tv Today in Washington CSPAN February 18, 2011 6:00am-7:00am EST
so i guess my question to you is, and i'm sorry for the long opening comment we have to agree on certain criteria on what is successful securing i think it's very helpful to all of us if you could lay out what is necessary and what statistics, what assets need to be devoted and what statistics could show us that the border is being secured and at that time i think we could move forward with comprehensive immigration reform. thank you. . . forward with comprehe ns reform. thank you. >> well, thank you. and there's no one more admitted to securing that border than i am. i've spent the greater part of my professional life on border-related issues. i used to hair the hydock which you refer, and i know the men and women there. and you are so committed as
well. we are can talk about and arrive at common metrics and that also warrants a different and level conversation. i think in the metrics we do have, they're all going in the right direction. here's the problem, the problem they're not going in the right direction, fast enough in the tucson sector. that's the sector to which you refer. and so our plan is to increase and to be pouring even more resources into that sector from supplying monies for state and locals down there. this is the stone garden issue to which senator collins referred to, radios to other technology that they can actually work when we get to discussing sbi net as we might do in another round of questions. i'd be happy to explain how some of those have been deployed on the ground for front line detection.
i will say that it's a system. you have to have troops or boots on the ground at or near the border. you have to have checkpoints, and you have to have interior enforcement. and, you know, it's a three-legged stool. and so it's boot, it's technology, it's that infrastructure that gives us security. and at a certain point, and i don't know if it's subject to an actual absolute number, because these numbers jump around all the time. but at a certain point, we have to be able to agree at that tucson sector has become akin to, say, el paso, for example. and at that point, proceed with the other discussion to which you refer. >> well, thank you, i'd like for to you think about certain benchmarks and certain criteria that we could use to gauge success or failure, that eth
would of us could agree with, all of us. and say we've achieved x-amount of apprehension, certain amount of fencing. whatever it is, so that obviously the results would be obvious from that. mr. chairman, i've overstated my time. i'd like to say something about sbi net. it's a colossal failure. waste of over $1 billion. it can't be fixed. i still think the contractor ought to be held responsible. maybe that's the subject for conversation another day. but i would urge you to look at what the department of armed services committee has passed legislation which helps us track better the progress, or lack of progress, of weapons systems that we purchase. such as the nonrecurred trigger that congress has to be notified that once there's a certain cost overrun. there's certain benchmarks and criteria which congress has to
be informed and participate in decision making. so i would like for to you look at what we do as regards to weapons procurement in d.o.d. because i think it would be maybe very useful and helpful to us in tracking the situation. i thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you, madam secretary, for your hard work. >> thank you, senator mccain. madam secretary, as we discussed the other day, we did announce at our organization meeting the other morning that border security is one of our priorities. we're going to start a series of hearings, in march. the point that senator mccain raises is an important one which is whether we can find a metric. a set of standards we can agree on that -- where we can say we're doing -- well, we're doing as much as we all agree together we can do. to secure our border. and that will not only achieve
security. it may also here in a broader context, enable us to deal with the possibility of comprehensive immigration reform which i know you're also interested in. >> very good. >> thank you. >> senator jun, senator tester, and senator portman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, nice to meet you earlier and welcome to our hearing. you have been watching what's going on in my home state of wisconsin in terms of public sector employees? >> impression i've seen a few clips. >> does that give you any pause in terms of the announcement to allow the tsa employees to collectively barge jn. >> no i think this is a totally different situation. first of all, we were ordered by the flra to conduct such an election. and i think the way the administrator who is the former deputy director of the fbi has gone about it is the right way, which is to say, we'll have an election. but issues that affect security
are off the table from a collective bargaining standpoint. as you know, a number of collective bargaining units are in law enforcement, already including some that are within the private airports that have been discussed. i think, i want to say, san francisco and kansas city have privatized security which have collective bargaining units in those companies. so i didn't find that argument particularly persuasive. i think the way we're going about it is legally mandated and the right way. >> i would hope they never get to this point. tsa administrator pistol was saying would he be willing to fire tsa screeners and the answer was yes. >> yes, this is a security organization. and bargaining will take place in that context.
