some nuts and bolts, one of the problems we are working through a security clearance so people can get

information top-secret and above levels, and that is a process that is underway right now, and lastly, we are really asking the american people to lead forward and that the individual, business, the community level, whereever come to recognize our security is really a shared responsibility and there things that can be done at all levels even as we work at the dhs to prevent something from occurring. >> but, i agree with you it is important to come forward with things, but then we have to make sure the word gets the route the government. 9/11 could have been totally avoided. there had been warnings from the at least one fbi agent to washington about the concerns he had with the people who were

getting the flight lessons and he was told, well that is above your pay grade. we have got it under control. and nobody did. it really worries me that that could ever happen again. one issue totally different, i mention this in my opening statements, the h2a worker bees up. worker visas. the fact that dairy farmers cannot use this program is a problem. it makes little since when you consider the reason for h2a worker visa programs. it is a problem in wisconsin, in a problem in every state that has the dairy industry. i have commented formerly to a rulemaking process and of its written to secretary solis about this. age to waive rules from

sheepherders to obtain h2a visas, even though the job is exactly what prevent dairy farmers from obtaining workers and that is really not fair. i suggested we-- i'm not with suggesting we cut it from them but to encourage the labor department to make the rules necessary on the h2a program. >> mr. chair, yes and we have been working with the department of labor. there is the issue presented is whether through rule or preg we can fix this issue for the dairy farmers under age two a or whether there will need to be a statutory change and the lawyers are looking at that issue right now. >> god bless the lawyers. but, we do want a solution one way or the other sns we can. >> agreed. >> thank you. senator sessions again i appreciate your courtesy.

>> thank you and i know senator leahy is always working to be effective in helping his constituents, and there are some problems with this farmworker policies we have. let me just say fundamentally what i think we have a problem with. under the last two proposals of comprehensive reform, it basically allowed people to come to work temporarily for three years to bring their families and then opt to re-up again. that clearly is not a strategy that would be effective in the sense that it has no real potential to see them return home. they put down roots. their children start going to school. so if we are going to have an ed program, i think it clearly has to be on a temporary basis or a

person wants to come for a season or in the case of terese, maybe they would have to people come and work ten months each or something of that action but the idea that we would call a temporary worker program a program in which people come for multiple years but their families, with the ability to extend immigration policy puts the us and it's very difficult position. there are so many tough questions on this immigration issues but that is one of the matters were think we have to get our thinking correct about. madam secretary, i was troubled and i raised with you earlier about the statements in washington state, it workplace investigation and you said you were going to get to the bottom of it and the way i anders that it, the message you were sending was, and i told you that, that you didn't want those rates. you didn't want agents out doing what the law requires and that

is to investigate businesses to have large numbers of people who are here illegally, and statistics by isaf show the rest of illegal immigrants are down 60% man that is the category i'm talking about. criminal arrests are down 60%. criminal indictments are down 50% and criminal convictions are down 63% last year. the only activity that this increases the amount of requirements under the ayn ayn audits. such audits which were a fixture of inez policy during the clinton administration, a widely consented to be ineffectual and fines of businesses small and too small to deter the activities were concerned about. and in addition to on paperwork issues the administration has repeatedly refused to take into

custody or deport illegal aliens found working when you do the investigations. one high-profile case for example, american apparel the notorious dos anjos based immigration law garment manufacturing were allowed to terminate hundreds of illegal employees in a series of small dismissals and illegal aliens were allowed to walk free in a way that would allow them to seek employment elsewhere. a recent story on minnesota public radio recounts a similar practice were 1200 illegal aliens were found employed, well-paid janitorial jobs instead of obtaining and applying them the officials went to great pains to ensure the public that they were not being arrested. when misspoke about worksite enforcement at the last hearing you told me "we continue

worksite enforcement." and we continue all our enforcement actions and we will very vigorously. in your written response to questions for the record you also stated, i set strategy would target employers who knowingly hire illegal labor while continuing to arrest and remove illegal workers. you promised that worksite and enforcement operations will continue. administrative arrest will occur and eyes will conduct work sais enforcement investigations of any business regardless of size that is suspected of knowingly employing an unauthorized workers, so how do you square those statements with the numbers that indicate a significant reduction enforcement actions? >> senator i'm glad you ask those questions because i think it is important to emphasize all

of the work that has been done on the interior of our country to enforce immigration laws and just let me repeat, this year since i have been secretary, i.c.e. removed a record number of illegal aliens and their record number of criminal aliens and what we are doing is really focusing on those in the interior of the country who have broken the law and also those who impact public safety. now with respect to work fiec -- work site inspection itself, if we have not supplied you with these numbers, i would be happy to do that. a record number of businesses and individuals for immigration violations. record number of notices of intent to find in with you, the fines are too low. is one of the things i hope congress will take a look at when it addresses immigration reform. final orders to seize

violations, to seize violations at record highs. we have literally done dozens upon dozens of worksite enforcement and i think one of the key differences is that i would like to emphasize is almost the change and intense as we go into a work site. when we go into a work site, our focus, our intent now is to go after the employer, him or herself, themselves because they are creating the demand and you have to deal with immigration, the supply and the demand issue. that is difficult under the current law i will say because the current law doesn't give us some of the enforcement tools be like to do that, but that is why i think you have to look at all the numbers, not just a few to see if there is actually been more worksite enforcement this year than in prior years. lastly i would reiterate

e-verify. e-verify it is a fast-growing system. it is a way that is easy. it is continually being built for employers to verify that the employees they are hiring are here in the country legally and i hope to keep driving the immigration system as a whole toward employer use of e-verify. >> thank you and the border area is very important and progress is being made there, but we do need to reduce that jobs magnet particularly in a time of record on employment for our country. >> i agree. >> thank you senator sessions. senator feingold. >> thank you very much mr. chairman, madam secretary thank you for being here. fema has now obligated $44 billion in response to hurricane katrina, read up in

wilma since 2005 however according to the excluded party list system database, fema has not suspended or debarred a single contract. does this mean your department maintains that no fema contractor has committed fraud during the reconstruction efforts or otherwise? >> senator, let me have the opportunity to take a look into that and give you a more thoughtful response later. >> do you have any initial sense? >> i have made no such conclusion but i don't know whether there are any actions underway and that is what i would like to check for you. >> i would very much appreciate that response and really would like to know if this database is being used properly. if in fact there have been fraud investigations, and if not, i would like to know why not.

