is turning around applications on average in 30 days or less. so they really have tried to cut through that and with respect to what is reimbursement and what is not, i would think that the port of los angeles and what have you would be in regular conversations with fema as to what they think they need most and how it fits within the grand structure. >> well, congresswoman miller, she convened at the hearing on specific port security and did come up and we understand that the administration has said at this point it's not feasible. is this something that we'll continue to strive towards? there's a lot of levels. point of origin. i hear that. i just know the port of long beach in l.a., 14 million of those containers coming in and out annually, i am still very concerned that we're not scanning more than 3 or 4% and we need to invest the technology that might be out there without slowing down commerce and without being a burden. i'm so worried about those containers coming in and out of our ports and whether or not we truly know what's inside of them. >> well, be there have been a lot of improvements in cargo, particularly in container sipments over the last six or seven years and in particular in the last couple of years. those improvements are going to continue. if somewhere down the road the technology evolves and the international association is such that you can get to something that looks like 100% scanning, of course that would be something that we would look at. but i have to be frank with the committee that i think that that's so down the road and so slight a possibility that we're better off focusing on minimizing the risk as something unsafe comes into the country and looking at other avenues for getting there. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from michigan, mr. wahlberg, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you secretary for being here and for enduring the long line of questioning. in using the tools that we're seeing reduced in the military right now, such as the c-27 j which was slated for use and multiple other things that, frarvegly, they have been programmed it's not going to be there now. it's been developed. it's a worthy craft and i would encourage homeland security to encourage that. in relationship to the border issues, a northern border, it may certainly be helpful. but having said that, let me move on to the main question that i have here, also a concern to my district with the president's request reducing the number of retention beds to 1200 beds for illegal immigrants. >> reduce it by 1200. >> reduce it by 1200. excuse me. >> the intent, as i understand it, is to use those savings for the alternative retention program which is less expensive when you think of $122 per day on average for a detention bed. and yet there's concern that the alternatives to detention generally leads to higher levels of absconding which adds additional support and security problems as well. so with the memory of some high-profile cases of alternative detention situations where an individual, for instance, in massachusetts took off the electronic device and absconded, will there be guarantees put into the program, stronger guarantees, stronger preventive tools to make sure that if we're going away from the beds that we're not having absconders and high-risk individuals entering our community and wasting away the resources that we've done already. >> well, first of all, i think that it's important to make clear that we would only put into atd low, low risk individuals. that those that pose any kind of risk to public safety would not be considered for atd. atd runs a variety of ways you can do it, from a reporting mechanism to wearing a bracelet and having to call in at certain intervals and the like. so there's a broad range of ways that it can be done. our goal is obviously not to have atd be used as a back door to absconding. and our goal also is to make sure that we have available the beds we need for detention and so the budget request, as we move the atd resources back into detention, that i as a secretary would be allowed to do so. >> is there any serious looking at using contracted facilities, private facilities? >> for? >> for detention. >> we do have some private facilities used for detention. we do contract with some, ze any expansion of that for cost purposes? of course we'd expect them to vid adequate care but have we looked at using our own facilities versus -- >> well, public entities being like sheriff offices who run jails, it's private/public in that sense. but we're always looking at costs and bed costs and bed availability as we make this determination. >> are there any studies on that, between the contracted facilities? >> i will look for you. undoubtedly they are on a project by project basis because they bid compete for the contracts but whether there's kind of something overall that works private versus public, that i don't know. >> i would appreciate that information. >> you bet. >> thank you. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. i recognize the gentle lady from texas for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. let me thank the ranking secretary for visiting the lone star college in houston. they express their appreciation. i'm also very happy of the disaster aid increase in the president's budget and i would ask public on record for somebody from the department of fema, the fema director on some issues still going on in houston, texas, regarding recent issues of disaster declarations. if i can get that, i would greatly appreciate it. you said something earlier that i would very much appreciate hearing again in your five points in your open. you said the issue of radicalization, terrorism, and i'm pair frizing, is not attended to a label by any religion or any particular group. would you want to just clarify that for us so that i think it's very important to the many diverse groups in our nation how we address the question of terrorism and terrorist threats domestically. >> what i said is that terrorism is not narrow to any ideology or nation. it's islamists, jihadists. it can be internationally based or homeground. it requires us in the terrorism prevention area to be looking at all of the known threats all of the time. >> and looking closely at behavioral characteristics? i know that intelligence looks at many factors in the war against terror. >> we are looking at techniques, for behaviors, for tactics. early warning signs, anything that with r will enable us to prevent a terrorism act from being completed. >> thank you for that. some of us agreed with that approach and i want to be clear that our budget framed in that way as well. i'm not asking you this question but i do know that having set through a hearing on fast and furious with the attorney general and one being held in the oversight committee i would refer my colleague to the testimony he gave in both of those committees and a fast and furious report. i want to go to the transportation security administration and i know that