[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
AN EXAMINATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S
FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 15, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-67
__________
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.gpo.gov/fdsys/
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-513 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Peter T. King, New York, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Daniel E. Lungren, California Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Michael T. McCaul, Texas Henry Cuellar, Texas
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Laura Richardson, California
Candice S. Miller, Michigan Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Tim Walberg, Michigan Brian Higgins, New York
Chip Cravaack, Minnesota Jackie Speier, California
Joe Walsh, Illinois Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Ben Quayle, Arizona William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Scott Rigell, Virginia Kathleen C. Hochul, New York
Billy Long, Missouri Janice Hahn, California
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Robert L. Turner, New York
Michael J. Russell, Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Kerry Ann Watkins, Senior Policy Director
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security....................................................... 1
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 3
Witnesses
Hon. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
For the Record
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Letter......................................................... 19
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama:
Letter......................................................... 22
Appendix
Questions Submitted to Hon. Janet Napolitano..................... 59
AN EXAMINATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST FOR
THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:45 p.m., in Room
311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Peter T. King [Chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives King, Smith, Lungren, Rogers,
McCaul, Bilirakis, Miller, Walberg, Cravaack, Walsh, Meehan,
Rigell, Long, Duncan, Farenthold, Turner, Thompson, Sanchez,
Jackson Lee, Cuellar, Clarke of New York, Richardson, Davis,
Higgins, Richmond, Clarke of Michigan, Keating, Hochul, and
Hahn.
Chairman King. The Committee on Homeland Security will come
to order. The committee is meeting today to hear testimony from
Secretary Napolitano relating to the President's fiscal year
2013 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security. At
the outset, I want to thank the Secretary for her flexibility
in rescheduling this hearing. Before I go onto an opening
statement, I discussed this with the Secretary, I would like to
acknowledge that the President has just recently signed into
law Public Law 112-86. It is Congressman Cravaack's bill, which
calls on the TSA to set up expedited procedures for active duty
service personnel.
I would now, at the request of the White House, like to
present you with the bill and the President's pen. Madam
Secretary, I will now recognize myself for an opening
statement. I would just like to, at the outset, thank you for
the cooperation you have given to this committee over the last
3 years now. Life flies when you are having a good time.
Secretary Napolitano. It does indeed.
Chairman King. Seriously, I want to thank you for again
meeting with, I know, our side of the aisle, and I know Ranking
Member Thompson and his Members as well. I also want to thank
you for the level of cooperation you have given to me in my
capacity representing New York, and the extensive cooperation
you have had. I know you spoke to Commissioner Kelly earlier
this week and the mayor. So I want to thank you very much for
that. Today we are going to be examining the President's
request, which is roughly the same as it was last year, as a
practical matter. I think it is down from 39.7 to 39.5. The
fact is, in this time of budget austerity, I commend you for
fighting to get that amount because I believe almost all the
money in here, all the funding in here is required. These are
difficult times. But the threats are still there.
Obviously, we have now an emerging threat with Hezbollah,
which I will discuss with you later. We also have the threats
we have had over the years. Anyone who looks and gets the
briefings knows it is a very dangerous world we live in. So it
is essential that the Department have the funding it needs and
the Department do the job it has do, and also work with local
and State governments as they try to counter these threats that
are against us.
I also know that with budget moneys being cut back, it is
more of a burden on you, makes it more difficult to allocate
the money. Everyone wants some piece of it, I understand that.
It is your job to allocate it to the areas that are most
severely threatened. I know the extensive effort you put into
that. I, again, commend you on that.
I know that you have changed the funding, the grant system
this year. I will have questions for you on that as well as to
how that is going to be implemented regarding State
governments, city governments, et cetera. I know you are trying
to fine-tune it and make it more responsive after 9 years of
doing it one way, and now going to another way. But again I
want to make sure that as we do that that things don't fall
between the cracks. Also we have the cybersecurity legislation
which this committee should be marking up before the end of
March. Chairman Lungren has worked very extensively on that. I
know there is at least five or six other committees as well. It
is intended to try to move that this spring to get a combined
bill to go to the floor. Again, we will work with your
Department and the administration to ensure that we cover it as
well as we can. I know in your appearance before the Homeland
Security Appropriations Subcommittee this morning, you had an
exchange with Congresswoman Lowey on the Department's efforts
in working with the financial services industry on
cybersecurity.
As you know, the financial services industry is vital to
the economy of New York and the Nation. I have a few concerns
that we could be doing more in fostering a seamless
relationship between DHS and the private sector on the issue of
cybersecurity. You can answer that in your own statement or
during the questions. One area which I think many of us have
concerns about, and that is the significant decrease in funding
for the Coast Guard of approximately $600 million from the
fiscal year 2012 funding levels. I don't know of any agency of
the Federal Government which has had to respond more since
September 11 than the Coast Guard. I mean, their duties have
just increased geometrically. By all accounts, have done an
outstanding job. I am really concerned that that large a cut,
which would eliminate over a thousand personnel and
decommission numerous front-line operational units, and also
significant reductions in operational hours could have, again,
a very detrimental effect on our security.
So anyway, I look forward to hearing--I am not going to go
on with a long statement--I look forward to hearing your views
on basically your priorities as far as combating
radicalization, strengthening border security, and implementing
management reforms within the Department to avoid duplication
and find cost savings. Again, also discuss with you the really
almost imminent threat from Hezbollah, which some see as being
almost imminent, and what the Department will be doing on that.
With that, I yield to the distinguished Ranking Member, the
gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good
afternoon, Madam Secretary. It is good to have you back before
the committee. It has been a while. Welcome. I expect that you
will answer a wide range of questions today about the fiscal
year 2013 budget request. I certainly have quite a few
questions myself. But before we turn to the fiscal year 2013
request, I think it is important that we take a moment to
acknowledge your starting point, the fiscal year 2012
appropriations law. That measure, which many of us opposed,
short-changed Homeland Security in a number of troubling ways.
It was predicated on the belief that we can demand that DHS
carry out a wide range of homeland security and nonsecurity
commissions without providing the resources. From my
perspective, it was tantamount to Congress running up a long
tab, ordering more robust Homeland Security efforts,
particularly with respect to border security, aviation
security, and immigration enforcement, and then stiffing you
when the bill arrived.
With this backdrop and the prospect of an even less
favorable budget environment for fiscal year 2013, I can
understand your desire to submit a proposal that comes in $1.3
billion less than last year's budget. The fact that you were
able to do so and for the first time, fund the disaster relief
fund at $6 billion is really remarkable. I do not imagine that
doing so was an easy task. I also expect that getting all the
components on the same page without cutting on expenses and
leveraging resources was not easy either. It seems unlikely,
however, that efficiency savings account for the full $1.6
billion reduction.
We need to know which programs will be losing capacity or
even capabilities under your request. If you are not going to
have the resources under this budget to fully implement certain
programs within the mandated period, you need to tell us. We
are your authorizing committee. We have a stake in seeing
programs like CFATS, TWIC, US-VISIT, and the Coast Guard fleet
modernization implemented. We need to know if time lines will
have to be adjusted or more resources will be necessary from
the appropriations process. I am concerned that the budget does
not seek enough for Coast Guard fleet modernization acquisition
to keep pace with the decommissioning. I am concerned that the
budget seeks to consolidate 16 State and local grant programs
into one small pot. I have trouble understanding how $1.5
billion will stretch to sustain and develop new core
capabilities. I am concerned that while new resources are
appropriately being provided to end PPD for cybersecurity, the
other side of the House, the infrastructure protection side
seems to be short-changed.
Given the problems at CFATS have only begun to be
understood, it is troubling to see that the budget is asking
for less money in fiscal year 2013. Before I close, I have to
acknowledge that the budget proposes a number of organizational
changes. While the rationale behind some of these changes is
not as of yet clear, I must commend you for taking the
committed advice and finally transferring the US-VISIT program
out of NPPD. It floundered there. At CBP and ICE, I believe
that this border program may actually be positioned to achieve
its mission and finally allow us to identify and prevent
overstays.
Again, Madam Secretary, thank you for appearing today. I
look forward to discussing the budget proposal and working with
you to ensure that we keep our Nation secure during the
difficult economic times. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Chairman King. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
Other Members of the committee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record. I would also remind
our witness that your entire written statement will appear in
the record. Now would ask you to summarize your statement at
this time, and now recognize the Secretary of Homeland
Security, Secretary Napolitano.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Representative Thompson, Members of the committee, for the
opportunity to discuss President Obama's fiscal year 2013
budget for the Department of Homeland Security. Ten years after
the September 11 attacks, America is stronger and more secure
today, thanks to the strong support of the President and of the
Congress, thanks to the work of the men and women of the
Department of Homeland Security, and to local, State, and
Federal partners across the Homeland Security enterprise. While
we have made significant progress, threats from terrorism,
including, but not limited to al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-related
groups, persist and continually evolve, and the demands on DHS
continue to grow. Today's threats are not limited to any one
individual, group, or ideology, and are not defined nor
contained by international borders. Terrorist tactics can be as
simple as a homemade bomb and as sophisticated as a biological
threat or a coordinated cyber attack.
We have had success in thwarting numerous terrorist plots,
including the attempted bombings of the New York City subway
and Times Square, foiled attacks against air cargo, and other
attempts across the country. Nonetheless, continued threats
from abroad and at home demonstrate how we must constantly
remain vigilant and prepared. The President's fiscal year 2013
budget for DHS allows us to continue to meet these evolving
threats and challenges by preserving core front-line
operational priorities through the redirection of over $850
million in base resources from administrative and mission
support areas. This continues our unprecedented commitment to
fiscal discipline, which has led us to over $3 billion in cost
avoidances and reductions over the past 3 years through our
efficiency review and other initiatives.
Given the fiscal challenges to the Department's State and
local partners, DHS is also approaching these partnerships in
new and innovative ways. For 9 years, DHS has been supporting
State and local efforts across the Homeland Security enterprise
to build capabilities, awarding more than $35 billion in
funding over that period. As we look ahead in order to address
evolving threats and make the most of limited resources, the
administration has proposed a new vision for Homeland Security
grants through the National Preparedness Grant Program to
create a robust National preparedness capacity based on cross-
jurisdictional and readily deployable State and local assets.
Using a competitive risk-based model, this grants program
will use a comprehensive process to assess gaps, identify and
prioritize deployable capabilities, put funding to work
quickly, and require grantees to regularly report their
progress. My written testimony includes a comprehensive list of
the operational priorities in our budget. Today, I would like
to highlight a few more of them: One, preventing terrorism and
enhancing security. This was the founding mission of DHS, and
remains our top priority today. The fiscal year 2013 budget
safeguards the Nation's transportation systems through a
layered detection system focused on risk-based screening,
enhanced targeting, and information-sharing efforts to
interdict threats and dangerous people at the earliest possible
point.
The budget supports the administration's global supply
chain security strategy across air, land, and sea modes of
transportation by strengthening efforts to prescreen and
evaluate high-risk containers before they are shipped to the
United States. We also continue our strong support for State
and local partners through training, fusion centers, and
intelligence analysis and information sharing on a wide range
of critical Homeland Security missions.
Second, to secure and manage our borders, this budget
continues the administration's unprecedented focus on border
security, travel, and trade, by supporting our Border Patrol
agents and CBP officers on the front lines, as well as the
continued deployment of proven, effective surveillance
technology along the highest-trafficked areas of the Southwest
Border, and continued security improvements along the Northern
Border. To secure the Nation's maritime borders, the budget
invests in recapitalization of Coast Guard assets, including
the sixth National security cutter, fast response cutters, as
well as the renovation and restoration of shore facilities.
Third, the budget request also continues the Department's
focus on smart and effective enforcement of our country's
immigration laws. In fiscal year 2013, we will complete Nation-
wide implementation of Secure Communities. Through this
initiative and our continued collaboration with the Department
of Justice, we are expected to continue to increase the number
of criminal aliens and other priority individuals who are
identified and removed. This budget provides the resources
needed to address this changing population, while continuing to
support alternatives to detention, detention reform, and
immigrant integration efforts.
The budget also focuses on monitoring and compliance,
promoting adherence to worksite-related laws through criminal
prosecutions of egregious employers and expansion of E-Verify.
Next, to safeguard and secure cyberspace, this budget makes
significant investments to strengthen cybersecurity, including
funds to expedite the deployment of Einstein 3 to prevent and
detect intrusions on Government computer systems, increase
Federal network security across the Federal Government, and
continue to develop a robust cybersecurity workforce to protect
and respond to National cybersecurity threats.
In 2011, the Department responded to a record number of
disasters. So to ensure continued resilience to disasters, our
next major mission, the President's budget focuses on a whole-
of-community approach to emergency management. It includes
resources for the disaster relief fund, which provides a
significant portion of the Federal response to victims in
Presidentially-declared disasters or emergencies, and is funded
largely through authority under the Budget Control Act. This
budget also continues to provide essential support to National
and economic security by supporting the Coast Guard's
operations in the polar regions, and by continuing to support
ICE and CBP's efforts to protect U.S. intellectual property
rights and collection of customs revenue.
The fiscal year 2013 budget proposal reflects this
administration's strong commitment to protecting the homeland
and the American people through the effective and efficient use
of DHS resources.
As outlined in my testimony today, we will continue to
preserve front-line priorities across the Department by cutting
costs, sharing resources across components, and streamlining
operations wherever possible. Chairman King, Ranking Member
Thompson, Members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to be here today, and I am happy to answer your
questions.
[The statement of Secretary Napolitano follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Janet Napolitano
February 15, 2012
Chairman King, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
committee: Let me begin by saying thank you to this subcommittee for
the strong support you have provided me and the Department over the
past 3 years. I look forward to continuing to work with you in the
coming year to protect the homeland and the American people.
I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee today to present
President Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
Ten years after the September 11 attacks, America is stronger and
more secure today, thanks to the strong support of the President and
Congress; the work of the men and women of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and local, State, and Federal partners across the
homeland security enterprise.
While we have made significant progress, threats from terrorism--
including, but not limited to al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-related groups--
persist and continually evolve, and the demands on DHS continue to
grow. Today's threats are not limited to any one individual, group, or
ideology and are not defined nor contained by international borders.
Terrorist tactics can be as simple as a homemade bomb and as
sophisticated as a biological threat or a coordinated cyber attack. We
have had success in thwarting numerous terrorist plots including the
attempted bombings of the New York City subway and Times Square, foiled
attacks against air cargo, and other attempts across the country.
Nonetheless, the recent threat surrounding the 10th anniversary of the
September 11 attacks and the continued threat of home-grown terrorism
demonstrate how we must constantly remain vigilant and prepared.
To continue to address these evolving threats, DHS employs risk-
based, intelligence-driven operations to prevent terrorist attacks.
Through a multi-layered detection system focusing on enhanced targeting
and information sharing, DHS works to interdict threats and dangerous
people at the earliest point possible. DHS also works closely with its
Federal, State, and local law enforcement partners on a wide range of
critical homeland security issues in order to provide those on the
front lines with the tools they need to address threats in their
communities.
Strengthening homeland security also includes a significant
international dimension. To most effectively carry out DHS's core
missions--including preventing terrorism, securing our borders, and
protecting cyberspace--we must partner with countries around the world.
This work ranges from strengthening cargo, aviation, and supply chain
security to joint investigations, information sharing, and science and
technology cooperation. Through international collaboration, we not
only enhance our ability to prevent terrorism and transnational crime,
we also leverage the resources of our international partners to more
efficiently and cost-effectively secure global trade and travel. Today,
DHS works in more than 75 different countries--the third-largest
foreign footprint of any civilian U.S. Government agency--in order to
address and respond to evolving threats before they reach our shores.
Domestically, over the past several years, DHS has deployed
unprecedented levels of personnel, technology, and resources to the
Southwest Border. At the same time, the Department has made critical
security improvements along the Northern Border while strengthening
efforts to increase the security of the Nation's maritime borders. DHS
is also focused on smart and effective enforcement of U.S. immigration
laws while streamlining and facilitating the legal immigration process.
To strengthen the Nation's cybersecurity posture, DHS leads the
Federal Government's efforts to secure civilian government computer
systems and works with industry and State, local, Tribal, and
territorial governments to secure critical infrastructure and
information systems.
Additionally, DHS continues to coordinate disaster response efforts
Nation-wide. In 2011, the Department responded to a record number of
disasters, including Hurricane Irene, which impacted 14 States;
wildfires in the Southwest; severe flooding in the Mississippi and
Missouri river systems; and devastating tornadoes that hit the Midwest
and the South. The Department's response to these and other disasters
shows how far it has come in just a few years. Rather than wait until a
request for disaster assistance has been received and approved, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and agencies across the
Federal Government work actively with communities to prepare before
disasters occur and to maintain a constant readiness posture.
maximizing efficiency and effectiveness
The fiscal year 2013 budget for DHS is $58.6 billion in total
budget authority, $48.7 billion in gross discretionary funding, and
$39.5 billion in net discretionary funding. Net discretionary budget
authority is 0.5 percent below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. An
additional $5.5 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is provided
under the disaster relief cap adjustment, pursuant to the Budget
Control Act of 2011 (BCA).
The Department has implemented a variety of initiatives to cut
costs, share resources across Components, and consolidate and
streamline operations wherever possible. To preserve core front-line
priorities in fiscal year 2013, we have redirected over $850 million in
base resources from administrative and mission support areas, including
contracts, personnel (through attrition), information technology,
travel, personnel moves, overtime, directed purchasing, professional
services, and vehicle management. Through the Department-wide
Efficiency Review (ER), which began in 2009, as well as other cost-
saving initiatives, DHS has identified over $3 billion in cost
avoidances and reductions, and redeployed those funds to mission-
critical initiatives across the Department.
At the same time, the Department challenged its workforce to
fundamentally rethink how it does business--from the largest to
smallest investments. In 2011, DHS conducted its first-ever formal base
budget review for fiscal year 2013, looking at all aspects of the
Department's budget to find savings within our current resources and to
better align those with operational needs. Through its annual ``Think
Efficiency Campaign,'' DHS solicited employee input on creative cost-
saving measures and will implement six new employee-generated
initiatives in early 2012.
Given the fiscal challenges to the Department's State and local
partners, DHS is also approaching these partnerships in new and
innovative ways. The administration has proposed a new homeland
security grants program in fiscal year 2013 designed to develop,
sustain, and leverage core capabilities across the country in support
of National preparedness, prevention, and response. The fiscal year
2013 National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) will help create a
robust National preparedness capacity based on cross-jurisdictional and
readily deployable State and local assets. Using a competitive, risk-
based model, the NPGP will use a comprehensive process for identifying
and prioritizing deployable capabilities, limit periods of performance
to put funding to work quickly, and require grantees to regularly
report progress in the acquisition and development of these
capabilities.
In fiscal year 2011, DHS achieved a milestone that is a pivotal
step towards increasing transparency and accountability for the
Department's resources. For the first time since fiscal year 2003, DHS
earned a qualified audit opinion on its Balance Sheet--highlighting the
significant progress we have made in improving our financial management
in the 8 years since DHS was founded. Through these and other efforts
across the Department, we will continue to ensure taxpayer dollars are
managed with integrity, diligence, and accuracy and that the systems
and processes used for all aspects of financial management demonstrate
the highest level of accountability and transparency.
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget supports these significant
efforts to increase transparency, accountability, and efficiency.
Following are some key initiatives and proposals included in the budget
that continue to streamline Departmental operations:
US-VISIT.--In order to better align the functions of US-
VISIT with the operational Components, the budget proposes the
transfer of US-VISIT functions from the National Protection and
Programs Directorate (NPPD) to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE). Currently, CBP operates numerous screening and targeting
systems, and integrating US-VISIT within CBP will strengthen
the Department's overall vetting capability while also
realizing efficiencies.
Strategic Sourcing.--Through the ER and Component
initiatives, DHS has used strategic sourcing initiatives to
leverage the purchasing power of the entire Department for
items such as software licenses, wireless communication
devices, furniture, and office supplies. In fiscal year 2013,
DHS expects to save more than $264 million through the use of
these contracts.
Acquisition Management and Reform.--A major management
priority in fiscal year 2013 is the continued improvement of
the DHS acquisition process. The Under Secretary for Management
is leading an effort to improve the overall acquisition process
by reforming the early requirements development process and
enhancing our ability to manage the implementation and
execution of acquisition programs.
Strengthening the Efficiency of IT Programs.--The Department
is committed to improving performance of IT programs,
implementing a ``Cloud First'' policy, reducing the number of
Federal data centers, and consolidating IT infrastructure. On
the basis of these initiatives, the overall fiscal year 2013
budget (including all DHS Components) for IT infrastructure is
reduced by 10 percent below fiscal year 2012 enacted levels.
Common Vetting.--In order to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of its screening efforts and leverage
capabilities across the Department, the budget includes funding
to continue to enhance the Department's biographic and
biometric screening capabilities. As part of this effort, DHS
has initiated implementation of an enhanced biographic exit
program, which will better aggregate the information within
existing data systems, enhance review of potential overstays,
increase automated matching, incorporate biometric elements,
and provide the foundation for a future biometric exit
solution.
Common Airframes.--DHS is also examining how to leverage
joint requirements for aviation assets between CBP and the U.S.
Coast Guard. A senior leadership working group has performed a
baseline analysis of the various roles and missions of DHS's
aviation assets and is working to increase the effectiveness of
Departmental aviation assets through continued coordination and
collaboration. Complementing this effort, DHS recently began an
ER initiative which will increase cross-component collaboration
for aviation-related equipment and maintenance by establishing
excess equipment sharing, maintenance services, and contract
teaming agreements, as well as other opportunities for
aviation-related efficiencies.
Information Sharing and Safeguarding.--DHS is embarking on a
Department-wide effort to increase efficiencies and reduce
redundancies through the implementation of key information-
sharing and safeguarding capabilities such as Identity,
Credentialing, and Access Management. Significant future cost
savings will be realized with the continued consolidation of
Sensitive But Unclassified portals, streamlining of classified
networks and the alignment of Common Operating Picture
investments. Working through a Department-wide information-
sharing governance structure, DHS is addressing requirements
resulting from post-Wikileaks reforms, and ensuring that
information on both classified and unclassified networks is
properly protected to preserve privacy and civil liberties.
Aviation Passenger Security Fee.--The fiscal year 2013
budget includes the administration's proposal to restructure
the Aviation Passenger Security Fee (Security Fee) to achieve
total collections of $2.239 billion. The proposal would
generate an additional $317 million in new collections in 2013,
of which $117 million would be used to further offset the cost
of Federal aviation security operations and $200 million would
contribute to Federal deficit reduction. Following the Security
Fee restructuring, passengers would pay a fee of $5.00 per one-
way trip beginning in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013,
rather than a separate fee for each enplanement under the
current construct. The restructuring would provide TSA with the
flexibility to meet increasing aviation security costs and
better aligns the costs associated with passenger security to
the direct beneficiaries. The Security Fee has not changed or
been adjusted for inflation since the TSA was established in
2002, even while the overall cost of aviation security has
grown by more than 400 percent. The administration's proposal
makes progress towards fulfilling the intent of the Aviation
and Transportation Security Act to cover the costs of aviation
security through fees and not by the general taxpayers.
budget priorities
The fiscal year 2013 President's budget prioritizes the mission
areas outlined in the Department's 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security
Review and the 2010 Bottom-Up Review, the first complete effort
undertaken by the Department to align its resources with a
comprehensive strategy to meet the Nation's homeland security needs.
The budget builds on the progress the Department has made in each
of its mission areas while also providing essential support to National
and economic security.
Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security.--Protecting
the United States from terrorism is the cornerstone of homeland
security. DHS's counterterrorism responsibilities focus on three goals:
Preventing terrorist attacks; preventing the unauthorized acquisition,
importation, movement, or use of chemical, biological, radiological,
and nuclear materials and capabilities within the United States; and
reducing the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and key
resources, essential leadership, and major events to terrorist attacks
and other hazards.
Mission 2: Securing and Managing Our Borders.--DHS secures the
Nation's air, land, and sea borders to prevent illegal activity while
facilitating lawful travel and trade. The Department's border security
and management efforts focus on three interrelated goals: Effectively
securing U.S. air, land, and sea borders; safeguarding and streamlining
lawful trade and travel; and disrupting and dismantling transnational
criminal and terrorist organizations.
Mission 3: Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws.--DHS
is focused on smart and effective enforcement of U.S. immigration laws
while streamlining and facilitating the legal immigration process. The
Department has fundamentally reformed immigration enforcement, focusing
on identifying and removing criminal aliens who pose a threat to public
safety and targeting employers who knowingly and repeatedly break the
law.
Mission 4: Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace.--DHS is the
Federal Government lead agency for securing civilian government
computer systems and works with industry and State, local, Tribal, and
territorial governments to secure critical infrastructure and
information systems. DHS analyzes and mitigates cyber threats and
vulnerabilities; distributes threat warnings; and coordinates the
response to cyber incidents to ensure that our computers, networks, and
cyber systems remain safe.
Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters.--DHS provides the
coordinated, comprehensive Federal response in the event of a terrorist
attack, natural disaster, or other large-scale emergency while working
with Federal, State, local, and private-sector partners to ensure a
swift and effective recovery effort. The Department's efforts to build
a ready and resilient Nation include fostering a community-oriented
approach, bolstering information sharing, improving the capability to
plan, and providing grants and training to our homeland security and
law enforcement partners.
In addition to these missions, DHS leads and supports many
activities that provide essential support to National and economic
security, including, but not limited to, maximizing collection of
customs revenue, maintaining the safety of the marine transportation
system, preventing the exploitation of children, providing law
enforcement training, and coordinating the Federal Government's
response to global intellectual property theft. DHS contributes in many
ways to these elements of broader U.S. National and economic security
while fulfilling its homeland security missions.
The following are highlights of the fiscal year 2013 budget:
Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security
Guarding against terrorism was the founding mission of DHS and
remains our top priority. The fiscal year 2013 budget safeguards the
Nation's transportation systems through a layered detection system
focusing on risk-based screening, enhanced targeting, and information-
sharing efforts to interdict threats and dangerous people at the
earliest point possible. The budget supports the administration's
Global Supply Chain Security Strategy across air, land, and sea modes
of transportation by strengthening efforts to prescreen and evaluate
high-risk containers before they are shipped to the United States and
annualizing positions that provide the capacity to address security
vulnerabilities overseas. Funding is included for Securing the Cities
to protect our highest-risk cities from radiological or nuclear attack
and continues efforts to support National bio preparedness and response
efforts. The budget also continues strong support for State and local
partners through a new consolidated grant program, training, fusion
centers, and intelligence analysis and information sharing on a wide
range of critical homeland security issues.
Strengthening Risk-Based Aviation Security.--The fiscal year
2013 budget supports DHS's effort to employ risk-based,
intelligence-driven operations to prevent terrorist attacks and
to reduce the vulnerability of the Nation's aviation system to
terrorism. These security measures create a multi-layered
system to strengthen aviation security from the time a
passenger purchases a ticket to arrival at his or her
destination. The fiscal year 2013 budget:
Supports trusted traveler programs, such as TSA Pre-Check
and the CBP Global Entry program, which are pre-screening
initiatives for travelers who volunteer information about
themselves prior to flying in order to potentially expedite
screening at domestic checkpoints and through customs.
Continues support for passenger screening canine teams
included in the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget, an
important layer of security to complement passenger
checkpoint screening at airports, assist in air cargo
screening, and enhance security in the mass transit
environment.
Funds the continued operation of technology to screen
passengers and baggage through 1,250 Advanced Imaging
Technology units, which safely screen passengers for
metallic and non-metallic threats, and 155 new state-of-
the-art Explosives Detection Systems to efficiently screen
baggage for explosives which will reduce the number of re-
scans and physical bag searches.
Expands Secure Flight to cover the Large Aircraft and
Private Charter Standard Security Program, screening an
estimated 11 million additional passengers annually.
Through Secure Flight, TSA pre-screens 100 percent of all
travelers flying within or to the United States against
terrorist watch lists before passengers receive their
boarding passes.
Enhancing International Collaboration.--In our increasingly
globalized world, DHS continues to work beyond its borders to
protect both National and economic security. The fiscal year
2013 budget supports DHS's strategic partnerships with
international allies and enhanced targeting and information-
sharing efforts to interdict threats and dangerous people and
cargo at the earliest point possible.
Through the Immigration Advisory Program and enhanced in-
bound targeting operations, CBP identifies high-risk
travelers who are likely to be inadmissible into the United
States and makes recommendations to commercial carriers to
deny boarding. The fiscal year 2013 budget also supports
initiatives to interdict and apprehend criminals and
persons of National security interest, and disrupt those
who attempt to enter the United States with fraudulent
documents.
Through the Visa Security Program and with Department of
State concurrence, ICE deploys trained special agents
overseas to high-risk visa activity posts to identify
potential terrorist and criminal threats before they reach
the United States. The fiscal year 2013 budget supports
efforts to leverage IT solutions and the capabilities of
our law enforcement and intelligence community partners to
increase ICE's efficiency in screening visa applications in
order to identify patterns and potential National security
threats.
Through pre-clearance agreements, CBP screens passengers
internationally prior to takeoff through the same process a
traveler would undergo upon arrival at a U.S. port of
entry, allowing DHS to extend our borders outwards while
facilitating a more efficient passenger experience. The
fiscal year 2013 budget continues to support CBP's pre-
clearance inspection efforts, which are designed to
determine compliance with admissibility of agriculture,
customs, and immigration requirements to the United States.
Supporting Surface Transportation Security.--The transit
sector, because of its open access architecture, has a
fundamentally different operational environment than aviation.
