[Senate Hearing 111-1097]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1097
CHARTING A PATH FORWARD: THE HOMELAND
SECURITY DEPARTMENT'S QUADRENNIAL
HOMELAND SECURITY REVIEW AND
BOTTOM-UP REVIEW
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 21, 2010
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-402 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON TESTER, Montana LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Beth M. Grossman, Senior Counsel
Troy H. Cribb, Counsel
Christian j. Beckner, Professional Staff Member
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Robert L. Strayer, Minority Director for Homeland Security Affairs
Luke P. Bellocchi, Minority Counsel
Devin F. O'Brien, Minority Professional Staff Member
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Patricia R. Hogan, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
Laura W. Kilbride, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Lieberman............................................ 1
Senator Collins.............................................. 4
Senator Voinovich............................................ 11
Senator Brown................................................ 15
Senator McCain............................................... 21
Prepared statements:
Senator Lieberman............................................ 27
Senator Collins.............................................. 30
WITNESS
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Hon. Jane Holl Lute, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record........... 44
APPENDIX
Department of Homeland Security report titled ``Quadrennial
Homeland Security Review Report: A Strategic Framework for a
Secure Homeland,'' February 2010............................... 95
Department of Homeland Security report titled ``Bottom-Up Review
Report,'' July 2010............................................ 202
CHARTING A PATH FORWARD:
THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT'S
QUADRENNIAL HOMELAND SECURITY
REVIEW AND BOTTOM-UP REVIEW
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I.
Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lieberman, Kaufman, Collins, Brown,
McCain, and Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN
Chairman Lieberman. The hearing will come to order. Thanks
very much to everyone for being here. In particular, welcome,
of course, to the Deputy Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), Jane Holl Lute.
In the 9/11 Recommendations Act of 2007, Congress mandated
that the DHS carry out a Quadrennial Homeland Security Review
(QHSR) as a way to develop and update strategies for homeland
security within the Federal Government and ensure that the
Department's programs and activities were aligned with that
homeland security strategy. The Act required that the initial
QHSR be provided to Congress by the end of 2009.
The QHSR was modeled on the Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) that was put in place in the 1990s to ensure that the
leaders of the U.S. military would focus on emerging national
security threats, that to some extent the requirement to do the
QDR would force them to look above the pressing events of the
day, over the horizon to the challenges that were ahead, and
then to develop and present to Congress and the public the
strategies and resources to counter them.
The QHSR report, which was completed in early February, and
the follow-on Bottom-Up Review (BUR) report, which was
completed and issued just a few weeks ago, are meant to serve
the same purpose for homeland security. They have the
potential, I think, to be the catalyst for ongoing
transformation and improvement of the Department, as well as
across our entire homeland security community outside of the
Department, and in that sense, we are very fortunate to have
Ms. Lute with us because I know that she oversaw these two
reports.
This morning we want to hear about the results of the
process, including the impact that it is having on strategic
planning more broadly within the Department and at other
homeland security agencies.
I would like to hear about the steps that will be taken to
implement the initiatives described in the BUR report,
including how it will impact the Department's budget priorities
in future years and how the Department intends to work with
Congress on initiatives that may require statutory changes.
Forty-four initiatives are described in the BUR report, in
areas such as information sharing, management integration, DHS
regional alignment, and the organizational framework for
cybersecurity. In fact, cybersecurity, in a noteworthy change,
has now made its way into the top five mission areas of the
DHS, and I applaud that placement because that is exactly where
I think it belongs.
The Bottom-Up Review is also a broad narrative of the
Department's key missions--I will say for myself too broad at
least in its first iteration and various of its parts--and its
goals for improving those missions, which sometimes in the
report seemed too vague to me as I read them. I hope, Ms. Lute,
that you will be able to develop those in some more detail
today and in follow-on documents.
When Congress created the Department of Homeland Security
out of 22 different Federal agencies in 2002, we knew it would
take time for it to mature into a cohesive agency that could
focus its many parts on its two main missions, which are to
take the lead in our Nation's fight against the Islamist
terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001, and also to
be able to respond better to natural disasters. I think
overall, as I have said here many times before, the Department
has done very well at achieving those missions, but it still
has a way to go as we all acknowledge.
The QHSR and the BUR are important steps on the path to
achieving that goal, and I have questions that I am going to
ask about that.
I do want to say that we hold this hearing against the
backdrop of a series of articles that has been in the
Washington Post called ``Top Secret America'' that examines the
new institutions and programs created after September 11, 2001,
particularly focused on intelligence, but also including the
Department of Homeland Security. So it makes this oversight of
the QHSR and the BUR particularly timely.
I think the Washington Post series has raised important
questions about the big changes in our government since
September 11, 2001. For instance, is too much of our war
against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001,
being outsourced to private contractors? That is a big question
raised by the Washington Post series; it is one that has been
of concern to this Committee for some significant period of
time, actually going back to October 2007, when we held a
hearing on the Department's reliance on contractors. At that
hearing, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) presented
the results of a review that they conducted at the request of
Senator Collins and myself. We have consistently pressed the
Department on this issue in the context of our oversight of
specific programs since then, such as SBInet and cyber
functions, for example, where there continue to be a
significant number of private contractors involved. The former
Under Secretary for Management, Elaine Duke, I think, tried to
dig into this issue toward the end of the last Administration
but did not get very far, and I am not sure she had much
support from people above her.
I am pleased to say that it does seem to me that a serious
review of the contractor workforce is underway now under
Secretary Janet Napolitano and Deputy Secretary Lute. At a
briefing in December, we heard for the first time that DHS is
trying to quantify the number of contract employees. The
numbers that we have received are really quite remarkable. At
an oversight hearing on this question a while ago, I was
shocked to hear the number 200,000 contract employees that are
working for the Department of Homeland Security, as compared to
188,000 full-time civilian employees.
After that hearing, Senator Collins and I wrote to
Secretary Napolitano to ask for a more detailed breakdown on
the contractor workforce so we could determine whether those
contract employees were doing inherently governmental work in
violation of the law. It is hard to imagine with so many that
some of them were not, and I think we have to face that problem
and deal with it so that the reality comes into conformance
with the law.
While we have been assured repeatedly by the Department
that a review is underway, we still, as of this morning, do not
have a timetable for when that review will be complete or a
specific breakdown at the program level of the current full-
time employee to private contractor ratios.
I hope, Ms. Lute, that you will be able to help us answer
some of these questions today, and if not today, then as soon
as possible. In my opinion, a lot of the growth of the homeland
security and intelligence community of the U.S. Government
after September 11, 2001, was necessary, and I do not know if
the series in the Washington Post intends to say that the
system is out of control, but I do not find from my inquiry
that it is out of control, both because of the creation of the
Department, which is exercising management and coordination
authority, and also in the intelligence area because of the
creation of the Director of National Intelligence who is doing
the same.
But there has been a lot of growth, and it has happened
quickly. It is part of why we have been relatively fortunate
since September 11, 2001, that, thank God, and thanks to all
the employees of the government who have helped us do that, we
have not been hit again with anything like September 11, 2001.
But the facts in the Washington Post series, and all that we
have been working on over the last 3 years here in the
Committee, say that we cannot just let the machine operate
without control from the Executive Branch and oversight from
the Legislative Branch so that we are sure that we are spending
taxpayer dollars in a cost-effective way.
I look forward to discussing this and all the other topics
that the QHSR and the BUR raise with you this morning. I
appreciate your being here.
Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing on the need to establish clear priorities
for the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal entity
created to help protect our country from terrorism and other
threats.
As has been stated many times, if you try to protect
everything, you end up protecting nothing. So it is incumbent
upon the Department, particularly when budgets are tight, to
set detailed priorities to improve the preparedness and
security of our Nation.
The Department's Quadrennial Homeland Security Review is a
good first attempt to outline strategic homeland security
missions and goals. Yet, the Department itself acknowledged
that the QHSR was incomplete, so it then conducted a follow-on
review. As the Chairman has indicated, this assessment, known
as the Bottom-Up Review, was intended to set priorities for
security initiatives and reorganization at the Department.
While I appreciate the Department's effort to undertake
such a comprehensive analysis, the results are disappointing.
Indeed, the two reviews simply do not compare to the level of
analysis and planning that goes into the Quadrennial Defense
Review and supporting documents. Let me give an example.
In the QDR and in the Navy's shipbuilding plan, the
Department of Defense outlined specific measurable goals, such
as a 313-ship Navy. The 30-year shipbuilding plan includes a
force structure, construction plan, funding assumptions, and a
specific articulation of the risk inherent in the force
projections. By comparison, the Department of Homeland
Security's reviews amount essentially to high-level strategy
documents that provide little in the way of concrete goals or
the actions needed to achieve them.
For example, the Department of Homeland Security reviews
set some goals to eliminate unnecessary duplication, to
decrease operational inefficiencies, and to promote
cybersecurity. But without specific measurable plans, how can
Congress hold the Department accountable for meeting these
goals?
In these documents, the Department highlights the critical
need to address the threat of a cyber attack and indeed lists
cybersecurity as one of five strategic ``pillars.'' I agree
with that priority, but that seems inconsistent with the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2011, which cut the
Department's cybersecurity budget by $19 million. How can the
Department shoulder even the general responsibilities of an
entire pillar while cutting the associated budget? The
documents do not explain that contradiction, nor do they
outline how the Department plans to do more with less.
As co-author with the Chairman of a comprehensive
bipartisan cybersecurity bill, I am disappointed that the
Department's reviews do not identify the authorities and
resources that DHS will need to enhance its cybersecurity
capabilities. The legislation this Committee approved last
month would fill that gap.
The Bottom-Up Review also fails to provide any specificity,
as the Chairman has indicated, on how the Department will
reduce its troubling overreliance on contractors. This is a
concern that I have raised repeatedly with the Secretary, as
has the Chairman and other Committee members. As the Washington
Post investigation revealed, six out of 10 employees at the DHS
Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) are from private
industry. This is on top of the revelation that an astonishing
50 percent of the DHS workforce are contractors. This is
unacceptable.
Now, let me emphasize that I recognize that contractors
play an important role in augmenting the Federal workforce in
helping to meet a one-time need, but they cannot displace the
need for permanent, well-trained government employees.
But what does the DHS report say about this? Simply that
``DHS will continue to build on contractor conversion efforts
at an even more aggressive pace.'' That is not a plan. It is
simply a platitude.
Like a compass, the QHSR should aid the Department in
aligning its budget requests with homeland security priorities,
and in turn, these priorities would help Congress evaluate the
President's budget request against measurable goals. The
reviews that the Department has presented to Congress
accomplish none of these tasks. They do not include a budget
plan for the Department, nor do they assess how the
organizational structure can better meet the national homeland
security strategy.
I also have to mention an issue that the Chairman and I
have mentioned repeatedly about documents presented to the
public and our Committee. The QHSR slights the strategic threat
posed by violent Islamist extremists by refusing to call that
real and present danger what it is. This is ironic considering
that the introduction to the QHSR discusses the Christmas Day
attack, an attack conducted by a violent Islamist extremist.
The review does not reference ``violent Islamist extremism'' or
any variation of that phrase in the entirety of its 108 pages,
and it refers to ``homegrown extremists'' only once. That is
astonishing given the alarming increase in the number of
homegrown terrorist plots last year. In sharp contrast, the
October 2007 National Strategy for Homeland Security uses the
word ``Islamic'' 15 times and the word ``homegrown'' eight
times.
The Bottom-Up Review fails to describe how the Department
will confront the threat of home-based terrorism. If DHS does
not acknowledge in a forthright way the nature of the threat or
explain how the Department intends to counter it, it is
impossible for Congress and the American people to judge the
Department's counterterrorism plans and whether they are
adequately reflected in its budget and priorities.
I look forward to hearing more from the Department's Deputy
Secretary about how more concrete and actionable plans will be
developed. That planning is essential to improve the efficiency
of departmental operations and to build sensible budget plans.
Only then will the time and effort--and I recognize there was
tremendous time and effort put into these projects--spent on
these reviews pay dividends in the form of a usable road map to
better protect the American people.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much for that statement,
Senator Collins.
Ms. Lute, again welcome. Thanks for all your good work for
our country, and we look forward to your statement now.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JANE HOLL LUTE,\1\ DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Ms. Lute. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Collins, and Members of the Committee. I am happy to be here
today to discuss the Department's Quadrennial Homeland Security
Review and the Bottom-Up Review and, in particular, how the
Department of Homeland Security plans to implement the
initiatives set forth in these two efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Lute appears in the Appendix on
page 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know, and as you have pointed out, the submission of
the QHSR report to Congress earlier this year marked an
important first step in a multi-step process to examine and
address fundamental issues that concern the broadest
perspective of what is called the homeland security enterprise.
The Bottom-Up Review was initiated in November 2009 as an
immediate follow-up to complement the work of the QHSR with the
aim to align the Department's programmatic activities and
organizational structure with the broader strategic and mission
direction identified in the QHSR. The BUR report itself
reflects that endeavor and represents an intermediate step
between the QHSR report and the President's fiscal year 2012
budget request and future years, which will propose specific
programmatic adjustments based on the QHSR strategic framework.
The QHSR resulted in the articulation of a strategic
framework and a positive, forward-looking vision for homeland
security. Indeed, one of the initial challenges that we faced
is that while homeland security had broad and widespread and
extensive name recognition, brand recognition, there was less
of a handle on what it meant to talk about a secure homeland.
The QHSR lays out a vision for homeland security that says,
very simply, we are trying to build a safe, secure, and
resilient place against terrorism and other hazards where the
American way of life, interests, and aspirations can thrive.
Informed by this conception of homeland security that is a
positive, forward-looking vision, the report also places
emphasis on the fact that it takes an enterprise, the homeland
security enterprise, a more complete and comprehensive
understanding of the homeland security threats, and the need to
achieve balance across the efforts related to security,
resilience, and the important elements of customs and exchange.
The QHSR strategic framework grounds homeland security, the
achievement of this vision, in the accomplishment of five
missions, and those missions are: Preventing terrorism and
enhancing security; securing and managing our borders;
enforcing and administering our immigration laws; safeguarding
and securing cyberspace; and ensuring resilience to disasters.
We believe that if we achieve these five missions and execute
these five mission sets, we will go a long way toward achieving
a safe, secure, and resilient place where the American way of
life can thrive.
The Bottom-Up Review is the second major step of a three-
part process that began with the QHSR. The BUR began with an
activities inventory of all of the things the Department does
on a daily basis. Of the 230,000 people that comprise the
Federal workforce of the Department of Homeland Security,
225,000 of them are in the operating agencies. This is an
operating Department. What do we do every day? And how do those
activities every day contribute to the five missions we have
identified as essential to building a safe, secure, and
resilient place for the American way of live to thrive?