>> fair enough. >> in august of this year the department issued new policies governing searches of travelers, electronic devices such as laptops are ipod's at the border. i am deeply disappointed with the policy the department adopted come in particular the refusal to adopt any sort of standard for searching u.s. citizens of the border and madam secretary in addition to the inconvenience picasa the international business travelers these policies also do nothing to as a wage racial profiling when it index. >> border searches. this is unacceptable and that is why i am planning to reintroduce the travelers privacy protection act in the coming months. i've been told the department was the least attempting to increase oversight in transparency related to these searches but given the vastly different standards laid out for cd p it is unclear whether even that goal has been accomplished so the two policies when read in

tandem seem to create a series of loopholes that allow these electronic devices to be held in search for long periods of time without requiring a showing of probable cause. for example, is it true that cbp agents have to obtain supervisory approval to keep a laptop for more than five days, but in eyes officer doesn't have to obtain any additional approvals to holden search the laptop for up for 30 days? >> but we are talking about seizures of the border and that would be conducted at cbp. >> that is my point. is in their differential between the two agencies, one standard with regard to laptops and another one with regard to an ipod, depending on the agency? >> senator, yes but i think we would differentiated based-- different types of investigations that each of those components for form.

>> i understand with the scotians from your staff that i.c.e. officers conducting searches of all electronic devices enhances the i.c.e. policy, not the cd policy that would apply. is that correct? >> i would have to have a greater context but i think we at to step back and look at what is it that we are doing from a law enforcement perspective. first of all we have changed the policy with respect to search of electronic media particularly the laptop. that was the genesis of the original set of questions i think you posted my oversight hearing a few months ago. the policy was revised significantly to have more supervisorial inside. the plain fact of the matter is we sees electronic media, sometimes i.c.e. seizes it in conjunction with the crem investigation, sometimes the secret service seizes it in conjunction with a criminal fustigation but the concern was

raised with respect to business travelers who are traveling internationally being stopped at the border and that is the policy we have revised, provided more supervise oral import, but i also have to say as someone whose agency is responsible for the counter-terrorism missions are partially responsible for it, this is an important capacity for still have as law enforcement. >> i don't doubt that all but i am looking here for some appropriate trigger for this kind of search which i think it's serious business and for consistency between the different agencies. >> center if i might, at the border, the law has been for many years now that the reasonable suspicion of standard does not apply for somebody entering the country at the border, and if the question is why do you apply the same standard at the border as is done in the interior of the

country, where you would have to have a higher standard, the answers because entry into the country is something that is not viewed as an absolute right and that is by alaa in that area differentiates the standards for research. >> madam secretary we will continue this does that over time. over the last several years dhs has substantially increased its reliance on state and local law enforcement 40's to enforce federal immigration laws. including recent expansion of partnerships with law-enforcement in the secure communities program. and both of these programs have stated their goal is to remove dangerous but there have been numerous reports of widespread use of these programs by law enforcement including selective enforcement certain laws against latinos and other minorities in pretextual traffic stops and other arrests for minor violations. i think this is unacceptable especially because most of the law enforcement communities that signed on to these agreements do

not have policies prohibiting racial profiling. i understand beaches and tried to address some of these concerns by coming up with a standard treaty that will require law enforcement to prosecute any charges they filed against an individual they arrest but i don't think this will get that many of the concerns of many civil rights groups raised about their for minor traffic offenses and immigration related charges. so with the goal of these programs is to prioritize the rest of dangerous criminals were not set clear guidelines that limit their arrest and referral to felonies? >> senator and the fact that is what has happened because what we did is we took 287g and by the way we still have, there has been some suggestion made that we have reduced it. no, we have refocused it on to areas. one is in the jails come to run

immigration checks in the jails and that way if securer-- garr koppel mance of each other and secondly in conjunction with federal task forces whose priorities are a federal fugitives and felony gang members, you know, the higher level criminals to impact public safety. >> of that is the effect why not have the guidelines to say that? >> well, senator, i think that's that in effect is what happened and those agreements now have all but been renegotiated. >> i would urge the guidelines reflect the purpose which is to get the more serious offenses but i thank you for your answer. >> thank you. senator kyl. >> madam secretary, governor, thank you for being here. you spoke earlier about the tsa breach and i applaud you for having an ig review.

could i also make another recommendation and that is that when preaches like this occur in the intelligence community, the cia for example they do they damage example by somebody not within the agency itself to determine what advantage a potential enemy could have gotten from the information and then usually make recommendations about what procedures or other actions are necessary to ameliorate that damage. if you haven't decided to do that already can i recommend that you do that, and when it is done provide the committee with a classified version of the report and by the way it ordinarily these things are best done really quickly. any comment? >> senator, i guess. that is something we have been looking at. my first question has been what exactly was put there that was not otherwise available either by observation of airport checkpoint or the like?

but indeed if it is ascertained that there was some series of information not otherwise available that was put out, i think the red teaming issue is something that we consider absolutely. >> does from public reports, clearly there things you the one out there spelling out the settings on the x-ray machines and explosive detectors, passenger and baggage screening details, pictures of credentials that are authorized, those kinds of things. clearly somebody could take advantage of those things and i think is really important that not the the parton of homeland security but somebody else i did the park and make that evaluation. >> write senator. that is one of the genesis for the ig taking a look at it, and it is a suggestion i am happy to entertain. >> secondly you know my support for something called operation streamline, a method by deterring immigration by

charging those who repeatedly cross the border illegally with misdemeanor offenses and ensuring they have jail time. there to basic questions i want to ask you about that. first of all i was disappointed that they mentioned in the conference report, this is a report on it has to be done to determine what resources both your deparle burnham doj would need to make available to maintain and expand this program. it has been very effective in two areas that i know of in my understanding is it is that the rocky start in the third. texas and arizona, but very effective. tuscon sector and think has been fully implemented and i think part of the reason may be a look of detention space so to questions. what are your plans with expanding operations streamline? if so where you think it might be, and then secondly i will get into the question of detention space. >> i think first of all i support operation streamline. i think it is effective.

i think with respect to the tucson sector which is by magnitude the larger sector that we have, they provide logistical difficulties. i think we have the dead space available. i think we are de silva-- solving your detention issues. we had an issue with the ninth circuit, piece of these streamline that has just come down a couple of days ago, about how please are done in streamline matters and given the volume of cases, and i know you know that courthouse well, we have had to be working out there in terms of how are going to operationally address the court of appeals concerns so we continue to streamline in the tucson sector, and while i am not free to discuss the president's budget at this time obviously i can say in my view it fully addresses some of our issues.