Accordingly, DHS helps secure surface transportation
infrastructure through risk-based security assessments,
critical infrastructure hardening, and close partnerships with
State and local law enforcement partners. The fiscal year 2013
budget supports DHS's efforts to bolster these efforts.
The new fiscal year 2013 National Preparedness Grants
Program, described in more detail below, is focused on
building National capabilities focused on preventing and
responding to threats across the country, including the
surface transportation sector, through Urban Search &
Rescue teams, canine explosive detection teams and HAZMAT
response as well as target hardening of critical transit
infrastructure.
Conduct compliance inspections throughout the freight rail
and mass transit domains; critical facility security
reviews for pipeline facilities; comprehensive mass transit
assessments that focus on high-risk transit agencies; and
corporate security reviews conducted in multiple modes of
transportation on a continuous basis to elevate standards
and identify security gaps.
Fund 37 Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR)
teams, including 12 multi-modal teams. VIPR teams are
composed of personnel with expertise in inspection,
behavior detection, security screening, and law enforcement
for random, unpredictable deployments throughout the
transportation sector to prevent potential terrorist and
criminal acts.
Strengthening Global Supply Chain Security.--The fiscal year
2013 budget supports the administration's Global Supply Chain
Security Strategy announced in early 2012, which presents a
unified vision across air, land, and sea modes of
transportation.
Supports increased targeting capabilities by updating
rules in real time and providing CBP with 24/7 targeting
capability.
Strengthens the Container Security Initiative, enabling
CBP to pre-screen and evaluate high-risk containers before
they are shipped to the United States.
Continues support for positions to improve the
coordination of cargo security efforts, accelerate security
efforts in response to the vulnerabilities, ensure
compliance with screening requirements, and strengthen
aviation security operations overseas.
Support to State and Local\1\ Law Enforcement (SLLE).--The
fiscal year 2013 budget continues support for State and local
law enforcement efforts to understand, recognize, prevent, and
respond to pre-operational activity and other crimes that are
precursors or indicators of terrorist activity through
training, technical assistance, exercise support, security
clearances, connectivity to Federal systems, technology, and
grant funding. Specifically, the budget focuses on:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Local'' law enforcement includes all law enforcement at the
municipal, Tribal, and territorial levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maturation and enhancement of State and major urban area
fusion centers, including training for intelligence
analysts and implementation of Fusion Liaison Officer
Programs;
Implementation of the Nation-wide Suspicious Activity
Reporting (SAR) Initiative, including training for front-
line personnel on identifying and reporting suspicious
activities;
Continued implementation of the ``If You See Something,
Say SomethingTM'' campaign to raise public
awareness of indicators of terrorism and violent crime; and
State, local, Tribal, and territorial efforts to counter
violent extremism, in accordance with the Strategic
Implementation Plan to the National Strategy on Empowering
Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United
States.
The budget also supports efforts to share intelligence and
information on a wide range of critical homeland security issues. The
budget continues to build State and local analytic capabilities through
the National Network of Fusion Centers, with a focus on strengthening
cross-Department and cross-Government interaction with fusion centers.
Through the Fusion Center Performance Program, DHS will assess
capability development and performance improvements of the National
Network of Fusion Centers through annual assessment and targeted
exercises. Resources also enable the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis, in partnership with the Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties and the Privacy Office to provide privacy, civil rights, and
civil liberties training for fusion centers and their respective
liaison officer programs. The Secretary's focus on SLLE includes
elevating the Office of State and Local Law Enforcement to a stand-
alone office and a direct report.
Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Threat Detection.--
Countering biological, nuclear, and radiological threats
requires a coordinated, whole-of-Government approach. DHS,
through its Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and Office of
Health Affairs, works in partnership with agencies across
Federal, State, and local governments to prevent and deter
attacks using nuclear and radiological weapons through nuclear
detection and forensics programs and provides medical and
scientific expertise to support bio preparedness and response
efforts. The fiscal year 2013 budget supports the following
efforts:
Securing the Cities.--$22 million is requested for
Securing the Cities to continue developing the domestic
portion of the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture, the
multi-layered system of detection technologies, programs,
and guidelines designed to enhance the Nation's ability to
detect and prevent a radiological or nuclear attack in our
highest-risk cities.
Radiological/Nuclear Detection.--Supports the procurement
and deployment of Radiation Portal Monitors and Human
Portable Radiation Detection Systems, providing vital
detection equipment to CBP and the U.S. Coast Guard to scan
for radiological and nuclear threats. Included within the
fiscal year 2013 budget is an increase of $20 million to
procure mobile rad/nuc detection technology for front-line
operators.
Technical Nuclear Forensics.--Funds for the DNDO National
Technical Nuclear Forensics Center support pre-detonation
nuclear forensics, the integration of nuclear forensics
capabilities across the interagency and National priorities
for deterrence, attribution, and prosecution.
BioWatch.--Funds continued deployment of the Gen 1/2
BioWatch detection network, a Federally managed, locally
operated, Nation-wide bio-surveillance system designed to
detect the intentional release of aerosolized biological
agents. Continues development of the next generation
technology to expedite response times.
National Bio and Agro Defense Facility (NBAF).--The fiscal
year 2013 budget provides $10 million to complement on-
going research at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center by
accelerating research programs focused on African Swine
Fever and Classical Swine Fever at Kansas State University.
This effort will also identify and prioritize future
research needs for the existing Biosecurity Research
Institute and the proposed National Bio and Agro-Defense
Facility. Funding will support identifying high-priority
agents from potential terrorist threats and emerging global
foreign animal diseases; developing and executing the steps
necessary for the facility to receive select agent
certification and the waivers necessary to study the high-
priority agents; and developing public outreach plans to
ensure that all stakeholders surrounding the facility
understand the value of the proposed work and the
safeguards in place. To complement its on-going research,
beginning in 2012, DHS's Science and Technology Directorate
(S&T) will convene an expert and stakeholder taskforce, in
conjunction with the interagency taskforce, to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of whether and for what purpose a
Biosafety Level 4 facility should be stood up, taking into
account the current threats from terrorism, foreign
animals, and the global migration of zoonotic diseases to
the United States. The assessment will review the cost,
safety, and any alternatives to the current plan that would
reduce costs and ensure safety within the overall funding
constraints established by the BCA.
Presidential Candidate Nominee Protection and Inauguration
Protection.--The fiscal year 2013 budget funds critical Secret
Service operations and countermeasures to protect the First
Family and visiting dignitaries, including the conclusion of
the 2012 Presidential campaign (October-November 2012) and
Presidential inaugural events. The budget also continues
support for the replacement of protective equipment, vehicles,
training of personnel, and other infrastructure to allow the
Secret Service to improve the execution of its protective and
investigatory missions.
Securing and Managing Our Borders
Protecting our Nation's borders--land, air, and sea--from the
illegal entry of people, weapons, drugs, and contraband is vital to
homeland security, as well as economic prosperity. Over the past
several years, DHS has deployed unprecedented levels of personnel,
technology, and resources to the Southwest Border. At the same time,
DHS has made critical security improvements along the Northern Border
while strengthening efforts to increase the security of the Nation's
maritime borders.
The fiscal year 2013 budget continues the administration's
unprecedented focus on border security, travel, and trade by supporting
21,370 Border Patrol agents and 21,186 CBP Officers at our ports of
entry as well the continued deployment of proven, effective
surveillance technology along the highest-trafficked areas of the
Southwest Border. To secure the Nation's maritime borders, the budget
invests in recapitalization of Coast Guard assets and provides
operational funding for new assets coming on line.
Law Enforcement Officers.--The budget annualizes border
security personnel funded through the fiscal year 2010
Emergency Border Security Supplemental Act (Pub. L. 111-230)
and the Journeyman pay increase, totaling 21,370 CBP Border
Patrol agents and 21,186 CBP Officers at ports of entry who
work around the clock with Federal, State, and local law
enforcement to target illicit networks trafficking in people,
drugs, illegal weapons, and money and to expedite legal travel
and trade.
Border Intelligence Fusion Section (BIFS).--The budget
supports efforts to integrate resources and fuse information
from DHS, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of
Defense, and the intelligence community at the El Paso
Intelligence Center, providing a common operating picture of
the Southwest Border and Northern Mexico.
Technology.--Funding is requested to support the continued
deployment of proven, effective surveillance technology along
the highest-trafficked areas of the Southwest Border. Funds
will be used to procure and deploy commercially available
technology tailored to the operational requirements of the
Border Patrol, the distinct terrain, and the population density
within Arizona.
Infrastructure.--CBP is updating and maintaining its
facilities infrastructure to support its dual mission of
securing the border and facilitating trade and travel.
Currently, CBP's facilities plan calls for the following land
border ports of entry (LPOEs) to be completed in fiscal year
2013: Nogales West/Mariposa, Arizona; Guadalupe, Texas; Van
Buren, Maine; and Phase I of San Ysidro, California.
Additionally, design and construction is planned to commence on
Phase II of San Ysidro, California, and CBP will begin
implementing the Tier III Outbound Infrastructure program
across 10 Southwest Border LPOEs in order to implement a range
of outbound infrastructure improvements. This work bolsters
CBP's southbound inspection capabilities while facilitating
processing efficiency and ensuring port security and officer
safety.
Northern Border Security.--To implement the U.S.-Canada
Beyond the Border Plan, which articulates a shared vision to
work together to address threats at the earliest point possible
while facilitating the legitimate movement of people, goods,
and services, the budget provides $10 million to support
Northern Border technologies, such as the continuation of
procurement/testing and evaluation efforts for Low Flying
Aircraft Detection, the deployment of Maritime Detection
Project, and Aircraft Video Downlink.
CBP Air and Marine Procurement.--To support CBP Air and
Marine's core competencies of air and marine law enforcement,
interdiction, and air and border domain security, funding is
requested for the continuation of the P-3 Service Life
Extension Program, a UH-60 A-L Black Hawk helicopter
recapitalization, a new KA-350 CER Multi-Role Enforcement
aircraft, and various marine vessels.
U.S. Coast Guard Recapitalization.--The fiscal year 2013
budget fully funds the sixth National Security Cutter (NSC),
allowing the Coast Guard to replace its aged, obsolete High
Endurance Cutter fleet as quickly as possible. The budget
supports the procurement of 2 Fast Response Cutters, funding
for a Maritime Patrol Aircraft, 4 cutter boats, and makes a
significant investment in the renovation and restoration of
shore facilities. The budget also provides funds to crew,
operate, and maintain 2 Maritime Patrol Aircraft, 30 45-ft
Response Boats--Medium, and 2 Fast Response Cutters acquired
with prior-year appropriations.
Enforcing and Administering our Immigration Laws
DHS is focused on smart and effective enforcement of U.S.
immigration laws while streamlining and facilitating the legal
immigration process. Supporting the establishment of clear enforcement
priorities, recent policy directives, and additional training for the
field, the budget continues the Department's efforts to prioritize the
identification and removal of criminal aliens and repeat immigration
law violators, recent border entrants, and immigration fugitives.
Nation-wide implementation of Secure Communities and other enforcement
initiatives, coupled with continued collaboration with DOJ to focus
resources on the detained docket and priority cases on the non-detained
docket, is expected to continue to increase the number of criminal
aliens and other priority individuals who are identified and removed.
The budget provides the resources needed to address this changing
population, while continuing to support Alternatives to Detention,
detention reform, and immigrant integration efforts. The budget also
focuses on monitoring and compliance, promoting adherence to worksite-
related laws through criminal prosecutions of egregious employers, Form
I-9 inspections, and expansion of E-Verify.
Secure Communities.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes
funding to complete Nation-wide deployment in fiscal year 2013
of the Secure Communities program, which uses biometric
information and services to identify and remove criminal and
other priority aliens found in State prisons and local jails.
Secure Communities is an important tool in ICE's efforts to
focus its immigration enforcement resources on the highest-
priority individuals who pose a threat to public safety or
National security. While we continue to focus our resources on
our key priorities, DHS is committed to ensuring the Secure
Communities program respects civil rights and civil liberties.
To that end, ICE is working closely with law enforcement
agencies and stakeholders across the country to ensure the
program operates in the most effective manner possible. We have
issued guidance regarding the exercise of prosecutorial
discretion in appropriate cases, including cases involving
witnesses and victims of crime, and implemented enhanced
training for State and local law enforcement regarding civil
rights issues related to the program, among other recent
improvements.
Immigration Detention.--Under this administration, ICE has
focused its immigration enforcement efforts on identifying and
removing criminal aliens and those who fall into other priority
categories including repeat immigration law violators, recent
border entrants, and immigration fugitives. As ICE continues to
focus on criminal and other priority cases, the agency
anticipates reducing the time removable aliens spend in
detention custody. Consistent with its stated enforcement
priorities and recent policy guidance, ICE will continue to
focus detention and removal resources on those individuals who
have criminal convictions or fall under other priority
categories. For low-risk individuals, ICE will work to enhance
the effectiveness of Alternatives to Detention (ATD), which
provides a lower per-day cost than detention. To ensure the
most cost-effective use of Federal resources, the budget
includes flexibility to transfer funding between immigration
detention and the ATD program, commensurate with the level of
risk a detainee presents.
287(g) Program.--In light of the Nation-wide activation of
the Secure Communities program, the budget reduces the 287(g)
program by $17 million. The Secure Communities screening
process is more consistent, efficient, and cost-effective in
identifying and removing criminal and other priority aliens. To
implement this reduction in 2013, ICE will begin by
discontinuing the least productive 287(g) task force agreements
in those jurisdictions where Secure Communities is already in
place and will also suspend consideration of any requests for
new 287(g) task forces.
Detention Reform.--ICE will continue building on current and
on-going detention reform efforts in 2013. ICE will implement
its new Risk Classification Assessment Nation-wide to improve
transparency and uniformity in detention custody and
classification decisions and to promote identification of
vulnerable populations. In addition, ICE will continue
implementation of the new Transfer Directive, which is designed
to minimize long-distance transfers of detainees within ICE's
detention system, especially for those detainees with family
members in the area, local attorneys, or pending immigration
proceedings. ICE will also continue implementation of revised
National detention standards designed to maximize access to
counsel, visitation, and quality medical and mental health care
in additional facilities.
Worksite Enforcement.--Requested funds will continue the
Department's focus on worksite enforcement, promoting
compliance with worksite-related laws through criminal
prosecutions of egregious employer violators, Form I-9
inspections, civil fines, and debarment, as well as education
and compliance tools.
E-Verify.--$112 million is provided to sustain funding for
the E-Verify Program operations and enhancements to help U.S.
employers maintain a legal workforce. The fiscal year 2013
budget includes funding to support the expansion of the E-
Verify Self Check program, a voluntary, free, fast, and secure
on-line service that allows individuals in the United States to
check their employment eligibility status before formally
seeking employment. Consistent with funding the continued
operation of E-Verify for the benefit of U.S. employers, the
budget also extends E-Verify authorization for an additional
year.
Immigrant Integration.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes
$11 million to continue support for U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) immigrant integration efforts
through funding of citizenship and integration program
activities including competitive grants to local immigrant-
serving organizations to strengthen citizenship preparation
programs for permanent residents.
Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE).--The
fiscal year 2013 budget includes $20 million in appropriated
funding to continue support for USCIS SAVE operations and
enhancements to assist local, State, and Federal agencies in
determining individuals' eligibility for public benefits on the
basis of their immigration status. The funding will supplement
the collections derived from the SAVE query charges.
USCIS Business Transformation.--The fiscal year 2013 budget
continues the multi-year effort to transform USCIS from a
paper-based filing system to a customer-focused electronic
filing system. This effort is funded through the Immigration
Examinations Fee Account.
Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace
DHS leads the Federal Government's efforts to secure civilian
Government computer systems and works with industry and State, local,
Tribal, and territorial governments to secure critical infrastructure
and information systems. The fiscal year 2013 budget makes significant
investments in cybersecurity to expedite the deployment of EINSTEIN 3
to prevent and detect intrusions on Government computer systems;
increases Federal network security of large and small agencies; and
continues to develop a robust cybersecurity workforce to protect
against and respond to National cybersecurity threats and hazards. The
budget also focuses on combating cyber crimes, targeting large-scale
producers and distributors of child pornography and preventing attacks
against U.S. critical infrastructure through Financial Crimes Task
Forces.
Federal Network Security.--$236 million is included for
Federal Network Security, which manages activities designed to
enable Federal agencies to secure their IT networks. This
funding supports Federal Executive Branch civilian departments
and agencies in implementing capabilities to improve their
cybersecurity posture in accordance with the Federal
Information Security Management Act, while enabling improved
continuous monitoring of network activity and other
capabilities to address evolving cyber threats.
National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS).--$345
million is included for Network Security Deployment, which
manages the NCPS operationally known as EINSTEIN. NCPS is an
integrated intrusion detection, analytics, information-sharing,
and intrusion prevention system that supports DHS
responsibilities within the Comprehensive National
Cybersecurity Initiative mission. In fiscal year 2013, the
program will continue to focus on intrusion prevention while
taking steps to improve its situational awareness of evolving
cyber threats to Federal networks and systems through a Managed
Security Services (MSS) solution. Under the MSS solution, each
internet service provider will use its own intrusion prevention
services that conform to DHS-approved security, assurance, and
communication requirements.
US-Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT Operations).--
$93 million is included for US-CERT Operations. As the
operational arm of the National Cyber Security Division, US-
CERT leads and coordinates efforts to improve the Nation's
cybersecurity posture, promote cyber information sharing, and
manage cyber risks to the Nation. US-CERT encompasses the
activities that provide immediate customer support and incident
response, including 24-hour support in the National
Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center. As more
Federal network traffic is covered by NCPS, additional US-CERT
analysts are required to ensure cyber threats are detected and
the Federal response is effective.
Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center.--
Funding is included to expand the Multi-State Information
Sharing and Analysis Center to 25 States to provide the
capacity to cover all States by fiscal year 2015.
Cybersecurity Workforce.--The fiscal year 2013 budget
includes $12.9 million to provide high-quality, cost-effective
virtual cybersecurity education and training to develop and
grow a robust cybersecurity workforce that is able to protect
against and respond to National cybersecurity threats and
hazards.
Cybersecurity Research and Development.--The fiscal year
2013 budget includes $64.5 million for S&T's research and
development focused on strengthening the Nation's cybersecurity
capabilities.
Cyber Investigations.--The fiscal year 2013 budget continues
to support cyber investigations conducted through the Secret
Service and ICE. In fiscal year 2013, ICE will continue to
investigate and provide computer forensics support for
investigations into domestic and international criminal
activities, including benefits fraud, arms and strategic
technology, money laundering, counterfeit pharmaceuticals,
child pornography, and human trafficking, occurring on or
through the internet. The Secret Service's Financial Crimes
Task Forces will continue to focus on the prevention of cyber
attacks against U.S. financial payment systems and critical
infrastructure.
Ensuring Resilience to Disasters
The Department's efforts to build a ready and resilient Nation
focus on a whole community approach to emergency management by engaging
partners at all levels to ensure that we work together to build,
sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against,
respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. In the event of a
terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other large-scale emergency DHS
provides the coordinated, comprehensive Federal response while working
with Federal, State, local, and private-sector partners to ensure a
swift and effective recovery effort.
To ensure that FEMA is able to support these efforts, the DRF,
which provides a significant portion of the total Federal response to
victims in Presidentially-declared disasters or emergencies, is funded
largely through an authority provided under the BCA. To support the
objectives of the National Preparedness Goal and to leverage limited
grant funding in the current fiscal environment, the administration
proposes a new homeland security grants program in fiscal year 2013 to
create a robust National response capacity based on cross-
jurisdictional and readily deployable State and local assets. The
fiscal year 2013 budget also funds FEMA's continued development of
catastrophic plans, which include regional plans for response to
biological events and earthquakes.
State and Local Grants.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $2.9
billion for State and local grants, over $500 million more than
appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2012. This funding will sustain
resources for fire and emergency management grants while consolidating
all other grants into the new, streamlined National Preparedness Grant
Program (NPGP). The fiscal year 2013 NPGP will:
Focus on the development and sustainment of core National
Emergency Management and Homeland Security capabilities.
Utilize gap analyses to determine asset and resource
deficiencies and inform the development of new capabilities
through a competitive process.
Build a robust National response capacity based on cross-
jurisdictional and readily deployable State and local assets.
Using a competitive, risk-based model, the NPGP will use a
comprehensive process for identifying and prioritizing deployable
capabilities; limit periods of performance to put funding to work
quickly; and require grantees to regularly report progress in the
acquisition and development of these capabilities.
Assistance to Firefighters Grants.--The fiscal year 2013
budget provides $670 million for Assistance to Firefighter
Grants. Included in the amount is $335 million for Staffing for
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grants to retain
and hire firefighters and first responders--totaling more than
1,700 firefighter positions Nation-wide--and $335 million for
equipment, training, vehicles, and related materials. Whereas
in prior years, a management and administration allowance has
been carved out of the top line, the fiscal year 2013 budget
proposes to fund it elsewhere, effectively increasing the
funding available for actual awards by more than $28 million.
The administration proposed $1 billion as supplemental SAFER
appropriations in fiscal year 2012 as part of the American Jobs
Act. This proposal included the authority for the Secretary to
waive certain restrictions on the award and expenditure of
SAFER grants to assist State and local firefighting agencies in
the current economic environment and prevent unnecessary job
losses. If economic conditions warrant, the administration will
once again work with Congress in fiscal year 2013 to seek
authority to waive these restrictions.
Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG).--The fiscal
year 2013 budget includes $350 million to support emergency
managers and emergency management offices in every State across
the country. Just as with the Assistance to Firefighter Grants,
a management and administration allowance has historically been
carved out of the top line. The fiscal year 2013 budget
proposes to fund management and administration elsewhere,
effectively increasing the funding available for actual awards
by approximately $10.5 million. EMPG supports State and local
governments in developing and sustaining the core capabilities
identified in the National Preparedness Goal and achieving
measurable results in key functional areas of emergency
management.
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).--A total of $6.1 billion is
provided for the DRF. Of this amount, $608 million is included
in the Department's base budget with the remainder provided
through the disaster relief cap adjustment, pursuant to the
BCA. The DRF provides a significant portion of the total
Federal response to victims in Presidentially-declared
disasters or emergencies.
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).--The NFIP is funded
entirely by policy fees and provides funding to reduce the risk
of flood damage to existing buildings and infrastructure by
providing flood-related grants to States, communities, and
Tribal nations. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $120
million for three interrelated mitigation grant programs to
increase America's resiliency to floods.
Training/Exercises.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes
$183.5 million for training and exercise activities to support
Federal, State, and local officials and first responders. In
fiscal year 2013, the Department expects to train more than
100,000 first responders and will begin the first full 2-year
exercise cycle under the revised National Exercise Program
(NEP). The NEP will leverage more than a dozen exercises across
the country and will build progressively to a capstone exercise
in calendar year 2014.
Emergency Management Oversight.--The fiscal year 2013
request includes $24 million in base resources for the Office
of the Inspector General to continue its Emergency Management
Oversight operations.
Providing Essential Support to National and Economic Security
DHS provides essential support to many areas of National and
economic security. In addition to supporting Coast Guard's current
operations in the Polar Regions, the budget initiates acquisition of a
new polar icebreaker to address Coast Guard emerging missions in the
Arctic. The budget also continues to support ICE's and CBP's
enforcement and investigative efforts to protect U.S. intellectual
property rights and collect customs revenue.
Polar Icebreaking Program.--The budget provides $8 million
to initiate acquisition of a new Polar Icebreaker to ensure the
Nation is able to maintain a surface presence in the Arctic
Region well into the future and $54 million to fund operation
and maintenance of Coast Guard's existing Polar Icebreakers,
CGC HEALY and CGC POLAR STAR (POLAR STAR to be re-activated in
2013).
Arctic Mission Support.--New funding is requested for
recapitalization and expansion of helicopter hangar facilities
in Cold Bay and recapitalization of aviation re-fueling
facilities at Sitkinak, both in Alaska. These investments will
sustain DHS's ability to establish effective presence in the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Chain, the ``Gateway to the Arctic''.
Collect Customs Revenue.--Funds are requested to support
CBP's role as a revenue collector for the U.S. Treasury--
customs revenue remains the second-largest source of revenue
for the Federal Government. These resources support effective
internal controls that protect the duties and taxes (over $37
billion in 2011) collected by CBP.
Protect Trade & Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement.--
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes funds to support ICE's and
CBP's enforcement programs to prevent trade in counterfeit and
pirated goods, enforce exclusion orders on patent-infringing
goods and goods in violation of Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR), and investigate the smuggling and distribution of
counterfeit goods and products that pose risks to public safety
and security. The budget also provides $10 million to CBP for
IPR supply/distribution chain management which will transform
IPR risk assessment, increase efficiency, and support U.S.
economic competitiveness. This CBP-private-sector partnership
program aims to improve IPR targeting by enabling CBP to
identify and release shipments of authentic goods without
inspection. Additional funds will expand CBP's Industry
Integration Centers to address issues within critical trade
sectors by increasing uniformity of practices across ports of
entry, facilitating the timely resolution of trade compliance
issues Nation-wide, improving enforcement efforts, and further
strengthening critical agency knowledge on key industry
practices.
conclusion
The fiscal year 2013 budget proposal reflects this administration's
strong commitment to protecting the homeland and the American people
through the effective and efficient use of DHS resources. As outlined
in my testimony today, we will continue to preserve front-line
priorities across the Department by cutting costs, sharing resources
across Components, and streamlining operations wherever possible.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I look
forward to answering your questions and to working with you on the
department's fiscal year 2013 budget request and other homeland
security issues.
Chairman King. Thank you for your statement, Secretary
Napolitano. As I stated, your full statement will be included
in the record.
We will now begin the round of questions. We have been
faced with a series of threats for the past 10\1/2\ years. Now,
within the last several months, the threat of Hezbollah seems
to have emerged more than it was during that previous time. We
had the indictments in Washington regarding the attempted
assassination--the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, to
blow up Cafe Milano. Now with the increased tension in the
Middle East, I believe that there is a growing, growing threat
from Hezbollah. Certainly, I know I have been contacted by
local police, also by local houses of worship, especially
synagogues. Can you tell us what the Department is doing to
address this pending or possible threat from Hezbollah?
Specifically, are you reaching out at all to religious
institutions?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We share your
concern about Hezbollah. We are constantly monitoring their
activities around the world. We are working very closely with
the FBI and the intel community in this regard. In addition, we
are reaching out to particularly Jewish, the Jewish community
across the country, who have been the intended targets in the
past. We have just, this past week, convened a very large
conference call with leaders of the Jewish community from
around the country. We remain in constant touch with them.
Right now we have no specific or credible threat against any
organization or target in the United States. But this is
certainly a situation that bears watching.
Chairman King. Thank you, Secretary. You referenced this in
your opening statement, but the changing in the grant system
which basically you are taking, I guess it is 16 former
programs and merging them into one, the National Preparedness
Grant Program. Now, in going through the budget justification
documents, it appears to only mention States and territories as
recipients of the funding. So are high-threat urban areas,
transit authorities, port authorities, will they be eligible to
apply for the funding?
Secretary Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, what we have put in the
budget documents is our vision for how these grant programs
will be consolidated and organized. We will work with the
Members of the committee in terms of how you see the
appropriate recipients to be. Right now as envisioned, we don't
envision any changes. But because this is such a major
alteration on how we handle grants, we would probably need to
work with the committee on that.
Chairman King. I would think so. Because again, you have
got large States like California and New York, and to have it
just going through the State, to me it is important that we
have, again, local urban areas, certainly port authorities,
transit authorities, all of whom could have unique problems to
their area of the State, including large numbers of people,
millions of people perhaps. So I would ask that as it goes
forward that you find ways to work with all those entities.
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed. To accomplish our vision, we
will require legislative change. So we will be working with the
committee on that.
Chairman King. Also I am pleased to see that the Secure the
Cities program is being fully funded again this year. But as it
goes forward, how do you see DHS monitoring it, coordinating
it, perhaps using it in other cities in the country rather than
just where it is located now?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, we saw Securing the Cities, it
was a pilot program originally in New York. What we are asking
for now, and what the budget has money for, is to add a second
site to it. I think a lot of lessons learned, good lessons
learned, actually, from the experience in New York so we can
begin the process of expansion.
Chairman King. If I can go back to the point I raised
before about the grant system. We were contacted by a number of
local organizations, International Association of Emergency
Managers, International Association of Counties, National
League of Cities who are concerned that the grant funding may
be too State-centric. So again, I would just emphasize that we
have been contacted just in the last 24 hours by any number of
these groups who have a real concern about that funding.
Secretary Napolitano. It is our intent that the funding be
consolidated to streamline, simplify, remove administrative
costs. But we want to focus on meeting the National
preparedness goal. How do we leverage resources around the
country? How do we make sure that there is a basic Homeland
Security net so to speak, building on the $35 billion of
capability that the Congress already has invested in? My view
is that this should be primarily a risk-based grant, and that
we ought to continue to inform grant decisions by evaluation of
risk.
Chairman King. Okay. Again, I would just use an example
here, you have Ms. Hochul and myself on opposite parts of the
State. She has real security concerns on the Northern Border.
We have different concerns down in the Long Island/New York
City area. Both legitimate. I don't know if the State, with all
due respect to Governor Cuomo, whether the State is fully
equipped to appreciate the distinctions and differences between
various parts of the State. So I would just ask you to keep
that in mind as it goes forward.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes.
Chairman King. With that I recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As well as the other
States in the United States other than New York, we join you in
that concern, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the reference the
Chairman made of the letter from the National Association of
Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors,
International Association of Fire Chiefs and others, I would
like to have it entered into the record.