The BUR went beyond this taxonomy of the activities
inventory and resulted in a clear sense of priorities across
three main categories: One, how do we enhance our mission
performance in the five areas I laid out? Two, how do we
improve the way we run ourselves? And, three, how do we
increase accountability for the resources that have been
entrusted to us?
We have laid out a number of priorities in the Bottom-Up
Review, and these are priorities that we believe should be
implemented by the Department over the coming quadrennial. This
is a 4-year list of priorities. We will not accomplish all 44
of the initiatives and enhancements in fiscal year 2012.
Several key themes emerged out of the QHSR and the Bottom-
Up Review process. All of these are set forth in the Executive
Summaries of the two reports, but I want to emphasize a few
things that the QHSR and the BUR processes have brought
forward.
First, an emphasis on the importance of the resilience of
individuals and communities to our Nation's security.
Second, as the Ranking Member mentioned, the promotion of
cybersecurity as a key homeland security mission.
Third, the recognition in a set of strategic documents that
homeland security is a shared responsibility and that all of
us--citizens, businesses, communities, Federal, State, local,
territorial, and tribal governments, nongovernmental
organizations, and the private sector--are part of the larger
homeland security enterprise.
Fourth, the development through the Bottom-Up Review of a
set of tools that will allow the Department for the first time
to look at all of our activities across the five homeland
security missions and assess their importance and
contributions, not just from the perspective of the individual
operating component, whether the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), or the Coast Guard, but to each mission and to each
specific set of critical functions. This will allow us to be
better stewards of taxpayer dollars and to better manage the
performance of our mission activities.
And, finally, that the initiatives and enhancements that
have emerged from the QHSR and the Bottom-Up Review will
materially benefit the citizens of this country and their
communities.
It is unusual for a Federal department to have the
opportunity to engage in the first principles that established
it as a Federal agency and to engage in a comprehensive study
of its missions from the bottom up and to evaluate each of its
activities against priorities that have been identified from a
thoroughgoing and broadly inclusive process. And DHS has
benefited greatly from the experience.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have learned a few lessons in
this process, and as we look forward to the next QHSR, I would
like to share with you a few of those lessons.
First, senior leadership and engagement is critical. The
support of Congress is equally critical as well, and the
Department has benefited greatly from the support of this
Committee and from other Members of Congress through this
entire 18-month exercise that brought us to today.
Second, timing is important. The QHSR was conducted over a
transition year. We lost valuable time in terms of
consolidating the work that had been done in an effort to
address all of the requirements that Congress laid out for us.
This is why we took the approach we did to break it into three
parts: The QHSR, the Bottom-Up Review, and the submission of
the budget for fiscal year 2012.
Third, you must oblige yourself to take account of what has
gone on before you. The Department of Homeland Security is 7
years old. I have said in many forums that this is good news.
It is not 1 year old for the seventh time. There has been an
enormous amount of work, thought, discipline, and activity that
have gone on that we have been able to build on, expand on, and
move on from this point forward.
In addition, the other major quadrennial reviews, including
the QDR, and the first ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review, among others, must be synchronized, and the
Administration made a concerted attempt to do just that.
Today's security environment demands whole of government
solutions and flexible and adaptable policy responses to
difficult challenges.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to come
speak with you today about implementation of the QHSR and
Bottom-Up Review and the lessons learned for the future. I have
submitted my full testimony for the record and look forward to
the questions of the Committee.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Ms. Lute, for that
opening statement. Let me say we will do 7-minute rounds of
questions. Senator Collins left, but she will be back. She has
an Appropriations Subcommittee meeting that she has to attend.
Let me begin with the question, which is somewhat off the
QHSR, but not really--which is about the private contractor
workforce in DHS. I will give an example of some specific areas
for concern.
In the office overseeing the National Cybersecurity
Protection System, there are 122 contract support staff but
only 11 government employees. The latest numbers for the
Intelligence and Analysis Section of the Department show that
about 53 percent of its workers are contractors.
In the Department's fiscal year 2011 budget submission,
there were identified approximately 3,300 contractor positions
that would be converted to Federal employees. Of course, at
that rate it is going to be a long time, a lot of decades
before we get the number of private contract employees down.
In May, our Subcommittee headed by Senator Akaka and
Senator Voinovich held a hearing, and the Chief Human Capital
Officer reported on the broader process that the Department is
undertaking through its Balanced Workforce Initiative to
achieve the appropriate balance between full-time Federal
employees and contractors. The BUR again notes that the
Department will continue to build on these efforts, although no
details on the review are provided.
So let me ask you to address yourself to this question. The
first really is process. When will we see the specifics of the
Department's review of its private contractor workforce in
relationship to the full-time Federal employees?
Ms. Lute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are working
intensively on this issue. As you know, certainly, and Members
of this Committee know well, the Department was stood up in
part with an explicit reliance on a contract workforce to be
able to get the Department up and running, and we continue to
rely on hard-working contractors who come to work believing in
the mission and the purpose of homeland security every day.
The Balanced Workforce Initiative--and I just issued a
series of instructions earlier this month to the leadership of
the operating components regarding their personal association
with the Balanced Workforce Initiative--is designed to give us
a handle on strategic workforce planning. In order to do that,
Mr. Chairman, what we also did as part of the Bottom-Up Review
process was begin a procedure to allow us to align our
accounting properly so that we could tell personnel costs
across the operating component because they were all counted
differently. So before we could run, we needed to walk; and
before we could walk, we needed to crawl. And we are doing
these things somewhat simultaneously. So we are getting a
handle exactly on where our workforce and personnel are
assigned, how they are assigned to the critical missions that
are the sub-components of each of the missions outlined in the
QHSR, and then we are moving through systematically on a
priority basis to see where contractors are present and work
aggressively to convert them.
Chairman Lieberman. Do you have a timeline, a goal by which
you hope to finish this review and report to us?
Ms. Lute. Yes, we certainly hope to finish it this year,
Mr. Chairman, and map our way forward.
Chairman Lieberman. So you are saying this calendar year. I
guess the question is whether as a result you may be able to
undertake a significant realignment of the workforce for the
fiscal year 2012 budget.
Ms. Lute. We certainly hope to do that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Let me ask you just for a quick
response because you had a lot of experience in governmental
administration. There is nothing inherently wrong with a
private contractor being retained by a government agency. It
has happened probably since the beginning of our government.
But I wonder if you would talk a little bit about the balance
there.
For instance, on average, what is your sense of whether it
costs us more, taking all the costs in mind and account, for a
private contract employee or for a full-time Federal employee?
Ms. Lute. It depends on the circumstances, Mr. Chairman. If
it is for a short-term requirement, it may be more cost
efficient to have contractors. For longer-term steady state
need----
Chairman Lieberman. More efficient because you are not
building in the long-term commitment that comes with retaining
a full-time employee.
Ms. Lute. Exactly.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes. I hope that will be part of your
review. You are right that we expected in standing up the
Department that, particularly in getting into areas that we had
not been in before, like cybersecurity, there would be a lot of
contract employees hired. But certainly the numbers are
stunning, the number of contract employees larger overall than
the number of full-time Federal employees. And I think this
cries out for just what you have said in the title of the
review, which is to balance the workforce consistent with the
law.
Let me leave that there and go on to a question about
intelligence and analysis.
