[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 18, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-11
__________
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
82-585 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
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice Brian Higgins, New York
Chair Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Ron Barber, Arizona
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Dondald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Jason Chaffetz, Utah Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Filemon Vela, Texas
Chris Stewart, Utah Steven A. Horsford, Nevada
Richard Hudson, North Carolina Eric Swalwell, California
Steve Daines, Montana
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Vacancy
Greg Hill, Chief of Staff
Michael Geffroy, Deputy Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 2
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 4
Witness
Hon. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
For the Record
The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress From the
State of South Carolina:
Excerpt........................................................ 44
Appendix
Questions From Honorable Jeff Duncan for Janet Napolitano........ 63
Questions From Honorable Susan W. Brooks for Janet Napolitano.... 63
Questions From Honorable Scott Perry for Janet Napolitano........ 64
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Janet
Napolitano..................................................... 65
Question From Honorable Loretta Sanchez for Janet Napolitano..... 73
Questions From Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee for Janet Napolitano. 73
Questions From Honorable Yvette D. Clarke for Janet Napolitano... 73
Question From Honorable Brian Higgins for Janet Napolitano....... 73
Question From Honorable Ron Barber for Janet Napolitano.......... 73
Questions From Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr. for Janet
Napolitano..................................................... 73
Questions From Honorable Beto O'Rourke for Janet Napolitano...... 75
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
Thursday, April 18, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:09 a.m., in Room
311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Michael T. McCaul
[Chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McCaul, Smith, King, Rogers,
Miller, Meehan, Duncan, Chaffetz, Barletta, Stewart, Hudson,
Daines, Brooks, Perry, Thompson, Sanchez, Jackson Lee, Clarke,
Higgins, Barber, Payne, O'Rourke, Vela, Horsford, and Swalwell.
Chairman McCaul. The Committee on Homeland Security will
come to order.
The committee is meeting today to hear testimony from
Secretary Janet Napolitano, related to the President's fiscal
year 2014 budget request for the Department of Homeland
Security. I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Secretary Napolitano, I want to thank you for being here
today during this difficult time for our country. Events like
the Boston bombing, transcend politics. Today as we search for
answers, and we remember those who were lost and injured, we
are reminded of how vulnerable we are in a free society.
We also realize the truths about the core of this country.
That we are strong, resilient, and committed to continuing our
way of life. In the moments following the explosions, we felt
tremendous heartbreak, but also witnessed tremendous acts of
heroism. From the first responders who arrived on the scene and
saved lives, to the marathoners who ran towards the victims,
instead of away from the blast.
The courage of the people in this country in the face of
great evil inspires us all to not be intimidated, but instead
carry on, and care for each other. The spirit of the people of
Boston make us all proud to be Americans. The tragic images of
that day will stay with us. However, if there is a silver
lining in times like these, it is that we as a country become
united. After the explosions ceased, I received a call from the
White House. It was clear from that conversation that we were
not Republicans or Democrats, but we are all Americans who
stand together in this fight against terrorism.
As our Nation comes together to embrace the families
affected by the tragedy, we re-commit ourselves to never
returning to a pre-9/11 mentality. We will never forget this
heartbreak of losing our own, and we owe them our commitment to
never become complacent. While our intelligence, military, and
law enforcement are the best in the world, we as citizens must
always remain vigilant. For every event like the one in Boston,
many are thwarted.
Hearings like this one today, are meant to improve our
prevention of these attacks, and ensure that if they occur, we
have the best knowledge, and resources to respond. I want to
commend the Department for its involvement in trying to find
the terrorist behind this plot. I appreciate the assurances I
have received, that we are putting the full weight of the
Federal Government behind this search. I am confident that we
will succeed in bringing these terrorists to justice.
I think I speak for the committee and tell you that, when
it comes to Boston, we are all in this together. We are all
equally committed to finding who did this, and to ensuring that
they will receive swift justice. As we witnessed this week,
this country is still a target for terrorism. I look forward to
discussing how we can best use our resources to combat the many
threats against us. While we may not always agree on the best
way to ensure homeland security, today we can all agree that
our highest calling is to serve the people and to ensure their
safety.
Today as we examine the fiscal priorities of the
Department, I hope we can identify ways to improve our National
security by ensuring DHS agencies are working together and for
a common purpose. From securing our borders to ensuring
resources aren't wasted, and all of the decisions at DHS that
play a critical role in safeguarding the Nation. I hope that
you, Madam Secretary, can discuss the administration's plans to
continue to support DHS's counterterrorism and disaster
preparedness and response efforts in addition to the other many
issues.
The Department was created out of the combination of 22
independent agencies after 9/11. Therefore, it has great
challenges from its inception. I hope that this hearing 10
years after the creation can be a constructive forum, and I
look forward to hearing the Secretary's assessment of the
proposed budget today. Finally, I want to add my concern about
what happened in my home State in West, Texas yesterday
evening. As you know, these types of explosions are extremely
hard to contain, and we know that there were many injured, and
our thoughts and prayers go out to them.
If you have anything you can share with us today, Madam
Secretary, on those events, and what is being done now, we
would all appreciate your insight. With that, I now recognize
the Ranking Member of the committee, Mr. Thompson.
[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:]
Statement of Chairman Michael McCaul
Secretary Napolitano, I want to thank you for being here during
this difficult time for our country.
Events like the Boston bombing transcend politics. Today, as we
search for answers and remember those who were lost and injured, we are
reminded of how vulnerable we are as a free society. We also realize
the truths about the core of this country--that we are strong,
resilient, and committed to continuing our way of life.
In the moments following the explosions, we felt tremendous
heartbreak, but also witnessed tremendous acts of heroism. From the
first responders who arrived on the scene and undoubtedly saved lives,
to the marathoners who ran towards the victims instead of away from the
blasts. The courage of the people in this country in the face of great
evil inspires us all to not be intimidated--but to instead carry on and
to care for each other. The spirit of the people of Boston makes us all
proud to be Americans.
The tragic images of that day will stay with us. However, if there
is a silver lining in times like these, it is that we as a country
become united. After the explosions ceased, I received a call from the
White House. It was clear from that conversation that we were not
Republicans or Democrats, but we are all Americans who stand together
in the fight against terrorism.
And as the Nation comes together to embrace the families affected
by the tragedy, we recommit ourselves to never returning to a pre-9/11
mentality. We will never forget this heartbreak of losing our own, and
we owe them our commitment to never become complacent. While our
intelligence, military, and law enforcement are the best in the world,
we as citizens must always remain vigilant.
For every event like the one in Boston, many are thwarted.
Hearings, like this one today, are meant to improve our prevention of
these attacks--and ensure that if they occur, we have the best
knowledge and resources to respond.
I want to commend the Department for its involvement in trying to
find the terrorists behind this plot. I appreciate the assurances I've
received that we are putting the full weight of the Federal Government
behind this search, and I have confidence that we will succeed.
I think I can speak for the committee and tell you that when it
comes to Boston, we are all in this together. We are all equally
committed to finding who did this and to ensuring they receive swift
justice.
As we witnessed this week, this country is still a target for
terrorism, and I look forward to discussing how we can best use our
resources to combat the many threats against us.
While we may not always agree on the best way to ensure homeland
security, today we can all agree that our highest calling is to serve
the people, and to ensure their safety.
Today, as we examine the fiscal priorities of the Department, I
hope we can identify ways to improve our National security by ensuring
DHS agencies work together, and for a common purpose. From securing our
borders to ensuring resources aren't wasted--all of the decisions at
DHS play a critical role in safeguarding our Nation.
I hope that you, Madame Secretary, can discuss the administration's
plans to continue to support DHS's counterterrorism and disaster
preparedness and response efforts in addition to the many other issues
facing the Department.
The Department was created out of the combination of 22 independent
agencies after 9/11, therefore it has had great challenges from its
inception. I hope that this hearing, 10 years after the creation of
DHS, can be a constructive forum, and I look forward to the Secretary's
assessment of the Department's proposed budget today.
Finally, I want to add my concern about what happened in West,
Texas, yesterday evening. As you know--these types of explosions are
extremely hard to contain--and we know that there were many injured. If
you have anything you can share with us today on those events and
what's being done now, we would all appreciate your insight.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman for setting
this hearing to hear from the Secretary on the proposed 2014
budget. Good morning Madam Secretary. I am appreciative that
you are here to discuss the budget. However, before I begin I
would like to take a moment to express my sincere condolences
to those who have lost loved ones, or were injured in Boston.
Our thoughts are with them today. As a former volunteer
firefighter, I want to commend the Boston police, firefighters,
and medical personnel for their heroic response.
Also, I would like--be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the
lives lost, and destruction out in West, Texas. Our prayers
also go out to that community. As authorizers, we bear special
responsibility to make sure that the Government is working to
prevent attacks like the one that happened on Monday. Madam
Secretary, your job has certainly not been an easy one. When
you arrived at the Department 4 years ago, it was in bad shape.
There were problems with acquisitions. There were problems with
morale. Despite significant investment in preparedness, we had
no idea if, as a Nation, we were better prepared to respond to
a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack.
To add to that, over the past 3 years, the Department's
budget has been reduced. Meanwhile, the periodic logjams in the
Congressional budget process have certainly made future budget
planning much more difficult. So to be clear, I understand that
you have a very difficult job. That said, I am concerned about
the lack of progress on many of the fundamental problems that
have plagued your agency since its inception.
For example, the Department continues to be on the
Government Accountability Office's high-risk list, and employee
morale continues to be among the lowest of all Federal
agencies. After $430 million of investment in interoperable
communications, Departmental components are still not
interoperable. With respect to the fiscal year 2014 budget
request, I appreciate your efforts to achieve savings through
efficiencies, but I have some serious reservations about some
of your proposals. I am concerned that many of the critical new
investments are dependent upon Congress approving new revenues.
In the current Congressional environment, that strikes me
as a very heavy lift. Additionally, I have questions about the
proposal to let CBP to accept money from outside stakeholders
to defray costs. In particular, I would like to know how this
proposal relates to plans to extend the pre-clearance program
to Abu Dhabi, UAE. With respect to preparedness, I am concerned
that the Department has yet again proposed to consolidate 16
targeted Homeland Security grant programs into a single pot.
It has been over a year since grant consolidation was first
proposed, and the Department still has not articulated how the
capabilities gained through existing grant programs will be
maintained under the new program. With the limited resources
available to the Department, we must ensure that the Federal,
State, and local programs are adequately funded. Yet, before I
close I would note that the administration has two major
initiatives where the Department is expected to play a central
role: Immigration reform and cybersecurity.
I am interested to hear what resources you need in order to
undertake the anticipated advances in these two key areas.
Again, I thank you for being here today, and I look forward to
your testimony, and I yield back my time.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to express my sincere
condolences to those who lost loved ones or were injured in Boston. Our
thoughts are with them today. As a former volunteer firefighter, I want
to commend the Boston police, firefighters, and medical personnel for
their heroic response.
Also, I would be remiss if I didn't also acknowledge the lives lost
and destruction we are seeing out of West, Texas. Our prayers go out to
that community.
As authorizers, we bear a special responsibility to make sure that
the Government is working to prevent attacks like the one that happened
on Monday.
Madame Secretary, your job has certainly not been an easy one. When
you arrived at the Department 4 years ago, it was in bad shape.
There were problems with acquisitions. There were problems with
morale. Despite significant investments in preparedness, we had no idea
if, as a Nation, we were better prepared to respond to a natural
disaster or terrorist attack.
To add to that, over the past 3 years, the Department's budget has
been reduced; meanwhile, the periodic logjams in the Congressional
budget process have certainly made future budget planning much more
difficult. So, to be clear, I understand that you have a very difficult
job.
That said, I am concerned about the lack of progress on many of the
fundamental problems that have plagued your agency.
For example, the Department continues to be on the Government
Accountability Office's ``High-Risk List'' and employee morale
continues to be among the lowest of all Federal agencies.
After $430 million of investment in interoperable communications,
Departmental components still are not interoperable.
With respect to the fiscal year 2014 budget request, I appreciate
your efforts to achieve savings through efficiencies, but I have some
serious reservations about some of your proposals.
I am concerned that many of the critical, new investments are
dependent upon Congress approving new revenues. In the current
Congressional environment, that strikes me as a very heavy lift.
Additionally, I have questions about the proposal to allow CBP to
accept money from outside stakeholders to defray costs. In particular,
I would like to know how this proposal relates to plans to extend the
preclearance program to Abu Dhabi, UAE.
With respect to preparedness, I am concerned that the Department
has, yet again, proposed to consolidate 16 targeted homeland security
grant programs into a single pot.
It has been over a year since grant consolidation was first
proposed, and the Department still has not articulated how the
capabilities gained through existing grant programs will be maintained
under the new program.
With the limited resources available to the Department, we must
ensure that the Federal, State, and local programs are adequately
funded.
Before I close, I would note that the administration has two major
initiatives where the Department is expected to play a central role--
immigration reform and cybersecurity.
I am interested to hear what resources you need in order to
undertake the anticipated advances in these two key areas.
Chairman McCaul. I want to thank the Ranking Member. Other
Members of the committee are reminded that opening statements
may be submitted for the record. I would like now to introduce
the Secretary. Secretary Napolitano is beginning her fifth year
of service in one of the most important Cabinet positions in
our Government. Prior to her service at the Department of
Homeland Security, Secretary Napolitano served as Governor and
attorney general in the State of Arizona and as a former
justice department prosecutor. She was also a United States
attorney.
I remind our witness her entire written statement will
appear in the record, and ask our witness to summarize her
statement at this time. I now recognize the Secretary. Thank
you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Napolitano. Well, thank you Chairman McCaul and
Ranking Member Thompson, Members of the committee. Before I
begin discussion of the fiscal year 2014 budget request, if I
might, just a few words both about West, Texas, and about
Boston. I will begin with West, Texas as the more recent event,
and give you the most current information that we have about
the explosion. Of course our sympathies and concerns go out to
the families of those who have lost loved ones, or who have had
a loved one who has been injured.
But, as of right now, the FAA has issued a temporary flight
restriction over the area. The Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality is providing air monitoring, and
technical assistance. Texas Task Force-1 has been alerted to
provide structural collapse support. The Union Pacific Railroad
has halted freight service, and local utilities have turned off
utility service in the area, including gas and electricity.
There is an Incident Command Center, and a Triage Center, but
they have been recently moved due to fears that additional
tanks could be at risk. FEMA, part of the department has been
activated, and stands ready to assist Texas upon request.
The State Fire Marshall's Office, the Texas DPS, the Waco
Fire and Hazmat and other State agencies are also responding.
The American Red Cross is working with local Emergency
Management to identify shelter management assistance. We have
within FEMA, activated an Incident Management Assistance Team,
three preliminary Damage Assessment Teams, and we are also
standing by to assist in any other way. Our EOC remains at
level 3, which is at increased readiness. We will continue to
monitor events over the course of today, and provide you with
updates as they are relevant.
I might add, Mr. Chairman that many of the things I have
just gone through are examples of the kinds of activities that
have been supported by the committee, through FEMA, through the
various grants that we supply. Urban Search and Rescue being a
good example of the kinds of things that grants have been
supporting, increasing or capacity for response and resilience
as a Nation. So, that is the most recent on West, Texas. With
respect to Boston, we are--in the FBI's lead, we are
investigating this as an act of terror. We are assisting.
ICE is part of the JTTF. We have over four dozen ICE agents
now assigned to the Boston office, helping in the
investigation. CBP is assisting in a number of ways.
Immediately after the attack, we worked to close Logan, to
ground air for a few hours and to institute special targeting
rules, both in the air environment, and at the Canadian border
environment, in case there were those seeking to escape the
scene.
With respect to FEMA, again when you saw the response in
Boston and how coordinated it was even given the level of
destruction, I would remind the committee that just last
November, Boston held a massive exercise on how to deal with a
mass casualty event. That exercise was the kind of exercise,
and exercises supported by the committee through FEMA to local
areas, again increasing our ability for response and
resilience.
We have worked with the FBI and provided several intel
products and briefings to State and local law enforcement
across the country. Critical infrastructure owners and
operators, and we have been reaching out to faith-based
organizations, community organizations, and others who want to
know what they can do. We are implementing a number of security
measures, both seen and unseen at airports, transit hubs,
within the maritime environment, and at ports of entry.
The Coast Guard is providing security on the ferries in the
Boston area. VIPR teams are doing surges in terms of ground
transportation and the like. Finally, with respect to the
public, we do urge the public to remain vigilant. We are all in
this together. Security is a joint responsibility. The ``see
something, say something'' message is something that all of us
can emphasize. Events such as Boston remind us of the
importance of that.
This is an all-hands-on-deck effort by the entire Federal
Government, led by the President. We are committed to making
sure that we bring the perpetrators to justice.
Moving on to the budget, this marks the 10th anniversary of
the creation of DHS. It is the largest reorganization of the
Federal Government since the creation of the Department of
Defense. In 10 years, we have transformed 22 legacy agencies
into a single integrated Department. We have built a
strengthened homeland security enterprise and a more secure
America better equipped to confront the range of threats we
face.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget request allows us
to build on our progress by preserving core front-line
operational priorities. At the same time, given the current
fiscal environment--this is the third straight year that our
budget request reflects a reduction from the previous year.
Specifically, the budget request is 2.2 percent, or more than
$800 million dollars below the fiscal year 2013 enacted budget.
While our missions have not changed, and we continue to face
evolving threats, I think, we have become more strategic in how
we use our resources, focusing on a risk-based approach.
This is coupled with a commitment to fiscal discipline,
which has led to over $4 billion in cost avoidances and
reductions through our efficiency review. The recent, 4-year
appropriations bill enables DHS to mitigate, to some degree,
the projected sequester impacts under the Continuing Resolution
on our operations and work force. But there is no doubt that
these cuts, totaling more than $3 billion over 6 months, will
affect our operations in the short and long term.
Sustained cuts at sequester levels will result in reduced
operational capacity, breached staffing floors, and economic
impacts to the private sector through reduced and canceled
contracts. Nonetheless, we continue to do everything we can to
minimize impacts on our core mission and employees, consistent
with the operational priorities in the 2014 budget.
Let me, if I might, briefly highlight those. First, to
prevent terrorism and enhance security, the 2014 budget
continues to support risk-based security initiatives, like TSA
PreCheck, Global Entry, other trusted traveler programs. As a
result, we expect 1 in 4 travelers to receive some form of
expedited screening by the end of the year. The budget supports
the administration efforts to secure maritime cargo in the
global supply train by strengthening efforts to interdict
threats at the earliest possible point.
We continue our strong support for State and local partners
through training, fusion centers, and information sharing on a
wide range of homeland security issues. We also fund cutting-
edge research and development to address evolving biological,
radiological, and nuclear threats, including construction of
the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, the NBAF.