Chairman King. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter Submitted by Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
February 2, 2012.
The Honorable Peter King,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of
Representatives, H2-176 Ford House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515.
The Honorable Bennie Thompson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of
Representatives, H2-117 Ford House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515.
Dear Chairman King and Ranking Member Thompson: We write on behalf
of the elected and appointed officials of our Nation's cities and
counties and their fire services and emergency managers to urge the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Congress to engage in a direct
conversation with all local and State partners before considering any
proposals to change how the State and Local Homeland Security Grant
Program (HSGP) is implemented, or how appropriated funds are
administered by the Department.
Everyone--the administration, Congress, and State and local
officials--wants to ensure the Nation's homeland security and emergency
management programs are successful. We are concerned, however, that
recent proposals to restructure the HSGP would move us in the wrong
direction and make it harder to achieve the goal of protecting
Americans in their, local communities.
As FEMA begins to implement changes to HSGP as required by both the
fiscal year 2012 appropriations law and the Presidential Policy
Directive 8 (PPD-8), and as you consider the fiscal year 2013 budget
request, we respectfully ask that you keep in mind the following
principles:
1. Any proposals to change homeland security grant programs must be
developed in concert with all stakeholders.--The suite of State and
local homeland security grant programs were the result of significant
negotiations not only between the Executive Branch and Congress, but
also among the intergovernmental organizations and stakeholders. This
includes local elected and appointed officials, as well as those who
play a key role in executing street-level terrorism prevention and
preparedness activities in our neighborhoods--our Nation's fire
services, law enforcement, and other front-line personnel. Failure to
include these key stakeholders in decisions related to proposed changes
to the homeland security grants may result in less effective homeland
security programs at the State and local levels.
2. Grant recipients must be transparent on distribution of Federal
funds, and subgrantees must not be overburdened with additional
requirements.--This will allow for better oversight, ensuring that
funds are not only distributed by the letter of the law, but also in
its spirit. We believe that to the maximum extent possible, funding
should be distributed to prepare local first responders with planning,
training, exercise, and equipment activities, particularly those that
foster a regional and coordinated emergency response. Grant funds
should be used to address risks and vulnerabilities in communities and
help build National capabilities.
The current fiscal constraints that localities are facing are
forcing our members to make very difficult programmatic and personnel
choices. When coupled with the reduction in State and local homeland
security funding both last year and this year, it has become even more
important that the limited dollars available be spent as effectively as
possible so that localities can protect the public.
We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you or your staff
to discuss the path ahead for intergovernmental partnerships to
prevent, deter, and respond to terrorism in the United States. Mitchel
Herckis, Principal Associate for Human Development and Public Safety at
the National League of Cities, will be in touch with your office to
schedule a meeting and respond to any questions regarding this letter.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
National Association of Counties
National League of Cities
The U.S. Conference of Mayors
U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency
Managers
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Association of Fire Fighters
National Volunteer Fire Council
Mr. Thompson. Also, with respect to FEMA grants, there is
some concern that these stakeholders have not been included in
the process of developing guidance from grants in the
consolidation proposals. Will you commit to the committee that
if it has not been the best, you will make your best effort to
work with those groups?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. We have had a lot of discussions
with stakeholders over the last year. Some of them have
actually, I think, already said they support the vision. The
question is going to be the details. How do we fill it out?
That, again, will be something we will work on not just with
the stakeholder community, but with the Congress.
Mr. Thompson. We have the record. I will ask also that we
will provide you with a copy of the letters from the
stakeholders. With respect to TWIC, your best guess as to when
we will come with some guidance on the readers for the TWIC
card.
Secretary Napolitano. I think they are right on the verge
of the guidance for the readers. I am putting a lot of, quite
frankly, pressure on this to get this guidance out. Because as
you know, the cards deadlines is coming up. We want to avoid
the situation, to the extent we can, where people are having to
renew cards before the readers, or at least the guidance for
the readers is out.
Mr. Thompson. Well, if we get to the deadline and it is
time to renew, do you see yourself extending the cards rather
than having people come back and pay $133.50?
Secretary Napolitano. I have asked my staff to give me a
set of options on what we can do if that were to happen, yes.
That would certainly be an option.
Mr. Thompson. We have a lot of communities that are port-
connected and others. They are hearing from a number of people
that they paid the money for the cards, they are no more than
just a flash card right now because there is no reader that
goes with them. I would encourage you to look seriously that if
the Department does not meet the time line for producing the
readers that that period be extended until the readers are in
place. The other point is we would like for you to look at not
requiring people who apply for a TWIC card to come back and
pick it up. That second trip for a lot of individuals costs a
lot of money. Some people have to take off a day's work to pick
up the card. There are some alternatives out there. We
understand the security challenges around it. But it is a
concern. We would like for you to look at it.
Secretary Napolitano. I would be happy to. I share those
concerns. We are going to work through all available options
within the Department. We will certainly keep your office
informed.
Mr. Thompson. For the sake of the record, is the problem
with the readers the Department, or where has the breakdown
been for the last 4-plus years?
Secretary Napolitano. You know, it is hard to say where, in
fact. There have been just a lot of operational issues with
some of the test readers and with respect to their viability
and their ruggedness and the like. So there has been just--I
mean, there have been things tested that haven't played out. So
it has been a real process to finally arrive at something that
will be good guidance.
Mr. Thompson. So your testimony is you are close?
Secretary Napolitano. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I would love to get something
back from the Secretary as to her best guess as to when we can
expect something from the Department.
Chairman King. We can make that a joint request of the
Secretary right now.
Secretary Napolitano. I will be happy to get something back
to you.
Mr. Thompson. I yield back.
Chairman King. Thank the gentleman for yielding. Also in
mentioning Ms. Hochul, I didn't want to slight Mr. Higgins, who
is also from western New York. You are just in my line of
vision there. How can we ignore Brian Higgins?
Mr. Thompson. We have got another New Yorker here, too,
now.
Chairman King. I am talking about upstate. I mentioned
upstate. We are well aware of you, too.
Ms. Clarke of New York. I want to be sure.
Chairman King. Even though we don't always agree on the
NYPD. With that, I recognize the gentleman from Alabama,
Chairman of the Transportation Security Subcommittee, Mr.
Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to offer
for the record a letter that the Alabama delegation sent to the
Secretary. It was delivered yesterday. If there is no
objection.
Chairman King. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Letter Submitted by Honorable Mike Rogers
February 14, 2012.
The Honorable Janet Napolitano,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
Dear Secretary Napolitano: We write to express our serious concerns
about the Department of Homeland Security's decision to suspend the
implementation of the Secure Communities Program in the 30 remaining
counties in Alabama. As you have noted, Secure Communities is ``an
effective tool to identify and remove dangerous criminals who pose a
threat to public safety.'' We are certain you would agree that the
program is also an efficient use of both Federal and State resources to
combat illegal immigration and has proven invaluable to law enforcement
agencies across the country. For these reasons, it is critical that
every county in Alabama participate in the program.
On August 22, 2011, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange
personally delivered to you a written request for a Section 287(g)
Memorandum of Agreement between your Department and certain Alabama
State and local law enforcement agencies for Federal Training and
certification to enforce Federal immigration laws. On September 23,
2011, DHS Assistant Secretary Betsy Markey replied that ``ICE and the
Alabama Department of Public Safety have mutually benefited from our
on-going 287(g) memorandum of agreement, and we will continue to foster
this partnership.'' However, she denied Attorney General Strange's
request to extend the training to other law enforcement agencies
pending the activation of Secure Communities in the remaining counties
in Alabama. It is our understanding that individual Alabama counties
have made similar requests directly to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Director John Morton.
On September 23, 2011, Director of the Alabama Department of
Homeland Security Spencer Collier informed you that the State desired
to fully participate in Secure Communities by implementing the program
in every county. Following that meeting, Director Morton called
Director Collier to advise him that DHS intended to complete
implementation of the program in every country in Alabama by the end of
November, and that the deadline was being ``expedited'' following
Director Collier's meeting with you. As that deadline approached, the
DHS Office of Intergovernmental Affairs informed Director Collier that
the previously-promised November deadline was being pushed back to the
end of December due to budgetary and logistical issues. Just prior to
that new deadline, Assistant Secretary Markey informed Director Collier
that DHA would not meet the new deadline, again citing budgetary and
logistical issues, but reiterating your Department's commitment to
fully implement the program in every county in Alabama.
When Congressman Aderholt learned of and questioned the claimed
issues, your Department admitted there were no budgetary and logistical
concerns. As you know, Secure Communities had been fully supported by
Congress since its launch, including increases above the request in
fiscal years 2010 and 2012.
The Department then revealed that the delay was due to the Justice
Department's efforts to invalidate Alabama's immigration enforcement
law in Federal court. Senator Sessions' office received the same
explanation, which is set forth, in part, below:
``Although the federal courts have enjoined several parts of H.B. 56,
certain provisions were not enjoined and are currently in effect . . .
While these provisions of Alabama's state immigration enforcement law,
which conflict with ICE's immigration policies and programs, remain the
subject of litigation, ICE does not believe it is appropriate to expand
deployment of Secure Communities, one of its central enforcement
programs, in Alabama.''
Setting aside the dubious notion that an immigration enforcement
law is somehow inconsistent with the policies and programs of the
Nation's top immigration law enforcement agency, we question the basis
for your Department's assertion that it is not ``appropriate'' to
expand deployment of Secure Communities in Alabama due to on-going
litigation concerning H.B. 56. While implementation of the program in
Alabama has been halted since July, your Department has fully
implemented the program in every other State with similar immigration
enforcement laws that are currently being challenged in Federal court
by the Department of Justice on the same or similar grounds.
It is our understanding that up until this abrupt reversal of
course, Alabama law enforcement had a positive working relationship
with DHS. Your Department's decision to cease assisting Alabama in the
removal of dangerous illegal aliens is wholly inconsistent with this
administration's stated position of focusing on the removal of those
very individuals. There is no legitimate reason why Alabama law
enforcement should be denied critical 287(g) training or the citizens
of Alabama should be denied the protection of the Secure Communities
program.
For these reasons, we demand that 287(g) training be made available
to those State and local agencies that have requested such training,
and that Secure Communities be implemented in every county in Alabama
by March 15, 2012. We believe this is a reasonable deadline given that
your Department initially intended to complete implementation in
November 2011.
We look forward to your timely response.
Sincerely,
Jeff Sessions,
United States Senator,
Richard Shelby,
United States Senator,
Robert Aderholt,
United States Senator,
Mike Rogers,
United States Representative,
Spencer Bachus,
United States Representative,
Jo Bonner,
United States Representative,
Mo Brooks,
United States Representative,
Martha Roby,
United States Representative.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for
being here. Thank you for your service to our country. I know
yours is not a 40-hour-a-week job and low pressure. So we
appreciate your service. I want to talk to you about Secure
Communities and 287(g). Now, my understanding from looking at
the memo on the budget is that the 287(g) program was reduced
by 25 percent, which has basically halted any additional
training of additional communities going forward. Is that
correct?
Secretary Napolitano. For task forces, yes. We are moving
to--we began this migration last year. But we are really moving
toward, as we install Secure Communities throughout the
country, that is really the preferred way to identify those in
the country illegally and to get them removed.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I agree that Secure Communities is a
great way, but the 287(g) program has been just an outstanding
force multiplier, relatively inexpensive, too. So I hate to see
no additional communities be added.
Secretary Napolitano. If I might, Representative, in terms
of task forces, we are actually going to discontinue some
because we have task forces in the country that over the last 1
or 2 years have picked up maybe one or two illegals. So when we
actually calculate out the average cost of removing somebody
who has been picked up by a 287(g) task force versus say Secure
Communities, 287(g) pencils out to be about 10 times as
expensive per alien. So there is a cost factor involved, you
are correct.
Mr. Rogers. That is interesting. Talk about Secure
Communities. My understanding is that--well, not my
understanding, I know that we were told in Alabama that the
remaining 37 counties--there has been 30 so far that have had
the Secure Communities established--the remaining 37 counties
were to have it installed by November of last year. Then it was
backed up to December of last year. Now I am told it has been
stopped. Is that, in fact, the case?
Secretary Napolitano. It has been delayed, that is correct.
Mr. Rogers. Why?
Secretary Napolitano. Several reasons. But one reason is
that, as you know, the Alabama State law is in litigation. It
is at the Eleventh Circuit. The schedule for oral argument is
coming right up. We left the program in place where it was
turned on. Where it is turned on covers 75 percent of the
foreign-born population in Alabama. But given the pendency of
the litigation, we decided to just hold off on the remaining
quarter. I will say, however, that it is our intent to finish
completion of Secure Communities by the end of this year.
Mr. Rogers. Why is that litigation relevant? My
understanding is you haven't halted it in Arizona or Georgia,
and they have similar legislation at the State level.
Secretary Napolitano. I think in those jurisdictions, it
was already turned on before the litigation commenced. So we
left it there at status quo as well.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. Talk about procurement. I have had a lot
of business groups come into not only my hearings that we have
been looking at procurement, but coming in, we have had kind of
open sessions off the record where different groups that
interact with the Department come in and talk about their
experience. Uniformly, I hear across industries how difficult
it is to work with DHS when it comes to procurement
acquisitions. Mainly they are saying there is never really any
interaction before an RFP, and oftentimes, that creates a
circumstance where there is unrealistic expectations about what
can be done.
I am curious, are you familiar with the problem and the
concerns that the private sector has? What, if anything, are
you doing about it?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. Some of the--I think probably
some of the same people have visited with me as well. A couple
of things. One is I have directed the under secretary for
management to take on procurement. We need to centralize it
more within the Department. One of the problems has been, as a
new department from a lot of different legacy agencies, we had
different procurement systems and different rules and people
used to different things, and used to dealing with a different
category of vendors. So we have taken steps to centralize, to
have an acquisition approval process for acquisitions that are
large, and then to reach out to the private sector. We just
held, for example, kind of a procurement fair, for lack of a
better term, with the under secretary for management to improve
those channels of communication that we need. So
Representative, we are on it.
Mr. Rogers. Great. Thank you. I see my time has expired. I
yield back.
Chairman King. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady
from California, Ms. Sanchez, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary, for being before us today. I have two questions for
you. The first one was that I was recently in the Calexico-
Mexicali border. From the Mexico side, they have poured cement,
they have built new roadways to come over to make another land
port, if you will, that I think was, from my understanding, was
agreed to by both sides. Somehow or other, the funding has not
come, or the cuts in the budget are not making this land, this
new land port happen from our side, which is just amazing to
see it happening on the other end and nothing from our end.
So the first thing would be the locals had asked me to come
and take a look at it. Obviously, the council people and the
county supervisor. So what is going on with that and what can
we do? Because they tell me that it is about 3 hours standing
time, if you are a pedestrian, to go across that section right
now. I happen to know because I have family in Mexicali, so I
asked them what do you think? They said absolutely, it is
taking way too long, 2, 3 hours. Sometimes in the summer it is
130 degrees out there with no cover.
So the question, what are we doing with respect to that?
Then the second question I have for you, Madam, is that this
January, the media reported that two tourists from the United
Kingdom were denied entry to the United States by CBP because
of a comment they had posted on Twitter. So do you know
anything about this incident? Is it a CBP practice to see what
foreign nationals are putting on social media? Is that
determining their admittance to the United States?
Secretary Napolitano. With respect to the port question, I
can look specifically into Mexicali, but the Southern Border
ports are budgeted through the GSA, not through DHS. We get the
Northern ports, but not the Southern Border ports. Kind of
ironic. The GSA budget has not fared well in the Congress. That
has slowed down a number of important projects, including land
ports along the Southwest Border which are necessary for travel
and trade. All the things that go on in that border area. I
think that is probably where it is caught up. With respect to
the two tourists----
Ms. Sanchez. So Madam, how could we--what is the mechanism,
if they are necessary and if your Department deems them
necessary, to get this moving?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think the question is trying
to do everything we need to do within the confines of the
Budget Control Act. We are all dealing with that as a fiscal
reality. We need to reduce the deficit. We all recognize that
as well. But because GSA is governed by a different set of
committees and a different appropriations process, it does
become, you know, a little bit two ships passing in the night.
We are in constant touch with GSA, working with them. They know
the priorities. But they only have so much money.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. Then the question of the foreign
nationals from England?
Secretary Napolitano. Without getting too much in the
weeds, we aren't sitting there monitoring social media looking
for stuff. That is not what we do. In that instance there was a
tip, and the tip led to a secondary inspection of the
individuals. That governed the judgment of exclusion, not just
the Twitter or tweet.
Ms. Sanchez. But was the tweet taken into account as your
Department was thinking of whether to let these people in or
not?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, it was, but I am really not at
liberty to say all of the reasons. But I think the impression
was left that CBP is just sitting around, you know, wandering
the blogosphere looking for things. That is not what CBP does.
They do, however, when they receive a specific tip, have an
obligation to follow it up.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I will yield back.
Chairman King. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman
from Texas, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigation, Mr. McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank
you for being here today. Thank you for your service. I think
it is important to note that today marks the 1-year anniversary
of the brutal killing of Agent Jaime Zapata and shooting of
Agent Avila, and I think by the Los Zetas. I think it is
appropriate to remember that event, and to remember them here
today in this committee.
Madam Secretary, there has been some speculation that the
weapons used to kill Agent Zapata may have been possibly linked
to the Operation Fast and Furious. Do you have any information
that would indicate there is a connection there?
Secretary Napolitano. I have no information to that effect,
no. I don't know one way or the other.
Mr. McCaul. Okay. So you can't say--it's possible, I guess,
is what you are saying.
Secretary Napolitano. I just don't know one way or the
other.
Mr. McCaul. So you can't conclusively say one way or the
other whether there is a link to these weapons and Fast and
Furious.
Secretary Napolitano. That is true.
Mr. McCaul. Okay. We know that the weapons were used to
kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, correct?
Secretary Napolitano. They were certainly found at the
scene of that murder.
Mr. McCaul. The other question I have is I know that the
OCDETF essentially, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force
had an ICE agent participating on the OCDETF task force that
also participated in Fast and Furious. Can you tell us what the
role of that ICE agent was with respect to Fast and Furious?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, my understanding is it was very
minimal. This is all learned after the fact. This was an ATF
operation operated under the auspices of OCDETF, but it was an
ATF operation.
Mr. McCaul. Do you believe that the ATF may have misled
your organization or the ICE agent on the task force?
Secretary Napolitano. I hope they did not.
Mr. McCaul. Do you know whether he was informed about the
operation?
Secretary Napolitano. I do not. I don't know whether the
full extent and the number of guns being allowed to walk
unsupervised into Mexico was disclosed. I believe that the size
and management of that operation, lots of serious mistakes
made, and should never be repeated.
Mr. McCaul. I certainly agree with you. I would like to
follow up more on that with you in the future. The next
question I have is more along the lines of management and
budget. We had hearings on--we heard from several Under
Secretaries within DHS. One in particular talked about--and you
and I talked about this previously--the idea of the DOD model,
the Goldwater-Nichols model. I believe you actually said you
had a book on this, which I was impressed to hear.
Secretary Napolitano. On my desk.
Mr. McCaul. On your desk. It seems to me that there are
always lessons learned from other events in the past in the
Federal Government. There may be a lot to learn from the
growing pains and mistakes and lessons learned that the
Department of Defense had in consolidating their efforts, as
you are trying to consolidate 22 different organizations, a
very difficult task. They found that there were various high-
risk operations that were, I think, in their words had
performance problems. I think as you testified earlier to Mr.
Rogers' question, the idea of centralizing acquisitions and
procurement seems to make a lot of sense.
I was pleased to hear that you have made some progress in
that direction. But can you just sort of tell me what your
thoughts are in terms of looking at that model and trying to
apply that to the Department of Homeland Security?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. In fact, I do have a volume on
Goldwater-Nichols on my desk, which I guess shows you what
Secretaries of Homeland Security read in their spare time. But
in any event, it took about 40 years between the creation of
the Department of Defense and the consolidation and management
that Goldwater-Nichols represented. We are going to beat that
target. We are going to take lessons learned in DOD. Not
everything done in the DOD context applies in the DHS context.
We also, in many respects, have a much broader set of missions
that we have to perform. But things like acquisition review,
particularly for large purchases, how you manage procurement in
general. Things like looking at how you buy software, how you
buy vehicles, designing common frames for aircraft that can be
used by Coast Guard and----
Mr. McCaul. I do want to mention at that hearing out of all
the agencies in charge of homeland security, DHS only gets 50
percent of that funding. I think that was an important point
that I was not aware of. I think perhaps we can change that as
well.
Secretary Napolitano. That is for the Congress.
Mr. McCaul. Precisely.
Secretary Napolitano. But I will say that those are the
kinds of efficiencies that we can, I think, encourage and grow
at DHS.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam.
Chairman King. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Cuellar, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you also the
Ranking Member. Madam Secretary, it is good seeing you again. I
believe you are going down to my district next week. I hope
that--actually, I will be there in the same area you will be
at, so I hope to see you there. I thank you. I know dealing
with the budget is always hard. But I thank you for looking at
the administrative cost reductions, the duplicative programs
that you have. Thank you for doing that, for making your agency
more efficient, more effective. I have several questions. The
first one has do with a GAO report that came out on March 2011
that talks about a $639.4 million of unobligated balance in the
customer user fees account that you know came about because of
the elimination of the North American trade agreement country
exceptions.
It has been going on since, I believe, 2008. There is
authorization, there is no authorization. Bottom line is that
is a lot of money that is available if we can use that for
border, because that came in from the trade issues. What is the
status on trying to get that? Why can't we just get that money
out, especially in these tight money times?
Secretary Napolitano. You know, I don't know, sitting here,
I don't know whether there is some kind of statutory problem or
whether we are holding it for a particular reason. But I will
be happy to get back to you on that.
Mr. Cuellar. Yeah. I appreciate it. Because I think GAO
says you can use it. It is authorized by law. But if you can
look at it and get back to the committee. The other thing is I
know that because of the budget, the budget doesn't ask for any
new Customs and Border Protection officers. As you know, when
you go down to the border, they are going to hit you again, or
talk to you about long lines, and not having enough. So at the
same time, we are opening up new ports of entry, the local
folks are saying that there is not enough Customs and Border
Protection. I have always said we have done a good job with the
men and women in green, but we need the men and women in blue
to get our Customs folks, whether it is sea ports, land ports,
or airports on that. Especially also since you also are cutting
CBP overtime by $20 million, how are we going to handle those
lines that we have? I think that is an issue that will be
brought up to you when you go down there to the border.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. In fact, that is one of the
reasons I am going back to the border, is to talk with people
who live there about problems that they see. You know, the
problem with the lines is two-fold. One, it can be a manpower
problem. It is often a lane availability issue. The ports just
aren't big enough to handle the amount of traffic they have to
process. We have to work on both of those things. The overtime
pay issue, the Congress dealt with that last year by allowing
us to use the LEAP system, among other things. That will enable
us, I think, to better manage the overtime situation, keep that
under control better. Second, we have in the budget, the
President has annualized additional port officers that were put
in in fiscal year 2012. Those are being hired and trained now.
So there should be relief in that direction as well.
Mr. Cuellar. We will be happy to work with you, especially
I think you all do a $9.1 million decrease in plant facilities
management sustainment at the ports of entry. As you know, on
Tallulah bridge to Laredo, and I think I got more bridges than
any other Congressman in the country. So bridges are very
important to me. I would look forward working with you and look
at alternatives as we go up there. Because the private sector,
I think Mr. Cravaack has been talking about this, the private
sector and local governments are willing to do that. The
Anzalduas Bridge is one perfect example where they want to step
up and do that. They want to put in some of the local income.
So I would ask you to work with us on that issue.
Secretary Napolitano. Absolutely.
Mr. Cuellar. Finally, the last thing on overtime. There was
a report that came out, an analysis that shows in the last 6
years we had a $1.4 million in daily overtime by CBP.
Especially now that we have the lowest border crossings in the
last 40 years, I want to see--and I can understand, I
understand the whole argument you never know when they have to
travel to one part. But it also included your 250 agents that
are assigned at the Border Patrol headquarters, where they made
a combined of $4.8 million in overtime in the District of
Columbia. Now, I can understand the Border Patrol at the
border, but to have 250 agents, Border Patrol in Washington,
DC, and to pay them overtime is something I just don't
understand. My time is almost up, but I would like to follow
that, because I have been trying to get that information and
they couldn't get it. I said I would directly talk to you and
get this information. But I think Members of Congress want to
see those Border Patrol at the border instead of having them
wrack up millions of dollars of overtime at headquarters.
Secretary Napolitano. Representative, I share that concern.
With the number of agents as 250, something I have begun
talking about with the Commissioner. I will say, however, that
it makes sense to have Border Patrol agents get some
headquarters rotation so they really get an appreciation of how
the system works and what is going on, particularly those that
are moving up the ladder.
Mr. Cuellar. Right. I am in full agreement. But 250, I
think we can work with you, and we want to work with you.
Again, thank you for the good job you have been doing. I know
it is a difficult job. Thank you. I look forward to working
with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Napolitano. You bet.
Chairman King. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Cravaack, the author of the bill.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you. Again, I have got a great staff.
They were essential in completing that.
Chairman King. Chip, no one doubts that.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Secretary,
for being here today. The President, in his budget, cuts the
Federal Flight Deck Officer program from $25 million down to
$12.5 million. Now, this is approximately a 50 percent
decrease. This program is comprised of volunteers who
ultimately pay more out of their pockets than it actually costs
for them to be an FFDO to protect our Nation. In fact, to
provide the protection for each flight deck officer for each
FFDO flight costs the Nation $15. That is how efficient the
Federal Flight Deck Program is. I have to believe that it is
probably one of the most cost-effective programs in the United
States Government. These guys basically volunteer their time
and money to be a vital deterrent to our country.
Quite frankly, they are the last line of defense when it
comes it air piracy for flying. My question would be what
prompted that? Did you make this cut, or did it come from the
President? Where did this come from?
Secretary Napolitano. I think the reduction for the Federal
Flight Deck Officer program is predicated on the fact that the
program is not risk-based. You will have an FFDO just, you
know, whether somebody is on a flight or not. We are moving in
the TSA to risk-based systems. Those are the ones that we are
going to put money into.
Mr. Cravaack. I fully agree with risk-based system. But I
also fully believe a $15 Federal Flight Deck Officer as a last
line of defense on an aircraft is absolutely essential. Would
you agree that the Federal Flight Deck Officer would be the
last line of defense on an aircraft?
Secretary Napolitano. There are many layers of defense,
beginning before people even get their ticket.
Mr. Cravaack. Yes, ma'am.
Secretary Napolitano. One of the things I continue to
emphasize is, you know, the checkpoint at the gate, which has
caused some concern, is only one of other many layers. So there
is a lot of things. The FFDOs have been useful, that is true. I
don't know about the $15 figure. But it is a program, as we
look around the universe of things that we want to do in the
aviation environment, like I said before, given we have to find
places to cut, that was one of them. Because it is not risk-
based, that was put on the table.
Mr. Cravaack. Yes, ma'am. I fully understand risk-based.
But again, I will ask you the question, is a Federal Flight
Deck Officer the last line of defense for our traveling public?
Secretary Napolitano. I think the armed cockpit door
probably is.
Mr. Cravaack. Speaking as a 17-year pilot, ma'am, and also
as a Federal Flight Deck Officer, I know about the cockpit
door. I will tell you, ma'am, speaking from the position that I
have flown as a pilot and also as a Federal Flight Deck
Officer, you may think that the flight deck door is the last
line of defense, but it is that armed pilot in the cockpit that
will be the last line of defense. Thank you for your comments,
though. Is your intention that this program be phased out?
Secretary Napolitano. I think as the budget request shows,
it is our intention to reduce it, yes. But not--we have not
predicted its demise. We just think we can do it with less.
Mr. Cravaack. Let me expound upon that. What kind of
message do you think it sends to pilots who are willing to join
this program on their own dime, take personal vacation days off
of work, pay for their own lodging to train for the privilege
and the honor of protecting their fellow citizens? How do you
think it is going to affect that program?
Secretary Napolitano. Representative, obviously in a
difficult budget, we had to make difficult decisions, and this
was one.
Mr. Cravaack. Again, ma'am, going for the last line of
defense for the most efficient program, I think, probably that
you have in protecting the traveling public, I would strongly
encourage you to reevaluate that position. Also, it has come to
my attention relatively recently, in line with the President's
budget request, NORAD has proposed two 24-hour Airspace Control
Alert sites, Duluth and Langley, to be eliminated. The 148th
Bulldogs out of Duluth were just chosen to be an active
association actually, where active duty combines with the Air
National Guard there. Now they are pulling a vital mission from
these two fighter wings. How is this going to affect you in
responding to threats? Because after
9/11, these guys were flying 24/7. It is not only they protect
the northern sector of the United States, they deploy in a lot
of different places. I see my time has expired. Can you just
comment on that real quickly?
Secretary Napolitano. Right. There are several other
similar-type things around, particularly the Northern Border.
But they have, in the analysis that has been done is that those
operations can be covered from a consolidated center elsewhere.
Mr. Cravaack. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield
back.