The Washington Post series--I will lead into it with this--
talks about a growth in not just contractors but people
involved in intelligence. And, of course, in creating the
Department of Homeland Security, we created an entire new
intelligence operation, which we hoped would have a kind of
value-added to it, a unique aspect to it. And, again, I know
that a lot of the employees of I&A at the Department of
Homeland Security are contract employees. So I want to ask you
two questions.
First, if somebody reading the Washington Post series asked
if you are just duplicating in this intelligence department at
the Department of Homeland Security what exists elsewhere, what
would you say?
And second, I trust that you are trying to bring on more
full-time Federal employees in the intelligence section of the
Department of Homeland Security so that this imbalance of more
contractors than full-time workers will be eliminated.
Ms. Lute. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. First what I would
say is no, we are not duplicating it. One of the things that we
have been able to do over the past year and a half is really
drill into what the value proposition of the headquarters of
the Department of Homeland Security is, and I&A is a vital part
of that.
The value proposition of I&A is to equip the entire
homeland security enterprise with the information and
intelligence it needs to discharge all of the homeland security
missions. There is no other part of the intelligence community
that is oriented on that challenge, and I&A performs that
function critically in support of all of the operating
components. So that is what I would say primarily.
Chairman Lieberman. So you would say that I&A in DHS is
drawing from the rest of the intelligence community information
that it is producing, but I&A is producing its own information
that is also being shared with the rest of the community.
Ms. Lute. Yes.
Chairman Lieberman. One of our hopes when we created the
Department was that a lot of the intelligence work that is
naturally done by components of DHS, including the Coast Guard
or the kind of information that Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) comes up with, would be fed more routinely into the pool
of intelligence from which everybody can draw, and also, of
course, that DHS would play a unique role here in drawing
intelligence from State and local law enforcement officials and
also returning intelligence in accessible packages to them. Is
that latter function being carried out by I&A at this point?
Ms. Lute. It is, Mr. Chairman, and, in fact, this is an
area where we really want to emphasize in building up the
fusion centers that exist precisely for that purpose.
I would back up and say, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the
issue of terrorism and combatting terrorism and the potential
for a terrorist strike in this country, the Department of
Homeland Security has, through its border agencies and other
agencies, daily interaction with the global movement of people
and goods and substantial amounts of information regarding that
movement in order for us to properly identify dangers where
they exist and expedite legitimate trade and travel, which must
go on. And we certainly are vibrant and active members of the
entire whole of government approach in that regard.
And, finally, Mr. Chairman, if I might, a word on the
numbers with respect to I&A. Not surprisingly, you will hear me
say that the Washington Post is wrong in saying that----
Chairman Lieberman. You are not going to be punished in
this room for saying that. [Laughter.]
Ms. Lute. And, in fact, if all of our full-time Federal
employees were on hand in I&A, the number would be closer to
four out of 10 rather than six out of 10, and so this is an
issue we are working on.
Chairman Lieberman. Good. I appreciate it. You made a very
important point at the end, which I just want to put an
exclamation point next to. I know that the Committee knows
that, for instance, in the really remarkable work done to
apprehend Najibullah Zazi and David Coleman Headley before they
were able to carry out terrorist acts, the intelligence
sections, particularly the databases that Customs and Border
Protection has, for instance, were critically important in
apprehending those two. And, of course, it was CBP that stopped
ultimately Faisal Shahzad before he left America on that plane
after attempting to blow up the bomb in Times Square. So I
thank you for that.
Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, before I get into some of my comments and
questions, I have been trying since February, again in March,
and as recently as last week, to get an answer from the
Department on whether or not the Biometric Air Exit Program
should be decoupled from further expansion of the Visa Waiver
Program. I am very frustrated about that kind of turnaround on
a response to a Member of the U.S. Senate. I am the sponsor of
the legislation on the visa waiver program. I have asked for
that response time and time again, and I cannot get it, and I
am very upset about it. And I am telling you about it, and you
should tell the Secretary that I am about ready to go to the
floor to talk about the incompetence of your Department in not
being able to get back to a Member of Congress with a simple
answer to a question, and you have had plenty of time to look
at it.
Second of all, this Department has been on the high-risk
list since 2003--22 agencies, 210,000 employees, 225
contractors, 45-percent increase in the budget--and I have not
heard anything about more with less or we are working harder
and smarter.
We have a very difficult budgetary environment right now. I
happen to be the Ranking Member on the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, and we are trying to get the
overall spending level down. And it appears to me that what may
have been the Federal role in the aftermath of September 11,
2001, seems increasingly less appropriate when you give
considerations to some of the things that we are doing in the
Department.
The Committee has learned time and time again that FEMA
does not employ performance metrics that adequately assess the
results of grant program funding. The few metrics that do exist
are output-based rather than outcome-based. As my colleagues
know, measuring a program's outputs provides little insight
into its effectiveness.
FEMA also persistently fails to allocate State Homeland
Security Program and Urban Area Security Initiative funding
according to risk. A June 2008 Government Accountability Office
report found that when determining grant allocations, FEMA
assigns the same vulnerability rating to all localities
regardless of their unique features. And that arrangement
remains in place today.
One of the things that I remember clearly when the 9/11
Commission came back with their recommendations, they said
homeland security assistance should be based strictly on
assessments of risks and vulnerability, and not according to a
general revenue-sharing arrangement like the kind that exists
today. And I know that when September 11, 2001, occurred, I
said we are going to have to spend more money, but we have to
be careful--and I said this as a former governor and mayor--
that it not turn into a revenue-sharing program.
So I am looking at your budget now to figure out some ways,
maybe, that we can reduce some of the funding that is in that
budget.
For example, we have the firefighter grants. We still have
$150 million in unobligated funds from the 2009 budget. We have
not spent a dime of the $810 million in this fiscal year's
budget. It would seem to me that in light of that we could just
say put nothing in the 2011 budget when you have over $1
billion hanging out there that nobody has even made application
for.
The Urban Area Security Initiative grants--at one time, in
2003, we had 29. Today we have 64 of them. And instead of
sending money to every city in America, we should restrict
funding to the top cities that face the threats. We are in a
tight budgetary situation today, and the Department ought to be
looking at these programs and saying are these really relevant
to securing the homeland.
Our homeland security grants--today we spend $950 million
on those, and the program gets funded year after year without
anyone having an idea if these dollars are being used
effectively to reduce risk in this country.
So we have this whole business of evaluating and looking at
risks and where is the money going to. When are you going to
start to look at these things? One of the things that I thought
the Department did several years ago is that you did an
assessment of interoperability in the various States. That was
terrific for me because I read the report, I went out to the
four areas in Ohio, went to the cities, visited with them,
spent a day asking what are you doing with interoperability,
how is it working and so forth. You just cannot keep going the
way you are going. And what are you going to do to start
looking at some of this stuff? You are going to have a tighter
budget, and it is going to get worse as time goes on. What are
you going to do about this?
Ms. Lute. Thanks, Senator. A couple of things.
We recognize that we are in different budgetary times than
the Department has experienced since its founding. Congress has
been very generous to the Department of Homeland Security and
expectations have grown equally. The mandate and
responsibilities given to the Department are extraordinary, as
this Committee well knows. But we must get a tighter rein on
our spending, and we have tried to do that through the BUR
process and doing what I have been calling the plumbing and
wiring of institution strengthening so that we can be
responsible stewards for the resources that have been given to
us and that we can manage ourselves more effectively.
Part of the BUR process has included, as I mentioned, an
activities inventory. What are we doing every day and do those
activities match to the missions, to the goals, and to the
objectives that we say are most important? If they are not, we
should really stop doing them or look at alternative ways to
achieve what they were designed to do in support of those
missions, goals, and objectives.