it will also take place in the context of the need to move people around quickly when we need to to supplement particular areas of the country. >> i appreciate the answer. let's go back to border security. i'm the new kid on the block here these may be basic questions. i'm interested in metrics. what metrics are we currently using? >> well, we use a number-we use a number of apprehensions of illegals. we use seizure of guns. we use seizures of drugs. we use seizures of what is called bulk cash which is normally associated with drug smuggling. so those are four of the major ones we would use. >> could you use crosses? >> the hard, senator mccain says, for every one we pick up, there are two or three who get through. that is a difference of opinion in the law enforcement world, they actually think we're picking up a greater percentage of that now.
the 1 in 3 metric is an outdated metric. but when we look at where the high point was in illegal immigration, particularly over the southwest border, we see now that apprehensions are at their lowest point in decades. and so, as apprehensions go down, we extrapolate that, illegal crossings have gone down as well. >> what would that number be then, based on the current extrapolation? what is your estimate of current crossings? >> well, i can give you those actual numbers, but -- let me see if i have it right here. the apprehension number. it's around 195, 196,000 in the tucson sector of the border
patrol which is the most heavily trafficked. the others are much, much smaller. >> okay. >> you have to assume the tucson sector across the mexican border, the tucson sector represents about 45% of the apprehension. so take 195,000 and then do the math. >> okay. now, i'll say at the onset, i realize it's not an easy problem, but we've been talking about security in our borders for years. i'd just like to ask your opinion, what is the number one -- or what are the top problems -- let's go after number one. what's the number one problem from preventing us from doing that? >> well, you have to -- you have to look at borders not just as the physical line on the map, but what needs to be done before people get to that border and after they get into the interior of our country. so we absolutely need to be working with mexico to prevent,
detect, deter, whatever, illegal immigration, drug smuggling, human smuggling, money laundering. a number of efforts are under way in that regard. at the border itself, you need manpower, you need technology, you need infrastructure. some of the things in the president's budget will really assist in this regard because they will allow us to complete some projects in terms of communications along the border. and also we put more into technology and boots on the ground, nearer the border, than at sector stations for example, so we've increased the number of forward-operating catches. we've got the agreement from them to put more camps on the ground. those sorts of things. and then we have to deal with it and very carefully within the united states. that's why we support e-verify.
that's why we are doing more and more audits. that's why we are referring more companies to debarment and for prosecution. and because that is the incentive for illegal -- much illegal immigration. it's not narcotics, but the big numbers are people coming in search of work. >> so those kind of three different issues -- one of those would be resources, correct? i mean -- >> sure. yeah. >> how much do you think it would cost to secure the border? >> well, i think the president's budget gives us the resources we need to fit into the plan we have for the southwest border. that's our part. we don't -- the budget for the doj part, in terms of what you do by way of prosecution, detention, so far, that's in the doj budget. but i think the president's budget is adequate to meet our
plan. i wouldn't go below that, that's for sure. >> okay. well, thank you. >> thanks senator johnson. senator tester. >> madam secretary, it's good to see you again. i think the last time i saw you, we were enjoying a steak in grand falls, alabama. >> no, i was dropping you off. i was giving you a ride. >> that's right, you were. and i appreciate commissioner bersin coming in, i know his nomination is still hung up. and i would hope that that gets through yesterday, as a matter of fact. because i think he's done a great job and i think reappointment with a different person wouldn't help you in your position at all. so hopefully, we can get that moving. we recently had issues, this might seem parochial but i don't think it is, actually with the cba policy that would prohibit
airports from processing planes that had international flights with 20 or more passengers. i ride to great falls, last week, they report that the airport at great falls, we're not able to process those flights anymore, international flights. it saved a lot of time, a lot of headaches for folks to avoid the larger busier airports. it generated a lot of revenue. quite honestly, a plane flying and landing in a place farther south doesn't make a lot of sense from my perspective. so it's not just parochial. i think it is a homeland security issue. i don't know if the decision was made locally or if it was made above the chain, but it was made somewhere in the chain where they found a rule that said, hey, we can't do this anymore so they decided not to do that. i'm a little upset about that. the good part is your flight helped clear the flight for us. and the second time this has
happened my staff member in great falls was the person in customs declined to come see them. declined to take a meeting with them. and quite frankly, when they decline a meeting with down of my staff members, they've declined a meeting with me. so we'll take it to a higher person, you being the one. the bottom line is this. >> that will not happen again. that will not happen again. >> quite frankly, i have zero tolerance for that personally. >> i understand. >> can i get a commitment from you, i mean, this needs to be solved. i think from a homeland security standpoint, there are a lot of small airports along the northern tier that have done this in the past, and that this is -- this is just in the sector that's in the great falls, that's not good. and if it's all the way across the northern border, i don't think it's good either. i think these stations that are doing this work need to continue to do it. all i'm asking for is your ability to make sure that happens and continues.