Chairman King. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Clarke of New York. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We forgot to add Mr. Turner to our discussion about upstate-
downstate New York. Mr. Turner is also a New York City, and one
of our newest Members here. Let me say, Madam Secretary, that
first of all, there is no doubt in my mind, and I think the
mind of most New Yorkers, that your commitment to partnership
and collaboration with our local law enforcement has been
extraordinary. We are truly, truly grateful for that. We have
had an opportunity through, unfortunately through having been
the No. 1 terrorist target in the Nation, to have those
partnerships strengthened over time, and built up certain
capabilities that most municipalities would have no reason to,
most of all, but out of necessity we have had to. I wanted to
raise a couple of issues with you. Having the highest regard
and respect for local law enforcement in the City of New York,
whether, in fact, there is a point where the Department of
Homeland Security looks at the implementation of various
policies in the City of New York and its impact on the
municipality. Whether, in fact, dollars that we have provided
for Homeland Security have been overreaching in terms of its
usage and what its impact is on the local municipality.
Why am I raising this? I am raising this because there have
been a number of practices that have been highlighted most
recently in our zealousness to apprehend whether it is the lone
actor or anyone who has been radicalized that may be in the
population. That has extended itself into the lives of average,
everyday New Yorkers who just don't fit any profile under any
circumstances, or who may. Because clearly there is a profile
out there. They are individuals whose mosques are now, you
know, open to surveillance, where individuals sit there just to
observe whether, in fact, there is terrorist tendencies, I
suppose. We have even seen videos produced that have high-
ranking officers of our city and utilized in the training of
our police officers that talk about the third jihadist.
There have been some things that I think have just gone
askew. I am just wondering what role it is in the partnership,
in the collaboration that we have the conversation about civil
liberties and civil rights. I hope that me raising this with
you today is an indicator to you that there needs to be some
discussions. There needs to be some very serious discussions.
We are New Yorkers, a town of diversity. To the extent
where our police department has become so empowered that civil
liberties become something that is secondary, then our Nation
is beginning to decline. I just wanted to share that with you,
and hope that you will look into that, Madam Secretary. But my
question actually is that when you testified before this
committee at the beginning of this Congress, you testified that
the threat level was at the most heightened state since 9/11.
Your testimony was often quoted by Members of this committee as
a basis for many hearings on radicalization and recruitment
within the Muslim community.
A recent report issued by the Triangle Center on Homeland
Security says that concerns about a potential wave of home-
grown terrorism have not materialized over the past 2 years,
and terrorist incidents by those within the Muslim community
have declined. I want to know, do we remain in that same
posture at this stage given what we know, given all of the
intelligence that has been gathered, and expertise? Are we
still at the most heightened threat since 9/11?
Secretary Napolitano. I think we live, Representative, in a
very volatile world in a number of respects. As I said in my
opening statement, we are dealing with evolving threats. They
change all the time. They can be from al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda-
related groups, Islamist groups of other types, but as I also
said, terrorism and extremism is not limited by national
boundaries, and it is not limited to any one particular
ideology. It requires us, who are in the prevention business,
to really be looking at it in a number of ways in order to
maximize our ability to minimize risk within, and along with
and incorporating the important protections that our Nation has
under the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and other statutes
such as the Privacy Act.
So we want to make sure we incorporate those principles
into how we do our work. But we do live right now in a very
volatile world.
Chairman King. Thank you. Recognize the gentleman from
Illinois for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me yield to you for
as much time as you would like.
Chairman King. I would just like to state for the record
that General Petraeus testified last week that the independent
Inspector General of the CIA did a full and thorough
investigation, and found the relationship between the NYPD and
the CIA to be entirely legal, not to violate any executive law
or any law whatsoever, and the NYPD to have acted lawfully in
every instance involving any dealing with the CIA, and also
Director Mueller has also said that the NYPD is in full
compliance with the law.
With that, I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thanks
for being here today. We have seen a wide range of reports from
the GAO as well as a recent report from the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee identifying
hundreds of millions of dollars in annual waste and
inefficiencies at TSA. Yet, in your proposed budget you are
seeking to triple the $2.50 passenger security tax to
ultimately $7.50, which you say would generate, I believe, $25
billion over the next 10 years. The President's budget also
proposes a $100 user fee for every single time an airplane
takes off.
It seems to be costing more and more for Americans to fly,
which affects all sectors of our economy. Right now Government
taxes make up around 20 percent of an airline ticket. So $61 on
a typical $300 domestic round-trip ticket. That is more than
any other item out there being taxed; cigarette, liquor,
firearms, all are taxed less.
We seem to be reaching a point where, especially in the
difficult economic times we are in right now, where we are
singling out the airlines and airline customers and possibly
even discouraging travel. How do you balance that with the need
for security?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, you have to do both. Travel,
trade, tourism are important economic values to keep this
economy moving, to propel the recovery, and the like, so we are
always looking for ways to facilitate travel and trade and
maintain a security posture, particularly in the aviation
world, where aviation does remain a constant threat, a constant
target. So we are doing it in a couple of ways. One way is, as
we move to a more risk-based approach, expanding the kind of
Trusted Traveler-type programs, global entry for international
travel, it is called TSA Pre-Check, that we are going to be
expanding to the 28 largest airports in the United States over
the course of the year, O'Hare being among them.
So and as we do that, that in a way allows us to prescreen
passenger before they get to the airport so they go in a
separate line and we can expedite their processing, and takes
pressure off of the other parts of the line for others. As we
go on, in the months and years to come, it is our intention to
be able to do more and more in that direction. We are going
carefully and slowly because we don't have room for mistakes,
but our pilot projects in this area have been very productive.
Mr. Walsh. I have heard numerous concerns from folks in and
around the industry, and just airline customers in general,
concerned with the exorbitant taxes on flying these days.
Quickly, with my remaining time, when and how are you looking
at the other aspect of the equation, the millions of potential
waste and inefficiency right now, inefficiencies that have been
identified within TSA?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, as I said earlier, we have
already identified Department-wide in this budget $850 million
worth of administrative efficiencies we believe we can take,
and put that money, redeploy it into operational activity, and
that is along with a $3 billion worth we have found already. We
are constantly looking for ways that we can meet our
obligations and do it more cheaply.
So any avenue we have of doing that, and we listen to our
employees, they have ideas. Sometimes the customer base, they
have ideas. We have no monopoly on good ideas. So if people
have them, we will listen.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman King. The gentleman yields back, and the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Higgins, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and the
Ranking Member, and Secretary Napolitano for being here. I just
want to ask you about two things relative to my home community
in Buffalo. One is the Beyond the Borders Action Plan that was
announced by the President and the Prime Minister Harper of
Canada, which sets forth a plan for at least one pre-inspection
pilot project for commercial vehicles crossing from Canada into
the United States. That is a very, very important border
crossing at the Peace Bridge, for commerce, for our shared
communities in the United States and Canada, and I just wanted
to urge you in the strongest possible terms to consider the
Peace Bridge for that pilot project. It is very important.
The other issue is the urban security, or Urban Area
Security Initiative Program. In fiscal year 2011, your
Department removed 32 high-risk urban areas, including Buffalo,
New York, and these communities didn't choose to be on that
program. They met a criteria that indicated that the unique
circumstances of those communities posed a considerable threat,
and therefore were given the resources to work in a
collaborative way with other law enforcement agencies to
protect these urban areas. You have a new program, the
allocation for sustainment of capabilities in high-risk areas.
I would ask that those 32 communities be considered for that
funding as well.
The unique situation with respect to Buffalo is that--well,
it is Buffalo, but also Toronto is in close proximity, Niagara
Falls a destination for 8 million people from all over the
world. The Niagara power project is in that community, which
produces the cleanest, cheapest electricity in all of New York
State, all of which become high-impact targets for potential
terrorism. So I think it is very, very important that the
Department consider allowing these communities the resources
they need to sustain the capabilities that they have
established under this program.
I just want to echo something that the Chairman had made
reference to, and that is the threat of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is
a Shia group, community, violent jihad. They act as a proxy for
Syria, Venezuela, and Iran. They have a presence that is
pervasive and growing in the 20-country region of Latin
America. They also have a presence in at least 15 American
cities and 4 major cities in Canada as well.
You had indicated in response to the Chairman that you were
working with the FBI and the intelligence community. We have
had previous hearings here, where expert witnesses had said
that, you know, we really shouldn't be all that concerned
because Hezbollah's presence in the Western Hemisphere and in
North America is really limited to fund-raising activity. I
don't much see the distinction. I think that presence is a very
severe threat, and I think it needs to be addressed.
So, any comments from you?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, as I indicated to the Chairman,
I believe we are constantly monitoring Hezbollah and we are in
touch with, we are working with the FBI, and have provided
intel to State and local law enforcement where appropriate, and
we are also conducting a lot of outreach to targeted
communities. So we are, you know, right there with you.
With respect to the Peace Bridge, we are working with
Canada on the identification of staff to do the pre-inspection
pilots. I think we envision two, not just one locale, and a
strong case has been made for the Peace Bridge but no final
decisions have been reached.
Mr. Higgins. Just finally, I want to associate myself with
the prospective comments of my colleague, Kathy Hochul, in
asking to replace the outdated Niagara Falls Border Patrol
station with a new facility at the Niagara Falls air reserve
station. I am sure my colleague will be talking about that a
little bit more later on, but the two Senators have joined us,
the west New York delegation as well. We think that that is a
very important move for a lot of reasons, including especially
the good work that the Border Patrol does in Buffalo and west
New York.
Thank you, I yield back.
Chairman King. Ms. Secretary, I should have warned you that
you would be double-teamed by the New York State team here.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Chairman of the
Counterterrorism Subcommittee, Mr. Meehan, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam
Secretary, for being with us here today, and I want to thank
you in advance as well for the cooperation of your agency.
Tomorrow we will be working on further inquiry into the issue
of the social media and the work of DHS on that, but I am
grateful for the work that you have already done in helping us
to understand that. We will be exploring it more tomorrow.
I want to take a moment and follow up a little bit on some
issues that Mr. McCaul raised, and it comes back--I am involved
in looking at some of this issue with Fast and Furious. Now,
you testified today that Fast and Furious was an ATF operation.
What does that mean with respect to the cooperation or
coordination with DHS?
Secretary Napolitano. I think, just as it says, this was an
ATF-led and -organized operation. So that is where it is.
Mr. Meehan. Well, that is where it is, but I mean, it is an
OCDETF case, and I know from your experience as a United States
Attorney you understand the significance of what an OCDETF case
means, which is a multi-agency case. We have established
through testimony in other committees, and an OCDETF case
implies, not implies, it requires that there be collaboration
among multiple agencies. Fast and Furious has been identified
as an OCDETF case. To what extent are there reporting
requirements within the Department of Homeland Security for the
participation of your agents on OCDETF cases?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, if you are asking is there a
reporting requirement that any participation in any OCDETF
matter at the ultimate field level has to be reported all the
way up to and including Washington headquarters, no. There is
way too much action for that to be feasible or wise.
If you are asking how are interagency issues handled in the
OCDETF context, my understanding is, as is yours, there is a
lead agency that is running the operation. In this instance it
was the ATF.
Mr. Meehan. But there is a leads agency, but there is
participation. To what extent is there reporting requirements
with respect to what your agency intends to do in
participation?
Secretary Napolitano. Again, I don't know what you mean by
participation. We have agents who are out working on matters of
all types at all times, but I think in Fast and Furious, and
again, I think we all recognize that serious mistakes were made
there that should never be repeated. But again, this was an ATF
operation.
Mr. Meehan. Well, that is the question. I know it was an
OCDETF operation, which included the participation. Do you know
who Layne France is?
Secretary Napolitano. I do not.
Mr. Meehan. Layne France is an ICE agent. He was also the
co-case agent in OCDETF.
Secretary Napolitano. Again, I did not know this was a Fast
and Furious hearing. I thought this was a budget hearing.
Mr. Meehan. Mr. McCaul opened the door. I didn't really
come to get into it, but the question----
Secretary Napolitano. Right, because I think there the
issue is to make sure that in my shop we are not running gun-
walking cases with unsupervised deliveries, and the answer is
that it is against our policy to do so. We have reemphasized
those policies. We don't want that kind of thing happening.
Mr. Meehan. But do you know whether there was any report
from your case agent who was a co-case agent on this case up
the chain with respect to the anticipated activities of this
OCDETF case, which in the Justice Department requires approvals
before the cases are undertaken?
Secretary Napolitano. Again, you know, co-case agent, let's
not confuse that with co-lead. I mean, you could have people
that are on an OCDETF task force, and they may be listed on a
piece of paper as a co-case agent and really have no
operational contact with them. They are just a name down
because this is the guy who does OCDETF work in a particular
U.S. Attorney's office. I can't speak with specifics to the
question you ask, again, because I didn't know this was a Fast
and Furious hearing.
Mr. Meehan. Have you done any investigation yourself, your
Department, into the participation of your Department in Fast
and Furious?
Secretary Napolitano. I instructed--when I learned about--
when all of the facts came out about Fast and Furious back
here, I instructed our Department to make sure that we were not
running gun-walking cases, that our policies were clear, and
that there was a common understanding within the Department on
this.
Mr. Meehan. But have you investigated the activity which
took place? We know with ATF in which your agent was a co-case
agent, have you looked independently of what is going on in the
Department of Justice? Have you looked independently at the
activities of your agents with respect to Fast and Furious?
Secretary Napolitano. I believe that the Director of ICE
has. I again must object to the use of the phrase, ``co-case
agent'' because it implies that everybody was equal on this.
Mr. Meehan. How do we know if you haven't looked into it to
determine it?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think there have been enough
hearings in the House to establish that this was an ATF
operation.
Mr. Meehan. Have you spoken to Attorney General Holder
about this case, Fast and Furious?
Secretary Napolitano. I have not.
Mr. Meehan. Why not?
Secretary Napolitano. In part because it has been under
investigation, here and by the Inspector General, and there was
no occasion in which to do so.
Mr. Meehan. My time is up. Thank you.
Chairman King. Time for the gentleman is expired. The
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's go back to the
grant program, and then in Louisiana, especially in south
Louisiana, with the largest port system probably in the world
when you combine Port of South Louisiana and the Port of New
Orleans and the Port of Plaquemines. Is it your expectation
that the jurisdictions that currently receive the bulk of the
money, pursuant to your risk assessments, would receive the
same or even more support under the new program?
Secretary Napolitano. I think it is difficult to prejudge.
I mean, I think what we intend is that we want to look at what
the $35 billion that we have already spent on Homeland Security
grants, where that has put us, so that we can look across
States and regions and across the country and identify where we
have gaps, where we have critical infrastructure that needs
hardening, and in short, where the money best would go.
Mr. Richmond. Second, the threat has--identification of
risk assessment would have a large part in devising a new
formula, or in that analysis will go into how much or who
receives money under the new formula?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. It is intended to be a risk-
based, consequence-based evaluation. There will still be
retained some base level of funding depending on populations,
but we believe and our vision for these grants is that we ought
to be building and sustaining a National capacity for terrorism
and disaster prevention and mitigation and response. That is
what we are combining these grants to achieve.
Mr. Richmond. Well, will you give the States, the local
municipality, or the grantee, the ability to comment, or
challenge, or appeal their risk assessment in the event that
they feel that there were some things left out, some things
that weren't considered in their risk assessment?
Secretary Napolitano. I think our relationship with our
grantees is such, and it has been on-going, that there is just
an exchange all the time, even as potential grantees are
preparing their applications.
Mr. Richmond. This one is a little bit probably outside of
the realm of this particular hearing, but since we have
departed from it already I might as well do it. Also, I am
getting from my mayors, from my Governor, from my school
boards, from everyone, our disaster loan issue that we have in
Louisiana, which the Vice President of the United States came
down to Louisiana, to St. Bernard Center, to say that the
disaster loans would be forgiven for those municipalities.
However, subsequent rules were promulgated where many of the
municipalities, the school boards, and other agencies are not
getting loan forgiveness from those disaster loans from
Katrina. So I don't know if you know about it or can comment
about it, but can you at least advocate on our behalf that the
commitment was made, people made decisions based on it, and it
would be the right thing to do to live up to the commitment to
waive the repayment of those disaster loans?
Secretary Napolitano. I will take a look at that, yes, sir.
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
Chairman King. The gentleman yields back, and now I
recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Farenthold, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Secretary.
Hopefully the mic will pick me up if I can look at you.
Secretary Napolitano. I can hear you fine.
Mr. Farenthold. As Representative McCaul pointed out, this
is the 1-year anniversary of the death of agent Jaime Zapata.
Before I get to the budget I would like to just take a moment
to thank you for what you have done for the Zapata family, but
we are starting to receive inconsistent information from
various agencies about how that progresses, and if you could
help with that, the Zapata family and I would appreciate
staying up-to-date on that.
Secretary Napolitano. All right.
Mr. Farenthold. With respect to the budget, I know Mr.
Walsh talked a little bit about the fact that despite the
overall budget decrease we are looking at doubling the fee
passengers pay from $2.50 to $5 for the TSA. It seems like--I
applaud you for cutting spending, but I am a little concerned
about raising taxes, especially when we are not really seeing a
need there. We have got the TSA actually working better than it
has in the past, and we have got a lot of our technology
expenditures under control. Why the need for increasing that
fee?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, thank you, and thank you for
your kind words about TSA. I think they have made a lot of
progress in the past few years. That fee--it is a fee, not a
tax, and there are important differences there--has not been
increased since 2002. In the mean time, the Congress has been
appropriating money and dollars after dollars so we can make
sure we have good technology, that we have the right number of
personnel that are properly trained, and so forth. We have
increased costs, as you might imagine, since 2002, in the
aviation environment. Just the pure fact of charging for a
checked baggage has forced more and more passengers to load up
their carry-on pretty--you all travel a lot, and you know----
Mr. Farenthold. If I had my way they would charge for the
carry-on and make the checked baggage free.
Secretary Napolitano. I see. Yeah, and like I said, I think
you all are experts on airplane travel, and that we looked at
last year. We think because it makes screening more complicated
at the checkpoint, that in and of itself probably off-loaded
about $250- to $270 million of costs on the TSA. We think it is
time to properly scope that fee to raise it to $5 now, but not
to do it per enplanement, which is what we proposed last year,
but to do it per one-way trip, so that if you have to take
different segments in a leg, people in a lot of places in the
country don't have a hub airport, it is still only one fee, and
then scope it up over the next year to a maximum of $7.50. We
think that that will appropriately take some of the weight off
the general taxpayer and allow us to continually sustain what
we have done at TSA.
Mr. Farenthold. Another efficiency that I would encourage
you to look at, your office provided a briefing regarding the
warehousing of equipment and there seems to be a relatively,
what I think to be high lag time in deploying equipment after
we purchase it and getting it out to the airports.
I would encourage you all to consider following the model
some technology companies do and actually drop-shipping it to
the airports and including installation as part of the process
rather than having them all shipped to a warehouse, stored
there, and shipped out.
Secretary Napolitano. Right, that is a procurement issue,
and we can take a look at that. A lot of that lag time is
attributable, as you suggest, you know, you have got to install
the new equipment. You often have to reconfigure lanes and do a
lot of new construction at the airport itself. So that has to
be done before the equipment can be installed, but I think the
drop-ship issue is something we can take a look at, at least
for some.
Mr. Farenthold. All right, I will yield back the remainder
of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman King. Thank you to the gentleman for yielding
back, and I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Clarke,
for the 5 minutes.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
Napolitano, it is great to see you. First of all, as a frequent
traveler, finishing my first year in Congress, I wanted to
thank the hard work, daily commitment of the TSA employees to
make sure that the tragedies of 9/11 never happen again.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. Now, I represent metropolitan
Detroit. Many of the communities there, they have lost a lot of
revenue because of the housing crisis. People have lost their
home, property values are depressed, and as a result, many
local units of government have had to lay off vital first
responders, including firefighters.
My question is, how can the Department of Homeland Security
work with prior year SAFER grantees to help make sure that the
new firefighters, new first responders that they hired with the
Federal grant money can keep these employees and not have to
lay them off when we really need them? They are a front-line
defense against terrorism, or any other emergency that would
hit our communities.
Secretary Napolitano. Representative, we released the
grants in that particular area on kind of a rolling basis. It
is not going to be like UASI grants which will all get
announced at the end of the week at one fell swoop. We have in
the grant guidance for 2012, the 2012 grants which go out now
for SAFER, and also were made retroactive to last year, been
able to grant a waiver to allow localities to put more of those
grant moneys into personnel costs than they have previously
been allowed to do. The reason that that waiver is important is
because it helps address the problem that you have, Detroit
has, a lot of places have, where they were in a layoff
situation for critical first responders.
Mr. Clarke of Michigan. Well, thank you for that
assessment. We really appreciate it. It is really going to make
a difference in our communities helping them stay safer. So
thank you again. I yield back my time.
Secretary Napolitano. You bet.
Chairman King. The gentleman yields back. I recognize the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Rigell, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rigell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary
Napolitano, welcome back and thank you for your service. I
always try to find where do we have common ground, and let's
always agree on that first, and the topic today for me is the
287(g) Task Force issue and the defunding of that.
When you mentioned earlier that a program might have been
in existence for a year and led to only one apprehension, you
have my full agreement that that program at a minimum should be
reviewed and most likely terminated. But the fact that some are
being continued would lead me to believe that some of the
287(g) Task Force agreements are indeed effective, and so can
you agree with me on that, that some are effective because they
are being continued?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I would agree that they are
relatively effective. I will, however, suggest that Secure
Communities, as we activate it, is more--in the end more
effective and cheaper.
Mr. Rigell. I wouldn't dispute that. You know, the SAFER
Communities Program is effective, and I will certainly agree to
that. The Commonwealth of Virginia, and I have the great
privilege of representing the Second District of Virginia. I
certainly don't speak for the Governor, but I know that he and
his administration have been very clear on this matter. They
have requested it. They had intended to have 24 State troopers
who are not just folks--the State troopers who would stop
someone at night on the side of the road, but more this was the
targeted task force, violent crimes, very violent crimes, drug
dealers, rapes, murders, those areas, and they in their best
judgment believed that and I do as well, that the 287(g) Task
Force Program would work for them. So I am expressing my
disappointment here, and in the spirit of transparency in
Government, which I think we both share to the extent possible,
we always have to keep some things out of the hands of the bad
guys, but I don't think this is one of them. May I see the--or
may the committee Members see, if a request is made to your
office, the data that supported your decision on this?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. You can see that, and I would
also say with respect to Virginia, that request had been
pending for some time. What we have done in Virginia in the
mean time is deploy more ICE agents into the areas where we
were told that the task force would primarily be focused, on
the theory that full-time Federal agents would actually be more
productive.
So I will be happy to get you briefed up on that as well.
Mr. Rigell. The expenses--thank you for that. The expenses
related to running the 287(g) program, and I know you have a
lot of things on your plate, but could you describe for us just
generally what those expenses would be and what savings are
being realized by discontinuing that program?
Secretary Napolitano. Oh, constant training is a big
expense; travel, travel for training; some overtime in those
areas. So that is, you know, the little buckets. There are
buckets, but they add up to a pretty substantial number when
you reduce it to a cost-per-removed individual.
Mr. Rigell. Yet, it still is just difficult for me, and I
still can't fully reconcile this, and maybe it will take some
additional work here, that a good Governor of, for example, the
Commonwealth of Virginia, who is saying look, we are you know,
we can help you here, a force multiplier, and yet you know,
under the administration, not one 287(g) Task Force application
has been approved, at least to my knowledge, and it is
difficult to reconcile how a force multiplier, just thinking
about the value of a highly-trained Virginia State trooper, for
example, his or her willingness through the direction of the
Governor to assist in a key law enforcement area, and here we
have turned down that help.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, we work a lot with State and
local law enforcement, as you know, and I have had several
discussions with the Governor, although not in the last week.
But I have had several in the past about the 287(g) Task Force.
I just think, in conclusion, we believe that making sure you
have the right number of full-time Federal agents and that we
have Secure Communities turned on, and we just turned on four
more States last week for Secure Communities, that that is a
much more effective way to go, and helps us target
appropriately the population that we want to prioritize in
removal, which are criminal aliens.
Mr. Rigell. I thank you for your testimony and for your
service. I yield back.
Chairman King. The gentleman yields back. I recognize the
gentlelady from upstate New York, Ms. Hochul.
Ms. Hochul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the other half of
the tag-team as you call it. Thank you for all of your service
to our country and everything you do to protect Americans and
keep us safe. So we appreciate that and certainly your efforts
to put together a budget during very challenging times. So
thank you on behalf of all of us.
A few initiatives, some of them mentioned by my colleague
Brian Higgins, and thank you for including $10 million in your
budget request for Northern Border technology, which will help
implement Beyond the Border Action Plan.
I second the request to have the pre-inspection station at
the Peace Bridge. This is such an important issue for us with
our proximity to Canada, and not just Canada, but the largest
city in Canada, Toronto. We are the source of a tremendous
amount of commerce every day, which is often stifled at the
border because of the inability to cross and the delays,
particularly of our trucks. So this can be a huge boost to the
upstate economy which is not faring so well. So we appreciate
all of your attention that you can give to that as well.
We are also sending jointly from myself and Congressman
Higgins and our Senators a letter to you urging to find the
funds in your budget for this idea of a customs and border
inspection station at the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station. We
have been told that while it is a joint unit between Air
Reserve and the Air National Guard, the guard station is going
to be leaving. So to us, this is an ideal opportunity to have a
Federal campus, again the proximity the collaboration that
already goes on between DHS and our Canadian partners right
there on the border. It is already going, and I know the Air
Guard has already signed off on this. We are just looking for
approval from yourself as well. So you will be getting a letter
from us on that.
One issue that came up earlier in our DHS authorization
bill was an amendment I proposed, I was grateful to my
colleagues for accepting this. That was the proposal that the
Department only purchase uniforms that are made in America. The
bigger picture of this is to ensure that our National security
and our economic security are tied together. I had this
conversation this morning during an Armed Services hearing with
Secretary Panetta, who shared my belief that we do much better
when we rely on our National suppliers for not just our
military, but our domestic protection as well. Uniforms, all
the way up to all of your procurement opportunities. So we have
not--this has not been enacted, but I am wondering are there
voluntary steps you can take, or can you help us do this--not
just for our security, but also for the jobs that it would
create back here in America? Again, an economically secure
Nation is better for all of us.
So can you speak to that issue as well, and what can be
done on your end?
Secretary Napolitano. I agree, an economically secure
Nation is better than one that is not, and that we are all
interested in making sure that we are maximizing job creation
in our country. Representative, I will have to look into what
we were doing on the procurement or the availability of
uniforms. I think you make a valid point. I don't know if there
have already been steps taken to lead in that direction or not.
So I will get back to you on that.
Ms. Hochul. Thank you very much. I also want to echo our
request again, to have us included, the Buffalo and Rochester
areas, if you can reconsider the Urban Area Initiative,
security issues. We are off the list. Again, I think you
understand the assets that we have. People come from all over
the world to see our resources; Niagara Falls, the
hydroelectric power source that is up there. So we always want
to make sure that our portion of the State is represented very
well, and we can make our best arguments on why we want to
continue to have a good relationship with the Department of
Homeland Security up there.
So we appreciate a reconsideration of that as well. With
that, I will yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman King. Thank you. You got an awful lot into your
minute and, let's see, 2 minutes 40 seconds.
Ms. Hochul. I am a fast talking New Yorker. That is for
sure.
Chairman King. I recognize the gentlelady from Michigan,
the subcommittee Chairman, Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We talk fast in
Michigan, too, so we will just get Evelyn Wood speed speaking
here.
Secretary, welcome. We are delighted to have you here. I
want to follow up on a couple of comments that have been made
by some of my colleagues about various things in regards to the
Department of Defense and how they might have some overlap,
overlay with the Department of Homeland Security as well. I
think as a Nation, particularly as I have been following some
of the DOD budget hearings also this week, we miss the boat
sometimes. So I don't know if I am really asking you a
question, but maybe just offering some thought for as we go in
the future here. I think we missed the boat during the last
BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, when we
could have looked at some military facilities inventory
domestically here that could have been utilized by the DHS. As
we go forward and they are talking about the possibility of two
additional BRACs in maybe 2013 and 2015 as well, you might just
think about that a bit, if I can just throw that out there,
because I do think that there is potential. I say that because
I have been proponent of having regional Homeland Security
facilities around the country.
Secretary Napolitano. Right.
Mrs. Miller. Tom Ridge really was the original guy that was
talking about that. I am not sure if you are still
contemplating that, but I personally think it still makes a lot
of sense and so that might be one thing. Then as well, when we
look at all of the various types of literally off-the-shelf
hardware that the taxpayers have already paid for that have
been utilized effectively in theater by DOD, particularly with
UAVs, which are now being utilized by your Department as well,
as we are out of Iraq, as we have a drawdown in Afghanistan, we
want to make sure that your Department is looking at all the
potential kinds of things that we will be bringing back here
that may have some application that you can get sort of on the
cheap, really.
Secretary Napolitano. If I might, we are constantly
interchanging with DOD to see if there are technologies or
things they have already developed; we have already paid to
have developed----
Mrs. Miller. Exactly.
Secretary Napolitano [continuing]. That we can use in our
civilian missions. So that is an on-going process. With respect
to materiel that was in Afghanistan, Iraq that is coming home,
we are getting both helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft from
that that we will be using primarily at the Southwest Border.
So we have had that--we have been working that issue as well.
Mrs. Miller. I think there is a lot more though. I just ask
you to think about that a bit because whatever it is, I mean
even some of the LAN systems that they have utilized there, you
know, as opposed to the UAVs, the LAN systems and the robots
and that that they have done, you may have some application to
the Southern Border as well.
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed.
Mrs. Miller. You might want to take a look at that. Besides
that, you have the personnel that are coming back that know how
to operate all of these things that you may be able to meld in
your Department.
