[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 13, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-19
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-258 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Peter T. King, New York
Jane Harman, California Lamar Smith, Texas
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Daniel E. Lungren, California
Columbia Mike Rogers, Alabama
Zoe Lofgren, California Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Henry Cuellar, Texas Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Laura Richardson, California Pete Olson, Texas
Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, Louisiana
Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico Steve Austria, Ohio
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri
Al Green, Texas
James A. Himes, Connecticut
Mary Jo Kilroy, Ohio
Eric J.J. Massa, New York
Dina Titus, Nevada
Vacancy
I. Lanier Avant, Staff Director
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 1
The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 2
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas:
Prepared Statement............................................. 4
Witnesses
The Honorable Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
Appendix
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson....................... 51
Questions From Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee...................... 67
Questions From Honorable Henry Cuellar........................... 68
Question From Honorable Ann Kirkpatrick.......................... 69
Questions From Honorable Mike Rogers............................. 69
Questions From Honorable Charles W. Dent......................... 70
Questions From Honorable Paul C. Broun........................... 71
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson
[Chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Thompson, Harman, DeFazio, Jackson
Lee, Cuellar, Carney, Clarke, Richardson, Kirkpatrick, Lujan,
Pascrell, Cleaver, Green, Kilroy, Massa, Titus, King, Souder,
Lungren, Rogers, McCaul, Dent, Bilirakis, Broun, Miller, Olson,
Cao, and Austria.
Chairman Thompson. The Committee on Homeland Security will
come to order.
The committee is meeting today to receive testimony from
Secretary Janet Napolitano on the President's fiscal year 2010
budget request for the Department of Homeland Security. I want
to thank Secretary Napolitano for being here today to testify
in support of the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request
for the Department.
The transition period for the Obama administration has been
very busy on many fronts. From border violence to the recent
flu outbreak, the Department has had a lot on its plate, yet
you still managed to submit a very comprehensive budget that
answers a lot of the questions we have had about where the
Department wants to go.
Last week, the President's budget, just over $55 billion,
was requested for the Department of Homeland Security. This is
an increase of $2.6 billion over last year. Within that
request, the President is seeking about $43 billion in
appropriations. This represents an increase of 6.6 percent over
last year and will cover key investments in homeland security
in the range of areas, including the following: $121 million in
funding for explosive detection; an additional $96 million for
southbound firearms and currency smuggling enforcement; $420
million for SAFER firefighter grant program; and an additional
$75 million for DHS headquarters project. I believe that
funding sought for the Department will benefit this vital
agency.
Additionally, the budget includes a number of critical
programmatic changes that I support and would like to highlight
here. The transfer of the Office of Intergovernmental Programs
to the Office of the Secretary is a long time coming and will
surely enhance DHS's ability to coordinate with State, local,
and Tribal governments.
I also support moving the Federal Protective Service from
ICE to the National Protection and Programs Directorate, the
center of gravity for infrastructure protection at DHS.
The $75 million increase slated for the comprehensive
National Cybersecurity Initiative is another step in the right
direction.
Although I agree overall with the President's request for
the Department, I do have some concerns. In previous years,
over 40 percent of DHS's budget went out the door to
contractors to perform a host of functions, including
policymaking. This overreliance on contractors has undermined
DHS's ability to execute its missions. I am hopeful that
through your efficiency review, Madam Secretary, we will start
to see some progress in this area.
While overall funding for grant programs seems in-line with
past budgets, I am concerned about the significant decreased
plan for the FIRE Grant Program. As a volunteer firefighter, I
know how much communities rely on this critical program.
In these tough economic times, I am committed to working to
help secure a budget for the Department that keeps on our
commitment to fiscal responsibility while strengthening the
security of our Nation. I am also committed to executing my
legislative responsibility and producing authorization
legislation to give DHS the resources and authorities it needs
to execute all its missions.
Tomorrow, the committee is moving its first piece of
authorization legislation for fiscal year 2010. The TSA
Authorization Act is a product of extensive bipartisan
discussions. It reflects input from members, GAO DHS Inspector
General, and transportation stakeholders from across the
spectrum. Regrettably, input from TSA was hard to come by. With
no Senate-confirmed leader at the head of TSA, the agency has
not been the partner that we had hoped to have.
Madam Secretary, I appreciate the challenges that this
vacancy creates for you on an operational level, and am eager
to see a strong manager installed in this critical position.
Please keep in mind that the delays in filling key positions
throughout the Department not only makes things difficult for
you, but also complicates this committee's ability to carry out
its oversight and legislative responsibilities.
I look forward to a foregoing collaborative relationship
with you and the new leadership at DHS. This committee has
years of knowledge and experience on a range of issues that you
face. Please look to us as a resource as you consider homeland
security challenges.
In closing, Madam Secretary, I look forward to working with
you to ensure that the Department has the resources it needs to
execute all its missions, including to prevent and respond to
the threat of terrorism.
Thank you, and I look forward to your testimony.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. King, for an
opening statement.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Madam Secretary. It is good to see you today.
At the outset, let me express some positive notes. One, I
want to thank you for your level of cooperation and contact,
certainly at my office and I am sure with other Members as
well. I must tell you, though, you do cause trauma among my
staff when they realize it is you on the phone, that there are
no intermediaries. Go a little easy on them. Okay? They are not
expecting that.
Also, on the issue of swine flu, you are very cooperative
in keeping us apprised of what was happening. On the issue of
the first report that came out on the right-wing extremist
returning veterans, I very much appreciate your personal call
to me on that and discussing it.
Having said that, I believe that the combination of the
first report and then the second report, which I know was
called back, to me and to others certainly on this side does
demonstrate we believe a weakness in the Department which has
to be addressed, and we certainly look forward to what you have
to say on that and working with you on that because it has
raised very significant issues. Certainly back in our districts
we hear about it. It has made an impression that I don't think
reflects well on the Department. I know you want to address it.
I would like to really hear what your plans are and how those
were released and what caused them to be brought about.
Also, while the Chairman has mentioned the issue of the
FIRE grants, a 70 percent cut in the FIRE grants, this I can
assure you is a bipartisan issue. There is tremendous concern
over this. I am certainly hearing from fire districts. I am
Chairman of the Congressional Fire Caucus, and I believe last
year it was over $3 billion in FIRE grants which shows the real
need for it and demand for it. So, again, that is an issue that
certainly we have to work together on and which I will be very
much looking forward to your testimony on.
Also on the Secure the Cities, which was a 3-year pilot
program; and while the program was primarily in New York City,
this is something that affects cities throughout the country,
and it is a pilot program which for the most part worked. I
believe still more has to be done on it. So I don't believe the
pilot program even in the pilot stage has been completed. But
the fact is that when we look overseas at Madrid and London, it
is very likely that the next attack on a major city is going to
be launched from outside the city, from suburban areas, from
areas outside the city, which is why it is so essential that we
have radiation detection, that we have comprehensive efforts.
For instance, the Secure the Cities pilot program in New
York, which is being zeroed out, is being ended, involved not
just New York City. It was New York City, it was Long Island,
it was Westchester, Rockland, it was New Jersey, it was
Connecticut. It was a regional defense against radioactive
attack.
I saw an anonymous call in the Washington Post from
somebody at the Department of Homeland Security saying one of
the reasons this program was eliminated was because the
Department did not want to be a goal-line defense; that we
wanted to stop nuclear weapons from coming, getting them
overseas before they got here. But one of the reasons the
Department was set up was to be a goal-line defense. If
everything was being done well overseas, we wouldn't have to
have the Department of Homeland Security, certainly not to the
extent that we do.
Also, you don't need a bomb coming from Pakistan to impact
New York City or Los Angeles or Chicago. There can be
radioactive material stolen from a hospital, which could create
a dirty bomb which could devastate financial sectors, devastate
neighborhoods and communities. So, again, I certainly want to
discuss that with you.
On the issue of immigration, I have real concerns that the
SCAAP program is being eliminated. I even remember some former
Governors telling us how important that program was in the
fight against illegal immigration. Again, I think this is
something that really has to be addressed, and I believe there
is strong bipartisan support for the SCAAP program.
On the issue of Guantanamo, I know we have sent a letter to
you asking what precautions the Department is going to make.
There have been various news reports, whether it involves the
Uighurs going into Virginia, whether it involves prisoners or
detainees being brought to the Southern District of New York
for trial in Northern Virginia, as to what measures are going
to be taken, if that does happen, to providing security that is
needed to do what has to be done, because this to me is going
to make already prime targets even more targets and create much
more security problems for us.
So I want to again commend you for reaching out, but again
there are some real questions here which have to be addressed.
Certainly on FIRE grants, on Secure the Cities, on immigration,
and the whole issue of the unit in your Department which issued
these reports, and also what we are going to do about
Guantanamo if in fact detainees are brought to the United
States either for trial or even to be released as has been
heard in some cases.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you, Mr. King.
Other Members of the committee are reminded that, under
committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the
record.
[The statement of Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership in convening today's
very important hearing on the President's fiscal year 2010 budget
request for the Department of Homeland Security. I would also like to
thank the Ranking Member. Welcome Secretary Janet Napolitano.
The Department of Homeland Security was established approximately 6
years ago. The National Strategy for Homeland Security and the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 served to mobilize and organize our Nation to
secure the homeland from terrorist attacks. To this end, the primary
reason for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) was to provide the unifying core for the vast network of
organizations and institutions involved in the efforts to secure our
Nation. In order to better do this and to provide guidance to the
180,000 DHS men and women who work every day on this important task,
the Department developed its own high-level strategic plan. The vision,
mission statements, strategic goals and objectives provide the
framework guiding the actions that make up the daily operations of the
Department.
DHS's vision is simple: To preserve our freedoms, protect America,
and secure our homeland. Its mission is to lead the unified national
effort to secure America; prevent and deter terrorist attacks and
protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the Nation; and
ensure safe and secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors,
and promote the free flow of commerce.
DHS has seven strategic goals and objectives. These include,
awareness, prevention, protection, response, recovery, service, and
organizational excellence.
The magnitude and severity of the tragic events of September 11,
2001, were unprecedented, and that dark day became a watershed event in
the Nation's approach to protecting and defending the lives and
livelihoods of the American people. Despite previous acts of terror on
our Nation's soil, such as the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center
and the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in
Oklahoma City, homeland security before the tragic events of September
11 existed as a patchwork of efforts undertaken by disparate
departments and agencies across all levels of government. While
segments of our law enforcement and intelligence communities, along
with armed forces, assessed and prepared to act against terrorism and
other significant threats to the United States, we lacked a unifying
vision, a cohesive strategic approach, and the necessary institutions
within Government to secure the homeland against terrorism.
The shock of September 11 transformed our thinking. In the
aftermath of history's deadliest international terrorist attack, we
developed a homeland security strategy based on a concerted national
effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce
America's vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and
recover from attacks that do occur. To help implement that strategy,
DHS enhanced homeland security and counterterrorism architecture at the
Federal, State, local, Tribal, and community levels.
The Department's understanding of homeland security continued to
evolve after September 11, adapting to new realities and threats. Most
recently, our Nation endured Hurricane Katrina, the most destructive
natural disaster in U.S. history. The human suffering and staggering
physical destruction caused by this national disaster was a reminder
that threats come not only from individuals, inside and outside of our
borders, but also from nature. Indeed, certain natural events that
reach catastrophic levels, such as hurricanes and other natural
disasters, can have significant implications for homeland security. The
resulting national consequences and possible cascading effects from
these events might present potential or perceived vulnerabilities that
could be exploited.
Over 6 years after September 11, 2001, DHS is moving beyond
operating as an organization in transition to a Department diligently
working to protect our borders and critical infrastructure, prevent
dangerous people and goods from entering our country, and recover from
natural disasters effectively. The total fiscal year 2009 budget
request for DHS is $50.5 billion in funding, a 7 percent increase over
the fiscal year 2008 enacted level excluding emergency funding. The
Department's fiscal year 2009 gross discretionary budget request is
$40.7 billion, an increase of 8 percent over the fiscal year 2008
enacted level excluding emergency funding. Gross discretionary funding
does not include mandatory funding such as the Coast Guard's retirement
pay accounts and fees paid for immigration benefits. The Department's
fiscal year 2009 net discretionary budget request is $37.6 billion,
which does not include fee collections such as funding for the Federal
Protective Service and aviation security passenger and carrier fees.
DHS has engaged in much good work over the past 6 years, but more
needs to be done. The Department of Homeland Security has been dogged
by persistent criticism over excessive bureaucracy, waste, and
ineffectiveness. In 2003, the Department came under fire after the
media revealed that Laura Callahan, Deputy Chief Information Officer at
DHS, had obtained her advanced computer science degrees through a
diploma mill in a small town in Wyoming. The Department was blamed for
up to $2 billion of waste and fraud after audits by the Government
Accountability Office revealed widespread misuse of Government credit
cards by DHS employees. The frivolous purchases included beer brewing
kits, $70,000 of plastic dog booties that were later deemed unusable,
boats purchased at double the retail price (many of which later could
not be found), and iPods ostensibly for use in ``data storage''.
The Associated Press reported on September 5, 2007 that DHS had
scrapped an anti-terrorism data mining tool called ADVISE (Analysis,
Dissemination, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement) after
the agency's internal Inspector General found that pilot testing of the
system had been performed using data on real people without required
privacy safeguards in place. The system, in development at Lawrence
Livermore and Pacific Northwest National Laboratories since 2003, has
cost the agency $42 million to date. Controversy over the program is
not new; in March 2007, the Government Accountability Office stated
that ``the ADVISE tool could misidentify or erroneously associate an
individual with undesirable activity such as fraud, crime or
terrorism''. Homeland Security's Inspector General later said that
ADVISE was poorly planned, time-consuming for analysts to use, and
lacked adequate justifications.
Increasingly, the Department has come under growing scrutiny
because of its immigration and deportation practices. In February 2007,
the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration held a hearing investigating
the problems with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
interrogation, detention, and removal procedures as applied to U.S.
citizens. During that hearing, there were many reports of our
immigration system targeting American citizens by detaining,
interrogating, and forcibly deporting U.S. citizens under the pretext
that these citizens were illegal aliens. The citizens targeted have
been some of the most vulnerable segments of American society. ICE has
targeted the mentally challenged and youths.
ICE detention facilities Nation-wide have been criticized,
including the detention facility at the T. Don Hutto correctional
Center in Williamson County, Texas. Corrections Corporation of America
(CCA) operates the 512-bed facility under a contract with Williamson
County. The facility was opened in May 2006 to accommodate immigrant
families in ICE custody. As history has shown us, even the best of
intentions can go astray, which is what happened at the Hutto Detention
Center.
Due to the increased use of detention, and particularly in light of
the fact that children are now being housed in detention facilities,
many concerns have been raised about the humanitarian, health, and
safety conditions at these facilities. In a 72-page report, ``Locking
Up Family Values: The Detention of Immigrant Families,'' recently
released by two refugee advocacy organizations, the Women's Commission
for Refugee Women and Children and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee
Service concluded that the T. Don Hutto Family Residential Center and
the Berks Family Shelter Care Facility, were modeled on the criminal
justice system. In these facilities, ``residents are deprived of the
right to live as a family unit, denied adequate medical and mental
health care, and face overly harsh disciplinary tactics.''
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against
ICE in March 2007 on behalf of several juvenile plaintiffs that were
housed in the facility at the time claiming that the standards by which
they were housed was not in compliance with the Government's detention
standards for this population. The claims were, amongst other things,
improper educational opportunities, not enough privacy, and substandard
health care. The relief being sought was the release of the plaintiffs.
In August 2007, the ACLU reached a landmark settlement with the ICE
that greatly improves conditions for immigrant children and their
families in the Hutto detention center in Taylor, Texas.
Since the original lawsuits were filed, all 26 children represented
by the ACLU have been released. The last six children were released
days before the settlement was finalized and are now living with family
members who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents while
pursuing their asylum claims. Conditions at Hutto have gradually and
significantly improved as a result of litigation. Children are no
longer required to wear prison uniforms and are allowed much more time
outdoors. Educational programming has expanded and guards have been
instructed not to discipline children by threatening to separate them
from their parents. Despite the tremendous improvements at Hutto, the
facility still has a way to go.
As one of the principal and long-standing supporters of
comprehensive immigration reform in the U.S. Congress and an author of
a comprehensive immigration reform bill, the SAVE AMERICA Act, I hope
that today's hearing will serve as a catalyst for closer scrutiny of
our immigration detention system and the immigration enforcement
functions of DHS.
The administration has more work to do to secure our border. The
Border Patrol needs more agents and more resources. The Rapid Response
Border Protection Act, H.R. 4044, a bill that I co-sponsored, would
meet these needs by providing critical resources and support for the
men and women who enforce our homeland security laws.
This would include adding 15,000 Border Patrol agents over the next
5 years, increasing the number of agents from 11,000 to 26,000. It
would require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) to respond rapidly to border crises by deploying up to 1,000
additional Border Patrol agents to a State when a border security
emergency is declared by the governor. It would add 100,000 more
detention beds to ensure that those who are apprehended entering the
United States unlawfully are sent home instead of being released into
our communities. And, it would provide critical equipment and
infrastructure improvements, including additional helicopters, power
boats, police-type vehicles, portable computers, reliable radio
communications, hand-held GPS devices, body armor, and night-vision
equipment.
The Department has achieved much over the past 5 years in ensuring
that America is a safer place; however, much work is still required. I
am hopeful that this new Federal agency will become more effective and
diverse. The Members of Congress and the Department all want a safe and
secure America. Again, I welcome the testimony from our distinguished
panelist, Secretary Napolitano.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time.
Chairman Thompson. Again, I welcome our witness today.
Janet Napolitano is the third Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security. I would like to publicly commend you, Madam
Secretary, for your leadership for the 3 months, especially
your handling of the recent influenza outbreak.
Prior to joining this administration, Secretary Napolitano
was midway through her second term as Governor of Arizona. As
Governor, she implemented one of the first State homeland
security strategies in the Nation, opened the first State
Counterterrorism Center, and spearheaded efforts to transform
immigration enforcement. Secretary Napolitano previously served
as the Attorney General of Arizona and the U.S. Attorney for
the District of Arizona.
Madam Secretary, I thank you for your service and for
appearing before this committee today.
Without objection, the witness's full statement will be
inserted into the record.
Secretary Napolitano, I now recognize you to summarize your
statement for the committee for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Representative King, Members of the committee. Thank you for
this opportunity to testify on the Department of Homeland
Security portion of President Obama's budget proposal for
fiscal year 2010.
The proposed total budget for DHS is $55.1 billion, which
includes $42.7 billion in appropriated funding.
DHS performs a broad range of activities across a single
driving mission: To secure America from the entire range of
threats that we face. The Department's leadership in the past
couple of weeks in response to the H1N1 flu outbreak only
proves the breadth of the Department's portfolio, as well as
the need to make DHS a stronger, more effective Department.
This budget strengthens our efforts in what I see as the
five main mission areas where we need to focus in order to
secure the American people:
First, guarding against terrorism, the founding purpose and
perennial top priority of the Department.
Second, securing our borders, an effort even more urgent as
the United States looks to do its part to counter a rise in
cartel violence in Mexico.
Third, smart and effective enforcement of our immigration
laws. We want to facilitate legal immigration and pursue
enforcement against those who violate our country's immigration
laws.
Next, improving our preparation for, response to, and
recoveries from disasters. Not just hurricanes and tornados,
but also unexpected situations like the outbreak of the H1N1
flu.
Last, unifying, creating one Department of Homeland
Security. We need to work together as one Department to ensure
that we operate at full strength. As this committee knows, the
Department was recently created out of 22 separate agencies.
Part of this budget is designed to help us continue to knit and
unify into one DHS.
Now, there are three approaches that the Department is
taking to strengthen its performance in each of the five main
mission areas and that are also strengthened in this budget.
First, expanding partnerships with State, local, and Tribal
governments, the first detectors, and the first responders.
Second, bolstering our science and technology portfolio,
investing in new technologies that can increase our
capabilities while being very cognizant of privacy in other
interests that are there.
Third, maximizing efficiency. Through an efficiency review
initiative that we launched in March, we intend to ensure that
every security dollar is spent in the most effective way.
This budget adheres to the President's main reform goals,
Government efficiency, transparency, and cohesion, and will
play a major part in bringing about a culture of responsibility
and fiscal discipline at DHS.
The DHS budget was based on alignment with the Department
programs and priorities, and that was assessed on the basis of
effectiveness and risk.
In terms of budget priorities to guard against terrorism,
this budget proposal includes $121 million to fund research for
new technologies that detect explosives in public places,
transportation networks, $87 million for new measures to
protect critical infrastructure and cyber networks from attack,
and it also enhances information sharing about Federal, State,
local, and Tribal law enforcement.
For border security, the budget proposal includes $116
million to deploy additional staff and technology to the
Southwest border to disrupt southbound smuggling of drugs and
bulk cash to help combat cartel violence. It also includes $40
million for smart security technology funding on the northern
border to expand and integrate surveillance systems there.
To assure smart, effective enforcement of our immigration
laws, this budget proposal includes $112 million to strengthen
E-Verify to help employers maintain a legal work force, a total
of $198 million for the Secure Communities Program which helps
State, local, and Tribal law enforcement target criminal
aliens. It improves security and facilitates trade and tourism
to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, $145 million, and
$344 million for US-VISIT.
To help Americans prepare for and recover from natural
disaster, the budget proposal includes doubling the funds from
$210 million to $420 million, to increase the number of
frontline firefighters, a $600 million increase to the Disaster
Relief Fund, and it strengthens pre-disaster hazard mitigation
efforts to reduce injury, loss of life, and destruction of
property.
Finally, to unify the Department, this budget proposal
includes $79 million for the consolidation of DHS headquarters,
which will bring 35 disparate offices together, generating
significant savings in the long run. It also includes $200
million to consolidate and unify our IT infrastructure, and
bring all of DHS under the same system.
In my few months as Secretary, I have seen a number of
remarkable accomplishments in addition to challenges that DHS
faces. I have seen this Department's potential. I believe we
have a path toward realizing it. We are aiming to do even
better at achieving our Nation's security mission, and this
budget will help the Department do just that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Ms. Napolitano follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janet Napolitano
May 13, 2009
Mr. Chairman, Congressman King, and Members of the Committee: Let
me begin by saying thank you for the strong support you have
consistently shown the Department, and I look forward to working with
you to make certain that we have the right resources to protect the
homeland and the American people and that we make the most effective
and efficient use of those resources.
I am pleased to appear before the committee today to present
President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). I will also summarize the progress we have
made since the start of the new administration along with some of our
key accomplishments from last year.
fiscal year 2010 budget request
The Department of Homeland Security's budget will strengthen
current efforts that are vital to the Nation's security, bolster DHS's
ability to respond to emerging and evolving threats, and allow DHS to
embrace new responsibilities in order to secure the Nation. This budget
puts forward critical investments in the protection of the American
people.
DHS and its many component agencies fulfill a broad mandate and
conduct many different activities within a single, unified security
mission. DHS performs critical tasks from protecting transportation
hubs to conducting maritime rescues, from aiding disaster victims to
enforcing immigration laws. Within this broad portfolio, the Department
aims to secure the American people from all hazards--including
terrorist threats and natural or accidental disasters--and to work
effectively with its many partners to lead the collaborative effort to
secure the Nation. DHS undertakes the mission of securing the United
States against all threats through five main action areas, each of
which is strengthened by this budget:
Guarding Against Terrorism.--Protecting the American people
from terrorist threats is the founding purpose of the
Department and DHS' highest priority. This budget expands DHS
efforts to battle terrorism, including detecting explosives in
public spaces and transportation networks, helping protect
critical infrastructure and cyber networks from attack,
detecting agents of biological warfare, and building
information-sharing partnerships with State and local law
enforcement that can enable law enforcement to mitigate
threats.
Securing Our Borders.--DHS prevents and investigates illegal
movements across our borders, including the smuggling of
people, drugs, cash, and weapons. In March, the Department
announced a new initiative to strengthen security on the
southwest border in order to disrupt the drug, cash, and weapon
smuggling that fuels cartel violence in Mexico. This budget
strengthens those efforts by adding manpower and technology to
the southwest border. This budget also funds smart security on
the northern border and facilitates international travel and
trade. The President's request also makes targeted investments
to reduce security risk across our Nation's vast maritime
borders.