you got the drift on the whole thing? >> i will look into it and we will respond to you directly. >> okay, thank you. as you know, i recently -- you may not, actually, i -- but i did send a letter to the secretary on the increasedlow-f aircraft. low-flying aircraft is a real problem. we've heard from folks on the ground you can hear them, but can't see them, and we had been working for radar, low-level radar for some time now. it's something you need work with at the d.o.d. i think it's the same report that senator mccain talked about. the northern border not being as secure as we want it by a long shot. so we need technology as a comprehensive part of that. the national guard in montana has done a pilot project up there. i think they've done good work. i really -- here's the way i see it. i really think if low-level radar was implemented it may
save manpourer and make that border more secure. i don't know how you move forward on it, but i think we need to get started. thoughts at all? >> there is actually money in the president's budget for a low-level radar project and we have that in mind for both orders. >> good. and i was going to ask. you talked about the president's budget as applied to the southern border. what about it is a asupplies to the northern border and getting it secured? >> a lot of enhancements but it's a different border. you need different types of equipment. equipment that can survive extreme cold. we need more maritime equipment up there. so that's where you'll see the enhancements in that sort of thing, but it does recognize and provide agents at the northern border, meets all of congress' requirements there, but it's not just the agents.
it's really the technology and maritime assets that we need to augment that agent support. >> i couldn't agree more. i think if we were to get more technology up there on the long haul it's going to make the border more secure and i think that it really wouldn't have to cost us more money. in fact, it could save us more money in manpower. i really believe that. you're being a pro in that area and i respect your perspective. from my perspective, get that technology inchmompmented it co save money and get the board e more safe. we vis is the thid a number of times. no one is more affirmly aware of our nation's responsibility to protect animal agriculture and public health from biological threats and foreign animal diseases, but i still have major concerns about 150 million included in the president's budget for national bio and agro to be built in the middle of
tornado alley, 10 percent pfr% nation's cattle are with 200 mimes of it. food security is critically important. the economic harm ta could happen if there were to be an exposure is incredible and we got a risk assessment and one of the things it found, a 70% of release of foot and mouth disease could result during this 50-year lifetime nap would be catastrophic, whether it happened next year or 25 years from now. it's a lot of dough bp i would ask you to reconsider the proposal and just wondering if you looked at the report, if there was any redesign that was done, if you are going to move forward? >> yes. i read the report. you're talking about the national academy of sciences report? >> yes. >> reviewed it, actually responded to it. it was -- i think you have to
view it, senator, a a primary report based on a preliminary design. that april lewes or enables to us make adjusts or changes to deal with some of the issues raised. it has not caused us, however, to revisit the basic decision that tornado ally aside, we have -- i don't make light of that, except to say that that was already taken into account when this project was peer reviewed up the wazoo when originally rewarded. then we re-reviewed it and re-looked at it, compared alternatives and now have the nas report which we'll be very responsive to as this project moves forward, but we think overall this is the best place to host such a facility, and these three and four labs, and
so we do intend to proceed and the president's budget has finances in there for that. >> and my time has run out. i've said this before. i very much respect the job you're doing. it's a difficult job. you've done a remarkable job. there's room for improvement. you know that, and i think you're working hard on doing that. as far as the animal defense, as a farmer, i can't figure it out. i wouldn't want it in bozeman, montana. where the it's a, new yorker, might be unhappy with me, off the shore of the mainland. there's a bigger issue than that. these are highly contagious diseases. if there's an outbreak, it could -- ooh, man. the economic and the food security issues that resolve around that are huge and i can't get that out of my front burner, to be honest with you. i can't -- i can't get the assurances, then compounded by
being someplace where they have some pretty dog gone wicked weather patterns, but, anyway. the decision's been made but i really wish it could be revisited. with that, thank you, chairman and appreciate your work. >> thanks. i want to share i have a vision after one of your exchanges that your helicopter has picked up that recalcitrant come tums employee, official and he news to being dropped on the roof of the building in which senator tester has his office. the meeting is about to begin. >> from a very high height. no. we -- we had deal with that particular issue. that -- you know what, senator? that one i can deal with. >> okay. i'm going to stop myself from suggesting maybe you drop down to plum island. >> senator portman. >> that poor person.