>> thank you for that. the study that is required we will ask you to report to us your evaluation of what else you need to expand the program effectively. i'm concerned because conference this not increased tensions space at old. in does include alternative to detention but of course alternative to detention is exactly not the point of operation streamline. the whole point is the deterrent effect of detention. >> yes senator and the issue there however is it takes some of the other detainees and puts them in alternative detention any kaput cure streamline detentions and a hard that. >> if you think attention is adequate though, i would respectfully request that you conclude-- conclude that argument in the study you perform for us because they think there's a concern among some of those in congress that we need additional space especially to make operation streamline work.

obviously this also gets the question of security in the southern border, and the first line of defense are the border patrol agents. the bill for funding this year only calls for an additional 100 agents but it also, the conference report also requires the northern border increase by about 700, 1525 to 2012. obviously they have to come from somewhere, presumably the southern border. wrong, in that we can do that especially-- one question, do you still intend to try to reach the goal of 2,000-- 20,000 agents. second, how will we maintain-- you have sid your goal is to maintain a force of 17,000 in the course we have 17,415 as i understand it any more so how these were all these numbers and the fact that the obama

administration only requested funding for 100? >> what we are doing i think to get to the right of your question senator is, how we keep meeting our congressional marks in terms of the number of agents in meter congressional marks on the northern border without subtracting from one to get to the next? the answer is our staff plan calls for us, what we are going to do is we have headquarters staffing and reduce academy staffing at the border patrol in order to make sure that we had both of those marks and stay within the financial needs of the country. congress has been very clear that you know we need to be as rick grists budgetarily as we can become so we really did a scrub and where can we move some fte's? >> that is good but just to interrupt to ask what is the mark for the southern border for next year in terms of active agents? >> i will have to give you the exact number but it is right

around 20,000. >> okay. >> it is the congressional mark. >> okay, also have got a couple of other questions in my time has expired so i will submit them to the record. >> thank you senator kyl. senator whitehouse. >> thank you chairman. welcome. if you don't mind that would like to briefly shift the topic. >> senator whitehouse, senator kyl, i see him standing there and he is actually supposed to be next. >> mr. chairman he is the senior member of our class of senators who came in two years ago so i owe him-- >> i appreciate the courtesy and i am prepared to wait for senator whitehouse and senator cornyn's and i will be prepared to testify. >> senator, go ahead. >> on cyber we had a hearing and it is good that senator cardin is here. he held that in his judiciary

subcommittee. your deputy undersecretary from dhs was there, associate deputy attorney general james baker was there, and a senior official from nsa and the fbi were there and i asked them if any of them were satisfied with the existing legal structure within which the cyberdefense effort currently operates, and i got a unanimous the array of no from each of them. there is understand an interagency process that is led by or through the national security council, but given all the responsibilities of the national security council, i am not entirely comfortable that that is a good and lasting government-- government structure for cybersecurity

efforts. i see that more as an interim structure, and i would love to hear your thoughts on the adequacy of the present legal structure and whether you concur with the views of the other officials who spoke at senator carney's hearing and were you think our governance of our cybersecurity efforts should go, bearing in mind that a lot of principles at the cabinet meeting have a piece of this issue. >> well, i think senator, two things. one is, you are right, the legal parameters in which we are handling some of the cyberissues are being looked at very deeply now i would say. it is not simply a domestic issue in that regard. it is an international issue

because obviously the networks are international in scope. some of the logistical issues involve things like servers that are not located in the united states, but yes, that is part of an interagency process that is on going. with respect to how that is organized, i think what impact has happened is that dhs has moved as the president's policy refuse suggested, to be the lead agency for the protection of the.gov sites as well as an intersection with the private sector on dodd dorgan.com sites in indeed i just had some meetings in silicon valley not too long ago and phil has been out there quite a bit talking with them. >> if i could interrupt on that, ultimately, doj will have the lead on all of the legal determinations. that is their lane of the road.

ultimately, other agencies will have the technical lead, because of the technical complexity of undertaking the efforts that we do, and when you take out the technical aspects and the legal aspects, it is hard to see how homeland security and with a very strong platform for consistence leadership unless there is some vehicle for coordinating the dni and you and the attorney general and everybody together, and i'm not comfortable with that presently. i think the nfc has said they could interim measure but it would seem that that should evolve into a more formal cyberspecific government structure at some point, and are you really confident that dhs at the top of that orbit with

everybody else in a layer below it is their appropriate-- should there be a white house leadership on this? >> there is white house leadership in the process, but i would suggest that the dhs platform is actually much more significant than your question suggests. i was just for example out in virginia at the ribbon cutting for the huge computer center that is being, that is part of the dhs structure now. of course we are working with doj on matters that are investigatory nature for when they need to bring cases and our alliance is very close. the nsa, with all this technical capacity, provides assistance both to us and to dod, which has the lead in on the side of the world, and we take our roadmap

from the president's review and now, what we have been focusing on and by the way phil is a former doj prosecutor, so the lines there could not be closer, but in any event, we take our review organizationally in terms of how the cyberworld is divided from the policy review and one of our key things we are focused on now quite frankly is staffing up. >> in my last minute let me just ask a more precisely, are you comfortable with the existing governance structure or is that still at work in progress and can we expect a more permanent government structure for defense agents structure a tax to emerge as the interagency process goes forward? >> senator, i would think there is an evolution, but i would

suggest that, if this is where the question is going, the absence of a czar per se is not the way we have organized. to me, what ultimately will be involved. to me what ultimately well evolve auto this is a very robust coordination component within the structure, on the operational side, dhs on leta flats adjusted for.gov, intersection on the private sector in dod on the.gov side. >> thank you. my time has expired. i believe senator cornyn now has the floor. >> thank you very much. adams secretary, good morning. good to see you.

last wednesday you testified before the commerce transportation committee post-9/11 and one question had to do with whether you were consulted by the attorney general before a decision was made to try khalid sheikh muhammad and other co-conspirators in new york, rick least attempt to try them there since you know and i know a judge will ultimately decide where that trial will take place, but were you consulted? >> i did not no, i did not talk with the attorney general. that is the prosecution decision as to where and what to bring the case and i believe that is held by the ag. >> and, on i agree that the attorney general is the one who makes that decision at least primarily and of course the president of the united states is going to have to make a decision whether a military

authority willen fact turn the detainees over to civilian authorities. ipers them that authority will be granted since i can imagine the attorney general would have announced his decision without a least some indication from the president that he agreed with him. but, the question i have for you is, i asked the attorney general about some of the immigration related issues and i know that you know that seven senators on the committee wrote a letter in november asking for further detail on the immigration status of these detainees. do you have an opinion as to what sort of legal status would be conferred on these detainees once they are brought to american soil and what implications that might have in terms of if they were acquitted or charges were dismissed, whether it would be able to be detained indefinitely or not? >> yes senator and we have sent

a formal response to your letter, but here is the way it works, and that is, for example, for a detainee who was brought here for the purposes of prosecution, they are paroled and that is the technical term used but there paroled into the country only for purposes of prosecution. ..

