which requires approvals before the cases are undertaken? >> again, co-case agent with co-lead and really have no operational contact with them and the guy who does the work in a particular u.s. attorney's office. i can't speak with specifics to the question you asked because i didn't know this was a fast and furious hearing. >> have you done any investigation yourself, your department, into the participation of your department in fast and furious? >> i instructed with -- when i learned about -- when all the facts came out about fast and furious back here, i instructed our department to make sure that we were not running gun walking

cases. we were -- that our policies were clear and that there was a common understanding within the department. >> but have you investigated the activity which took place with atf and your agent was a co-case agent. have you looked independently at what was going on within the department of justice? >> i believe that the director of i.c.e. has. i must object to the phrase co--case agent because it implies that everybody was equal. >> how do we know if you haven't looked into it to determine? >> i think there's been enough hearings in the house to establish -- there was an aff agent. >> have you spoken with attorney holder? >> i have not. >> why not? >> in part, because it's been under investigation here and by the inspector general and there

was no occasion to do so. >> my time is up. >> the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let's go back to the grand program and in louisiana south of louisiana, probably in the world when you combine port of south of louisiana and port of new orleans. is it your expectation that the jurisdictions that currently receive the bulk of the money pursue want to receiving the same or even more support under the new program? >> i think it's difficult to prejudge. i think what we intend is that we want to look at what the $35 billion we've already spent on homeland security and across the

country and we have gaps and ensure where the money best would go. >> second, the threat has an identification of risk assessment has a large part in deviceing new formula and analysis will go into how much and who receives money under the new formula? >> yes. it is intended to be a risk-based, consequence-based evaluation. there will still be retained some base level of funding dependent on population. but we believe that in our vision for these grants is that we ought to be building and sustaining a national capacity for terrorism for national prevention and mitigation response. that's what we are combining these grants to achieve.

>> well, will you give the states the local municipality or grant the ability to comment or challenge or appeal their risk assessment in the event that they feel there was some things left out, some things that weren't considered in their risk assessment? >> i think our relationship with our grantees is such and it's been ongoing that there's such an exchange even as they are preparing such abl indications. >> in -- this one is a little bit outside of the realm of this particular hearing but since we've departed from it already, i might as well do it also. i'm getting from my mayors, from my governor, from my school boards, from everyone, a disaster loan issue that we have in louisiana which the vice president of the united states came down to louisiana to say

that the disaster loans would be forgiven for those municipalities and many of the school boards and many of the agencies and i don't know if you know about it or comment about it, can you at least advocate on our behalf that the commitment was made, people made decisions based on it, and it would be the right thing to do and come up with a way to repay the disaster loans? >> i'll take a look at that. yes, sir. >> mr. chairman, i would yield back. >> chairman yields back and now recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, madam secretary. i'll -- hopefully the mike will pick me up.

>> i can hear you fine. >> as representative mccall pointed out, this is a one-year anniversary of the death of agent zapata. before i get to the budget, i would like to take a moment for what you have done for the zapata family but we are starting to receive inconsistent information from various agencies about how that progresses and if you could help with that, the zapata family and i would appreciate staying up to date on that. >> all right. >> with are respect to the budget, i know mr. walsh talked about the fact that despite the overall budget decreased, we are looking at the fee that passengers pay. it seems like -- i applaud you for cutting spending but i'm a little concerned about raising taxes, especially when we're not really seeing a need there. we've got the tsa actually working better than it has in

the past and we've got a lot of our technology expenditures under control. why the need for increasing that fee? >> well, thank you and thank you for your kind words about the tsa. they have made a lot of progress in the last few years. that fee is a fee, not a tax. there are important differences there. it's not been increased since 2002. in the meantime, the congress has been appropriating money, dollars after dollars so we can make sure that we have good technology, that we have the right number of personnel that are properly trained and so forth. since 2002 in the aviation environment, just the pure fact of charging for a checked baggage has forced more and more passengers to load up their carry-on. you all travel a lot.

>> if i had it my way, they would charge for the carry-on and leave the checked baggage. >> like i said, i think you all are experts on airplane travel. that we looked at last year, because it makes screening more complicated at the checkpoint, that in and of itself, probably offloaded 250, $270 million of costs on to the tsa. we think it's time to properly scope that fee to raise it to $5 now but not to do it per enplainment, which is what we proposed it last year. and to do it per trip. it's still only one fee and then scope it up over the next years to a maximum of $7.50. we think that that will appropriately take the weight off the general taxpayer and

allow us to continue and sustain what we've done at the tsa. >> and another efficiency, i would encourage you to look at, your office provided a briefing regarding the warehousing of equipment and there seems to be relatively high lag time in deploying equipment after we purchase it and getting it out to the airport. and i would consider following the knowledge that some technologies do and drop shipping it to the airports including installation as part of the process rather than having them all shipped to a warehouse, stored there, and shipped out. >> we can take a look at that. a lot of that lag time is attributable, as you suggest, you've got to install the new equipment and reconfigure lanes and do a lot of new construction at the airport itself.