madam secretary, thank you for being before the committee, and for your willingness to go through some of the tough issues that you face every day we talked a lot about border security and i appreciate you asked to increase in border patrol funding again and i think there's a consensus that the border protection is important here not just for immigration but for drug smuggling guns and particularly the violence we've seen on the southern border, but having said had, i continue to believe money is better spent on trying to avoid the magnet, which is getting at the, what i think, the fundamental cause, which is primarily jobs, and, therefore, employer sanctions and, therefore, some kind of verifiable i.d., and i think the mort effort and time we put against that, the more successful we will be ultimately in dealing with our immigration problem, and i think in a sense you've seen the proof of that with our economic downturn and the reduction in the number of
people even attempting to cross. much of it is, of course, economically driven. my question to you is about e-verify that expires next year and i'm told that only 11% of the 7.7 employers participate in e-verify. do you support a reauthorization of e-verify and, second, how can we improve the participation rate? >> yes -- >> do you think it's the right program? >> yes, indeed, senator. we are adding companies to e-verify at approximately 1,300 per week. had i was governor of arizona i think i was the first governor in the country to require our contractors to use e-verify. and i think one of the things we want to be looking at is not only is permanent
reauthorization, but as i said earlier, a culture of compliance in the employer community. that this is something that they need to do just like -- they don't like it, but they've got to pay their taxes. it's just part and parcel of being in this country. you've got to make sure that your employees are legally residing in the united states. >> different than taxes, though, because -- having that verifiable i.d. is a challenge for smaller employers. >> yes. >> showing a social security card and showing a driver's license and it's fraudulent and they accept it on its face. >> well, and so -- a couple of things. first of all, e-verify itself is, the system is being improved to be less susceptible to identity theft. for example, if somebody's using a social security that's also appeared somewhere else, to be able to pick something like that up. secondly, i think, and in its early iterations there were some
false entries into the system, or inaccurate entries. the accuracy of the system now is very, very high. we've also wanted to make it easy for, you know, small businesses to have and to appropriate, and i have seen it and used it myself. as people who work with me now, i'm not exactly the world's best computer person, and it's pretty easy to operate. so that's part of it. and then lastly, if and when, and we hope it's sooner rather than later, but if and when the congress takes um immigration reform, one of the things we would like to work with congress on are the actual charges that can be brought against employers and the elements of the burden of proof, because the way the statutes are written now, even when we have somebody that everybody knows darn well has
been hiring illegal labor, actual hi proving that under the elements, the current statute is very difficult. therefore, it's difficult to get u.s. attorneys to take those cases and so forth. so we look forward to working with the congress on improving those statutes. >> well, likewise, and it takes resources and focus and coming up with a system that is easy to use and relatively low cost to the employer. given our economy, we don't want to burden employers more, but where it's most effective and that's through the employer and through the interior enforcement. i was invery involved in the t.a.r.p. organization consolidating 20 or so agencies and departments when e were still governor. i can't say that i'm proud of everything that's happened in the interim period. there have been management challenges, obviously. including with the way fema was brought in and including some of the different cultures, use that
word again, that had to mesh together. now i'm in the position with senator mccaskill to be on the ad hoc subdmat deals with acquisitions called contractor oversight subcommittee and noticed in the budget proposal we have before us that you have made a request to provide more funds, $24 million more. 150 more positions -- new positions throughout the department. first i would ask you, why are you asking for those additional resources? and what can we do to ensure that those additions, should they be approved actually promote efficiency, transparency, avoid some of the management breakdowns seve seen and therefore save taxpayer dollars? talk about that. >> yes, senator. actually, this is part of creating, the department is having that internal management
structure and the assets to do that. it's a big department we do a lot of acquisitions and are often criticized for some of those acquisitions. different standards used by different elements of the department. different requirements employed. different oversight done. but what we want to do is create a real, a professionalized acquisition workforce that knows dhs mission, that understands how things fit together. part of bringing the additional workforce in is also training, into the department, and consistency of training so that anybody who's working in the acquisitions area is, you know, there's some consistency. it's a real part of the professional development of the department, and i think you can tell by the money we've already saved through the efficiency review process. where part of that has been acquisitions reform and also some comments made and some recent even i think the jao has