Smart and Tough Enforcement of Immigration Laws and
Improving Immigration Services.--DHS welcomes legal immigrants,
protects against dangerous people entering the country, and
pursues tough, effective enforcement against those who violate
the Nation's immigration laws. This budget contains funding to
strengthen our employment eligibility verification systems,
target and crack down on criminal aliens, and expedite the
application process for new legal immigrants.
Preparing for, Responding to, and Recovering from Natural
Disasters.--The Department must aid local and State first
responders in all stages of a natural disaster--preparing for
the worst, responding to a disaster that has occurred, and
recovering in the long run. This budget contains funding to
strengthen DHS assistance for local first responders and the
communities and families affected by disasters.
Unifying and Maturing DHS.--DHS is a young department. Its
components must further evolve in order to operate as
effectively as possible as one agency with a single, unified
security mission. This budget contains funding to initiate
consolidation of mission support activities that will remain
off-site from the St. Elizabeths campus, reducing the many
small and widely scattered leased locations and supporting the
goal to build ``One DHS.''
DHS is employing several cross-cutting initiatives to strengthen
activities in each of these mission areas.
First, DHS is working across the board to increase cooperation with
its partners--State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies,
international allies, the private sector, and other Federal
departments. The effort to secure America requires close coordination
and collaboration; this budget increases resources dedicated to these
critical partnerships.
Second, the Department is bolstering its science and technology
portfolio. This will lead to the development of new techniques and
technologies that will expand DHS' law enforcement capabilities while
minimizing law enforcement's impact on everyday, law-abiding citizens.
This budget contains important investments in technologies that will
allow DHS officers to perform their security tasks more quickly and
with greater accuracy.
Third, the Department continually aims for greater efficiency in
its operations. Through the Department-wide Efficiency Review
Initiative launched in March, DHS is ensuring all its resources are
used in the most effective way possible to secure the Nation.
The total fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department of
Homeland Security is $55.1 billion in funding; a 5 percent increase
over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level excluding supplemental funding.
The Department's fiscal year 2010 gross discretionary budget request
\1\ is $45.8 billion, an increase of 6 percent over the fiscal year
2009 enacted level excluding emergency funding. The Department's fiscal
year 2010 net discretionary budget request is $42.7 billion.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gross discretionary funding does not include funding such as
Coast Guard's retirement pay accounts and fees paid for immigration
benefits.
\2\ This does not include fee collections such as funding for the
Federal Protective Service (NPPD), aviation security passenger and
carrier fees (TSA), credentialing fees (such as TWIC-TSA), and
administrative cost of the (National Flood Insurance Fund, FEMA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are highlights of the fiscal year 2010 budget
request:
guarding against terrorism
State and Local Fusion Centers.--Full support and staffing
by the end of fiscal year 2011 are requested for the 70
identified State and Local Fusion Centers, facilities where
information and intelligence is shared between Federal, State,
local, and Tribal authorities. Funding is dedicated to IT
maintenance, support, and training.
Explosives Detection Systems (EDS) Procurement and
Installation.--An increase of $565.4 million to accelerate the
Electronic Baggage Screening Program (EBSP) at the Nation's
airports to ensure 100 percent of all checked baggage is
screened with an in-line explosive detection capability system,
or a suitable alternative. This funding will support facility
modifications, recapitalization efforts, as well as procurement
and deployment of electronic baggage screening technology
systems.
Bomb Appraisal Officers.--$9 million for an additional 109
Bomb Appraisal Officers (BAOs) to provide expertise in the
recognition of and response to improvised explosive devices at
airports to enhance aviation security. The request will provide
BAO coverage at 50 percent more airports including all Category
X, I, and II airports, and will provide a BAO in every hub-
spoke airport system, and to airports that currently have only
one BAO assigned.
Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response Teams.--An
increase of $50 million is requested to fund 15 Visible
Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams dedicated to
guarding surface transportation. The VIPR teams contain multi-
skilled resources, including Transportation Security
Inspectors, canine teams, Transportation Security Officers,
Bomb Detection Officers, and Federal Air Marshals. These teams
enhance the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA)
ability to screen passengers, identify suspicious behavior, and
act as a visible deterrent to potential terrorists in surface
transportation environments.
Vulnerability Assessments.--A $3.0 million increase is
requested to provide for new nuclear reactor security
consultations with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The
budget request will also support vulnerability assessment pilot
projects, which provide State and local stakeholders with a
comprehensive understanding of vulnerabilities and critical
infrastructure resiliency.
Bombing Prevention.--$4.2 million is requested to enhance
improved, coordinated national bombing prevention and
improvised explosive device (IED) security efforts.
Additionally, this funding will provide resources to enhance
national awareness of the threat, facilitate multi-jurisdiction
planning, and conduct additional capabilities assessments for
132 high-risk urban area detection, deterrence, response, and
search elements. These elements include canine units, bomb
squads, SWAT teams, and dive teams.
Cybersecurity for the Federal Government.--A $75.1 million
increase is requested to enable DHS to develop and deploy
cybersecurity technologies to counter on-going, real world
national cyber threats and apply effective analysis and risk
mitigation strategies to detect and deter threats.
Explosives Detection Research.--Total funding of $120.8
million, an increase of $24.7 million, is requested to support
DHS' Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) in addressing
critical capability gaps in detecting, interdicting, and
lessening the impacts of non-nuclear explosives used in
terrorist attacks against mass transit, civil aviation, and
critical infrastructure. Of the $24.7 million, $10.0 million
will develop high-throughput cargo screening technology through
automated, more efficient equipment. The remaining $14.7
million will build on fiscal year 2009 efforts to counter the
threat of hand-carried improvised explosive devices to mass
transit systems by detecting all types of explosive threats
such as homemade, commercial, and military explosives.
Cybersecurity Research.--Total funding of $37.2 million, an
increase of $6.6 million, is requested to support Science and
Technology in addressing critical capability gaps identified in
the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI).
Specifically, this effort will develop technologies to secure
the Nation's critical information infrastructure and networks.
Transformational Research and Development (R&D).--A $7.2
million increase is requested for Transformational R&D to
improve nuclear detection capabilities, address enduring
vulnerabilities, and reduce the operational burden of radiation
and nuclear detection. The increase in fiscal year 2010 will
further these efforts to accelerate material optimization and
production techniques, and establish a low-rate production
capability for these materials. Additional funding could have a
tremendous impact on the ability to uncover threats by
detecting radiation sources.
BioWatch.--Total funding of $94.5 million is requested for
the BioWatch program in the Office of Health Affairs, which
provides the capability for early detection and warning against
biological attacks in over 30 of our Nation's highest-risk
urban areas through placement of a series of biological
pathogen collectors. The request sustains the baseline
capability of Gen-1/Gen-2 collectors while moving into the next
generation of equipment. The funding would complete field
testing for the Gen-3 prototype unit, secure IT architecture to
facilitate networking between the biodetection systems, and
procure production units to support the Gen-3 operational test
and evaluation.
Vetting Infrastructure Modernization.--An increase of $64
million is requested to modernize vetting infrastructure data
management, adjudication workflow, and integration of all
vetting systems in the third and final phase of the Vetting
Infrastructure Improvement Plan. Modernization will enable a
universal fee mechanism that will reduce duplicative background
checks and fees for transportation workers, and provide the
capability to process new populations using existing enrollment
and vetting infrastructure, while continuing to ensure privacy
and security.
Information Integration and Technology.--Total funding of
$34 million is requested for U.S. Secret Service information
technology. Funding would provide for a secure cross-domain IT
application, engineering, and architecture activities to
modernize and improve Secret Service systems, information-
sharing environments, database performance, cyber security, and
continuity of operations through robust backup and recovery
procedures.
Intermodal Security Coordination Office (ISCO).--A $10
million increase is requested for the Intermodal Security
Coordination Office within DHS Policy to support integrated
planning between DHS and the Department of Transportation in
the area of maritime transportation, as well as in other
homeland security mission areas. The Intermodal Security
Coordination Office will develop a strategic plan and metrics
to guide development and modernization of intermodal freight
infrastructure that links coastal and inland ports to highways
and rail networks; an assessment of intermodal freight
infrastructure needs and capability gaps; and recommendations
to address the needs and capability gaps. The recommendations
to address intermodal freight infrastructure needs and
capability gaps will be incorporated into DHS' 5-year
programming and budgeting guidance, and tracked to ensure they
are achieved.
Electronic Crime Task Forces (ECTFs).--Total funding of $2.0
million is requested to support the operational costs of 13
ECTFs and DHS-mandated Certification and Accreditation of the
Secret Service on-line reporting system.
Train 21.--Total funding of $4.1 million is requested for
Train 21, a business operations and training transformation
initiative that advances the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center's mission to provide training for law enforcement
personnel.
Uniformed Division Modernization.--Total funding of $4.0
million is requested to support a restructuring of the U.S.
Secret Service Uniformed Division's (UD) legal authorities
governing pay and compensation to bring the UD in line with the
rest of the Federal Government and to more effectively recruit
and retain the talent necessary to carry out its protective
mission.
National Technical Nuclear Forensics.--A $2.8 million
increase is requested to expand efforts to develop the
capability to improve technical nuclear forensics on U.S.-made
nuclear and radiological materials. The increase will also
expand international collaborative efforts to collect and share
relevant nuclear forensics information.
securing our borders
Combating Southbound Firearms and Currency Smuggling.--An
increase of $26.1 million is requested to enhance DHS'
capability to combat southbound firearms and currency smuggling
through additional personnel at and between the ports of entry
and along the southwest border. This funding will support an
additional 44 Border Patrol agents and 8 support staff as well
as 65 Customs and Border Protection officers and 8 support
staff. Resources are also requested to expand and maintain the
Licensed Plate Reader (LPR) program to help establish and
maintain effective control of the border. Additionally
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests an
additional $70 million to hire 349 positions (specifically
Special Agents, Intelligence Analysts, and Criminal
Investigators) to increase enforcement staffing, improve
cooperative efforts with the Mexican government, and establish
another Border Violence Intelligence Cell. This cross-program
initiative will increase national security by expanding
activities to secure our borders.
Maritime Border Security Enhancements.--$700 million is
requested to purchase five new Coast Guard Cutters, two
Maritime Patrol Aircraft and one aircraft flight simulator to
increase surface and air asset presence in the maritime domain
and vastly improve threat detection and interdiction
capabilities. $103 million is requested to purchase 30 new
Coast Guard small boats to replace aging, obsolete assets with
more capable, multi-mission platforms. $1.2 million is
requested to establish a permanent Biometrics at Sea System, an
investment which enables Coast Guard boarding teams to identify
dangerous individual documented in the US-VISIT database and
yields the type of cross-component operational integration
sought through creation of DHS and that must continue to be
built upon.
Northern Border Technology.--$20.0 million is requested to
assist U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in providing
improved situational awareness along the northern border
through the design, deployment, and integration of
surveillance, sensing platforms, detection technologies and
tactical infrastructure. This technology will expand DHS
capabilities, increase the effectiveness of our agents, and
increase the ability to detect unlawful border activity
successfully.
CBP Air and Marine (A&M) Personnel.--A $19.1 million
increase is requested to support Border Patrol agents by
providing air cover as well as expanding maritime assistance
along the borders. Funding is requested to hire an additional
68 pilots, 20 marine and 56 support personnel. During fiscal
year 2010, A&M plans to continue the expansion of its
capabilities across the northern and coastal border and place
heavy emphasis on the maritime requirements along the southeast
and Caribbean borders. The additional personnel resources are
requested as new marine vessels are deployed to marine branches
at strategic locations along the coastal borders.
Research and Development for Border and Maritime Security.--
A $7.1 million increase for Science & Technology is requested
to fund a new research effort to provide advanced detection,
identification, apprehension, and enforcement capabilities
along borders, increasing the security of the border and
lowering the risk of a successful terrorist attack.
Additionally, funding will provide new technologies to the
United States Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and other components
operating in the maritime environment.
smart and tough enforcement of immigration laws and improving
immigration services
E-Verify.--Total funding of $112 million and 80 new
positions are requested to support improvements to the
employment eligibility verification system, E-Verify. The
growth of the E-Verify program will increase the need for
monitoring and compliance activities to protect employees from
discriminatory practices, safeguard privacy information, and
enhance program efficacy. The fiscal year 2010 program increase
is primarily for monitoring and compliance activities, as well
as IT-related business initiatives to improve system use.
Secure Communities.--Total funding of $39.1 million is
requested to hire, train, and equip 80 new enforcement
personnel who will identify suspected criminal aliens,
determine subjects' alien status, prioritize ICE enforcement
actions against the highest threat criminal aliens, and assist
in the removal of apprehended criminal aliens. Funding will
also support the continued investment in information technology
to improve efficiencies within ICE criminal alien
identification prioritization and removal processes.
Detention and Removal Operations Modernization (DROM).--
Total funding of $25 million is requested for improvements to
the system of detaining and removing illegal immigrants. The
funding will be dedicated to developing and deploying the
Detainee Location Tracking Module as part of the Bed Space and
Transportation Management System, expanding the ICE Data
warehouse data capacity and reporting capability to support the
DRO IT data, and expanding Web services to allow the Electronic
Travel Document application to communicate with other internal
or external applications. DROM will effect improvements in the
areas of real-time dynamic data reporting, detainee management,
management of detention beds and tracking detainees, bed-space
availability management, and transportation management for
improved efficiency in detention and removals.
Law Enforcement Systems Modernization.--Total funding of $49
million is requested to fund the ICE Law Enforcement Systems
Modernization initiative, including a number of case
management, information sharing, and operational support
service projects that will improve access to law enforcement
information. For example, the case management Traveler
Enforcement Communication System (TECS) system modernization
effort will support the investigative arm of ICE and update a
20-year-old system, giving ICE improved capabilities for case
management, money laundering tracking and reporting, telephone
analysis, intelligence reporting and dissemination, Bank
Secrecy Act data access, information sharing of subject record
data, and statistical/performance reporting. The funding will
also support the design and development for the integration of
ICE-Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety
and Security (ACCESS) and Information Sharing.
Immigrant Integration.--Total funding of $10 million is
requested for an Immigrant Integration program within USCIS, in
order to improve the integration of immigrants into the United
States. This program allows USCIS and the Office of Citizenship
to work across the Federal Government and with State and local
governments, U.S. businesses, non-profits, academia, and faith-
based organizations to support effective integration efforts
across the country. USCIS will provide grants to community-
based organizations for citizenship preparation programs;
facilitate English language learning through improved Web
resources; build volunteer capacity by developing a training
certification framework for volunteers and, promote citizenship
with integration messages at the workplace, among Federal
agencies, and the general public.
US-VISIT Identity Management and Screening Services.--An
$11.2 million increase is requested to support the increased
workload demands associated with the transition from 2- to 10-
fingerprint biometric capture for foreign visitors. The
increase will support biometric identifications and
verifications, latent print processing, data sharing with other
agencies, and the growing Secure Communities initiative, which
shares biometric information with local law enforcement. The
funding will also support information sharing and technical
assistance to select foreign governments to promote the
adoption and use of common biometric identity management
standards in order to advance the ability to screen travelers
to and workers within the United States.
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI).--A $20.9
million increase is requested to continue maintaining and
operating the WHTI program that supports Departmental efforts
to facilitate the efficient movement of people at the land
border POEs. WHTI provides a tool to conduct the necessary
authentication at the time of crossing and it also accelerates
the verification process mandated by law to the extent possible
with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Technology and
communications technology.
preparing for, responding to, and recovering from natural disasters
Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM).--A $60 million increase is
requested for Pre-Disaster Mitigation in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Funding will assist in the implementation of
pre-disaster hazard mitigation measures that are cost-effective
and are designed to reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage
and destruction of property, including damage to critical
services and facilities.
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Staffing for Adequate
Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grants.--Total funding of
$420 million is requested to double the funds devoted to SAFER
grants administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
which help fire departments increase the number of frontline
firefighters. Funding will enable fire departments to increase
their staffing and deployment capabilities, ensuring around-
the-clock protection.
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).--Total DRF funding of $2
billion, an increase of $0.6 billion, is requested. The DRF,
administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
provides a significant portion of the total Federal response to
victims in declared major disasters and emergencies. This
increase will provide relief for non-catastrophic disaster
activity.
First Responder Technology.--Total funding of $12 million is
requested to develop and design technologies to address
capability gaps identified by Federal, State, local, and Tribal
first responders. This program will test technologies, assess
usability, and commercialize them to increase availability
across all first responder communities.
Gap Analysis Program.--An additional $3.0 million is
requested for the Gap Analysis Program to supplement programs
that evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each State's
emergency plans and evacuation plans and expand beyond earlier
focus on hurricane-prone regions and rural and suburban areas
to all hazards.
maturing and unifying dhs
DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project.--An additional $75.0
million is requested in fiscal year 2010 to initiate
consolidation of mission support activities that will remain
off-campus, reducing the amount of small and widely scattered
leased locations.
Strategic Requirements Planning Process.--An additional $5.0
million and 5 FTE are requested for the DHS Strategic
Requirements Planning Process (SRPP) to establish tangible
Department-wide targets and goals to help integrate DHS
components' efforts and ensure that the Department fulfills its
homeland security mission. The SRPP is designed to coordinate
with the Department's resource allocation and investment
processes and ensure that both of these processes address the
most critical homeland security needs and capability gaps. The
SRPP is designed to utilize risk assessments to prioritize
analysis of capability gaps, and risk would also be used to
inform the prioritization of investment in capability gaps and
needs identified through the SRPP.
OIG Auditors.--An increase of $5.1 million is requested to
hire an additional 60 staff. The increase of staffing will
better position the Office of Inspector General to assist in
supporting the Department's integrated planning guidance (IPG)
of strengthening border security and interior enforcement. In
addition, the increase will expand oversight of activities
relating to DHS issues on immigration and border security,
transportation security, critical infrastructure protection,
Federal and State/local intelligence sharing, Secure Border
Initiative (SBI), and acquisition strategies. The OIG's
oversight activities add value to DHS programs and operations
by providing an objective third-party assessment to ensure
integrity and transparency.
Data Center Development/Migration.--A $200.0 million
increase is requested to support further migration of component
systems, applications, and disaster recovery to the DHS
Enterprise Data Centers for central DHS management. Select DHS
component budgets include funds to migrate their component
specific applications to the DHS Data Center. The Data Center
consolidation efforts will standardize IT resource acquisitions
across DHS components, as well as streamline maintenance and
support contracts, allowing for less complex vendor support and
expediting response times in the event of an emergency.
Benefits derived from consolidation include enhanced IT
security, improved information sharing with stakeholders, and
enhanced operational efficiencies over time.
Information Security and Infrastructure.--$23.0 million is
requested to support: Network Security Enhancements, Internet
Gateway Enhancements, and Single Sign-On Capability.
Network Security Enhancements.--This funding is requested
to mitigate high-risk areas within the DHS firewall. This
request will establish critical Policy Enforcement Points
across the DHS Network, improve DHS Security Operation
Center capabilities (i.e., remediation, forensics), and
establish robust classified facilities with highly skilled
analysts. Network Security Enhancements will identify all
internet connections for remediation by migrating separate,
legacy component connections behind the DHS Trusted
Internet Connections (TICs).
Internet Gateway Enhancements.--This request will
implement a High Assurance Guard to support mission
requirements for accessing social networking sites and
establishing the DHS Email Disaster Recovery capability
where 100 percent of all e-mail traffic will be behind the
two DHS TICs.
Single Sign-On (SSO) Capability.--Increased fiscal year
2010 funding will be utilized to initiate the application
integration and establishment of the core infrastructures
for AppAuth, eAuth, the SSO Gateway, and Service Oriented
Architecture required under the SSO project. Through the
close alignment with HSPD-12, DHS employees and Federal,
State, local, and private-sector partners will be able to
log in to their systems with only a single set of
credentials in order to access multiple applications.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fiscal year 2010 Gross Discretionary funding increases by
$2.6 billion, or 6 percent, over fiscal year 2009.
There is an increase of $8.6 million, or .1 percent, in
estimated budget authority for Mandatory, Fees, and Trust Funds
over fiscal year 2009.
Does not include supplementals or rescissions of prior-year
carryover funds.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The following offices are less than 1 percent of the total
budget authority and are not labeled in the chart above: Office
of the Inspector General, Office of Health Affairs.
Departmental Operations is comprised of the Office of the
Secretary & Executive Management, the Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, the Office of the Under
Secretary for Management, the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, and the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY BY ORGANIZATION
Gross Discretionary & Mandatory, Fees, Trust Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2010
2008 Revised 2009 Enacted 2010 2010 +/- Fiscal +/- Fiscal Year
Enacted \1\ \2\ President's Year 2009 2009 Enacted
---------------------------------- Budget \3\ Enacted ------------------
----------------------------------
[$000] [$000] [$000] [$000] [%]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmental Operations \4\...................................... $573,983 $644,553 $904,673 $260,120 40
Analysis and Operations.......................................... 304,500 327,373 357,345 29,972 9
Office of the Inspector General.................................. 108,711 98,513 127,874 29,361 30
U.S. Customs and Border Protection............................... 9,285,001 11,274,783 11,436,917 162,134 1
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement......................... 5,054,317 5,928,210 5,762,800 (165,410) -3
Transportation Security Administration........................... 6,809,359 6,990,778 7,793,576 802,798 11
U.S. Coast Guard................................................. 8,631,053 9,623,779 9,955,663 331,884 3
U.S. Secret Service.............................................. 1,629,496 1,637,954 1,709,584 71,630 4
National Protection and Programs Directorate..................... 896,476 1,158,263 1,958,937 800,674 69
Office of Health Affairs......................................... 118,375 157,191 138,000 (19,191) -12
Federal Emergency Management Agency.............................. 5,515,178 5,985,805 6,612,287 626,482 10
FEMA: Grant Programs............................................. 4,117,800 4,245,700 3,867,000 (387,700) -9
U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services.......................... 2,822,012 2,690,926 2,867,232 176,306 7
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.......................... 273,302 332,986 288,812 (44,174) -13
S&T Directorate.................................................. 830,335 932,587 968,391 35,804 4
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office................................ 484,750 514,191 366,136 (148,055) -29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL...................................................... 47,454,648 52,543,592 55,115,227 2,571,635 4.89
Less Rescission of Prior Year Carryover Funds \5\................ (124,985) (61,373) ............... 61,373 -100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTED TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY.................................. 47,329,664 52,482,219 55,115,227 2,633,008 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPLEMENTAL \6\................................................. 15,129,607 2,967,000 ............... (2,967,000) .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2008 revised enacted reflects net reprogramming/transfer adjustments for CBP ($2.6 million); TSA (-$10.5 million); USSS ($34.0 million);
NPPD (-$5.6 million); OHA ($1.9 million); FEMA (-$23.0 million); US CIS ($282.167 million); FLETC ($5.636 million); FEMA-DRF to OIG ($16 million).
Reflects technical adjustments to revise fee estimates for TSA Aviation Security--General Aviation Fee ($.050 million); TSA Aviation Security--
Passenger & Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee ($96.025 million); TSA Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing--Registered Traveler (-
$31.601 million); TSA Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing--Transportation Worker Identification Credentials ($37.9 million); TSA
Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing--HAZMAT (-$1.0 million); TSA Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing--Alien Flight
School ($1.0 million); and FEMA--Radiological Emergency Preparedness (-$0.492 million). Pursuant to Pub. L. 110-161 reflects a scorekeeping adjustment
for rescissions of prior year unobligated balances from USCG--AC&I (-$137.264 million) and a rescission of current-year appropriations for USM (-$5.0
million).
\2\ Fiscal year 2009 enacted reflects technical adjustments to revise fee estimates for TSA--Transportation Threat and Credentialing--Registered
Traveler (-$10.0 million); TSA--Transportation Threat and Credentialing--Transportation Worker Identification Credentials ($22.7 million); TSA--
Transportation Threat and Credentialing--HAZMAT (-$3.0 million); TSA--Transportation Threat and Credentialing--Alien Flight School ($1.0 million).