and i think the drop ship equipment is something that we can look at. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman from michigan, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair, secretary napolitano, it's great seeing you. first of all, as a frequent traveler and finishing my first year in congress, i wanted to thank the hard work, daily commitment of the tsa to ensure that the tragedies of 9/11 never happen again. now, i represent metropolitan detroit. many of the communities have lost a lot of revenue because of the housing crisis. people have lost their homes and as a result many local governments have had to lay off firefighters. my question is, how can the

department of homeland security work with prior year safer grantees to help ensure that the new firefighters, new first responders that they hired with the federal grant money can keep these employees on and not have to lay them off when we really need them? they are a front line defense to any emergency that would hit our communities. >> we are -- we release the grants in that particular area on kind of a rolling basis. it's not going to be like where it gets announced at the end of the week, one fell swoop. we have in the grant guidance for 12, the 12 grants that go out now and were also made

retroactive to last year have been able to grant a waiver to allow localities to put more of those grant moneys into personnel costs than they have previously been allowed to do. the reason is that helps address the problem and that of and detroit has and a lot of people have had in a layoff situation for critical first responders. >> thank you for that assistance. it's going to make a difference in our communities and help them stay safer. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and secretary napolitano, welcome back and thank you for your service. i always try to define, where do we have common 2k3wr0u7bd and let's always agree on that first and the topic for me is the 287 g task force and the defunding of that. when you mentioned earlier that

a program may have been in existence and only led to one apprehension, you have my full agreement that at a minimum it should be reviewed and most likely terminated but the fact that some are being continued would lead me to believe that some of the 287 g task force agreements are indeed effective. and so can we -- can you agree with me on that so r that some are affected because they are being continued? >> well, i would agree that they are really effective but secure communities as we activated is more in the end effective and cheaper. >> i wouldn't dispute that the safer communities program is effective and i'll certainly the with that.

governor but i know that he and his administration has been very clear on this matter. they have requested to have 24 state troopers who are not just folks the state troopers who would stop someone at night on the side of the road but more this was the targeted task force violent crimes, very violent crimes drug dealers, rapes, murders, those areas and they in their best judgment and i do believe as well that a 287-g task force program would work for them. so i am expressing my disappointment here and in the spirit of transparency in government which i think we both share to the extent possible, we always have to keep things out of the hands of bad guys, i don't think this is one of them. may i see -- or may the committee member see if a

request is made to your office to report a decision on this? >> yes. you can see that and i would also say with respect to virginia, that request has been pending for some time. and what we have done in virginia in the meantime is deploy more i.c.e. agents into the areas where we were told that the task force would primarily be focused on the theory that full time federal agents would be more productive. so i'll be happy to get you briefed on that as well. >> the expenses -- thank you for that. the expenses related # to running the 287-g program and i know you have a lot of things on your plate, but can you describe for us just generally what those expenses would be and what savings are being realized by discontinuing that program? >> oh, constant training is a big expense. travel. travel for training.

some overtime in those areas. sos that -- those are buckets but they added a up to a pretty substantial number when you reduce it to a cost per individual. >> and it's still difficult for me -- and i still can't fully reconcile this and maybe it will take some additional work here, that a good governor, for example, from the commonwealth of virginia is saying, look, we can help you here, a force multiplier, and under the administration, not wung 287-g task force application has been approved, at least to my knowledge. and it's difficult to reconcile how a force mull pli plier, thinking about the value of a highly trained state trooper, for example, the willingness through the governor to assist in a key law enforcement area

and we've turned down that help. >> we work a lot with state and local law enforcement officers. i have had several conversations with the governor in the past about the 287-g task force. i just think in conclusion, we believe with making sure you have the right number of federal agents and we have secure communities turned on. we just turned on four more states to secured communities. that's a much more effective way to go and helps us target appropriately the population that we want to prioritize the removal, which are criminal aliens. >> i thank you for your testimony and service. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. i recognize the lady from upstate new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm the other half of the tag team. thank you for your service and everything that you do to protect americans and keep us

safe. you have to put together a budget in very challenging times. thank you for all of us. a few things mentioned by my colleague and thank you for $10 million for the border technology which will help with the beyond the border plan. this is such an important issue with us for our proximity to canada and toronto and we are the source of a tremendous amount of commerce every day and it is stifled because of the inability and delays of our trucks. so this could be a huge boost to the upstate economy which is not fairing so well. so we appreciate all of your attention to give to that well. we're also for myself and congressman higgins and our senators, a letter urging to find numbers in the budget for a custom and borders stationed at

the niagara a the guard station is going to be leaving. it's an ideal opportunity to have a federal campus. again, the opportunity and collaboration that goes on between dhs and canadian, the air guard has signed off on this. we're just looking for approval from yourself as well. so we'll be getting a letter from us on that. one issue that came up was an amendment that i proposed and i'm grateful to my colleagues for accepting this. to only purchase uniforms made in america and the bigger picture of this is to ensure that our national security and economic security are tied together and i had this conversation this morning during an armed services meeting with