To secure and manage our borders, the budget continues the
administration's robust border security efforts, while
facilitating legitimate travel and trade. It sustains historic
deployments of personnel along our borders, as well as
continued utilization of proven, effective surveillance
technology along the highest-trafficked areas of the Southwest
Border.
To expedite travel and trade, while reducing wait times at
the ports of entry, the budget requests an additional 3,500
port officers, 1,600 paid for by appropriation, the remainder
by an increase to the immigration user fees that have not been
adjusted since 2001.
To secure maritime borders, the budget invests in
recapitalization of Coast Guard assets, including the 7th
National Security Cutter and fast response cutters. The budget
also continues the Department's focus on smart and effective
enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws. It supports the
unprecedented effort to more effectively focus the enforcement
system on public safety threats, border security, and the
integrity of the immigration system through initiatives such as
deferred action for childhood arrivals and greater use of
prosecutorial discretion.
At the same time, the budget makes significant reductions
to inefficient programs like 287-G task force agreements while
supporting more cost-efficient initiatives like the Nation-wide
implementation of secure communities.
The budget invests in monitoring in compliance, promoting
adherence to work-site related laws, Form I-9 inspections, and
enhancements to the E-Verify program while continuing to
support alternatives to detention, detention reform, and
immigrant integration efforts.
Comprehensive immigration reform will help us continue to
build on these efforts and strengthen border security by
enabling DHS to further focus its resources on criminals, human
smugglers and traffickers, and National security threats.
Next, to safeguard and secure cyberspace, this budget makes
significant investments to strengthen cybersecurity, including
funds to secure our Nation's information and financial systems
and to defend against cyber threats to private sector and
Federal systems, the Nation's critical infrastructure, and our
economy. It supports the President's Executive Order on
improving critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, and the
Presidential Policy Directive on critical infrastructure,
security, and resilience. It expedites the deployment of the
EINSTEIN-3 to prevent and detect intrusions on Government
computer systems.
Finally, to ensure continued resilience to disasters, the
President's budget focuses on a whole-of-community approach to
emergency management. It includes resources for the Disaster
Relief Fund, the DRF, to support Presidentially-declared
disasters or emergencies. The administration is again proposing
the consolidation of 18 grant programs into one National
preparedness grants program to create a robust National
response capacity while reducing administrative overhead. This
competitive risk-based program will use a comprehensive process
to identify gaps, identify and prioritize deployable
capabilities, put funding to work quickly, and require grantees
to regularly report on their progress.
It is, as I mentioned before, precisely this kind of
funding that has enhanced preparedness and response
capabilities in cities like Boston and locations like West,
Texas. Since 2002, the Boston urban area has received nearly
$370 million in Federal grant funding, which has been used to
equip and train tactical and specialize response teams,
specifically, in IED detection, prevention, response, and
recovery.
Grants have supported increased coordination, particularly
with respect to joint exercises and training, including more
than a dozen exercises involving the city of Boston over the
past several years. As I mentioned, this included a large-scale
mass casualty exercise with more than 1,800 first responders
just last November.
Due to the investments made over the past 10 years, our
State and local jurisdictions now have greater capabilities to
prevent and respond to incidents. In sum, our communities are
better prepared, and we must continue this support.
In conclusion, the fiscal year 2014 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.
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, Members of the
committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Napolitano follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janet Napolitano
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
committee: Let me begin by saying thank you to this committee for the
strong support you have provided me and the Department over the past 4
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 committee today to present
President Obama's fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
This year marks the 10th anniversary of the creation of DHS, the
largest reorganization of the U.S. Government since the formation of
the Department of Defense. After 10 years of effort, DHS has
transformed 22 agencies from across the Federal Government into a
single integrated Department, building a strengthened homeland security
enterprise and a more secure America better equipped to confront the
range of threats we face.
Our workforce of nearly 240,000 law enforcement agents, officers,
and men and women on the front lines put their lives at risk every day
to protect our country from threats to the homeland, securing our land,
air, and maritime borders; enforcing our immigration laws; and
responding to natural disasters. Our employees are stationed in every
State and in more than 75 countries around the world, engaging with
State, local, and foreign partners to strengthen homeland security
through cooperation, information sharing, training, and technical
assistance. Domestically, DHS works side-by-side with State and local
\1\ law enforcement (SLLE) and emergency responders in our communities,
along our borders, and throughout a National network of fusion centers.
The Department also collaborates with international partners, including
foreign governments, major multilateral organizations, and global
businesses to strengthen the security of the networks of global trade
and travel, upon which our Nation's economy and communities rely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Local'' law enforcement includes all law enforcement at the
municipal, Tribal, and territorial levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS employs a risk-based, intelligence-driven approach to help
prevent terrorism and other evolving security threats. Utilizing a
multi-layered detection system, DHS focuses on enhanced targeting and
information sharing, and on working beyond our borders to interdict
threats and dangerous actors at the earliest point possible. Each day,
DHS screens 2 million passengers at domestic airports; intercepts
thousands of agricultural threats; expedites the transit of nearly
100,000 people through trusted traveler and known crewmember programs;
and trains thousands of Federal, State, local, rural, Tribal,
territorial, and international officers and agents through more than
550 basic and advanced training programs available at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). We conduct vulnerability
assessments of key infrastructure, disseminate intelligence regarding
current and developing threats, and provide connectivity to Federal
systems to help local law enforcement and homeland security agencies
across the country in reporting suspicious activities and implementing
protective measures.
Our borders and ports are stronger, more efficient, and better
protected than ever before. At the Southwest Border, apprehensions have
decreased to the lowest point in more than 30 years. We have
significantly invested in additional personnel, technology, and
infrastructure, leading to historic progress along the border. We have
deepened partnerships with Federal, State, local, and international law
enforcement to combat transnational threats and criminal organizations
to help keep our border communities safe. We have strengthened entry
procedures to protect against the use of fraudulent documents and the
entry of individuals who may wish to do us harm. And we have made our
ports of entry (POEs) more efficient to expedite lawful travel and
trade. Each day, almost 1 million people arrive at our POEs by land,
sea, and air. In fiscal year 2012, DHS processed more than 350 million
travelers at our POEs, including almost 100 million international air
travelers and $2.3 trillion dollars of trade, while enforcing U.S. laws
that welcome travelers, protect health and safety, and facilitate the
flow of goods essential to our economy.
DHS has focused on smart and effective enforcement of U.S.
immigration laws while streamlining and facilitating the legal
immigration process. We have established clear enforcement priorities
to focus the enforcement system on the removal of individuals who pose
a danger to National security or a risk to public safety, including
aliens convicted of crimes, with particular emphasis on violent
criminals, felons, and repeat offenders, while implementing a
comprehensive worksite enforcement strategy to reduce demand for
illegal employment and protect employment opportunities for the
Nation's lawful workforce. DHS has implemented major reforms to the
Nation's immigration detention system to enhance security and
efficiency and protect the health and safety of detainees while
expanding Nation-wide the Secure Communities program, which uses
biometric information to identify criminal aliens in State and local
correctional facilities. Over the past 4 years, the Department has also
improved the legal immigration process by streamlining and modernizing
immigration benefits processes; strengthening fraud protections;
protecting crime victims, asylees, and refugees; updating rules to keep
immigrant families together; and launching new initiatives to spur
economic competitiveness.
Today, our borders are more secure and our border communities are
among the safest communities in our country. We have removed record
numbers of criminals from the United States, and our immigration laws
are being enforced according to sensible priorities. We have taken
numerous steps to strengthen legal immigration and build greater
integrity into the system. We are using our resources smartly,
effectively, responsibly.
Despite these improvements, however, our immigration system remains
broken and outdated. That is why the Department stands ready to
implement common-sense immigration reform that would continue
investments in border security, crack down on companies that hire
undocumented workers, improve the legal immigration system for
employment-sponsored and family-sponsored immigrants, and establish a
responsible pathway to earned citizenship. Comprehensive immigration
reform will help us continue to build on this progress and strengthen
border security by providing additional tools and enabling DHS to
further focus existing resources on preventing the entry of criminals,
human smugglers and traffickers, and National security threats.
Our Nation's critical infrastructure is crucial to our economy and
security. DHS is the Federal Government's lead in securing unclassified
Federal civilian government networks as well as working with owners and
operators of critical infrastructure to secure their networks and
protect physical assets through risk assessment, mitigation, forensic
analysis, and incident response capabilities. In 2012, DHS issued
warnings and responded to an average of 70 incidents per month arising
from more than 10,000 daily alerts. The President also issued an
Executive Order on cybersecurity and a Presidential Policy Directive on
critical infrastructure security and resilience to strengthen the
security and resilience of critical infrastructure against evolving
threats through an updated and overarching National framework that
acknowledges the interdependencies between cybersecurity and securing
physical assets.
In support of these efforts, DHS serves as the focal point for the
U.S. Government's cybersecurity outreach and awareness activities and
is focused on the development of a world-class cybersecurity workforce
as well as innovative technologies that sustain safe, secure, and
resilient critical infrastructure. We work hand-in-hand with our
private-sector partners, recognizing the importance of public-private
partnerships to build resilience through a whole-of-community approach.
In addition to these responsibilities, DHS combats cybercrime by
leveraging the skills and resources of the law enforcement community
and interagency partners to investigate and prosecute cyber criminals.
DHS has fundamentally changed how we work with our State and local
partners to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the
effects of disasters. Through the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), we have implemented innovative practices to transform our
disaster workforce through the creation of FEMA Corps and the DHS Surge
Capacity Workforce. Working closely with State and local officials, we
preposition resources before disasters hit and have 28 National urban
search-and-rescue teams on standby in addition to dozens of State and
local teams to support response efforts. We train more than 2 million
emergency management and response personnel annually at the Emergency
Management Institute, National Fire Academy, and through Community
Emergency Response Teams to improve capabilities across all hazards.
Additionally, we have deployed new capabilities to help disaster
survivors recover and communities rebuild.
maximizing efficiency and effectiveness
The fiscal year 2014 budget for DHS is $60.0 billion in total
budget authority and $48.5 billion in gross discretionary funding.
These two amounts include $5.6 billion in Disaster Relief Fund (DRF)
appropriations for recovery from major disasters, pursuant to the
Budget Control Act. Excluding the $5.6 billion funding within the DRF,
the net discretionary total is $39 billion.
Realizing Efficiencies and Streamlining Operations
The Department has implemented a variety of initiatives to cut
costs, share resources across components, and consolidate and
streamline operations wherever possible. In fiscal year 2014, these
initiatives will result in $1.3 billion in savings from administrative
and mission support areas, including contracts, information technology
(IT), travel, personnel moves, overtime, directed purchasing,
professional services, and vehicle management.
Through the Department-wide, employee-driven Efficiency Review
(ER), which began in 2009, as well as other cost-saving initiatives,
DHS has identified more than $4 billion in cost avoidances and
reductions, and redeployed those funds to mission-critical initiatives
across the Department.
Strategic Sourcing
Through ER and component initiatives, DHS has used strategic
sourcing initiatives to leverage the purchasing power of the entire
Department for items such as language services, tactical communications
services and devices, intelligence analysis services, and vehicle
maintenance services. In fiscal year 2012, we achieved $368 million in
savings, and we project $250 million in savings for fiscal year 2013.
We expect a comparable level of savings as we continue forward with
this approach in fiscal year 2014.
Travel and Conferences
In support of the administration's Campaign to Cut Waste, DHS
strengthened conference and travel policies and controls to reduce
travel expenses, ensure conferences are cost-effective, and ensure both
travel and conference attendance is driven by critical mission
requirements. During 2012, DHS issued a new directive that establishes
additional standards for conferences and requires regular reporting on
conference spending, further increasing transparency and
accountability. The Department's fiscal year 2014 budget projects an
additional 20 percent reduction in travel costs from fiscal years 2013-
2016.
Real Property Management
DHS manages a real property portfolio of approximately 38,000
assets, which spans all 50 States and 7 U.S. territories. The
Department has adopted strategies to achieve greater efficiencies in
the management of its real property portfolio that includes expediting
the identification and disposal of under-utilized assets as well as
improving the utilization of remaining Department inventory. These
efforts will result in reductions in the size of our civilian real
estate inventory, annual operating and maintenance costs, and energy
usage. DHS anticipates that the amount of space and cost per full-time
equivalent employee will continue to decline as spaces are reconfigured
or new space is acquired on the basis of new workplace planning
assumptions. DHS is committed to continuing to improve the management
and alignment of its real property with advances in technology,
mission, and work requirements.
Management and Integration
Over the past 4 years, DHS has significantly improved Departmental
management, developing and implementing a comprehensive, strategic
approach to enhance Department-wide maturation and integration. We have
improved acquisition oversight, ensuring full consideration of the
investment life cycle in cost estimates, establishing procedures to
thoroughly vet new requirements and alternative solutions, and
supporting full funding policies to minimize acquisition risk. The
fiscal year 2014 budget includes key investments to strengthen the
homeland security enterprise, increase integration, address challenges
raised by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), and continue
to build upon the management reforms that have been implemented under
this administration.
Modernization of the Department's financial management systems has
been consistently identified as critical by the Office of Management
and Budget, the GAO, and Congress, and is vital to our ability to
provide strong stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Over the past several
years, we have made significant progress improving financial management
practices and establishing internal controls. In 2012, DHS earned a
qualified audit opinion on its Balance Sheet, a significant milestone
and a pivotal step toward increasing transparency and accountability
for the Department's resources. This full-scope audit opinion is a
result of DHS's on-going commitment to instituting sound financial
management practices to safeguard taxpayer dollars.
Although DHS continues to maximize cost efficiencies and savings
wherever possible, new investment must be made to improve our outdated
financial systems and tools. The fiscal year 2014 budget supports
financial system modernization at the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which
also provides financial management services to two other DHS
components.
DHS is also implementing a coordinated management approach for
strategic investments and resource decisions involving multiple
components through the Integrated Investment Life Cycle Model. This
initiative will help the Department enhance mission effectiveness while
achieving management efficiencies by providing a broader, enterprise-
wide perspective and ensuring DHS investments address the greatest
needs of the Department.
Strategic Re-Organizations
In today's fiscal environment, the Department has challenged its
workforce to fundamentally rethink how it does business, from the
largest to the smallest investments. To help reduce costs, DHS
conducted a formal base budget review, looking at all aspects of the
Department's budget to find savings and better align resources with
operational requirements.
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology (US-VISIT)
To better align the functions of US-VISIT with the operational
components, the Budget re-proposes the transfer of US-VISIT functions
from the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), consistent with the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget. 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
operational efficiencies and cost savings.
State and Local Grants
Given the fiscal challenges facing the Department's State and local
partners, DHS is also approaching these partnerships in new and
innovative ways. The budget re-proposes the National Preparedness Grant
Program (NPGP), originally presented in the fiscal year 2013 budget, to
develop, sustain, and leverage core capabilities across the country in
support of National preparedness, prevention, and response, with
appropriate adjustments to respond to stakeholder feedback in 2012.
While providing a structure that will give grantees more certainty
about how funding will flow, the proposal continues to utilize a
comprehensive process for assessing regional and National gaps; support
the development of a robust cross-jurisdictional and readily deployable
State and local assets; and require grantees to regularly report
progress in the acquisition and development of these capabilities.
Land Port of Entry (LPOE) Delegation
Beginning in fiscal year 2013, the General Services Administration
(GSA) will work with DHS to delegate the operations of LPOE facilities
to CBP. The distinctive nature of LPOEs as mission-oriented, 24/7
operational assets of CBP, as well as National trade and transportation
infrastructure, differentiates this part of the portfolio from other
Federal buildings managed by GSA. The delegation facilitates faster
delivery of service tailored to the specific needs of CBP's mission and
will be more responsive to changing priorities and critical operations.
DHS Commonality Efforts
The successful integration of 22 legacy agencies into DHS was an
important and ambitious undertaking that has increased the Department's
ability to understand, mitigate, and protect against threats to the
Nation. Further integration of the Department and of the development of
a ``One DHS'' culture will strengthen effectiveness, improve decision
making to address shared issues, and prioritize resources in an era of
fiscal constraint. The fiscal year 2014 budget continues this emphasis
and supports on-going efforts aimed at furthering integration, some of
which are highlighted as follows.
Common Vetting
It is estimated that DHS spends approximately $1.8 billion annually
on information-based screening. Consequently, DHS has established a
Common Vetting Initiative to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of vetting operations within the Department. Although this work is on-
going, it is expected that this effort will identify opportunities for
streamlining operations and strengthening front-end assessment of
requirements as part of an integrated investment life cycle.
Additionally, DHS is leveraging existing capabilities and its
research and development (R&D) capabilities at the Science and
Technology Directorate (S&T) to enhance the Department's exit program,
and to identify and sanction those who overstay their lawful period of
admission to the United States. This initiative is focused on
aggregating information within existing data systems, enhancing review
of potential overstays, increasing automated matching, and
incorporating additional biometric elements to provide the foundation
for a future biometric exit solution. The transfer of US-VISIT
functions to CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
supports this effort and better aligns mission functions.
Aviation Commonality
The Department is projected to spend approximately $1.2 billion
over fiscal years 2014-2018 on procurement of aviation assets. In 2011,
DHS stood up an aviation commonalities working group to improve
operational coordination in acquisition, facilities, maintenance, and
logistics between CBP and USCG. The Department also launched an
Aviation and Marine Commonalities Pilot Project in the fall of 2012 to
test the unified command and control of Departmental aviation and
marine forces. 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.
Investigations
A recent partnership between ICE's Homeland Security Investigations
and the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) demonstrates the Department's
commitment to leveraging capabilities across components and finding
efficiencies. Both ICE and USSS are expanding participation in the
existing Secret Service Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs), which
will strengthen the Department's cybercrimes investigative capabilities
and realize efficiencies in the procurement of computer forensic
hardware, software licensing, and training. This collaboration will
integrate resources devoted to investigating transnational criminal
organizations; transnational child exploitation; financial crime,
including money laundering and identity and intellectual property
theft; and network intrusions by domestic and international threats.
This will further enhance the response capability of the Department to
a cyber event by leveraging the assets of the Secret Service's 31
ECTFs, which bring together more than 2,700 international, Federal,
State, and local law enforcement partners; 3,100 private-sector
members; and 300 academic partners.
CBP Staffing and Mission Integration
Given the administration's strong and continued focus on border
security, DHS has undertaken a series of initiatives to ensure that
CBP's operations are integrated and that Border Patrol Agents (BPAs)
and CBP Officers (CBPOs) are optimally deployed. As part of its mission
integration efforts, CBP has applied complementary BPA and CBPO
deployments to enhance mission sets both at and between the POEs.