if their home country wouldn't take them back? >> senator, those are questions that i don't like to answer on a speculative basis. >> on a speculative basis? >> yes, i think that first of all you have to first of all the question that was raised in the letter to me was for what purpose is to they enter country? are they able for example to apply for a silent or refugee status? the answer is no. barely brought into the country for purposes of prosecution. and in the off chance if there were to be an acquittal for those individuals they would immediately be put into removal proceedings and deported from the country. spivak while madame secretary, i understand it would be your intention but certainly they

would once in the country have some legal rights, would they not and possibly you wouldn't be the one making that decision, possibly some judge would be making that decision. >> senator, they are only in their statutory language to does the fact that they are only brought into the country for purposes of the prosecution. >> well, and i guess this goes to my questions i have for general holder and that is that while he says he made a decision that the individuals could be safely tried in manhattan as i alluded to earlier, just a judg is going to decide on a change of venue whether or not they will be tried there or somewhere else. and it certainly was there brought into the country if they have certain additional rights of the right to their presence on american soil, you aren't necessarily going to be the last word judge if they invoke the jurisdiction of the courts is

ultimately going to make that decision. you know, i asked general holder what happens if were some reason since the administration has made the decision that now detainees will be treated like criminals rather than enemy combatants under the laws of war. in some court decides that when colleagues shape mohammed asked for a lawyer and he was denied a lawyer and because of coercive and enhanced interrogation techniques in his testimony can't be used in somehow decides that he can't be tried in an article iii courts. what guarantees do we have that he can be detained indefinitely? either here or somewhere else? >> well, senator again i think that's what the attorney general decided is based on a firm conviction in the values inherited in the criminal

justice is done and the american court system and that this trail can be held and held successfully in new york city. >> well, i think what concerns me the most is that actually i think the decision was not fully vetted and thought out in terms of what the potential consequences would be. i have no doubt as to what the attorney general's attention are, but he's not the final judge so to speak and someone else will be making that decision. for example, as you notice the record i said that you cannot indefinitely detain someone in this country under this on the dos decision and the question is if they're not available for repatriation to their own country where will we keep them? anyway, you get my point. i understand the attorney general has not signed off on the letter yet. we haven't gotten it yet. >> you'll get it today.

>> if i can ask you one more question about human smuggling initiatives. i was in the rio grande valley recently and i is briefly the program -- problems they're having with wire transfers by criminals and dug cartels to traffic narcotics and smuggle people. i'm frankly impressed with the good work they've done, but they tell me they need some additional legal resources for example on to many of the money transfers ibo can claim to be somebody they are not in this not adequate that can allow us to trace the source of the funds. are you aware of that issue generally and what i'm offering is that there are additional legal authorities that your department needs or ice needs in order to track down and prosecute these wire transfers involving narcotics or human smuggling we'd be glad to work

with you on that. >> thank you senator and i'm very aware of that issue. it's something that i worked on when i was attorney general of arizona among other things here and and i would hope that the committee takes up the issue of immigration that some of those tools could eat contemplated. >> when would that be? >> well, the chairman indicated in his testimony that he liked to take it up next year. >> i was one of those who worked with former president bush and complement his efforts of comprehensive package. and i would hope we can get back to trying that. i think that something is going to require republicans and democrats to come together. i think it can be done. i don't think anybody no matter where you are in the political spectrum feels the system we have today is working perfectly by any means. and i would hope to have a@@@@rr

senator cardin, you've been waiting patiently. i.t. thank you for your courtesy. >> i'm going to follow up on one of senator whitehouse's comments on sovereign security. the hearing i conduct did in the

terrorism subcommittee was rather sobering. the vulnerability of america that we know that there are nationstates that are actively trying to compromise are cyber security in the united states. we know that these efforts could lead to soldiers or terrorists or criminals invading our country through cyberspace. and one of the sobering numbers that came out at that hearing madam secretary is that when asked how effective are we in protecting this the 80% number came out which word i think the very damage and to think that there's a 20% success rate. now that admittedly is something that is private resources, not always government resources that are being attacked. but it does mean that we're losing billions of dollars a year through sovereign tax. it does mean that we are vulnerable to hostile force trained to comment and interfere with our cyber information,

compromising our energy source is our financial systems, our military. so in your response, you talked about the fact that you have a review going forward and there's an issue now as to whether there needs to be a more focused person within the white house or whether the department of homeland security should take the lead. barely an essay that is a critical role here at the department of defense has their own. i still have concerns whether we have a game plan in place. the initial review show that there was still a lot more needed to be done. this is an urgent issue. i just want to emphasize the urgency of action here. now there's two parts to this. i'd like to have you you respond to both. whitehouse mentioned the legal basis for effectiveness in getting information we need him to have in place we need to protect our nation, but also privacy.

there is a concern that there is personally identified information that may be available and we're not sure that we have in place adequate oversight to make sure that we minimize invasion of individual privacy. now as we move towards einstein three, those same concerns are in place. we want you to work with us to make sure that we've institutionalized the protection of privacy for american citizens over personal information that's not needed for security. but then secondly we want to make sure that we have in place adequate structures so that we can counter double their ability that bad players are trying to perpetrate on the united states, particularly mindful that nsa located in maryland at the premiere collection agency in the world is actively working on this. and i just called to your attention to give this matter the highest attention.

>> well senator, i couldn't agree with you more. indeed i believe that the cyber mission is one of the major missions of the whole homeland security environment. it's also a rapidly evolving one and changing one almost by the time you are talking about a particular intrusion, it is passed and you're onto the next one. so i just want to clarify if i might one thing. and that is i don't think there is any confusion at least amongst the cabinet as to the division of labor. that is that the department of defense operationally have a .mil site. the.gov that the nsa provides technical assistance to both. the institutionalization of privacy in the protection of privacy issues is built now into our own dhs process. so from an operational

standpoint, we have moved in a way past the initial review. the question i think senator whitehouse had goes to somebody coordinating operational efforts in the case of a major attack from the white house. >> i think that was his concern. but i think was also his concern on the broader issues to make sure that we have in place the coronation that requires interagency. and whether that is adequately addressed under the current chain of command. i think that's still an issue that we're not quite confident is in place that the review by the president seemed to indicate that was not clear. i know we've taken steps to counter some of that, but at least the initial information indicated that there was a need for a stronger coronation. >> i think that senator i think that's correct and i think in the months since that review a great deal of work has been done

and will be continued to be done in this regard. again, this was an area if i might say that we have really put a priority on over the last year. and whatever cheap challenges right now, one of the key priorities we have is really speeding up the hiring process to bring on more individuals who work in the sabrina. >> well i thank you for that and we went to work with you closely. another hearing we had in our subcommittee that we can all have the tough topics. that high containment labs in the united states and obvious of concern here with the anthrax attack on the congress it felt. fort dietrich is moving forward with this lab which we're proud of the work that's being done there by very dedicated people, dealing with some of the most challenging risk against america. there is also here an issue of

coordination. there's a lot of federal agencies are involved in dealing with our high containment labs. and there's been some reports here indicating. i know that the committee on homeland security and senator lieberman and senator collins following legislation. part of that would be to try to deal with select agentless by tier so that there are added precautions to those who deal with those chemicals and agents that could very well be used as a weapon of mass distraction. and to require greater background checks, greater security issues, training, etc. greater inventory controls,, ephedra. have you had a chance to review those and do you have any view on its? i have reviewed them and discuss them with members of the department including the newly confirmed undersecretary for science and technology,.err zero tool who is an expert in this area.