through the faa bill that a -- i won't even say a compromise was made but what i think is a provision that really is questionable but it is law because we wanted it to move on the faa bill. and that is to undermine the discretion as it relates to privatization. the language is may and is now shall. can you speak to the issue of the testimony given that suggests that the privatization would cost taxpayers up to 9% more if the entire system was not prifized or the value of having federal tso officers professionally trained and under the supervision of the united states government? >> i believe that the tsa has studies indicating that the cost of the private facilities is 3 to 9% more than what we would ultimately pay on the federal side and i have given the security needs that we have and management workforce, it is much easier to have it all in one chain of command. that being said, we will work with the language and we will abide by the law. >> well, i would expect you to say that, madam secretary, but the law was a compromise to get a larger bill passed. and i would make the point on the record that i think it's disaster rouse and i would hope that you would use your discretion or your authority to interact with the white house on how best to address the security of the nation's airports and to make sure that that is the case. i would also like to ask a question about the ait machines and the fact that there's going to be new technology, atr. are you familiar with the funding thaw need to retro fit the those machines? >> yes, we have planned for that and it will be in the machines by the end of the year. >> with respect to small businesses, i know that you are moving away from total dependence on contractors and i certainly think there's value to that. there's a balance initiative and opportunities being created and i hope it will be diversified. but in the course of that small minority and women-owned businesses, they are in the eye of the storm. many of them have worked effectively and efficiently as contractors for the federal government. how are you making sure that they are not proportionately impacted when you move to this new approach? >> well, we are continuing to make sure that we are conducting a good outreach to businesses and the like. last year i think almost 30% of our contracting dollars went to small businesses. and so what we're going to do is just to make sure that as we issue rfps and so forth that we continue to do so and look at ways that we can facilitate small business interacting with the department in order to get those contracting dollars. >> i look forward to it and dealing with this issue on the tsa and tso officers. thank you. i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. mr. turner has five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. nice to see you again. madam secretary, earlier in the hearings you talked about the increased threats from iran against soft targets, some synagogues and such in new york. a city where we have a large concentration of them. these organizations had been eligible and are eligible for the national preparedness grant program. can you tell me the status of that? >> yes. we have set aside some money in the 2012 grant awards for the national preparedness -- for ngos, excuse me -- under the national preparedness program. our idea or our vision is to consolidate everything under one major grant program and that would be one of the grants consolidated. so to be -- to summarize, there will be a separate car vouts now merged into one umbrella program. >> and this year versus last year, increases? >> i'm not at liberty to say because of the rules of the body require us to provided a quit -- or a certain number of days notice. >> all right. we'll wait for that. all right. thank you. and just another moment. i like your comment, again, earlier the 287-gs were talked about and the cooperation between local departments. as you know in new york city, the -- and i think this is in other municipalities, perhaps the city of chicago -- they have been directed not to inform i.c.e. when a felon is released from serving his time. so we have a three-strike rule. strike one, you entered the country illegally. strike two, you committed a felony. and now we're giving them a third opun is the federal government interested in this? >> yes. and there are a few communities and places around the country where for a variety of reasons secured communities has run into some opposition. 95% of the country that we're in, it's fine, it's doing well. we're going to be working with these localities, cook counties, one new york city, the other. see if we can make it clear that honoring the i.c.e. detainers, allowing there to be a seamless move from incarceration detention at the local level to our ability to remove from the country is -- makes sense at a lot of different levels. at wore communities. >> commonsense. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you madam secretary for being here and for your service and the steady hand that we've had with this department. it's been noticed and greatly appreciated. my first question is, to build upon miss miller's committee hearing, you spoke a little bit about your intention to request the two-year intention. i know my staff has briefed you on concerns. specifically, i wanted to speak to, at that hearing it was said on the record that 4% of containers that are identified through the screening process as high-risk containers are then allowed to leave foreign waters and to come here to the u.s. land. so my question is, specifically i realize it's going to take some time to get to the 100% issue but clearly i wanted to find out what you were planning to do to prevent those high-risk containers that go through your process that is identified that is getting to our shores without being scanned or inspected? >> well, there are a number of things being done in that regard to make sure that those containers are unloaded in our ports and shifted across the country, what have you, that we ascertain what is in those high-risk containers or we know what is in those high-riskhandh and so far to look for the radiological contents, if there are any among other things, so really from the point of time when something is put into the supply chain to the point of time it is actually put in a container, then loaded on a ship, then delivered to the ud and unloaded in the united states, there is lots of ways now under our supply chain initiative that we have the opportunity to make sure that we have information and confidence in the information, and if not, we have the ability to do more by way of either screening or scanning. >> madam secretary, specifically, what i am asking is, can you commit or provide information to the committee that the 4% of the high-risk containers were which 45,700 were scanned prior to getting on the u.s. since they were not done before? >> well, part of it is a random algorithm, and one way to confound the enemies is that we do things randomly to make sure that you never know