Toward this goal, CBP has identified numerous mission areas where BPAs
can substantially support: Port operations, including canine detection
operations for drugs and concealed humans; outbound operations that
target currency, firearms, and fugitives; port security, counter-
surveillance, and perimeter enforcement operations; inbound secondary
conveyance inspections for narcotics and human smuggling. CBP has also
identified mission areas where BPAs secure and transport seized
contraband.
CBP is realizing significant operational and force-multiplying
benefits from deploying BPAs to support POE requirements. Over the last
year, these efforts have augmented POE operations, enabling CBP to more
effectively address the threat of money and weapons being smuggled
southbound into Mexico for use by transnational criminal organizations.
In 2013, CBP is expanding these efforts by synchronizing mission
integration efforts across the four key Southwest Border operational
corridors: South Texas, El Paso/New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern
California. The harmonization of current efforts will increase rapid
response capability, develop unified intelligence and targeting
approaches, and identify additional areas for on-the-ground operational
collaboration.
Supporting Economic Growth and Job Creation
In support of the President's Executive Order on travel and tourism
and to continue building upon the administration's significant
investments in border security, the fiscal year 2014 budget includes
several proposals to invest in the men and women on the front lines of
our 329 POEs along the border and at airports and seaports across the
country. Processing the more than 350 million travelers annually
provides nearly $150 billion in economic stimulus, yet the fees that
support these operations have not been adjusted in many cases for more
than a decade. As the complexity of our operations continues to expand,
the gap between fee collections and the operations they support is
growing, and the number of workforce hours fees support decreases each
year. Accordingly, the budget supports 3,477 new CBPOs to reduce
growing wait times at our POEs and increase seizures of illegal items
(guns, drugs, currency, and counterfeit goods). This includes
appropriated funding for 1,600 additional CBPOs and, with Congressional
approval, 1,877 new CBPOs through adjustments in immigration and
customs inspections user fees to recover more of the costs associated
with providing services. These fee proposals will also help address the
staffing gap outlined in CBP's Resource Optimization at Ports of Entry,
Fiscal Year 2013 Report to Congress, submitted with the President's
budget. In addition, CBP and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are
evaluating financial models to achieve full cost recovery for
agricultural inspectional services provided by CBP.
Beyond the additional front-line positions, the President's budget
also provides direct support for thousands of new jobs through major
infrastructure projects such as the National Bio and Agro-Defense
Facility (NBAF) and a consolidated departmental headquarters at the St.
Elizabeths Campus. Investment in USCG recapitalization projects
supports more than 4,000 jobs as well in the shipbuilding and aircraft
industries. Through our grant programs we will continue helping local
communities to create and maintain jobs, while strengthening the
resiliency of important economic sectors and infrastructure. The budget
additionally supports CBP and ICE efforts to combat commercial trade
fraud, including intellectual property law infringement, estimated to
cost the economy up to $250 billion each year.
Continued investment in Coast Guard front-line operations and
recapitalization of its aging fleet helps to protect the Nation's
Exclusive Economic Zone, a source of $122 billion in annual U.S.
revenue, and to secure 361 ports and thousands of miles of maritime
thoroughfares that support 95 percent of trade with the United States.
Through CBP and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), we
continue to promote safe and secure travel and tourism, supporting a
$2.3 trillion dollar tourism industry. These programs, among others,
enhance our Nation's safety and security while fostering economic
growth and job creation.
budget priorities
The fiscal year 2014 budget prioritizes programs and activities
within the homeland security mission areas outlined in the Department's
2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, the 2010 Bottom-Up Review,
and the fiscal year 2012-2016 DHS Strategic Plan, undertaken by the
Department to align its DHS 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 strengthening existing capabilities,
enhancing partnerships across all levels of government and with the
private sector, streamlining operations, and increasing efficiencies.
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 U.S. infrastructure and key
resources, essential leadership, and major events to terrorist attacks
and other hazards.
Mission 2: Securing and Managing Our Borders.--The protection of
the Nation's borders--land, air, and sea--from the illegal entry of
people, weapons, drugs, and other contraband while facilitating lawful
travel and trade is vital to homeland security, as well as the Nation's
economic prosperity. 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
responsible for securing unclassified Federal civilian government
networks and working with owners and operators of critical
infrastructure to secure their networks through risk assessment,
mitigation, and incident response capabilities. To combat cybercrime,
DHS leverages the skills and resources of the law enforcement community
and interagency partners to investigate and prosecute cyber criminals.
DHS also serves as the focal point for the U.S. Government's
cybersecurity outreach and awareness efforts to create a more secure
environment in which the private or financial information of
individuals is better protected.
Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters.--DHS coordinates the
comprehensive Federal efforts to prepare for, protect against, respond
to, recover from, and mitigate a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or
other large-scale emergency, while working with individuals;
communities; the private and nonprofit sectors; faith-based
organizations; and Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal
(SLTT) partners to ensure a swift and effective recovery. The
Department's efforts to help build a ready and resilient Nation include
fostering a whole community approach to emergency management
Nationally; building the Nation's capacity to stabilize and recover
from a catastrophic event; bolstering information sharing and building
unity of effort and common strategic understanding among the emergency
management team; providing training to our homeland security partners;
and leading and coordinating National partnerships to foster
preparedness and resilience across the private sector.
In addition to these missions, DHS strives to maximize the
effectiveness and efficiency of its operations while strengthening the
homeland security enterprise. The collective efforts of Federal, SLTT,
non-Governmental, and private-sector partners, as well as individuals
and communities across the country are critical to our shared security.
This includes enhancing shared awareness of risks and threats, building
capable, resilient communities, and fostering innovative approaches and
solutions through cutting-edge science and technology.
The following are highlights of the fiscal year 2014 budget.
Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security
Guarding against terrorism was the founding mission of DHS and
remains our top priority. To address evolving terrorist threats and
ensure the safety of the traveling public, the budget safeguards the
Nation's transportation systems through a layered detection system and
continues to support risk-based security initiatives, including TSA
PreTM, Global Entry, and other trusted traveler
programs. The budget supports administration efforts to secure maritime
cargo and the global supply chain by strengthening efforts to prescreen
and evaluate high-risk cargo. Investments in DHS's intelligence and
targeting programs coupled with the expansion of the National Targeting
Center, supported by the budget, will increase operational efficiencies
and enhance our ability to interdict threats and dangerous people
before they reach the United States.
Funding is included for cutting-edge R&D to address evolving
biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. Among the important
research investments is the construction of NBAF, a state-of-the-art
bio-containment facility for the study of foreign animal and emerging
zoonotic diseases that will replace the inadequate facility at Plum
Island. The budget funds the Securing the Cities (STC) program to
protect our highest-risk cities from radiological or nuclear attack and
continues National bio-preparedness and response efforts. The budget
also continues strong support for State and local partners through the
NPGP, 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
2014 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 2014 budget:
Continues expansion of trusted traveler programs, such as
TSA PreTM and Global Entry, which are
pre-screening initiatives for travelers who volunteer
information about themselves before flying in order to
potentially expedite screening at domestic checkpoints and
through customs. By 2014, TSA anticipates that one in four
members of the traveling public will be eligible for
expedited domestic screening.
Continues enhanced behavior detection in which interview
and behavioral analysis techniques are used to determine if
a traveler should be referred for additional screening at
the checkpoint. Analyses from pilots in fiscal year 2013
will inform the next steps on how larger-scale
implementation in fiscal year 2014 could improve
capabilities in a risk-based security environment.
Expands Secure Flight to perform watch list matching for
passengers before boarding large general aviation aircraft.
An estimated 11 million additional Secure Flight Passenger
Data sets are expected to be submitted by general aviation
operators per year.
Supports, as part of its multi-layered security strategy,
the Federal Flight Deck Officer and Flight Crew program as
a fully reimbursable program under FLETC's existing
authorities.
Prioritizes TSA's mission-critical screening functions,
and proposes the transfer of all exit lane staffing to
local airports pursuant to Federal regulatory authorities.
Airports will be responsible for integrating exit lane
security into their perimeter security plans, which are
assessed regularly by TSA.
Enhancing International Collaboration.--To most effectively
carry out our core missions, DHS continues to engage countries
around the world to protect both National and economic
security. The fiscal year 2014 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. The
Secretary's focus on international partnerships includes
elevating the Office of International Affairs to a stand-alone
office and a direct report. The fiscal year 2014 budget:
Supports the Immigration Advisory Program and the
continued growth of the Pre-Departure Vetting, which have
experienced a 156 percent increase in the number of no-
board recommendations since 2010. Through these programs,
CBP identifies high-risk travelers who are likely to be
inadmissible into the United States and makes
recommendations to commercial carriers to deny boarding.
Continues to modernize the IT capability for screening
visa applications to support the expansion of Visa Security
Program (VSP) coverage at existing overseas high-risk visa
adjudication posts. The VSP represents ICE's front line in
protecting the United States against terrorists and
criminal organizations by preventing foreign nationals who
pose as a threat to National security from entering the
United States. In fiscal year 2014, VSP will enhance visa
vetting by increasing automated data exchange with the
Department of State and CBP's National Targeting Center.
ICE will leverage modernization to increase investigations
of visa applicants who pose a potential high risk for
terrorism and are attempting to travel to the United
States.
Supports the bilateral Beyond the Border Action Plan with
Canada, including CBP's pre-inspection efforts in rail,
land, and marine environments. Pre-inspection is a
precursor to preclearance, which supports DHS's extended
border strategy through the identification and prevention
of terrorists, criminals, and other National security
threats before they enter the United States. Pre-
inspection/preclearance also helps protect U.S. agriculture
from the spread of foreign pests, disease, and global
outbreaks.
Supporting Surface Transportation Security.--The surface
transportation sector, due to 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
SLLE partners. The fiscal year 2014 budget supports DHS's
efforts to bolster these efforts. Specifically, the budget:
Includes the NPGP, described in more detail on the
following pages. This proposal focuses on building National
capabilities focused on preventing and responding to
threats across the country, including the surface
transportation sector, through Urban Search and Rescue
teams, canine explosives detection teams, and HAZMAT
response as well as target hardening of critical transit
infrastructure.
Funds surface transportation security inspectors and
canine teams who work collaboratively with public and
private-sector partners to strengthen security and mitigate
the risk to our Nation's transportation systems.
Supports 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 to assess security.
Funds 37 Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR)
teams, including 22 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.
Helps secure critical infrastructure and key resources
located on or near the water through patrols, enforcing
security zones and security escorts of certain vessels
(e.g., vessels containing hazardous cargo) in key U.S.
ports and waterways.
Strengthening Global Supply Chain Security.--The fiscal year
2014 budget continues to support the administration's Global
Supply Chain Security Strategy, which provides a National
vision for global supply chain security that is secure,
efficient, and resilient across air, land, and sea modes of
transportation. The budget:
Supports increased targeting capability through enhanced
automated systems providing CBP with real-time information
to focus its enforcement activities on higher-risk
passengers and cargo.
Supports the consolidation of CBP's separate cargo and
passenger targeting locations, which will promote increased
targeting efficiencies and reduced delays of travelers and
cargo.
Strengthens the Container Security Initiative, enabling
CBP to prescreen and evaluate high-risk containers before
they are shipped to the United States.
Continues support to improve the coordination of
international cargo security efforts, accelerate security
efforts in response to vulnerabilities, ensure compliance
with screening requirements, and strengthen aviation
security operations overseas.
Supports on-going assessments of anti-terrorism measures
in the ports of our maritime trading partners through the
Coast Guard International Port Security Program.
Supports enhanced system efficiency through continued
development and deployment of the International Trade Data
System. This important resource provides a single automated
window for submitting trade information to the Federal
agencies responsible for facilitating international trade
and securing America's supply chain.
Research, Development, and Innovation (RD&I) at S&T.--The
fiscal year 2014 budget includes $467 million for RD&I, a $200
million increase from fiscal year 2012 enacted levels. This
funding includes support for unclassified cybersecurity
research that supports the public and private sectors and the
global internet infrastructure. It also allows S&T to resume
R&D in areas such as land and maritime border security;
chemical, biological, and explosive defense research; disaster
resilience; cybersecurity; and counterterrorism.
Support to SLLE.--The fiscal year 2014 budget continues
support for SLLE 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. The budget 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. It also
elevates the Office of State and Local Law Enforcement to a
stand-alone office. The budget:
Enables DHS to continue to assess capability development
and performance improvements of the National Network of
Fusion Centers through an annual assessment, collection of
outcomes-based performance data, and targeted exercises.
Resources also enable the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis, in partnership with the Office for Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties and the Privacy Office, to provide
privacy and civil rights and civil liberties training and
technical assistance support for fusion centers and their
respective liaison officer programs. Additionally, unique
partnerships with FEMA, NPPD, USCG, and ICE have
facilitated additional analytic training for fusion center
analysts on a variety of topics.
Continues to support SLTT efforts to counter violent
extremism, including the delivery of Building Communities
of Trust initiative roundtables, which focus on developing
trust between community leaders and law enforcement
officials so they cooperatively address the challenges of
crime and terrorism.
Expands, in partnership with the Departments of Justice
(DOJ), Education, and Health and Human Services, on-going
efforts to prevent future mass casualty shootings, improve
preparedness, and strengthen security and resilience in
schools and other potential targets while working with
partners at all levels of government.
Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Threat Detection.--
Countering biological, nuclear, and radiological threats
requires a coordinated, whole-of-Government approach. DHS,
through the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) and the
Office of Health Affairs, works in partnership with agencies
across Federal, State, and local governments to prevent and
deter attacks using radiological and nuclear (rad/nuc) weapons
through nuclear detection and forensics programs and provides
medical and scientific expertise to support bio-preparedness
and response efforts.
The fiscal year 2014 budget supports the following efforts:
Global Nuclear Detection Architecture (GNDA).--DNDO, in
coordination with other DHS components, the Attorney
General, and the Departments of State, Defense, and Energy,
leads the continued evolution of the GNDA. This
comprehensive framework incorporates detector systems,
telecommunication, and personnel, with the supporting
information exchanges, programs, and protocols that serve
to detect, analyze, and report on rad/nuc materials that
are not in regulatory control.
STC.--$22 million is requested for the STC program to
continue developing the domestic portion of the GNDA to
enhance the Nation's ability to detect and prevent a
radiological or nuclear attack in our highest-risk cities.
Transformational R&D.--Funding is requested to develop and
demonstrate scientific and technological approaches that
address gaps in the GNDA and improve the performance of
rad/nuc detection and technical nuclear forensic
capabilities. R&D investments are made on the basis of
competitive awards, with investigators in all sectors--
Government laboratories, academia, and private industry--
encouraged to participate.
Rad/Nuc Detection.--Supports the procurement and
deployment of Radiation Portal Monitors and Human Portable
Radiation Detection Systems, providing vital detection
equipment to CBP, USCG, and TSA to scan for rad/nuc
threats.
BioWatch.--Continues operations and maintenance of the
Federally-managed, locally-operated, Nation-wide bio-
surveillance system designed to detect the release of
aerosolized biological agents.
NBAF.--The budget provides full funding for the
construction of the main laboratory at NBAF when coupled
with the increased cost share from the State of Kansas.
This innovative Federal-State partnership will support the
first Bio Level 4 lab facility of its kind, a state-of-the-
art bio-containment facility for the study of foreign
animal and emerging zoonotic diseases that is central to
the protection of the Nation's food supply as well as our
National and economic security.
In partnership with the State of Kansas, DHS is committed to
building a safe and secure facility in Manhattan, Kansas.
The main laboratory facility includes enhanced safety and
security features to ensure research conducted within the
facility will be contained, ultimately protecting the
surrounding region and the Nation's food supply. These
features, which are incorporated into the current NBAF
design and address safety recommendations of the National
Academies of Sciences, include specialized air and water
decontamination systems, new technologies to handle solid
waste on site, and structural components to strengthen the
laboratory against hazardous weather conditions.
Funding is also provided for life and safety infrastructure
repairs at Plum Island Animal Disease Center while NBAF is
being built, to ensure an appropriate transition of
research from Plum Island, New York, to Manhattan, Kansas.
Securing and Managing Our Borders
The budget continues the administration's robust border security
efforts, while facilitating legitimate travel and trade. It sustains
historic deployments of personnel along U.S. borders as well as the
continued utilization of proven, effective surveillance technology
along the highest-trafficked areas of the Southwest Border to continue
achieving record levels of apprehensions and seizures. In support of
the President's Executive Order on travel and tourism, the budget funds
a record number of CBPOs through appropriated funds and proposed
increases to user fee rates, to expedite travel and trade while
reducing wait times at more than 300 POEs along the border and at
airports and seaports across the country. Increased POE staffing of
1,600 CBPOs funded through appropriations and 1,877 CBPOs funded
through user fee increases will have a direct impact on the economy. On
the basis of a study conducted by the National Center for Risk and
Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events--University of Southern
California, initial estimates indicate that for every 1,000 CBPOs
added, the United States can anticipate a $2 billion increase in gross
domestic product. That research indicates that these additional CBPOs
may result in approximately 110,000 more jobs and a potential increase
of $6.95 billion in gross domestic product.
To secure the Nation's maritime borders and 3.4 million nautical
square miles of maritime territory, the budget invests in
recapitalization of USCG assets and provides operational funding for
new assets coming on-line, including National Security Cutters (NSCs),
Fast Response Cutters (FRCs), Response Boats-Medium, Maritime Patrol
Aircraft, and Command and Control systems.
Law Enforcement Officers.--The budget supports 21,370 BPAs
and a record 25,252 CBPOs at POEs who work 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. This includes funds from
proposed increases to inspection user fees.
Travel and Trade.--In 2012, President Obama announced new
administrative initiatives through Executive Order 13597 to
increase travel and tourism throughout and to the United
States, and DHS plays an important role in this work. As
discussed in the highlights section, DHS is continuing to
develop new ways to increase the efficiency of our port
operations and to make international travel and trade easier,
more cost-effective, and more secure.
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.
Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS).--DHS will take over
operations of TARS beginning in fiscal year 2014. TARS is a
multi-mission capability that supports both the counterdrug and
air defense missions, providing long-range detection and
monitoring of low-level air, maritime, and surface narcotics
traffickers.
Targeting and Analysis.--The budget includes additional
investments in CBP's targeting capabilities, which will enable
CBP to develop and implement an enhanced strategy that more
effectively and efficiently divides cargo and travelers
according to the potential threat they pose.
POE Infrastructure.--CBP, working with its various partners
including GSA, continues to modernize and maintain border
infrastructure that both facilitates trade and travel, and
helps secure the border. In fiscal year 2014, CBP will work
with GSA to complete the last phase of the Nogales-Mariposa
inspection facility and initiate the site acquisition and
design for the south-bound phase of the San Ysidro
modernization project. Additionally, CBP will work with GSA to
initiate construction of a new bus processing terminal at the
Lincoln-Juarez Bridge and renovation of the passenger and
pedestrian processing facility at the Convent Street inspection
facility in Laredo, Texas. Beginning in late fiscal year 2013
and continuing in fiscal year 2014, CBP will assume
responsibility for the building operations, maintenance, and
repair of the land port inspection facilities from GSA to
streamline administrative processes and improve the
responsiveness to CBP mission requirements. Finally, CBP
proposes legislative authority in the fiscal year 2014 budget
to accept donations from the private sector.