So that is one thing. In the interest of time and speaking
fast, though, on our committee we have had some recent hearings
in regard to the global supply chain to the scanning process,
screening process at the Nation's ports. I am sure Ms. Hahn is
going to follow up on this, but I would just mention, in fact
just last week we had a hearing, we are going to have another
hearing in 2 weeks about the current mandates, legislative
mandates for 100 percent scanning. I know you have said that
that is probably not possible. We had some conversation and
testimony that it was about a $20 billion item to do something
like that, and that currently there is only 2 to 4 percent that
is actually being scanned. So, you know, there is a big
difference, and I am not--I certainly understand that
circumstances happen, and the costs and all of these kinds of
things. I guess what I would say is, we are looking forward to
working with you for a legislative fix to that. If there is one
forthcoming, maybe you could tell me. Do you have some ideas on
how you might want to address that issue? Because I think you
would find people that are willing to work with you on that
issue.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, we have--thank you for that. We
have total agreement on the goal of the 100 percent scanning
requirement. What we don't have is--the goal, of course, is to
prevent harmful material from entering the United States. What
we don't have is agreement as to whether 100 percent scanning
is the best way to achieve that or whether--or is even feasible
from a diplomatic and logistics point of view. It is my
conclusion that it is not currently feasible, but there are
other ways that get us to the same place. It means looking at
targeted-shipper programs. It means working with international
organizations like the IMO on common standards for moving
security in the cargo environment.
The whole Global Supply Chain Initiative is designed in
part, to give us a better sense, or to give us a better way to
get to the goal of making sure we minimize the risk of
dangerous cargo entering the United States. So we would be
happy to work with the committee on some of this. My current
intent will be to extend the deadline that presently is in the
statute.
Mrs. Miller. Legislatively?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, the statute gives me the
ability now to extend the deadline.
Mrs. Miller. Very good, thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lungren [presiding]. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Hahn, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Hahn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Napolitano. It
is great to have you here and listen to your testimony. I, for
one, am glad that we have the additional $5.5 billion for the
Disaster Relief Fund in this budget. Representing California,
you know, we seem to every year have disasters--fires, floods,
occasional earthquake. Last year we had a waterless hurricane
that--I never even heard of that before, but we had it. So--and
even for our country, I don't think I can remember as many
disasters in our country as we have had recently. So I
appreciate the extra funding so that Americans have the
resources they need to recover in the event of a disaster.
I also have some concern about some of the changes in the
budget in your Department. I will say that I have always been a
strong advocate for port security grants. Even before I came to
Congress, I worked with my predecessor Jane Harman in working
to change the criteria for port security grants, so that there
was risk vulnerability and consequence as part of helping
appropriate that. I advocated last session keeping the port
security grant as a separate program. I am unhappy that the
Appropriations Committee lumped them into one large grant
program and am concerned that the administration is attempting
to do the same thing.
I think port security is crucial. I still feel like our
ports are really some of our most vulnerable entryways into
this country. So I just want to go on record, and maybe you can
talk a little bit about how you still think that this is an
adequate way to fund, you know, security efforts at our
seaports across this country.
In the same line, I have actually heard from our ports that
currently they even have a hard time utilizing even some of the
grants that they have been awarded. They are concerned about
some of the bureaucracy, and particularly in terms of
reimbursement. So sometimes they are willing to purchase
equipment and programs that they know definitely are going to
be reimbursable as opposed to maybe getting what they think is
the most appropriate equipment or program to secure the ports
because of some insecurity, if you will, on how they are going
to be reimbursed. So you might want to just look at how we
streamline the current grant programs in the future so that
they can utilize it better, effectively, if we are going to--
especially if we are going to change it.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, first, you know, one of the
things, and the committee was very strong on this. The cuts
Congress made to grants last year were really deep. You know,
we are talking 40 percent, 50 percent. My options were very
limited in terms of what I could do. Now, with respect to the
ports, they were really sliced very deeply. However, you know,
port authorities can work with UASIS in terms of hardening
infrastructure at the ports. That is another way to go about
it.
With respect to red tape or bureaucracy, I will say that
FEMA is now turning around applications on average in 30 days
or less. So they really have tried to cut through that, and
with respect to what is reimbursable and what is not, I would
think that the Port of Los Angeles, and what have you, would be
in regular conversations with FEMA as to what they think they
need most and how it fits within the grant structure.
Ms. Hahn. You know, and Congresswoman Miller really, she
convened the hearing we had last week on Pacific port security
and the issue of 100 percent cargo scanning did come up. We do
understand that the administration has pretty much said at this
point it is not feasible.
Is that something we are even going to continue to strive
towards--and I know there is a lot of levels. You know, point
of origin, you know, the secure ports, Safe and Secure Ports
Initiative. I hear that. I just know, you know, the Port of
Long Beach and L.A., you know, 14 million of those containers
coming in and out annually. I am still very concerned that, you
know, we are not scanning more than 3 or 4 percent and, you
know, I think what we need to be looking at is investing in the
technology that might be out there that actually could help us
achieve this without slowing down commerce, and without, you
know, being a burden. Because I really am still very worried
about those containers coming in and out of our ports and
whether or not we truly know what is inside of them.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, there have been a lot of major
and significant improvements made in the safety and security of
cargo, particularly container shipments, over the last 6 or 7
years, and particularly in the last couple of years. Those
improvements are going to continue. If somewhere down the road
the technology evolves, and the international situation is such
that you could get to something that looks like a 100 percent
scanning, of course that would be something we would look at.
But I have to be frank with the committee, that I think
that that is so down the road, and so slight a possibility that
we are better off focusing on how we attain the goal of
minimizing the risk that something unsafe comes into the
country, and we are really looking at other avenues for getting
there.
Ms. Hahn. Thank you.
Mr. Lungren. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary, for being here, and for enduring the long rounds of
questioning.
Mr. Walberg. I would follow up on my colleague from
Michigan and concerns about the Northern Border as well as
Southern Border issues, and using the tools that we are seeing
reduced in the military right now, such as the C-27J which was
slated for use because of its medium-sized capabilities,
carrying capabilities, transport capabilities, multiple other
things that, frankly, parochially had been programmed to come
to a base in my district. That is not going to be there now. It
has been developed. It is a worthy craft, and I would encourage
Homeland Security to consider that and in relationship to the
border issues, the Northern Border, it may certainly be
helpful.
But having said that, let me move on to my main question I
have here, that also is concerned in my district, with the
President's request reducing the number of detention beds to
1,200 beds for illegal immigrants.
Secretary Napolitano. Reduce it by 1,200.
Mr. Walberg. Reduce it by 1,200, excuse me. The intent is,
as I understand it, to enhance savings in the detention
program, which it is less expensive when you think of $122 per
day on average for a detention bed. Yet there is concern that
the alternatives to detention generally leads to higher levels
of absconding, which adds additional support and security
problems as well. So with the memory of some high-profile cases
of alternative detention situations where an individual, for
instance, in Massachusetts, took off the electronic device and
absconded, will there be guarantees put into this program,
stronger guarantees, stronger preventative tools to make sure
that if we are going away from the beds that we are not having
absconders and high-risk individuals entering our community and
wasting the resources we have done already?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, first of all, I think that it
is important to make clear that we would only put into ATD low,
low-risk individuals, that those who pose any kind of a risk to
public safety would not be considered for ATD. ATD runs as
variety of--you know, there are a variety of ways you can do
it, anything from a kind of a reporting mechanism on a regular
basis, all the way to wearing a bracelet and having to call in
at certain intervals, and the like. So there is a broad range
of ways that it can be done. Our goal is, obviously, not to
have ATD be used as a back door to absconding. Our goal also is
to make sure that we have available the beds we need for
detention, and so the budget request includes language that as
we go through the year, if we need to move some of those ATD
resources back into detention, that I, as the Secretary, would
be allowed to do so.
Mr. Walberg. Is there any serious looking at using
contracted facilities, private facilities?
Secretary Napolitano. For?
Mr. Walberg. For detention.
Secretary Napolitano. We do have some private facilities
used for detention. We do contract with some, yes.
Mr. Walberg. Any expansion of that for cost purposes, as
well as--of course, we would expect them to provide adequate
care, but have we looked at the cost comparisons for using our
own facilities versus contracted private facilities?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, a lot of our contracts are
actually with other public entities, like sheriff's offices who
run jails, so we have a mix of private-public in that sense,
not just Federally-operated facilities. But we are always
looking at cost and bed cost and bed availability as we make
these determinations.
Mr. Walberg. Are there any studies on that, cost
comparisons between the contracted facilities----
Secretary Napolitano. I will look for you. Undoubtedly
there are on a project-by-project basis because they compete,
you know, they bid compete for the contracts. But whether there
is kind of something overall that looks private versus public,
that I don't know.
Mr. Walberg. We would appreciate that information.
Secretary Napolitano. You bet.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
Thank you, I yield back.
Chairman King [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. I
recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me
thank the Ranking Member and thank the Secretary. Thank you for
visiting Lone Star College in Houston. They expressed their
appreciation.
I am also very happy of the disaster aid increase in the
President's budget. I would ask publicly on the record for
someone from the Department, I know FEMA, FEMA Director, on
some issues that are still going on in Houston, Texas,
regarding recent incidences of disaster declarations. So if I
could get that I would greatly appreciate it.
You said something--and I am going to have rapid-fire
questions--said something earlier that I would very much
appreciate hearing again in your five points or as you opened.
You said the issue of radicalization and terrorism, and I am
paraphrasing your words, is not attended to a label by any
religion or any particular group. Would you want to just
clarify that for us? I think it is very important to the many
diverse groups in our Nation how we address the question of
terrorism and terrorist threats here domestically.
Secretary Napolitano. What I said was that terrorism is not
narrowed to any ideology or Nation. It is Islamist, jihadist,
it can be based on other ideologies, it can be internationally
based, it can be home-grown. So it requires those of us that
are in the terrorism prevention area to be looking at all of
the known threats all of the time.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Looking closely at behavioral
characteristics. I know that intelligence looks at many factors
in our war against terror and terrorist acts.
Secretary Napolitano. We are looking for techniques, we are
looking for behaviors, we are looking for tactics, early
warning signs, anything that will enable us to prevent a
terrorist act from being completed.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I will not----
Secretary Napolitano. Or committed, excuse me.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you very much for that. Some of us
agree with that approach. I just wanted to be clear that our
budget framed it in that way as well. I am not asking you this
question, but I do know that having sat through a hearing on
Fast and Furious with the Attorney General, and one being held
in the Oversight Committee, I would refer my colleagues to the
testimony that he gave in both those committees, along with a
very astute report on Fast and Furious that would be helpful to
the questions that they may be seeking to ask.
I want to go to the Transportation Security Administration.
I know that through the FAA bill that I won't even say a
compromise was made, but what I think is a provision that
really is questionable, but it is law because we wanted to move
on the FAA bill. That is to undermine the discretion of the TSA
Administrator as relates to privatization. The language was
``may,'' it is now ``shall.'' Can you speak to the issue of the
testimony given that suggests that the privatization would cost
taxpayers up to 9 percent more if the entire system was not
privatized, or the value of having Federal TSO officers
professionally trained and under the supervision of the United
States Government?
Secretary Napolitano. I believe that the TSA has studies
indicating that the cost of the private facilities is 3 to 9
percent more than what we would ultimately pay on the Federal
side, and that given the security needs that we have and how we
manage the TSO workforce, it is much easier to have them all in
one chain of command. That being said, we will work with the
language and we will abide by the law.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I would expect you to say that,
Madam Secretary, but the law was a compromise to get a larger
bill passed. I would make the point on the record I think it is
disastrous. I would hope that you would use your discretion or
your authority to interact with the White House on how best to
address the question of securing the Nation's airports, and to
make sure that that is the case.
I also would like to ask the question about these AIT
machines and the fact that there is going to be some new
technology, ATR. Are you familiar with the kind of funding that
you will need to retrofit these machines?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. We have planned for that. Our
expectation is the ATR will be in all of the machines by the
end of the year.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Then with respect to small businesses, if
I can ask a question, I know that you are moving away from
total dependence on contractors. I certainly think there is
value to that. There is a Balanced Workforce Initiative, and
opportunities for workers being created. I hope it will be
diversified. But in the course of that, small, minority, and
women-owned businesses are in the eye of the storm. Many of
them have worked effectively and efficiently as contractors for
the Federal Government. How are you seeking to make sure that
they are not disproportionately impacted when you move to this
kind of approach?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, we continue to work on making
sure that we are conducting good outreach to the small business
community, women and minority-owned businesses and the like.
Last year I think almost 30 percent of our contracting dollars
went to small businesses. So what we are going to do is just to
make sure that as we issue RFPs and so forth that we continue
to do so and look at ways that we can facilitate small business
interacting with the Department to try to get some of those
contracting dollars.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you. I look forward to meeting
with you on this issue dealing with the TSA and TSO officers. I
think this is very important.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman King. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
the gentleman from New York City, Mr. Turner, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Chairman King. Nice to see you
again, Madam Secretary. Earlier in the hearings you and
Chairman King discussed the increased threats from Iran against
soft targets, some synagogues and such in New York City, where
we have a large concentration of them. These organizations had
been eligible and are eligible for the National Preparedness
Grant Program. Can you tell me the status of that?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. We have set aside some money in
the 2012 grant awards for the National Preparedness--for NGOs,
excuse me, under the National Preparedness Grant Program. Our
idea, or our vision is to consolidate everything under one
major grant program. That would be one of the grants
consolidated. So to summarize, there will be a separate
carveout in 2012 as we bridge to 2013, but our vision is a lot
of these separate carveouts now be merged into one umbrella
grant program.
Mr. Turner. This year versus last year, increases?
Secretary Napolitano. I am not at liberty to say because
the rules of the body require us to provide adequate--or a
certain number of days' notice. So I have to abide by those.
Mr. Turner. All right. We will wait for that. All right.
Thank you. Just another moment, I would like your comment
again. Earlier Representative Rigell talked about the 287(g)s
and the cooperation between local departments. As you may know
in New York City, and I think this is in other municipalities
as well, perhaps Chicago, the city council has directed the
Department of Corrections not to inform ICE when a felon is
released after serving his time. So we have a three-strike
rule. Strike 1, you entered the country illegally. Strike 2,
you committed a felony. Now we are giving them a third
opportunity in New York. Is the Federal Government interested
in this?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, yes. There are a few
communities, there are a few places around the country where,
for a variety of reasons, Secure Communities has run into some
opposition. Ninety-five percent of the country that we are in
it is fine, it is doing well. We are going to be working with
these localities, Cook County is one, New York City is the
other, see if we can make it clear that honoring the ICE
detainers, allowing there to be a seamless move from
incarceration detention at the local level to our ability to
remove from the country makes sense at a lot of different
levels. So we will be working with those communities.
Mr. Turner. Common sense. Very uncommon commodity. Thank
you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman King. The gentleman yields back. I recognize the
gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary, for your service and the steady hand that we have
had with this Department. It has been noticed and greatly
appreciated. My first question is, to build upon Ms. Miller's
committee hearing, and you spoke a little bit about your
intentions of requesting the 2-year extension for the 100
percent screening. I am sure your staff has briefed you on my
concerns and other Members' concerns. Specifically, I wanted to
speak to you, at that hearing it was said on the record that 4
percent of containers that are identified through the screening
process as high-risk containers are then allowed to leave
foreign waters and to come here to U.S. land. So my question is
specifically I realize it is going to take us time to get
through this 100 percent issue, but clearly I wanted to find
out what were your thoughts of what we were going to do to
prevent those high-risk containers that go through your process
that is currently identified that is getting to our shores
without being scanned and without being inspected?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, there is a number of things
that are underway in that regard to make sure that before those
containers are unloaded in our ports and shipped across the
country, what have you, that we ascertain what is in those
high-risk containers, or we know with confidence what is in
those high-risk containers. In our ports we have monitors, we
have individuals with hand-helds and so forth to look for the
radiological contents, if there are any, among other things. So
really from the point of time when something is put into the
supply chain to the point of time it is actually put in a
container, then loaded on a ship, then delivered to the United
States and unloaded in the United States, there is lots of ways
now under our Supply Chain Initiative that we have the
opportunity to make sure that we have information and have
confidence in the information, and if not we have the ability
to do more by way of either screening or scanning.
Ms. Richardson. Madam Secretary, specifically what I am
asking is can you commit or provide information to this
committee that the 4 percent of the high-risk containers, which
were approximately 1,700, were in fact scanned and/or inspected
prior to getting on U.S. soil since they were not done so in
the foreign?
Secretary Napolitano. Yeah. Part of that is also
randomness. One of the ways that we confound our adversaries is
we always do some checking purely at random so that you never
know at any one time whether something will be pulled off.
Ms. Richardson. No, the question is of the ones that were
identified as high-risk and should have been properly scanned
or inspected had we had the resources or the relationships in
place in those foreign ports, the question is for those 4
percent, what confidence, what assurance do we have in this
committee that as those were unloaded on U.S. soil that they
were in fact then scanned and/or inspected?
Secretary Napolitano. We will get that information for you.
Ms. Richardson. Perfect. Thank you. I appreciate it. If for
some reason I wasn't clear in the earlier part, excuse that.
My other question has to do with you have gotten a lot of
questions today about the grant program. Obviously that is near
and dear to a lot of our hearts because that is our way of
ensuring in our local communities that safety is there. Do you
intend on maintaining the tier systems within the National
Preparedness Grant Program?
Secretary Napolitano. Like I said, we are evaluating. Our
vision is to do things based on risk. We are not tiering in the
way, thinking of tiering in the same way overall that we do
for, for example, in the UASI context, but we are looking at
this as primarily a risk-based grant program.
Ms. Richardson. So could we anticipate that something
similar to that as you evaluate risk, that you would be looking
at cities and communities as they qualify of how they fall
along that level?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. I think you can anticipate that
we will be looking at the area of risk very thoroughly in terms
of these grant dollars. Again, I want to emphasize the
President has requested in the fiscal year 2013 budget $500
million more in grant funding than Congress enacted last year.
I know a number of you really were very strong in your
opposition to the cuts to the grants. You see how they actually
get used out in communities and how important they are. So I am
hopeful as we go through the appropriations and the budget
process that we get some more money to put into the grants pot
to begin with.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, could I follow up?
Chairman King. One quick question if you will, sure.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, sir. That is very kind of you.
Madam Secretary, I am also the Ranking Member on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response. This year FEMA did
in fact conduct our first National test of the emergency alert
system. The test message broadcast was successful in some
areas, but Lady Gaga ruled the day in some other areas. Have
you had an opportunity to do the full review of the EAS test?
If so, are you prepared to share those results with the
committee at this time?
Secretary Napolitano. I have not yet done a full review. I
think that is still within FEMA. Obviously, there were some
issues with the test. That is why you do a test, is to find out
the issues. I have not yet consulted with Lady Gaga on how she
achieved her results.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman King. The gentlelady yields back. I recognize the
Chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee, the gentleman from
California, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here,
and thank you for your service both on the State level and on
the Federal level. Of course what we are doing here is in the
backdrop of the terrible economic circumstance that is facing
us and the budget crisis that is facing us. As one of the top
leaders in our National defense said a year or so ago, the
greatest threat to National security he thought was this
deficit. So I understand why you have some tough decisions to
make with respect to a budget that you bring to us. I
appreciate very much your emphasis on risk-based analysis all
the way through. So I may disagree with you on some things, but
I understand the tough job that you have got here.
Let me ask you about one area that I have got specific
concern about, and that is the area of course of cybersecurity.
We have been working with you and others in the administration
in the area of cybersecurity. I look at your budget that you
submitted, there is a large increase in funding for
cybersecurity activities in the Department, which I appreciate
and I applaud. That seems to be focused specifically on the
responsibility that you have of coordinating the cybersecurity
efforts across different Executive Branch agencies and
departments. Yet there seems to be little in the budget for the
coordination effort and cooperation with the private sector.
Can you tell me, does that indicate a lack of concern for
that or a lessened priority for the responsibility that the DHS
has? As you know, the bill that we have moved out of our
subcommittee and hopefully will be considered by the full
committee recently makes abundantly clear in statute that DHS
would be the main focus and platform of the Federal Government
working with the private sector on the civilian side.
Secretary Napolitano. No, we have quite a bit in the budget
for coordination with the private sector. It is a very
important part. I really appreciate the work on cybersecurity.
I will be testifying on the Senate side tomorrow on that area.
I think it is urgent, and needed, and very, very important. I
think perhaps because the coordination work across the Federal
family and the deployment of--the completion of Einstein 2 and
the readying of Einstein 3 are going to almost--you know, they
are easily segregable from other cyber protection activities we
do, they get broken out. But that is not to suggest that the
work with the private sector is any less robust.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you. On a controversial issue that got
started without Congress fully appreciating it, the SOPA, the
Stop Online Piracy Act, we are starting over again in the
Judiciary Committee. I benefited greatly from assistance by
people in your Department about the impact of our original
proposal over there, or the original proposal over there in the
Judiciary Committee on DNSSEC, which is I happen to think
essential for us to ensure the integrity of the internet. I
would just ask your permission to work with your people as we
work in other committees to try and get an appropriate fix once
we establish what the public policy ought to be. We did not do
a good enough job I think of understanding the technology. You
have some expertise in your Department. I would hope that we
could work with them in attempting to come up with a fix that
is necessary to protect against intellectual property theft,
but at the same time not do unintended damage to the internet
and internet security.
Secretary Napolitano. We would be happy to provide
technical assistance to the committee in that regard.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much. My last subject is the
area of TSA, the Screening Partnership Program. We have had the
head of TSA up here a couple of times. I respect him very much.
I think he does an overall good job. But there does seem to be
a slant in the Department against that program. I notice that
in your budget you have, well, a slight decrease in that
program for fiscal year 2012. It has been a very small program,
I think in part because the Department has been very reluctant
to expand it. In the FAA reauthorization conference report
which was passed early this month by both the House and the
Senate, it has language that requires the administrator to make
a decision whether or not to accept SPP applications within 120
days of receiving it, and to accept any application unless a
determination is made that such approval would compromise
security or have a detrimental effect on cost efficiency or
effectiveness of security screening at that airport. That would
anticipate additional airports requesting that. I would just
hope that there would not be the response that you don't have
the budget to be able to respond to those requests since I am
personally aware of a number of airports that wish to at least
apply for that.
Secretary Napolitano. As I said earlier, we understand the
language in the FAA reauthorization, and we will seek to comply
with it.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman King. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman
from Illinois, Mr. Davis, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Madam Secretary, for being here and for your testimony, and for
the tremendous service that you provide to our country. I
understand from the budget that for the first time a major
focus of Homeland Security grant funding will be sustainment of
capabilities. Just to clarify and help me understand, does this
mean that you intend to focus more on sustainment of
capabilities, and will this maybe over support new
developments?
Secretary Napolitano. It depends, Representative. It
depends on what a particular community needs. It may need to
buy something new. But what we have found in the past is that
there used to be a prohibition on being able to pay for
maintenance over time. So there was a constant emphasis on
buying new stuff, for lack of a better term. We think now, with
$35 billion out the door, that it is time to really be looking
at how we maintain those resources as well as purchasing new
ones.
Mr. Davis. Would you see the sustainment support as being
transitional or would it be perennial?
Secretary Napolitano. Again, you know, with respect to the
past years that are allocated and not yet out the door, we see
sustainment as being part of getting those moneys out the door.
Whether and how that is calculated in for 2013 and beyond is
something that we will work on with the committee.
Mr. Davis. Earlier today you testified before the House
Appropriations Committee regarding the proposed National
Preparedness Grant Program. You explained that a small portion
of the funding would be distributed based on a portion of the
funding population, and that the rest of the money would be
awarded to grantees based on risk. You suggested that States
would expect to receive less money based on formula funding
because the program would be primarily risk-based. Is it your
expectation that the jurisdictions that currently receive the
bulk of money pursuant to risk assessments would receive the
same or even more support under the new program?
Secretary Napolitano. Again, it depends. I don't want to be
premature in saying how the awards will be given out, but
unless a high-risk jurisdiction somehow becomes a low-risk
jurisdiction, that would be the conclusion.
Mr. Davis. The budget proposes $650 million to fund
important research and development advances in cybersecurity,
explosives detection, and chemical, biological response
systems. Of course both Chicago and New York have had some
problems. How do you see these--how optimistic are you that
these new technologies and programs are going to help rectify
those problems?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, again, it depends. But by
focusing the research and development dollars we do get to
three or four areas which we plan to do, and are doing. We have
actually stopped about 100 different programs and projects in
order to focus and concentrate. We think we upped the odds that
we will get some significantly better technologies. Again, the
research cycle is not a 1-year or 2-year cycle, but over time.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you very much. We have noted some
what I think to be rather important advances. And again, we
appreciate your work. I yield back.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Chairman King. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Napolitano,
thanks for sitting here. I know you have been here a long time,
so I appreciate your patience. This is my second round of the
President's budget request and budget hearings. I must say it
has been an eye-opening experience for me. One thing that I am
reminded of is that Washington loves to talk with flourishes,
but generally calls for more bureaucracy as the answer to the
problems. So how is it that the public rhetoric of deficit
reduction and savings is so at odds with the actual action? The
budget request states that guarding against terrorism was the
founding mission of the Department of Homeland Security, and
remains our top priority. You state the importance of border
security, but CBP has no plans to build any additional miles of
fencing. It does not use the operational control as a
measurement, and it fails to include an alternative standard to
measure its effectiveness. In the budget proposal, the Coast
Guard eliminates 1,056 personnel, including 1,000 uniform
active-duty personnel and 772 people from the front line
operational units. It decommissions numerous front-line
operational units, which significantly lessens the interdiction
of illegal aliens, the amount of drugs captured, the security
operations undertaken. This budget request will result in a
reduction of 10 percent of all of the 110-foot patrol boat
operations. You talk about the importance of partnering with
other countries around the world in your testimony, yet you
include no funding to expand the visa waiver program to provide
additional screening for visa applications in high-risk
countries. Yet your Departmental management operation requests
a $10 million increase. Your own personal budget includes a
million-dollar increase from fiscal year 2012. You have
transferred and combined three other offices, including an
Office of International Affairs with 44 positions and a budget
of $8 million with no real explanation as to what they will do,
who they will answer to, and if I do the math right, it is
about $180,000 per employee. Now I know all that isn't
associated personnel costs, but I just did some quick math
here.
So my question to you is how can you justify taking people
away from the field with regard to Coast Guard and other areas,
the front lines of defense, to bloat the office of bureaucracy
and create duplicity with the work that the State Department
does? By duplicity, I mean there is a lot of things within the
Office of International Affairs that I would think the State
Department is already doing. So there is some redundancy and
duplicity. So if you could justify that for me.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, first of all, I will start with
CBP, where the budget does sustain all the existing plus-ups in
personnel. Our numbers at the border speak for themselves. They
are very strong. We haven't seen this few illegal immigrant
attempts at that border since the early 1970s. I say that as
someone who was raised in a border State and who lived her
adult life in a border State. The numbers continue to go down.
Mr. Duncan. Let me ask you that, do you think the economy
has anything to do with that, the number of illegals wanting to
come here for work?
Secretary Napolitano. Undoubtedly. But the reports we have
also with the added personnel, equipment, and the like that you
will all have funded----
Mr. Duncan. I agree with you there.
Secretary Napolitano [continuing]. It allows us do a lot
more. I go down there regularly. I will be going back in the
next couple of days back, and I will go now to Arizona and
south Texas. So what we have requested for CBP allows us to
sustain those very, very strong efforts.
With respect to the Coast Guard, we are not laying off
anyone or removing anyone. But what we are doing is not filling
some attrited positions, and not hiring for positions that in
the judgment of the Commandant we really don't need. Those fall
within headquarters staff in Washington, DC, some of the
recruitment staff that are unnecessary. But they are not,
again, the front-line personnel that I think you are thinking
about.
What was the third one that you had?
Mr. Duncan. We were just talking about some of the
duplicity with----
Secretary Napolitano. Oh, the State Department.
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. This International Affairs Office.
Secretary Napolitano. Yeah, we have an enormous
international portfolio. It is something that because we are
called Homeland Security most people don't realize. But we
actually have personnel in 75 countries right now. They do
everything from screening cargo, they work in airports, they do
training missions. They do a whole host of activities that we
are required to do. One of the things we have been focused on
is pushing the work of the Department out from the actual
physical borders of the United States to other places in the
world. If we do it, that has a number of benefits. One is it
maximizes our opportunity to interrupt something. But it also
takes some of the pressure off the lines at our airports and
our land ports. So that international work has become more and
more important as the Department has matured.
Mr. Duncan. For the record, I just want to say that I
appreciate your not taking people out of the field, the front-
line operatives. I understand the need to trim personnel, to
trim budgets in these economic types. But the taxpayers expect
us to make sure that every dollar is accounted for, every
dollar is spent wisely. That was the purpose of the line of
questioning. But I think having visited the port with Ms.
Miller in Baltimore, seeing what the Coast Guard is doing, what
the CBP is doing, I appreciate the efforts to keep our country
safe. Thank you.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
Chairman King. The time of the gentleman has expired. Madam
Secretary, you have been here now for well over 2 hours. I want
to thank you very much. I have one question, the Ranking Member
has a question. Also for the record Mr. Smith, who is also
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he had to leave this
hearing. He has three questions he would like responses to, if
possible, by the end of February. I submit them for the record
upon unanimous consent. Without objection, it is so ordered. We
will get those questions out to you.