made comments about improvements they have already seen in the way that we doing kwa zigss and acquisition oversight. >> we look forward to working with you. our job, look at august agencies and departments but because this is the homeland security committee, dave chess may get special attention. which i'm sure you're looking forward to. but i look forward to having you, or your representative before the subcommittee at the appropriate time to talk more about that. >> very good. >> thank you, madam secretary. >> thanks, senator portman. it's great to have you and all the experience you have on our committee. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, ms. chairman. i would like to welcome secretary napolitano to this hearing today. before i begin i want to express my deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of
the i.c.e. special agent tragically killed, and his colleague who was wounded in the line of duty this past tuesday. my thoughts and prayers are with them. i'm pleased despite budget con straight, hss is making investments, and the workers who are critical to protecting the nation. dave chess is taking positive steps to develop its acquisition workforce, recognize collective bargaining rights for transportation security officers and create a wellness program. madam secretary, tsa proposes to remove the statutory cap on airline security fees so it can raise them without congress acting. as an integral increase, tsa
would lift airline security fees by 60% to raise more than $1 billion annually. understand that these tsa needs substantial funding to address very real air security threats, but that is quite a large increase. has the department analyzed what affect an airfare tax increase of a billion dollars a year would have on the airline and tourism industries? >> well i think, senator, the request is for $1.50 per em planement. that fee has not been increased since 2002. and i think we all recognize that the security of aviation, international and domestic, is
absolutely key, and given the kind of threats that we've seen just in the past two years, we know it remains a concern, and it requires constant evolution of technology, manpower and the like. so the fee is associated, the $1.50 per emplanement is associated directly with the threat we comfort. threat we confront. with respect to the aspect on the industry, the estuary, already -- we didn't see an inpact that i could see on that, and the way i looked at it, senator, was, you know, when the airlines charge fees for checking a bag or for buying a coke, we can certainly have a fee to protect the safety and security of the passengers. and that's what this is about.
or a pepsi. i didn't mean to pick. >> well, madam secretary, the department's budget requests, $7.3 million for security costs for the asia-pacific economic corporation summit, apec, this national security special event will take place in november in my home state of hawaii and includes an early event in montana and california as well. the summit requires extensive coordination between federal, state and local officials to protect president obama and other world leaders attending. please discuss why these funds are necessary to enable the secret service to fulfill its responsibilities. >> well, thank you, senator,
akaka. we requested those because the importance of the summit, because of the protection issues that it entails. the money is based on estimates from other similar type events where you have groups of international leaders combining in one place. we want to make sure safety and security is taken care of, and it's done very smoothly. it's done in cooperation with the state and local entities, and that everybody can rest assured that that part of the summit is -- has been taken care of, as i said. so the actual money request is based in part on our experience with other similar events. >> madam secretary, in its budget submission, the department proposed pay and retirement changes for certain
cvp employees. however, draft language to make these changes has not been provided to this committee. i focus on pay and retirement issues as chairman of the federal workforce subcommittee and the months ahead, will you pledge to work closely with your authorizes committees on your proposal? >> absolutely, senator. and part of this is our process and it goes to something senator portman referenced, a management perspective. how you unite all of these different pay systems that we have as well, and one of the big changes that the congress approved last year was the conversion for the eligibility, that journeymen pay in cvp. part of what you're seeing is that conversion over and now
streamlining how we are organizing pay. whereas before i.c.e. and cd pechlt wecdp were treated different pi. we look forward to working with you on that, but that's the underlying focus. >> madam secretary, our focus today is, of course, for the 2012 budget, but i want to ask you about the fy 2011 continuing resolution the house is considering. while i support responsible and positive reduction suit, address our budget deficit, i'm troubled by the draconian kucuts that ma hamper the ability to keep this country safe. how would the proposed cuts in the continuing resolution put forth by house republicans affect the department's mission?