Reflects USCG realignment of Operating Expenses funding and pursuant to Pub. L. 110-53 reflects TSA realignment of funds for 9/11 Commission Act
implementation ($3.675 million--Aviation Security, $13.825 million--Surface, $2.5 million--Support). Reflects a scorekeeping adjustment for a
rescission of prior year unobligated balances from USCG--AC&I (-$20.0 million).
\3\ Fiscal year 2010 President's budget reflects the proposed transfer of Federal Protective Service from ICE to NPPD ($640.0 million).
\4\ Departmental Operations is comprised of the Office of the Secretary & Executive Management, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast
Rebuilding, the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and the Office of the Chief Information
Officer.
\5\ Pursuant to Pub. L. 110-161, reflects rescission of prior year unobligated balances: fiscal year 2008--Counter-Terrorism Fund (-$8.480 million); TSA
(-$4.5 million); Analysis and Operations (-$8.7 million); FEMA--Disaster Relief Fund (-$20.0 million); USCG--Operating Expenses (-$9.584 million); CBP
(-$2.003 million); US CIS (-$0.672 million); FEMA (-$2.919 million); ICE (-$5.137 million); FLETC (-$0.334 million); OSEM (-$4.211 million); USM (-
$0.444 million); CFO (-$0.380 million); CIO (-$0.493 million); DNDO (-$0.368 million); OHA (-$0.045 million); OIG (-$0.032 million); NPPD (-$1.995
million); S&T (-$0.217 million).
Pursuant to Pub. L. 110-161, reflects fiscal year 2008 rescissions of start-up balances: CBP (-$25.621 million); FEMA (-$14.257 million); Departmental
Operations ($12.084 million); Working Capital Fund (-$2.509 million).
Pursuant to Pub. L. 110-329, reflects fiscal year 2009 rescissions of prior year unobligated balances: Analysis and Operations (-$21.373 million); TSA (-
$31.0 million); FEMA--Cerro Grande (-$9.0 million).
\6\ In order to obtain comparable figures, Total Budget Authority excludes:
Fiscal year 2008 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 110-161: CBP ($1.531 million); ICE ($526.9 million); USCG ($166.1 million).
NPPD ($275.0 million); FEMA ($3.030 billion); US CIS ($80.0 million): FLETC ($21.0 million).
Fiscal year 2008 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 110-252: USCG ($222.607 million); FEMA ($897.0 million).
Fiscal year 2008 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 110-329: OIG ($8.0 million); USCG ($300.0 million); FEMA ($8.072 billion).
Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 110-252: USCG ($112 million).
Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 111-5: USM ($200 million); CBP ($680 million); ICE ($20 million); TSA ($1.0
billion); USCG ($240 million); FEMA ($610 million); OIG ($5 million).
Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 111-8: USSS ($100 million).
efficiency review
As the Department highlights its spending priorities in this
budget, it is simultaneously conducting a bold and far-reaching
Efficiency Review initiative to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent
in the most effective way possible. Efficiency Review encompasses both
simple, common-sense reforms and longer-term, systemic changes that
will, over time, make DHS a leaner, smarter Department better equipped
to protect the Nation.
I launched the Efficiency Review on March 27, 2009 announcing
sixteen Department-wide initiatives beginning within 120 days,
including:
30 Days
Eliminate non-mission critical travel and maximize use of
conference calls and web-based training and meetings.
Consolidate subscriptions to professional publications and
newspapers.
Minimize printing and distribution of reports and documents
that can be sent electronically or posted on-line.
Maximize use of Government office space for meetings and
conferences in place of renting facilities.
60 Days
Implement an electronic tracking tool for fleet usage data
to identify opportunities for alternative fuel usage; heighten
vigilance for fraud, waste or abuse; and optimize fleet
management.
Conduct an assessment of the number of full-time, part-time
employees, and contractors to better manage our workforce.
Utilize refurbished IT equipment (computers and mobile
devices) and redeploy the current inventory throughout DHS.
Leverage buying power to acquire software licenses for
Department-wide usage (estimated savings of $283 million over
the next 6 years).
90 Days
Develop cross-component training opportunities for
employees.
Develop a process for obtaining preliminary applicant
security background data for candidates referred for final
consideration (savings of up to $5,500 per avoided full
background check).
As replacements are needed, convert new printers, faxes, and
copiers into all-in-one machines (estimated savings of $10
million over 5 years).
Streamline decision-making processes in headquarters offices
to eliminate redundancies.
120 Days:
Establish a plan to ensure the DHS workforce has employees
sufficient in number and skill to deliver our core mission.
As replacements are needed for non-law enforcement vehicles,
initiate acquisition and leasing of hybrid vehicles, or
alternative-fuel vehicles in cases where hybrids are not
feasible (estimated mileage improvement of above 30%).
Maximize energy efficiencies in facility management projects
(estimated savings of $3 million a year).
Standardize content for new-employee orientation and
mandatory annual training modules Department-wide.
I have issued formal guidance to all DHS employees regarding the
30-day initiatives, and planning for the remaining initiatives is
underway. Beyond the first 120 days, Efficiency Review will become a
central element of budget development and the long-term strategic
vision of the Department.
progress
The initiatives strengthened by this budget would build atop what
the Department has already accomplished since the start of the new
administration.
To secure the border, DHS has launched a major new initiative to
combat drug, cash, and weapons smuggling that support drug cartels in
Mexico in their efforts against law enforcement. The initiative
includes hundreds of new personnel at the border and increased
technological capabilities. These efforts have resulted in significant
seizures of smuggled items headed into Mexico.
The Department has distributed $970 million dollars to bolster
transit and port security. The Recovery Act signed by President Obama
contains $1 billion for the development of new explosives-detection
technologies to increase safety at transit hubs and public places. To
guard against terrorism, I signed a new agreement with Germany to
cooperate in developing new counter-terrorism technologies.
In terms of increasing preparedness for, response to, and recovery
from natural disasters, DHS has led the national effort in response to
and preparedness for the 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak. Furthermore, the
Department has responded quickly and effectively to severe ice storms
in Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri, as well as to record flooding on
the Red River in North Dakota and Minnesota. The Department has also
taken critical steps to speed recovery in the Gulf Coast communities
still struggling due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, including the
extension of critical programs.
The Department has also taken important steps toward building a
single identity and culture. The Recovery Act contained $650 million
for a new, consolidated headquarters for DHS, which is now scattered in
buildings throughout the Washington, DC area. In March, I announced a
moratorium on new branding for DHS components, which will now all use
the established DHS seal.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I look
forward to answering your questions and to working with you on the
fiscal year 2010 budget request and other issues.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I thank you
for your testimony.
I will remind each Member that he or she will have 5
minutes to question the Secretary. I now recognize myself for
the first question.
Madam Secretary, recent reports have indicated that some
5,000 families across Mississippi and Louisiana will have to
leave their FEMA trailers at the end of this month. With that,
I have been unsuccessful in figuring out the plan for those
5,000 families.
Can you assure this committee that there will be a plan for
those individuals who are presently housed in those trailers
soon to be displaced?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me just begin
by saying that we have placed over 100,000 families already.
These are the last remaining. I would be happy to supply you
with a list extensive of contact with the families, options
they have been given, and also share with you that we offered
to give the State of Louisiana additional caseworkers to work
with those families, because this goes to the State to work
through the families. They did not accept that offer.
But it is now time to start closing out the remains of
Katrina, and we are and do have many options that have been
made available to those occupants.
Chairman Thompson. Coupled with that is this committee's
real interest on just the housing of individuals with natural
disasters. Some of the numbers associated with it have been
astronomical, and Chairman Conyers and a couple of us are
planning to look at the whole temporary housing issue. Some of
it, $60,000 cost associated with one temporary trailer is a lot
of money, and the only answer we have been able to get is,
well, we have always done it this way.
So I am hoping that you will look at that going forward and
see whether there are alternatives that can be explored in that
temporary housing arrangement.
Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, one of the first
meetings I had as Secretary was with the Secretary of HUD,
Shaun Donovan, because there is not a clean connection in terms
of housing for disaster victims. We are looking, at some point
after the immediate response of temporary housing these have
become long-term housing issues. What this has revealed is that
long-term recovery planning is not as robust as it needs to be.
So housing is part of that, and yes, indeed, we are working
very hard on those issues.
Chairman Thompson. Another issue around procurement, Madam
Secretary, is the fact that presently DHS has over 15,000
contractors. That is some 300 percent increase since the
Department was created.
Can you share with the committee whether or not there is a
plan to reduce the overreliance on outside contractors for the
Department?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Mr. Chairman. One of the
management things we will be doing this year and probably will
be reflected in the 2011 budget is really looking at
contractors and what needs to be brought in-house. I think the
committee understands that contractors were used at the outset
because of the speed with which the Department had to get up
and running. But now, as you note, there is an overreliance
there, and what the committee needs to know and appropriators
need to know is what do we really need in-house to properly
staff some of these functions. So, yes, we are looking at that
from a management standpoint.
Chairman Thompson. So your testimony is that, not this
year, but next year.
Secretary Napolitano. I think it would be fair to say that
the fiscal year 2010 budget has some changes in it already. But
looking at the contractor issue simply requires more time than
we had available.
Chairman Thompson. With respect to compliance with
detention standards and ICE, a number of reports have talked
about some pretty devastating things occurring with respect to
medical care and facilities. Some have led to multiple deaths.
Looking at this budget, it appears that we will expand
detention facilities. What have you taken to prevent some of
those issues medically from reoccurring?
Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that
I discovered when I took over the Department was that within
the huge organizational chart that it has, the whole issue of
where detention was, was at the very, very bottom. We have
moved that up, so if a person who reports directly to the head
of ICE and brought in to help us there, a person who has run
the prison systems in Missouri and Arizona, extensive
experience with these types of facilities, she has been going
facility by facility, contract by contract, looking at what we
have. The budget reflects not only the need for beds, but the
need to increase the expenditure for health care to reach
standards for detainees. So we are in the process of doing that
right now as well.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee,
the gentleman from New York, for questions.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I would like to cover issues of Secure the
Cities, FIRE grants, and immigration. How far I will get, I
don't know, but I will start with Secure the Cities. Not for
the parochial respect of New York City, but really what this
means for other cities throughout the country. I realize this
was a pilot program. I don't believe it has really been
completed. I know from talking with the NYPD and other police
departments they feel there is still more that has to be done,
even in the pilot phase of it. But even if it were finished, I
think it is really rolling the dice to be asking cities across
the country to be applying for grants every year. I think there
should really be a dedicated revenue stream. I just see this as
being such a real threat to our cities. I am not aware of
anything, for instance, of any Federal officials being on
highways or parkways or roadways leading from suburbs or cities
doing radiation detection. This is going to be left to the
cities to do, and it really requires a regional approach. To
that extent, I believe that the detection and interdiction of
infrastructure that was set up in New York is a model that can
be used and should have a dedicated revenue stream. To me, to
zero it out or to end it just because the 3-year pilot program
is over to me is really missing the larger picture. I would
appreciate your thoughts on that, especially since, if we look
at Europe, generally the attacks come from suburbs into the
cities.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you. On Secure the Cities, I
couldn't agree with you more that protection of the country
from a radiation attack is key, a very important mission. This
particular grant, I think I should share with you that the
recipient has not yet spent the fiscal year 2008 money that it
got, has not yet submitted its grant application for the fiscal
year 2009 money that it got. So there is money in the pipeline
to continue and fulfill the grant through fiscal year 2010. So
it was the judgment that we shouldn't put more new money in it
because there was money that would fund the program through
this fiscal year.
As I think we all recognize, money is very tight this year.
What we are trying to do is if we have unspent moneys, we will
use those as opposed to asking for others.
With respect to continuation of the pilot permanently, I
think that is worthy of consideration once we see how it works.
Obviously, New York, the other States participating could apply
to some of the other preexisting grant programs and use those
funds for the Secure the Cities operation. But moving forward,
one of the things you want to know from a pilot is does it work
and does it make sense to make it permanent and expand it--and
we will evaluate it.
Mr. King. With the previous administration, with Secretary
Chertoff, we had this disagreement one year about whether or
not the grant application was in or it was not, and whether or
not there was money available or not. Rather than lose because
of bookkeeping tactics, I would ask if you would be willing to
meet with officials involved in New York City Secure the Cities
program to make sure this can be continued over the next year
without any damage being done. Because, again, I sort of went
through this with Secretary Chertoff and there was a question
of whether or not the grant was in on time, whether the form
was filled out correctly. In the meantime, tens of millions of
dollars were lost. So rather than go through that again, I
would really ask if I can or if you could be willing to meet
with them to make sure everyone is on the same page. Again, not
for the parochial interests of New York, but I just see our
cities across the Nation being at threat because of this.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. We will work with your staff to
make sure we are talking to the people you would like us to
speak with.
Mr. King. Thank you, Secretary.
On the issue of the FIRE grants, I think of all the
programs administered by the Department, I don't think any
received a higher rating, both being effective, and yet there
is going to be a 70 percent cut. I believe you testified
yesterday that your belief in the fire departments is they
needed more personnel as opposed to equipment and training.
Again, when you have over $3 billion being applied for under
the FIRE grants, and certainly from my contact with fire
districts not just in my State but around the country, I think
there is a real demand for this, a real necessity. Again, the
role of the fire service has also changed since September 11.
They also become first-line defenders, certainly again in areas
which are target-rich.
So I think you are going to be hearing from us on that in a
bipartisan way. I promise you, I will try to restrain
Congressman Pascrell when he gets going.
Secretary Napolitano. He is looking at me right now.
Mr. King. But, seriously, on that, again I look forward to
hearing what you have to say on it, but also these need to be
part of an on-going dialog.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you. Yes. There was money in
the Stimulus Act for the FIRE grants. The FIRE grants have been
heavily funded in the past years, as you recognize, kind of 2-
1, as compared to what are called the SAFER grants which really
go for firefighters themselves.
Our analysis was and our context were in this era of very
restricted local budgets and departments having to lay off
firefighters, that they really wanted some money to keep their
personnel numbers up. So the judgment was made, given that the
Congress already had put money for the SAFER grants in the
stimulus bill, was to significantly now plus up the FIRE grants
during this economic period so that we wouldn't have fire
department layoffs.
I couldn't agree with you more. Fire departments now are
not just about fire; they are about a much broader range of
first response. So we want to make sure they are supported in
that capacity.
Mr. King. I see my time has run out. I am sure somebody
will mention SCAAP to you before the hearing is over. Thank
you.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. The Chair will now recognize other
Members for questions they may wish to ask the Secretary.
Again, I urge Members to be mindful of the 5-minute rule and
the Secretary's limited time with the committee today.
In accordance with our committee rules, I will recognize
Members who were present at the start of the hearing based on
seniority on the committee, alternating between Majority and
Minority. Those Members coming in later will be recognized in
the order of their arrival.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon for 5
minutes, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
three questions hopefully we can dispose of quickly. I asked
the former--I think you would, unlike the former
administration, recognize that the Constitution provides for
three branches of Government. Do you agree with that?
Secretary Napolitano. I can agree with that.
Mr. DeFazio. That is good. Thank you. That was
controversial with the previous administration. We are one of
the three. There was a plan for continuity of Government, and
one would assume that continuity of Government would include
all three branches. Would you agree with that?
Secretary Napolitano. I would agree with that. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. Excellent. We are off to a good start here. I
am a Member of this committee, and the Chairman and I have
requested to have access to that plan, to understand what was
the proposed role for our branch of Government and what
provisions were to be made in terms of continuity of Government
after either a catastrophic attack or other problems. To the
best of my knowledge, the Executive order is still in place and
is still classified, and we were denied access.
Could you provide us access to that so we might better
understand the proposal? You look puzzled.
Secretary Napolitano. I am puzzled. But I will look into
this and report back to you, yes.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. It started a whole little cottage
business on the Internet about what might or might not be in it
because of the fact that even the Chairman and I were denied
access to it and other Members of Congress.
Secretary Napolitano. It surprises me that the Legislative
branch has not developed its own continuity of operations.
Mr. DeFazio. There is certainly concern there, and Brian
Baird, one of my colleagues from Washington State, has
proposals on how we might reconstitute ourselves in the case of
a devastating attack and loss of membership, and thus far it
has not gone anywhere. But I would just be curious how we fit
into the overall plan of the Executive branch.
Second, the last time you were here I asked about the issue
of collective bargaining rights. You were going to consult on
that. Have we made progress on that issue for TSA employees?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. We are still looking at that, as
well as in addition to collective bargaining rights, how do we
create within TSA a real career path for employees so that we
improve retention, take advantage of experience, allowing kind
of frontline employees to move up into the Department, and how
we increase and improve training, and so forth, for those
employees? So, yes, we are looking at all those issues. We do
not yet have a nominee to head TSA. Frankly, I think some of
these resolutions are awaiting the new head of TSA.
Mr. DeFazio. Hopefully that will happen soon. But I would
agree with you, as when we then created the TSA over on the
Aviation Committee where I then served, our idea was to move
away from the lowest-cost, minimum-wage, high-turnover, dead-
end jobs. We actually had testimony one year from the screener
of the year who said that at his airport, St. Louis, which had
more than 100 percent turnover in terms of screening employees
before the Federal Government took over, that it was considered
a big move up to go to McDonald's from screening. We tried to
fix that by creating the TSA, and I applaud your idea about a
career path and enhanced training. That is excellent.
Finally, there is a leaked document which talks about the
Secure Freight Initiative, and it acknowledges, which I think
has been publicly acknowledged, the fact that we are not--you
don't anticipate being able to meet the 100 percent scanning of
in-bound maritime cargo by the 2012 deadline, and it sets out
three paths to deal with that.
Do you have thoughts on what path is going to be chosen by
the Department in terms of either meeting or not meeting that
deadline for 100 percent screening maritime cargo?
Secretary Napolitano. We are still looking at that. I think
I said even in my confirmation hearing and in my first hearing
before this committee that I thought the 2012 deadline for SFI
was going to be very difficult to reach, to negotiate all the
international agreements that are part of that, and we wanted
to really focus on what is the most effective way to prevent
dangerous cargo from entering the United States, what kind of a
multi-layered risk-based approach. So that is where we are
heading now within the context of SFI.
But with respect to the memo that somehow became a public
document, we are still evaluating alternatives and have some
meetings within the Department to discuss them.
Mr. DeFazio. My personal preference would be strategy
three. I am concerned that this is the most likely method of
delivery of a weapons of mass destruction to the United States.
The current layered or risk-based program we have pointed to in
a number of hearings before your tenure is rather loophole-
ridden, and I would not put great faith in that we are properly
identifying and/or providing additional scrutiny to cargo with
that system that requires it.
So thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Thompson. I now recognize the gentleman from
Indiana, Mr. Souder, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I have questions
relating to the border. But first, I want to touch briefly,
because we haven't had a chance to talk about the so-called
FEMA trailers, that Elkhart, Indiana is where many of these
came from in my district and in Joe Donnelly's, and that we
have had multiple hearings here and over in Government Reform.
I want to make sure that you are aware of a few facts related
to what has come out.
One is that formaldehyde in the room of the Government
Reform hearing was higher than it was in the trailers; that the
housing in Louisiana on average was higher than the FEMA
trailers; that the California standards, you can make a safe--
if the industry is moving to this, you can make a safe trailer.
FEMA is the only agency right now that is being
unreasonable. In reality, a tent has more formaldehyde in it.
There is no housing that you can put people in, and we need to
have a reasonable standard that--by the way, since Katrina,
there are people living in the same trailers in Florida, in
places all over America. They have had zero complaints anywhere
in America since Katrina.
We have to have real science here, not emotion, or we are
not going to be able to handle people. I hope that you can
approach this.
Chairman Frank understands a lot of this as he sat through
some of this, too. We can work out a reasonable thing where we
can actually build affordable things that are safe if we stick
with science and not emotion.
Secretary Napolitano. I couldn't agree with you more.
Mr. Souder. Now, on the border, one is a concern on
terrorism on the border. If we are going to work out anything
in this country on immigration, we have to have the confidence
of the American people that whether it is the DREAM Act or
whether it is immigration reform of some type, that the border
is secure, or other people just pour in if we make changes.
Furthermore, if we are going to fight terrorism, we have to
know who people are. So two basic questions.
One is, you stated that you wanted to eliminate or repeal
the REAL ID Act, which was one of the key 9/11 Commissions. Do
you still stand with that? Do you see that moving ahead? How is
that working? If I can do the second, and then you can try and
work these together.
On the border, you stated that you are putting resources
in, but there is basically no increase at all in SBINet
technology in that side. The increase was for maintenance at
the existing. There doesn't appear to be any money for
additional fencing. The fundamental question is, do you intend
to extend operational control past the 815 miles? You have
plus-ups for outbound, which is really important on narcotics
and guns. You are plussing up I think the total is 44 new
border agents, Border Patrol, but those are focused at the
ports of entry.
The question is, for operational control of the border, do
you have anything in your budget? Why is there not more for
SBINet, fencing, and other things in between the ports of
entry? Whether it be hard fencing or electronic fencing, it
doesn't appear that you are looking past 815 miles.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Congressman. Let me
address the questions in order. In the terms of REAL ID, as I
think the committee recognizes, Governors across the country,
both parties, all thought REAL ID was an unfunded mandate from
the Congress. I actually signed a bill in Arizona opting
Arizona out of REAL ID because there was no money associated
with it and the way that the regs were coming down, it was
going to be a very big burden. That was almost the strongest
bipartisan vote amongst the Nation's Governors that I saw in my
time as Governor.
So when I came here, I said, look, we need to get to what
the 9/11 Commission was getting at, which was a more secure
driver's license. All right? So we have been working a team of
Governors at the NGA level on a bipartisan fashion to craft a
substitute for REAL ID. There is a proposal now, I believe
either it has been or will be introduced in the Senate, I think
it will have bipartisan sponsorship, that the Governors will
accept and will be able to implement.
So it is not just a matter of repealing REAL ID, which
nobody was going to do; it is a matter of giving the Governors
of the country a bill that they can actually implement given
the way motor vehicle departments work and the like. So that is
where we are with that.
With respect to SBInet, we have just a week or 2 ago
approved the latest iteration of it. As you know, when it was
getting up and started it took a while. It was a lot more
complicated than people, I think, can see. But that first
operational part will go down. It is about 28 miles or so in
Southern Arizona, in the Tucson sector. The next sector is on
the way. The reason the budget is the way it is, is because
there are unspent moneys. But there is a spend plan for SBInet.
It is an integral part of our plans going forward, because I
believe that a border has to be secured, you have to have
operational control over it. It requires manpower and
technology, particularly technology between the ports of entry.
With respect to fencing, you are correct, we did not ask
for fencing per se in large miles across the border, but I can
anticipate there will be projects along the border that will
incorporate some fencing as part of the tactical
infrastructure.
Mr. Souder. So do you see extending past 815 miles?
Secretary Napolitano. On a project basis, yes. But I would
not say we intend to build a fence from San Diego to
Brownsville.
Mr. Souder. I meant, electronic or other? Are you saying
you get to 850 this year? I mean, we are talking about a 3,000-
mile border.
Secretary Napolitano. There is going to be a combination of
manpower, technology, and infrastructure, and our goal
obviously is to have a system border-wide, but not just to have
a physical fence border-wide.
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes,
Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, it is a pleasure seeing you again. One of
the most important powers that we as Members of the legislature
have is legislative oversight. There is always a tension
between the Executive branch and the legislative body in this
area. Most of the Secretaries that we have had through the
Governors, attorney generals, judges, and that type of
experience, I can understand that there is always a tension.
But when we do ask for information, there might be an issue as
to when we get it, but we do expect to get that information.
One of the things that we asked, and, Mr. Chairman, you
recall the former Secretary, we asked him to give us a best
estimate as to how many Customs Border Protection folks they
would need on the ports of entry and the infrastructure. I
think we waited about 14 months and we never got it.
Recently, we made a request to your office also, to your
Department, and we are hoping we can try to get that
information. The reason we want that is because we want to see
how we can help you. It is not a gotcha type of situation, but
we are trying to say, how many people do you need? You know,
men and women in blue. So we can try to fund that as much as
possible.
We need the infrastructure needs both in north and
southbound so we can reduce the wait time and move traffic, and
especially since 80 percent of all the trade coming in through
the United States is through land ports, I think we need to do
a lot more in that area.