A question I have myself is in October 2011 there was a
select group of Mexico-based trucking carriers which was
granted provisional operating authority, allowing them access
throughout the United States, and eventually permanent
authority. Section 703 of the SAFE Port Act requires the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of
Transportation to draft guidelines for cross-border trucking no
later than April 2008. The Department has yet to issue those
guidelines. On November 21 of last year Chairwoman Miller and I
wrote an oversight letter to you expressing security concerns
about the pilot. On January 20 your staff got back to us and
said that you are currently drafting guidelines, and you
anticipate a timely resolution of the issue.
So I have four questions. You can answer them now or get
back to us on it. Can you provide a time line when you can
expect the Department to issue these guidelines? How has the
pilot impacted the volume of trucks at the border? How is CBP
handling this increased volume? To the extent that you can
disclose it in open setting or in a not-classified setting, are
the Mexico-based carriers involved in this pilot subject to a
significant level of additional scrutiny compared to American-
based trucks in terms of risk-based targeting? Does the
presence of Mexican trucks and personnel with access throughout
the United States result in any additional vulnerability?
If so, how is this mitigated? Also the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration has equipped all vehicles
involved in this program with a GPS device that allows for
remote monitoring of the vehicles. How do you collaborate
ensuring that the relevant DHS components have access to this
GPS information?
You can either answer it today to the extent you wish to,
or get back to us.
Secretary Napolitano. Why don't we get back to you? Some of
that does require us going into some classified information,
Mr. Chairman. But I will be happy to send you something in
writing if you wish, and we will answer those questions for
you.
Chairman King. If you would. Great. Thank you. With that, I
yield to the gentleman from Mississippi, the Ranking Member.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, at
several hearings we talked about recoupment and the concern
that a lot of people, through no fault of their own, received
reimbursements for expenses. What we needed was some clarity on
whether or not those individuals would be pursued for possible
prosecution. I think the appropriators saw that issue, too. I
would like to thank your operation for understanding the
sensitivity of what those many families went through during
Katrina, and some several years later receive a bill, and the
fact that since you now have devised a notification procedure
and some appeal procedure of payments, I would encourage you to
make that as robust as possible so that individuals who
probably don't have the money to pay back can pursue the waiver
provisions of it. I would encourage you to be as aggressive in
public service announcements and a lot of other organizations
who worked with many of those families, to include them in part
of the strategy so that they can not become victims of a system
that wasn't designed to make them victims. So I would encourage
you to look at that.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. I appreciate that. We have the
ability now to grant waivers for these older disasters,
Katrina, Rita being among them. FEMA is preparing that process
now. But I think we are prepared to be very robust there.
Mr. Thompson. Another issue is basically we have spent
millions of dollars trying to design biometric entrance and
exit systems, starts, stops. That is still, I believe, a wish
of a lot of us that somehow we should perfect this and make it
a part of the system. Do you see that happening at some point?
Secretary Napolitano. I think biometric entry is well on
its way. Biometric exit is a much different kettle of fish, in
part because our ports were not designed to have biometric
equipment in the exit lanes. That is just one of the many
reasons. So that is going to be a very expensive process. To
compensate for that we are, as you know, moving US-VISIT to
CBP. We want to consolidate those kind of border-vetting
responsibilities, get greater leverage out of the resources
that we have--CBP and ICE for overstays, but CBP at the exit
stage. We also have developed now, and are able to combine a
number of different databases for very layered and robust
biographic information at the exit stage. It is not the same as
biometric, but it is very close to the same. We think that that
will give us a good bridge to when ultimately biometric becomes
feasible to do.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman King. The gentleman yields back. Now with some
trepidation I yield to the gentlelady from Texas for one
question.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your courtesies. Madam Secretary, I sit on two
committees, subcommittees, that both deal with the issue of
cargo, the Transportation Security Committee and the Border
Committee that deals with border, both land and of course the
ports. I am, frankly, disappointed and concerned about what we
have come to in light of the situation dealing with not doing
100 percent cargo inspection. So my question is--I heard an
earlier answer, but I just wanted a clearer understanding. My
question is with the really concern as it relates to air cargo
and the lack of 100 percent inspection. Can we, and will you
set actual time frames of which we can work together as a
committee and as your Department is working, to see what the
alternatives are, or in fact to see whether or not the 100
percent cargo inspection is still viable even if the deadline
has been pushed back?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I was talking about scanning in
the maritime environment. With respect to air cargo, we are at
the stage of 100 percent for cargo that is put on passenger
planes leaving from U.S. domestic airports, whether they be
leaving on a domestic flight or on an international flight.
Ms. Jackson Lee. That is what I wanted you to clarify.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. We don't do screening at
international airports. So we are working with the
international airports or foreign-flagged carriers to cover the
high-risk flights from abroad.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. With the ports, with the other
aspect you will work with the committee? The other aspect of
screening, you will work with the committee?
Secretary Napolitano. Screening and/or scanning, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman King. Thank the gentlelady.
Madam Secretary, thank you very much for your testimony
today. Again, thanks for accommodating our schedule. Sorry for
the delay at the beginning. We were on the floor voting. So
thank you for your testimony and the Members for their
questions.
The Members of the committee may have some additional
questions for you. We would ask you to respond to those in
writing. The hearing record will be held open for 10 days.
Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions Submitted by Chairman Peter T. King for Janet Napolitano
Question 1. Can you provide a time line when you can expect the
Department to issue guidelines on cross-border trucking?
Answer. As of May 24, the guidelines were available via the
internet at: http://www.dhs.gov/files/publications/cross-border-
trucking-guidelines.shtm.
Question 2. How has the pilot impacted the volume of trucks at the
border, and how is CBP handling this increased volume?
Answer. There has been not been a substantial increase in volume,
since many of the program's interested applicants are undergoing the
application process to be granted operating authority.
Question 3. To the extent that you can disclose it in an open
setting or in nonclassified setting, are the Mexico-based carriers
involved in this pilot subject to a significant level of additional
scrutiny compared to American-based trucks on terms of risk-based
targeting?
Answer. Every company that applies to participate in the program is
being vetted by CBP as well as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA). CBP is applying the same eligibility criteria
used for Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and Free
and Secure Trade (FAST) to advise the Department of Transportation
whether CBP has any derogatory feedback. FMCSA considers CBP's feedback
as part of its deliberative process. Every truck that crosses the
border, regardless of its destination, is subject to the same, layered
risk assessment process. For trucks participating in this pilot, new
data variables like the destination of the truck will cause the risk
scoring to be adjusted.
Question 4. Does the presence of Mexican trucks and personnel with
access throughout the United States result in any additional
vulnerability? If so, how is it mitigated?
Answer. No, there is no additional vulnerability since the trucks,
their operators, and any passengers will go through a layered risk
assessment process before being allowed to cross the border and
operators and any passengers will be required to have appropriate visas
to proceed beyond the border zone.
Question 5. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has
equipped all vehicles involved in this program with a GPS device that
allows for remote monitoring of the vehicles. How do you collaborate in
ensuring that the relevant DHS components have access to this GPS
information?
Answer. FMCSA has indicated it will make GPS information available
to DHS components upon request.
Question 6. In regards to TWIC readers, when can we expect
something from the Department on TWIC reader guidance and whether the
problem with the readers the Department or where has the breakdown been
for last 4+ years?
Answer. Promulgation of the TWIC reader rule is a Department-wide
regulatory priority. The Secretary has directed DHS components to
devote the necessary resources and manpower to complete the rulemaking
expeditiously but consistent with all applicable requirements and after
due and careful consideration of the relevant policy and operational
matters. The U.S. Coast Guard intends to publish a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking by the end of 2012 to seek comment on card reader
requirements and deployment requirement plans. An Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the TWIC reader requirements was
published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2009. The ANPRM comments
have been analyzed along with pilot data, and together they will help
inform the NPRM. The TWIC Reader Pilot Report was completed and
delivered to Congress on February 27, 2012. The Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) designed and conducted a Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC) Reader Pilot to test the business
processes, technology, and operational impacts associated with
deploying transportation security card readers at secure areas of the
marine transportation system. TSA's goals for the TWIC Reader Pilot
included determining the technical and operational impacts of
implementing a transportation security card reader system; determining
any actions that may be necessary to ensure that all vessels and
facilities to which this section applies are able to comply with such
regulations; and performing an analysis of the viability of equipment
under the extreme weather conditions of the marine environment.
Questions Submitted by Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Janet
Napolitano
Question 1. For the first time in DHS' history, you are coming
before Congress, requesting less money than you received in the year
before. In reviewing your submission, it would appear that your
efficiency efforts are, in part, responsible. While you are to be
commended for your efforts at finding areas for cost savings, I cannot
help but feel that some of the reduction is at the expense of vital
programs. How much of the roughly $1.3 billion reduction is
attributable to efficiencies and how much is the result of reducing
capacity in certain areas or eliminating programs?
Answer. Since the beginning of this administration, the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) has made an unprecedented commitment to
efficiency and has implemented a variety of initiatives to cut costs,
share resources across Components, and consolidate and streamline
operations wherever possible in order to best support our front-line
operations and build a culture of fiscal discipline and accountability.
With the launch of Secretary Napolitano's Department-wide Efficiency
Review (ER) in March 2009, DHS has been proactive in promoting
efficiency throughout the Department. We have changed the way DHS does
business, identifying over $3 billion in cost avoidances by
streamlining operations and fostering a culture of greater
transparency, accountability, and fiscal discipline through 45 ER
initiatives and other Department-wide initiatives. DHS has redeployed
these cost avoidances to mission-critical initiatives across the
Department.
To preserve core front-line priorities in fiscal year 2013, the
administration's budget redirects over $850 million in base resources
from administrative and mission support areas, including contracts,
personnel (through attrition), information technology, travel,
personnel moves, overtime, directed purchasing, professional services,
and vehicle management. Additionally, for the first time in the
Department's history, we conducted a formal base budget review for
fiscal year 2013, looking at all aspects of the DHS budget to find
savings within our current resources and to better align those with
operational needs.
Question 2. I applaud the Department's effort to move away from
dependence on contractors. The Balanced Workforce Strategy seems to
have some merit and, in a very short period of time, it seems that DHS
has made strides, created new Federal Government job opportunities, and
reduced costs. I am concerned, however, that, unless you pay a watchful
eye, there's a risk that the implementation of this strategy may have
some unintended consequences. Specifically, I am concerned that small
and minority-owned businesses that rely on Federal contracts to survive
may be disproportionately impacted. What, if any, steps are being taken
to protect against such unintended consequences?
Answer. The Department has taken several steps to ensure that small
and disadvantaged businesses are not unfairly affected by the Balanced
Workforce Strategy.
In keeping with OMB guidance in Policy Letter 11-01, we are
not applying the Balanced Workforce Strategy to contracts with
total dollar values below $150,000, given that the values of
such contracts suggest that they do not pose a significant risk
to mission control and should be reserved for small and
disadvantaged businesses, when possible.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Policy Letter 11-01,
Performance of Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions (Sept.
2011)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
advises the Balanced Workforce Strategy Departmental Working
Group (which approves Components' sourcing recommendations for
contracts currently being performed by contractors),\2\
focusing on all insourcing decisions with the potential to
affect small and disadvantaged businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Contracts for new or re-competed requirements are reviewed and
approved by Component-level Balanced Workforce Strategy Working Groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department encourages Components to include DHS Small
Business Specialists in the deliberations of their Component-
level Balanced Workforce Strategy working groups.
Question 3. The recently released Office of Personnel Management
2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey revealed that at DHS, 91.4% of
the respondents believed that the work they do is important and 72%
believed that DHS accomplishes its mission. That's good news. The bad
news; however, is that only 32.3% believed that creativity and
innovation are rewarded and only 40%, less than half, believed that
they have the resources they need--people, materials, and budget--to
get their job done. On the heels of this report is a budget that strips
requirements down--especially in the management and administrative
arena--to the bare bones. How does the Department intend to reconcile
the effect of limited budget authorities with the need to boost
employee morale, especially in light of this recent survey and the fact
that DHS' morale remains low, as compared to other Federal agencies?
Answer. I am committed to making DHS one of the best places to work
in the Federal Government and efforts are taking place across the
Department--based on employee input--to achieve this goal. From
highlighting employee accomplishments to strengthening leadership
development opportunities at every level of the DHS workforce, we're
focused on providing employees across the Department with opportunities
to develop and grow. We're also holding leadership accountable. Through
a new Employee Engagement Executive Steering Committee, comprised of
Component leadership, we're meeting regularly to share ideas among
offices and identify ways to continue to improve the work environment.
In addition, I have directed Component Heads to:
Develop and assume responsibility for employee engagement
improvement plans;
Identify and assign specific responsibilities for improved
employee engagement to Component Senior Executive performance
objectives;
Identify and assign a Senior Accountable Official (Component
Deputy or senior management official) to serve on the DHS
Employee Engagement Executive Steering Committee (ESC);
Conduct town hall meetings with employees (including in
field locations);
Attend a Labor-Management Forum meeting (if applicable); and
Provide monthly reports on actions planned and progress made
to the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer.
The DHS Employee Engagement Executive Steering Committee is
responsible for identifying DHS-wide initiatives to improve employee
engagement, oversee the efforts of each DHS Component to address
employee engagement, and provide periodic reports to the Under
Secretary for Management, Deputy Secretary, and Secretary on
Department-wide efforts to improve employee morale and engagement as
measured by the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) results and
other survey/employee feedback tools in use.
In addition, DHS has a number of other initiatives underway as part
of our comprehensive strategy to enhance employee morale, including:
Strengthening the leadership skills and capacity of all
supervisors and managers in DHS via the Cornerstone supervisory
leadership development program;
Delivering DHS-wide programs that emphasize common
leadership skills across the Department, including the DHS
Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program, the DHS
Fellows Program, and the soon-to-launch Secretary's Honors
Program;
Creating one common Learning Management System (LMS); and
Implementing a new Diversity and Inclusion strategic plan.
Question 4. In fiscal year 2011, the Department executed nearly
134,000 procurement transactions. This fiscal year, 12,385 have been
executed thus far. I am concerned about the amount of oversight that is
needed to ensure that these contracts are being properly performed. The
lack of contractor oversight has been a significant challenge faced by
the Department. SBInet, Deepwater, and the Federal Protective Service
contract guard program are a few examples of how inadequate oversight
can result in increased costs and performance issues. Given the risks,
I had hoped to see you request new personnel resources for contract
oversight. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a plus-up in this
area. What do you plan to do to improve contract oversight, since you
are not expanding your cadre of Contractor Officer Technical
Representatives?
Answer. I agree that it is important to have appropriate contract
oversight and a sufficient number of well-trained personnel to ensure
that DHS contractors are providing goods and services in accordance
with the terms and conditions of their contracts with the Department.
DHS is improving contract oversight by developing and providing
enhanced training for employees who are administering contracts,
creating new tools to improve the efficiency of our oversight, and
expanding the number of people who administer contracts including the
number of Level II and Level III certified Contracting Officer
Representatives.
Late in fiscal year 2011, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
(OFPP) issued new certification requirements for Contracting Officers'
Representatives (CORs), formerly referred to as Contracting Officers'
Technical Representatives. OFPP's new policy introduced a three-tiered
certification program that increases training and certification
requirements for each successive certification level. Because of the
complexity of the DHS contract portfolio, DHS imposes the two most
rigorous certification levels and only certifies individuals to COR
Levels II and III. The more intensive training and experience
requirements better prepare our CORs to identify lapses in schedule,
increases in cost, and poor performance in execution.
To support these CORs, DHS issued its Contracting Officers'
Representative Essential Elements Guide in fiscal year 2011. The Guide
is currently being expanded to cover more contract administration
issues and provide more samples, checklists, and other job aids. The
Guide will enhance our CORs' knowledge and leverage the collective
experience of our more seasoned CORs to enable DHS CORs to more
efficiently resolve problems and document any shortcomings in
contractor performance. It is anticipated that this Guide will be
continuously refined to meet the CORs' needs and adapted to an on-line
wiki-like environment to promote best practices across the Department.
DHS is also taking steps this fiscal year to identify the
appropriate level of contract oversight for critical contracts and
contracts closely associated with inherently Governmental functions.
While still a pilot program, the new Balanced Workforce Tool allows
program offices to identify the Government resources that should be
applied to administer the contract in advance of contract award.
Several DHS components have expanded contract oversight beyond
those individuals identified as CORs. For example, at the
Transportation Security Administration, property administrators are
being added to the contract administration team. Using this cadre to
handle routine property issues allows the higher-skilled CORs to focus
their attention on oversight of contractor performance issues.
Likewise, at the United States Coast Guard, technical monitors are used
extensively to perform routine inspections. These technically trained
individuals provide data to the CORs enhancing the CORs ability to
oversee overall performance.
DHS is devoting additional resources to the Office of Program
Accountability and Risk Management (PARM). This office aids major
programs with defining requirements and by providing guidance and
support in areas that could impact the programs' performance, and
recommends correction actions. PARM will work with program offices to
minimize performance risk as well as serve as a valuable resource for
CORs on our major programs.
We have also developed and are instituting an aggressive program to
develop a highly-skilled cadre of certified CORs. As of June 28, 2012,
DHS has 5,487 certified CORs, 1,100 which have been certified in fiscal
year 2012. By rapidly qualifying additional DHS personnel into the COR
cadre, we are able to spread contract oversight responsibilities across
a larger pool of individuals, thereby reducing the demand on
individuals assigned. Additionally, we are instituting best practices
and new tools, enabling each assigned COR to perform their functions
more effectively and efficiently.
Question 5. Pursuant to the fiscal year 2013 request, the Office of
International Affairs (OIA) will move from the Office of Policy to an
independent status with a direct report to you. When the Department's
Office of Inspector General examined OIA a few years ago, it made 18
separate recommendations for its improvement. How will moving OIA from
policy to a stand-alone office improve its functions and what affect
will this move have on on-going security negotiations with our foreign
partners?
Answer. As the Department continues to mature and OIA continues to
take on more significant responsibilities across the Department, the
Office of International Affairs can best execute its responsibilities
through a similar structure to other external facing outreach offices
such as the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA) and the Office of
Legislative Affairs (OLA). The proposed reorganization improves
efficiency by more clearly identifying the role of this office and
allowing it to better coordinate across all Components. The change is
also in line with several recommendations contained within the
Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit in June 2008
(Management of Department of Homeland Security International Activities
and Interests, OIG 08-71).
Question 6a. In 2010, you formed a Counterterrorism Advisory Board,
a group of interagency officials that meet to help coordinate
counterterrorism efforts across DHS and oversee the issuance of the new
threat bulletin program. Can you explain how the counterterrorism
advisory board functions? To date, what would you say have been the
board's main successes?
Question 6b. During consideration of the DHS authorization bill in
October, there was a proposal to make the board permanent, by
authorizing it in law. Is that something you'd support?
Answer. Following the attempted attack on December 25, 2009, I
directed Rand Beers to be the Department's Coordinator for
Counterterrorism in order to better coordinate counterterrorism
activities across the Department's directorates, components, and
offices related to detection, prevention, response to, and recovery
from acts of terrorism. In November 2010, DHS created the
Counterterrorism Advisory Board (CTAB) to further improve coordination
on counterterrorism among DHS components. The CTAB is chaired by the
Coordinator for Counterterrorism, and co-chaired by the Under Secretary
of Intelligence and Analysis and the Assistant Secretary for Policy.
Members include the leadership of TSA, CBP, ICE, FEMA, USCG, USCIS,
USSS, NPPD, and OPS. The DHS General Counsel serves as legal advisor to
the CTAB and is present at all meetings.
The CTAB brings together the intelligence, operational, and policy-
making elements within DHS headquarters and its components to
facilitate a cohesive and coordinated operational response so that DHS
can deter and disrupt terrorist operations.
The CTAB meets on a regular basis to discuss current intelligence
and coordinate on-going threat mitigation efforts and operational
activities. These discussions include how best to share information
with other Federal, State, local, Tribal, territorial, and private-
sector partners; as well as how best to implement these actions. Under
certain circumstances, the CTAB may meet more often. There is a small
number of detailed DHS staff that coordinates the day-to-day
activities.
The CTAB has been integral in coordinating Department-wide efforts
to respond to numerous intelligence threat streams over the past 2
years. For example, through the CTAB, all of the Department's
countermeasures leading up to the 10th Anniversary of 9/11 were
coordinated. The CTAB also successfully coordinated the Department's
countermeasures during the 2011 holiday period. Additional details on
the CTAB's activities in response to threat streams are classified, and
we would be happy to provide a briefing for you or your staff in a
classified setting.
Question 7. What is DHS doing in its role with the National
Countering Violent Extremism strategy?
Answer. The Department has responsibility for implementing a range
of CVE initiatives outlined in the administration's National CVE
Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) for Empowering Local Partners to
Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States. This role includes
leveraging the Department's analytic, research, and information
capabilities, engaging State and local authorities and communities to
bolster pre-existing local partnerships, and supporting State, local,
Tribal, and territorial law enforcement and communities through
training, community policing practices, and grants. DHS works closely
to coordinate and collaborate on these efforts with the National
Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other interagency and
community partners.
The Department is working with its Federal, State, local, Tribal,
and territorial partners to fully integrate CVE awareness into the
daily activities of law enforcement and local communities nationwide by
building upon pre-existing partnerships and their existing practices,
such as community policing, that have proven to be successful for
decades. Specifically, DHS has made substantial progress in CVE in
three key areas:
1. Better understanding the phenomenon of violent extremism through
extensive analysis and research on the behaviors and indicators
of violent extremism;
2. Enhancing operational partnerships with local communities, State
and local law enforcement, and international partners; and
3. Supporting community policing efforts through curriculum
development, training, and grant prioritization.
Better Understanding the Phenomenon of Violent Extremism
DHS has conducted extensive analysis and research to better
understand the threat of violent extremism. This includes over 75 case
studies and assessments produced by the DHS Office for Intelligence and
Analysis (I&A) since 2009 on homegrown violent extremist activities and
potential material support activities in the United States on behalf of
violent extremist groups or causes, including an in-depth study that
looks at the common behaviors associated with 62 cases of al-Qaeda-
inspired violent extremists. DHS has also produced numerous
unclassified homeland security reference aids analyzing domestic
violent extremist groups.
Enhancing Operational Partnerships and Best Practices with Local
Communities, State and Local law Enforcement, and International
Partners
DHS has made significant advancements in operational CVE exchanges
with international partners. We have international CVE partnerships
with Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands,
Spain, and the United Kingdom, as well as partnerships with
international law enforcement organizations such as Europol. For the
past year, DHS, Europol, and E.U. partners have exchanged information
on U.S.- and E.U.-based fusion center best practices, CVE training
standards, and research and case studies, including a joint case study
on the 2011 Norway attacks. These exchanges help us support State and
local law enforcement by equipping them with up-to-date analysis on the
behaviors and indicators of violent extremism, so they can prevent
potential future violent extremist incidents from occurring in their
communities.
DHS has coordinated with the Department of State to train field-
based U.S. Government officials, both domestically and internationally,
on how to engage and partner with local communities to build community
resilience against terrorist recruitment and radicalization to
violence. This training has encouraged interagency relationship-
building and ensures that U.S. Government officials operating in the
CVE sphere, both domestically and at our embassies abroad, promote a
consistent CVE message while offering the opportunity for an exchange
of good practices.
The Department has also significantly expanded outreach to
communities that may be targeted for recruitment by violent extremists
and promote a greater awareness of Federal resources, programs, and
security measures available to communities. For example, the DHS Office
of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) has held over 72 roundtable
events Nation-wide since 2011, which have helped to address grievances,
increase awareness of CVE resources, and build partnerships between
State and local law enforcement, local government, and community
stakeholders.
To further strengthen the partnership with law enforcement, DHS,
the White House, NCTC, DOJ, and the FBI hosted 50 State, local, and
Tribal law enforcement officials at the White House in January 2012, to
inform the Federal Government on how we can better support their local
CVE efforts. Secretary Napolitano, Attorney General Holder, FBI
Executive Assistant Director Giuliano, and Assistant to the President
for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Brennan participated. The
feedback received in this workshop supported the Department's continued
commitment to including CVE language in fiscal year 2012 grant guidance
and the current development of on-line CVE training for officers
Nation-wide. We are also working with law enforcement organizations,
including the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the
Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), the Major County Sheriffs
Association (MCSA), and the National Sheriffs Association (NSA), to
implement CVE efforts and protect communities from violence.
Supporting Community Policing Efforts Through Curriculum Development,
Training, and Grant Prioritization
DHS is in the final stages of developing and implementing CVE
training for Federal, State, local, and correctional facility law
enforcement, as well as a training block for State police academies.
The key goal of the training is to help law enforcement recognize the
behaviors associated with violent extremist activity and distinguish
between those behaviors that are potentially related to crime and those
that are Constitutionally protected or part of a religious or cultural
practice.
As part of our effort to develop operationally accurate and
appropriate training, DHS is working with the Los Angeles Police
Department (LAPD), MCCA, and the National Consortium for Advance
Policing (NCAP) to complete a continuing education CVE curriculum for
front-line and executive State and local law enforcement. DHS is also
working with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
to develop an internet-based CVE curriculum for State police academies,
which will be introduced into academies before the end of 2012.
DHS is also working with the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC) to deliver a CVE curriculum for Federal law enforcement
that will be integrated into existing training for new recruits. In
collaboration with the Interagency Threat Assessment Coordination Group
(ITACG), Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and National Joint Terrorism Task
Force (NJTTF), the Department is working to implement CVE awareness
training for front-line correctional facility, probation, and parole
officers at the State and local level.
We are also working closely with interagency partners, and law
enforcement associations, such as the MCCA and senior law enforcement
officials Nation-wide to improve CVE training standards. In January,
2012, the MCCA adopted a motion to ensure that all CVE training is
operationally appropriate and accurate. The Department is also working
to develop an accreditation process for CVE trainers and develop a
train-the-trainer program by fiscal year 2013.
DHS has also expanded fiscal year 2012 grant guidance to include
funding for CVE training, partnerships with local communities, and
local CVE engagement in support of the SIP. The Department also co-
chairs a working group on CVE Training with NCTC that helps ensure that
training best practices are created and shared throughout the
interagency.
Question 8. What is DHS doing to counter violent extremism by
right-wing groups and small cells?
Answer. We face a threat environment where violent extremism is
neither constrained by international borders, nor limited to any single
ideology. We know that foreign terrorist groups affiliated with al-
Qaeda (AQ), and individual terrorist leaders, are actively seeking to
recruit and/or inspire individuals living in the United States to carry
out attacks against U.S. targets.
DHS has designed a CVE approach that applies to all forms of
violent extremism, regardless of ideology, and does not infringe on
civil liberties protected by the Constitution.
In the case of right-wing extremist threats and other non-AQ
threats, DHS is continuing to support communities and local law
enforcement by providing briefings, products, case studies, and
information sharing on right-ring extremism and other non-AQ violent
extremist threats. DHS also integrates research and case studies on
right-wing extremism and non-AQ-related violent extremisms into our
training and curriculum development efforts.
DHS is continuing to leverage its analytic and research
capabilities to further understand right-wing and non-AQ-inspired
violent extremism threats in an international context. Additionally,
DHS exchanges analyses and studies in this area with international
partners.
DHS would be pleased to brief you on the products, training, and
briefings our components regularly share with State, local, and
international partners at your convenience.
Question 9a. I was interested to see that, for the first time,
there is a line item in the budget for the ``Counterviolent Extremism
through State and Local Law Enforcement Program'' within the Office of
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Please explain the specifics of this
program.
With respect to training, will it be conducted by DHS, if so, will
it be done by the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office?
Question 9b. Will the program provide funding for the purchasing,
by State and local law enforcement, of training from private companies
and foundations? If so, what, if any, standards or requirements would
be applied?
Answer. CRCL supports the Department's mission to secure the Nation
while preserving individual liberty, fairness, and equality under the
law. CRCL integrates civil rights and civil liberties into all the
Department's activities. CRCL subject matter experts conduct on-site
training courses for law enforcement personnel and intelligence
analysts to help increase understanding, communication, build trust,
and encourage interactive dialogue between officers and the communities
they serve and protect.
While CRCL does not provide direct funding for training from
private companies and foundations, DHS grants may be used for such
purposes. To ensure accurate training, DHS released CVE Training
Guidance and Best Practices to all State and local partners and
grantees as part of DHS' grant guidance policy on October 7, 2011. We
are also working closely with interagency partners, and law enforcement
associations, such as the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) and
senior law enforcement officials Nation-wide to improve CVE training
standards. The Department is also working to develop an accreditation
process for CVE trainers and develop a train-the-trainer program by
fiscal year 2013.
Question 10. These days, one of the fiercest debates in Congress
has been about whether DHS should have the authority to directly
regulate cybersecurity standards for certain critical infrastructure
providers essential to our National or economic security. This debate
will likely be decided by legislation, one way or the other. From your
experience working with the private sector, conducting risk
assessments, and providing operational support on a voluntary basis, do
you think the private sector critical infrastructure is properly
secured from cyber attacks with the voluntary programs in place today?
If not, do you think they can ever adequately secure themselves
when prompted by voluntary or market-based incentives with little
Government regulation?
Answer. Critical infrastructure owners and operators face enormous
potential consequences from a range of cyber threats and
vulnerabilities. The Department is committed to expanding its work with
its partners both in the public and private sector by supporting
legislation that strengthens the market for better cybersecurity
practices, encourages improved information sharing between Government
and the private sector, and establishes mandatory baseline security
requirements across the most crucial sectors of covered critical
infrastructure.