the way we look at it is that the department of homeland security provides standards that would need to be met. in a way similar or analogous to what we've been doing in the chemical arena in the ceefax process where you have to cheering as you suggest one, two, three, and four and you have an engagement process by which laboratories are tiered and standards established. >> well, i would just urge you. we need to have a system that promotes best practices, as there's a lot of good things going on. we need to have a much more sophisticated background checks etc. and continuing review for those who have access to those items that could very well be part of the weapon of mass destruction. i think senator lieberman's point is to try to move us in that direction and there's been other recommendations and i hope we can move quickly on these

issues as well. >> i concur. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. madame secretary, i just want to talk to for a moment. i am really concerned that we may be unwittingly presiding over the demise of american agriculture. i have never seen one more stressed. i come to the largest agricultural states in the union. california is a driver, sometimes for good and sometimes a driver for not so good. but what we see happening our growing farmers moving to mexico. operating lance in mexico hiring mexicans and importing into this country. i'll give you one example. a man by the name is steve's karami, 2000 acres, 500 jobs,

50 million operation in california to guadalajara. today he exports 2 million pounds of lettuce a week and he has spent thousands of dollars to start up his new farms and train workers. that's what's happening. western growers tells me back and tells everybody i assume that at least 85,000 acres of farmland from california and arizona are now in mexico and at least 22,000 added jobs are now in mexico. and we see it in apples. we see it in dairy, we see it in pairs, we see it in crops. and if you add to that some of the other economic stressors for the first time in my lifetime i have seen farmers in bread lines in the sinful valley. and you add to this your i-9 audit which sent a chilling effect over the rest of

agriculture,. respectfully, i do not agree with the ranking member. i think we are destroying our culture because like it or not agriculture depends on a non-domestic workforce to the greatest extent. virtually all of the big ad states do. and i think we have two recognize it. and so i have been increasingly concerned by the inability to move any legislation that would give some protection to workers who are committed to work agriculture for a period of years. and that namely is ag jobs. h2 way will not do it. if you are 24/7 828, 365 days a year will not do it. and i am increasingly concerned by what's happening and of course the product of this is

that we import more food produced from outside our country and therefore there is more salmonella concerns as they were with peppers and other things coming into the country. and i think the country that strong really should be able to produce its own food, but you can't do it with domestic labor and that's just a fact. so we have to have public policy that deals with it. so i wanted to say that to you publicly because i hammer it and hammer it and no one pays attention. it's as if we're in this great thrust to drive anybody that's illegal out of this country no matter how valuable their services may be. another problem that i've had is the visa waiver program. i believe the visa waiver program, it is essentially the soft underbelly of the visa

system. now we have 35 countries. we have 16 million people coming in. i believe the overstays still run about 40% of the undocumented population. in other words, there's 40% that you really don't know where it came from is what i'm trying to say. and i've always suspect did people come in on a visitors visa and they just decide to stay. and that's a large part of the undocumented population. so let me ask you this question. what steps has dhs taken to begin to track who's entered the united states through the visa waiver program and if they've left our overstayed their visit? >> senator, we've taken a number of steps on the visa overstay issue. and i'd be happy to supply you with a more complete briefing for your staff in a more complete briefing. but particularly those who come

in by air tracking them as they come in and now being able to measure better whether or not they have left. we are also working -- >> how do you do that specifically? >> one is because we have better air documentation. for example, asked a helps us. other programs that we were using help us. there are mechanisms in place that are giving us better control, particularly the air environment, who's coming in into needs to leave. if these up the question of measuring those who are coming and leaving or not living on the land boards. >> how do you know today how many are leaving and if you do know, what% are actually leaving? >> i don't think that we can say with precision what percentage visa holders are stay over.

but i think we can say that the 3 slip and triplicate whether your business or pleasure and where you'll be staying. we don't even do that. so we don't know essentially if that visitor has left our country. >> senator, first of all, we are getting more information on incoming traveler.

in the -- particularly in the air environment. secondly, one of the ways that we are now picking up more of the overstays is by the enhancement of other activities that we are doing and interior enforcement. for example, as we expand secure communities we hope to in the next two years have it in every jail across the country. there will be a biometric data will be taken when you are about. and if you're an overstay will pick you up right then and there and therefore they will be a removal process institute right then and there. so some of these other mechanisms that we have built up i think will help reduce the visa overstay problem. >> i have been trying out this for nine or ten years now. when do you think will have a system where we will be able to know if -- if the visa wasters have left the country?

>> senator, -- >> because we keep increasing the pool of countries. i mean, when i started on this i think we were 13 or 14 countries. we are now 35 countries that people can come in without a visa. and yet, we don't have the data as to whether they leave. and so, the blame for the illegal immigration problem is put on poor people who come over the border when it may not be the major part of the problem. we have no way of knowing. >> senator, i think your comments illustrate some of as you and i both know the complex needs of this issue. but there are -- one thing i would caution us against is the notion that we are going to build or should build a massive biometric exit system around the country. the expense and added value that

to secure is dubious. there are other mechanisms better able to tell us not just about overstay but on overstay who is here to do us harm. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator frank and? >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you madame secretary. since october 2003, 104 immigrant detainees have died in our custody. in the custody of the immigration and customs enforcement. i'm sure some of those were inevitable, but others were likely preventable. for example, in 2006 a man from ghana died in custody from a heart attack while guards waited 40 minutes to provide hand medical attention, let alone open his cell. he was alone in a cell for 40

minutes. last year another detainee died after falling and fracturing his skull and then according to the newspaper account being shackled and pander to the floor of the medical unit of the modes and commented then being left in a cell for more than 13 hours. an ecuadorian woman, died in a minnesota facility three years ago. i've found that her death was inevitable but also found that she was not undergone her medi-cal intake exam despite being detained for two months. you inherited this problem here it i know that. and i know that you are trying to fix it but the first step in improving condition is identifying the problem. so my question to you is what went wrong here?