So do you have a general idea of when we could get that
information from you? This is something that both the Chairman
and I requested of the former Secretary and we could not get
that information.
Secretary Napolitano. I don't know where the actual request
is, but our goal has been to be as communicative and as
cooperative as we humanly can with the committee. So we will--I
will find that request and see what we can do and how quickly
we can do it.
Mr. Cuellar. The request is very simple. What proper
staffing do you need? What would be the number of personnel you
need to staff properly your ports of entry, the men and women
in blue? One. Then, what are your infrastructure needs, you
need for north and southbound? Very simple on that.
Mr. Chairman, you recall we kept asking the other
Secretary, and we couldn't get that information. It was not to
try to catch somebody. We are trying to say, what are your
needs so we can try to work to get you the proper funding on
that?
The other thing is, I am very interested in performance
measures, the efficiencies. I understand that you are doing
some of that. That part is important, because if you have
contractors, we would like to see the performance measures
because a lot of times what agencies do is they have certain
performance measures for the agencies but when they contract
out those performance measures drop out. So we would like to
see the performance measures, even on the contractors as you
reduce them, and the efficiencies on some of the things that
are done.
For example, why is it that, as an example, in Laredo when
property is seized and they are going through the
administrative process, they used to store that property in a
Laredo warehouse. It doesn't matter where in Laredo. But now,
under the contract that they have everything is shipped all the
way to California. It is good for the California folks to have
that, but the efficiency is, why do we--why do people have to
pay all those transportation costs to send something all the
way up to California instead of keeping it in a local place,
whether it is in Brownsville or somewhere else?
I would like to get an answer if that contract is still in
place or if you all plan on making some changes on the
efficiencies on something like that. Efficiencies, like can we
use more civilians to do support services instead of having
Customs and Border Protection? I would rather have them out
there on the lines trying to move traffic faster, instead of
behind some computer or typewriter to do some of that support
services. We did that in Texas with the DPS, and we got more
people out, what we call more boots out in the field instead of
having them do the support services, and we hired more of those
civilians. So I would like to see if we can follow up on that.
Finally, the last thing is on the FEMA grants, what efforts
are you all doing to streamline the process? I know there is
some question as to the cuts, but the streamlined process,
paperwork reduction, how fast can we get it out in the areas?
What do you do? How do you handle those small rural areas? Like
the New Yorks or the Houstons or the Laredos can handle the
paperwork, but the small rural voluntary areas, they have a
hard time trying to fill those out. But the streamlining and
simplifications of that would go a long way on those FEMA
grants.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, we are--
--
Chairman Thompson. Excuse me a minute, Madam Secretary.
I am trying to listen to the Secretary. If the Members
could be a little quieter, we could hear.
Go ahead.
Secretary Napolitano. With respect to streamlining FEMA,
you are talking about public assistance grants, individual
assistance grants in the wake of a natural disaster. Yes. We
have been working with communities, and even in my short tenure
as Secretary have been able to work with relatively small
communities to help them with that process. We are always
looking for ways to make it simpler and to streamline it. You
are absolutely correct.
Chairman Thompson. Madam Secretary, there were some other
questions that the gentleman from Texas raised, and I am sure
he will want to get them responded to. If the gentleman is
still of the mind to get all the questions answered.
Mr. Cuellar. I would love to get--I think you are
responding to the last one that we had on the efficiency
issues.
Secretary Napolitano. With respect to efficiency measures
for contractors, yes, as I indicated to the Chairman, I think
the Department now is at a stage where we really need to
thoroughly review contractors versus full-time employees moving
forward as a Department. Obviously, part of that is what is the
best and most effective way to spend the security dollars that
we do get? So those performance measures are going to have to
be, and are, going to have to be an integral part of that
evaluation.
Then with respect to the first question, I think I already
indicated that I am going to go back and see the request and
see when we can get you a response.
Mr. Cuellar. Could you give that response to that two parts
of the questions?
Secretary Napolitano. How many CBP officers and----
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, if you
could address it to him and copy to me.
Secretary Napolitano. I would be happy to do that.
Chairman Thompson. We will now recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. McCaul, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCaul. I thank the Chairman.
Madam Secretary, welcome again. I want to commend you for
your focus on the Southwest border, the resources you are
putting down there. I was in El Paso 2 weeks ago, and saw the
BEST teams in action, which we are doing a pretty good job I
think screening incoming traffic now. I think one of the flaws
has been tracking out-going cargo, currency, weapons going into
Mexico. It is really the Mexican responsibility, and they have
not stepped up to the plate. But I think these BEST teams are
working effectively with the dogs. I would like to see more
infrastructure, quite frankly, and resources put into that,
because right now they are operating more on gut instinct, I
think, anything else. The dogs are effective.
Perhaps a Merida Initiative could provide some funding to
Mexico so they could properly screen incoming traffic. But that
is just, those are my thoughts.
I wanted to hit one issue specifically with you, and that
is the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. This provides
assistance to the States for incarceration of criminal aliens.
It has, in my view, been a very successful program. I know when
you testified last February before the Senate Finance
Committee, you stated that the Federal Government must at a
minimum live up to its financial obligations to compensate for
the cost of these failures borne by the States, and you
referred to this program as an underfunded program and that the
Federal Government needs to pay its bills.
This President's budget eliminates the SCAAP program, and I
just wanted to get your view. You seemed very supportive of it
as a Governor. What is your view on the President now
eliminating this support program?
Secretary Napolitano. Representative, yes, in fact when I
was Governor I think I sent the attorney general of the United
States an invoice for an unpaid SCAAP bill. States were getting
I think about 10 cents to the dollar. This is a program that
reimburses States for the cost of incarceration of illegals.
As you know, that is part of the Department of Justice
budget. At the Department of Homeland Security level, I think
what I am trying to do is to reduce the number of illegals that
come into those border States. That is the way to reduce the
costs on the States, not just incarceration, but a whole host
of other related issues. So with that, I am sure the
administration would be happy at the DOJ level to discuss SCAAP
and how it was not budgeted with you. But I think at this point
in my role, my emphasis has to be on reducing the number of
illegals, period.
Mr. McCaul. I agree with that part. I do think elimination
of this important program, though, is a mistake. I think you
are going to see in the appropriations process or through maybe
amendments on the floor this program being restored, as it was
last Congress.
Also, the Stonegarden program is very important to me in
terms of the resources provided to State and locals, border
sheriffs. The National Association of Border Sheriffs came out
with a figure of about $500 million was the number that they
believe they needed to properly secure the border. I think they
play an important part. As you said, the State and locals are
the eyes and ears. Sixty million dollars are in the budget,
which is a good start. Congressman Cuellar and I introduced a
bill to fully fund this, in our view, at the $500 million
level, and I hope you will give that some consideration.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Congressman. We have started a
biweekly conference call with border sheriffs and police
chiefs, so we hear directly from them, particularly as we are
in this effort. We want to sustain this effort at the southwest
border.
Mr. McCaul. I commend you on your choice of Mr. Bersin for
the Border Czar. He briefed us personally. He is a former U.S.
Attorney like yourself. He gets it. I have talked to him about
this particular program and the $500 million. I think he is
very--he seemed at least to be very supportive of the idea of
doing that.
Last, if you could just give us an update on Guantanamo. I
went down there with other Members, and the top 16 al Qaeda
leaders are there. There is grave concern from our constituents
about these people coming into the United States at some point.
I know you are on the task force. If you could give the
committee an update on that, I would appreciate it.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Congressman.
The Department of Homeland Security is on the task force,
as chaired by the Attorney General. It is looking inmate by
inmate at Gitmo in terms of what disposition should be made. If
any are ultimately decided to come to the United States, that
they are paroled in under ICE, for example, my No. 1 concern
and No. 1 function I think is to make sure that it is in such a
fashion that Americans can be confident that they will not be
endangered by that. So we are looking at what kind of
restrictions would need to be associated with any sort of
movement.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you. I see my time has expired.
Chairman Thompson. I would now recognize the gentlelady
from--we will give the gentleman from California--we will get
to you next. The gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Kirkpatrick.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, as you know very well, we in Arizona are
very concerned about smuggling across the border along with the
potential for the type of violence we have witnessed in Mexico.
I have been calling for Congress to authorize $100 million to
prevent the southbound trafficking of cash and guns, and last
month I introduced a bill along with Chairman Thompson which
could do just that. Therefore, I am really glad to see your
budget proposal calls for almost exactly the funding I
requested to improve CBP and ICE southbound interdiction
operations.
When do you expect to have all of the additional CBP
officers, Border Patrol agents, ICE agents, and license plate
readers fully in place to prevent southbound trafficking? Do
you have a time line for that?
Secretary Napolitano. Representative, yes, virtually all of
those resources have moved already down to the southwest border
as part of our effort to assist the Government of Mexico in
halting the flow of--the fuel for the cartels into the country.
In addition, this refers back to Representative McCaul's point,
we are working with the Government of Mexico and the Minister
of Interior, Gomez Mont, to set up a system whereby they
actually do some southbound inspections themselves. We have
some exchange in terms of rotation and all the like so the
cartels don't know who is working which area at any given time.
That planning is underway as well.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Madam Secretary. As you also
note, we have just started the wildfire season in the West, and
we have seen the devastating effects of a wildfire in
California. I just got word this morning that there is a
wildfire near Highway 60 in my district. So I am very happy to
see the funding for the SAFER grants.
My question is: With the new funding, are you looking to
have a cap on this grant increased? If so, do you have any
thoughts as to what would be an appropriate level?
Secretary Napolitano. I would have to get back to you on
that, Representative. I don't know the answer.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I
yield back my time.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. Let me apologize to the
gentleman from California. Staff had omitted your name on the
list for Members present. So we now recognize the gentlemen
from California for 5 minutes, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. I have lost 10
pounds. I know it is more difficult to see me now, so I
appreciate that.
Madam Secretary, first of all let me reiterate what the
gentleman from Texas said. Allen Berson is an excellent choice.
I worked with him when he was in San Diego. He works with both
sides of the aisle and he has a very good understanding of the
border. Thank you for making that selection.
Second, thank you very much for your commitment in this
budget and in the meetings that I have had with representatives
of your office and the White House on cyber security. That is
an unmet need in this country. You are recognizing that in part
by the budget that you have presented, and I appreciate that.
One of the areas I hope to talk with you at some other
time, both you and the Department of Defense and others, is
EMP, electromagnetic pulse, whether we are taking that
seriously; whether that is just the old Cold War concern; or
whether, in view of the fact that we have rogue nations now
that have lifting power with new missiles so you don't have to
have an accurate missile to have the impact of EMP, what that
means for our protection of our infrastructure. Are we even
preparing for that, and is that part of your concern?
I would reiterate my concern about the SCAAP program. When
I was attorney general, I worked hard for it. When you were
attorney general, you worked hard for it. When you were
Governor, you worked hard for it. I doubt the facts have
changed. I doubt your opinion has changed. I understand you are
part of a team now, but hopefully you can voice the concerns
the rest of us have.
We are building airports where nobody flies. We are
building bridges to nowhere. I mean, stuff that you can't give
a justification for the Federal Government, but you know and I
know the primary responsibility for immigration and for border
control is the Federal Government. When they don't do the job--
and those of us in the States have a considerable number of
illegal aliens who committed felonies--it is a legitimate
request for the States to have the Federal Government assist in
that. Yet we zero that out in the President's budget.
So I am not going to put you on the spot, because I know
where you have been and no facts have changed. So I doubt you
have changed your opinion. Maybe they will listen to you a
little bit more on that.
Let me focus on Gitmo, though. As an attorney who has
clerked on the Ninth Circuit, been a U.S. attorney, attorney
general, you understand that when we bring people to the United
States to put on American property, American soil, that
connection gives rise to constitutional protections they might
not otherwise have anywhere else. So if we close Guantanamo, we
bring them here, all of the sudden they have an assortment of
rights, which may mean, according to Federal judges, they are
released, they are released into our communities.
Now, you have said today you are concerned about that and
you want to make sure that we protect Americans. We have
members of the Cabinet who have said in other positions,
Secretary Salazar and Secretary Sebelius, that they don't want
folks in their States. I don't know what your position is about
whether Arizona ought to be willing to take them, but a whole
lot of people aren't running to take these folks.
What I would like to know with some particularity is what
do you mean when you say it is your concern that we protect the
American people? Because if you have people who are terrorists
and holding them overseas, you don't necessarily have the basis
upon which to bring them to trial, because the purpose of
detaining terrorists on the battlefield is to stop them from
carrying out their function. You may not be able to prove a
completed crime. But yet if we bring them to American soil,
they may have the right to be released under our Federal laws
and our Constitution. So I am in a quandary to find out what
you mean by how we would protect the American people if we
bring people who are suspected terrorists, because of decisions
by Federal courts, because they have been brought to the United
States, that they are allowed out in the community, how do we
protect--what does that mean?
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Representative. First of
all, I think the President has been very clear; we need to
close Gitmo, which itself has become a recruiting tool for
terrorists. How we do that has been the subject of the review
chaired by the attorney general that the Department of Homeland
Security sits on.
My statement was well, what is Homeland Security's function
there? Our function there is to provide information and
assistance as to what sorts of protections would be needed on
the homeland side if an inmate were ultimately released to the
homeland. Those decisions have not yet been made. They are
reviewing each case independently. Obviously there are other
places and other facilities and other ways to deal with some of
the----
Mr. Lungren. I understand. What I would like to know, can
you give me some idea what those other ways or other ideas are,
because frankly we are left now with talking with our
constituents saying the administration has taken the position--
and if I were in court I could debate with you whether Gitmo
has been a positive or a negative. But the fact of the matter
is the President has made a decision. We have been telling now
the American people we are going to close Guantanamo. I don't
see any money in the budget to do that but that is another
thing. That is going to force people here in the United
States--Federal judges may very well release them, as you have
suggested. That could happen.
But what are the options? What kinds of things are you
looking at in your Department to assist us in protecting the
American people so we can tell our constituents what we are
going to do?
Secretary Napolitano. Representative, I think right now we
are treading into an area that I don't believe I am able to
talk about in a public setting. This is a process that is
underway at the highest levels within the White House and other
departments. But as decisions are made, the President is
committed to transparency, and there will be explanations about
what is happening and why.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. The gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Pascrell, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pascrell. Madam Secretary, I appreciate fully the
difficult job you have of creating a budget that meets the
needs of this Nation and all the various areas which you are in
charge of during a tough economic period in our history. I
understand that. Believe me, I do.
I have concluded, though, that looking at what you proposed
to us and the Nation, the last administration made the mistake
of not understanding that real homeland security starts from
the ground up, on our local streets, in our intelligence
apparatus, and not here in Washington. I sincerely hope this
administration doesn't make the same mistake.
I have to say I am greatly dismayed, to say the least, to
see the dramatic cuts to a couple of grant programs that are
vital to our local and State first responders who we keep on
patting on the back, and yet this budget I believe does not
reflect what our rhetoric has been. Under this budget proposal,
the successful FIRE grant program is cut by 70 percent from
last year. We simply can't hire thousands of new firefighters
to departments, knowing what the regulations are under the
SAFER bill--which I was cosponsor of as well--because they are
not going to have the equipment, the training. We did not pass
the FIRE Act after 9/11. We passed the FIRE Act before 9/11.
We do, as the gentleman from New York stated very
specifically, have $3 billion in requests every year. The
former administration tried to zero this program out. It has
been a successful program in red districts, pink districts,
blue districts, you name it, all across America. We had those
needs about equipment and training and the wellness of our
firefighters, be they career or voluntary, long before 9/11.
They were a neglected part of the public safety equation. They
have always been neglected. In fact, there was a debate as to
whether we have any responsibility at all with regard. But
towns and municipalities were not meeting their obligations,
they couldn't afford to.
So here is a program. Listen to the ingredients. It is
competitive. It deals with needs. It is peer-supervised. Wow,
that is something very unique. There is oversight. It is fair.
The money goes directly to the local communities, the States
can't cream it off, take it off the top. That is different,
isn't it? It doesn't go through the State. It is results-
oriented.
So firefighters and police officers who are dear to my
heart, they are the first to respond at a national catastrophe
or a man-made disaster, they are the first that will be there.
The budget also only provides $50 million for the
Interoperable Emergency Communications grant program. That is
an 85 percent decrease in funds. Now, when you are saying by
the way, that the money is in the recovery plan, let me inform
you, Madam Secretary, that there are $210 million in that
recovery plan that all went to construction of firehouses. It
had nothing to do with basically the FIRE Act. Nothing to do
with equipment, nothing to do with training, nothing to do with
apparatus.
I voted for the Recovery Act. I hope I know what is in
there. Mr. Reichert and I worked very hard as Chairman and
Ranking Member of the subcommittee in the 109th Congress to
create the great grant program, because the lack of
interoperable equipment was one of the clearest failures of 9/
11 and still is. Still is.
So the last time you were before this committee, Madam
Secretary, there was no bigger supporter of local and State
grant programs than you. I want to stress I understand, and I
would like you to respond to both of these questions, if I may,
Mr. Chairman, through the Chair and through the Ranking Member.
I would like you to respond to that.
Secretary Napolitano. I was talking with staff just a
minute ago, so I apologize, but I am confused on your statement
about the interoperability, $50 million. It is my understanding
that is level-funded in the fiscal year 2010 budget.
Mr. Pascrell. There is a decrease in the IECGP part of the
Homeland Security budget.
Secretary Napolitano. No, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. Then we are looking at the budget
incorrectly. I will gladly go back and stand corrected.
Secretary Napolitano. It says I have, going back to fiscal
year 2008, $50 million. Fiscal year 2009, $50 million. Fiscal
year 2010 request, $50 million.
Mr. Pascrell. We will talk about that privately. Would you
go--we will talk about that. I have different numbers than you
have.
Secretary Napolitano. As I explained earlier on the FIRE
grant, I couldn't agree more about FIRE and the importance of
first responders in the whole context of homeland security. The
FIRE grants historically have been heavily funded, as you
noted, the money for FIRE.
Mr. Pascrell. I didn't hear what you just said.
Secretary Napolitano. Have been heavily funded
historically.
Mr. Pascrell. They haven't been heavily funded. If we have
$3 billion of requests every year, and we have between $500 and
$700 million, they are not heavily funded as far as I am
concerned.
Secretary Napolitano. What I am trying to suggest, sir, is
that in the past, there has been an appropriation there. Part
of that appropriation if we want to look an fiscal year 2010 as
a continuation, was assumed in the Stimulus Act. As you
correctly note, the Stimulus Act was for construction of fire
stations. I do not know whether local fire departments, then,
are moving some of their capital budget there and moving their
money around, but they are getting additional moneys there. Our
information was, in meeting with first responders, was in this
time of limited economic resources, they were concerned about
personnel and they wanted more money for the personnel side of
the budgets, and that is what the fiscal year 2010 request was.
We look forward to working with you on this.
Chairman Thompson. Time has expired, and I am sure the
gentleman will have other questions that the Secretary can
answer. I will now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a few questions,
Madam Secretary, with respect to chemical plant security. But I
did want to follow up on a couple of things that had been said.
First, Ranking Member King mentioned in his opening remarks
about the right-wing extremism report, and I would be remiss if
I didn't take this opportunity to express my disappointment in
the now infamous report which indicated returning veterans
might be more susceptible to radicalization. To your credit,
you have openly admitted that the report did not go through as
robust a review process as you had hoped. Could you tell us
where the wheels came off the wagon, so to speak, and what you
are doing to keep this from happening again?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. The wheels came off the wagon,
first of all, because the vetting process that existed within
the Department was followed or resolved. Second, the report was
distributed and it was not authorized to be distributed. Third,
it was distributed more broadly, even if there had been an
authorization, than it should have been. The report--that
particular section was meant to say not that veterans are more
susceptible to become radicalized, but they are certainly
targets of recruitment. That is well-known and there are many
publications that say that.
Nonetheless, the way it was written or perceived was
offensive, and I apologize for that. I apologize again.
Internally what we have done now is to put a process in place
to make sure that products of the Department are properly
vetted and supervised before they can be authorized to be
distributed at all.
Let me say, Representative, my view is that where our
Department needs to focus is not on the kind of intel and
analysis that circulates around Washington, DC, but things that
are useful for State and local law enforcement on the ground.
Too much, I think, of what we produce is kind of Washington,
DC-speak as opposed to something that really works for State
and local. So one of the things I hope to accomplish as
Secretary is to kind of review, rethink that whole intel
support that we are supposed to be providing for security.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. Also to follow up on Mr. Lungren's
question regarding the particularities of the Gitmo closing and
relocation of prisoners, you indicated that you cannot talk
about such specifics in a public setting. Would you be willing
to hold a classified briefing for Members of this committee on
the details of Gitmo?
Secretary Napolitano. Sir, we will work with your staff on
that and on the timing of that. I simply do not know. It may be
the White House itself would like to do the briefing, but we
would follow up.
Mr. Dent. Many Members would like to be briefed on that.
Thank you. I also just wanted to mention too--I wanted to first
at the outset commend the Department for a job well done with
its current regulations with respect to chemical plant
security. The regulations, as you know, the industry doesn't
love them, the environmentalists don't like them either, which
means you are probably onto something here. So the Department's
authorization for regulating chemical facilities expired in
October of this year.
The Department has asked in its budget submission to
Congress for a 1-year extension of this regulatory authority.
The committee is currently engaged in negotiations on possible
chemical security legislation that would address this
extension. But the legislation would do more than extend the
current regulation. Some in Congress are considering including
provisions that would require the Department to assess chemical
facility processes at tens of thousands of chemical plants and
identify what inherently safer technologies or processes might
be appropriate in each situation.
What are your thoughts on Congress requiring the Department
to determine which processes and chemicals facilities should
utilize?
Secretary Napolitano. We would be happy to work with you on
that. In part, we are sort of doing that now as we implement
the CFATs rules and regs. So there may be a very useful overlap
now.
Mr. Dent. Because there are some concerns of secondary
effects of some requirements that might come out of the
Committee on Commerce overall. Then we get into this issue of
inherently safer technologies and processes. These are
engineering practices. I noticed in the President's budget
request, it included an additional $19 million for the Office
of Infrastructure Protection to increase chemical facility
security. Has the Department examined how much it would cost to
bring unnecessary expertise to review thousands of these IST
assessments and make determinations as to their feasibility? I
think this is very expensive and it requires a great deal of
expertise. I am just concerned the Department would not have
that level of expertise when you have $19 million in the
budget. Can you address that, by chance?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, sir. We do have kind of a spend
plan associated with what it will take to implement the CFATs
regulations and the budget is reflective of that. We would be
happy to provide you with more detail.
Mr. Dent. If they could, too, is any of the $19 million
designed to bring any IST specialists on to your staff?
Secretary Napolitano. We will follow up with you on that,
absolutely.
Mr. Dent. I see my time has expired.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
Madam Secretary, to cure Mr. Pascrell's issue, there is
$400 million authorized in that account, which only $50 million
has been requested each year. So that was the discrepancy in
the numbers that he had reference to.
We now will hear from the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Cleaver, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. I am not sure
whether or not this hearing is being televised on C-Span or
not. But in the event it is, I think it is extremely important
for me and, frankly, for all of us to hear you respond to
something based on a question that--or a statement made
earlier.
I represent Kansas City, Missouri. Kansas City is 19 miles
from Fort Leavenworth, which is in another State, the city
limit is right--just 19 miles away. I don't want anyone to
believe, unless you say differently, that even if those
prisoners were found to be illegally imprisoned, that they will
be taken down to Main Street in Kansas City, Missouri, or any
other city, and released. Is it not true that a person who was
illegally in this country and arrested, whether they were found
guilty or not, would be deported? Am I correct?
Secretary Napolitano. Sir, let me just say, this is a
hearing on the fiscal year 2010 budget request. I just don't
think I can speak to the Gitmo issues in a public setting like
this.
Mr. Cleaver. I understand. I don't want you to speak to it,
and I don't want to come to a secret meeting. I fear that we
will be making statements in a public statement that causes
people in the public to believe these people may be turned
loose on our streets. What I know, a nonlawyer, that is not
true. I just had the need to say that I don't want to talk
about any other details. I am concerned about sending out bad
information. I am 100 percent correct, as a nonlawyer, that I
am correct.