Question 11. In the unfortunate event that a crippling cyber attack
is carried out against our Government networks, critical infrastructure
sector, or both, who, ultimately, is in charge of responding to such an
attack, mitigating the damage and restoring the networks? Do you
believe that we have sufficient clarity in the authorities granted to
DHS, the FBI, and DOD?
Answer. Over the past 3 years, the Federal Government has enhanced
its capacity to protect against and respond to cyber threats in a
number of ways, including increasing the number of cyber experts and
standing up information-sharing mechanisms. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) coordinates the response to significant cyber incidents,
particularly coordinating National-level emergencies, leading
mitigation efforts to help impacted entities restore their networks,
and promulgating information from the attack to help other entities
protect against a similar attack. DHS coordinates closely with our
interagency partners that have complementary missions and authorities
in the National response to such an event.
DHS's National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center
(NCCIC) serves as the primary information exchange during a significant
cyber incident. The NCCIC coordinates National response efforts,
assists with prioritization and deconfliction, and leverages collective
expertise and capabilities among Federal, State, local, Tribal, and
territorial governments and the private sector. The NCCIC executes
these activities consistent with a number of current authorities,
including the Homeland Security Act, the Federal Information Security
Management Act, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5,
HSPD-7, and HSPD-23/National Security Presidential Directive-54.
However, DHS currently carries out its cyber mission
responsibilities under a patchwork of statutory authority and Executive
Branch directives. There is no single overarching statutory framework
describing all the DHS roles and responsibilities for cybersecurity.
Pending legislation will help by codifying and clarifying current DHS
responsibilities and authorities as part of a coherent statutory
framework that will ensure that DHS has the continued ability to carry
out its cybersecurity mission effectively and efficiently.
Question 12. The budget requests to transfer the core US-VISIT
operations, including the management of the biometric storage and
matching service, from NPPD to CBP to align US-VISIT's operations with
CBP's mission at the border and the collection of airline departure
information. I have long supported transfer of US-VISIT's core
operations to CBP and therefore support this request.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on this program
over the past few years, but the biometric entry-exit system that
Congress envisioned has been elusive. Please explain how this transfer
will help US-VISIT and CBP meet their respective missions, as well as
what efficiencies the transfer will help achieve.
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes the transfer of US-
VISIT functions from NPPD to CBP and ICE. Currently, CBP operates
numerous screening and targeting systems, and integrating US-VISIT
within CBP will strengthen the Department's overall vetting capability
while also realizing efficiencies.
Pending enactment, CBP will assume responsibility for the core US-
VISIT operations and management of the biometric and biographic
information storage and matching and watch list management services.
ICE will assume responsibility of the US-VISIT overstay analysis
services. CBP uses US-VISIT systems to help determine admissibility of
foreign nationals arriving at all U.S. ports of entry (POEs) and to
process aliens entering the United States illegally between the POEs.
Currently, CBP operates numerous screening and targeting systems,
supporting more than 70,000 users from over 20 Federal agencies that
are responsible for a wide range of programs that rely on CBP
information and systems to determine benefits, process travelers,
inform investigations, support case management, and enhance
intelligence capabilities. The US-VISIT systems will complement the CBP
systems by adding the biometric identification and screening
capabilities, which are also used across and beyond DHS. It will
streamline interactions with the U.S. Department of State and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation for both biographic and biometric
screening.
Although ICE will assume responsibility for US-VISIT overstay
analysis, CBP and ICE will collaborate on system support for the
overstay mission. Transition of the analysis and identification of the
overstay population in ICE clearly aligns with the ICE mission of
administrative immigration enforcement. Additionally, functions of
support to CIS will provide feeder data related to domestic benefit
fraud schemes for ICE investigations.
CBP, ICE, and US-VISIT have established a transition team composed
of senior representatives from each organization. This transition team
is working to identify and prioritize crucial functional areas and
determine the optimal strategy for transitioning each function.
This transition team will identify targets of opportunity for
operational and cost efficiencies. Priority will be placed on those
transition initiatives that focus on increases in efficiency and
effectiveness within mission support and ``corporate'' functions such
as logistics, human resources, and information technology. Once all of
the information is collected and arrayed, it will be analyzed with the
goal of finding efficiencies while maintaining US-VISIT's mission with
no degradation of services.
Question 13. The budget requests an increase of $13 million for
Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Container Security Initiative
(CSI), which is responsible for identifying and resolving concerns
related to high-risk maritime cargo containers bound for the United
States. The budget also indicates CBP intends to expand its ``hub''
approach to staffing its 58 CSI ports, whereby CBP personnel cover
multiple ports from one location rather than having CBP officers
stationed at each participating port. I am concerned that this hub
approach and reduced CBP officer presence will be detrimental to the
program, and even more concerned that it appears we are going to be
paying more to do less.
Can you assure us that security will not suffer under CBP's new
approach to staffing CSI ports? Please explain how you intend to use
the additional $13 million for fiscal year 2013.
Answer. CBP is committed to ensuring the security of cargo coming
to the United States. The CSI hub approach will continue to maintain
security while increasing efficiency. Under the hub approach, where we
have multiple CSI ports in the same country, 100% bill of lading review
will continue to take place and all cargo deemed high-risk will
continue to be examined.
In those countries where the hub approach is implemented, there
will be CBP Officers stationed in the foreign hub to review all
shipments, identify high-risk cargo, and refer high-risk cargo to the
host counterparts. When CBP Officers refer high-risk shipments to host
counterparts, the shipment will be scanned for radiation and X-ray
imaging and sent to the CBP officers in the hub location for review and
mitigation. Under this concept, CSI will consolidate personnel into a
centralized location from which targeting for all ports within that
country will occur.
Example: In France all CSI personnel are physically stationed in Le
Havre but conduct bill of lading review for both Le Havre and
Marseille. If CSI Officers in Le Havre need to have a container in
Marseille examined, they will use the CSI Remote Targeting (CSI RT)
software to communicate that to Marseille. French Customs in Marseille
will conduct the Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) exam and provide the
NII image to Le Havre utilizing the CSI RT. Review of the image by CSI
personnel in Le Havre will then determine if the cargo can be released
or if further scrutiny (physical exam) is warranted.
The $13 million request for fiscal year 2013 is not an increase to
expand the CSI program or implement any significant changes. The
request is for a restoration to the CSI base funding to continue
current service level operations and restore funding to fiscal year
2011 enacted levels. The restoration will allow CSI to continue current
operations in all ports without having to close any ports due to budget
shortfalls.
The request will enable CBP to continue to review high-risk cargo
that can be targeted and inspected before reaching a U.S. port.
Operational in 58 ports, CSI is an effective multinational program
protecting the primary system of global trade--maritime containerized
shipping--from being exploited or disrupted by international
terrorists. The request will support the CSI rebalancing of its
international footprint and maintain current operations. The program
will continue the hub concept in several international locations where
there are multiple CSI ports. These hubs would utilize software
specifically designed for CSI remote operations. The host country
counterparts would perform the requested exam, upload the image
utilizing the software, and send the images to the hub location. CBP
officers located at the hub would review the images and either release
the shipment if no anomalies are found or request a physical
examination. The funding will also support the repositioning of remote
targeting at the ports by introducing internet and software technology
capabilities to transfer imaging to major hub sites or to the NTC.
The fiscal year 2011 President's budget requested a reduction to
CSI of over $50 million that was proposed to be achieved by transiting
from a physical presence to a virtual presence at most CSI ports.
However, due to technical constraints and the inability to modify an
existing agreement with host countries, the virtual presence transition
could not be fully implemented. The fiscal year 2013 President's budget
request of $62.9 million was built from the fiscal year 2012 enacted
base of $53.9 million. The fiscal year 2012 enacted base does not
reflect the capability funded in the fiscal year 2011 enacted level of
$59.9 million. See chart below.
INTERNATIONAL CARGO SCREENING PPA (CSI FOR OFO) FUNDING LEVELS
Fiscal Year 2011-Fiscal Year 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2012 Financial Fiscal Year
2011 2011 Enacted 2012 Enacted Plan With 2013
Requested Reprogramming* Requested
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFO..................................... $41,293,860 $59,857,292 $53,857,263 $59,857,263 $62,913,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Pending Congressional Approval of reprogramming of $6 million.
Question 14a. The budget requests $91.8 million to support the
continued deployment of surveillance technology along the Southwest
Border in Arizona as a replacement for the canceled SBInet program.
Funds will be used to procure and deploy commercially available
technology, including Integrated Fixed Tower (IFT) systems and mobile
technology. How does this new technology deployment differ from SBInet?
Answer. While the technology associated with the IFT program may be
similar to the SBInet technology, the acquisition strategy to procure
the IFT system is fundamentally different. This strategy, developed in
part from lessons learned from SBInet, is designed to procure and
deploy a proven, fully integrated system that can be immediately put to
use. The IFT system will not be a stand-alone technology solution, but
will be operationally integrated with other fixed tower, mobile, and
agent portable surveillance systems to facilitate border security. Each
sector's technology system plan was optimized to reflect the sector's
unique terrain and topography using the appropriate mix of commercial,
off-the-shelf technologies rather than the proprietary, one-size-fits-
all SBInet system.
Question 14b. What is different this time around?
Answer. The following are the differences between IFT and SBInet:
1. Non-developmental system deployment.--The former SBInet solution
required significant system development, i.e., the contractor
had to design, engineer, and test the solution prior to the
Government deploying the system. The IFT Request for Proposal
(RFP) states that CBP is NOT interested in any kind of a system
development. Instead, CBP is interested in selecting a non-
developmental (and preferably commercially available) system
that represents the best mix of capabilities at a fair and
reasonable price. The use of currently available technology
systems means these systems can be ordered, delivered, and put
to use very quickly. The IFT Operational Requirements Document
(ORD) reflects results of market research to ensure the
requirements are achievable within the limits of today's
technology and is not intended to describe a system that
requires a development effort. Based on market research, CBP is
confident that the IFT technology exists in the marketplace as
a non-developmental system.
2. System Demonstrations.--The IFT acquisition strategy includes a
plan that requires offerors that are included in the
competitive range to demonstrate the performance of their
proposed system during the source selection process. The former
SBInet program strategy did not include system demonstrations
prior to contract award. These IFT pre-award demonstrations are
intended to confirm that the proposed solutions exist as non-
developmental systems and will inform the source selection
process prior to contract award.
3. Sensor site selection process.--IFT sensor site locations for
each Border Patrol Station area of responsibility (AOR) are
being finalized by CBP prior to the award/exercise of a
contract line item (CLIN) to build out a particular AOR. This
process, which includes an environmental review and approval in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA, is
currently underway and is not expected to affect or delay any
construction or deployment activities within an AOR after
award/exercise of the respective CLIN. The former SBInet
development contract did not specify tower site locations prior
to contract award (award/exercise of a CLIN) and included a
provision for the contractor to determine these locations under
a cost-plus contract. This added considerable time to the
SBInet deployment schedule (approximately 18-24 months for a
typical Border Patrol Station AOR) due to the lengthy site
selection and environmental compliance process. The current IFT
strategy to deploy a proven, fully integrated technology
solution coupled with the existence of construction-ready
sensor site locations allows the IFT program to reduce the
overall system deployment cycle time to approximately 8 to 12
months for a typical Border Patrol Station AOR.
4. Use of fixed-price contracts.--The IFT program will use fixed-
price contracts for all work. Fixed-price contracts will
provide the incentive for the contractor to complete all work
in a minimum amount of time, while minimizing the risk of
higher government costs if the contractor(s) does not perform
satisfactorily. The former SBInet contract was primarily cost
reimbursement where the Government paid the contractor for all
effort, to include re-work and additional funding for
performance delays.
Question 14c. Can you assure us that this program will succeed
where SBInet and its predecessors failed?
Answer. The IFT system procurement is one element of a broader CBP
strategy to rapidly acquire non-developmental (and, when feasible,
commercially available) systems to support border enforcement efforts.
Technology is combined with other CBP resources and capabilities;
notably personnel, infrastructure, and intelligence; to improve the
overall efficiency and effectiveness of our border enforcement efforts.
The IFT acquisition focuses on an available non-developmental
system that represents the best mix of capabilities at a reasonable
price.
Additionally, the IFT acquisition strategy mitigates risks in
several ways. By requiring offerors within the competitive range to
demonstrate the performance of their proposed solutions as part of the
source selection process, CBP can not only confirm market research
findings that non-developmental systems exist, but can ensure that the
solution selected will provide the best value to the Government. CBP
has made it clear in the IFT RFP that if there are no offerors who
provide adequate confidence in the non-developmental nature of their
system, or no offerors provide enough performance at reasonable cost,
CBP will cancel the solicitation rather than procure an ineffective or
high-risk offering. Also, by having CBP select and prepare the IFT
sensor sites for each AOR prior to award/exercise of the CLIN,
deployment cycle time is estimated to be reduced to approximately 8 to
12 months for an AOR compared to the approximately 18 to 24 months per
AOR it took for SBInet. Finally, through the use of a fixed-price
contract, CBP reduces the risks of cost growth and schedule delays,
since the contractor will be incentivized to complete all work and
deliver an acceptable solution in the most expedient and efficient
manner possible.
Question 15. The budget fails to request any new Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) officers, despite long lines at our Nation's land and
air ports and a recovering economy that will hopefully result in more
international trade and travel. The budget proposes cutting CBP officer
overtime by $20 million, which will mean fewer hours for officers to
spend inspecting travelers and goods entering this country. With no new
CBP officers and fewer hours for the officers we do have, it is
reasonable to expect wait times would increase.
Has DHS studied what effect this reduction in overtime would mean
for wait times at our ports and what the economic implications of
further delays would be?
Answer. To maximize limited overtime resources, CBP is currently
implementing a strategy focused on maintaining flexibility and
supporting the changing operations that occur as a result of peak-time
operations at ports of entry. As part of this strategy, CBP is pursuing
Business Transformation Initiatives, such as ready lanes in the land
border environment, Global Entry kiosks in the air environment, and new
mobile technologies. These initiatives shorten processing time by
segmenting high-risk and low-risk traffic helping to reduce wait times
as low-risk traffic is cleared more quickly and efficiently and CBPOs
are free to focus upon the higher-risk traffic.
CBP also continues to explore alternative financing options to
address staffing requirements in both the short and long term,
including pursuing public-private partnerships to fund enhanced
services, such as outlier flights. The President's fiscal year 2013
budget includes a legislative proposal to provide CBP with
reimbursement authority for enhanced CBP services, which would
authorize CBP to enter into reimbursable fee agreements to provide
services in response to private sector and State and local requests. In
addition to public-private partnerships, CBP is also evaluating current
user fees in an attempt to recover more of the costs associated with
providing services.
While increases in traffic can result in higher wait times, CBP
will continue to pursue strategies which minimize the impact of
staffing on service levels. To most effectively use existing resources,
CBP has deployed sophisticated software tools to schedule front-line
personnel. CBP is also working to transform its core passenger
processes to automate and streamline operations in order to expedite
legitimate travelers and reduce the total staff required to process
passengers. For example, CBP has automated the I-94W form through
implementation of the Electronic System for Traveler Authorization
(ESTA), saving up to 58 percent of the processing time for visa waiver
program travelers.
Question 16. Under Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-
TPAT), members of the trade community are offered expedited processing
of their cargo if they comply with Customs and Border Protection's
(CBP's) measures for securing the supply chain. The budget states that
CBP will be reducing the frequency of compliance re-validations for (C-
TPAT) program participants to every 4 years, rather than the current 3-
year schedule. It is troubling that one of the programs the Department
touts as being integral to its ``layered strategy'' for cargo security
is scaling back compliance checks, apparently due to staffing
constraints.
How does CBP plan to ensure the integrity of C-TPAT and its other
cargo security programs if the Department does not provide the
necessary resources to do so?
Answer. The Safe Port Act requires C-TPAT to conduct revalidations
every 4 years. If warranted based on risk, C-TPAT may elect to validate
a higher-risk supply chain prior to the 4-year revalidation cycle. In
addition to the revalidations, there are additional measures taken
including annual security profile reviews and annual vetting.
Question 17. Secretary Napolitano, in the fiscal year 2013 budget
request, Coast Guard presents a number of decreases such as
decommissioning cutters and patrol boats, retiring aircrafts, and the
closing seasonal air facilities. While I am aware of the need for Coast
Guard to continue to move forward with the long process of modernizing
its surface and air vessels, I am concerned that these types of
decreases may lead to a gap in available resources and personnel.
How has Coast Guard ensured that there will be enough resources and
personnel to carry out its maritime security mission?
In the case of upsurge, similar to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
of 2010, how will Coast Guard provide necessary support for our
maritime environment?
Answer. The Coast Guard will decommission legacy assets in order to
complete the crewing, training, and operations of new acquisition
surface and air assets. For example, the Coast Guard will have ten Fast
Response Cutter (FRC) crews on budget at the end of fiscal year 2013 to
ensure the personnel are fully trained and ready to accept delivery of
FRC hulls as they are delivered to the fleet. Near term impacts are
expected to be minimal as new and more capable assets become
operational. For example, five FRCs and three National Security Cutters
are expected to be fully operational by the end of fiscal year 2013.
Moreover, the 110 Patrol Boat Mission Effectiveness Project, which
will complete the final hull in summer 2012, improves patrol boat
reliability for in-service hulls until transition to the FRC fleet is
completed.
Within the aviation domain, fully operational HC-144's, and C-
130J's will replace aging aircraft, and will bring vastly improved
intelligence and surveillance capabilities. These aircraft will fly
more hours and provide more efficient mission execution. Additionally,
the Coast Guard will continue to assess aviation mission demands and
priorities for aircraft use in alignment with National priorities and
the realities of current resources.
Also, in conformance with our operational construct, the Coast
Guard will ``surge'' or reallocate assets to meet our highest mission
requirements as needed.
The Coast Guard allocates its multi-mission assets to the Nation's
highest order needs. In the cases of the operational responses to the
Haiti earthquake and Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, personnel and assets
were diverted from routine planned mission assignments at the time to
provide the initial search-and-rescue response and long-term mission
support for the disasters. These incidents required the Coast Guard
Reserve to mobilize approximately 2,800 selective reservists. The Coast
Guard may conduct an involuntary recall of Reservists under Title 14
for a maximum of 120 days within a 2-year period.
Question 18. Recently, in response to questions about the lack of
Coast Guard funding for the acquisition of more air and surface
vessels, Coast Guard Commandant Papp was quoted as saying that ``The
Coast Guard is just very difficult to understand . . . I'm constantly
faced with this challenge of explaining exactly what the Coast Guard
does. In fact, sometimes it happens even within our own department.''
How do you respond to this statement?
Answer. The role of the Coast Guard within the Department, and the
value of the Coast Guard to the Nation is clear. The Coast Guard
possesses a unique mix of authorities, capabilities, and partnerships
critical to the Department's performance around the globe. Unique
within the Department, the Coast Guard is the Nation's only Federal law
enforcement agency that is also an armed service, and as such, has the
ability to establish and enforce standards, reduce risk, control
activities, and respond to emergencies in the maritime domain.
Question 19. As you know the TWIC program has faced a number of
problems since DHS began to enroll applicants in 2007. Now, 5 years
later, the TWIC program is facing another challenge. The first batch of
TWICs is set to expire later this year. DHS has not even issued its
final rule for the purchase of TWIC readers by the ports.
Even as the Department has struggled to uphold their end of the
bargain, American workers have continued to make multiple trips to TWIC
enrollment centers and spend $132.50 on essentially ``flash passes.''
When will the Department issue the final TWIC reader rule?
I have asked the Department, in the past to consider extending the
deadline for TWIC renewals so that economically-strapped port workers
are not forced to pay another $132.50 when DHS has not lived up to its
end of the bargain. Will you consider pushing out the time line?
The committee understands that the process for acquiring a TWIC
card can be burdensome and transportation workers, often requiring
several trips to distribution centers. Will the Department review the
TWIC application process to evaluate whether less burdensome procedures
are possible?
Answer. TWIC is one element in our layered approach to maritime
security and adds a level of additional security to our port facilities
and vessels. Prior to the TWIC Program, there was no standard identity
verification or background check policy for entrance to a port
facility. Today, facility and vessel owners and operators look for one
standard identification document that confirms the holder's identity,
and verifies that he or she successfully completed a security threat
assessment/background check. TWICs contain security features that make
the card highly resistant to counterfeiting and difficult to use by
anyone other than the authorized holder.
Coast Guard regulations require facilities and vessel owners and
operators to conduct a thorough visual inspection of the credential
prior to allowing access to a secure area. The visual inspection
requirements are: (1) Determine that the credential has not expired;
(2) examine one or more security features on the credential; and (3)
compare the facial photo on the card to the person presenting the card.
The TWIC features, coupled with the visual inspection requirements,
ensure that eligibility for unescorted access to secure areas is
determined to a much higher degree than relying on the many documents
that were acceptable for access prior to TWIC. Ultimately, the facility
and vessel owner/operator is also responsible for determining whether
the individual presenting the TWIC has any need to access the vessel or
facility. Thus a TWIC alone does not guarantee admission to a port
facility or vessel, but arms those making access control decisions with
additional information about the individual to whom the card was
issued.
In 2006, TSA and U.S. Coast Guard issued a joint Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), setting the proposed requirements and processes for
implementation of the TWIC program in the maritime sector. As a result
of public comments and additional analysis, DHS decided to make several
changes to the proposed rule, most notably, splitting the rulemaking
process into two separate rules--one on the card and security threat
assessments, and one on the card reader requirements. In January 2007,
DHS issued the first of these rules, the TWIC Final Rule, establishing
the TWIC program requirements and identification card standards. DHS
intends to issue a subsequent NPRM to address reader requirements.
DHS has been laying the groundwork for the reader NPRM since that
time. Pursuant to the requirements of the SAFE Port Act of 2006, which
requires the final regulations for TWIC readers to be consistent with
the findings of a reader pilot program, TSA conducted the TWIC Reader
Pilot Program. From 2008 through 2011, TSA evaluated the technical
performance of the TWIC biometric reader function at a sample
population of maritime facilities. TSA was able to gather valuable data
on reader performance, as well as assess the operational and business
process impacts of conducting biometric verification of identity under
diverse field conditions. A final report on the results of the TWIC
Reader Pilot Program was delivered to Congress in February 2012 (see
http://chsdemocrats.house.gov/sitedocuments/twicreaderreport.pdf).
Concurrently, in 2009, the Coast Guard published an Advanced NPRM
(ANPRM) (see 74 FR 13360 (Mar. 27, 2009) at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/FR-2009-03-27/pdf/E9-6852.pdf) to describe its proposed risk-based
framework and to solicit comments from the public. The ANPRM discussed
the Coast Guard's preliminary thoughts on potential requirements for
the use of electronic readers designed to work with TWIC as an access
control measure. The Coast Guard is now developing the TWIC Reader
NPRM, which will reflect the findings of the TSA Reader Pilot Program,
and public comments gathered through the ANPRM process. DHS anticipates
that the TWIC Reader NPRM will be issued later this year. Following
publication of the NPRM, the Coast Guard will carefully review all
public comments and develop a TWIC Reader Final Rule.
There are a few matters of note with respect to the TSA Reader
Pilot Program and the challenges faced during the Pilot Program.
Initial development and deployment of the pilot program presented
several challenges. From the outset of the pilot, for example, maritime
stakeholders requested that card readers be capable of conducting a
biometric match, without requiring the workers to enter their personal
identification number or inserting their card into the reader. In
partnership with maritime facility and vessel operators, the smart card
and reader industry, and other Government agencies, TSA developed a
reader specification for the pilot program that was compatible with the
TWIC standards set forth in regulation. Subsequently, commercial
vendors participating in the pilot program then had to develop and
install readers based on the new specification. While the reader
requirements put forth in the pilot program will be used as a potential
model/alternative, we will also be collecting further information about
available technologies and possible use of other available standards in
the forthcoming reader NPRM--through the regulatory alternatives
analysis process.
Other challenges emerged in execution, due to the voluntary nature
of the pilot. At some facilities, time lines for technical and physical
infrastructure modifications were extensive, and TSA was not in the
position to enforce a time line for the project plan. Furthermore, the
recession had a tremendous impact on commercial operators, which meant
reductions in staff and financial reserves across the board. TSA
offered general guidance to ports and facilities, but could not provide
a ``one-size-fits-all'' reader template due to the unique nature of
each regulated facility and vessel operation.
Despite the challenges, the pilot also highlighted security and
operational benefits associated with readers including the automation
of access control, so that regular users could use their TWICs for
quick processing into a port. In turn, participating pilot port
security officers gained integrated access control systems resulting in
more efficient and effective processing of workers entering secure
areas.
Finally, on June 15, 2012, DHS announced that beginning August 30,
2012, DHS will offer eligible TWIC holders the opportunity to replace
their expiring TWICs with a 3-year extended expiration date (EED) card
for a fee of $60. TSA issued this exemption to give eligible
individuals the option to extend for an additional 3 years their
current security threat assessments (STAs) and 5-year TWICs that are
set to expire on or before December 31, 2014,\3\ rather than require
them to renew the card at full price for 5 years. Through this notice,
we exempted eligible individuals from 49 C.F.R 1572.23(a) and (a)(1)
and 1572.501(d) of the TWIC regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 49 C.F.R. 1572.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligible individuals choosing the 3-year TWIC extension may obtain
it by ordering the credential via telephone, paying a $60 card
replacement fee, and visiting a TWIC enrollment center to pick up and
activate the card. For the purposes of the exemption, the 3-year TWIC
is considered a valid TWIC, in that it can be used to enter maritime
facilities and vessels just as the 5-year TWIC is used currently. The
3-year TWIC will expire 3 years from the expiration date of the TWIC
that is being replaced. Eligible individuals selecting the 3-year TWIC
option do not have to go through the standard renewal process that
includes providing new biometric and biographic information at an
enrollment center, new STA, payment of the renewal fee of $129.75, and
a second trip to an enrollment center to retrieve and activate the
credential.
This exemption will reduce the burden and cost associated with
obtaining a new TWIC for the majority of individuals holding expiring
TWICs, while the U.S. Coast Guard develops the TWIC reader regulation.
This exemption (and the option that it will provide to certain TWIC
holders with expiring TWICs) and the U.S. Coast Guard TWIC reader
rulemaking are part of the Department of Homeland Security's overall
effort to ensure that TWIC readers are deployed, through a risk-based
approach, to appropriate vessels and facilities throughout the Nation
in the coming 3-year period.
Question 20. Last year, we learned that the Department would not be
meeting the air cargo deadline for inbound passenger aircraft until
December 2012. TSA's screening plan must ensure that adequate controls
are in place to validate screening of inbound cargo aboard passenger
flights.
What can you tell us about the status of your efforts at getting
agreements and systems in place to ensure that all inbound cargo is
screened?
With regard to the 100% air cargo mandate, what impact, if any, do
you anticipate the moving of the Office of International Affairs out of
the Office of Policy will have?
Answer. Under its risk-based security approach, TSA recently issued
changes to its Standard Security Programs, which incorporate the
Trusted Shipper concept and require 100-percent screening of
international inbound cargo transported on passenger aircraft by
December 3, 2012. As part of this strategy, TSA continues to review
foreign cargo security programs under the National Cargo Security
Programs (NCSP) recognition process to determine whether these programs
provide a level of security commensurate with current U.S. standards.
Under the NCSP recognition program, TSA conducts a comprehensive
review to assess whether a foreign government's air cargo security
program is commensurate with current U.S. standards for air cargo
security. TSA is primarily focusing on those countries with a
significant volume of air cargo inbound to the United States, but is
also considering additional factors for country prioritization,
including the number of airports in the country from which cargo
originates and criticality of the country as a transhipment point for
significant volumes of cargo destined for the United States.
To date, TSA has recognized the air cargo security requirements
under the EC air cargo security framework, which includes all 27
Members of the European Union plus Switzerland. Additionally, outside
of the European Union, TSA has recognized Canada, Australia, and
Israel. Through NCSP recognition, TSA permits air carriers to follow
the security programs of countries that TSA determines to be
commensurate with TSA requirements therefore reducing the burden on
industry by eliminating potentially duplicative requirements between
the two countries' security programs. This recognition also ensures
that the screening of air cargo is conducted and a high level of
security is maintained for air cargo bound for the United States. NCSP
recognition also enables TSA to leverage the host government's
oversight capabilities to verify air carrier screening operations and
data.
TSA's Office of Global Strategies (OGS) verifies the security
measures applied to international inbound air cargo and does so through
deployment of its TSSs. The verification procedures include a series of
on-site assessments of foreign airports, air carrier cargo facilities,
and off-airport cargo sites. Air carrier inspections are conducted at
every foreign LPD airport at least annually, with interim activities
scheduled for the higher-priority sites. These activities included
reviews of each air carrier's requirements under TSA's Standard
Security Programs (e.g., cargo screening and training) and
participation in the NCSP recognition process.
Within these compliance activities, TSA is also able to increase
its ability to verify the accuracy of international inbound air cargo
data reported by carriers. The administration's fiscal year 2013 budget
request includes funding to fully annualize more than 50 international
cargo inspectors added in fiscal year 2012 to enhance air cargo
inspection and other security oversight and improvements to meet the
statutory requirement of 100-percent system-wide screening of cargo on
passenger aircraft, including aircraft originating overseas. The
addition of these international cargo inspectors overseas will enable
TSA to better verify screening operations and security measures at the
departure points, ensure that reported data is generally accurate, and
highlight for further resolution, supply chain vulnerabilities or
inconsistencies in data reporting that is not supported by onsite
observations.
DHS does not anticipate any impact on its efforts to satisfy the
100-percent air cargo mandate for international inbound cargo from
moving the Office of International Affairs out of the Office of Policy.