CBP Air and Marine Procurement.--Funding is requested for
two KA-350CER Multi-Role Enforcement Aircraft (MEA), which
provide direct support to CBP efforts to secure our Nation's
borders. Unlike the older, less-capable aircraft they are
replacing, MEA has the capabilities to detect, track, and
intercept general aviation threats; detect and track maritime
threats over a wide area; and support ground interdiction
operations through a variety of sensors and advanced data and
video down-link.
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. CBP relies on bonds to collect
duties owed when importers fail to pay and efforts to collect
from the importer are not successful. This funding will support
improvements to increase the efficacy of CBP's bonding process,
including the delegation to a centralized office the
responsibility for developing and implementing Single
Transaction Bond (STB) policy, approving bond applications,
reporting on activities, and monitoring results. These
resources will fund the automation of STB processing and
record-keeping and provide effective internal controls that
protect the duties and taxes (more than $38 billion in 2012)
collected by CBP. Specifically, CBP will automate and
centralize into one location processing of all STBs, resulting
in enhanced program oversight, consistent processing, and
reduced write-offs and delinquencies.
Protect Trade and Intellectual Property Rights
Enforcement.--Funding is requested to support intellectual
property and commercial trade fraud investigations within ICE's
National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR
Center). With 21 partners and the expertise of the Federal
Government's largest law enforcement agencies, the IPR Center
brings together the full range of legal authorities and law
enforcement tools to combat intellectual property theft,
including medical regulation; patent, trademark, and copyright
protection; border enforcement; organized crime investigations;
and undercover operations. ICE will also increase collaboration
with CBP through a joint fraud enforcement strategy to
coordinate commercial fraud enforcement operations. The fiscal
year 2014 budget also supports CBP's enforcement programs to
prevent trade in counterfeit and pirated goods, and to protect
consumers and National security from harm from counterfeit
goods through special enforcement operations to increase IPR
seizures and referrals for criminal investigation. In addition,
the fiscal year 2014 budget supports technology and training to
increase the efficiency of targeting IPR infringing
merchandise.
USCG Recapitalization.--The fiscal year 2014 request fully
funds a seventh NSC; supports patrol boat recapitalization
through the FRC acquisition; continues acquisitions of the
Offshore Patrol Cutter and a new polar ice breaker; and
provides for critical upgrades to command, control, and
aviation sustainment. The total request for USCG Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements is $951 million.
USCG Operations.--The fiscal year 2014 request funds nearly
50,000 full-time personnel and nearly 7,000 reservists to
maintain safety, security, and stewardship of our Nation's
waters and maritime borders. Funds will support a full range of
Coast Guard cutters, aircraft, and boats to address threats
from inside the ports, within customs waters and out on the
high seas.
Enforcing and Administering our Immigration Laws
In the area of immigration, the budget supports the
administration's unprecedented efforts to more effectively focus the
enforcement system on public safety threats, border security, and the
integrity of the immigration system while streamlining and facilitating
the legal immigration process. Initiatives such as Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals and greater use of prosecutorial discretion, where
appropriate, support DHS efforts to focus finite resources on
individuals who pose a danger to National security or a risk to public
safety, and other high-priority cases. At the same time, the budget
significantly reduces inefficient 287(g) task force agreements, while
supporting more cost-efficient initiatives like the Secure Communities
program. Nation-wide implementation of Secure Communities and other
enforcement initiatives, coupled with continued collaboration with DOJ
to focus resources on the detained docket, is expected to result in the
continued increase in the identification and removal of criminal aliens
and other priority individuals.
The budget provides the resources needed to address this changing
population, while continuing to support Alternatives to Detention,
detention reform, and immigrant integration efforts. Resources are also
focused on monitoring and compliance, promoting adherence to worksite-
related laws, Form I-9 inspections, and enhancements to the E-Verify
program.
Secure Communities.--In fiscal year 2013, the Department
completed Nation-wide deployment 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, and the
budget continues support of this program. ICE is committed to
ensuring the Secure Communities program respects civil rights
and civil liberties, and works closely with law enforcement
agencies and stakeholders across the country to ensure the
program operates in the most effective manner possible. To this
end, ICE has issued guidance regarding the exercise of
prosecutorial discretion in appropriate cases, including in
cases involving witnesses and victims of crime; implemented
enhanced training for SLLE regarding civil rights issues; and
released new guidance that limits the use of detainers to the
agency's enforcement priorities and restricts the use of
detainers against individuals arrested for minor misdemeanor
offenses such as traffic offenses and other petty crimes, among
other recent improvements. The budget also includes $10 million
for 73 ICE attorney positions that will continue prosecutorial
discretion reviews of new cases to ensure that resources at the
Executive Office for Immigration Review and ICE are focused on
priority cases.
Immigration Detention.--Under this administration, ICE has
focused its immigration enforcement efforts on identifying and
removing priority aliens, including criminals, repeat
immigration law violators, and recent border entrants. As ICE
focuses on criminal and other priority cases, the agency
continues to work to reduce the time removable aliens spend in
detention custody, going from 37 days in fiscal year 2010 to
fewer than 32 days in fiscal year 2012. Consistent with its
stated enforcement priorities and guidance to the field, 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, 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 Alternatives to Detention program,
commensurate with the level of risk a detainee presents.
287(g) Program.--The budget reflects the cancelation of
inefficient task force officer model agreements, reducing the
cost of the 287(g) program by $44 million. The 287(g) jail
model agreements, as well as programs such as Secure
Communities, have proven to be more efficient and effective in
identifying and removing criminal and other priority aliens
than the task force officer model agreements.
Detention Reform.--ICE will continue building on on-going
detention reform efforts in fiscal year 2014. In fiscal year
2013, ICE implemented 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. ICE will continue to
work with DOJ to reduce the average length of stay in detention
by working to secure orders of removal before the release of
criminal aliens from DOJ custody. 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. Finally, DHS anticipates
that the rulemaking applying the Prison Rape Elimination Act to
DHS confinement facilities will be finalized in fiscal year
2013 and implemented in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014.
Worksite Enforcement.--Requested funds will continue the
Department's focus to promote compliance with worksite-related
laws through criminal prosecutions of egregious employers, Form
I-9 inspections, civil fines, and debarment, as well as
education and compliance tools.
E-Verify.--The budget provides $114 million to support the
continued expansion and enhancement of E-Verify, the
administration's electronic employment eligibility verification
system. This funding will also continue support for 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 confirm the accuracy of Government
records related to their employment eligibility status before
formally seeking employment. These enhancements will give
individuals unprecedented control over how their social
security numbers are used in E-Verify and will further
strengthen DHS's ability to identify and prevent identity
fraud. In fiscal year 2014, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) also plans to phase in an enhanced enrollment
process for E-Verify that reduces the enrollment burden on the
employer and the Federal Government, and that will provide
more-detailed user information for compliance assistance
activities. Additionally, USCIS will finalize the requirements
for the electronic I-9 and its supporting processes for E-
Verify. These enhancements will deploy in phases in fiscal year
2014 and subsequent years.
Verification Information System (VIS).--The budget includes
$12 million to fund the VIS Modernization initiative, a major
redesign of the system that supports E-Verify that will
transform the current E-Verify system, and improve usability
and overall ease of operations.
Immigrant Integration.--The budget includes $10 million to
continue support for USCIS immigrant integration efforts--a key
element of the President's immigration principles--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 2014 budget continues support for USCIS SAVE
operations and enhancements to assist local, State, and Federal
agencies in determining the immigration status of benefit
applicants. This effort is funded through the Immigration
Examinations Fee Account.
USCIS Business Transformation.--The 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. In fiscal year 2013, USCIS will deploy additional
functionality into the agency's Electronic Immigration System
(ELIS) to allow processing of 1 million customer requests
annually. USCIS is committed to adding functionality and
benefit types until all workload is processed through ELIS.
Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace
The budget supports initiatives to secure our Nation's information
and financial systems and to defend against cyber threats to private-
sector and Federal systems, the Nation's critical nfrastructure, and
the U.S. economy. It also supports the President's Executive Order on
improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity and the Presidential
Policy Directive on critical infrastructure security and resilience.
Taken together, the administration's initiatives strengthen the
security and resilience of critical infrastructure against evolving
threats through an updated and overarching National framework that
acknowledges the linkage between cybersecurity and securing physical
assets.
Included in the fiscal year 2014 budget are enhancements to the
National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS) to prevent and detect
intrusions on Government computer systems, and to the National
Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center to protect against
and respond to cybersecurity threats. The budget also leverages a new
operational partnership between ICE and USSS through the established
network of USSS ECTFs to safeguard the Nation's financial payment
systems, combat cybercrimes, target transnational child exploitation
including large-scale producers and distributors of child pornography,
and prevent attacks against U.S. critical infrastructure.
Federal Network Security.--$200 million is included for
Federal Network Security, which manages activities designed to
enable Federal agencies to secure their IT networks. The budget
provides funding to further reduce risk in the Federal cyber
domain by enabling continuous monitoring and diagnostics of
networks in support of mitigation activities designed to
strengthen the operational security posture of Federal civilian
networks. DHS will directly support Federal civilian
departments and agencies in developing capabilities to improve
their cybersecurity posture and to better thwart advanced,
persistent cyber threats that are emerging in a dynamic threat
environment.
NCPS.--$406 million is included for Network Security
Deployment, which manages NCPS, operationally known as
EINSTEIN. NCPS is an integrated intrusion detection, analytics,
information sharing, and intrusion-prevention system that
supports DHS responsibilities to defend Federal civilian
networks.
US-Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).--$102
million is included for operations of US-CERT, which leads and
coordinates efforts to improve the Nation's cybersecurity
posture, promotes cyber information sharing, and manages 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.
SLTT Engagement.--In fiscal year 2014, DHS will expand its
support to the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis
Center (MS-ISAC) to assist in providing coverage for all 50
States and 6 U.S. territories in its managed security services
program. MS-ISAC is a central entity through which SLTT
governments can strengthen their security posture through
network defense services and receive early warnings of cyber
threats. In addition, the MS-ISAC shares cybersecurity incident
information, trends, and other analysis for security planning.
Cybersecurity R&D.--The fiscal year 2014 budget includes $70
million for S&T's R&D focused on strengthening the Nation's
cybersecurity capabilities.
Cyber Investigations.--The fiscal year 2014 budget continues
to support ICE and USSS efforts to provide computer forensics
support and training for investigations into domestic and
international criminal activities, including computer fraud,
network intrusions, financial crimes, access device fraud, bank
fraud, identity crimes and telecommunications fraud, benefits
fraud, arms and strategic technology, money laundering,
counterfeit pharmaceuticals, child pornography, and human
trafficking occurring on or through the internet. USSS ECTFs
will also 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
focuses on a whole-community approach to emergency management by
engaging partners at all levels 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 support the objectives of the National Preparedness Goal (NPG)
and to leverage limited grant funding in the current fiscal
environment, the administration is again proposing the NPGP to create a
robust National response capacity based on cross-jurisdictional and
readily deployable State and local assets, with appropriate adjustments
to respond to stakeholder feedback received in 2012. While providing a
structure that will give grantees more certainty about how funding will
flow, the proposal continues to utilize a comprehensive process for
assessing regional and National gaps, identifying and prioritizing
deployable capabilities, and requiring grantees to regularly report
progress in the acquisition and development of these capabilities.
The budget also funds initiatives associated with the NPG; FEMA's
continued development of catastrophic plans, which include regional
plans for response to earthquakes and hurricanes and medical
countermeasure dispensing; and training for 2 million emergency
managers and first responders.
State and Local Grants: The budget includes $2.1 billion for State
and local grants, consistent with the amount appropriated by Congress
in fiscal year 2012. This funding will sustain resources for fire and
emergency management programs while consolidating all other grants into
the new, streamlined NPGP. In fiscal year 2014, the 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.
Firefighter Assistance Grants.--The budget provides $670
million for Firefighter Assistance 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, and $335 million for
Assistance to Firefighter Grants, of which $20 million is
provided for Fire Prevention and Safety Grants. The
administration re-proposes $1 billion for SAFER grants as part
of the First Responder Stabilization Fund, which was originally
proposed in the American Jobs Act.
Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPGs).--Also
included in the budget is $350 million to support emergency
managers and emergency management offices in every State across
the country. EMPG supports State and local governments in
developing and sustaining the core capabilities identified in
the NPG and achieving measurable results in key functional
areas of emergency management.
DRF.--A total of $6.2 billion is provided for the DRF. Of
this, $586 million is included in the Department's base budget
with the remainder provided through the Budget Control Act
budget cap adjustment. The DRF provides a significant portion
of the total Federal response to victims in Presidentially-
declared disasters or emergencies. Because of recently-passed
legislation, Native American tribes can now request
Presidential major or emergency declarations. Two tribes, the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the Navajo Nation, have
already received declarations in 2013.
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).--The NFIP is fully
funded by policy fees. This program helps 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 2014 budget reflects
implementation of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act
of 2012. The Act improves fiscal soundness by phasing out
subsidies for structures built before their flood risk was
identified on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. In addition, the Act
establishes a reserve fund to be used for the payment of claims
and claims-handling expenses as well as principal and interest
payments on any outstanding Treasury loans. The budget includes
a $3.5 billion mandatory budget authority, of which $100
million will be used for three interrelated mitigation grant
programs to increase America's resiliency to floods.
Training/Exercises.--The budget includes $165 million for
training and exercise activities to support Federal, State, and
local officials and first responders. In fiscal year 2014, the
Department expects to train more than 2 million first
responders and, under the revised National Exercise Program,
will conduct more than a dozen exercises across the country to
help improve National preparedness. The budget also supports
conducting a Spill of National Significance exercise, and
continues development of equipment and techniques that can be
used to detect, track, and recover oil in ice-filled waters.
Emergency Management Oversight.--The budget includes $24
million in base resources for the Office of the Inspector
General to continue its Emergency Management Oversight
operations.
Incident Management.--The budget enables the Coast Guard to
achieve Full Operational Capability for the Incident Management
Assist Team, providing an immediate, highly proficient, and
deployable surge capacity to Incident Commanders Nation-wide
for response to threats and other disasters.
Maturing and Strengthening the Department and the Homeland Security
Enterprise
St. Elizabeths Campus.--The budget includes $92.7 million to
support construction at the St. Elizabeths Campus. Currently,
the Department's facilities are scattered in more than 50
locations throughout the National Capital Region, affecting
critical communication and coordination across DHS components.
USCG will move to St. Elizabeths in fiscal year 2013. To
support the incident management and command-and-control
requirements of our mission, the Department will continue
development of the DHS Consolidated Headquarters at St.
Elizabeths Campus. The requested funding will support Phase 2
renovation of the Center Building Complex for the Secretary's
Office and key headquarters functions for command, control, and
management of the Department.
Data Center Consolidation.--The fiscal year 2014 budget
includes $54.2 million for data center consolidation funding,
which will be used to migrate FEMA, USCIS, TSA, and CBP to the
enterprise data centers. A recent study performed by the
Department's Office of the Chief Financial Officer analyzed 10
of the first completed migrations to enterprise data centers
and determined that an average savings of 14 percent, about
$17.4 million in annual savings, had been achieved.
conclusion
The fiscal year 2014 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 core 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 2014 budget request and other homeland
security issues.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, ma'am. Secretary, I now
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Let me first say, I want to thank you for your attention to
the tragic events in West, Texas. I look forward to working
with you on the response efforts there.
Before I ask a couple of budget questions, I do want to ask
you about some reports that have come out, as of just really
late last night, that the FBI has photos of two possible
suspects in the Boston bombings. I thought--if you could tell
us about this development, as to what you may know about these
photographs.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, the--we have been collecting
video from a variety of sources. As you might imagine, at the
finish line at the Boston marathon, there is lots and lots of
video. There is some video that has raised the question of
those that the FBI would like to speak with. I wouldn't
characterize them as ``suspects'' under the technical term, but
we need the public's help in locating these individuals.
Chairman McCaul. There are also--there were also reports
yesterday that the FBI actually had persons of interests or
suspects in custody. My response, based upon the information I
have from the Justice Department, is that that was not accurate
information. Can you elaborate on that?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, Mr. Chairman, you were accurate.
There were no arrests made yesterday or persons held in
custody. There has been a fair amount of media churn on various
things involving the investigation. All I will say is, having
spoken repeatedly with the FBI director, having spoken with the
police commissioner in Boston, there is very good lash-up
between local, State, and Federal resources up there.
The investigation is proceeding the pace, and it just--you
know, this is not an ``NCIS'' episode. Sometimes you have to
take time to properly, you know, put the chain together to
identify the perpetrators. But everyone is committed to seeing
that that gets done in the right way.
Chairman McCaul. No, I think, any--these united Federal
prosecutors know it is a complex investigation. I think, the
video footage and the forensics on the bomb device are probably
some of the best evidence we can--we have right now.
Moving on to the budget, the--this pressure cooker IED has
really gained a lot of attention. For the first time Americans,
sort of, know what that is. We have known about it for quite
some time. Inspire magazine, essentially, instructs you how to
make a bomb--in fact, an article, ``How to Make a Bomb in the
Kitchen of Your Mom.''
Can you tell me what the Department is doing in its budget
and--to prevent this occurrence from happening in the future?
Secretary Napolitano. It is difficult, Mr. Chairman.
Instructions on how to make simple IEDs or even more complex
ones are commonly available through Inspire, through things
like the ``Anarchist's Cookbook,'' on the internet, generally.
So, we run into the issue of speech, writings, versus
actual activities. One of the things we have been doing is,
through the Office of Bombing Prevention, we have been, we
actually now have a joint program office with DOD in terms of
combining our efforts to improve the capability to detect
something before there is an explosion. Although that is very
difficult.
We also through the Directorate on Science and Technology
are doing some, I think, very interesting research that down
the road may result in some positive developments. But right
now as your question I think, presupposes, there is commonly
available recipes for making various kinds of IEDs including
those made with pressure cookers.
Chairman McCaul. Let me just, I have said from the
beginning, we do not, we can't reach to conclusions. At this
point in time we do not know whether this was a Federal, I mean
a foreign terrorist plot or a domestic terrorist plot.
Secretary Napolitano. Right now we cannot say one way or
the other.
Chairman McCaul. You mentioned the Bomb Prevention fund and
that is important because the Office of Bombing Prevention
leads the Department's efforts to implement the National policy
for countering IED devices responsible for the Tripwire IED
Information Sharing Network for bombing squads, law
enforcement, and the like.