>> well, it's not good. and, of course, it's a moving target. so changes are being made even as we speak, but it cuts technology investments that we need for both -- both borders. southern and northern. it cuts new technology for air parts that airports to make sure individuals trying to move explosives on to planes are not able to do that. cuts cyber security which is a very important area that we have large responsibilities for. it cuts the intelligence personnel for the fusion centers and for state and locals that i referenced earlier as part of the architecture that we need to have and it cuts grants to state and locals. one amendment restores some of those grants, this morning, i understand, but not the bulk of
them. so that's just a few of the things that the house cr would do. >> thank you very much for your responses. thank you. >> thanks, senator akaka. if your time continues we'll do a couple of rounds each with a max of seven minutes. let me ask you about two items related to being on the gaos high list yesterday. one was what i would describe as cyber security, government severance to protect government systems in critical infrastructures. it's a top priority for this committee. senator reed made is a top priority, senator collins and i working on re-introducing a bill we introduced last year. it's very important to note as you have that the president's budget before us now proposes increasing the department, your
department, cyber security funding, by 17%. very sizable increase in these times, but in my opinion, definitely a necessary increase, and to the extent that you can in open session, i wanted to ask you to spend a minute or two just describing what that increase in funding will enable the department to do that you're not doing now to protect our seiber systems. >> well it will enable us to deploy einstein iii, which is the new protection, name for the new protection and prevention of intrusion technology across the federal family, including the medium and smaller sized agencies. without the money, we won't be able to do that. that's probably the most important thing. >> okay. >> i think the second thing is
that it will enable us to continue to expand the cyber security workforce. we're pretty bare bones on that now. it is difficult to bring cyber experts into the federal government much less into a new department, but we've been given direct hiring authority and are making headway in, but we want to make sure we have the resources for that fte. the third thing is, that it will enable to us strengthen the obligations we've undertaken pursuant to the memorandum of understanding forged with the department of defense this summer on how we each can use the technological resources of the nsa. >> okay. we're follow that. obviously, this committee, senator collins and i, are very focused on strengthening your ability to fulfill -- actually, strengthening your role, the department's role, as the lead agency for protecting federal
government non-defense websites and the critical private infrastructure. i know that -- okay. i've got a note you've got to leave at 4:30. >> i think i have a meeting at the white house with -- >> and you think that's more important? >> no. never, but -- and i would be glad to come back. >> that's okay. so you've got a number of programs focusing on assisting critical infrastructure and identifying, ra mediating cyber security risks, but for a portion, they receive a lot less funding, those programs, than the ones focused on protecting the federal government websites in cyberspace. do you have enough to do what you need to do in that area? since so much of our critical infrastructure is in private
hands hands. >> it is, but it also is getting resources from the private sector. the operators, for example, of the grids know -- the operators of our financial institutions -- the big critical infrastructure and institutions we all know that are so important to us and potentially subject to cyber attack. they're putting resources into this as well. we're working closely with them, but this is a -- this has to be a multiyear and probably an ongoing type of expenditure that we have, and i think where we were prioritizing is where we think we need to start and where we have the greatest need, and that is making sure that the federal government itself is protected. >> okay. and then the note has now been amended to say you have to be at the white house at 4:30. i'm going to wrap up and give my
colleagues -- >> i have to leave at 4:30. >> much relieved. rather than asking another question -- >> i'll try to keep my answers shorter. >> the second item i was going to talk about, the high-risk report. implementing and transforming the department of homeland security. been on the high risk list since the beginning. since 2003. remains there in the new report although gao says the department made progress in the last years towards improvements and management and integration of the department. i want to set a joint to goal with you that as we approach the tenth anniversary of at least 9/11, that we work together to see if we can get you off the list next year. >> i'm with you. >> thank you. >> senator collins? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm mindful of the fact that senator mccaskill is here and has very tough questions. so i'm going to submit most of
mine for the record, but i do want to ask you one question about the coast guard. as you know from our conversatio conversations, i am very concerned about whether or not the coast guard has the assets for its very important maritime security role, which has been so critical since 9/11, and the plan is to replace 12 high endurance cutters with only eight national security cutters. and the problem is, that, as i understand the requests, it provides no funding for the six national security cutter and pushes the completion date for all aid from 2016 to 2018. i'med to that every one-year delay in the acquisition program increases the cost per cutter by