Question 21. Please explain why you believe that your homeland
security grant consolidation proposal is superior to the current
approach of funding specific homeland security grant programs targeted
at particularly important capabilities.
Answer. As we look ahead, in order to address evolving threats and
make the most of limited resources, FEMA proposed a new vision for
homeland security grants in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget
that focuses on building and sustaining core capabilities associated
with the five mission areas within the National Preparedness Goal (NPG)
that are readily deployable and cross-jurisdictional, helping to
elevate Nation-wide preparedness. This proposal reflects the lessons
we've learned in grants management and execution over the past 10
years. Using a competitive, risk-based model, this proposal envisions a
comprehensive process to assess gaps, identify and prioritize
deployable capabilities, limit periods of performance to put funding to
work quickly, and require grantees to regularly report progress in the
acquisition and development of these capabilities.
Consolidating grant programs will support the recommendations of
the Redundancy Elimination and Enhanced Performance for Preparedness
Grants Act (REEPPG) and streamline the grant application process. This
increased efficiency will enable grantees to focus on how Federal funds
can add value to the jurisdiction's prioritization of threats, risks,
and consequences while contributing to National preparedness
capabilities. In addition, all States and territories are required to
complete a comprehensive Threat Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment (THIRA) which provides an approach for identifying and
assessing risks and associated impacts across their State/territory.
FEMA Regional Offices have been tasked with coordinating THIRAs in
their respective regions and will assist grantees in their efforts to
address the gaps identified in their THIRA, while building important
State-wide and National capabilities.
Question 22. As I mentioned in the hearing, I am concerned about
the people who survived Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, received
inaccurate reimbursements for expenses immediately after the storm,
through no fault of their own, and were subject to recoupment for
FEMA's mistake several years later. Thanks to legislation enacted with
my support, there is now a waiver process for these impacted
individuals. As I stated at the hearing, I encourage the Department to
aggressively do outreach to impacted persons so that they can access
this waiver process. Please provide a full description of the outreach
efforts underway to ensure that impacted people are made aware of their
rights to seek a waiver within the time frame.
Answer. The President signed the Disaster Assistance Recoupment
Fairness Act (DARFA) into law on December 23, 2011. Immediately
following enactment, FEMA began working on an implementation plan that
culminated with the mailing of waiver notices to over 88,000 disaster
survivors during the week of February 13, 2012. As of July 3, 2012,
FEMA has received about 19,100 waiver requests and is in the process of
reviewing these cases under this new authority.
FEMA is making every effort to reach disaster survivors through
mail, public outreach, and through Congressional and State delegations
to explain the process available to request a waiver and the method by
which FEMA will review waiver requests, including the documentation
required and the time limits involved.
FEMA's Legislative Affairs Division is spearheading a comprehensive
outreach plan which capitalizes on the unique role of Congressional
caseworkers based in Members' respective State and district offices. In
February, senior FEMA staff conducted a conference call with
caseworkers which, in addition to outlining the details of the new
waiver authority, aimed to encourage our Congressional partners to use
every means available to inform eligible disaster survivors living in
their respective States to apply for a waiver once they receive the
requisite information in the mail. In addition, the Division is also
working with Congressional offices to ensure that FEMA has up-to-date
contact information for disaster survivors who may have moved recently
and are eligible for a waiver under this new authority.
FEMA's Public Affairs Division, in coordination with the agency's
regional offices, has utilized a wide range of traditional and social
media based resources to encourage individuals to apply for a waiver
once they receive the requisite information in the mail. The Public
Affairs team also posted web videos in Spanish and English outlining
the waiver process. The videos, along with further information, may be
found here: http://www.fema.gov/debtwaiver/.
Finally, FEMA's Office of Chief Counsel has also been at the
forefront in engaging stakeholders on DARFA implementation. In
February, Chief Counsel, Brad Kieserman, spoke with attorneys from the
Legal Services Corporation National Disaster Network, Loyola University
Law Clinic of New Orleans and other interested legal aid attorneys. In
each of these engagements, the Chief Counsel took the opportunity to
proactively inform the legal community of the new DARFA legislation and
its potential applicability for their clients, to inform them of the
short-term and unique nature of this waiver authority, and to urge them
to encourage and assist their clients in availing themselves of this
opportunity.
Questions Submitted by Honorable Lamar Smith for Janet Napolitano
Question 1. Clinton administration INS Commissioner Meissner said
that ``exercising prosecutorial discretion does not lessen the INS's
commitment to enforce the immigration laws to the best of our ability.
It is not an invitation to violate or ignore the law.'' Just last
March, she said that ``[p]rosecutorial discretion should be exercised
on a case-by-case, basis, and should not be used to immunize entire
categories of noncitizens from immigration enforcement.'' Do you agree
with Ms. Meissner?
Answer. Prosecutorial discretion is not exercised on a categorical
basis for large classes of aliens. The exercise of prosecutorial
discretion makes the best use of the Department's resources and allows
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to prioritize the
removal of aliens who pose a danger to National security or public
safety, recent illegal entrants, and aliens who are fugitives or
otherwise obstruct immigration controls. In determining whether an
exercise of prosecutorial discretion is appropriate in any given case,
ICE officers, special agents, and attorneys review the case on its own
merits in conformity with the ICE priorities described in ICE Director
John Morton's March 2, 2011 memorandum titled ``Civil Immigration
Enforcement: Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of
Aliens,'' and the June 17, 2011 memoranda titled ``Exercising
Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration
Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention,
and Removal of Aliens'' and ``Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain
Victims, Witnesses, and Plaintiffs.'' In addition, the Secretary of
Homeland Security's June 15, 2012 memorandum titled ``Exercising
Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the
United States as Children'' clarified those certain individuals who
came here as children are generally low enforcement priorities for DHS.
Pursuant to that memo, ICE and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) are developing a process to consider such individuals
for deferred action, which is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion
not to pursue removal in a given case. This memo does not represent the
exercise of prosecutorial discretion on a categorical basis, rather it
sets out guidelines to identify individuals who may be considered on a
case-by-case basis for deferred action.
Question 2. Is it not true that DHS's recent memos make hundreds of
thousands if not millions of illegal immigrants potentially eligible
for deferred action? Once illegal immigrants are granted deferred
action, they can apply for work authorization. Do you know that your
administration grants work authorization to 90% of the aliens to whom
you grant deferred action? If you keep up the same approval rate, isn't
it true that you are on a glide path to grant work authorization to
hundreds of thousands if not millions of illegal immigrants? How can
you justify this when American citizens don't have jobs and struggle to
make ends meet?
Answer. On November 17, 2011, the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) began reviewing the removal cases--approximately 300,000
of them--currently pending in the U.S. Department of Justice's
Executive Office for Immigration Review to determine whether the
exercise of prosecutorial discretion is appropriate in any of the
cases. As part of the review of the 300,000 cases, the preferred
mechanism for exercising prosecutorial discretion has been through
administrative closure. Administratively closing a case results in
immigration prosecution being held in abeyance, but confers no
immigration benefit to the individual.
Individuals are not eligible for work authorization on the basis of
receiving administrative closure alone. However, individuals whose
cases are administratively closed and who are eligible for work
authorization on another basis may apply for work authorization,
including paying associated fees, and their requests will be separately
considered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on a
case-by-case basis.
Question 3a. ICE just announced that criminal charges have been
filed in what it calls ``one of the largest immigration fraud schemes
to have ever been committed in our country.'' ICE indicated that ``to
date, the Government has identified at least 25,000 immigration
applications submitted by the David Firm--the vast majority of which
have been determined to contain false, fraudulent, and fictitious
information.'' How could this massive fraud on the American public have
lasted for well over a decade before the Federal Government got wind of
it?
Answer. Benefit fraud investigations are complex and challenging
since they often involve sophisticated schemes with multiple co-
conspirators. Elaborate methods devised by these schemes to elude
detection, coupled with the in-depth analysis required to assess all
leads and gather the necessary evidence, often take time to
successfully identify, investigate, and prosecute these types of cases.
As the lead agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) for the investigation and prosecution of alleged immigration
fraud, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland
Security Investigations (HSI) ensures the integrity of the Nation's
immigration system by preventing criminal enterprises and individuals
that perpetrate fraud from extending the entry, stay, and movement of
unauthorized aliens, terrorists, and criminals throughout the United
States. The case referenced above was worked by HSI's New York Document
and Benefit Fraud Task Force (DBFTF). Eighteen HSI offices throughout
the country lead DBFTFs, which combat both document and benefit fraud.
In fiscal year 2010, HSI initiated 1,334 benefit fraud investigations
and conducted 529 benefit fraud-related criminal arrests. In fiscal
year 2011, HSI initiated 1,439 benefit fraud investigations and
conducted 520 such criminal arrests.
Question 3b. How many other David law firms are out there?
Answer. It is difficult to know the number of immigration benefit
fraud facilitators who are currently operating. ICE is aware of those
which ICE has investigated and confirmed are fraudulent operators. In
fiscal year 2010, HSI initiated 1,334 benefit fraud investigations and
conducted 529 benefit fraud-related criminal arrests. In fiscal year
2011, HSI initiated 1,439 benefit fraud investigations and conducted
520 such criminal arrests.
Question 3c. Isn't it true that DHS rarely revokes immigration
benefits granted to aliens through fraud schemes that the Government
has uncovered? Can you commit to me that DHS will seek to revoke the
immigration benefits for the tens of thousands of aliens who received
benefits fraudulently through the David Firm?
Answer. In cases where ICE chooses not to criminally prosecute
individuals involved in a fraud scheme, ICE will refer the alien to
USCIS's Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) for an
administrative investigation. FDNS officers will conduct a fraud
investigation and complete a statement of findings that is sent to
USCIS adjudicators for further processing. In cases where FDNS finds
and articulates fraud, it may recommend that USCIS pursue further
action, including revocation, denial, requesting additional evidence,
or issuing a notice of intent to revoke.
USCIS devotes considerable attention to ensuring that the
beneficiaries of a fraud scheme are or were not themselves an active
participant in the misrepresentation. In cases where the beneficiary
was a willful participant, USCIS will use all lawful means to revoke or
rescind a granted benefit or to deny any pending benefits.
FDNS's administrative investigation in fraud scheme cases focuses
on each associated alien's eligibility for the benefit. Close attention
is given as to whether the individual applying for the benefit has
misrepresented a material fact in procuring a benefit. Factors
considered include whether the applicant willfully misrepresented or
concealed a fact or material in USCIS's original decision to grant the
benefit. This review may conclude that the alien is still eligible for
the benefit granted, despite his/her representative's fraudulent
activity, if there is no evidence that the beneficiary had knowledge of
or willfully participated in the fraud.
This case was investigated by the HSI New York DBFTF. Over the
course of the investigation, the DBFTF identified fraud indicators
specific to the David Firm, such as boilerplate language and/or
supporting documentation. HSI provided these indicators to USCIS, a HSI
New York DBFTF partner, to aid in the determination as to which of the
files contain evidence of fraud. USCIS is reviewing those cases that
were sent to them and determining the appropriate actions to take.
Question Submitted by Honorable Michael T. McCaul for Janet Napolitano
Question. Secretary Napolitano, as you know, the Department was
created in 2003 by combining 22 different agencies and establishing new
headquarters offices. A top priority for this committee has been the
integration of Departmental functions, streamlining the bureaucracy,
and eliminating stovepipes. In our current fiscal environment, this
goal is even more important today. Yet, the administration's budget
request for Department headquarters seems to be going in the opposite
direction. The budget proposes to pull three functions out of the
Office of Policy and establish them as ``direct reports'' to your
office. These functions are the Office of International Affairs, the
Office for State and Local Law Enforcement, and the Private Sector
Office. Could you please give us the rationale for this proposal,
including:
what effects it will have on the future role of the Office
of Policy,
whether your office will require more resources to oversee
three new direct reports, and
how three new reporting chains will be integrated into
Departmental operations?
Answer. The Private Sector Office, the Office of International
Affairs, and the Office for State and Local Law Enforcement can best
execute their responsibilities through a similar structure to other
external facing outreach offices such as the Office of
Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA) and the Office of Legislative Affairs
(OLA). As the Department continues to mature and these offices continue
to take on more significant responsibilities across the Department,
it's appropriate for them to become direct reports to the Secretary.
The reorganization improves efficiency by more clearly identifying the
role of these offices. All three offices will be able to better
coordinate across all Components.
The Office of Policy (PLCY) will continue to streamline and focus
its mission to include policy analysis and implementation. PLCY will
also provide the Department with an integrated and DHS-wide capability
for strategy development, strategic planning, long-term assessment, and
decision analysis.
No new funds are requested for the PSO/OIA and OSSLE moves; funding
will come from the existing base of the PLCY budget.
The Under Secretary for Management (USM) already provides the
Office of Secretary and Executive Management administrative services,
including budget, human resource, and logistical support. With the
reorganization, all entities within the Office of Secretary and
Executive Management will continue to receive administrative support
from the USM.
Questions Submitted by Honorable Tim Walberg for Janet Napolitano
Question 1. In regards to detention beds, are there any studies on
the cost comparison between contracted facilities?
Answer. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has put in
place numerous measures to responsibly keep detention costs down,
including: Closure of the most expensive facilities, negotiating lower
bed rates, closing higher-cost facilities, and increasing the use of
ICE Health Service Corps to deliver detainee health care. ICE has
performed analysis of the average daily bed costs by facility type.
This analysis, using fiscal year 2011 data (the most current full-year
data set), provides the following costs:
ICE-owned service processing centers (SPC): $131.27 per day;
Contract detention facilities (CDF, contracted out for ICE
use only): $84.70 per day;
Intergovernmental service agreements (IGSA): $115.19 per
day.
At the end of each fiscal year, ICE conducts a bed cost annual
review which analyzes all bed-related obligations and expenditures. The
financial information is loaded into a database and the data is sorted
by sub-object class code, and cost type. These sub-object classes
reflect all the different costs that ICE incurs at our detention
facilities. These costs include detention bed and detention guard
contracts, food, medical care, compliance oversight, maintenance,
payments to detainees for work provided, provisions for detainees,
supplies for detainee welfare, telecom, and utilities.
The average bed rate that ICE pays differs by facility type. CDF
and IGSA facilities are operated by corporations that can leverage
economies of scale to achieve a rate that is lower than what ICE pays
at an SPC. These CDF and DIGSA facilities can also incorporate better
design features that maximize the guard-to-detainee ratio, reducing
overall costs. SPCs are owned by the Government and operated by a
contractor. These facilities can be expensive because they are older
and require more maintenance and also because they incorporate EOIR
court rooms and large administrative spaces which is factored into the
SPC costs. IGSA rates fluctuate by geographic region and are based on
labor rates and facility standards. Additionally, SPCs, CDFs, and ICE-
dedicated IGSA facilities are contracted with guaranteed minimum rate
clauses, which means that ICE occupies an agreed-upon minimum amount of
bed space in order to achieve cheaper beds rates, in contrast to non-
dedicated IGSAs which are more of a ``pay as you go'' service.
Question 2. Provide the committee with the Department plans to
incorporate the use and reallocation of excess military equipment
returning to the United States from the withdrawal of troops from
foreign theaters.
Specifically, the use of C-27J airlift aircraft for domestic
emergency response efforts.
Answer. The Coast Guard does not currently have any appreciable
amount of excess equipment in theater. In general, it is anticipated
that any major equipment that Coast Guard forces deployed with, will
return with those units and be used for that particular Coast Guard
unit's primary missions/purposes. In addition, the Coast Guard
currently has six Patrol Boats deployed in theater in support of the
Combatant Commander which are still deployed conducting operations.
Upon return from theater and depending on the vessels' condition, these
Patrol Boats will resume primary Coast Guard missions in their
respective Areas of Responsibility.
Questions Submitted by Honorable Scott Rigell for Janet Napolitano
Question 1. The 287(g) program is a cooperative initiative between
the Federal Government and States and localities, which enables
specially-trained State and local officers to perform immigration
enforcement functions. The President's budget reduces funding for the
287(g) program by 25%. In addition to decreasing funding for existing
agreements, the administration has announced that it will no longer
consider additional requests for 287(g) partnerships. I understand the
success of Secure Communities may mitigate the need for some 287(g)
agreements; however, I believe that this budget goes too far in
eliminating the valuable force multiplier that State and local law
enforcement personnel provide. Do you believe that the 287(g) program
has been effective in helping enforce our immigration laws? If so, why
the significant decrease in funding?
Answer. In light of the Nation-wide activation of Secure
Communities, the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget reduces funding for
the 287(g) program by $17 million to phase out 287(g) task force
agreements. The Secure Communities screening process is more efficient
and cost-effective in identifying for removal criminal and other
priority aliens. To implement this reduction, ICE will begin by
discontinuing the least productive 287(g) task force agreements in
those jurisdictions where Secure Communities is already in place with
sufficient Federal personnel and will also suspend consideration of any
requests for new 287(g) task force models. With regard to the
effectiveness of the 287(g) program, please see the response to
question 12.
Question 2. In the ICE budget justification documents it states
that ICE gains force multiplication through State and local law
enforcement officers currently participating under the 287(g) jail
model program. Why is the 287(g) jail model considered an effective
force multiplier, when the 287(g) task force model is considered
expensive and inefficient, and thus not worthy of additional
deployment?
Answer. Each 287(g) program model provides different kinds of
services and, upon review, the services provided by the Jail
Enforcement Model (JEO) are a more efficient use of ICE resources. The
JEO is designed to assist with the processing of aliens incarcerated
within a local law enforcement agency's (LEA) detention facilities.
Officers participating in the JEO do so under the supervision of ICE
and are integral to the processing of removable aliens who have been
identified through Secure Communities' use of IDENT/IAFIS
interoperability following an arrest by State or local law enforcement
agencies in the course of their normal criminal law enforcement duties.
The ability of the JEOs to process these individuals prevents ICE from
having to deploy enforcement resources to these State and local jails
and prisons. Because the JEO has proven to be an effective force
multiplier for ICE personnel in this respect, it has increased
efficiency and has proven to be an effective use of ICE resources.
By contrast, the Task Force Model (TFO) officers have proven to be
a less efficient substitute for ICE personnel, particularly in light of
the Nation-wide deployment of Secure Communities. The Secure
Communities' use of IDENT/IAFIS interoperability has proven to be more
efficient and cost-effective in identifying and removing criminal and
other priority aliens. In contrast to the JEO Model, the TFO Model is
not based upon encountering incarcerated aliens. Rather, TFO officers
exercise immigration-related authorities during the course of other
criminal investigations.
As the chart below demonstrates, TFO officers have assisted ICE
with the removal of significantly fewer priority aliens that JEO
officers. During fiscal year 2011, the TFO program encountered 1,861
criminal aliens, of which 1,703 were processed for removal and 1,026
were ultimately removed. In comparison, during the same time frame, the
JEO program encountered 53,060 criminal aliens, of which 37,638 were
processed for removal and 22,719 were ultimately removed.
287(g) FISCAL YEAR 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category JEO TFO Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encounters............................. 53,060 1,861 54,921
Processed.............................. 37,638 1,703 39,341
Removals............................... 22,719 1,026 23,745
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIDS data as of 2/6/2012.
The chart below depicts the average number of aliens processed per
TFO versus JEO:
287(g) FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012
Average Number of Aliens Processed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of MOA
Fiscal Year ---------------------
TFO JEO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011.............................................. 7 104
2012.............................................. 3 65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data as of 07/16/2012.
Accordingly, in light of the Nation-wide activation of Secure
Communities ICE will gain $17 million in budgetary savings by
discontinuing the least productive TFO agreements in those
jurisdictions where Secure Communities is already in place and will
also suspend consideration of any new requests for TFOs.
Question Submitted by Hon. Henry Cuellar for Janet Napolitano
Question 1a. As I mentioned at the hearing, I am interested in the
status of the $639.4 million that the Government Accountability Office
identified as unobligated balance in CBP's customer user fees account
(associated with NAFTA).
What is the status of this money?
Answer. In 1993, Congress enacted the North American Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 103-182 (NAFTA). Section 521
of NAFTA amended the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1985 (COBRA) to raise the fees charged for the provision of customs
services for passengers aboard commercial vessels and aircraft from
$5.00 to $6.50 from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 1997. In addition,
Section 521 also removed the country exemptions for passengers from
Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean islands, requiring the $6.50 fee from
those passengers for the affected period.
Using the previous fee collections from fiscal year 1993 as a
baseline, Section 521 required Customs to deposit into the Customs User
Fee Account (CUFA) only those amounts in excess of that baseline. These
``excess fees'' were made available for ``reimbursement of inspectional
costs (including passenger processing costs), not otherwise reimbursed
under this section.'' However, breaking with the pre-NAFTA treatment of
all other COBRA fees, Section 521 introduced an additional requirement:
the excess fees were made ``available only to the extent provided in
appropriations acts.'' Previously, the statute allowed the agency to
expend without any subsequent appropriation. See 19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3).
Section 521, on the other hand, did not permit the excess fees to be
used without being subsequently appropriated. In fact, the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that Section 521 would result
in ``additional fee collections of $758 million over the fiscal years
1994 through 1997.'' CBO Cost Estimate, NAFTA, S. 1627 (Nov. 18, 1993).
Congress expressed the same scoring preference in NAFTA's legislative
history: ``Section 521 makes the necessary statutory changes to customs
user fee authority to provide offsets against the revenue losses
attributable to NAFTA in accordance with the PAY-GO requirements of the
Budget Enforcement Act. According to the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO), the 5-year effects of changes made by section 521 on direct
spending amount to a savings of $758 million.'' H.R. REP. NO. 103-
361(I), at 103, as reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2552, 2653.
Furthermore, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA, Pub. L. 107-
296) repealed, by apparent inadvertence, in 2002, the NAFTA language
authorizing (but not appropriating) CBP's expenditure of these excess
fees. As a result, even though the excess fees remain in the CUFA, CBP
no longer has legal authority to expend them.
Question 1b. Has CBP made a determination that it can utilize these
funds?
Answer. At this time, CBP does not believe that it possesses the
legal authority to obligate these funds. Such authority would require
legislative action. More specifically, CBP would require legislation
conferring new authority to spend the funds for a particular purpose
(e.g., to hire additional CBP officers) as well as an appropriation
making the funds available for obligation. If CBP is able to gain
access to these funds, the $640 million in the CUFA could be used to
hire, train, and sustain 2,000 additional CBPO's for approximately 2.5
fiscal years (using $123,500 as the average for salary and benefits).
Legislation making these funds available would score as a cost.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Laura Richardson for Janet Napolitano
Question 1a. At the hearing, we discussed the Department's efforts
to comply with the 100% maritime scanning mandate, and the Department's
expectation that an extension will be necessary. I expressed concern
that I had been told that 4 percent of containers from CSI ports that
CBP has identified as ``high-risk'' arrive to our shores without CBP
being able to resolve the issues of concern.
What percentage of inbound maritime cargo comes through CSI ports?
Answer. Approximately 80% of all U.S.-bound maritime cargo
originates in or transits through a CSI port.
Question 1b. What is CBP doing to ensure that unresolved ``high-
risk'' containers do not arrive at U.S. ports?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is committed to
ensuring that all goods coming into the United States are secure and do
not pose a threat to our citizens or National interests. Through robust
partnerships with law enforcement, foreign governments, and industry,
we are developing innovative solutions that will help maintain the
efficient flow of legitimate commerce upon which our Nation's economy
depends. We believe an effective, layered, risk-based approach will
best ensure we achieve these goals and align with the President's
National Strategy for Global Supply Chain Security (Strategy).
DHS has focused substantial attention and resources over the last
several years on securing goods being transported within maritime
containers. As a result, we have strengthened our multi-layered
security measures, more effectively securing and facilitating the large
volume of goods arriving in the United States each year. By leveraging
programs such as the Container Security Initiative (CSI) for the
integrated scanning of high-risk containers, the Customs-Trade
Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), and the Importer Security
Filing (often called ``10+2'') for the advance collection of manifest
and import data to enhance targeting, we are more secure than ever
before.
For example, CSI is a risk-based program that focuses on working
with foreign governments to establish security criteria for identifying
high-risk U.S.-bound containers based on advance information. U.S. and
foreign government personnel pre-screen containers at the earliest
possible point-and-use technology to quickly scan high-risk containers
destined to the United States. The benefits of CSI include: The ability
to conduct more accurate risk assessment though increased access to
information; and expedited clearance in the United States for cargo
which has been screened and scanned overseas. CSI covers more than 80
percent of the maritime containerized cargo shipped to the United
States. The remaining 20 percent of cargo is screened at the National
Targeting Center--Cargo (NTC-C) and by specialized CBP units located at
the first port of arrival within the United States.
CBP officers stationed at CSI ports, with assistance from the CBP
NTC-C, review 100 percent of the manifests for cargo originating and/or
transiting those foreign ports that are destined for the United States.
In this way, CBP identifies and examines high-risk containerized
maritime cargo prior to lading at a foreign port and before shipment to
the United States, and mitigates risk through a variety of measures
including screening, scanning, physical inspection, or resolution by
foreign authorities. In fiscal year 2011, CBP officers stationed at CSI
ports reviewed over 9.5 million bills of lading and conducted 45,500
exams in conjunction with their host country counterparts.
Through programs like CSI, DHS will continue to work
collaboratively with industry, our Federal partners, and the
international community on efforts to secure the global supply chain.
Question Submitted by Hon. Cedric Richmond for Janet Napolitano
Question. As I stated at the hearing, I have heard from many people
in my district--including the mayors and the school boards--and the
Governor of Louisiana about the disaster loan forgiveness. The Vice
President of the United States came down to St. Bernard Center,
Louisiana, and said that the disaster loans would be forgiven for
certain municipalities. But that is not happening. People made
decisions based on the Vice President's commitment, and the right thing
to do is to honor that commitment to waive the repayment of those
disaster loans.
What is the status of the Department's efforts to honor the Vice
President's promise regard the forgiveness of disaster loans and what
related outreach has the Department conducted?
Answer. FEMA is only authorized to cancel Special Community
Disaster Loans where ``revenues of the local government during the full
3 fiscal year period following the major disaster are insufficient to
meet the operating budget for the local government, including
additional unreimbursed disaster-related expenses of a municipal
operating character.'' (44 C.F.R. 206.376(a))
In those cases where applicants have met the requirements of the
Stafford Act and the Regulations, they have been cancelled or partially
cancelled.
Since March 2011, FEMA has met personally with each individual
applicant and worked with them directly to ensure they were provided
the greatest potential for cancellation. Where necessary, FEMA met with
individual applicants on multiple occasions. For those applicants where
cancellation was denied, applicants were provided the opportunity to
appeal their decision within 60 days. An independent contractor was
procured specifically to provide a fresh and unbiased view of the
submitted appeals based upon the Stafford Act and Regulations.
FEMA has sought to provide those applicants the greatest
opportunity for cancellation in their appeals instructing the appeals
contractor to notify FEMA if they identify any areas where cancellation
is possible for an applicant outside of what they submitted.
Additionally, FEMA approved 5-year extensions for all applicants who
requested one. To date, 19 appeals have been submitted: 6 appeals have
been denied; 3 appeals have been upheld (i.e., $15.2 million in
additional cancellation); 9 are in the concurrence process; and 1 is
with the Appeals Contractor (awaiting additional information from the
applicant).
In our efforts to provide each applicant the best chance for
cancellation, we have afforded each appeal applicant the ability to
submit additional information beyond their original appeal submission.
This translates into a longer review process for some due to the new
information submitted.
Question Submitted by Hon. Kathleen C. Hochul for Janet Napolitano
Question. At the hearing, I discussed an amendment I introduced to
the Department of Homeland Security Authorization bill--accepted by my
colleagues--that would require the Department to purchase uniforms that
are made in America. As we agreed, National security is tied to our
economic security. Although the authorization bill has not reported out
of this committee and my amendment has, accordingly, not been enacted,
I am interested in learning about what voluntary steps the Department
has taken or is considering to ensure that its procurement activities
help keep the Nation secure by protecting the American economy. Please
provide any updates of initiatives the Department has initiated or is
considering toward that end.
Answer. DHS is committed to not only meeting its homeland security
mission needs, but delivering value to the American taxpayer through
effective and efficient acquisition practices.
DHS is subject to the requirements of the Buy American Act (BAA)
and the Trade Agreements Act (TAA), and related Executive Orders. The
BAA restricts the purchase of supplies above $150,000 that are not
domestic end products unless the price of the lowest domestic offer is
unreasonable or another exception applies (e.g., commercial information
technology, commissary resale, etc.). Under the TAA, eligible products
from countries that have signed international agreements with the
United States receive non-discriminatory treatment in the procurement
process. With respect specifically to uniforms, DHS's Uniforms Program
supports U.S. manufacturing. Based on both the Federal Procurement Data
System--Next Generation and vendor reports, approximately three-fourths
(73%) of the total amount DHS spends on uniforms is for either uniforms
manufactured in the United States (57%) or uniforms made in Mexico from
United States-supplied materials (16%). In terms of dollars, of the $82
million spent on uniforms in fiscal year 2011, DHS spent over $47
million on uniforms manufactured in the United States and another $13
million was spent on uniforms made in Mexico from United States-
supplied materials. In addition, DHS continues to pursue opportunities
to increase the use of domestically manufactured uniforms. For example,
working with industry, DHS shifted the production of the most widely-
used uniform, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Rough Duty
Uniform, from Mexico to the United States in fiscal year 2007. The
Uniforms Program is also a strong supporter of small business with over
$22 million of our domestic purchases awarded directly or subcontracted
to small businesses.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