My concern about the budget that in your budget you have
decreased it by 8 percent and overall, over time it seems like
every year it has gone down and had a decrease. In light of the
Boston bombings, would you reconsider this budget request?
Secretary Napolitano. You know, we are obviously able to do
that. I think two points, No. 1 is, if you look at the budget,
one of the things we have done is convert much of the, some of
the in-person training to on-line training. That saves a lot of
cost. As I also mentioned we have begun participation in a
joint program office with DOD, State, I think Justice, and that
helps mitigate costs as well. Then some of the Bombing
Prevention work, you will also find embodied in the research
being done in the Science and Technology Directorate.
Chairman McCaul. My question is, it has decreased over the
years, some say 45 percent, 8 percent in this budget. I mean in
light of the bombings, wouldn't you reconsider that request?
Secretary Napolitano. We will take a look and make sure
that it is properly resourced, yes sir.
Chairman McCaul. My understanding is you did request, did
OMB deny your request for additional funding on this?
Secretary Napolitano. There is a lot of exchange between
the Department and OMB, but I will go back and look at this,
yes sir.
Chairman McCaul. Okay. Last question, my time is limited.
You know, look, when we talk about the border, that is really
the last line of defense, defending the homeland is keeping the
threat out of this country. I have been a big proponent of
border security for a long time. The missing piece is the
technology piece. We don't have the technology we need down
there, as you know.
We are getting ready to unveil a lot of good technology.
Yet I was disappointed to see that your budget does decrease
funding for border technology. If you would answer that
question and I will ask an additional one. Thank you.
Secretary Napolitano. You are right. Technology is the
force multiplier for our manpower. The budget looks, we are on
track to implement our technology procurement. As you know,
what I did last year, a year-and-a-half ago was stop the
investment in having one integrated fixed tower plan across the
entire border because it was too expensive and it wasn't
working. It works in some areas like Arizona. We will finish it
there.
But for the other sectors of the border, we want to use
more off-the-shelf technology that fits the particular terrain.
Chairman McCaul. Let me just say, I agree, leveraging
existing technologies is important, off-the-shelf.
Secretary Napolitano. That is right.
Chairman McCaul. But I will say, if we are going to talk
about Comprehensive Immigration Reform, we have to, No. 1, get
operational control of the border and we are not going to be
able to do that if we don't have the technology. So the
decrease in your budget on this issue, I think is important.
The last point is I went over to Afghanistan with Henry
Cuellar. We talked to General Allen about the technologies they
have. Bringing that technology back to the Southwest Border.
Now he is very much in agreement with it. There are 18
aerostats, excess, surplus, military property, they are willing
to share with your Department to put down on the Southwest
Border. Where are with this, this development?
Secretary Napolitano. Well the budget does include $43
million for the TARS Program which is from DOD. I will tell you
frankly Mr. Chairman, some of those aerostats are not in the
best of shape. The O&M for them is pretty significant. They
don't, it is not a perfect solution. But the point is an
important one, which is to say, to the extent we have already
invested in R&D on the Defense side that we can transfer over
to the border, that is what I mean when I say, that is the kind
of off-the-shelf thing that we are investing in.
Chairman McCaul. I hope you are looking towards a lot of
military technologies that can be redeployed to the Southwest
Border. We have already paid for them and we have already put
the R&D into them. In these tough budgetary times, to me, it
just makes a lot of sense. So with that, I will now recognize
the Ranking Member for his questions.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary in
light of what we are dealing with in Boston and with respect to
the resources that we are putting there, do you feel that this
proposed budget will be adequate to address that situation and
any on-going probability for the next fiscal year?
Secretary Napolitano. I think the President's proposed
budget meets the core mission responsibilities of the
Department, yes sir.
Mr. Thompson. So you can do your job with the money?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. There have been issues about
morale in the Department, I made reference to in my opening
statement. How do you plan to address the reports that have
come out about that we are last in effective leadership,
teamwork, training and development, and support for diversity?
Secretary Napolitano. We have done a number of things in
that regard Representative Thompson, including forming an
Executive Steering Committee just on morale. We have actually
gone back and re-questioned some of our employees, because the
Morale Survey is pretty generic, so we want to get down below
it.
So one of the things we found out for example is, in the
Department, many people have been promoted to be a first-line
supervisor, because they were good at their operational front-
line job, but they hadn't necessarily received any training on
how to be a supervisor. Well that makes a big difference. It is
a different skill set, or an additional skill set. So now we
are providing that kind of training.
We have instituted ways to get more employee input into the
decisions of the Department. I will share with you frankly,
budget uncertainly, pay uncertainly, furlough uncertainty,
sequester, has been a difficult field in which to make people
feel better about their jobs. But we are going to do all that
we can. Our employees really are the engine of the Department.
Mr. Thompson. Well, but you can still do your job?
Secretary Napolitano. Have to do the job.
Mr. Thompson. Absolutely. One of the challenges that we
identified a number of years ago, spoke with interoperability.
We require State and locals to be able to communicate with each
other. The Inspector General said that we don't have
interoperability within DHS. We spent several hundred million
dollars trying to do that. What is your proposal to get
interoperability in fact within DHS?
Secretary Napolitano. If I might, not referencing that
particular I.G. report, but we have enough interoperability to
get the job done. Overall with respect, I have dealt with
interoperability issues for years. Throughout the country,
hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on
interoperable systems.
The best thing that has happened, quite frankly, is when
Congress set aside a public safety spectrum, a broadband
spectrum. And established the First Net Board. And set aside a
fund source for that. That Board has private and public-sector,
Federal, State, and local representatives. They are coming up,
in my judgment with what ultimately will be a comprehensive
answer that will be more comprehensive and cheaper than
anything that has ever been looked at before.
They are on a very tight time line so I would suggest that
we keep you informed on the progress of the First Net Board.
But I must say it is one of the most encouraging things I have
seen in Government in a long time.
Mr. Thompson. So are you at issue with the Inspector
General's----
Secretary Napolitano. I don't know which report you are
referring to?
Mr. Thompson. The one that came out the----
Secretary Napolitano. There are so many. I will be happy to
follow up on that with you.
Mr. Thompson. Well it spoke to emergency communications. It
is the last I.G. report, came out the fall of last year, that
said we had spent $430 million on interoperability and within
the Department, we still can't cross-communicate with each
other. I mean I, if this First Net is your response to it, I
just need to know some time table as to when we can expect, as
Members of Congress, for that to happen.
Secretary Napolitano. We will be happy to brief you on
that. But it is a very aggressive time table.
Mr. Thompson. Well if you would provide it to the committee
in writing, I think that would be most helpful. With respect to
what happened in West, Texas, can you tell us whether or not
that fertilizer facility or chemical plant facility was
regulated by CFAC?
Secretary Napolitano. We don't know yet. We don't know
whether the quantities of material there fell within the TSCA
rule or not, but we are drilling down on that.
Mr. Thompson. You don't have a list of, I mean that should
be kind of easy, I would think.
Secretary Napolitano. Sir we have been engaged over the
past hours in making sure that the response is all that it can
be in dealing with the immediate aftermath of the fire and
explosion. I would be happy to----
Mr. Thompson. Madam Secretary, I understand that. All I am
saying is either it was presently under CFACS or it wasn't.
That is just a matter of looking on the record. Now, if you can
get--ask somebody here, look and see whether it is covered, or
not. That is all I am asking. I am not asking for any details.
Secretary Napolitano. You should know that early this
morning, I asked the very same question. I just don't have the
answer for you yet.
Mr. Thompson. That is what I am looking for.
Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. The Chairman now recognizes the former
chairman of the full committee, Mr. King from New York.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Secretary
for your service and for the work that all the components of
your Department are doing in Boston, and will be doing in
Texas.
I have three questions. I will ask them up front, and then
just let you answer them as you do.
They all basically come from Boston.
The question of jamming technology--I think the use of IEDs
in Boston demonstrates that this could be the weapon of choice
for terrorists, whether foreign or domestic in the future.
I know last year, we had two subcommittees--I believe
Chairman McCaul's subcommittee was one of them--which held
hearings into the use of jammers. That is to stop these IEDs,
at least by remote control.
Now, whether these turn out to be remote control or not, if
you could tell us to the extent you can in a public setting
what progress we have made as far as jamming, and what
cooperation there can be between the military and civilian.
First question.
The second question is on ``see something, say something.''
I agree with you. I think it serves a real purpose. That began
in New York with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Secretary Napolitano. It did.
Mr. King. The only real criticism I have heard--and it is
really a question--is that different localities and States--
some of them use complex e-mail addresses and phone numbers--is
there any way that the Federal Government can urge them to use
like a basic 9-1-1, or something which makes it easier so that
in times of crisis, it can be used?
Then second--third, I think it is a general consensus that
there was no Federal intelligence--at least as of now, there
was no chatter. There was no intelligence out there indicating
that something was going to happen. It would seem to me that as
we are getting a much better hold on al-Qaeda from overseas, or
terrorist groups foreign and domestic are getting more
sophisticated, that really the Federal role in intelligence, as
important as it is, we also need an important local role.
Do you believe there is enough funding in the budget, for
instance, for something like the Boston Police Department, or
other police departments, to start building up more local
intelligence, as far as it involves terrorism? Because what we
use prior--using chatter, using Federal intel may not be
sufficient in the future.
With that, I look forward to your questions.
Secretary Napolitano. On the jamming question, there is a--
one of the key differences between military use of jamming
equipment and using it in a domestic-civilian environment is,
it is difficult to jam only bad stuff. So you end up
interfering with signals more generally in a civilian
environment.
So, there were two early pilots, I think, in--I want to say
2006 and 2007 in the Department to look at whether that anti-
jamming technology used in theater could be used in a civilian
way. They were not successful. But I don't know whether there
is any current or new research being done in that regard.
On ``see something, say something''----
Mr. King. If you could get back to us--if there is any
progress or chance for progress--because I can understand the
problems you are talking about, but also, it would go a great
way towards, you know, minimizing the issue--the problem.
Secretary Napolitano. Exactly, exactly. Again, as you say,
we don't know whether or not a jam--this was remotely
detonated.
With respect to see-say, we encourage State and locals who
are part of the program, and religious organizations and others
to tie into a simple line.
The majority use either 9-1-1 or whatever the tip line is
for that particular department. But I think your point is well
taken, because we want it to be as simple and memorable as we
can. Excuse me, the third question was--oh, the intel.
Mr. King. That was on the intel, yeah.
Secretary Napolitano. The intel.
Mr. King. More use of local intel.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. I think--that is an interesting
question. In part, because we don't know whether this was
domestic or international, particularly where domestic is
concerned, I think there is a particularly valuable role for
intelligence that is collected and analyzed at the local level.
So irrespective of Boston, this is something that we have
been, and want to look at. We are using the fusion centers, and
hope to build a capacity there in this regard. The Boston
fusion center turns out to be one of the strongest ones in the
country. We have been using them the last couple of days as a
way to exchange information. But your point is well-taken.
Mr. King. Also, my own parochial bias in that in view of
the fact the NYPD has 1,000 cops going out seeking
intelligence, despite the fact they had--unfairly attacked by
The New York Times and The Associated Press.
With that, I yield back.
[Laughter.]
Chairman McCaul. Nicely done.
The Chairman recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. What a way to use your last second.
Good morning, Madam Secretary.
I have several things to ask you about.
First of all, I want to thank you for having reconstructed
SBInet and redone it. I just want to say that because I think
it is going to be important for your Department to educate
Congress on what really can be done with respect to technology,
especially as we move forward on this border security piece of
a possible immigration plan.
I think those of us who live that, fight, understand, but
the rest of the Congress, in some ways, doesn't have a good
idea of what can and cannot be done with technology.
I would hope that you would help us with that.
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed.
Ms. Sanchez. And interoperability, I would like to see at
the Federal level. I would like to see it all over the place.
As you know, Orange County is one of the few--probably the
largest regional area that has interoperability between 34
cities--State, Federal, regional, et cetera--and it cost us
quite a bit of money: $800 million about 15 years ago. So the
price tag is very heavy on that, and I know that that has been
one of the problems with respect to trying to get that
underway. But we need to get it, I think, especially if we are
going to be asking States to do it for the Federal Government.
So, I have a question about Coast Guard, because I am one
of the few Members, I think, that sits both on the Armed
Services Committee and on the--on this committee.
So, when you testified in front of the House Appropriations
Committee, you say that the Coast Guard now has a different
production path for vessel acquisition in order to meet the
mission needs. On Tuesday, Coast Guard Commandant Papp
testified that this budget request reduces Coast Guard's drug
interdiction because it cannot maintain operations while
rebuilding its fleet.
So, my question to you is: What is the different production
path you referenced in your previous testimony? Is this a
different plan--has this different plan been submitted to the
Congress? Is Coast Guard going to reduce mission capabilities
in order to modernize its fleet? If so, can you provide the
committee on documentation of that? Because this seems to me a
different path, and it is sort of like, ``Well, we are going to
not do as much because we need to rebuild over here.''
Secretary Napolitano. The point I was making in Approps
was--in the Appropriations Committee was that we use a
different production path to the fast response cutter.
We fully fund the commandant's top priority, which is the
completion of the National security cutter fleet. The National
security cutters have a lot of uses, but they can also--they
don't require as many billets to operate as some of the smaller
vessels because they have more technology on them.
With respect to drug interdiction operations, I will tell
you, we are already effective. We have had to reduce--and I was
very public about this--those operations because of sequester,
to meet the number that we were given.
As you know, sequester was account-by-account, so we didn't
have any flexibility to move around that.
How do we compensate for that? We are working with DOD in
areas like JATO-South. We are trying to leverage more with
State and local entities. But make no mistake, if sequester
continues, by definition, there will be effect on drug
interdiction capability of the Coast Guard.
Ms. Sanchez. So, Madam Secretary, if you could--if your
Department could provide us a plan of this vessel that--new
vessel plan, if it is different than what we have seen before,
I would appreciate it. Or maybe we just haven't seen it in the
last year or 2.
The other question I had for you--first of all, US-VISIT,
the exit part. I mean, that is another thing that we see on the
tenant side coming forward. I know the last time that you were
before us--maybe a year or 2 ago--and I have been asking all
along--I know that you all didn't have a plan to implement it.
So I would just say, you know, it is coming up. It is going
to be something that is going to require it if we do get an
immigration plan. So I hope that you all will begin, if you
haven't, to figure out how we are going to get that exit piece
of US-VISIT in there.
Secretary Napolitano. If I might, representative--one of
the things we are re-requesting this year is to move US-VISIT
to CBP, which is where we have all of our other databases and
targeting capabilities. It is--it would be a much better place
to central all of the--centralize all of those in one place, as
opposed to keeping US-VISIT by itself over at MPPD. So I would
ask you to look at that request.
Second, with respect to exit, we have submitted a plan on
enhanced biographic and long-term biometric.
My understanding--and I am--we are still going through the
bill that has been introduced in the Senate. My understanding
is, the way the exit part of that is written is ultimately
doable.
Ms. Sanchez. That would be great, because, again, that bill
will change quite a bit, I think, as we move back and forth
between the House and--you know, I have been one that has said,
``We need to find those people who are not leaving when they
are supposed to because they have overstayed their visa,'' and
that is a major problem. That is 40 percent of the people who
don't leave our country. That is something I am going to be
looking for when I go to vote for an immigration bill.
Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. I am in total agreement with that. I think
40 percent of the illegals here are here by overstays on visas.
So, with that, the Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from
Alabama, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary, for being here and for your service to our country.
I was very pleased to hear you acknowledge with Ranking
Member Thompson that we are spending an enormous amount of
money on emergency communications, and still haven't achieved
an acceptable degree of interoperability, and that we have to
find a different approach.
As a former member of the Emergency Communications
Subcommittee, that is just an enormous frustration to me, so I
do hope that you do plow ahead in a different direction and try
to make that happen. Because events like this week are
reminders why we have got to achieve it.
Mr. Rogers. But also, events like this week, I think, are a
great reminder of why we have made such an important investment
in preparing first responders. I had the privilege of having
you visit the Center For Domestic Preparedness, as well as
former Chairman King, who has been there, and seen that
facility, which trains the first responders from all over the
world, who have been there for the folks in Boston this week,
and as well in Texas today. Also the hospital personnel. As you
saw, that facility there to train for mass casualties. They are
state-of-the-art, and that has been a wise investment by the
Department, and I appreciate it.
Weeks like this are sad, but it is a good reminder to us
why we make those investments. So, those are appreciated. One
of the concerns I have got is that DHS is--and their science
and technology department over the last several years has made
a significant investment in advanced explosive detection K-9
research out in Texas at Lackland Air Force Base. That program
was shuttered at the end of last year by Administrator Pistole.
Very disappointed about that because, as you know--I know you
are a big supporter of the explosive detection K-9 activities,
and its ability to protect us in--not only in the airports, but
in events like Boston if we had had them there, sweeping that
area.
By closing the only breeding and genetic research facility,
which was doing some cutting-edge work, we are now at the mercy
of the private market. Can you tell me why that was closed?
Given that it was closed, do you intend to at least contract
with some folks to do that kind of research and breeding, so
that we can produce our own assets here domestically, and not
be subject to world markets for those core assets that we
didn't train up?
Secretary Napolitano. If I might, Congressman. As you know,
you and I are both big fans of K-9s and their capabilities.
Recognizing that they are not the only answer in these
situations.
Mr. Rogers. Right. Just one of the layers.
Secretary Napolitano. My understanding is we do intend to
follow up on that research in another way, but if I might give
you some separate information about that, I think it would be
more useful to you.
Mr. Rogers. I would appreciate that. I think that research
is pretty important. Because as I have seen in the last several
years that I have been really focused on this, we have come a
long way in what their capability is. But also talking about
that--partnerships outside of the Department, one of my
frustrations as Chairman of the Transportation Security
Subcommittee was, I don't see enough interaction with the
private sector and the Department.
Like Ms. Sanchez, I am a member of the Homeland Security
Committee, and the Armed Services Committee, and we see a lot
public-private partnerships between DOD and the private sector
to achieve technological capabilities that we just couldn't do
without them. There seems to be a reluctance in the Department
to have that kind of interaction. Can you tell me what, if
anything, you are doing on the procurement side, on the
acquisition side to reach out to the private sector? To bring
them in as a partner, to help us achieve some capabilities that
we don't know have?
Secretary Napolitano. Oh, I think we have very aggressive
outreach. One difference between DHS and DOD is their research
budget is infinitely larger than ours, and so as a result,
their public-private partnerships are more numerous than ours.
Plus there are more long-standing relationships because they
have been in existence so long. But, I believe very firmly in
partnerships outside the Department, in the R&D world, private
sector, academia, Centers of Excellence, other places. So we
will push as much as we have resources.