$45 to $60 million. so if this plan goes through, it's going to cost $180 million more than it would if you stayed on schedule, and we see this in ship building all the time nap when you push off the acquisition, you end up paying more. so my question to you is, it strikes me that this was a short-term decision that buys you some budget related this year but ends up costing more in the long run. >> i disagree senator. what we did, the budget does pay for some of the after acquisition costs associated with number five, and so that's all paid for by 12. what we didn't do was set aside for 12 it would have been called
the long lead time expenses for six. and the reason we didn't do that is because while we fully intend to build them, and we fully intend to build them on the current schedule, and the schedule's been pushed back not by money as much as just by taking longer to build these things than was originally predicted, but the reason we didn't set aside the materials, there was no way it was going to be spent in fiscal year '12. rather than spending it on long lead material and just parking it, we decided we would rather buy more response modes and smaller boats, as i described in my opening statement. so we put the money there. omb has issued a letter saying that we intend to fund number six. so if there's any hesitancy boy the contractor, they've got us and omb saying we intend to fund
number six. so you have extra insurance, we're going to do that. >> i'm glad to hear that. i still think a two-year delay in the overall acquisition is going to end up costing us more, but that's a discussion we can continue. >> yes, and if i might, senator. >> yes. >> it's not a delay caused by this. it is that the acquisition, the construct of these cutters, their missions have expanded, and so their actual construction is taking longer than was originally predicted. >> okay. thank you. i'm going to submit the rest of my questions. i regret we didn't get into air cargo security given the yemen package plot. there's so many issues, but i do want to allow time -- >> thanks, senator collins. senator mccaskill. >> thank you both to the chairman and ranking member. let me start with our excited i get when i see an ita machine.
>> or when it sees you? >> right. because i get to go through fairly quickly. i have an official knee. i have to be padded doubt everywhere there's not an ait machine. i'm always disappointed, i've been in several and i realize it's not operable. i've now started asking every time as these machines are sitting idle, and without fail, madam secretary, the people, i ask for the supervisor, always very polite and what a great job they're doing, how trend the supervisor in miami actually said to me, can you help us? we never have personnel to operate it, because it takes too many people, and we just don't have enough people here. one supervisor told me it took seven people to operate it. another said it took five. i'm confused why we would be spending money on deploying
these machines, and i look and there seems to be an inconsistency in the numbers. at one point it said, 6.5 to operate one's them's in your budget request it looks like it's 2.5. i'm confused how many people it takes to operate the aits and we shouldn't deploy them if we can't run them. right? >> well, first of all it doesn't take two. it takes more than six. because you -- it's not jft the -- it's the people reviewing the screens. sometimes they're none operable because the machines are installed before they're building out for the actual images where they'll be screened. this differs airport by airport. i mean, a lot this differs airport by airport. i will get from you the lift, the training and how to operate,
and screened, via the ait and quite frankly you're the first person that has ever raised this with me. so i think overall the transhaitian been going very well. we'll have to follow-up on the specifics. >> that would be great. it happened to me a couple times in st. louis in the southwest terminal, because we don't have them in the concourse. my typical concourse is american, and the other terminal. a couple of times. finally i went out of my way. just just none of them had a problem in terms of probability buildout. just we don't have enough people on shifts. >> that might be a different issue. let us look into it. >> yes. i think that's the theme i'm hearing from people. they're not able to manage the shift power to make them work. we'll stay with has, and talk and figure that out. i'm really -- i know you've made a real effort about the contractors. i know you have, and i know that you identified 3,500 contractor
positions last year that you are converting to federal positions. can you tell us if there's been cost savings from the conversions from contractor personnel to federal personnel? >> yes, and we can give you number, but there have been cost savings and we are this year as contracts come us we can review and not renew. so i will get you some actual numbers, but you know, this was -- when this department was established, just because of the various business it had and standing up to the department it had to rely a lot on outsiders to help. but as we masur, then we can start reducing that cts and we're being very aggressive. >> this is really important because it's not frankly -- i
don't have anything against contractors. i just want to be sure they're saving us money. so if we are saving money by converting, i would be thrilled to hear about that. i bet we are? >> yes, we are. and it's not just saving money as areless doing whoshg we all can do? our own folks. >> also an efficiency review initiated in march 2009. my staff attended many if not all the budget briefings you presented this week about the various components. it's clear that from those present acheses your 2012 budget request, the cuts were played. can you identify the areas where the efficiency review provided the savings to the department? i'd like to carry this message to other departments and tell them there really is savings that can be realized by this kind of effort. >> contracting onboarding, i.e. vetting and i.d.'ing.