Second, we are trying to align our account structure so
that we can compare personnel across the Department, which we
currently cannot do, so that we can compare investments across
the Department, operating and maintenance costs across the
Department, and understand the value proposition of applying in
a border region, for example, the resources of CBP, TSA,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Coast Guard
appropriately, and do that in a way that is rationalized, as
you mentioned, to risk.
But I want to spend a moment on performance measures
because the performance measures that we have been operating
with in the Department do not reveal to the American public, or
surely to this body or even to ourselves, the kinds of things
that we need to see to know that, in fact, the United States is
becoming more secure, that we are achieving our mission sets.
Senator Voinovich. Let me just say this, as a simple
matter. Some of this stuff is not real complicated, and I am
familiar with what you have done on the border. I have had some
problems with your buying airport screening machinery with body
imaging capabilities. I have been briefed. You have done a good
job of convincing me that it is needed. There are other things
that are needed in the Department, but do you need to put
another almost $800 million into the firefighter grants when
you have not spent $150 million of the 2009 and 2010 money?
There is an area, it seems to me, that could be looked at,
where you could say to our Committee that you do not need this
money right now. If you did not get this money, you could
reduce your overall cost. You could, for example, replace a
helicopter that you are going to need because one went down out
in California. The urban security grants, giving all this money
out all over the country to people--for what reason? Why are we
doing it? What are you getting out of it?
It just seems to me that you have an obligation to start
looking at these programs and coming back to Congress and
saying this is not needed right now. Even some of the areas
that got a whole bunch of money in the beginning, they did the
infrastructure, they put in the cameras, they put in all of the
stuff that is necessary, and yet they are still getting about
the same or even more money than they were getting before they
made these capital expenditures.
Now, I understand if they want to argue and say we need
that money so that we can hire more people to do something that
we would not ordinarily do, but we have to have some rationale
about this. And your people ought to be getting at it.
Ms. Lute. We agree, Senator. We are looking at all of our
risk frameworks and approaches across the entire Department,
not only in the context of the challenges and threats that we
currently face, but also in the context of the investments and
expenditures that have gone on before. We are very mindful of
this, and we are also very mindful that as we outlined in the
QHSR----
Senator Voinovich. Let me say this to you: It was not
reflected in the budget that you submitted to the U.S. Senate
this year.
Ms. Lute. What I can say to you, Senator, is that, as we
have said in the QHSR, the security of the American homeland
takes an enterprise. It takes informed individuals, it takes
capable communities, and it takes a responsive Federal system
all working together to achieve a secure homeland, and we
recognize that the Department plays a key role in leading the
Federal effort in this regard together with State and local
officials.
We are looking at all of our expenditures in the current
fiscal climate and assessing all of our risk frameworks, and we
believe we can and will do better.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Voinovich.
Secretary Lute, I do not think I heard you respond to
Senator Voinovich's concern about a lack of a response to his
questions about the Visa Waiver Program.
Ms. Lute. I apologize, Senator. Inordinate delay is
unacceptable. I will not offer an excuse. I believe the
Secretary signed earlier this week a response to you.
Senator Voinovich. We have talked about this.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes, for sure.
Senator Voinovich. You helped draft the legislation, and
they put no money in the budget to pay for establishing a
biometric air exit program.
Chairman Lieberman. Right.
Senator Voinovich. And I said, well, if you do not think it
is necessary--and they said they do not think it is necessary--
then you ought to get back to us and say that we do not think
it is necessary, that we are tracking this in some other
fashion, and allow us to get rid of that provision and go back
to the 10 percent rather than the 3 percent today.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes, this is really important.
Senator Voinovich speaks for the whole Committee on this,
so I look forward to seeing what the Secretary's response is
because as he said, we required that the biometric be in place
before we allowed anyone to come into the program if they were
over that 3 percent, and we actually put a waiver of 10 percent
into the law, but we have suspended that pending the coming of
the biometric. So that is a very important letter to have
answered. Thanks for raising it, Senator Voinovich, and thanks
for your response, Ms. Lute. And so please do everything you
can to make sure that letter gets to Senator Voinovich quickly.
Senator Brown, welcome.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BROWN
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be
here. I am going to have a few questions, and I will submit a
couple for the record because I have a couple of other
hearings. I am bouncing back and forth, too, so thank you.
What do you think DHS has learned from this review that
will translate to 2013? Are there any lessons that you can
share with us?
Ms. Lute. Leaders have to be engaged. This is a leadership
exercise, and it has to be led from the top.
Second, the timing of the review is important. Transition
years are difficult to manage efforts like this if you are
looking for as comprehensive an analysis of the homeland
security enterprise as you are.
The third lesson that I have learned is kind of a personal
lesson, I suppose. Homeland security is very different from
national security where I have spent my whole career. National
security is centralized, strategic, and top-driven. Homeland
security is decentralized; it is operational, and it is drive
from the grass roots up. It is an enterprise that involves
every American, every community, every State, territory, and
tribal entity as well. So we need to have an inclusive process
and opportunities for voices to be heard on these critical
issues. We tried to do that in the QHSR. I would urge that this
lesson be replicated the next time this occurs.
Fourth, you must learn from what has gone on before you. Do
not make the mistake of thinking that you are discovering
things. Learn to distinguish what is new from what is new to
you. Build on the work that has gone on thus far. Look at where
the investments have been made. Understand the rationales.
Build out the capabilities. Be explicit in understanding what
it will take to achieve the missions that you say are so
central to the vision you are trying to create. In our case, we
articulate a safe, secure, and resilient place where the
American way of life can thrive. We think it takes five
missions: Preventing terrorism, securing our borders, enforcing
our immigration laws, ensuring our cybersecurity, and ensuring
resilience of the American society against all hazards.
How will we know if we have achieved those objectives? The
QHSR lays that pathway out. And have nerves of steel because
there will be people who will challenge you and question you.
It is their right to do so, and the outcome will be the better
and richer for it if you face the big league pitching of the
best ideas that are out there.
Senator Brown. Thank you for that response. You talked
about leadership and grass roots. Well, I think leadership
starts from the top. I know I am new here, but taking so long
to respond to Senator Voinovich's and Senator Lieberman's
pretty simple request is really unheard of. And the thing that
I am noticing is that there is a disconnect sometimes between
the Senate and the Administration by not addressing very basic
concerns because we are not making this stuff up. We usually
get questions from our constituents who put us in office, who
ultimately put people in the Administration in office, and we
need to have the answers to a lot of these questions. And we do
not need them in months. We need them usually in a day or two.
And so I would encourage you and every other department in
the Federal Government to get with it and start getting us the
answers we need so we can respond properly.
I also, as you may or may not know, am the Ranking Member
on the Contracting Oversight Subcommittee, and we have had a
lot of hearings, and I tell you that Senator Voinovich was
right on the money. You have not used money, yet you are asking
for more money. And we are using contractors, and we are giving
them bonuses when they mess up and when they are in default, or
they owe us money that they have owed us for years. So I do not
if it is a question or a comment, but I would encourage you,
because we are at $13 trillion and counting, if there is any
streamlining, consolidation, or eliminating of overlap that you
can do in your Department to save the taxpayers some good
funds, that would be greatly appreciated.
Ms. Lute. Senator, I would just say that I absolutely agree
with that. I certainly agree with that. One of the initiatives
that we are pursuing in the Department, and have been and now
are reaching a point where we will greatly accelerate our work,
is looking at our whole acquisition process. Can we improve our
ability to set requirements in reliable ways that allow
effective contract mechanisms? Do we have the kind of program
management and oversight for those contracts as well, again,
building on work that has been done previously.