Mr. Rogers. Well, you know while I was chairing that
committee, and I know that Mr. Hudson who now chairs it, is
following up. We have been bringing in private-sector folks to
talk with Department folks about what we can do to improve
communications. That has been difficult in the past. These
folks have come to us as members regularly and say: We can't
talk to anybody in the Department. Not just TSA, but in other
segments of the full Department. So, anything you could do to
try to drill down to your management folks that they need to
try to create some real open access to the private sector to
communicate with them, I think it would be beneficial to both
parties. And thanks----
Secretary Napolitano. I will drill down on that. I am sorry
to hear that.
Mr. Rogers. Yes. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you.
The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
Barber.
Mr. Barber. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, it is
great to see you here today. You know, oftentimes when you come
to this committee, and when your staff come, we rain criticism
on the Department. I would like to start in a different
fashion, and talk about what I believe is the most challenging
and unenviable one in the Cabinet, the one that you hold.
Trying to integrate 22 different agencies who are not always
rowing the boat in the same direction. Merging contact
management, IT, financial accountability into a single process,
moving quickly and effectively to respond to natural disasters,
guarding our country against terrorist attacks, which has been
very successful, until of course, the tragedy in Boston.
We still don't know the cause, but over the last 5 years,
we have had a lot of prevention in that area. So, I want to
just acknowledge the progress that has been made before I ask
some questions about the challenges that are remaining for the
Department. Of course, highest on the list, at least for many
of us, is the impact of sequestration on the Department. As you
know from previous conversations, sequestration and its initial
look is going to hit very hard on Border Patrol Agents, and the
men and women who are at the ports of entry.
Initially it was suggested, or proposed, that 40 percent of
the Border Patrol Agent's salaries would be cut, due to the
loss of overtime, and furloughs. I appreciate the Department's
willingness to delay that. As you know, under the CR, we gave
additional money back to the Department, some flexibility. I
know in conversations with you, that you are currently working
on some reprogramming requests. I guess I would just like to
know, what progress is being made? Additionally, how your
communicating with the men and women who are affected, or
likely to be affected, and their families?
There is a great deal of uncertainty. As you pointed out in
your remarks, this is adding to the morale problems. So, if you
could just speak to us about progress that is being made
towards reducing. I know you can't eliminate these cuts, but
reducing them significantly so that we can both secure the
border, expedite the flow of legal commercial traffic, and give
some certainty back to the lives of these people who we ask
every day to protect our homeland?
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed. Congressman as you also know,
the pay systems for Customs are different than the pay systems
for Border Patrol, and they have never been unified. That makes
a difference where sequestration is concerned, unfortunately.
Here is what we are doing: We have already gone through the
sequestration legislation. The budget that was finally
appropriated with the add-on for CBP, we have identified some
reprogramming requests that we would like to add to that.
We hope to get those complete and into OMB by the end of
the week, and move that process along as quickly as we can. Our
goal is to absolutely minimize the effect on AUO premium pay
for Border Patrol, and furlough days generally throughout CBP.
We have been communicating regularly by e-mail and other
messages about what our goal is, asking--and it is a difficult
ask, asking for patience to try to figure out ultimately how
much we can pay our men and women. But our--like I said, our
goal is to minimize the disruption in their compensation.
Mr. Barber. What might we, and they expect to be the
earliest possible time when some certainty would be given to
the situation?
Secretary Napolitano. Boy, I wish I could give you a
definite date. I do not know, except that--I was just at the
border. I mean I was just in south Texas, and I was down in, as
you know, the Douglas area, and I know the effect this
uncertainty is having on our men and women. So we are moving as
quickly as we can.
Mr. Barber. Well in the remaining time, I just want to move
quickly to the--an issue we have often discussed here, and you
and I have discussed as well, and that is how it is that we
measure border security? It is a key element in moving
immigration reform forward. At a hearing Chairman Miller, some
of us said DHS needs to get in the game of giving us solid
metrics that we can really have a common understanding of what
border security improvements mean. The GAO study, as you know,
was critical of the lack of metrics in the latest roll-out
plan. Can you tell us what progress is being made towards
getting those metrics?
Second, how you are going to gather information from
agents, from ranchers, business people, others who are living
and working daily on the border, who know so much about what
the border is really like?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, on the metrics question is
frustrating for everybody. Because in our view, we have
provided metrics up the wazoo.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Napolitano. I don't know how to spell that. But--
and the GAO study uses our metrics. They just calculate--then
they use them in a different way than we use them. The goal,
however, is to see: Well, is this a safer and more secure
border than it was last year, the year before and so forth?
What is the trend? If you look at things like apprehensions,
and crime rates, and contraband seizures, and gun seizures, and
things like property values in communities along the border,
the trend line is all positive. We know we are making
significant progress and have made significant progress along
the border.
We know we are not done. We know there is more work to do.
We want to sustain and build on that. So, we will work with the
Congress and what have you. But as I mentioned yesterday in a
hearing, there is no one magic number. You really have to look
at the whole picture, and then inform it with real-life
experience. So, it does require, you know getting down to the
border, talking not only with agents, but with police chiefs
and sheriffs and mayors of the little towns that line our
border, and so forth. That is what we attempt to do as well.
Mr. Barber. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Yes. I mean--let me thank Mr. Barber, the
gentleman from Arizona, for his support on the Border Security
Results Act, co-sponsoring that bill. That will be the bill
coming out of this committee. I think it is important that we
have metrics. There are some who assert it is never been more
secure, I know as you have Madam Secretary. But I would argue
that in my home State, that the numbers are increasing in terms
of apprehensions. Particularly the Brownsville sector, 50
percent.
So, with that, the Chairman now recognizes the Vice Chair
of the full committee, Ms. Candice Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary, thank you so very much for your attendance here
today. I have been listening carefully and I think I will--as
the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime
Security, I will pick up right where Mr. Barber left off, and
Chairman McCaul added some comments as well. I am very
appreciative of your trying to quantify, or give us your best
estimate of what border security actually looks like, in
regards to metrics. I will say this, I think there is always a
moment in time in politics where something can happen, and that
moment in time is probably now for comprehensive immigration
reform.
I think we have a small window of time, and if something
doesn't happen, that window is going to close. I do think that,
absent some sort of accountability or a metric system that we
can quantify in some way that the American people, through
their Congress, has a high degree of confidence that we are
moving toward an adequate amount of border under operational
control or whatever term we want to utilize it--absent that, I
think the immigration reform will be a heavy lift.
I mentioned to your staff, Mr. Borkowski, when he testified
before our subcommittee that it would be too bad if the
Department of Homeland Security became the stumbling block for
comprehensive immigration reform because we are not satisfied
with what we are getting. There is no one else to ask. I know
it is a difficult thing. I know that securing the border with a
layered approach as we have been doing, as there has been
progress made.
Still as was mentioned to us, by you, a couple of years
ago, the term operational control was antiquated, you said it
was an antiquated term. I have an open mind to that. But then
what? Then we were told that the BCI, the Border Control Index
would be the term that would be used, and the matrix that we
utilized and we were anticipating actually several weeks ago in
this hearing room, that we would be hearing what the construct
of that actually was, where we were with it, et cetera. Looking
at GAO with the various components of whether it is operational
control or BCI index or whatever it is, under operational
control, boots on the ground, strategic fencing, utilization of
various kinds of technology as the Chairman had mentioned about
UAVs, or land systems or you know, the next version of SBInet.
All of these kinds of things.
Also recognizing that sometimes you can secure a portion of
the border and then 6 months later you have a different
situation. Believe me, I think all of us do understand that. It
is not a static kind of a thing. It is a dynamic situation that
you are always dealing with there. But you mentioned yesterday
some comments you made at a hearing. I was looking at some of
that as well, and have a press release you put out which you
said, every metric that we use to measure border security shows
significant progress.
Yet really the only, it feels like the only thing we are
hearing is about apprehensions. That is a component in my mind,
that is the component it can't be, it is something that we need
to know, what is happening with regard to apprehension, but
then we are not really measuring how many did we not apprehend?
Other kinds of things that have happened there. So I guess I
would like to have you flesh that out a little bit more about
the matrix because I appreciate your position and what you are
saying. But in my observation and opinion, if we don't get
something pretty darn, much more specific than what we have had
so far from your Department, I do believe that your Department
can be the stumbling block to comprehensive immigration reform.
We don't want that to happen, I am sure.
Secretary Napolitano. Well we certainly don't want that
because, as you know, I have been advocating for CIR since my
first day here in Washington, DC. Two things: No. 1 is on the
apprehensions, you know, the missing piece has been a better
ability to identify the denominator. I mean we know how many we
apprehend. Really being able to track the attempts has been
difficult.
Looking at the Senate-proposed CIR and how that is drafted,
if the technology piece is supplied to us, as that bill
provides, with the funding mechanism for that, so that we can
sustain the efforts we already have and build on them. One of
the problems with border security has always been, we secure an
area and then we leave it. Then the border changes. But I think
that the way that is written and how it is informed by
technology is a do-able deal.
Mrs. Miller. I do, and I appreciate that. Because as you
mentioned, along with funding, I think, I feel your Department
needs to tell us, as the Congress, what it is you actually need
in regards to resourcing. It is for us to determine whether or
not we have the political will, as a Congress, to insure that
that happens. You know that is part of one of our enumerated
responsibilities under the Constitution. Border security again,
is such an important thing, in every way.
So we want to work with your Department to make sure,
again, that we have some sort of system, metrics,
accountability, whatever term you want to utilize. Our bill
that we have dropped though does use the term operational
control. We have fallen to that as a default position since we
have had nothing from DHS. I know my time is I guess it is
expired. So I will leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. I thank the gentle lady for all your hard
work as Chairwoman of the Border and Maritime Security
Subcommittee and I absolutely agree. You need to tell us. These
are tough budgetary times but we can authorize. It is important
we get this done right. So with that I now recognize the
gentleman, Mr. Payne, from New Jersey.
Mr. Payne. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Secretary Napolitano
thank you for your service to this Nation over the past 5
years. I know it has been a difficult journey but we appreciate
everything you do every single day. It has really been good to
see you in the last 2 weeks three times. So you are keeping us
abreast of what is going on.
You know, I have a question in reference to regarding the
proposal to consolidate the 16 grants under a single National
Preparedness Grant Program. My district includes Newark, New
Jersey, Jersey City, and Bayonne, and we sit across from New
York City. It includes an airport, a seaport, rail lines, bus
lines, and chemical plants all in between. So my district
relies heavily on many of these individual grants including
UASI and the Port & Transit Security Grants. How do you think
the consolidation of those grants will impact a district such
as mine?
Secretary Napolitano. Our goal is to move from you know so
many of these grant programs we either inherited or were part
of the 9/11 Act. As we can see from response capabilities that
happen after Sandy, now after Boston and so forth, we have
built a fair amount of capacity and resilience around the
country.
We want to move to a risk-based approach for further
funding of grants. We want to consolidate in an effort so that
we can unify grant guidance and reduce administrative overhead.
We want to make sure that areas that have lots of critical
infrastructure and critical ports and the like, that we can
really fund those according to risk as opposed to having to use
formula grants through many of our programs.
So it really will depend, but our whole goal is, now let's
identify risk and gaps and where the monies best should go.
Mr. Payne. Well you know in the past, funding for State and
local grant programs have been cut considerably. In addition to
the funding cuts, you know, for port security grants. So I am
very concerned about this consolidation effort. Let me----
Secretary Napolitano. If I might Congressman, Congress has
cut the grants over the President's objection. One of the
things the Congress did do when it passed the budget for the
Department was restore some grant funding.
Mr. Payne. Okay. You know, New Jersey, let's get back into
interoperability. New Jersey is currently without a State-wide
interoperability coordinator. I understand that the same thing
is happening to other States as this grant winds down. I
believe it ends in September. You know that is of great
concern, moving towards First Net, which I understand is still
in the planning process and getting up to speed.
So as these coordinators, the SWIX, are leaving, the one in
New Jersey left this past month and I believe several other
States are experiencing the same thing. How do we move towards
getting First Net up when we are losing the coordinators that
would be an integral part of that system?
Secretary Napolitano. Well part of that is what the State
wants to support on its own. Not everything should be paid for
by Federal grant money. But if I might, my experience as a
Governor on this interoperability issue, was every bit as
frustrating as I think as being expressed by Members of the
committee.
We have not, we have spent way too much money for far too
little coverage. I think part of the reason was we didn't have
adequate private/public partnerships going on. It was more a
vendor-buyer type situation as opposed to a true partnership. I
think that is where we need to move. I think we will move
there. I think the States by themselves can identify how they
want to manage that. But we really have to change the whole way
we look at building a National interoperability capacity.
Mr. Payne. As my time winds down, you know, I have several
chemical facilities in my district that could experience the
same thing that we have seen in West, Texas. So from what I
understand, FEMA's monitoring the situation and prepared to
assist State and local authorities as needed. Is DHS personnel
on the scene in Texas?
Secretary Napolitano. They are nearby. I don't know if they
are physically on the scene. They will be if requested.
Mr. Payne. How are they prepared to assist?
Secretary Napolitano. We can do a number of things. But we
have an Instant Management Assistance Team that is standing,
that is on stand-by right now.
Mr. Payne. Okay thank you. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. I have to depart. I have an amendment on
the floor to the CISPA bill, the intel cybersecurity bill, that
provides a civilian interface to the private sector for threat
information, that being the primary interface the Department of
Homeland Security, which I think is the right way to go with
cybersecurity, and also with the robust Office of Privacy and
Civil Liberties, that we have within your Department. I believe
that is the best way to protect the privacy of the American
people. So I have to depart for that.
Let me also say, commend you for the increase in your
budget for cybersecurity. We plus that up in our CR as well as
you know, this is one of the biggest threats in the virtual
world.
So with that segue, the Chairman of the Cybersecurity
Subcommittee, Mr. Meehan.
Mr. Meehan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman for that tee up.
Thank you, Secretary, for your being here.
Let me start at the outset. I see in you as someone who is
symbolic of the many people in Boston who are on the front
lines today with their dedication and resilience. So, through
you, I express our appreciation for the great work that you are
doing.
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Meehan. I have another issue, just briefly, as well.
The Ranking Member raised an issue about the pre-clearance
facilities in Abu Dhabi. I had been circulating, along with
Representative DeFazio, a letter of concern. I thought we would
get about 25 signatures on it. In a very short period of time,
we are already over 70. I am going to be forwarding that to you
probably in a day or so, because of many more.
I hope that at some future time we can discuss that issue.
Because I am worried about the fact that what we are doing
there is creating a real competitive imbalance for America-
based airlines, in which foreign countries are able to, in
effect, put into position a benefit for their foreign-based
airlines.
But I am also very appreciative of the great work that you
are doing on cyber. Your colleague, Mr. Mueller at the FBI, in
testimony not so long ago, notwithstanding what we are seeing
in Boston, had said that cyber may soon replace terrorism as
the No. 1 issue and threat to the United States. I was struck
by the Secretary of Defense, former, Mr. Panetta. One of the
first things that he did after leaving that was to go to New
York and talk about a cyber Pearl Harbor. I think, it is an
issue, which is significantly greater than many Americans have
an appreciation for. I know that you do. But many Americans out
there do not appreciate the extent of the vulnerability.
Ninety percent of our cyber structure is in the private
sector. When we have something that is an issue, there is also
cross sectors. We are paying a lot of attention to what is
going on to the banking sector, but as the banking folks said
to me, if our grid, electrical grid goes down, we are affected
in that way, as well. So there is a lot of cross-sectional
issues.
We are also dealing with instantaneous communication.
Secretary Napolitano. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Meehan. So things are happening by the second. Those
kinds of things make a difference. Can you explain to me how
the investments that you are making are enabling homeland
security to be on the forefront and then the cutting edge of
helping us, as the Nation, to prepare to defend ourselves and
to utilize the relationships with the private sector to
encourage them to become partners with us in protecting our
critical infrastructure?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, I will try to keep my answers
short, because there is so many things that we are doing. But
that intersection with the private sector where core critical
infrastructure is concerned, absolutely key if we are serious
about cybersecurity.
We are interested in real-time information sharing, because
the more quickly information is shared, the better we are able
to help with response and mitigation. We are asking for money
to increase our CERT teams, to increase our industrial control
system teams, to fund the NCAMP, which is a 24-7 watch center
where we have private-sector partners on the floor with us.
Mr. Meehan. That is a place in which you are talking about,
the--communication and the private sector can participate
directly, as was--Mr. Rogers was asking questions about how we
can encourage private-sector participation. This is a place
where it actually takes place, is it not?
Secretary Napolitano. That is correct, and I invite any
Member who wishes to come out and see the floor and how it is
arranged. But we know it will have to expand over time as our
responsibilities increase, both pursuant to the Executive
Order, the Presidential Policy Directive, and hopefully through
the amendment that Chairman McCaul was speaking about.
Mr. Meehan. Isn't it accurate that we would be able to
include numbers of the private sector, and when we talk about
R&D and other kinds of things, while we would like to do more,
but the fact of that matter is, a lot of private sectors, in
many ways, at or above the best that the Government can do in
the form of technologies and other kinds of things. So,
inviting them in, doesn't that enhance our capacity overall?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, to the extent that is shared,
obviously. But, you know, just the ability to discuss ideas and
get the relevant people in the same place, there is a value to
that. So we are encouraging that kind of co-location. The NCIC
is a very vital place. It--through the NCIC and the CERT, we
have literally responded to hundreds of thousands of cyber
incidents, just this past year. That number is only going up.
Mr. Meehan. May I ask one last question? It is, as we deal
with the imminent nature of, and changing threat, of cyber
because of the fact that technology changes so quickly, how
about your acquisition regulations and the ability for you to
be able to work through the acquisition of the highest and
greatest technology?
Are you bogged down at all by requirements that may take
weeks if not months to get something approved, and, therefore,
many times the technology may be obsolete by the time we put it
in place?
Secretary Napolitano. I think, that is a problem throughout
the Government, Representative. I think, acquisition is too
slow for the cyber world.
Another area, if I might, where we had asked for
legislative help last year in a Senate cyber bill that
ultimately didn't pass, the so-called Collins-Lieberman bill or
Lieberman-Collins bill, was statutory authority to allow us to
hire in the cyber world to the same degree NSA can, so that we
are relieved from some of the normal hiring restraints and
salary restraints that confine us. Because cyber professionals
are very--it is very competitive market place for them.
Mr. Meehan. Well, thank you----
Mrs. Miller. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you. I look forward to working with----
Mrs. Miller. Thank the gentleman for his comments.
At this time, the Chairwoman recognizes Mr. O'Rourke from
Texas.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Madam Secretary, I also want to thank you for your work,
and through you, the men and women who keep our country safe,
who have helped make the community I represent the safest in
America for the last 3 years in a row, despite living next to
one of the most dangerous cities in the world, bar none, in
Ciudad Juarez.