Secretary Napolitano. I would just prefer not to comment at
this time.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. I editorialized. My concern is
about the E-Verify program, which I am assuming is under ICE,
budgeted under ICE, is it?
Secretary Napolitano. I believe so, yes. There is $112
million requested for E-Verify.
Mr. Cleaver. Early on, I guess in 1997 when the program
first started, there were questions about its accuracy and so
forth. It is my understanding that most, if not all, of those
problems have been corrected.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, sir. Let me just say as Governor
of Arizona I signed probably the Nation's toughest employer
sanctions law, which basically gave an incentive to employers
to use E-Verify. We used it extensively through State
government and it gets better and better all the time. It is a
very easy system to use.
Mr. Cleaver. Is it possible for someone on your staff who
can run--at least me--there may be other Members who would like
to become familiar with it so that we can better answer
questions back in our district.
Secretary Napolitano. Absolutely. We would be happy to give
you a demonstration.
Mr. Cleaver. I would appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your presence. I will yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. For the committee,
we will take one other Member, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 minutes. We
will recess. We have three votes. Reconvene shortly after the
third vote. The Secretary is scheduled to be with us until
12:30, so we will go until 12:30.
Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it
very much. Welcome, Secretary. I believe we should do
everything in our power to ensure that employers are not hiring
illegal aliens, especially when it comes to Homeland Security
contracts and, again, on E-Verify. I received a letter from the
assistant secretary of Legislative Affairs on April 17
regarding the use of stimulus funds by the Department, which
says DHS gives preference to prospective contractors based on
the extent to which they use E-Verify.
I have several questions, a couple of questions anyhow on
this. Does this mean that the Department refrains from awarding
contracts to employers that do not use E-Verify, or just
prioritizes contracts for those that do? Do you believe that
the use of E-Verify should be mandatory for Government
contractors and subcontractors doing business with DHS?
Secretary Napolitano. Representative, I believe E-Verify
needs to be an integral part of our immigration law enforcement
moving forward. The system needs to be easy to use. It needs to
be efficient for prospective employers and employees, because
we don't want people unfairly denied work because of E-Verify.
But I believe that we will be increasing E-Verify's capacity,
capability. I believe that the White House is now considering
the rule about all contractors for the Federal Government. With
respect to Department of Homeland Security, I do not know of
contracts that do not provide for the use of E-Verify.
Mr. Bilirakis. Why is there a delay by the administration?
Can you answer that question?
Secretary Napolitano. I think the concern was whether the
capacity of the E-Verify system was big enough to handle a
universal rule on all contractors, or whether actually that
requirement would delay stimulus money getting out into the
economy and jobs being created.
Mr. Bilirakis. Can you estimate as to when the program will
be implemented?
Secretary Napolitano. I believe the next deadline is in
June; we will get back to you on that. But in the White House
they are looking at the capacity of all agencies to implement.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Thank you very much.
Chairman Thompson. Will the gentleman yield back? Thank
you. Well, the next person is Mr. Green, if you promise not to
take but 2 minutes. The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary, for appearing. I want to congratulate you and I want
to say to you that I will also pray for you. I trust that
things will go well. You have a great history. You are a real
patriot, and the country is blessed to have you and we look
forward to working with you.
I will go to page 19 of what I believe has been distributed
as the proposed budget. On that page, under Transportation
Threat Assessment and Credentialing, there is an indication
that we have $216 million for this. That is a 37 percent
increase, and the indication is that 53--excuse me, I will shut
this down. We have $53.3 million, which is the increase that we
will have for this area. I want to just read the last sentence,
which is what I agree with.
``Given the past problems associated with the TWIC program,
it is highly recommended that TSA use these funds to improve
the efficiency and timeliness of the program.'' I just want you
to know I agree completely with that sentence because a TWIC
card has been the subject of some discussion at the committee
level.
With that, I will yield back the balance of my time. Thank
you.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. The committee stands in
recess for three votes and we will reconvene shortly.
[Recess.]
Chairman Thompson. We would like to reconvene the hearing
on the DHS budget. We will now recognize the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Harman, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary, for really excellent and helpful testimony this
morning, substantive answers to questions, and for your visit
last month to the Los Angeles area where several of us went
with you to see LAX, the top terror airport target in the
country, and the ports of that Los Angeles and Long Beach which
is where 50 percent of our vulnerable container traffic moves,
and then the JRIC, the Joint Regional Intelligence Center,
which is the Los Angeles fusion center and gets pretty high
marks as these things are reviewed.
I know you took a lot of the information to heart and I see
a lot of it reflected in your budget. I want to ask you about
three areas, but I want to make one comment on Gitmo which has
come up in several questions. I know you are not going to
respond. This is just a comment by me.
In today's news, it says that the six Miami men charged
with conspiring with al Qaeda have--five of those men have been
convicted in a U.S. Federal court.
I just want to observe that we have a pretty good record in
this country in recent years of convicting people charged with
the crime of terrorism, and some are U.S. nationals and some
are foreign nationals. I have every confidence that we are able
to do this well in U.S. Federal courts and in U.S. military
courts. That is just a statement.
Moving along to three areas that I want to ask you about:
One, the intelligence and analysis budget is mostly classified.
It is not here. What is unclassified is in the budget we are
looking at; and I support, of course, the activities in the
unclassified budget. But I would like to tell you again, Madam
Secretary, how opposed I am to any money spent on the so-called
National Applications Office, which is an office that would
deploy military satellites over the United States for certain
homeland security purposes. I think existing law is adequate. I
don't think we need a new office at the Homeland Department. I
absolutely believe that the authorities designed by your
predecessor were inadequate. I know you are reviewing this, but
I thought you should hear one more time how strongly I feel
about it.
Secretary Napolitano. Representative, on that, we are
reviewing NAO and we also are doing a privacy review related to
NAO just for your information.
Ms. Harman. Good. Well, I appreciate that. I think money
would be better spent on priorities you have already
identified.
Let me just mention two other issues. One, in this budget,
there are--there is no request of funds for the exit component
of the US-VISIT program for fiscal year 2010. You may be
planning to use a $30 million carryover account to complete two
pilot projects, but when we were in LAX together--let me put
both my questions out. When we were in LAX together, we noticed
that the ingress portion of US-VISIT is fairly robust and we
are working on it, but the egress portion is zero. This is the
largest destination airport, I believe, international
destination airport in the country. So there is lots of
opportunity for us to learn better where the people we have
processed into the country are going, and whether they are
overstaying visas and doing other things we might object to. So
I want to ask you about funding the exit portion of US-VISIT.
Second, you provide funds to send DHS representatives to
every fusion center in the United States. There are 70 such
centers. I think that is a great initiative. But we could not
find any reference to privacy and civil liberties training,
which is a component, I know we all agree, needs to be a
central part of what personnel and fusion centers, whether they
are DHS personnel or local personnel, do.
The last thing which I do want to put on the table is small
boats. They are a potential vulnerability at our major ports
and our smaller ports. Again, we don't see a specific
initiative here, when at least it has occurred to me over some
years, and to your predecessor, Michael Chertoff, that small
boats and general aviation were very logical ways that bad
things could be brought into our country.
Secretary, answer these questions briefly. My time--I still
have 18 seconds.
Secretary Napolitano. I will be brief. On exit, yes. I am
looking at the exit issue more holistically. We have got to
have a way to know not only who came in but who has left, and
to match those things up. So we are working on that.
Small boats, there is active work being done Department-
wide in the Federal Government on that. With respect to
deployment to the fusion centers, yes, I have asked the
people--we have brought--we have actual money in the civil
rights and civil liberties part of the office. It is reflected
in the request for the Administrative Office of the Secretary.
A part of that is designed to allow us to do more training.
Ms. Harman. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Smart
women solving problems is exactly what we need, I think. Do you
agree?
Chairman Thompson. The gentlelady's time has expired, but I
agree. We will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia for 5
minutes, Mr. Broun.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank
you for coming today. I know that we are all concerned about
the safety and security of this Nation. Madam Secretary, in
your opening statement you talked about the threat of
terrorism, securing our borders, and effective law enforcement.
I couldn't agree with you more. There are too many issues that
I would like to bring up now, but we don't have time. But I
would like to address a few.
First, I would like to associate myself with Mr. Lungren's
comments about the danger of releasing terrorists on American
soil. Please don't do that. The threat is very real, and I am
looking forward to hearing an actual plan for what the
President intends to do with the terrorists that are being
detained in Guantanamo.
Second, I would like to talk about oversight. Congress, and
this committee in particular, has responsibility to oversee
your Department. We would like to be as helpful and effective
as possible. However, Members of this committee have waited far
too long for the inspector general, where millions, even
billions of dollars are at stake, and that is completely
unacceptable. I would like to ask you if the increasing funding
requested for the IG is going to be sufficient and if Members
on this committee can expect more timely responses to their
request?
Secretary Napolitano. Representative, I believe firmly in
the rule of an inspector general, particularly with a
Department like ours that is still being built--it is like a
plane that we are building while we are flying it. That is why
we requested additional funds there. We have a lot of oversight
in our committee--in our Department. In fact, one of the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was for Congress to
reorganize itself to streamline the oversight so that we were
not consistently responding to myriad requests.
I want to be with this committee, which I believe is our
central authorizing committee in the House of Representatives,
as open and responsive and as timely as we can humanly be. We
have asked for additional resources to assist us with that.
Mr. Broun. I hope that is so. There have been multiple
requests made that have not been timely, and please see, if you
can, see that they are. While I recognize the importance of
staffing increases on the southwest border, I think it is
important that our efforts on the border do not in any way
detract from ICE's interior enforcement mission in other
regions, such as mine in Georgia.
Unfortunately, it appears that in the fiscal year 2010
budget, it fails to request any additional ICE investigators in
other areas. That, combined with new guidelines to focus all
work-site enforcement on the employers, will significantly
weaken ICE's ability to conduct enforcement operations. In my
home State, the ICE personnel are overwhelmed by the different
investigative missions and definitely need more staff.
What is the rationale for requesting no additional ICE
investigative resources outside the southwestern border?
Secretary Napolitano. First of all, I am a strong ICE
enforcement person. I think that is one of the reasons I was
brought into this Department. I have been doing immigration
prosecutions and supervising that sort of work for a number of
years. So I don't want to leave any impression of a false
dichotomy that if you do the border, you can't do the interior.
You have to do it all, because you can't have a system where
the border is kind of like a gauntlet and if you get through
it, you are free.
We want interior enforcement as a system backing up all of
the work that we are doing at the border. One area that you
should look at is that one of the areas we have plussed-up on
ICE, because I believe also in an effective and efficient law
enforcement, and all enforcement of immigration doesn't require
an investigative agent per se.
For example, on the work-site side, we are adding I-9
auditors. These are people that will actually go in and audit
the immigration forms employers are required to have. They are
lower paid, quite frankly, than agents. Their work, however,
will help us direct which employers deserve or merit further
attention by the higher-paid employees. So even as we look at
work-site enforcement, we are saying, okay, how do we staff it
appropriately to get the best yield for the dollars that you
are supplying?
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I have one final
comment before my time runs out. During your testimony, you
talked about securing the border, and I think it is absolutely
critical for national security to do that. The message I am
getting out of the administration is that is not going to be
done. We see no funds to further the fencing and things like
that, and I just hope that you as Secretary will be a very
strong advocate for securing both borders and not to giving
amnesty to the criminals here in this country already. Thank
you, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Napolitano. Sir, may I make a point about the
fence, however. Just to be very clear, we are completing the
fence that has already been appropriated. We are adding
technology; the virtual fence now, the first big section is
underway. We have now approved the technology, some of the
glitches that occurred before have been corrected. So that will
be underway. This budget does not prevent us from doing some
more fencing as a part of a tactical infrastructure with
technology and boots on the ground in other parts of the
border. But I have never believed, and have testified before,
that simply a fence from Texas or from Brownsville over to San
Diego will by itself be effective. We have to have a system.
Mr. Broun. I agree with that, Madam Secretary. In fact I
visited P-28 last year with this committee, and was impressed
with the possibility of doing that. I understand some of the
problems that are involved there, and I just hope that we push
forward and get this done so that we secure our border. I think
it is absolutely critical for national security.
Thank you, Madam Secretary. My time has expired. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. We now recognize the gentleman from
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes. Mr. Carney.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank
you for showing up today. I have a couple of questions, but
first I did want to kind of follow on the discussion you had
with Mr. Dent about the extremist report. I would be remiss,
also as a veteran, to say that I took offense at that
personally. The one in three households in my district did as
well. I really want to understand the process here on how that
got out. You told Mr. Dent that you did not authorize that, the
release of that.
Secretary Napolitano. It was not authorized for release;
that is correct.
Mr. Carney. What happened?
Secretary Napolitano. Sir, it was a product that was being
circulated in I&A. We know--first of all, let me be very clear.
It is not the only report out there that says veterans are
targeted for recruitment. It was an assessment, not an
acquisition. We have and are working with veteran groups----
Mr. Carney. It didn't say that.
Secretary Napolitano. That is right. That is why it
shouldn't have gone out. We apologized for it. The report is no
longer available and we have put in place processes to make
sure that does not recur.
Mr. Carney. That didn't answer how it got out in the first
place.
Secretary Napolitano. It went out because an employee sent
it without authorization.
Mr. Carney. Is that employee still an employee?
Secretary Napolitano. Appropriate personnel action is being
taken.
Mr. Carney. Thank you. How many members of the Department
of Homeland Security are actually veterans, do you know?
Secretary Napolitano. You have the Coast Guard which are
active; it is over 25 percent, including the Department
Secretary.
Mr. Carney. Good. I wonder what their take on it was as
well. I will change the topic here in a second. I just have to
calm down a little bit. But it was--it really hit home hard to
me and to our district and to a number of others, frankly. This
is not a good start.
When I go to town hall meetings and I hear people calling
for your resignation, it is really a problem. We have got to
address this; we really do.
I know you apologized to the American Legion. That is a
great first step. But there are a lot of other veteran groups
out there. I don't know if you have reached out to them as
well.
Secretary Napolitano. We have.
Mr. Carney. Okay. Good. It is just kind of a pall hanging
over things.
Secretary Napolitano. Representative, one of the things
that we have talked with particularly the American Legion about
is how we provide at the Department of Homeland Security
opportunities for veterans who are returning for work, because
they are a great employment source for us. They are well-
trained, they want to serve their country, they have already
demonstrated that by their military service. So sometimes, to
use the cliche, you have to make lemonade out of a lemon. Now
we are working with making sure that DHS is helping them with
job fairs and opportunities of that sort so that we continue
our linkage with the veterans community.
Mr. Carney. Thank you. I had a question on UAVs and the
border. What is the status of that program? Where are we?
Secretary Napolitano. There are UAVs being used on the
border.
Mr. Carney. How many?
Secretary Napolitano. I can't give you a number at any
given time, but we are using them as part of our process of
securing and having operational control there.
Mr. Carney. If you could get a more detailed account from
your staff, that would be great. Are you manned up enough? Do
you have enough pilots? Do you have enough analysts on the
ground to do the job?
Secretary Napolitano. We believe we do. We believe the
budget request is adequate to fill those needs.
Mr. Carney. Okay. No further questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield for a minute?
Let me apologize to the Chairman and to the--and I am just
going to raise questions that I hope we will have a
conversation. I am only asking to yield because I am in mark-
up, and I will conclude quickly.
I thank you very much. Madam Secretary, I just want to get
back with you on some issues dealing with TSA in terms of their
expanded duties at airports.
Chairman Thompson. Ms. Jackson Lee, it is a problem for you
to come in and get in front of a lot of the other Members who
have been here for 3 hours. So I am going to----
Mr. Carney. I will yield back to the Chair.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I will just say that I will ask the
questions on the record. I didn't mean to be a problem. I am
just in mark-up. So thank you very much.
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman from Louisiana for 5
minutes, Mr. Cao.
Mr. Cao. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
Madam Secretary, I would like to thank you for the trip that we
made together down to New Orleans. I thought it was quite
productive. I would like to commend you on the changes that you
made with respect to the local TRO office. They have been much
more efficient and much more cooperative in bringing PW
projects forward.
My main concern now is with the appeal process. As you
know, prior to Katrina, Charity Hospital was the main provider
for indigent care. After Katrina, much of that care was took
upon by local hospitals, and they incurred hundreds of millions
of dollars in debt. Touro Hospital, for instance, was
threatened with foreclosure but for its purchase by the State
Childrens Hospital. FEMA has denied the State of Louisiana's
first appeal in regards to Charity Hospital. I believe the
denial has dramatically delayed the recovery of the health-care
system down there in the Second District and basically
threatened the system with bankruptcy.
The appeal process has continually--does not take into
account the plight of the suffering poor down there in the
district and the struggles of institutions down there in the
Second District post-Katrina.
My question to you is, if you can tell us, what your team
has done in Region VI that is different from what the Bush
administration did in regards to PW appeals?
Secretary Napolitano. Representative, we have done a lot to
streamline and resolve the appeal process with respect to the
issues in your district. As you know, there is also now
arbitration language that Senator Landrieu got enacted. We are
working with the White House on finalizing the actual process
by which we will be able to arbitrate claims.
My hope is that for the things we are unable to resolve--
and we really are trying to resolve as many as we can now--we
want to move the Katrina recovery forward as expeditiously as
possible, but we have a responsibility as well. These are
taxpayer dollars. We are not just given an unending pocket here
to make sure they go to qualified projects that need to be
compensated, and there are some legitimate differences of
opinion. Those ultimately, I believe, will end up in
arbitration. We want to facilitate that arbitration so that
decisions are made and people know finally what to do. So we
are working all hands on deck on that.
Mr. Cao. You must also understand the frustration of our
constituents down there in the district. It has been 4 years.
Secretary Napolitano. I have been in office about 100 days.
That 4 years was not my watch.
Mr. Cao. I fully understand that, and just want to again
reflect the Chairman's position on efficiency. What would be
the timeline to have this arbitration panel instituted to
address these issues?
Secretary Napolitano. We are working to have it done as
soon as possible.
Mr. Cao. What is that--would that imply weeks, months?
Secretary Napolitano. Sir, as soon as possible, but within
the foreseeable future. I don't want to give you a deadline
because everybody has to review, okay, and there are lots of
checks that have to be made. But it is moving expeditiously
through the process.
Mr. Cao. Okay. With respect to the appeal process itself, I
know that the decisions are made by the FEMA officer--or FEMA
agencies, and oftentimes some of those people who denied the
original applications might be deciding the appeal process. Is
there a system for a more efficient and objective determination
in the appeal process?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, the appeal process is set--the
technical appeal process is set by regulation. It has worked
well in many areas and in many instances. But I think Katrina
is so unusual in scope and the like that the arbitration add-on
and augmentation is going to be very helpful not only to
resolve things quickly, but to give people a sense that they
really had their shot.
Mr. Cao. Thank you very much. I yield the remainder of my
time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. We now recognize
the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Titus, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary, for being here. I would like to tell you as a former
State legislator I was very glad to see in this budget and hear
your comments about the REAL ID program, because it was
estimated in Nevada it would have cost us about $66 million to
try to implement it, and we did see it as an unfunded mandate.
So I appreciate the direction that is going. I wanted to ask
you, though, about another program. That is the Model Ports of
Entry program. McCarren Airport is one of about 20 airports
that is part of this program.
I have been talking to officials at McCarran, and they are
concerned that some of the operations there are dramatically
understaffed. In just 1 week alone, CBP actions resulted in the
losses of about $120,000 just for one airline because they had
to delay and cancel some flights. So I just wonder, I am sure
this is the case probably for other airports and some of our
airlines are kind of threatening not to fly to Las Vegas
because it is such a problem, and we certainly can't lose more
tourists coming with the state of the economy. I just wondered
if there is some oversight of this, if you are looking at it,
if we can have some input about how we are involved in the
decisions that are made in that program so we won't have that
kind of problem in the future.
Secretary Napolitano. Absolutely. If you have information
that you know of at McCarran, if you would give it to us. But
we are, yes, looking at that. The last thing we want to do is
deter legitimate commercial and tourism traffic out of an
effort out of a pilot. So, yes.
Ms. Titus. If I could get that information to somebody and
we could work on that?
Secretary Napolitano. Exactly, yes.
Chairman Thompson. Since we only have a few minutes, if we
can limit to 2 minutes, we might can at least have a question
or two from the rest of our Members.
Mr. Olson from Texas.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will do my best to
limit to 2 minutes.
Madam Secretary, thank you for coming today, and what has
become a theme between you and I and the two times you have
testified here. I would like to talk about FEMA and recovery
efforts from Ike. Ike is no longer headline news, but the
recovery continues and in many places it is just beginning, the
third most destructive hurricane to make landfall in the United
States, and many of the communities affected by it desperately
need help. Specifically if the reimbursement deadlines for
debris removal and the emergency protective measures were
extended 6 months, it would provide much-needed relief,
particularly on the Bolivar Peninsula area.
But, unfortunately, FEMA recently made the decision to deny
extension requests for Ike recovery efforts, saying only that
they reviewed the information and decided against it. I must
point out again that communities affected by Katrina, which was
an equally devastating hurricane, received numerous deadline
extensions for both categories. However, with respect to debris
removal, Texas received only one deadline extension. With
respect to emergency protective measures, we didn't receive an
extension at all.
Please don't observe that this is some sort of complaint
about Katrina, because that was a very devastating hurricane in
that region, the most devastating one since Andrew in our
history. Well, Galveston 1900 was the most devastating one. But
the point is that Texas did not receive an extension at all.
All we are asking for is fair and equal treatment.
Could you give me an insight as to why these deadlines were
not extended, and what we could do on a Federal level to ensure
that southeast Texas gets the resources that they need so that
they can return to a normal life?
Secretary Napolitano. Representative, there are a number of
reasons why. Part of it is the amount that had already I think
been distributed to Texas for that hurricane. In other words,
it went to the State for distribution out to the communities.
I would be happy to supply you with a briefing on exactly
what has gone out already and why those particular extensions
were not granted.
Mr. Olson. I would greatly appreciate it. I thank the
Secretary and yield back my time.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. The gentlelady from
California.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I would like to play a little good cop
here and use 30 of my seconds. I want to commend you for the
work that you did with the H1N1 virus, and also make sure that
although all Members may not have had the ability to have you
in their district, I have. We can all sit here and throw rocks
and write in the sand, but I don't think anyone, neither any of
our constituents can ever say that they haven't ever done
something that they would have liked to have done something
differently. We need to judge you on the work that you are
doing, and the work that you are doing is excellent. I want to
be on the record in saying that, and that is what we need to
move forward.
You have been from California, from Los Angeles to Long
Beach to San Diego all over the place, and that is how I am
judging and that is how my constituents are evaluating your
work. So keep it up. It has been a pleasure having you as our
Secretary for the short time that you have been there.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. The second thing I want to say is to bring
to your attention that on April 29 we had a TWIC hearing and it
didn't go very well. I don't know if you heard that. Some of
the concerns were the lack of--the delay of the TWIC card
readers. Just the insistence on looking at new technology and
old delivery fashions and people coming in instead of looking
in the future. Your representatives spoke about, oh, we are
looking at this new technology because it can be hot and it is
outside and raining. I proceeded to share with her that we can
go to any airport, and you see the folks going in through the
back, coming in through the terminal, swiping the card which is
outside, rain, winter, sleet, et cetera.
So on behalf of the Chairman and our subcommittee, I would
just urge you to do a double back on what happened in that
hearing and look at the questions that we brought forward, and
your addressing it would be very helpful.
Finally, since this is a budget hearing that we are having
here, I will just read my two questions in for the record. One
is that currently we have ships--and I discussed this with you.
We have ships that the average ship is 5,600 to 6,000 TEUs. The
larger ships are 10,000, and the even larger ones now are
14,500. That means that a ship is actually larger than the
Empire State Building.
Currently, in our very large ports we are not prepared with
the appropriate fireboats to put out a major disaster that
could occur. So, if not in this year's budget, in future
budgets I would like to have a further discussion and
consideration of maybe us looking at the top 10 to start or a
project of the top five. But it is a disaster waiting to
happen. Those cruise ships, dirty bombs, et cetera, it could be
disastrous for us all.