So what I can tell you is that through efficiency reviews
that the Secretary has ordered over the past 18 months, we have
saved over $100 million, and we look forward to sharing those
details shortly.
Senator Brown. Well, the comment, can you do this, yes, you
can do it. You can do these things. Every agency can do these
things. I tell you, the rhetoric--we have saved $100 million
here--with all due respect, $100 million in Washington is
nothing. We are talking billions here. I would like to see some
real savings. And can you do it? Yes, you should do it, and so
should every other agency make it their No. 1 priority to start
saving taxpayer dollars and putting them where it is effective.
And with regard to closing borders, yes, you should jump on
Arizona and get that squared away right away because until the
borders are secure in our country, how do we address all the
other issues that flow down from that?
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have other questions, but I
have to get to the other hearing.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Brown, very much for
coming by and for asking those questions, and we will enter
your other questions in the record.
We will go to a second round of questions now.
Ms. Lute, I know you have explained that the Bottom-Up
Review includes 44 initiatives and enhancements that have been
recognized by the Department as priorities for the next 4
years. I understand, of course, that not every worthwhile
project can be included in the list of priorities, but there
are a couple that are omitted that are troublesome to me, and
the one that I particularly want to ask about is rail and
transit security because the fact is it seems to me that the
Secretary and now John Pistole coming in at TSA have pledged to
give more attention than has been the case in the past to rail
and transit security. So I want to ask you why rail and transit
security was not highlighted by either the QHSR or the BUR and
what DHS plans to do to address those non-aviation forms of
transportation, which, of course, in other countries have been
attacked by terrorists and in our country in the case of Zazi
were intended targets for attack?
Ms. Lute. Mr. Chairman, we think we do identify mass
transit, rail, and other transportation infrastructure as key,
obviously, to the security of this country. We also highlight
the vulnerability of these systems, recognizing that many of
the systems exist in private sector hands. We highlight our
awareness of the vulnerabilities of these systems to terrorist
attacks. We have been and we will continue to work with the
private sector in a concerted effort and also with the American
public. The launching of the nationwide campaign built on the
New York model of ``See something, say something'' is precisely
designed to enlist the extraordinary capacity of the American
public as well. And so we do believe that transportation
security involves far more than aviation. Aviation is a
priority. It will be something that we are stressing. The
Secretary has been working, as you well know, through the
beginning of this year on a stronger international aviation
security regime because we know that if you have access to any
part of the system, you potentially have access to the entire
system, and we need to work on that as a priority matter.
Chairman Lieberman. I appreciate that. So I take from your
statement that rail and transit security, notwithstanding the
particulars of those 44, remains a priority for the Department.
Ms. Lute. Absolutely.
Chairman Lieberman. Let me ask you about a couple of the
structural changes that are called for in the Bottom-Up Review,
which I found interesting. The first is the call for a ``single
coordinating entity'' across the Department for
counterterrorism activities. I know that in March of this year,
Secretary Napolitano designated the Under Secretary for the
National Protection and Programs Directorate, Rand Beers, as
the DHS Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
I wanted to ask you just to talk a little bit about why the
BUR and you conclude that this is necessary and how you think
it will help the Department achieve its mission of protecting
our homeland security.
Ms. Lute. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. What we are trying to
achieve in our preventing terrorism and counterterrorism agenda
is an ability to leverage all parts of the Department as
relevant for addressing the terrorism threat and also to
leverage in turn a whole of government approach where necessary
to do so.
It is very clear to us that beneath the level of the
Secretary and myself, there does need to be a coming together
and an ability to coordinate the various activities--CBP, TSA,
etc. This is something that the Secretary takes very seriously,
I take very seriously, and an enormous amount of our time is
spent on ensuring that this country is protected against
another terrorist attack.
We believe also that we need to look in a very deliberate
way at the tools that are available to us to prevent terrorism
here domestically. We have our border tools. These are key and
essential, as I mentioned earlier. We have law enforcement
tools, not only the law enforcement resources that exist in our
Department and the FBI and other parts of the Federal system,
but also, importantly, the 800,000 State and local law
enforcement entities as well. We have intelligence and
information sharing, as we previously discussed, and we have
the American public.
So pulling all of these things together is something that
we are working on. The designation of a coordinator is an
interim solution pending a final review of how best to organize
the Department to achieve these synergies.
Chairman Lieberman. Good. Keep us posted on your work on
that.
The other proposal that I wanted to talk about, which I
think makes sense and yet I also think will have some problems
in being implemented, is the idea of realigning the various
regional configurations within the components of the Department
of Homeland Security into a single Department of Homeland
Security regional structure. So what are we talking about? DHS
units have seven different regional structures. The Coast Guard
may have one, CBP may have another, and FEMA may have another.
Obviously, one of the challenges in creating a single
regional system for the Department is that the components'
distinct organizations may in some cases have developed
particular organizational needs. For instance, the Coast
Guard's districts are typically focused on the coastal United
States with a single large district covering much of the inland
United States, while Customs and Border Protection's regions
obviously reflect the importance of the border.
In carrying out this recommendation, how are you going to
balance these two public interests?
Ms. Lute. You are absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. On the
one hand, the existence of seven separate, different regional
structures in addressing homeland security issues in the United
States seems excessive. On the other hand, we do not believe in
a simple one size fits all approach, unmindful of the
particular needs, and you mentioned the two components that are
the most geographically fixed.
Chairman Lieberman. Right.
Ms. Lute. So as we proceed forward, we would look to work
closely with this Committee and other Members of Congress to
achieve the kind of regional structure and approach that allows
us to achieve the integration of homeland security efforts and
mission accomplishment, mindful of the realities on the ground.
Chairman Lieberman. So it is probably going to be hard to
have a single departmental regional structure.
Ms. Lute. It may be hard----
Chairman Lieberman. Although you can certainly have less
than seven.
Ms. Lute. But we think certainly it is something that we
need to look at.
Chairman Lieberman. I appreciate that. Thank you. My time
is up.
Senator Collins, welcome back from the Appropriations
Subcommittee meeting.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
explaining my absence as well.
Ms. Lute, let me start where the Chairman just left off. I
do believe that there are efficiencies and cost savings that
can be achieved by consolidating some of the regional offices
of DHS. But the Chairman's point about the Coast Guard is a
very important one.
Obviously, there are some regional offices where the Coast
Guard's role is minimal, but on the coasts of this country, the
Coast Guard is absolutely essential, and trying to shoehorn the
Coast Guard into a broader DHS office may end up costing money
and decreasing the effectiveness of the Coast Guard.
Another agency, however, that you also need to take a close
look at what you are doing in that area is FEMA. One of the
lessons of the extensive investigation we did into the failed
response to Hurricane Katrina was that there needed to be a
regional FEMA presence that worked collaboratively all year
round with its State, local, and other Federal partners and
with the private sector, exercising together, planning
together. As we found out during Hurricane Katrina, in the
midst of a disaster is no time for people to be meeting each
other for the first time, and yet that is exactly what we
found. And that is why, as part of our FEMA reform bill, we
specifically established FEMA regional offices.
How do you see FEMA fitting into your consolidation of
regional offices?
Ms. Lute. Thanks, Senator. Craig Fugate and I have talked a
lot about this because I could not agree with you more. When I
was in the Army, we used to say that you fight like you train,
and that is certainly true for crisis response. A crisis is no
time to put together an ad hoc organization in haste.