when something will be pulled off. >> but of the ones identified as high risk and not properly scanned or had we had the resources in place in the foreign ports, and the question is for those 4%, what confidence, what assurance do we have in this committee that as those were unloaded on u.s. soil, that they were in fact, then scanned and/or inspected? >> we will get that information for you. >> thank you. i appreciate that. if i was not clear in the earlier part, excuse that. my other question has to do with the, you have gotten a lot of questions about the grant program, and obviously, that is is near and dear to our hearts, because it ensures the local communities that safety is there, and do you plan on maintaining the tier systems within the national preparedness grant program? >> well, like i said, we are evaluating. our vision is to do things based on risk. we are not tiering in the way that -- thinking of tier ing in the way same way overall that we do for example in a usassi context, but it is a grant-based program. >> could we anticipate something similar to that as we val wait the risks that you are looking at cities and communities as they qualify of how they fall along that level? >> yes. i think that you can anticipate that we'll be looking at the area of risk very thoroughly in terms of these grant dollars, and again, i want to emphasize that the president has been requested put in the fy '10 budget more than what congress funded last year, and a number of you were very strong in your opposition to the cuts in the grants. you see how they get used out in the communities and how important they are, so i am hopeful as we go through the appropriations and the budget process that the, that we get more money to put in the grant's pot once to begin with. >> and may i have another minute, mr. chairman? >> yes. >> and i'm also the ranking cha chairman on theran committee of preparedness and response and fema did this year conduct the first message of emergency preparedness, but lady gaga ruled the day in other areas v. you redone the eea test, and if so, are you prepared to share the results of the test with the committee? >> i have not done a full review within fema. there were some issues with the test, and that is why you do a test to find out the issues, and i have not yet consulted with lady gaga on how she achieved the results. >> thank you, madam secretary, and mr. chairman. >> gentle lady yields back and recognize the chairman of the cyber committee from california mr. lundlundgren. >> thank you, madam secretary for being here and for your service on the state and the federal level. of course, what we are doing here is in the backdrop of the terrible budget crisis that is facing and the terrible financial crisis that is facing us, and as one of the top leaders in the national defense said a year or so ago that greatest threat to national security he thought was this deficit. so i understand why you have tough decisions to make with respect to budget that you bring to us, and i appreciate very much your emphasis on the risk-based analysis all of the way through. so i will disagree with you some thing, but i understand the tough job that you have got here. let me ask you about one area that i've got specific concern about, and that's the area of of course, cyber security working with you and the others in the administration of the area of cyber security, and there is a increase in budget for cyber security within the department, and which i appreciate and applaud, and that seems to be focused specifically on the responsibility of that you have of coordinating the cyber security efforts that you have across the different executive branch agencies and department, and yet, there seems to be little in the budget for the coordination effort in cooperation with the private sector. can you tell me, does that indicate a lack of concern for that or a less in priority that the dhs has and as you know the bill moved out of the subcommittee and hopefully ruled by the full committee makes it abundantly clear in statue that dhs would be the main coordinator with the private sector? >> well, we have a large part of the public and private coordination, and i appreciate that issue of cyber security, and i will be testifying on the senate side tomorrow on that. it is urgent and needed and important. i i think that perhaps because the coordination work across the federal family, and the deployment of the completion of einstein ii and the red dig of einstein iiii are seg regabl from the other cyber protection that we do, and they are broke eb out, broken out, but it is not to say they are any less robust. >> and the stop the online prior si act, i understand that we are starting over in the judiciary committee, and i have benefited greatly by the people in your department about the impact of the original proposal over there in the judiciary committee. on dns sect which i happen to think is essential for us to ensure the integrity of the internet. and i would just ask your permission to work with your people as we work in other committees to try and get an appropriate fix, and once we establish what the public policy ought to be, we did not do a good enough job i think not understanding the technology, and you have expertise in the department, and i would hope that we could work with them in attempting to come up with the fix that is necessary to protect against intellectual property theft, but at the same time not do unintended damage to the internet and the internet security. >> yes, yes, we would be happy to provide technical assistance in that regard. >> my last subject is the area of ts, and the screening partnership program. we've had the head of the tsa up here a couple of times, and i respect him, because he does an overall good job, and there seems to be a slant in the department against that program, and i notice that in your budget you have, well, a slight decrease in that program for fiscal year 2012, and set a small program, and i think in part because the department has been reluctant to expand it. in the faa authorization, and the reauthorization conference report passed by the house and the senate, it requires the administrator the make a decision whether or not to accept the spp applications within 120 days of receiving it, and to accept it unless approval would compromise security or have a detriment ral effect on the efficiency or the effective screening at that airport. that anticipates additional airports we questing that, and i would hope that it is not the response that you don't have the budget to respond to those requests since i am personally aware of a number of airports that wish to at least apply for that. >> as i said earlier, we understand the language and the faa authorization, and the reauthorizati reauthorization, and we will seek to comply with it. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the

Related Keywords

United States , New York , Iran , Texas , Massachusetts , California , Houston , Michigan , Chicago , Illinois , Los Angeles ,