Finally, my second question was in the budget you have an
increase for K-9s; however, it is, according to my folks,
primarily focused on ferries. I have a tremendous amount of
passenger rail, metro rail, again susceptible to all sorts of
terror, and I would like to see it expanded to include more K-
9s for rail as well.
Secretary Napolitano. We will work with you on that. Thank
you very much.
Chairman Thompson. I would now recognize the gentleman from
New Mexico, Mr. Lujan, for 2 minutes.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, it is great to see you again. I appreciate
how accessible you have been to each of us as Members of
Congress, but also to the committee on continuing to provide
information to us.
Madam Secretary, I would like to begin by first just
emphasizing the fact of the importance of our firefighters and
first responders as Mr. Pascrell did. No reason for me to get
into those details, but to just make sure that we are
reinforcing the thought that we do need to provide them the
support and resources they need. We usually don't appreciate
them until we need them, as we do many of our men and women who
serve our country in different capacities, and we need to
continue to thank them every day.
Madam Secretary, as I have done in the past visiting with
you specifically about the national laboratories and our
ability to engage with them, to utilize the technological
capabilities that we have to be able to strengthen the tools
and resources that you will need and all the personnel that you
are responsible with providing them the tools and resources
they need to do their jobs effectively. Recently, Madam
Secretary, I was able to visit with you about taking advantage
and moving forward with utilizing the National Infrastructure
Simulation and Analysis Center, NISAC, out of New Mexico, and I
appreciate the fact that we are taking advantage of their
capabilities.
In the area of cybersecurity, though, because of some of
the modeling capabilities that NISAC can present I would
encourage you to explore opportunities within the Department to
see how we could take advantage of the capabilities in that
regards, specifically with cyber attacks, that we could
probably help provide some additional information and
protection with. I am encouraged by the fact of what we have
seen in the budget in these specific instances.
I would just like to close, Mr. Chairman, Madam Secretary,
with making sure that we are looking to see how some of the
small businesses who have done a great job of developing
technologies, moving forward with providing some of the support
that we need to keep our ports safe, to keep roads safer,
whether they are looking at cargo, whatever mechanism that they
are utilizing to assist us in that way, that we are encouraging
and we are making sure that they are providing an opportunity
to be able to compete with some of those that may be larger and
have more resources to keep them out of playing in this field
and providing their expertise. So making sure, Mr. Chairman,
that we are really looking to see how we could support both
women and minority small businesses with the technological
capabilities that they have been able to bring forward and help
provide us with support with.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
I now yield to the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to see you again, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes.
Ms. Clarke. Earlier this session, the House unanimously
passed H.R. 559, which is what we call the Fast Redress Act of
2009. This legislation will require the Department of Homeland
Security to develop a comprehensive cleared list of all lawful
citizens who are mistakenly labeled as terrorists and placed on
the do-not-fly list or the watchlist. The President's budget
acknowledges that this is a huge problem, and has requested
$1.3 million and one full-time employee for the management of
the DHS TRIP, Travel Redress Inquiry Program.
How will the additional funding and staffing allocation
improve the overall effectiveness of the program? How many
employees are currently dedicated to the program? Additionally,
does the President's budget discuss the centralization of the
DHS TRIP processing system? Can you please explain what this
centralization entails, and how will it work with secure flight
in the future?
Secretary Napolitano. The answer is yes. But I think, given
the time constraints, what I would like to do is arrange for a
briefing for you and we will work with you on the bill that is
moving over to the Senate on this issue.
The goal, obviously, is to remove people from the lists who
don't need to be there so that we can focus on those who do.
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Chairman, just in closing, it has really
become a very serious problem out there for many Americans who
are traveling of Muslim descent, Asian, South Asian, Middle
Eastern, Caribbean, Irish American, children. I mean, it is
cutting across the board, and it is really, I think, a point
where we should be modernizing the system so that we are not
misidentifying so many people. They feel very threatened by the
process and very stigmatized by it.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. I think there, Representative,
one of the things, there are different lists, as you know, and
different processes by which one's name gets on a list. But
where we are focused now not only is on who gets on it, but how
quickly we can resolve removing someone who is mistakenly on a
list.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
Madam Secretary, two items. One is Mr. Cao, who has had to
leave, FEMA did change its appeal process last year because
there were so many things happening in Louisiana. So there is
an independent body that addresses that, and I think you will
see some legislation really making that law going forward.
The last question for me is there has been a lot of
questions around FEMA asked today. The issue for this committee
is whether or not it is your opinion or the administration's
opinion that FEMA should stay in DHS or should be taken out.
What is your position? What is the administration's position?
Do you care to comment?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you
know, the Senate just confirmed the new administrator for FEMA
last night, Craig Fugate, so we now have an administrator who
has an extensive background in emergency management in Florida.
But it is my position, it is the position of the administration
that FEMA should remain within the Department of Homeland
Security.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary,
thank you for being generous with your time. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for Janet
Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Defense
Question 1. We have spoken in the past about the need for DHS to do
a better job of contracting with small and minority businesses. They
often have the talent and capabilities to make significant
contributions to the operations of the Department but are shut out. As
I look at your $55 billion budget request for fiscal year 2010, I can't
help but think about the stimulative impact that DHS could have if it
went the extra mile and sought out small and minority businesses for
contracting opportunities. After all, small business is the engine of
our economy. It is critical that DHS's acquisitions provide greater
access to these companies. Access merely means an open door--not a
hand-out. What processes will you put in place to ensure greater access
for small and minority businesses?
Answer. DHS has a robust small business program as demonstrated by
``green'' scores from SBA's annual scorecard for the past 2 years
(Attachment 1).
We currently have numerous initiatives underway that will increase
small business participation and build upon our achievements:
DHS PACTS (Program Management, Administrative, Clerical, and
Technical Services) is a multiple-award indefinite-delivery
indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicle set aside
exclusively for service-disabled, veteran-owned small
businesses. The estimated value of all contracts is $1.5
billion over 5 years.
Coast Guard Multiple-Award Construction Contracts. IDIQ
contracts for construction work will be awarded this fiscal
year. Ten regions in the USA will each have contracts awarded
under one of the socio-economic programs (8(a), HUBZone and
Service-disabled veteran-owned). The 8(a) contracts are for
small minority-owned businesses, the HUBZone contracts are for
small businesses located in economically distressed areas, and
the service-disabled veteran contracts are for small businesses
owned by service-disabled veterans. The estimated value of all
contracts is $3.5 billion over 5 years.
EAGLE II. Currently in the planning phase, this suite of
IDIQ contracts for information technology services will include
opportunities for all of the Federal small business contracting
categories. The estimated value of all contracts is $10-15
billion over 5 years.
Outreach. DHS currently hosts monthly vendor outreach
sessions in the Washington, DC, area as well as annual regional
sessions. In addition, members of the Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) have a vigorous
outreach schedule each year, visiting most areas of the USA.
OSDBU members present seminars on how to conduct business with
DHS, meet individually with vendors, provide business
counseling.
Forecast of Contract Opportunities. In addition to an annual
publication we now have the information on-line in real time.
Opportunities are listed for the current fiscal year as well as
on-going contracts are included for planning purposes.
Training. We will continue to educate program managers and
contract specialists in the small business programs by
conducting customized small business specialists to disseminate
information, working with SBA to provide training on the latest
trends affecting small business contracting, and work with the
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer to issue Acquisition
Alerts, as needed, on small business topics for the acquisition
workforce.
Small Business Review. Contracting Officers, Small Business
Specialists and the program or requesting offices in each
component work together to review each open market procurement
anticipated to exceed $100,000 for small business contracting
possibilities, considering the use of the 8(a) program, HUBZone
small business set-asides, service-disabled veteran-owned small
business set-asides, and small business set-asides. In
addition, Contracting Officers, Small Business Specialists and
the program or requesting office review contracts as they come
up for re-competition if market conditions have changed,
contracts that were not originally set aside for small
businesses may be re-evaluated, and the use of multiple-award
contracts where some or all of the work can be reserved for
small business participation may also be considered. Attached
is a copy of the DHS Small Business review form 700-22
(Attachment 2) that Contracting Officers, Small Business
Specialists and the program or requesting office use in
evaluating each contracting opportunity and becomes part of the
individual contract file.
ATTACHMENT 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2009 YEAR TO DATE (YTD) FEDERAL SMALL
BUSINESS PRIME CONTRACTING COMPARISON FOR THE TOP FIVE DEPARTMENTS
BASED ON TOTAL PROCUREMENT DOLLARS
(source: fpds-ng small business goaling report as of 06/02/2009)
top 5 departments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2009 Year-
Rank Department Name to-Date Total
Procurement Dollars \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ Department of $119,707,187,369.96
Defense (DOD).
2............................ Department of 24,318,550,974.08
Energy (DOE).
3............................ National 9,625,833,052.09
Aeronautics and
Space
Administration
(NASA).
4............................ Department of 7,704,864,530.54
Homeland
Security (DHS).
5............................ Health and Human 7,465,747,156.85
Services (HHS).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: These five departments account for about 86% of total prime
Federal procurement dollars of fiscal year 2009 year-to-date based on
SBA's small business reporting procedures and the FPDS-NG small
business goaling report (about $169 billion out of about $197
billion).
history
In a comparison of the Top Five departments for fiscal year
2009 year-to-date based on total procurement dollars, DHS is
ranked first in every small business category.
DHS is the newest Federal department. Here is a summary of
the Top Five indicating the year in which operations started:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
Department Name Operations
Started
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Defense (DOD)................................. 1947
Department of Energy (DOE).................................. 1977
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)........ 1958
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)....................... 2003
Health and Human Services (HHS)............................. 1980
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2009 ytd small business prime contracting accomplishments
Explanation: Calculated by Percentage of Total Procurement
Dollars for small businesses of all types: (SB) Small Business,
8(a), (SDB) Small Disadvantaged Business, (HUBZone)
Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business,
(SDVOSB) Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, (VOSB)
Veteran-Owned Small Business, and (WOSB) Women-Owned Small
Business.
Government-wide goal for this category = 23%; DHS goal =
31.9%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results by
Rank Department Name Percentage
(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... Department of Homeland 33.2758
Security (DHS).
2................................... Department of Defense 18.1882
(DOD).
3................................... Health and Human 13.9285
Services (HHS).
4................................... National Aeronautics 12.0999
and Space
Administration (NASA).
5................................... Department of Energy 3.3293
(DOE).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2009 ytd 8(a) prime contracting accomplishments
Government-wide goal for this category = N/A; SBA has
determined that 8(a) results are part of the overall SDB
category since all 8(a) firms are SDBs by definition; however,
to maintain our commitment to the 8(a) program, DHS set a 4%
goal in this category; further, the 8(a) category appears as a
data field in the FPDS-NG small business goaling report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results by
Rank Department Name Percentage
(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... Department of Homeland 6.8616
Security (DHS).
2................................... Health and Human 2.9293
Services (HHS).
3................................... National Aeronautics 2.7563
and Space
Administration (NASA).
4................................... Department of Defense 2.6215
(DOD).
5................................... Department of Energy 0.4542
(DOE).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2009 year-to-date small disadvantaged business prime
contracting accomplishments
Government-wide goal for this category = 5%; DHS goal = 8%
[4% for 8(a) and 4% for SDB prime contracts outside of the 8(a)
program for an overall SDB goal of 8%]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results by
Rank Department Name Percentage
(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... Department of Homeland 14.7954
Security (DHS).
2................................... National Aeronautics 6.3301
and Space
Administration (NASA).
3................................... Health and Human 5.8048
Services (HHS).
4................................... Department of Defense 5.1107
(DOD).
5................................... Department of Energy 0.9048
(DOE).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2009 year-to-date hubzone small business prime contracting
accomplishments
Government-wide goal for this category = 3%; DHS goal = 3%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results by
Rank Department Name Percentage
(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... Department of Homeland 2.9141
Security (DHS).
2................................... Department of Defense 1.7213
(DOD).
3................................... Health and Human 0.9858
Services (HHS).
4................................... National Aeronautics 0.6371
and Space
Administration (NASA).
5................................... Department of Energy 0.0700
(DOE).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2009 year-to-date service-disabled veteran-owned small
business prime contracting accomplishments
Government-wide goal for this category = 3%; DHS goal = 3%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results by
Rank Department Name Percentage
(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... Department of Homeland 1.7900
Security (DHS).
2................................... National Aeronautics 1.4207
and Space
Administration (NASA).
3................................... Department of Defense 0.9407
(DOD).
4................................... Health and Human 0.6985
Services (HHS).
5................................... Department of Energy 0.4200
(DOE).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2009 year-to-date veteran-owned small business prime
contracting accomplishments
Government-wide goal for this category = N/A; although there
is no Government-wide goal for VOSB participation (only
SDVOSB), in accordance with FAR 4.602, Federal agencies are
required to collect this data; also, the VOSB category appears
as a data field in the FPDS-NG small business goaling report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results by
Rank Department Name Percentage
(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... Department of Homeland 5.1123
Security (DHS).
2................................... National Aeronautics 2.9364
and Space
Administration (NASA).
3................................... Department of Defense 2.3929
(DOD).
4................................... Health and Human 1.9600
Services (HHS).
5................................... Department of Energy 0.6085
(DOE).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2009 year-to-date women-owned small business prime
contracting accomplishments
Government-wide goal for this category = 5%; DHS goal = 5%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results by
Rank Department Name Percentage
(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... Department of Homeland 7.7553
Security (DHS).
2................................... Health and Human 3.5318
Services (HHS).
3................................... Department of Defense 2.7115
(DOD).
4................................... National Aeronautics 1.9283
and Space
Administration (NASA).
5................................... Department of Energy 0.4663
(DOE).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 2.--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERALL GRADE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREEN........................... DHS achieved 35.34% exceeding its small business goal of 30%.
Although DHS did not meet its SDVOSB goal, it did make progress in
amount of dollars.
DHS exceeded its WOSB, and HUBZone goals.
DHS achieved 13.38% exceeding its SDB goal of 8%.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS GRADE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2006/ FISCAL YEAR 2006 FISCAL YEAR 2007 MADE PROGRESS?
FISCAL YEAR 2007 SMALL BUSINESS SMALL BUSINESS
% GOAL ACHIEVEMENTS ACHIEVEMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREEN........................... 30%............... 31.60% 35.34% N/A
($4,410,173,942). ($3,832,162,724).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIO-ECONOMIC GRADES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDB FISCAL YEAR 2006/ FISCAL YEAR 2006 FISCAL YEAR 2007 MADE PROGRESS?
FISCAL YEAR 2007 SMALL BUSINESS SMALL BUSINESS
% GOAL ACHIEVEMENTS ACHIEVEMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREEN........................... 8%................ 10.73% 13.38% N/A
($1,497,052,836). ($1,453,850,575).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOSB FISCAL YEAR 2006/ FISCAL YEAR 2006 FISCAL YEAR 2007 MADE PROGRESS?
FISCAL YEAR 2007 SMALL BUSINESS SMALL BUSINESS
% GOAL ACHIEVEMENTS ACHIEVEMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREEN........................... 5%................ 5.31% 7.98% N/A
($933,492,261). ($845,334,056).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUBZONE FISCAL YEAR 2006/ FISCAL YEAR 2006 FISCAL YEAR 2007 MADE PROGRESS?
FISCAL YEAR 2007 SMALL BUSINESS SMALL BUSINESS
% GOAL ACHIEVEMENTS ACHIEVEMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREEN........................... 3%................ 3.30% 3.10% N/A
($460,271,935). ($317,177,978).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDVOSB FISCAL YEAR 2006/ FISCAL YEAR 2006 FISCAL YEAR 2007 MADE PROGRESS?
FISCAL YEAR 2007 SMALL BUSINESS SMALL BUSINESS
% GOAL ACHIEVEMENTS ACHIEVEMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RED............................. 3%................ 1.53% 1.36% YES
($214,054,627). ($151,512,452).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRITERIA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREEN........................... THE AGENCY MUST MEET 100% OF ITS SMALL BUSINESS GOAL, 3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC GOALS
AND MAKE PROGRESS IN THE REMAINING GOALS.
YELLOW.......................... THE AGENCY MUST MEET 90-99% OF ITS SMALL BUSINESS GOAL, 1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC GOALS
AND MAKE PROGRESS IN REMAINING GOALS.
RED............................. DOES NOT MEET THE ABOVE (YELLOW) STANDARDS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRESS DEFINED: SBA USED 1 OF 2 INDICATORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN AGENCY MADE PROGRESS ON THEIR SOCIO-
ECONOMIC GOALS: (1) A PERCENTAGE INCREASE OVER FISCAL YEAR 2006 GOAL ACHIEVEMENT OR (2) FISCAL YEAR 2007 GOAL
ACHIEVEMENT DOLLARS IS GREATER THAN THE ACHIEVEMENT AVERAGE FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS (FISCAL YEAR 2005-FISCAL YEAR
2007).
ATTACHMENT 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS CURRENT STATUS (As of July 25, 2007)
PROGRESS (As of July 25, 2007) COMMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiative GREEN STANDARDS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENT........ Green................ _X_Meets the small Green................ Actions taken this DHS did not
Agency Lead: Kevin Boshears, business goal, at quarter: meet its SDVO goal;
Director, DHS OSDBU. least 3 socio- 1. The agency has met however exceeded in
economic goals, and its small business all others with
shows improvement in goal, 2 additional progress.
the remaining 1 goal. socio-economic goals,
_X_Meets all Yellow and improved in at
standards: least one of its
1._X_Meets the small unmet goals.
business goals, at 2. The agency has
least 2 additional implemented an
socio-economic goals, aggressive strategy
and improves in at to increase the
least one of the number of
unmet goals. Credit competitively awarded
can also be given for contracts to small
meeting 4 goals, businesses.
regardless of which 3. The agency shows
ones they are. top-level agency
2._X_Has implemented a commitment to small
strategy to increase business contracting
the number of through internal
competitively awarded scorecards, set-aside
contracts to small strategies, goal
businesses. performance, and top
3._X_Has demonstrated executive meetings on
top-level Agency a monthly basis.
commitment to small 4. The agency has a
business contracting. comprehensive and
4._X_Has a active small business
comprehensive small plan that is
business program that documented and
includes written regularly updated.
polices and 5. The agency has
procedures focused on built-in goal
improving the achievement
competitive requirements in their
environment and executive
increasing small management's
business performance to ensure
participation in the increased
procurement process. accountability.
5._X_Has small
business goal
achievement as a
rating element for
acquisition personnel.
6._X_Works
cooperatively with
SBA on outreach and
targeting initiatives.
7._X_Meets deadlines
for all required
strategic plans and
annual reports due to
SBA.
8._X_Has a process to
ensure small business
data is accurately
reported in FPDS-NG.
9._X_Enforces small
business
subcontracting plans
and meets
subcontracting goals.
6. The agency's OSDBU
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. In September 2006, the Department of Homeland Security
awarded a contract to Boeing to create a ``virtual fence'' along the
southwest border using cameras, sensors, and other technology. This
committee has conducted careful oversight of this program, known as
SBInet, as well as its two predecessor programs. I can say with little
hesitation that, to date, we have been disappointed. The Department is
currently moving forward with its next SBInet deployment, and the
administration has requested additional funds for fiscal year 2010 for
the program. As Governor of Arizona, you witnessed the deployment of
Project 28 in your backyard. Now, as Secretary, what have you learned
that will help the Department get the ``virtual fence'' right this time
around?
Answer. Project 28 (P-28) was a ``proof-of-concept'' technology
demonstration that provided insights into the operational and technical
challenges the SBInet team would face in designing, developing, and
deploying the larger SBInet system. P-28 provided valuable operational,
technical, and acquisition lessons relative to implementing an
integrated sensor system for surveillance of the border. P-28 now
provides an operational capability to Border Patrol agents in the
Tucson Sector, and since September 2007, the system has assisted agents
in the apprehension of more than 5,000 illegal border crossers and the
seizure of over 12,000 lbs of marijuana.
Many of the lessons learned from P-28 have been factored into the
planning and design of the SBInet Block 1 system that will be deployed
in Tucson (TUS-1) and AJO Stations (AJO-1) this year. These include:
The SBInet system design now includes an integrated set of
software and hardware to allow streamlined data integration and
processing to reduce system latency.
The Common Operating Picture software was upgraded to better
detect incoming activities, provide multiple displays, and
support unattended ground sensors.
The radar and camera suite were upgraded to new models with
improved capabilities.
The system will now use microwave backhaul to communicate
video and data, instead of satellites, which will increase
bandwidth and reduce system latency.
Further, a comprehensive test program has been established for
SBInet in order to ensure that it is deployed both functionally and
efficiently. Most recently, SBI conducted Systems Qualification Testing
(SQT) for SBInet Block 1 in December 2008. The SQT identified and
corrected system errors and allowed the program to complete successful
testing and proceed with the timely deployment of the TUS-1 and AJO-1
projects. Furthermore, the system will undergo operational testing in
early fiscal year 2010 to ensure it meets Border Patrol's operational
needs. The results of the operational test will be used to advise
decisions about the pace and extent of further deployments.
Question 3. Given the troubling accounts by the media, GAO, and
DHS's own Inspector General of the lack of compliance with detention
standards at ICE-contracted facilities, which includes inadequate
medical care--that resulted in multiple deaths, please tell us why the
President's budget request seems to explore the expansion of detention
facility privatization?
Answer. Over the last few fiscal years, ICE is currently assessing
its Nation-wide detention needs to determine whether ICE's continued
ownership of seven Service Processing Facilities (SPCs) is in the best
interests of the Federal Government. DHS will keep the committee
updated on the results of this review.
Question 4. As we all know, the Department of Homeland Security is
accountable for an extremely broad portfolio of mission areas. As we
have seen, circumstances can shift the emphasis and priorities within
mission areas. A budget is fundamentally an expression of an agency's
priorities. With regard to the fiscal year 2010 budget, what would you
say are the major priorities reflected in your budget request?
Specifically, is there a common thread that runs through each
component, department, and program request?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security's budget will
strengthen current efforts that are vital to the Nation's security,
bolster DHS' ability to respond to emerging and evolving threats, and
allow DHS to embrace new responsibilities in order to secure the
Nation. This budget puts forward critical investments in the protection
of the American people.
DHS undertakes the mission of securing the United States against
all threats through five main action areas, each of which is
strengthened by this budget:
Guarding Against Terrorism--As the founding purpose of the
Department and its highest priority, the budget expands DHS
efforts to battle terrorism, including detecting explosives in
public spaces and transportation networks, helping protect
critical infrastructure and cyber networks from attack,
detecting agents of biological warfare and building
information-sharing partnerships with State and local law
enforcement to mitigate threats.
Securing Our Borders--DHS prevents and investigates illegal
movements across our borders, including the smuggling of
people, drugs, cash, and weapons. The budget seeks to
facilitate legal travel and trade while improving border
security; these efforts include adding manpower and technology
to the southwest border, as well as requests funds for smart
security on the northern border.
Smart and Tough Enforcement of Immigration Laws and
Improving Immigration Services--DHS welcomes legal immigrants,
protects against dangerous people entering the country and
pursues tough, effective enforcement against those who violate
the Nation's immigration laws. The budget contains funding to
strengthen our employment eligibility verification systems,
target and crack down on criminal aliens, and expedite the
application process for new legal immigrants.
Preparing for, Responding to, and Recovering from Disasters
From All Hazards--The Department must aid local and State first
responders in all stages of a natural disaster, preparing for
the worst, responding to a disaster that has occurred, and
recovering in the long run. This budget contains funding to
strengthen DHS assistance for local first responders and the
communities and families affected by disasters.
Unifying and Maturing DHS--As a young Department, components
must further evolve in order to operate as effectively as
possible as one agency with a single, unified security mission.
The budget contains funding to initiate consolidation of
mission support activities that will remain off-site from the
St. Elizabeth's campus, reducing the many small and widely-
scattered leased locations and supporting the goal to build
``One DHS.''
In addition to these priorities, DHS is employing several cross-
cutting initiatives to strengthen activities in each of these mission
areas. First, DHS will increase cooperation with State and local law
enforcement agencies, international allies, the private sector, and
other Federal departments. Second, the Department will bolster and
expand its science and technology portfolio. Third, DHS will continue
to aim for greater efficiency in its operations.
Question 5. With respect to financial management, you have
inherited an agency that has some substantial legacy challenges. In the
fiscal year 2010 budget request, you ask for $11 million to fund a new
financial management program for DHS.