I want to touch on a statement that you made in your
opening comments about reduced operational capacity at our
ports of entry as it relates to the sequester. I believe, in a
previous hearing, you talked about, because of the sequester,
4- and 5-hour wait times at our ports of entry that can become
the norm going forward.
So I want to ask you where we are now, given the additional
flexibility included within the Continuing Resolution as it
pertains to wait times at our ports and where we will be should
this budget be approved, and you get the resources that you are
asking for. What kind of wait times can we expect given the
importance of our ports of entry to the National economy and
local economies like mine?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think, even without
sequester, we were short of port officers and staffing. Part of
that was because they were paid for out of user fees, and user
fees were diminished during the recession, and so, it got to be
this gap. Those land ports are incredibly important and are
responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs in the United
States.
The President has asked for 3,400 more port officers. We
believe that will meet our staffing model needs for the future
and keep wait times to a minimum. In the mean time, we are
going to do everything we can to mitigate those times. I can't
give you precise hours right now.
Mr. O'Rourke. One request I would make related to that is,
as you know, communities like El Paso, that I represent, are
willing to commit resources, millions of dollars from local tax
payers to compliment the investment that you are making at our
ports.
What we don't have, that would help us make better
decisions about this, is your workload staffing model,
understanding how you staff the different ports of entry in our
communities.
Secretary Napolitano. Mm-hmm.
Mr. O'Rourke. We want to know those answers so that we can
make a wise investment at the local level. I also want to be
able to get back to constituents who, you know, send us or text
us photos when they have been waiting on the port for----
Secretary Napolitano. Oh, I know.
Mr. O'Rourke [continuing]. Three and 4 hours, get to the
front of the line, and of 11 potential lanes, only see four of
them staffed and open.
Secretary Napolitano. That is right.
Mr. O'Rourke. So just being able to be transparent and
responsive and communicate to our constituents about how you
staff those ports would be important. Can you commit to getting
us your workload staffing model? Would it be possible to commit
to a date to do so?
Secretary Napolitano. We will provide you with the workload
staffing model, because it forms the basis for the request for
3,400. So I will ask my staff to get that to you as quickly as
possible.
Mr. O'Rourke. I would also like to address some comments
you made about comprehensive immigration reform. I really
appreciate what you said, and what I think I heard you say,
which is, if we are able to pass immigration reform, that, in
itself, will help make the border more secure. You will be able
to focus resources and attention on our highest, greatest
priority threats, the existential threats, the people who want
to come in, kill American citizens, do us harm, disrupt our
economy, as well as the other criminal activity that we should
be focusing on. So I appreciate you saying that.
Within this budget that you are proposing, do you have the
resources necessary to carry out your obligations as it relates
to comprehensive immigration reform? In your answer, do you
want to touch on what was proposed from the Senate or the
Senate plan, with, I think, an additional $3 billion towards
border surveillance and another $1.5 billion towards extending
the border wall?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, I think, my answer would be
that, under CAR, and we are still going through it, as you
might imagine, but if those resources are provided and
sustained, and, I think, that is a key thing--they need--there
needs to be a commitment to sustain the border security
measures that are there.
But--assuming that, and assuming we fund the technology
plans we have already provided to the Congress, I believe we
can build on the efforts we have already done. I believe the
manpower we have at the border is adequate. I believe that,
yes, we can meet the measures that we have seen.
Mr. O'Rourke. Real quickly, could I get you to respond to
the request within that legislation to extend the wall? Do you
think it is necessary to add additional mileage in the border
wall between the United States and Mexico?
Secretary Napolitano. You know, I have never been a big fan
of just, kind of, arbitrary, ``build more fence.'' I have said,
you know, ``Show me a 10-foot wall, I will show you a 12-foot
ladder.'' But, I think--again, we are looking at that, but
there are different kinds of fencing. There is real. There is
virtual, and other kinds of infrastructure.
So we are looking at what would go into that, but it needs
to be part of our comprehensive strategic plan for the border
itself, which includes the technology, the aerial, and the
manpower as well.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Miller. Thank the gentleman.
The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam Secretary,
first off, let me say thank you for what you and your
Department do to try to keep America safe. I certainly
appreciate it.
First off, let me also thank you for answering Senator
Johnson's questions yesterday in the hearing about the ammo
purchases that DHS is making and trying to refute some of the
rumors. We get a lot of those questions as Members of Congress
back in my district, really from all over the country.
So as part of that, Chairman McCaul and I have asked GAO to
do an audit just so we can deal with the facts and we can
answer those questions for the American people, not only on the
ammo but also on the MRAPs.
The question I have for you, you know, when Forbes magazine
or Drudge or some reputable news sources start to repeat the
numbers of 1.6 million or 2,700 MRAPs, they cease to be
internet rumors and they start having some credibility.
So I would just ask, why was there a long delay or silence
from the DHS for a period of time, almost 3 months, before you
all came forth saying these numbers aren't correct, these are
the actual facts? Why was there a delay or a silence from your
Department?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I don't know about that there
was that kind of delay, but I will tell you we found it so
inherently unbelievable that those statements would be made, it
was hard to ascribe credibility to them. I don't know if I
would put Forbes and Drudge in the same sentence, but I--let me
be as clear as I can be.
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. Leave Drudge out of it. I
wouldn't. I think they are credible, but Forbes is definitely a
credible magazine. So when they use that number and then we
hear silence from the Department and Americans see the ammo
shelves empty, all that feeds that----
Secretary Napolitano. Well like I said, it got into the
blogosphere and it went viral. We understand that. As I was
with Senator Johnson, let me be clear as I can be. This was a
5-year strategic sourcing contract for up to those 1-point-
whatever rounds--billion rounds. It is an up-to number. We
usually use 150 million, 160 million rounds a year.
We do all the Federal law enforcement training, qualifying.
We do a lot of the training and so forth for State and locals,
plus our own operational needs. We are the largest Federal law
enforcement agency.
Mr. Duncan. Yes ma'am. In the absence of time, you did a
great job. I ask to submit for the record her testimony
yesterday in the Senate.
Mrs. Miller. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Excerpt Submitted for the Record by Hon. Jeff Duncan
Ron Johnson (WI). OK. Let me turn to a question I'm getting all the
time, and we certainly appreciate the information you've given us, but
let's just kind of lay the rumors to rest. We hear reports that DHS is,
you know, buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. We contacted your
office and apparently a purchase order for 650 million rounds over 5
years. I mean, is that the correct number? Can you just kind of speak
to that, because I know a lot of people are concerned about that.
Napolitano. Yes. We are in no way buying up the ammunition of the
country for any nefarious purpose. We have what we call strategic
source contracting where we can purchase up to at a certain per unit
cost over time. We use about 150 million rounds a year. We train almost
all of Federal law enforcement, plus a lot of State and locals at
FLETC. By contracting this way we save almost 80 percent in a per unit
basis. So it's really just smart contracting and nothing more.
Johnson. Even the 150 million sounds like a lot. But can you just
kind of break that down, how many people are trained, how many practice
rounds are fired? I mean----
Napolitano. Well yeah, I mean it's--CBP probably uses 60 million,
65 million there. Secret Service, many of our services require
qualifying multiple times a year. FLETC probably uses another 20
million, 30 million rounds. We can give you the actual inventory. We
know where the rounds are used.
Johnson. I'm actually just giving you the opportunity to try and
dispel the rumors.
Speaker. If I can interrupt. We've actually made an inquiry and
they've been very good, the second inquiry is in the process of being
processed by Homeland Security. We're going to have all that available
for all the Members so they can answer the questions.
Johnson. OK, great. That's great.
Napolitano. Right, but--but to just be as firm as I can be, the
rumors are unsubstantiated and totally without merit.
Mr. Duncan. You answered those questions yesterday, and I
appreciate that. I guess I was just asking about the silence,
why there was a delay in you guys saying, you know, these
numbers aren't right.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. Like I said, it really didn't
start getting to us as a question until I think we started
getting Congressional inquiries. That was some time after the
reports had first surfaced. So if we could have been quicker to
the ball, perhaps, but again, in the press of things--if I
might say in our own defense--we just couldn't believe that
anyone would believe those allegations. So let me be very
clear. Absolutely not true.
Mr. Duncan. I appreciate that. Let's shift gears a little
bit because I am very concerned about this person of interest
that was detained at the hospital in Boston following the
marathon madness. He is, I believe, scheduled to be deported
next week. Now I understand he has been cleared of any
wrongdoing in the involvement in Boston, but he is being
deported due to National security concerns.
CBS says this. This gentleman is here on a student visa. He
was at the scene, along with many other people, when the blasts
happened. As everybody is standing in shock, three Boston P.D.
detectives see this guy moving quickly out of the crowd. As
they are watching him, he seems to be moving very deliberately,
which could be a very natural thing after a bombing. They stop
him because he is covered with blood. They end up taking him to
the hospital. That is straight off CBS.
We are asking average Americans to help ID and assist law
enforcement in identifying who the bomber was. See something,
say something. Now we have someone who is being deported due to
National security concerns, and I am assuming he has got some
sort of link to terror or he wouldn't be being deported.
He was at the scene. He could possibly ID the bomber, just
like we are asking every other American that was on the scene
to provide your pictures, help us identify who may have been
acting funny. Everybody we are asking that that was in Boston,
and we have got this guy who was there.
We know he was there. He was arrested--or wasn't arrested,
was detained in the hospital covered with blood. He was at the
scene, and yet we are going to deport him. So we are going to--
--
Secretary Napolitano. If I might, Representative----
Mr. Duncan. We are going to remove him from the scene.
Secretary Napolitano. I am unaware of anyone who is being
deported for National security concerns at all related to
Boston. I don't know where that rumor----
Mr. Duncan. I am not saying it is related to Boston, but he
is being deported.
Secretary Napolitano. Like I said, again, he--I don't even
think he was technically a person of interest or a suspect.
That was a wash. I am unaware of any proceeding there. I will
clarify that for you, but I think this is an example of why it
is so important to let law enforcement do its job.
Mr. Duncan. I want them to do their job, and that is why I
say wouldn't you agree with me that it is negligent for us as
American administration to deport someone who was reportedly at
the scene of the bombing and we are going to deport him, not to
be able to question him anymore? Is that not negligence?
Secretary Napolitano. I am not going to answer that
question. It is so full with misstatements and misapprehensions
that it is just not worthy of an answer.
Mr. Duncan. CBS reports the gentleman was there. We did
detain him at the hospital. He was covered with blood. We have
cleared him of any wrongdoing, but it has been reported he is
being deported.
Secretary Napolitano. There has been so much reported on
this that has been wrong, I can't even begin to tell you,
Congressman. We will provide you with accurate information as
it becomes available.
Mr. Duncan. I look forward to that. Thank you. I yield
back.
Mrs. Miller. Thank the gentleman.
The Chairwoman now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas,
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairwoman, and I thank the
Ranking Member for this hearing. I thank the Secretary as well.
I will be fleeting and asking some of my questions to be in
writing. I too have an amendment on the floor dealing with the
cybersecurity bill.
I do want to thank you and reannounce again, ``See
something, say something.'' You were in my district a year or 2
ago. We spoke about it. Certainly we remember the Times Square
bomber and the good Americans, good New Yorkers who saw
something and said something. I want to remind everybody of
that.
Madam Secretary, may I just again--this has been a week--
and go straight to West, Texas, and say this: That if they are
not under the CFATS process, can we galvanize resources under
Homeland Security, which is the anchor of help when there is a
devastation, as well even in light of them not having--maybe
not having a security plan? What kind of resources could we
quickly galvanize for them working with the State of Texas?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. We will look into that
immediately.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. I know that there
are first responders who lost their life. I offer them my
deepest sympathy.
I want to go straight to the question of the border
security. I thank you for reviewing the legislation that
myself, Chairman McCaul, Thompson, Chairwoman Miller, and
Cornyn has been on. Let me tell you where we are going with
that, and if I can get a specific answer.
We want to be a partner. This is a road map. This is an
answer to I think a $1.5 billion fence. You were very careful
in your answer about that virtual fence. I don't know if that
is what is being perceived in that $1.5 billion. It looks to me
like they want to put up a fence.
We know that that does not work. What kind of resources or
input can you give us so that we can get the kind of defined
way that we should be looking and assessing the border?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think the No. 1 thing you
want to see is do we have the situational awareness of the
highly-trafficked areas of the border and the ability to
respond. That takes into account infrastructure and ground
technology, air technology, manpower, all the rest.
But when I look at the border and I kind of step back and
say: Well, what do we need? I really focus on: All right, what
is our--do we have awareness of the area? If not, why not? What
do we need to get that? That is where our technology plans come
into play, and that is why we are asking that those be--that is
what is kind of comprehended in CIR, among other things. Our
technology plans are there and that we have the ability to
respond.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, what we have offered in this
legislation is for, as I have said in a very inspirational way,
for DHS to be in the game with us. We want to draw out, and I
think that that will be very helpful to this committee. Again,
I have always said when a tragedy happens, they look to you,
Madam Secretary. I know that the FBI's investigating Boston,
but they are also looking to us.
Can I quickly note whether there was a fusion center in
that area? We worked very hard to get these centers in terms of
having people work together. My concern is--and are we going to
get a briefing--my concern was seemingly the lack of credible
threat chatter. That seemed surprising to me. Will we be able
to get a briefing to determine what might have been happening
and how the fusion center is working?
Secretary Napolitano. You are talking about Boston?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Boston. I am sorry. I have jumped----
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. Yes. Without going into all of
the things in the investigation, I will say there is a very
good fusion center there. They have been actively involved. We
will be happy to provide a briefing on how the fusion center
has been used and is operating in the Boston case.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to hope
that we can have a briefing on--with Homeland Security and
Secretary and others, and very quickly. Let me just finish. I
will just say again, Madam Secretary, we have given every
opportunity for Administrator Pistole to delay, if you will,
his moving on the knives. Everywhere I go, people are
horrified. We don't want to have a confrontation. We would like
to have a reasoned opportunity for more stakeholders to be
heard.
I would just ask whether or not it would not be
reasonable--you have agreed with him, but here is a question. A
extension in light of--the TSOs are going to be short-changed.
We are going to have long lines at DCA. I already know that
because I travel in and out of it, and I think that that is
something--I ask you to make request or the inquiry or to give
me an answer back.
Last, let me just say that having met with Border Patrol
Agents, I want to make sure--I want to thank you for I think
retracting the furlough, but I do think it is important in the
comprehensive immigration reform to not underestimate the need
for more patrol agents. I know there is some funding in this
budget, the President's budget, but I support more funding for
it even though they have a higher number.
Do you have just a quick comment on the knives and any
opportunity for more stakeholders to be involved and more
opportunity for discussion?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think with respect to that,
as you and I have discussed, I think it is the right policy. I
think, however, we can always look at how better to improve
stakeholder outreach. I will talk with the administrator about
that.
With--and the second part of your question? I am sorry.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Was it Border Patrol Agents----
Secretary Napolitano. Agents, yeah.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You are taking away the furlough, as I
understand. You are taking away the furlough.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, we are trying to mitigate any
furloughs and effect on AUL. We don't have a final answer yet.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I ask that you look at that very
carefully. I yield back. I thank you very much.
Mrs. Miller. Thank the gentlelady. The Chairwoman now
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Barletta.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Madam Secretary, on April 8 in a Federal lawsuit in Dallas,
Jessica Von who is the director of policy studies at the Center
for Immigration Studies, gave testimony that focused on
internal DHS statistics showing a significant decline in the
number of deportations. She also described how the
administration has cooked its removal statistics in a way that
gives lawmakers and the public, the false impression that
enforcement has improved.
She was asked to analyze a set of mostly unpublished
statistics and documents on DHS enforcement activity over the
last 5 years. In her testimony, she said the materials show
that contrary to the administration's claims that have achieved
record levels of enforcement, the number of removals is now 40
percent lower than in June 2011. Removals of convicted
criminals are also running at 40 percent lower now than in June
2011. Removals generated by ICE's Enforcement and Removals
Division, which carries out most of what little interior
immigration enforcement, are 50 percent lower now than in June
2011.
This decline has occurred despite the expansion of ICE's
Secure Communities Program. If ICE is removing so few people
now than before, than how can DHS claim that they set a record
number of deportations last year?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I don't know how she does her
math, but I know how I do mine. The way I do my math is look at
removals from the country. We have removed more people from the
United States than any prior administration. So I can't respond
to an individual and how she cooks her books, but I can tell
you what I look at.
I look at implementation of Secure Communities. I look at
how many convicted felons we are removing. I look at how many
repeat violators we are removing. I get the complaints
Representative from the other side who say we are removing too
many. That is also a sign, I guess I get them from both sides.
Maybe we hit the sweet spot at some point.
But we are very committed to the rule of law where
immigration is concerned. That is border security and its
interior enforcement.
Mr. Barletta. But are we now counting Border Patrol cases,
the turnarounds at the border, as part of our deportations?
Rather than the criminal on the interior of the country? Aren't
we now adding the Border Patrol cases, the turnarounds, as part
of the deportations?
Secretary Napolitano. If there is a removal, but not, there
is not always a removal. Like I said, you know, we can get into
the weeds on statistics. The plain fact of the matter is, is
that ICE ERO has been extremely active. I will tell you, when
Representative Miller talked about this is the window of time
on immigration. This is the window of time. We need to be
looking at our worksite enforcement, because that is a real
driver of illegal immigration.
We need some more tools. I mean the statutes governing how
you prosecute somebody who continually brings over illegals,
incredible. We need to unclog the visa process. These all go to
the migration----
Mr. Barletta. I am familiar with cases right in my hometown
and right outside of my hometown, where criminal aliens have
been caught and turned over by local police, multiple access
cards, committing fraud, aggravated assault charges, and left
go.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I can't tell you, I don't know
about a particular case. I don't know who they were turned over
to. But I will tell you this, somebody who has that record,
that we have, will be a priority removal.
Mr. Barletta. Well, I will give you another case just
recent. There was actually a warrant for this man's arrest in
New York City and he was let go. So I am going to disagree that
we are deporting people or apprehending, the people that are
being turned over and they are being deported. I am going to
take issue also that Comprehensive Immigration Reform that has
been proposed will make our borders more secure.
I couldn't disagree with that more. I believe we have now
made our borders less secure because millions, millions of
people are now being encouraged to come to the United States
illegally with the hope of getting amnesty in the future. We
saw that in 1986 when 1.5 million turned out to be 3 million.
We have already seen, in testimony last week by Border Control
Chief Michael Fisher, where they are seeing an increase already
at the border, and some of it, he believes, is due to this
policy.
Secretary Napolitano. Let me be very clear on this. Because
this is a very important public message. Under any immigration
reform proposal, you need to have a cutoff date.