>> well, we did an extensive review of the detention situation and i said senator and i think we did several things which we move to correct. one is we decentralized it too much. we didn't have ice personnel on-site. we didn't have clear standards that we enforced. the contracting particularly as we outsource all of these detention facilities. what's not all that it should've been. we now have moved and we can brief your stuff in more detail. but we have moved to correct all of those problems and to really evaluate the detention system and hold it to the sanders standards it should meet in any legal system. >> thank you. i want to talk about aside from immigrants, seekers of asylum.

every year tens of thousands of democracy and human rights activists are big dems of religious persecution and ethnic cleansing come to our borders to seek protection. these really are the huddled masses. and our asylum and refugee programs which protect these people and welcome them to our country are important parts of what makes us the land of the free. in minnesota, as a special place in these programs as recently as 2006 we took more refugees than any other state except california. but right now ice is detaining thousands of applicants for asylum, often for months at a time. in fact, in recent reports have suggested that if anything more asylum seekers are being detained and for longer. your department has discretion over whether or not to detain

asylum seekers. why are we increasingly detaining asylum applicants quiet >> well senator, oftentimes what happens is someone who's in the country illegally is arrested and picked up. and at that point they claim asylum. ahab and claimed asylum as they entered the country. we have some categories of individuals who are seeking asylum that we are looking not en masse as to whether or not they should fall in an asylum eligibility. that is a process we're working on with the state department and the justice department. and then with respect to trying to move or increase the speed of the adjudication process, we are doing everything we can to look at methods to streamline.

but there are certain limitations that are on that. limitation in terms of availability of hearing officers, availability of evidence judie cater's. >> well, i've read about people who have come seeking asylum. that's why when they arrive. and they know that if they go back or they claim when they go back there going to be subject to violence or richard duchenne. and has been in prison. in 2005, the congressional authorized found that it wasn't appropriate to detain asylum seekers in prison. that was four years ago but today asylum-seekers are detained in state and county jails alongside pilot and.

they are even put in solitary confinement. and these are people who comment say they are seeking asylum. they aren't criminals. ice currently detained asylum seekers in several county jails in minnesota. in october you announce to take steps to better manage special lines criminal nonviolent populations like asylum seekers. will this include separating them from accusing convicted criminals and getting them out of prisonlike conditions? i would encourage that. >> senator, yes. part of our overall reform is to really do a risk analysis for every individual who comes into our system. and if they are not felt to be a danger to the community or

elsewise, to look at how they should be housed. and under what conditions. and so, not everyone needs to be housed in the same way is your question. >> just following up on that there is a credible fear interview to determine whether these people have a credible fear. and very often they are continued to be detained after it's been determined they have a credible fear if they go back. >> right. and what we have been doing is working with our field officers to increase and speed up the process by which they are paroled into the country temporarily if there has been adjudication of critical fear. >> thank you. i would encourage that. >> absolutely. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> i commend you for the good job you do. i appreciated the meeting that you participated in when you were in philadelphia sometime ago about manufacturing vaccines. and we have seen a very serious problem with h1n1 swine flu vaccine with the delivery falling far behind what was anticipated because the foreign manufacturers by and large. australia illustratively used it for their own purposes. and with respect to the possibility of bioterrorism, there's a long list of problems, anthrax and potential problems and anthrax, botulism, we seem to be bogged down in the bureaucratic fighting between a couple federal agencies with the

rumor department of defense and are to about wanting to see us going in with hhs and barda. they are preteens at the very highest levels with the president and secretary sibelius and myself. and my question to you is isn't this a problem of such magnitude and with eric berrien swift h1n1 that we ought to be moving ahead promptly to try to find some way to deal with vaccines should we have a bio terrorist attack? >> senator, i think that first of all on the vaccine question we are now catching up in terms of projections and availability of vaccines and we still need to encourage the american public to get that h1n1 vaccine.

>> our protection hasn't been very good so far. >> it is very now a very robust production schedule and it is like a meeting. we will at some point in december be at the number we predicted in the fall for the manufacturers. but the real question, which is the availability domestically, the manufacturing capacity, development capacity. i think the h1n1 episode reveals how useful it would be to have that capacity domestically. to answer the second part of your question, i think that that is an urgent issue for us with respect to other bio agencies going forward. >> well thank you. i think it is urgent and i'm glad to have your concurrence and see if we can't break the logjam and move ahead here if i turn now to another subject and that is the subject of the jobs

created by the eb five program which gives an individual who wants to become a u.s. citizen preferred status by investing $500,000 in the united states and creating at least ten jobs from that. and this has been an enormously successful program in pennsylvania, promoted by governor burned-out and it is produced some $2,000,000,300,000,000,000 in investors. the creation of more than 6000 jobs and the expectation immediately and 6000 more jobs. and we have run through a very serious problem with regard to investments in one pennsylvania project, where there was a change in investments. and at the time the processes

were made there was a disclosure that there would be the business pl it there could be alternative investments. and now their status is being challenged and they're being -- their appeals have been denied. i have read about this matter only recently and wrote to the direct your other u.s.

citizenship and immigration services to ask consent that this letter be made a point of the record. mr. chairman? unanimous consent request? is my request to you madame secretary is to take a look at it. there need to be a promulgation of written guidelines, but it seems to me on the merits and as a matter of equity where there is a substitution of investment in the statement in advance that there ought to be no problem. but you have three people whose appeals have been denied all the way up the chain as they are now being reviewed by u.s. vis that we need to as a matter of fairness deal with them. but as an example of someone who's going to be deported under these constant circumstances certainly are going to be a damper under this important

program, especially at a time when we need all the job stimulus we can get. >> senator, i'd be happy to take a look at that request and see what we can do with that. i'm sure it director mallorca is would like to work on the guidelines of eb5 and working with the department of palmers. as you say these investments lead to american jobs. >> very much appreciate that. one final question. small amount of time i have remaining and ideas is there any process possible to simplify checks at airports. listen, we have to do whatever it takes to be saved in the airports, but you wonder sometimes about all of the rigor role on the ages of the very young to the very old. and the question arises in my mind as to whether we are not over react team.

we had the white house ball on monday night. i didn't see you there. >> i was there. all dressed up. >> big crowd. my credential was checked three times as they walked through a long line. was yours checked three times? >> no, i walked right in. [laughter] >> well, i will not ask you why you have preferred status because i know you are entitled to it. it raises the question in my mind that i'm glad to be checked as often as they want to check us going into the white house. but it's a reaction to the gatecrashers, obviously of a couple weeks ago. and they wonder do you have results as to what all of these lab retest that airport show.