Do you believe $11 million to be adequate considering the large
amount of processes that must be merged for the program to be
successful?
What steps are the Department taking to incorporate GAO past
recommendations into the development of the program?
Answer. The $11 million requested in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request is in addition to $29 million in carry-over funds for a total
of $40 million. The Department believes this is sufficient for the
initial activities of the Transformation and Systems Consolidation
(TASC) effort. TASC will be awarded as an Indefinite Delivery
Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. Although the system solution is
yet to be determined, $450 million is the contract ceiling estimate for
the total value of the work to be performed over the 10-year contract
life, assuming all option years are exercised. This estimate is
consistent with other financial system benchmarks within the Federal
Government. The actual cost of the work will be determined by the
solution selected through the competitive acquisition process.
The Department continues to work diligently with the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to ensure issues are addressed in a timely
manner. CFO personnel carefully reviewed all pertinent documentation
and strategic approaches with this oversight body, and remains
committed to ensuring the Department is following best practices in
pursuit of financial management consolidation. As it is implemented
within DHS, TASC will yield significant cost benefits; eliminating
redundant hosting/interface requirements as well as reliance on
proprietary vendor solutions currently used and reducing operations and
maintenance costs. TASC will help the Department to increase the
transparency of its financial data and accountability.
Question 6. Madam Secretary, the President has only requested a
$1.2 million dollar increase for the Privacy Office. Given the FOIA
backlog, amount of training done by the office, and the number of
reports the office produces, the budget provide additional funding?
Please explain why you are only seeking a $1.2 million dollar increase
to base and two new employees for this critical office?
Answer. With an increase of $1.2 million in fiscal year 2010, the
Privacy Office's budget will total $7.9 million--close to a 50%
increase since 2008. By fiscal year 2010, the Privacy Office
anticipates hiring seven additional full-time, Federal employees,
bringing the total complement for the privacy and FOIA functions to 36
FTE.
This budget and workforce level will permit the Privacy Office to
complete its statutory responsibilities. The Department has already
shown remarkable progress in reducing the FOIA backlog. Looking ahead,
the Privacy Office's FOIA staff is adequately staffed to provide the
guidance necessary to assist the components to further reduce and
ultimately clear the FOIA backlog.
Further, the Privacy Office continues to meet all its statutory
obligations to provide training. The works closely with other Federal
partners to provide training to a variety of stakeholders including I&A
analysts as well as for State and local fusion center representatives
as required under the 9/11 Commission Act.
Question 7. For fiscal year 2009, the Department received an
additional $17 million in funding to cover a 53% increase in personnel
for the Analysis and Operations (from 380 to 583 FTEs). This year, the
Department is seeking another $17 million but the funds will only cover
a 19% increase in personnel (from 583 to 699).
Please explain why, if the number of FTEs sought is decreasing, the
amount of increase to the base you are seeking remains the same as the
amount received last year.
The fiscal year 2009 enacted budget authorized 583 FTEs; of these
authorized FTEs how many has the Department been able to hire and fill?
Answer. This answer contains classified information, and will be
provided to the committee via secure channels.
Question 8. During a hearing before this committee in February, you
stated that your initial view was that the 2012 deadline for 100
percent maritime cargo scanning was not going to work. What steps are
you taking toward meeting the 100 percent goal, whether it happens in
2012 or beyond?
Answer. DHS has gained important insight from the initial scanning
pilots in foreign locations under the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI).
We remain confident that the scan data produced by the scanning systems
can enhance the security of containers as they transit through the
global supply chain to the United States. However, DHS has encountered
complex logistical, diplomatic, fiscal, and technical challenges that
will render 100% scanning difficult to achieve by 2012.
With over 700 ports shipping to the United States and more than 11
million containers arriving each year, DHS must have a realistic
strategy that facilitates legal trade. This is not only one of DHS's
key missions, but a critical component of the 100% scanning mandate. As
such, DHS will focus future deployments of scanning systems to targeted
locations where the additional data provided by the scanning will be
most beneficial.
As we work to deploy additional scanning systems in a manner that
will complement our current risk-based and layered approach to
security, DHS will continue to engage with Congress and work in close
concert with foreign and industry partners. These partnerships were
critical to the success of the initial Secure Freight Initiative
pilots, and these lines of communication need to remain open as we
explore opportunities to deploy scanning systems to strategic locations
that could most benefit from the additional data.
Question 9. DHS currently has initiatives to combat all crimes,
both domestic and international under their purview through the ICE
Office of Investigations. Based on the 2010 Presidential budget
request, due to the increase in Customs and Border Protection resources
will additional resources for domestic and international investigations
be necessary?
Answer. Yes. Additional resources for ICE's Office of
Investigations (OI) and Office of International Affairs are contained
in the President's 2010 budget request, which asks for $48.743 million
($34.877 million for 208 personnel and $13.887 million for non-
personnel resources) to support the Southwest Border Initiative for ICE
domestic investigations. In addition, the President's budget request
also contains a $4.925 million enhancement for international
investigations along the southwest border, including 12 new ICE
positions in Mexico. These additional resources will allow ICE to
increase its ability to conduct criminal investigations along the
southwest border, including those investigations resulting from
collaboration with Customs and Border Protection personnel.
Question 10. I note with great interest that the budget proposal
specifically blocks funding to jurisdictions participating in the
287(g) program who do not comply with the memorandum of understanding
established with ICE. This is a positive development. What other plans
do you have to enhance ICE supervision of participating 287(g)
communities and ensure program compliance?
Answer. DHS is in the final stages of revising its Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) template. The revised MOA sets forth clear operational
and administrative standards to ensure each 287(g) partner operates
consistently with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE)
goals and priorities. The revisions include precise statements
regarding the nature and extent of ICE supervision as well as Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) tailored to fit the unique needs of each
State or local law enforcement agency.
To further ensure the 287(g) program meets ICE operational
standards and priorities, ICE has implemented a regular inspection
process conducted by the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility. The
inspection assesses the State or local law enforcement agency's
compliance with the terms of its MOA. Any deficiencies identified
during the inspection will be immediately addressed by ICE and the
local LEA.
Finally, ICE's revised MOA requires additional data collection by
its 287(g) partners. The DHS ENFORCE system has been modified to
require program participants to populate mandatory ENFORCE data fields
concerning the type of criminal activity in which the alien has
engaged. ICE will use this data to assist in evaluating whether our
287(g) partnerships function consistently with ICE's detention and
arrest priorities.
Question 11. This committee has been critical of the spending
imbalance between aviation security and surface transportation security
at TSA. The President's budget appears to provide an additional $50
million towards ``Surface Transportation Security Inspectors and
Canines,'' to, among other things, hire 169 new FTEs. However, this
funding is also supposed to cover the creation of new ``VIPR'' teams,
which include several non-surface components. Therefore, it appears
that only a fraction of that the requested resources may actually go
toward surface inspectors and canines. Please explain.
Similarly, in light of the delays in issuing regulations and grant
application processing time, and the relative shortage of expertise in
surface transportation modes generally, why were there no funding or
FTE increases requested for ``Surface Transportation Security
Operations and Staffing'?
Answer. The $50 million requested in the Transportation Security
Administration's (TSA) fiscal year 2010 President's budget will fund 15
additional Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams
dedicated solely to surface operations. Although these teams will
consist of any one or combination of TSA personnel, including
Transportation Security Officers, Behavior Detection Officers,
Explosives Security Specialists, Bomb Appraisal Officers,
Transportation Security Inspectors, and Federal Air Marshals, all of
their missions will be conducted in the surface domain. Experience has
shown multi-functional VIPR teams with a combination of specialties
provide flexible deterrent and analytic capabilities and response
options for the most effective security enhancement for surface
operations. These teams differ from TSA's current 10 VIPR teams in that
the fiscal year 2010 requested teams will be solely dedicated to the
surface mode while the existing 10 teams perform VIPR missions across
all modes of transportation. The additional teams do not include TSA
Canine assets at this time.
The Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) is administered by the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through a partnership between the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA). Within this partnership, and consistent
with the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71),
TSA provides transit system subject matter expertise and determines the
primary security architecture for the TSGP. TSA's subject matter
experts set program and funding priorities, craft selection criteria,
and review the security components of grant applications. TSA has
adequate staff for these functions. The TSA plan for the $50 million
VIPR enhancement will include additional Transportation Security
Inspectors--Surface, Behavior Detection Officers, and Bomb Appraisal
Officers that will be dedicated to conducting VIPR operations in the
Surface domain.
Question 12. The last time you appeared before this committee, you
were asked about whether you supported moving Transportation Security
Officers out of their current pay-for-performance system into the
standard General Schedule system and whether you were on board with
giving them collective bargaining rights. At the time, you said you
were conferring with your general counsel to see whether such action
could be done administratively. Can you share your current thinking on
this critical subject?
Answer. This determination is still under review by the Department
of Homeland Security.
Question 13. The Biometric at Sea Program has clearly been a
success. Since its inception, migrant flow from the Dominican Republic
has dropped 75 percent. The President's budget includes additional
funding for the program. Are you also looking to expand this program to
areas outside of where it is currently in use?
Answer. In the President's budget, the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) requested $1.2 million to establish a permanent
Biometrics-at-Sea system. This investment will enable the U.S. Coast
Guard to identify dangerous individuals by collecting fingerprints and
searching them against DHS's biometrics system IDENT, managed by US-
VISIT. Through these biometric matches, DHS is able to effectively
integrate cross-component operational and intelligence activities. In
accordance with the Department's comprehensive strategy to secure the
Nation's borders, US-VISIT will continue to support the U.S. Coast
Guard to help advance the broader objective of developing effective
mobile solutions for biometric collection and analysis. In addition,
the budget request includes the DHS Science and Technology (S&T)
Directorate's research and development of 10-print Mobile Biometrics
technology to enable capture of slap fingerprints in a compact handheld
device.
Question 14a. This committee has worked hard to ensure a strong
authorization for the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program,
which help communities undertake all-hazards preparedness and planning.
According to the National Emergency Management Association, there is
currently an annual shortfall of $487 million to this program.
What is the rationale behind continuing the program at last year's
level of funding?
Answer. The Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG)
is an important part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA) overall grant portfolio. There are several FEMA grant programs,
including the Homeland Security Grant Program, that provide funding for
personnel and planning for catastrophic events. As such, we believe
that continuing to fund EMPG at $315 million provide a baseline
capability across the Nation.
Question 14b. Additionally, please explain why the budget chooses
to utilize a risk-based formula to provide funds for the Emergency
Operations Center (EOC) Grant program?
Answer. The Department did not ask for the EOC grant in the fiscal
year 2010 budget and the EOC grants for this year did not employ a
risk-based formula.
Question 15. The President's budget request indicates that fewer
resources will be needed for implementation for the CFATS program.
Please describe the decrease in ``Infrastructure Security Compliance
Activity.'' Does the budget for CFATS presume that the program will
continue following its statutory sunset in October 2009?
Answer. The Department continues to increase the number of chemical
security inspectors. There are currently 51 chemical inspectors
onboard, with 35 additional selections in process. The projected total
of personnel on-board for the Infrastructure Security Compliance
Project by the end of fiscal year 2009 is 178 positions. In fiscal year
2010, the budget shifts programmatic base funding to personnel base
funding in order to further increase the number of Government Full-Time
Equivalents (FTEs) to 246. This realignment lowers the amount of
program funding in the ``Infrastructure Security Compliance Activity''
request, but raises the level of funding for salaries and expenses for
the CFATS program. The fiscal year 2010 FTE level will provide for 139
chemical facility inspectors and 20 additional cross-trained chemical/
ammonium nitrate inspectors. The Department continues to work on
accelerating and improving its hiring and security clearance processes
to bring qualified personnel onboard.
Included in the President's budget request was a request for a 1-
year extension for the CFATS program to allow the Department to
continue to work with Congress on a permanent reauthorization of the
program.
Question 16a. The committee is interested in how the Office of Risk
Management and Analysis (RMA) is being integrated into DHS programs.
Does the Department plan to introduce some sort of management directive
that provides RMA with the ability to compel other components to follow
its products and initiatives?
Answer. On January 18, 2007, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Secretary Michael Chertoff directed organizational changes as a result
of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act passed as part of
the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2007. On April
1, 2007, as part of these changes, Secretary Chertoff established the
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) and, within it, the
Office of Risk Management and Analysis (RMA). Secretary Chertoff
delegated to the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs
the authority to ``lead the Department's efforts to establish a common
framework to address the overall management and analysis of homeland
security risk [and] . . . develop systematic, rigorous risk analysis
methodologies and provide core analytic and computational capabilities
to be used by all Department Components to assess and quantify risk in
order to enhance overall protection, prevention, and mitigation of
homeland security risks.''\1\ RMA exercises this delegated authority on
behalf of the Under Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Delegation 17001, ``Delegation to the Under Secretary for
National Protection and Programs,'' April 10, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are currently evaluating the utility of a Department directive
on integrated risk management that clarifies the processes, roles, and
responsibilities for achieving integrated risk management in DHS.
Question 16b. If not, how will its organizational challenges be
overcome?
Answer. The Under Secretary for NPPD, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary, created a Department-wide Risk Steering
Committee (RSC) in April 2007 to serve as the Department's risk
management governance structure, leveraging risk management
capabilities across DHS. The RSC, which RMA administers, is a three-
tier construct. Tier I consists of all of the heads of DHS components;
Tier II comprises sub-directorate/component principals (e.g., assistant
secretaries in components with an Under Secretary; senior officials;
and deputy directors); and Tier III consists of senior policy and
analysis staff. Leveraging the RSC, RMA works collaboratively across
DHS to build an integrated risk management program that ensures that
risk information and analysis are provided to decision-makers in order
to inform a full range of decisions. These decisions include the
allocation of resources, provision of preparedness assistance,
prioritization of capability development, operational decisions,
regulatory actions undertaken, and research and development investment.
Question 16c. Does RMA actually conduct risk analysis, or is it
more of a clearinghouse to share best practices? Why hasn't RMA
developed a strategic plan?
Answer. RMA is responsible for developing and executing
quantitative all-hazards risk assessments. RMA, with its RSC partners,
is developing tools and processes to produce analysis to support
specific decision-making processes. Examples include:
The Risk Assessment Process for Informed Decision-making
(RAPID).--RAPID is a quantitative, all-hazards risk assessment
currently in development to serve as a risk management tool for
informing the Department's planning, programming, budgeting,
and execution process. This includes products to inform the
Integrated Planning Guidance, Program Review Board, and
Resource Allocation Decision. When fully developed, RAPID will
support strategic policy and budgetary decisions by assessing
risk, evaluating the risk-reduction effects of DHS programs,
and evaluating alternative resource allocation strategies. In
2009, RMA is working on two RAPID products. The first is a
detailed bioterrorism and chemical terrorism risk analysis to
inform the Department's Integrated Planning Guidance by: (1)
Providing an analysis of DHS chemical/biological security
programs; (2) evaluating the degree to which DHS chemical/
biological programs are contributing to risk reduction; (3)
identifying gaps; and (4) recommending strategies for better
allocation of resources to manage risk. The second is an all-
hazards assessment of risk beyond chemical and bioterrorism
that will evaluate the risks of Weapons of Mass Destruction and
conventional terrorism, natural hazards, and border/immigration
scenarios alongside one another; this is expected to be
complete in early 2010.
Homeland Security National Risk Assessment.--The Department
has initiated the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, which
will set prioritized goals and objectives for homeland
security. It will also set a course for maturing and unifying
DHS and the entire national homeland security enterprise; it
will define a process and methodology for consistently
assessing risk at a national level, and it will employ the
results of such an assessment to drive strategic prioritization
and resource decisions. There are numerous assessments, both
completed and ongoing, that help to define risk in the context
of various homeland security threats and challenges to improve
decision-making. Going forward, creating a process and
methodology to assess risks to the homeland and risk management
alternatives in an integrated manner across hazards will enable
us to use risk analysis more effectively to inform national
strategic guidance and subordinate strategies and plans.
Development and implementation of a process and methodology to
assess national risk is a fundamental and critical element of
an overall risk management process, with the ultimate goal of
improving the ability of decision makers to make rational
judgments about tradeoffs between courses of action to manage
homeland security risk.
Strategic Hazard Identification and Evaluation for
Leadership Decisions (SHIELD) program.--This initiative,
developed by RMA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
Office of National Capital Region Coordination, served as one
of the first regionally focused risk analyses developed for and
accepted by regional leadership. The risks and risk management
strategic investment themes identified through SHIELD supported
regional guidance on grant submissions, assisted in the
refinement of proposed investment themes, and will be
referenced in producing Urban Areas Security Initiative grant
applications by National Capital Region partners. RMA hopes to
leverage SHIELD to develop a model that can be used in other
regions of the country.
To provide strategic guidance, RMA has completed the interim DHS
Integrated Risk Management Framework, which provides a foundation for
institutionalizing integrated risk management in the Department by
outlining a vision, objectives, principles, and a process for
integrated risk management within DHS. It also identifies how the
Department will achieve integrated risk management by developing and
maturing policy, governance, processes, training, and accountability
methods. Members of the Department's Risk Steering Committee developed
the framework, and all DHS components, directorates, and offices
endorsed it.
Question 17. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member King, and other
Members of this committee recently introduced H.R. 2195, the ``Critical
Electric Infrastructure Protection Act.'' One of the provisions would
require you to work with other national security and intelligence
agencies to conduct research and determine if the security of
Federally-owned IT infrastructure has been compromised. This would seem
to be an absolute necessity in order to truly secure the .gov domain.
Do you agree that such an investigation is required and could the
Cybersecurity and Communications Division conduct such an
investigation?
Answer. The Office of Cybersecurity and Communication's (CS&C's)
National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) concurs with Chairman Thompson,
Ranking Member King, and other Members of the committee that cross-
coordination with other national security and intelligence agencies is
vital for conducting research and investigations of cyber events. We
currently work very closely with other national security and
intelligence agencies regarding potential compromises of the Federally-
owned IT infrastructure, and we believe that CS&C should play a key
role in improving our inter-agency cooperation even further.
Within the NCSD, the Control Systems Security Program (CSSP) has
established relationships with the private sector and other
organizations and agencies involved in protecting critical electric
infrastructure; it regularly coordinates on activities and issues
affecting the security of control systems. CSSP leads this coordination
and analysis through its Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency
Response Team (ICS-CERT) and Industrial Control Systems Joint Working
Group (ICSJWG).
ICS-CERT, in coordination with the United States Computer Emergency
Readiness Team (US-CERT) and the Intelligence Community, responds to
and analyzes control systems incidents through forensic investigations
focused on the characterization and analysis of malware and
vulnerabilities affecting the critical infrastructure (including
electric infrastructure). ICS-CERT shares and coordinates vulnerability
information and threat analysis with critical infrastructure owners/
operators, intelligence agencies, and other stakeholders through
actionable information products and alerts. In addition, CSSP is
devoted to developing real-time mitigation strategies through products
and tools to proactively protect Federally-owned information technology
infrastructure.
Critical infrastructure is predominantly owned by the private
sector, and DHS recognizes the need for a strong Government-industry
partnership to protect critical electric infrastructure against
cybersecurity threats. To accomplish this, CSSP has established the
ICSJWG to provide a vehicle for the relevant Federal and private-sector
stakeholders to communicate and partner across all critical
infrastructure and key resources (CIKR). The ICSJWG uses a structured
approach supported by the National Infrastructure Protection Plan
framework and the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council.
The ICSJWG facilitates coordination of the control systems stakeholder
community and reduces redundancies in activities aimed at securing
CIKR, including the critical electric infrastructure.
Question 18. I understand that DHS will begin to pilot two
different biometric collection methods at airports later this month for
the US-VISIT program, one involving TSA at the checkpoint and the other
using CBP officers at the gate. I am aware that the program has roughly
$30 million in carry-over monies to use for the pilots, but I am
concerned it may need additional funds.
If the pilots indicate that the CBP or TSA collection methods are
optimal, will you have the funding necessary to implement biometric
exit in fiscal year 2009 or fiscal year 2010?
Answer. Approximately $28 million remains available from prior-year
dollars to fund the current biometric air exit project.
Congress included a provision in the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (fiscal
year 2009 DHS Appropriations Act), which restricts the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) from obligating US-VISIT funds provided under
the Act for implementing a final air exit capability under the April
24, 2008 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking until additional tests have been
completed, with reports on the tests provided to the appropriations
committees and a review of the report by the Government Accountability
Office (GAO).
DHS is conducting two pilots--one by CBP at the boarding gate at
the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, and one by TSA at a
security checkpoint at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International
Airport--for a 35-day period which began on May 28, 2009. DHS will
evaluate the exit pilot programs, including the methods and processes
for collecting the required information, after the pilots are
completed.
If the evaluation and analysis of the comprehensive biometric air
exit pilots recommend selection of an option other than the
Department's proposal in the notice of proposed rulemaking--which was
for air carriers to collect passenger biometrics--US-VISIT will need to
develop revised cost estimates to determine if additional funds are
required above the carryover funding to support initial implementation
in fiscal year 2010.
Question 19a. Last year's DHS appropriations bill required the
Department to complete two biometric exit pilots at airports: (1) Where
the airlines collect and transmit biometric exit data, and (2) where
CBP collects such information at departure gates. It is my
understanding that the Department has yet to partner with any airline
but that it is still moving forward with the CBP pilot as well as an
additional pilot performed by TSA personnel.
What progress has DHS made in addressing the air carriers'
concerns?
Answer. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials reached out
to the airline industry on numerous occasions to discuss their concerns
and to identify potential partners for biometric air exit pilot
efforts. Despite ongoing DHS discussions with the Air Transport
Association and its member carriers, no airline volunteered to
participate in the biometric exit pilot required by the fiscal year
2009 DHS Appropriations Act. Carriers were given flexibility as to the
location within airports and seaports that could be used to collect
biometrics through the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Question 19b. If DHS is unable to complete the air carrier pilot,
what will be the Department's next steps?
Answer. DHS is currently conducting two pilots: (1) CBP collecting
biometrics at a boarding gate at the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County
Airport in Detroit, Michigan, (2) Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) collecting biometrics at a security checkpoint at
the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Both pilots began
on May 28, 2009, and will conclude on July 2.
US-VISIT has been working closely with these airports and with CBP
and TSA to ensure that the pilots run. Based upon analysis of the
results of the pilots and assessment of the comments to the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that was published in the Federal Register on April
24, 2008, DHS will publish a Final Rule on the implementation of new
biometric exit procedures for non-U.S. citizens departing the United
States via airports and seaports.
Question 20. The President's fiscal year 2010 budget request calls
for an 8.5% cut in the University Programs portfolio. The committee is
concerned with this because of our strong support of University
programs in general, and more specifically the great value that should
be placed in basic scientific research, which University Programs
usually conduct. What is the reason for the decrease?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for
University Programs is $4.3 million less than the fiscal year 2009
enacted level. Within this amount, $2 million supports a homeland
security project at the Naval Post Graduate School (NPS). The fiscal
year 2010 request moves this $2 million from University Programs to
Transition, which will continue the field testing objectives that are
the central focus of the NPS project. In addition, as the DHS Centers
of Excellence (COEs) have matured, S&T Divisions and DHS Components
have started to independently fund the COEs as a valuable homeland
security resource to meet S&T Division and DHS Components'
requirements. We anticipate that S&T base funding plus funding from DHS
Components will ensure the viability of the COEs.
Question 21a. One reason for the delay in next generation detection
equipment has been the requirement that the enhancements in detection
capabilities be certified by the DHS Secretary. When do you expect to
be able to certify the new detection equipment? Is the current thinking
that certification would be for use in primary inspection, secondary
inspection, or both?
Answer. Final decisions on the certification of Advanced
Spectroscopic Portal Program (ASP) systems for primary and secondary
inspections, as well as the relative order of these decisions, will be
made by the Secretary, and based on test data and other analyses
conducted by DNDO, CBP, and other partners. Final decisions on
certifications are expected in the fall time frame.
Question 21b. Is there a ``drop-dead'' date for Secretarial
Certification for ASP? That is to say, the date for certification has
been pushed back several times. Is there a point at which you must cut
your losses and re-evaluate the program?