leon panetta. so this has not been enacted but are there voluntary tea steps that can be made for the jobs to create back here in america an economically secured nation better for all of us. what can be done on your end? >> i agree. an economically secured nation is better than one that is not and we will make sure that we maximize creation in our country. i'll have to look at what we're doing on the procurement and availability of uniforms. i will get back to you on that. >> thank you. >> buffalo and roch chess sder,

if you can reconsider the urban area initiative, we're off the list. they come from all over the world to see our resources, niagara falls that is up there. we want to make sure that our state -- armed force of the state is represented very well and we can make our best arguments on why we want to continue and have a good relationship with the department of homeland security up there. we appreciate every consideration of that as well. with that, i'll yield back the balance of my time to mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> i'm a fast talker. thank you. >> recognize the lady from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we talk fast in michigan, too. secretary, welcome. we're delighted to have you here. i want to follow up on a couple of comments made by my colleagues in regards to

department of defense and how they might have overlay with the department of homeland security as well and i think as a nation, particularly as i've been following some of the d.o.d. budget hearings this week. we missed the boat sometimes. so i don't know if i'm really asking you a question or offering some thought. i think we missed the boat during the last bracket when we could have looked at some military facilities domestically here. as we go forward when they talk about the possibility of 2012 and 2013 as well i do think there is potential and i say that because i've been a proponent of having regional homeland security facilities around the country. >> right. >> and tom ridge really was the original guy that was talking about that. i'm not sure if you're still

contemplating that i still think it makes a lot of sense. and then as well, when you look at the various types of literally off the shelf that has been utilized effectively in theater by d.o.d., particularly by uavs, as we're out of iraq, have a drawdown in afghanistan, we want to make sure that your department is looking at all of the potential kinds of things that we will be bringing back here that may have application that you can get on the cheek. >> if i might, we're constantly interchanging with d.o.d. to see if their technologies are things that they've already developed. we've already paid to have developed. >> exactly. >> that we can use in our civilian missions. and so that is an ongoing process. with respect to material in afghanistan and iraq and stuff

that is coming home, we are getting both helicopter and fixed wing aircraft from that that we will be using primarily at the southwest border. so we've had that -- we've been working that issue as well. >> i think there's a lot more, though. i'd just ask you to think about that a bit. because whatever it is, even some of the lan systems that they utilized there as opposed to the uavs, you may have application at the southern border as well. >> indeed. >> besides that, you have the personnel as they are coming back that know how to operate all of these things that you may be able to meld in your department. in the interest of time and speaking fast, on our committee we have had recent hearings in regards to the local supply chain in regard to the screening process at the nation's ports.

and i'm sure his hahn will follow up on this. but the current legislative mandate for 100% scanning and i know you have said that that is probably not possible. we had some conversation and testimony that it was about a $20 billion item to do something like that and that currently there's only 2 to 4% that is actually being scanned. so there's a big difference and i currently understand that as circumstances happen and all of the costs and these kinds of things, we are looking forward to working with you for a legislative fix if there is one forthcoming, maybe you can tell me. do you have some ideas on how you might want to address that issue because i think you would find people willing to work with you on that issue. >> well, we have -- thank you

for that. we have total agreement on the scanning requirement. what we don't have is -- and the goal, of course, is to prevent harmful material from entering the united states. what we don't have is an agreement as to 100% scanning is the best way to achieve that and whether it's even feasible from diplomatic and logistics point of view. it's not currently feasible but there are other ways to get us to the same place. it means looking at targeting shipment programs. it mineans working with common standards of using the global supply chain initiative is designed in part to give us a better sense or to give us a better way to get to the goal of making sure we minimize the risk

of dangerous cargo entering the united states. we'll be happy to work with the committee on some of this. my current intent will be to extend the deadline that presently is in statute. >> legislatively? >> well, the statute now gives me the ability to ex tebld the deadline. >> thank you. the time has expired. the lady from california has five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary napolitano, it's great to have you here and listen to your testimony. i for one am glad that we have the additional $5.5 billion for the disaster relief fund in this budget representing california we seem to every year have disasters, fires, floods, occasional earthquake. last year we had a waterless hurricane that never even heard of that before. but we had it.

and even for our country, i don't think i can remember as many disasters for our country. i appreciate the extra funding so that americans have the resources that they need to recover in the event of a disaster. i also have some concerns about some of the changes in the budget and in your department. i will say that i have always been a strong advocate for port security grants. even before i came to congress i worked with my spread says for jane harmon in working to change the criteria for port security grants so it was risk, vulnerability, and consequence as part of how we appropriate that. i advocated that last session in keeping the airport security grants as a separate program. i am unhappy that the appropriation granted them into one long program and that the association is attempting to dot same thing. i think port security is crucial.

i still feel like our ports are really some of our most vulnerable entryways into this country. so i want to go on record and make you can talk about how you still think that this is an adequate way to fund security efforts at our seaports across the country. at the same time, currently i've heard that they have a hard time utilizing the grants that they've been awarded. they are concerned about the bureacracy and reimbursement. so sometimes they are willing to purchase commitment and programs that they know definitely are going to be reimbursable as opposed to getting what they think is the most appropriate equipment or program to secure the ports