also, simple office expenses that, extract through a life department there are several others. we have a whole briefs just on this that we can provide for you. the contract of conversions savesen in, for money over time. we've evaluated this budget, $800 million or so. that's a lot. >> $800 million is a lot. that's a lot. finally, i know you have to go. last year senator schumer and i were successful in getting some legislation passed that provided for border protection personnel. it's my understanding that the house in its action yesterday on the cr, or the day before, has cut a lot of that money that we identify as additional resources to the brought to the border. i've got to tell you. sometimes i getty when lash around here. i listen to sanctimonious
speeches about border scuty, border security, more resources, that that's the only thing we must focus on as it relates to all immigration issues in our country, and then five minutes later the same people giving the sank ka mones speeches are yanking out the money in the budget we need to secure the border. i azoom what they did yesterday basically wiped out wa we were able to add to this effort last year? >> yes, it was an experience of whiplash. >> i just think we have to call folks on this. i'm sick of hearing meetings on the border and people not willing to put money behind it. we could probably afford the big checks we're writing to the oil companies to secure our bodders. i would like someone to get that straight and say maybe we give $1 billion less to the oil companies this year. maybe they won't be the most
profitable korgss, b corporatio the planet and put more resources into the border. i for one am sick of hearing them talk tab if they're not going to put the money where their mouths are. thank you for letting me say. you are a shining star for the administration doing very, very good work and i want you to stay on those contractors. >> thank you, senator. >> i can't top shining star. i think you're good. >> oh, thank you. >> anyway, thanks, secretary. what we've tried to do after these hearings is to sit and reason ourselves. we'll talk to you and your folks and then make recommendations to the budget committee, and the appropriations committee as we go through the process. but thanks for your time, and good luck on the trip to the white house. >> well, thank you, and i think my, the subcommittee hearing is march 2nd. we have some time to work together. >> excellent. keep the record of the hearing open for 15 days for additional
runners for the 2012 senate race. although her spokesman did not categorically rule out the possibility of napolitano entering the race, he said she plans to spend the next two years working with kyl in her current job. a couple of life even to tell you about. the american enterprise institute host a forum on the medicare live on c-span 3 at 9:30 a.m. eastern. shortly after, 10:00 a.m., the institute of peace focuses on afghanistan, including comments from a former afghan government minister. that is live on c-span2. >> donald rumsfeld was both the youngest and oldest person to serve as u.s. defense secretary. >> if you have proximity to a president you automatically have an obligation to tell them the truth and what you really believe, with the bark off. because people do not have proximity and only go in to see him occasionally simply do not
want to do it. >> sunday, he will discuss his philosophy of presidential staff leadership, the process of writing his memoirs, and address some of the books critical and positive reviews. on c-span's "q&a." >> in a few moments, today's headlines and your phone calls live on "washington journal." the house is back in session in a couple of hours for members to continue debate on the spending bill for the rest of this fiscal year. [crowds chanting] [crowds chanting]