Answer. The fundamental technology that ASP brings promises to
deliver a significant improvement over previous capabilities in the
detection and identification of radiological/nuclear threats. The
delays in certification of ASP have been related to issues of
operational ease and reliability--problems that have taken time to
resolve but are not expected to seriously threaten the viability or
potential contribution of ASPs. Given the soundness of the underlying
technology, and the progress we have made in addressing operational
issues to date, a termination strategy is not being considered at this
time. ASP remains the most immediate solution to the detection and
identification requirements called for at ports of entry.
Question 22. The committee is very concerned with Source Security
and DNDO's role in the trilateral effort to secure radioactive sources.
It is our understanding that OMB requested that source security funding
go through just the Department of Energy instead of through multiple
sources.
Please describe the current status of the trilateral effort, DNDO's
role, and the role of the other agencies involved.
Please describe the funding levels for these efforts at DNDO and at
your other two agency partners.
Answer. DNDO's source security work involves performing gap
analysis and promoting mitigation strategies for securing radiological
material at its source within the United States. In fiscal year 2009,
DNDO budget allocated $1 million for irradiator hardening; in fiscal
year 2010, this effort will be conducted by the Department of Energy
(DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Interagency
collaboration for source security activities will continue amongst DOE,
DHS, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), but DNDO will no
longer fund source security upgrades.
The NRC is the regulatory body of the United States Government for
licensing of all radioactive medical and industrial sources in the
United States. Part of its responsibilities under this authority as
codified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is
security of radioactive materials. In addition to all of the regulatory
controls on radioactive materials as stated in 10C, the NRC has
implemented many additional security requirements on the licensees of
radioactive source. NRC has also raised the security culture among the
licensees in the United States in partnership with the Agreement
States.
DOE has established a domestic source security program that, in
cooperation with the U.S. licensees and the NRC, is targeted at
implementing security measures above what is required by the NRC and
10CFR. DOE is providing funding to licensees to implement increased
security measures at licensee facilities in the United States.
Questions From Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas for Janet
Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Defense
Question 1. How much money is allocated in the budget for border
security measures in the southwest border?
Answer. For fiscal year 2010, DHS has requested a $96.1 million
increase for southwest border security measures. $26.1 million is
requested to provide CBP with an enhanced capability to combat
southbound firearms and currency smugglers through additional personnel
at and between the ports of entry along the southern border, as well as
continuing to expand and maintain the Licensed Plate Reader (LPR)
program. $70 million is requested to enable ICE to increase enforcement
staffing, improve cooperative efforts with the Mexican government, and
enhance intelligence capacity and information sharing along the border.
Question 2. Is there a way to identify the savings in the budget as
a result of 287(g) enforcement? What is the savings?
Answer. ICE does not have the data or a methodology to identify a
budget savings as a result of 287(g) enforcement. The 287(g) Delegation
of Authority Program serves as a force multiplier. Operating this
delegation program requires ICE funding. ICE's program costs include:
Information technology infrastructure (i.e. T1 lines, computer
equipment, etc.); responding to State and local law enforcement
agencies (LEAs); training; supervision of participating State or local
LEAs; legal support; LEA enrollment and oversight; and general program
management.
While ICE cannot quantify any direct cost savings to the
Department, the 287(g) partner agencies bear the personnel costs for
287(g) officers performing immigration enforcement work. To the extent
that the 287(g) officers are performing work that would otherwise be
done by ICE officers, there may be some indirect personnel costs
savings as a result of the 287(g) enforcement.
Question 3. Has DHS received any monies from the Stimulus Act? How
much money?
Answer. Yes. DHS received $2.755 billion in direct funding through
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Additionally, DHS programs
and activities are also being supported with an additional $750 million
through the General Services Administration. Provided below is a
breakdown of specific funding provisions:
Total Funds
DHS: $2.755 billion.
GSA: $750 million in support of DHS programs.
St. Elizabeths/Headquarters Consolidation
$650 million ($200 million to DHS; $450 million to GSA).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
$720 million for land ports of entry construction ($300
million GSA; $420 million CBP).
$100 million for Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) technology,
not limited to sea ports.
$100 million for border technology on the southwest border.
$60 million for tactical communications equipment and
radios.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
$20 million for ICE automation modernization and tactical
communications.
Transportation Security Administration
$1 billion for Explosives Detection Systems and checkpoint
screening equipment.
U.S. Coast Guard
$142 million for Alteration of Bridges program.
$98 million for construction, which may include the
following:
Shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities,
Vessel repair/acquisition (includes High Endurance Cutter,
National Security Cutter).
Federal Emergency Management Agency
$100 million for Emergency Food and Shelter Program.
$150 million for transit and rail security grants.
$150 million for port security grants.
$210 million for Assistance to Firefighter (AFG) grants.
DHS Office of Inspector General
$5 million to conduct bill-related oversight and audits.
Question 4. Is DHS appropriately staffed to meet current demands
with respect to homeland security and immigration?
Answer. The President's budget for the Department of Homeland
Security seeks the appropriate mix of staff, infrastructure, and
technology to accomplish its missions.
Question 5. Can you explain why the disaster relief for Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita have tapered off--this year's request is just $1.5
billion, down 65 percent from this year's appropriation?
Answer. Disaster relief obligations for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
have tapered off as we have provided on-going disaster recovery
assistance for over 3 years. However, FEMA's request for Disaster
Relief Funding (DRF) in the fiscal year 2010 budget request actually
increases from fiscal year 2009. Congress provided $1.4 billion in
fiscal year 2009 for the DRF. FEMA's fiscal year 2010 DRF request is
for $2 billion.
Question From Honorable Henry Cuellar of Texas for Janet Napolitano,
Secretary, Department of Defense
Question 1a. Madam Secretary, as stated at the hearing I have not
received an answer for a request I submitted to your office for an
estimate as to how many Customs and Border Protection folk they would
need on the POEs and the infrastructure. Therefore, please answer the
following questions:
What proper staffing do you need of CBP personnel at land POEs?
Answer. CBP's greatest staffing needs at land POEs are on the
southwest border and in support of expanding efforts to target the
highest risk travelers and cargo. For fiscal year 2010, CBP has
requested 65 CBP officers to conduct outbound inspections on the
southern border and 20 CBP officers to conduct expanded targeting
operations at the National Targeting Center (NTC). The focus on the
southern border is especially warranted at this time due to the surge
in violence along the U.S.-Mexican border. Sixty-five CBP officers will
conduct targeted ``pulse and surge'' outbound operations to seize the
southbound currency and firearms that supplement the drug cartels'
illegal activities and contribute to the border violence. The twenty
CBP officers requested for the NTC are necessary to conduct expanded
passenger and cargo targeting operations at the NTC without scaling
back current NTC anti-terrorism operations in support of the field. The
targeting efforts at the NTC support the ports of entry by assisting
the officers at the ports of entry in identifying the high and unknown
risk passengers and cargo.
Question 1b. What are your infrastructure needs at POEs, north and
southbound?
Answer. Beginning in 2003, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
undertook the first round of Strategic Resource Assessments (SRA),
thorough assessments of the infrastructural and operational conditions
of all 163 POEs. Based on these assessments, CBP identified the
infrastructure needs of each POE and prioritized the POE modernization
projects based on criticality of need. Through the SRAs, CBP has
identified an approximately $6.5 billion need over the next 10 years
for its in-bound POE infrastructure requirements. In addition to that,
CBP estimates a $48 million need for short-term outbound infrastructure
improvements and $2 billion need for long-term outbound infrastructure
improvements.
Question From Honorable Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona for Janet
Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Defense
Question. We in California have just started the wildfire season
and it can have devastating effects on our communities. At the hearing
I stated I was happy to see the funding for the SAFER grants increased.
With the new funding, are you looking to have a cap on this grant
increased?
If so, do you have any thoughts as to what would be an appropriate
level?
Answer. I am aware that Congress is considering changes to the
authorized funding-per-firefighter cap, as well as other requirements
of the governing statute. These changes provide the Secretary with the
ability to provide waivers of these requirements. Should these changes
be enacted and signed into law, we would seek input on the parameters
that would be implemented in the granting of exceptions to the
statutory requirements.
Questions From Honorable Mike Rogers of Alabama for Janet Napolitano,
Secretary, Department of Defense
Question 1a. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has the
important mission of keeping terrorists and weapons out of the United
States, while also facilitating trade and travel. The 2010 budget
requests 85 new CBP Officer positions, which does not appear to be a
sufficient increase based on trade facilitation and border security
needs in these times.
What is the Department's reason for requesting this number of new
positions?
Answer. The focus on the southern border is especially warranted at
this time due to the surge in violence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
Sixty-five CBP officers will conduct targeted ``pulse and surge''
outbound operations to seize the southbound currency and firearms that
are strengthening the drug cartels and contributing to the border
violence. Twenty CBP officers are crucial for the National Targeting
Center (NTC) to conduct expanded passenger and targeting operations,
while enabling the NTC to maintain its anti-terrorism operations in
support of the field.
Question 1b. What level of growth of the CBP Officer workforce do
you foresee in the next few years?
Answer. Based on its past experience, CBP anticipates its workforce
will continue to grow over the next few years based on a variety of
factors including new congressional mandates, additional training
requirements, special events, economic growth, and threat level.
Question 2. Explosives detection dogs play no small part in
securing our skies, and they can and should do the same for our surface
transportation systems.
Why do neither the fiscal year 2010 budget request nor the 5-year
outlook account for increased TSA canine teams for surface
transportation security, other than 15 new VIPR teams?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) current
staffing levels are sufficient to support compliance with currently
funded congressional mandates, namely the Iraq War Supplement of 2007
and the Budget Amendment of 2008. When the fiscal year 2010 budget
request was prepared, the TSA Canine Training Branch was operating at
full capacity and could not accommodate any additional teams for fiscal
year 2010. As DHS considers the transportation security planning
priorities, we are reviewing options to ensure the proper mitigation of
risks across the surface transportation domain.
Questions From Honorable Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania for Janet
Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Defense
Question 1. How much funding will the Office of Infrastructure
Protection be budgeted in fiscal year 2010 for enforcement of the
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards regulations? How much are
they currently funded for?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 budget request is for $103.4 million
to support both continued Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards
(CFATS) implementation and the development of the Ammonium Nitrate (AN)
regulatory program required under Section 563 of the fiscal year 2008
DHS Appropriations Act. This breaks down to $86.4 million for the CFATS
program and $17 million for the AN program. In fiscal year 2009, the
funding level was $78 million, with $73 million for CFATS and $5
million for AN. The increased funding request over the fiscal year 2009
enacted funding level supports the hiring, training, equipping, and
housing of additional inspectors to support the CFATS program,
continued deployment and maintenance of CFATS compliance tools for
covered facilities, and the completion and publication of AN
regulations, including development of the required registration and
verification processes and systems, and establishment of inspection and
audit procedures.
Question 2. In the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request, he
asks that current CFATS regulation authority be extended for 1 year.
Why? Does the President believe the current authorities to regulate
chemical facility security are sufficient?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 request extends the Chemical Facility
Anti-Terrorism Standards authority for an additional year in order to
work with the Congress on permanent authorization legislation, as the
current authority is set to expire on October 4, 2009. DHS will work
closely with Congress on considering any improvements to the existing
authority that may be appropriate.
Question 3. The Congress is considering requiring the Department to
review Inherently Safer Technology (IST) analyses completed by all
CFATS-regulated facilities. How many IST experts does the Department
currently have on staff and how many new IST experts are requested in
the fiscal year 2010 budget request?
If IST reviews were required of all CFATS-regulated facilities on
October 1, 2009, would this budget provide the Department sufficient
funding levels to review and approve all of the plans?
Answer. The increased funding request over the fiscal year 2009
enacted funding level supports the hiring, training, equipping, and
housing of additional inspectors to support site inspections for
compliance with the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS)
program, as well as other activities relating to CFATS compliance by
covered facilities. The Department has begun to review data collected
under the CFATS regulations to get a better sense of the scope of the
types of IST changes voluntarily being made by industry to adopt safer
technologies but does not, at this time, have an estimate on the level
of expertise and associated costs that may be required if IST were
incorporated into the regulatory program. As the current regulatory
structure does not require use of IST by facilities, the fiscal year
2010 budget does not include specific funding for IST purposes.
Question 4. How much funding does the Department plan on allocating
to the Transportation Security Lab? Of this, how much will be for
original research and development and how much will be utilized for
product testing and certification? Does the Department currently have
fee-collecting authority from vendors that submit their products for
certification?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 President's budget request for the
Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL) includes $8.35 million for
operations (rent, buildings maintenance, utilities, security,
environment, and safety), $4 million for Independent Test and
Evaluation (IT&E), $3.9 million for core research and development
(R&D)--totaling $16.25 million. The budget request also includes
approximately $10 million for salaries and expenses for the Federal
employees at TSL and $5 million to begin adding storage space,
including explosive storage bunkers, which will eliminate the need to
rent space off-site.
In addition, TSL manages research and development (R&D) funded by
S&T Divisions, primarily the Explosives Division, which develops the
technical capabilities to detect, interdict, and lessen the impacts of
non-nuclear explosives used in terrorist attacks against mass transit,
civil aviation, and critical infrastructure. TSL anticipates that it
will manage $15.4 million in fiscal year 2010.
The Department does not currently have authority to retain fees
collected from vendors who submit their products to TSL for testing
and/or certification. Any such fees collected would need to be
deposited with the Treasury Department as miscellaneous receipts or S&T
risks augmenting its appropriations in violation of the Miscellaneous
Receipts Act. The S&T Directorate is in the process of investigating
the costs and benefits of charging companies for certification of their
products at TSL. The results will help to determine whether charging
companies for certification of their products would enable TSL to
enhance its certification services and provide resources for the
capital improvement needs of the laboratory housing TSL's Independent
Test and Evaluation (IT&E) Program. S&T would, of course, need
statutory authority to retain any such fees collected rather than
otherwise depositing such fees as miscellaneous receipts at the
Treasury Department.
In July 2008, the S&T Directorate hired an expert team with
Department of Defense (DOD) financial experience to look at what
business practices and resources would be necessary for TSL to execute
a work-for-others program. Based on the information collected thus far,
S&T believes moving to a fee-for-service business model holds potential
for increasing the implementation of high-quality transportation
security technologies. Over the next 3 years, the S&T Directorate will
explore conducting a pilot to determine whether such a fee-for-service
business model would provide a source of funding for sustaining and
upgrading TSL's infrastructure. During fiscal year 2010, the S&T
Directorate will explore the best approach to implement a pilot at TSL,
and the S&T Directorate anticipates running the pilot from October 2010
to September 2013. As a first step, the S&T Directorate plans to
establish a baseline charging structure at TSL and build a customer
projection model. In addition to enabling some cost recovery, charging
fees for service would encourage customers to make sure products are at
an appropriate level of development prior to bringing them to TSL for
IT&E. This would help eliminate inefficiencies by cutting down on time
and resources spent on products that are not yet technologically mature
enough for IT&E.
Question 5. How much funding is allocated to the purchase of
additional whole-body imaging systems in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request? How does this compare with current funding levels?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 budget reflects approximately $12
million for the purchase of Whole-Body Imagers (WBIs). Approximately
$60 million, including $32 million appropriated in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, will be used to purchase WBIs in
fiscal year 2009.
Question 6. How much of the fiscal year 2010 budget request will be
used to conduct operations addressing pipeline security?
Answer. Within the Surface Transportation Security Operations and
Staffing fiscal year 2010 budget request, $2.4 million will be used to
conduct operations addressing pipeline security. Activities that will
be supported with the fiscal year 2010 funding include Pipeline
Corporate Security Reviews, the 9/11 Act Pipeline Critical Facility
Inspections, an annual international pipeline security forum, and the
development of pipeline security awareness training videos for targeted
audiences.
Questions From Honorable Paul C. Broun of Georgia for Janet Napolitano,
Secretary, Department of Defense
Question 1. In March, significant action was announced by the
administration regarding additional resources and personnel for the
southwest border to counter border violence. At the time, you said that
this would be funded through reprogramming from ``less urgent
activities.'' Can you give us a breakdown of what ``less urgent
activities'' were the source of funding for the southwest border?
Answer. On May 11, DHS submitted a reprogramming request for $21.45
million to address the growing concerns of violence along the southwest
border. The request includes reprogramming $2.8 million from Customs
and Border Protections (CBP) fiscal year 2008 Salaries and Expense
lapsed balances and $16.1 million of CBP's no-year funds generated from
the deobligation of prior year funds originally appropriated for legacy
Customs activities. Current CBP activities will not be impacted because
the source of CBP funding is largely associated with prior year
unobligated balances, created by management efficiencies. Sources of
funding to support the ICE southwest border activities include $2.55
million of ICE lapsed balances as well as delaying various non-
southwest border activities. This involves delaying retrofit of
vehicles, facilities projects, permanent change of duty station
requests and curtailing activities at ICE overseas locations. In
addition, this will result in delaying other deployments, suspending
other smaller-scale enforcement operations (such as delaying hiring of
non-essential personnel that are not directly related to SW border
enforcement efforts), and re-directing $750,000 from ProNet, a counter
proliferation information sharing program. All of these activities have
been determined to be a lower priority than the southwest border
initiative.
Question 2. I was pleased to see the $87 million increase in the
President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the National Cyber
Security Division at the Department of Homeland Security. Is this an
indication of a greater operational role for homeland security in
protecting our Government's cyber networks and data from an increasing
amount of attacks, and do the increases in funding for cybersecurity
reflect changes that will be made as a result of the President's
Cybersecurity Review? What large changes do you expect to the
Department's cybersecurity mission as a result of the President's
review?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the
National Cyber Security Division is $400.654 million, an increase of
$87.154 million from the $313.5 million enacted in fiscal year 2009.
The increased funding request supports current authorities, including
NCSD's roles and responsibilities for implementing the Comprehensive
National Cybersecurity Initiative.
The President's Cyberspace Policy Review: Assuring a Trusted and
Resilient Information and Communication Infrastructure, released May
29, 2009, assesses the current state of U.S. policies and structures
for cybersecurity. It is anticipated that U.S. cybersecurity decisions
will focus on five key areas, outlined in the review, which will build
on existing programs and activities. Within those key areas, the
President's Cyberspace Policy Review sets forth a series of near- and
mid-term actions. Many of these actions align with current NCSD
activities, such as supply chain risk management; cyber workforce
development; cybersecurity-related information sharing with Federal,
State, local, and private-sector partners; the promotion of
cybersecurity through national public awareness and education efforts;
and the continued coordination with the Science and Technology (S&T)
Directorate to develop technologies to address current and future
technology gaps. The fiscal year 2010 funding for NCSD will support
these and other NCSD cybersecurity activities as outlined in the budget
request.
Specifically, with regard to the 60-day review, DHS's current roles
and responsibilities are consistent with the review. The 60-day review
outlines a range of actions that NCSD will pursue in five key areas:
Developing a new comprehensive strategy to secure America's
information and communications infrastructure;
Ensuring an organized and unified response to future cyber
incidents;
Strengthening public-private and international partnerships;
Investing in cutting-edge research and development in
coordination with S&T; and,
Beginning a national campaign to promote cybersecurity
awareness and digital literacy as well as to build a digital
workforce for the 21st century.
Question 3. The President's fiscal year 2010 budget requests $19
million to enforce chemical security regulations. Can you give us an
update on the implementation of the chemical security regulations?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 budget request is $103.4 million to
support both continued Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards
(CFATS) implementation and the development of the Ammonium Nitrate (AN)
regulatory program required under Section 563 of the fiscal year 2008
DHS Appropriations Act. This represents a $19 million overall increase,
which breaks down to $86.4 million for the CFATS program and $17
million for the AN program. The fiscal year 2009 enacted funding level
was $78 million, which amounted to $73 million for CFATS and $5 million
for AN.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010 funding also included
adjustments-to-base for pay inflation and annualization of new
positions received in fiscal year 2009 of $6.4 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published the
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) interim final rule
and also Appendix A to CFATS, defining approximately 300 ``Chemicals of
Interest'' and associated threshold quantities. Pursuant to CFATS,
facilities possessing at least threshold amounts of Appendix A
chemicals were required to complete a Top-Screen assessment within 60
days of the release of Appendix A (i.e., by January 22, 2008) or, if
the facility acquires an Appendix A chemical subsequent to the release
of Appendix A, within 60 days of the facility's acquisition of that
chemical. Facilities preliminarily designated high-risk based on the
Top-Screen submission are required to complete a Security Vulnerability
Assessment (SVA) and, if that high-risk status is confirmed by the SVA,
are then required to develop a Site Security Plan (SSP) and implement
measures meeting CFATS-defined risk-based performance standards (RBPS).
To assist facilities in performing these obligations, the
Department developed an on-line suite of tools known as the Chemical
Security Assessment Tool (CSAT). CSAT includes, among other
applications, the Top-Screen, SVA, and SSP tools; an RBPS Guidance
Document that facilities may consider when developing their SSPs; and a
Help Desk to answer questions regarding CFATS. Additionally, upon
request, the Department performs technical consultations and technical
assistance visits for facilities having questions regarding the
compliance process. To date, more than 36,400 chemical facilities have
submitted Top-Screens, and more than 7,000 facilities were
preliminarily designated high-risk and required to submit an SVA. CFATS
currently covers approximately 6,400 facilities, including facilities
both preliminarily and finally designated as high-risk.
In May, following review of their SVAs, the Department began to
issue final determination letters to the highest-risk (Tier 1)
facilities, which confirm their high-risk status and begin their time
frame (120 days) for submitting an SSP. Following preliminary approval
of the SSPs, the Department expects to begin performing inspections in
the first quarter of fiscal year 2010, starting with the designated
Tier 1 facilities.
Question 4. The Department is the subject of a lawsuit and an
Inspector General investigation over its handling of the site selection
process for the National Bio- and Agrodefense Facility, or NBAF. The
NBAF is meant to replace the research facility on Plum Island, New
York. Why does the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request indicate
that the Department is already taking action to sell Plum Island when
these investigations into serious mishandling are just getting
underway?
Answer. Due to the aging infrastructure at the Plum Island Animal
Disease Center (PIADC) and the need to find a cure for FMD and other
foreign animal diseases, DHS does not want to delay construction of
this high containment laboratory, which will provide the country with
biosafety level 3 and 4 facilities for large animal research. As for
the merits of DHS's site selection process, the selection of the
Manhattan, Kansas site concluded a rigorous 3-year, multi-agency
planning process to identify the preferred site upon which to construct
and operate the NBAF. The process involved a qualitative analysis of
the strengths and weaknesses of each site alternative and included
information from the risk assessment, environmental assessment, and
security assessment on proposed NBAF operations. A Steering Committee,
comprised of Federal Employees from DHS and USDA, was convened to lead
the evaluation process and unanimously recommended the site in
Manhattan, Kansas as its preferred site alternative. DHS leadership
concurred with the Federal employee Steering Committee's
recommendation. As directed by Congress in the fiscal year 2009
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, the Department is
working with the General Services Administration (GSA) to sell Plum
Island and use the funds from the sale of Plum Island to fund the NBAF
construction project.
Question 5. The Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at DHS
objected to some of the language contained in the report, ``Rightwing
Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in
Radicalization and Recruitment'' and that this disagreement was not
resolved prior to its release. Could you elaborate on what specific
objections that office had to the report? Who in I&A authorized the
report's dissemination? How involved was the FBI in the report and why
did the FBI not agree to sign off on the final product?
Answer. This risk assessment was intended to provide situational
awareness of criminal and violent extremist groups. Work on this
assessment began last year and was drafted by analysts in the Office of
Intelligence and Analysis. As I previously mentioned, it was a poorly
written report and was released despite nonoccurrence by the Office of
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL). There was a breakdown in the
process, which the Department has since addressed. The assessment has
been removed from all DHS intelligence-related Web sites and is not
being distributed by the agency. The documents that were used to draft
the report have been provided to the Senate Homeland Security Committee
as well as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. These documents
include finished intelligence products from other intelligence
agencies, original research, and references to information obtained by
organizations that study violent domestic groups. I encourage you to
review those documents.
Regarding the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
FBI analysts coordinated on some analytic judgments with I&A analysts
who were drafting the risk assessment, however, it was not a joint
product and DHS is solely responsible for its content.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