Relationships matter and an understanding of capabilities
matters and an understanding of the geography, the access, the
particular needs of a community matters, and regions will not
substitute for the State and local knowledge that exists, but
these regions have to be important complements and points of
synergy and leverage, as this Committee knows very well.
I have asked CBP and Coast Guard to begin the process of
looking at whether and how we could consolidate some of our
regional structures together with FEMA. Obviously, this bears
on all of the operating components, as well, because they all
have regional structures. But we do believe that we can
consolidate some of the literally thousands of facilities that
DHS has across the country.
Senator Collins. I think that is absolutely the case, and
you can save money and actually enhance efficiency if the
agencies are co-located in many cases. But I would caution you
against assuming that what works in Arizona for a regional
office will work in New England. The needs and the roles of the
various DHS agencies are extremely different depending on what
region you are talking about.
One of my frustrations with the Department and, frankly,
with the Bottom-Up Review is that there are longstanding
problems, which precede this Administration, that the
Department still is not tackling and solving. And I want to
give you two examples.
At a hearing that our Committee held last month, the GAO
testified that the Department still lacks a strategic plan for
the screening of illicit nuclear and radiological materials
that could come across our borders. The GAO first identified
this necessity more than 7 years ago.
Now, the QHSR does state that one of the Department's goals
is to ``prevent the unauthorized acquisition or use'' of
nuclear and radiological materials along with biological and
chemical weapons. But the Bottom-Up Review does not provide the
kind of strategic direction that GAO identified 7 years ago and
that our Committee has repeatedly pushed. And the lack of that
plan has directly caused DHS to waste money, hundreds of
millions of dollars, and to go off in one direction 1 year and
another direction the other year.
It disappoints me that rather than completing this plan,
the Bottom-Up Review just states that DHS will ``leverage the
full range of capabilities'' and ``increase its leadership
role.''
Those are just buzz words. They do not substitute for the
kind of plan for which the GAO has been calling for 7 years.
When will DHS complete that important strategic plan? It is
hard to think of something more pressing than making sure that
radiological, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are not
smuggled into this country.
Ms. Lute. Senator, I agree with you. The BUR does identify
as an initiative that we will increase efforts to detect and
counter these dangerous weapons and dangerous materials, but
how we will do that is the heart of your question.
I have just convened a series of meetings on exactly this
issue. I will chair a working group within the Department to
generate a concrete plan for us to present--and we look forward
to working closely with this Committee on that plan--on how the
Department can play its role in reducing the risk of nuclear
terrorism, the terrorism associated with these most dangerous
weapons.
In order to do that, we know that we must anticipate
threats and protect against hostile use. In order to do that,
we know we must ask: Who are the individuals seeking to acquire
this? Where does this material exist? What are the lines of
communications? What are the methods by which these individuals
would seek to bring this material into this country? And what
are the right strategies, leveraging, again, all of the
resources that exist in the United States to protect against
that?
Senator Collins. So when will the plan be completed?
Ms. Lute. We are in the process of working on it, Senator.
I cannot give you a precise month, but I will go back and as a
matter of urgency set a timeline and be in touch with you.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Senator Collins.
Senator McCain, good morning.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN
Senator McCain. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
I was just looking at Appendix 1, the list of Bottom-Up
Review initiatives and enhancements, and I must say that it is
a wonderful and impressive list.
For example, I guess, one is enhance the DHS workforce.
That is a good idea. Increase analytic capability and capacity.
That is a good idea. There are really a lot of great ideas
here, I would say to the witness, and I would love to see some
actual accomplishments that have been achieved over the last 7
years or the last year and a half of this Administration as to
how ``enhance the DHS workforce'' has taken place.
And I was struck by, for example, number 17, comprehensive
immigration reform. Now, maybe you could fill me in on what
your agency is going to do as its initiative or enhancement of
comprehensive immigration reform.
Ms. Lute. Senator, as you know, the President has made
clear his desire to pursue comprehensive immigration reform.
The Secretary has talked about it equally. The enhancements
that we talk about----
Senator McCain. So is that an initiative or an enhancement?
Ms. Lute. The comprehensive immigration reform is an
initiative of the Administration. If I were to talk about the
enhancement of the----
Senator McCain. I thought this was not an Administration
initiative. I thought this was a Bottom-Up Review of the
homeland security initiatives and enhancements. So you are just
saying that is an overall Administration goal, so, therefore,
it is your goal. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Lute. The Department discharges the responsibility for
administering and enforcing the immigration laws of this
country, Senator, as you well know, and this is an important
feature of the way going forward----
Senator McCain. That is your job, to enact comprehensive
immigration reform? That is your initiative?
Ms. Lute. No. I apologize if I misspoke. What I said is we
have the responsibility to administer----
Senator McCain. To administer.
Ms. Lute [continuing]. And enforce the immigration laws.
Senator McCain. But not take the initiative.
Look, the point is that this list here is really
entertaining. Strengthen aviation security, create an
integrated departmental information-sharing architecture. I
would like to know what has been done in the last 7 years of
these lists of initiatives and enhancements. Dismantle human
smuggling organizations. There is nothing in this that anyone
could argue with except that we would like to see some results.
Apparently, the size of your organization continues to grow,
and there seems to be arguments that our border is ``as secure
as it ever was'' while the terrorism and violence on the other
side of the border continues to grow, the latest being the car
bombing in Juarez. And so these are enhancements and
initiatives.
What I would like to see, Mr. Chairman, is what the
Homeland Security Department has done to carry out these
motherhood-and-apple-pie initiatives and enhancements. And for
you to come before this Committee and say that this is a list
of initiatives and enhancements, I think, is laughable. And I
would hope that maybe we would, as a Committee, demand that we
know what the actual results are of these motherhood-and-apple-
pie initiatives.
If I were you, I would be a little embarrassed to come
before this Committee with this kind of a list of initiatives
and enhancements, which are, at least according to your
testimony so far, that we all agree that we ought to do better.
I have not heard yet a single concrete example of what you have
done to make these initiatives and enhancements a reality. And
maybe you could supply those for the record.
Ms. Lute. I would be happy to, Senator.
Chairman Lieberman. Senator McCain, as you can hear from
statements that I made earlier, and Senator Collins did, too,
the BUR statements are general, they are vague. Let me ask you
because it is my understanding, both from what you have implied
here today and what the Department has said to our staff, that
there are implementing directives to all 44 of these that are
being circulated in the Department. Is that right?
Ms. Lute. We are working on all of these initiatives,
Senator, to give a concrete path forward on them, some of
which, as I mentioned earlier, we will prioritize for the 2012
budget submission when the President presents that. These are
initiatives that we believe over the quadrennial speak to areas
that would be high-priority areas of focus for us in
strengthening our ability to execute the mission sets that we
have outlined in the QHSR, which we think are central to
achieving the vision that we have outlined.
Chairman Lieberman. There is nothing classified about those
implementation plans. So as you get them together, I think it
really would be helpful to the Committee if you would send us
copies of them because the state of the document now is
unsatisfying because it is unclear because of its lack of
detail.
Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, could I also suggest that
maybe the Department of Homeland Security should look at what
the Department of Defense does on the Quadrennial Defense
Review where there are specifics as to what initiatives need to
be taken, what action has been taken, and what needs to be
done. I have been around here a long time. This is one of the
more remarkable things that I have ever seen, and, frankly, it
is kind of disrespectful to the jurisdiction of this Committee
to hand us a paper like this and expect that to be in any way
helpful to us in our oversight responsibilities of what is now
growing to be one of the largest agencies of government.