remember the old saying, is this trip really necessary? is all of it really necessary because if it is fine. >> senator, i think a couple of things. one is i consistently ask in the department what is the value added of any procedure that we're imposing. and what is the threats that were attempting to deal with? the second thing i ask is is there a better way. and this is where, for example, there is a project underway that is successfully completed may allow us to get rid of the liquid limitation which is a real -- it's a problem for travelers who don't want to check a bag. were consistently asking those types of questions and they're the type of question we should be asking. you know, and tribal entities of

topol is something we want to foster. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> my statements by december 31 a very short time from now states that materially to be compliant with real id to go under the was to zip through or the sender citizens won't be able to use id in airports all across the country. dirty states are noncompliant. i mentioned to add this horror scene of thousands of americans who have flown to visit friends and family and relatives for the holidays with no problem and then get to board the plane on january 2 or 3 or 4 and are told

they can't get on the plane and have exactly the same ids they have to get on the first link of the plane. but your agency will take administrative steps that we don't have this kind of chaos and confusion after midnight of december 31? >> mr. chairman, this is a very frustrating situation for -- >> i'd love to get the bill passed. >> there is a legislation out there -- >> but go ahead. >> mr. chairman there is a legislative solution that will ultimately have to be a legislative solution. in the meantime, i have a set of not very attractive options and they're not very attractive for the fundamental reason that simply by granting an extension doesn't get us -- and move us forward on the security side and fulfilling what the 9/11

commission recommended. but i am looking at what our options are now should the congress not act. >> please keep in touch with me on that. >> absolutely. >> you testified and said you're conducting internal review of the effectiveness of internal border checkpoint programs including what is on interstate 91 in vermont. that one has been a source of alarm for concern. it is some considerable distance from the border. if someone is a very serious mugler there's half a dozen parallel roads, two-lane roads that go along to get off the interstate. if you have a gps it's pretty easy to do. i've always been concerned about these kind of checkpoint from

years ago when i was asked if i could groove that i was a u.s. citizen. the license plate on the car, my id that said united states senator did not seem to satisfy the person that i was a u.s. citizen. i suspected they had a deficient civics class when they were growing up. i have not had that happen since. and it's been years but i do get horror stories of people who have taken kids to school and are late for doctors appointments and have to prove they are citizens. people born and raised in vermont and so one. what about this? >> well, we have looked at the issue of temporary interior

check points. and i particularly look at the ones in vermont because i know of your interest and will provide you with greater detail on actual numbers. but my view, senator, is that they are and should be part of a border strategy so that we do have some means off the geographical border to see what is coming across. i do provide useful information and we do make apprehensions. >> i understand that but it is so far removed from the border that the vast number of people going down there -- if you really wanted to get involved you just won't take the interstate. your predecessor proudly gave me a list of the number of marijuana arrest and peoples whose visas have been over a period of several months of stopping people.

and i pointed out if you really want to find people with visas can't or marijuana every day we have hundreds of thousands of people that drive in from maryland or virginia into the district of columbia. just put a roadblock on every single one of the bridges. and the road coming in here. and i guarantee you'll get hundreds of people. now, that may be a bit of an outcry for those who are going to work because you have a traffic jam that would take a week to unravel. i think you and i quickly agree that for the number of arrests you get it's not a very effect it thing to do. and we're just a little staid, but there are some of us who love it and were born there and are concerned about it and wonder if this is overkill. >> mr. chairman, i think it is not. and we have the same question in

arizona, which is the state i'm familiar with. in new mexico which is the state i grew up in. and it is part -- we need to look at the border as the entire region and have some facilities that are not permanent in nature that are off the border that move around that surprise people that they can't depend upon as part of our overall strategic love. now how we conduct those checkpoints and whether they cause undue delay, that is an issue that i think we can take another look at. >> well, it also reflects how we are going to be a better friend. i look at this and i hear the complaints in the very disappointing number of complaints from monitors about their treatment in reentering the united states from canada but also from canadian in

entering. so they never heard before in recent years it's a lot of them. and to me it seems pretty legitimate. and we're walking around the country like you are a criminal unless you can prove otherwise by the people at our border. when you get off an international flight or drive across the border it does not help to the credit of the customs and border protection of vermont they had a recent meeting in newport, vermont, it's a border city, actually when my wife was born in. and they made it very clear they want to hear about these negative experiences. and i know these are hard-working men and women. i know it's not an easy job and they know that are the first people they are going to ask if someone there that it shouldn't he. it's the image of america that's

the first thing people see of america is not our border. and we should not assume everybody is guilty when they come through. >> mr. chairman, will continue to work to improve that. >> i have questions about what senator kyl and the department and authority need to provide waivers and exemptions, certain materials and that maybe one for the record that i really would like an answer on it and also i know judge webster has been announced to oversee the fort hood investigation into extend your department involvement in it. and eventually i told the white house i expect a report to come here and certainly to senator sessions and myself and ultimately to the committee.

jim, did you have -- >> madam secretary, senator kyl and i asked you about the border patrol agent numbers and you indicated there was 100 person increase but you're moving to the northern border. how does that not result in a reduction of agents on the southern border? can you give us an analysis of the numbers? >> icann and i think more appropriately i think i should give you a door staff kind of the staffing plans. but as i suggested to senator kyl, we are not moving agents from the southern to the northern. it's not going to happen. >> while the numbers be up or down a year from now? >> they will be up. >> .good to hear and if you could explain it i would appreciate it.

you know the operations streamlined since people are not detained for that long but@@@@@r not hold them pending their hearing. have there been any changes in the number of people that you are releasing on bail because we finally got the previous administration to end the catch and release for the most part here as i think the problem here

is that it needed further improvement but it sounds to me like, as he told senator franken, i think on the asylum cases you are looking to release them as soon as possible. often that means they don't return. >> no, senator. and i think those things should not be confused. i think what he was asking about was the adjudication. and they have been bogged down in the system and we are looking to improve that process. now we also have told the congress and the congress asked us to provide an alternative to detention plan. obviously that has to be contingent upon a credible belief by a bat we will have that individual back in court and ready for deportation. as a matter of practice, there are ways to help ascertain not

and supervise that. and we do do that on streamlined as i suggested to senator kyl i agree that streamline is very, very useful. we also believe that we have enough detention space identified for the individuals apprehended in the streamlined set hers, which include the larger site there's of the border. >> i hope you will look to expand that streamline process. it does seem to be effective and it strikes me if you ask the average american when you apprehend somebody who has entered the country illegally that shouldn't be there will at least be required to have some sort of conviction of the misdemeanor of some kind before they are sent back. i think they would all agree that that makes sense. with regard to be verified, i

understand that the arizona law which you signed into effect is under appeal now in the supreme court. that the ninth circuit under strong it opinion that says the state of arizona basically declared that businesses should check with that you verify system to verify whether or not the person is lawfully in the country before they hired them. the supreme court indicated they would like to ask the united states government to express and file a brief in the case of the decision been made and why would we want to file a brief supporting dialogue that seems to be working well? >> while senator, i think that the process is underway in the federal government as to how to respond to the u.s. supreme court's request.