Chairman Lieberman. The idea of the comparison to the QDR
is an important one. Actually, Senator Collins mentioned it in
her opening statement, and I would urge you to take a look at
that and respond.
Senator Collins, you missed a round, so I want to give you
the opportunity to ask some more questions at this point.
Senator Collins. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Most of
them I will submit for the record so that I am not holding
everyone up, but there are a few that I do want to pursue.
Ms. Lute, I mentioned my disappointment at the lack of a
specific plan for dealing with the nuclear and radiological
weapons smuggling. But I want to give you another example of an
area that this Committee identified first in June 2008, again
in 2009, and again, the two reports you have provided do not
have any specifics for correcting the problems. It is very
frustrating that over and over this Committee has brought to
the Department's attention severe shortcomings, and yet there
is no sense of urgency on the part of the Department.
In this case, it has to do with the Federal Protective
Service, and what we found is that GAO did a series of covert
tests that revealed serious security vulnerabilities of Federal
buildings with explosive devices easily being smuggled into 10
Federal buildings. And it is now 2010, 2 years later from when
these problems were first brought to the Department's
attention, and yet all that DHS says in the BUR report is that
it ``now proposes to undertake a major redesign of the Federal
Protective Service.''
It is extremely frustrating to me to have a serious problem
brought to the attention of the Department 2 years ago and all
that is in the BUR is a statement saying that the Department
now proposes to undertake a redesign. Why are we not further
along?
Ms. Lute. Senator, I hear your frustration on the issue of
why we are not further along. I can assure you that the
Secretary and I and the leadership of the Department come to
work every day with a sense of urgency about all of the
missions that we have in homeland security. The Federal
Protective Service, as you know, was just placed into the
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), and as a
consequence of that movement, of these reports that have come
to light, and of our sense of the importance of the mission,
the organization, the nature of the workforce, the training,
etc., we have an obligation to present a comprehensive plan to
bring the Federal Protective Service to the level of
performance that everyone has a right to expect.
Senator Collins. Well, again, I want to see specific action
in that area as well.
Let me switch to cybersecurity, an issue that I think is of
great priority, and I was pleased to see that it is identified
as one of the five primary missions of DHS by your review.
Do you agree that the Department needs new authorities and
resources to perform its cybersecurity mission?
Ms. Lute. We do think that the Department's ability to
discharge its cybersecurity mission would be enhanced by those,
yes.
Senator Collins. The Department's budget request for the
cybersecurity division for fiscal year 2011 is $19 million less
than it was funded for this fiscal year. Do you anticipate that
the Department will request additional funding for
cybersecurity for the fiscal year 2012 budget so that you can
fulfill this mandate?
Ms. Lute. Without giving you a specific answer, Senator, we
could. What we want to look at in our cybersecurity mission is
precisely how do we fill out the space that we have been given
with respect to responsibilities for securing the dot-gov and
extending into the dot-com domain as well. How do we leverage
the resources and existing capabilities across the Department?
How do we work most effectively with the private sector in this
regard?
I mentioned earlier that doing something like the QHSR and
the BUR takes nerves of steel. When we elevated cybersecurity
to one of the five key missions of Homeland Security, there was
quite a reaction--surprise.
Senator Collins. From whom?
Ms. Lute. From a number of stakeholders across the country.
Surprise--as if people had not really been thinking about it as
an element of our homeland security. And so the simple
articulation of the mission alone achieved a kind of effect we
were hoping to achieve, which is to create a culture of
awareness, a culture of responsiveness and engagement on this
important and critical mission. So as we build out the
Department's capabilities in this regard, again, understanding
that we are largely an operational Department, we will
prioritize what our requirements are in the 2012 budget.
Senator Collins. And, finally, I know that the Chairman
brought up concerns about the Intelligence and Analysis
Office's reliance on contractors. I want to talk about another
issue with that office. A very important function of that
office is to share information with State and local officials
and first responders.
As you may be aware, the Appropriations Committee put a
rider on the office that fences in some of the spending and,
more troubling to me, attempts to limit what the office can do
by saying that it should only produce reports that are unique--
I am overstating it slightly, but it constrains the ability of
the office to serve its customers because it says if there is
any duplication, someone else should do it.
Have you looked at that language?
Ms. Lute. I have, Senator.
Senator Collins. And do you have concerns about it?
Ms. Lute. I do have concerns, Senator. The value
proposition of our I&A office is to equip the homeland security
enterprise with the information and intelligence it needs
throughout the whole enterprise, including State and local
officials, and that important, as the Chairman mentioned
earlier, two-way sharing of information is so essential to the
discharge of our missions.
Senator Collins. I would strongly encourage you and the
Secretary to put your concerns in writing to Senators Dianne
Feinstein and Christopher Bond, who initiated the proposal.
Unfortunately, it was not cleared with our Committee, but we
are going to work with the sponsors and with other members of
the Appropriations Committee to try to clarify it. It would be
helpful for us to have a letter from you expressing the
concerns and for the appropriators to have it as well. And as
someone who sits on both committees, as does Senator Voinovich,
I think you can be assured that we would attempt to try to
resolve these issues.
Ms. Lute. Thank you.
Senator Collins. I will speak for myself actually on that,
but I know the Chairman and I have discussed it.
Ms. Lute. Thank you.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Well, as usual, you can speak for me,
too. I agree. It was actually a misunderstanding between me and
one of the members of the Appropriations Committee, and I
believe it was reflected at the Appropriations Committee markup
that I supported this amendment, which I did not. And I am
worried that it actually conflicts with existing law in terms
of the authorities of the intelligence section of the
Department of Homeland Security and will inhibit the capacity
of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at DHS to be of help
to the Secretary, you, the other components of the Department,
and most critically, as we have talked about, State and local
law enforcement officials around the country.
So I think I am going to work with Senator Collins and our
colleagues on the Committee on this, but I want to second her
request that the Secretary and you send a letter to the
appropriators to let them know that this is not a good move on
their part.
Ms. Lute. Thank you.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Collins.
I think we have cross-examined you enough generally within
the Geneva Convention. I think we have not gone beyond those
rules. Thanks for your effort on this. I think you have done a
lot of constructive work, but on the BUR, the take-away is we
really need more details. I think you are heading in a good
direction, but it is hard for us to really judge until we see
those implementing plans.
I gather that the third part of this three-part approach to
the look forward is the details that will come with the fiscal
year 2012 budget, right?
Ms. Lute. Yes.
Chairman Lieberman. And that is where you hope to show us
how you are going to implement it.
Ms. Lute. Exactly, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned earlier,
one of the lessons learned is that the timing of a QHSR
exercise, like such as was envisaged, is important. And we are
conforming to the budget submission process, and then that is,
as we have spoken about over 18 months, the third part of the
exercise.
Chairman Lieberman. I really want to ask that as you make
more specific the implementation plans for these 44 initiatives
and enhancements, you send copies to Senator Collins and me,
and we will circulate them to the Committee, so that we will
not have to wait until the budget is submitted next year to
understand how you are going forward with some of these.
Ms. Lute. We look forward to working very closely with both
of you and with the Committee.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you.
The record of the hearing will stay open for 15 days for
additional statements and questions. With that, I thank you,
Ms. Lute, and adjourn the hearing.
Ms. Lute. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8402.239