but you are correct. i did sign that law and i signed it out of my belief that you have to deal effectively with the demand side for illegal labor as well -- which his actions involving employers, e-verify, those sorts of things even as you work to strengthen the border itself. >> i think that's correct and to suggest that once you've gotten into the country illegally that you are now free to work and stay in the country indefinitely is not the message we need to send. i've really become a strong believer that an important part of your job and the president's job and congresses job is to send a message throughout the world were a large number of people through polling data say they would come to the united states if they could. to send a message and say you can't come, with a large number

of people that come every year, but you do must so lawfully. that's the message we need to send in is important. i have been somewhat concerned in recent days as i learned about the cory borjas voice in which this agent complained publicly on a political campaign in colorado that the district attorney was running for office, higher office at that time had he bargained a number of cases to agricultural trespass were people illegally in the country committed drug crime or some other more serious offense. and they were allowed to plead to a misdemeanor of agricultural trespass because apparently that did not result in deportation. after the election was over, he was attacked apparently, criticize, prosecuted, acquitted.

and it now turns out from your internal investigation that supervisors who were involved in that case have failed a polygraph test and apparently have been determined to have conducted themselves probably with regard to this individual. and let's see what to be brief its understanding that the office has documents that the supervisor criticized and apparently moved against mr. forrester was also been terminated and who is now contesting his termination. i presented the supervisor for criminal prosecution to the u.s. attorney. and for felony offenses

including perjury and providing false statements in that opie are sustained administrative charges against the supervisor at the final report was complete on april 3 but apparently i suggest you take any action against the supervisor but they're continuing to remove mr. morris. do you know anything about that? i think we need to make sure this is done right. >> senator, i'm not personally familiar with that matter but i will become personally familiar with it. >> thank you. i think it needs to be looked at. i don't think there's anything wrong with a federal agent or state police officer criticizing a prosecutor. i used to be one, a prosecutor. and to make people happy of her time you enter into a plea garden but i do think they should be disciplined solely for that. but likewise, i don't believe you should allow a climate to

develop in the departments that indicates that people who disagree with the policies of the department will be punished if they express themselves. do you understand the value of that lacks >> absolutely. and as somebody who is running words prosecution i can appreciate the value of your comments. >> senator klobuchar will be the last person and then we will finish the hearing. >> very, very good. i rest back from the floor and made it in time. i want to thank you secretary napolitano. as you know we just talked last week and the week or so and i'll say what i said then and i want to thank you for your great help in addressing the flooding in the red river valley for both minnesota and north dakota and was really impressed by the work of people in your department.

.. concern about the no-fly list and some of the secure flight issues and i'm not going to go at that again. i did want to touch on something i know was touched on briefly about the accidental disclosure

of transportation safety administration airport screening procedures when that confidential document was placed on line. i know that you said to an earlier question that it didn't represent a significant security risk but they did violate the standards of your department, and i was just wondering if -- what steps or taking to make sure these kinds of disclosures don't happen again. obviously they are of concern. >> yes, senator and several things, one is we asked the inspector general to look at the entire issue about what occurred. secondly, several employees have already been placed on administrative leave as the contractor involved who actually made the inappropriate posting has been dealt with appropriately. third, we are going back through our unknown procedures at the tsa for what gets posted and

how, and also making sure that the employees throughout the department have training and memory refreshed as the necessity for went reduction to occur how that is to properly be done. >> very good. thank you. we will look for retrieving the results of this as we move forward. i know we have talked before about the border enforcement security task force in the southwest corner of the country, and i wanted to get an update on that. i don't think you talked to anyone else about that here. have you seen any change in the drug cartel of tactics in mexico since the coordinated efforts began? and the second question would be how you would assess mexico's state-owned local law enforcement officials working out corruption, going out after the cartel and being more vigilant. >> we have increased the number of border enforcement best teams

across the border. they've been very effective of collaborative efforts to make sure that whatever violence is occurring on the mexican side of the border doesn't spill over onto the u.s. side and they are helpful for a number of other reasons as well going after fugitive aliens, flexible, criminal alien beings as another example. so that continues to be a very effective tool for us. our law enforcement relations with mexico are the best i've seen in the 17 almost years that i have been working the border related crime issues and for example, for the first time we are seeing mexico actually create basically its own debt to border patrol so that we have an agency to work with along the border. they basically remove 1500 other customs officials last year and replaced them with that

officers. so our ability to work at the law enforcement level has greatly improved. and then lastly, i'd think that progress is being made against the cartels. there have been several significant of arrests and seizures. some have been kept on the mexican side. others have been contemplated for extradition to the united states. and at the federal level the coordination with between president obama, president calderon is very, very close. >> very good. thank you. one other thing i don't think we have talked about before is the creation of the import ct commercial targeting and analysis center that you have helped spearhead. at the university of minnesota we've national center for fruit dee dee covered protection and defense that has been certified as a homeland security center for excellence. so we have long recognized the importance of securing the safety of the food chain. and i am just concerned about

this being from an agricultural state and starting to see some of the products we have the last few years coming from other countries. food concerns. i'm one of the original sponsors on the bill to bring us more food safety. but i continue to be concerned about what's coming in from outside our borders and the effect that could have on our homeland security. could you talk about that? >> senator, i can. we continue, as you know we have opened up a center in that regard. we are also really working with all kind of food supply change the date could change and will be happy to provide you with a more in-depth briefing. senator feinstein, and her questions to me, related the fact that some agriculture keeping the united states has a homeland security issue, and i think that she has yielded, as have you by your question so we've really got to look at that. >> and i think we called the

farm bill the food security act, just how important it is for us to be able to produce our own food. last question i have is about the recovery act which included a billion dollars for tsa to procure and install explosive detection systems and checkpoint explosive detection equipment for checked baggage at airports, and an additional 680 million to improve infrastructure and technology at the nation's borders. can you give an update how much of the security funding has been spent and how you plan to utilize the funding over the next year? >> yes. i can give you a spreadsheet. but -- in detail -- but the contracts are out come the obligations have been made. a number of jobs have been related to those contracts. the baggage systems are being installed in airports across the country. and the northern ports that the construction contracts have been light and that work is underway. >> thank you very much.

appreciate it. >> thank you. we will stand in recess. thank you, secretary napolitano. appreciate you being here. and there will be follow-up questions from several members of the panel. thank you. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]