Mr. Barletta. Oh I know, I know about the December 11----
Secretary Napolitano. If I might, if I might complete my
answer. So December 31, 2011, was chosen by the Gang of Eight
as the cut-off date. We are already working, State Department
and others, to get that message out so that we do not have any
repeat.
By the way, this bill and the bills that are being
considered that I have seen, are very different from 1986.
Mr. Barletta. Well, we all know that anyone can use false
documents to claim they were here any day they want to say they
are here. It happens all the time.
Secretary Napolitano. That is not accurate either.
Mrs. Miller. Appreciate the gentleman's comments. The
gentleman's time has expired. The Chairwoman now recognizes Mr.
Swalwell from California.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you Madam Chairwoman, and thank you
Madam Secretary for being here. The Boston tragedy reminds us
that the threat continues to be real as far as what we face
with respect to terrorism. Whether it is domestic or
international terrorism. I have to say in light of what we have
seen, whether it is the blogosphere, the twittersphere, and all
the rumors that are out there. I think that the administration,
and you particularly, have done a very fine job and had a very
measured response and have not chased many of the rumors that
are out there.
Having been a former prosecutor myself, coming from a
family of law enforcement, I agree it is very important right
now in these early stages of investment, to just simply let law
enforcement do its job. There is so much to learn right now. I
appreciate that DHS is focused on that.
I have a couple questions based on my experience as a
prosecutor, when I was a prosecutor, I worked in our office,
and our office still works at the Alameda County District
Attorney's Office with the Alameda County Sheriff's Office,
which created what is called Urban Shield. Urban Shield is a
full-scale training exercise developed in Alameda County to
test and evaluate the region's ability to respond to any kind
of man-made or natural disaster.
It involves first responders, businesses, law enforcement,
communication systems, intelligence, critical infrastructure,
and so on. Our former Sheriff Charlie Plumber and current
Sheriff Greg Ahern continue to work on this and it is now an
international and National program. We know from that program
and we know from attacks in our country and across the world,
that we are only as good as our game on the ground.
Meaning that local law enforcement will be the first
responders. So as we are looking at our budget, what is DHS
doing to publicize the training effort, or encouraging other
major metropolitan areas to develop programs like this, or
assist them with funding?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, we think the Urban Shield-type
program, that is exactly what Boston used last November. That
was an Urban Shield-type program. That is the kind of thing we
want to support through our grants, and grant guidance. It
improves, as you say, our ability to respond and to do with as
minimum of chaos as possible in the wake of a terrible event
like a Boston.
So yes we work with the major city chiefs, with the
Sheriffs Association, with the IACP and others, really to
encourage participation and design of things like Urban Shield.
Mr. Swalwell. Great, also I believe these attacks also
magnify our transit risks. In an article this week in Politico
both Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson agreed on the
threat to mass transit. I have circulated a letter asking for
robust funding for the Transit Security Grant Program, which is
administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in
fiscal year 2014.
In that letter I explained what I believe to be our transit
risks. In the Bay Area, we have Bay Area Rapid Transit also
known as BART. What can you tell me that the Department of
Homeland Security is doing now to step up protection around
mass transit? Does Congress need to do a better long-term job
as far as our budgeting to secure our transit areas and how
would sequester affect this?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, sequester has not been helpful
in a number of respects. But with respect to Boston, we have
increased our security around transit hubs, working with Boston
City Police, and the State of Massachusetts. We have VIPR teams
that have been deployed into that general area and up through
the New England corridor.
We also put the Coast Guard on the ferries. That is also a
mass transit in some areas, and it is in San Francisco Bay. So
all of those things have been increased for the time being.
Mr. Swalwell. That is great. My final question has to do
with immigration. The number of removals, you are correct, have
increased under this administration, and I believe our borders
have never been more secure.
However as we move toward Comprehensive Immigration Reform
in my district, we have a very diverse area, and as a
prosecutor I know that when you are looking at criminal
removals, there is a broad range of types of criminals. You
mentioned a convicted felon is much different than the person
who is arrested for driving with a suspended license. However
you could classify both of them as a criminal. Is the
Department taking steps to prioritize the removals so that we
are removing the most violent and serious offenders and the
lower-class offenders who pose a lesser risk and many types
their crimes are associated with being here in an undocumented
fashion, are not being removed at the same rate?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, and one of the adjustments we
made to Secure Communities in response to comments in that
regard was to remove the automatic issue of a Notice of
Detainer for low-level, misdemeanors and others, who pose no
public safety threat.
Mr. Swalwell. Great, and thank you Madam Secretary, and
again I am confident that with your leadership and the way the
administration has been responding to this tragedy in Boston,
that we will find the persons responsible and we all need to
just be patient and trust that law enforcement will do its job.
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed. Thank you.
Mr. Meehan. I thank the gentleman.
The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Hudson.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Secretary. Good morning to you. I
appreciate you being here. I also would like to thank you for
all the personnel of DHS who are working so diligently and
tirelessly in Boston, as well as West, Texas. There were
several victims in Boston from Charlotte, North Carolina, and
so we were watching with a personal interest and really
appreciate what your folks are doing.
I also wanted to echo at the outset, and sort of associate
myself with the border metrics discussion we have had here. For
my standpoint, I understand how important reforming our
immigration system is to our economy, and our National
security. But, I can't support any immigration reform if we
can't be satisfied that we have secured the border. So getting
those metrics where we can definitively talk about how we are
doing on securing that border, and making sure that border
security is a piece of comprehensive immigration reform will be
critical to getting my support and others, I think, in our
conference.
So we look forward to working with you to try and come up
with definitive metrics, and move in that direction.
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed.
Mr. Hudson. As Chairman of the Transportation Security
Subcommittee, I am particularly interested in the TSA's budget,
and would love to discuss--sort of directing my questions in
that direction. It seems logical as we are moving towards risk-
based security at TSA, which is something I fully support. I
think it is the exact right thing to do. I support the
administrator. It seems to me that as we move those towards
more risk-based security, there ought to be significant cost
savings for the taxpayer. For example, as we do risk-based
screening, we start focusing more on threats, that ought to
free up resources.
As we look at some of the new high-tech value screen, it
ought to mean that we need less screeners for baggage. As we
look at some of the privacy software upgrades for AIT again,
ought to be able to reduce some of the workforce and screeners
there was well. But it doesn't seem that in the budget, we are
reflecting a lot of those cost savings. Why are we not seeing
those?
Secretary Napolitano. I think, Representative, I think
because those cost savings will be more long-term than
experienced immediately in fiscal year 2014. You are seeing
some savings. For example, the AITs have basically been
installed, and so we don't, you know have to buy as many and
install as many AITs. The same with baggage systems. You know,
the basic equipment has been installed, and now it is a matter
of continual upgrades. I do believe as we move to more risk-
based, those long-term savings will accrue. But, it is hard to
say whether they will happen immediately.
Mr. Hudson. I understand. What other costs and personnel
efficiencies do you think that we--can be gained by expanding
PreCheck, for example and implementing some of these other
risk-based policy decisions? What kind of--how much savings do
you think we are looking at?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think it all depends, but you
know, in a PreCheck regime you don't, obviously need as many
TSOs before an individual gets on a plane. So, there will be
personnel savings with that. On the other hand, we do need to
make sure that we fund the operation of the PreCheck program
itself and our, you know our ability to do background checks,
and so forth on the members.
Mr. Hudson. Absolutely. Well, I understand that obviously
we need to put these systems in place before we start seeing
some of the reductions in personnel that we are talking about,
but what do you think the time frame is on that, particularly
when we talk about PreCheck?
Secretary Napolitano. You know I would defer to the
administrator on that. You known I think we have set an
aggressive goal of having 1 in 4 passengers be in some sort of
expedited program by the end of the year. If we meet that goal,
I think we will start seeing some reduction in, certainly in
growth of personnel shortly thereafter.
Mr. Hudson. Right. I appreciate that. Shifting a little
bit, initiatives that we have talked about in private. You know
my concerns about us looking long-term at threats of an EMP
attack. You know, one of the things that I brought up with you
is that when we look at St. Elizabeths and we prepare to move
to the new DH headquarters--DHS headquarters there, my concern
is that we are spending a lot of money on that facility. But I
am not sure we are doing what we need to do, to harden the
electric grid there. I would just ask, has there been any other
thought put into that? I guess behind that question I would
just say, I think it would be important that there is.
Secretary Napolitano. I understand the concern. What I
would suggest, if you have the time, is a classified briefing
on St. E's? On what is happening. But, I would also like to say
that, you know given now I am only going into my fifth year,
but we really need a headquarters. It is very difficult to
efficiently manage a Department as diverse as ours when we are
in 50-plus locations around the Capitol region. So, I hope that
is something the committee can support.
Mr. Hudson. Absolutely. I know I am running out of time
here, but I just wanted to say again, we do have a classified
briefing scheduled that I have requested, and so I look forward
to following up with you on that. But I think again, this is a
long-term situation, and we need to be working on together when
we look at the threat of EMP attack.
Secretary Napolitano. Indeed.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you. I yield back the time I don't have.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Meehan. I thank the gentleman for giving back what he
didn't have.
The Chairman now recognizes the distinguished Ranking
Member on the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure
Protection, and Security Technologies, the gentlelady from New
York, Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me add my voice to that of all of the colleagues who
have commended you for your leadership, Madam Secretary. You
know, from responses to the multiple natural disasters during
your tenure, to the response to the Boston bombing, and the
Texas plant explosion, it is becoming more, and more clear to
all Americans, the critical mission of Homeland Security--the
Department of Homeland Security. I think that your leadership
is emblematic of how robust we need to be as this agency grows
from strength to strength.
That is why it is a bit challenging for us who recognize
the missions to see that agency go through such a painful
period where sequestration has now become, sort of a binding of
hands in meeting these very critical missions. I want to move
to the area of cybersecurity because I have been a bit
concerned about the public level of awareness, where really
understanding what it means to protect ourselves in the virtual
world, actually means.
I guess the bandwidth of understanding can go from a person
using a flip-phone, to a child using an iPad in the public
sphere. But, what I recognize is that in this budget, there was
a substantial cut to the cyber education program. While I
recognize that Einstein-3 is a very important tool that we
need, I noticed that, we are kind of trying to rob Peter to pay
Paul, in order to manage the sequestration. I wanted to ask,
you know: How we can meet our commitment to the public with
such a drastic cut to the one area that we have that actually
educates the public? Is there no way to slightly decrease
funding for top-priority programs to fully fund education?
Secretary Napolitano. Representative, I understand the
concern. I don't know how I can address it right now. I think
pitting Einstein against education is probably not the way to
go because Einstein is the fundamental system we are putting in
place across the Federal Government for continuous monitoring
and diagnostics, which is going to be critical to
cybersecurity. But I understand your concern. Maybe there is a
way through some other areas to plug cyber education, even if
we can't specifically increase that account.
Ms. Clarke. Yes. I--you know again we recognize that these
vulnerabilities that we all have in the civil society makes it
even more difficult to use the tools that you are establishing.
So it is a--you know it is a delicate balancing act. I think
the more that Americans become sensitized to the battle ahead
of us, the more that we can all put our shoulders to the wheel.
I wanted to also raise the issue of the new office that is
requested in the President's budget, requesting $27 million.
This is the Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis,
which would synthesize the analytical--the analytic efforts of
the Office of Infrastructure Protection, the Office of Cyber
Security and Communications. Can you talk about why this new
office was considered necessary? How quickly you think the
office will get off the ground?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes, it is really designed to help us
meet our responsibilities under the Executive Order, and the
PPD, and that is the information, and the information sharing
in the private sector, and the also with the Government. So,
you know, part of that is in NPPD, parts if it are in other
parts of the Department, I&A for example. We really want a
central--it centralized in one place given our central role,
the analytics involved in cyber. So, you know the office
probably be able to actually be larger than a $27 million
office, but that is the number we have put on what we want to
make sure that we have.
Ms. Clarke. Do you have a time table, Madam Secretary?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, we already are moving on
implementation, but we would like to be able to form the office
as soon as we have a budget.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary.
I yield back.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you.
The Chairman now recognizes the distinguished former United
States attorney from Indianapolis, the gentlelady from
Indianapolis, Mrs. Brooks.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, thank you, Madam Secretary, for your service, not
just as head of the Department of Homeland Security, but for
your long-time service to the Federal Government, as well as to
your State.
It has been 10 years since the Department was stood up. I
know there has been, just so much to bring all of the different
legacy agencies together, and continue to train, but I remain
concerned as the Ranking Member of my subcommittee brought up,
with the consolidation of all of those grants that have been so
critically important in the last 10 years to train our local
and State law enforcement, and first responders. I am a bit
concerned that the grants, which currently go to States, urban
areas, ports, and so forth, that the new National Preparedness
Grant Program as I understand it to be, is going to step away
from a terrorism focus specifically to an all-hazards approach.
Would you comment on that?
Because I am very concerned if we are not focusing in--on
both, quite frankly, and that we remain very focused on
terrorism. So by that consolidation, it is my understanding
that even in the continuing resolution there was a prohibition
and--assuring that this type of proposal, which has been
brought forth in the past, would not go forward.
So what is different now than what has been proposed in the
past, the past couple of budget cycles? I am all for
efficiencies in administration and so forth, but what can you
share with us more specifically about the details as to how
this grant program is going to make sure that we are getting
the funding to the agencies that are--that need it the most?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think one of the things that
is different is we have held over 70 stakeholder outreach
meetings and conferences in the last year. We did make some
adjustments to the proposal in response to that.
But, you know, the basic problem is that, you know, if we
are really going to say we want to cover risk and we want to do
that in the best possible way, but we also want to be
efficient, continuing to administer 18 grant programs that
really all ought to be looked at holistically based on each
State doing their own threat and hazard identification and risk
assessment, and an ability to identify gaps, fill those gaps,
et cetera, well, it is very difficult to do that when
everything is kind of isolated in its own program. Plus, the
administrative overhead--I can say this at the State level
where everybody has their own grant, grant writer, and so
forth--is obvious. So the notion is: Let's base more on risk.
Let's do more by way of gap analysis and filling gap analysis.
Let's try to get rid of some of this legacy overhead and make
this a more streamlined consolidated proposal.
So in addition to the outreach we have done and the
adjustments we have made in response to that, I am hoping what
is different now is I can be more persuasive.
Mrs. Brooks. With that, can you please share with us the
BioWatch program? The President's fiscal year 2014 budget
requests a little over $90 million for the BioWatch program to
continue funding Gen-2 operations. No funding, as I understand,
has been put in the budget for the acquisition of Gen-3.
I think as we continue to see--obviously it has been 11
years since we have had a terrorist attack of this nature, but
yet chemical, biological, nuclear, radiological, those are all
things that we need to continue to be mindful of. Can you, you
know, share with us what is happening with the Gen-3 system?
Why would we be pulling back as, you know, technology and
people become more savvy? What are we doing to make sure that
we can protect ourselves against chemical, biological,
radiological? It seems to me that a pullback from Gen-3 is not
moving in the right direction.
Secretary Napolitano. We have--Gen-3 is undergoing an
assessment as to whether it will ultimately be productive for
the money we would put into it. So rather than head into a
large acquisition, there were enough problems with it that our
acquisitions review board has asked for an individual
assessment. That is on a time line.
There is some carryover money that can be deployed, but it
is really a matter of: Let's make sure that before we do a
large acquisition we really know what we are doing, what we are
getting and whether it is going to work. There have been
problems with the early stages of Gen-3.
On bio, chem, radiological, nuclear, there is a lot in the
budget in different places, but one I would point to is a major
request by the President to build the NBAF, which is the
National Bio-Agro Facility, in Kansas. We have known for a long
time we need a new Level 4 lab. There was a peer-reviewed
competition among States. Kansas won. It is at K. State--in
conjunction with K. State.
They Kansas legislature has agreed to put in roughly $300
million. We put in $700 million or so. It is about a billion-
dollar facility. If this is approved and appropriated, we could
begin construction of a major lab and be done by 2020. I think
long-term infrastructure for the country, that kind of a
facility is going to be very important.
Mrs. Brooks. When you say appropriated, is that by Kansas?
Have they appropriated it yet?
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. They have--I don't know whether
they have appropriated it, but they have made a commitment to
those millions to partner with the Federal Government.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Meehan. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Secretary. Certainly don't envy your
challenges, and I think we all acknowledge the exceptional
challenge that you have in the agency and the size and scope of
the things that you have to do on a daily basis.
My questioning will probably revolve mostly around
immigration and maybe some of the metrics. I know we have kind
of beaten that dead horse, but I just want to get my mind
wrapped around some of the concepts here.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 stated that the Department
must take all, as I read here, actions to necessary to achieve
operational control of the border. In this section, the term
operational control means the prevention of all unlawful
entries into the United States, including entries by
terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism,
narcotics, and contraband.
It is my understanding that the Department has stated that
this definition is not attainable and must be changed to 90
percent. With that, I think the Department has asked for an
increase of 3,477, almost 3,500 agents. We are counting on you
to know the correct number to secure, so we are assuming that
is correct.
But now I am picturing myself as a--I was a person as a
commander of a task force in enemy territory. You know, whether
I tell my troops that we are going to secure our perimeter up
to 90 percent or whether I tell their families and their other
troopers that, you know, 10 percent of you--we are going to try
and make sure that 90 percent of you come home is an
untenable----
Secretary Napolitano. Yes. I think you are mixing apples
and oranges, if I might respectfully. So let me back up the bus
a little bit. What you are talking about on 90 percent is a
number that the GAO uses as an effectiveness ratio. It is a
calculation about apprehensions to attempts. As I have said,
the technology is really the part that will help us get more
confident in the attempts versus apprehensions.
Obviously everybody always wants 100 percent of everything.
When you look at a long border, however, that ability to seal
the border it is not going to happen. I mean, just--as someone
who is from the border, lived the border my whole life, you
don't seal it. But you can make it safe and secure as can be
with the resources you have. That is the goal that we strive
for.
Now the 3,500 additional personnel are for the ports of
entry themselves. One of the problems we have had with the
border is that the ports have become so clogged and the lines
get so long because there aren't enough port officers. That in
and of itself becomes an incentive to go around and try to
sneak through some other way. So the 3,500 is designed to meet
our estimate of what we need to properly staff the----
Mr. Perry. Manage and staff the ports of entry.
Secretary Napolitano. That is correct.
Mr. Perry. So the 90 percent that the GAO is describing is
the U.S. border, whether it is south, north, over water, over
land, the border period all around the United States. Am I
correct on that?
Secretary Napolitano. It is a number that they used in a
recent report. So that is where that comes from.
Mr. Perry. I just want to--yes. I just want to make sure I
am clear. I don't want to be critical----
Secretary Napolitano. No, I am just trying to explain it.
Mr. Perry. So just to be sure here and to clarify for
myself, the Department is still seeking 100 percent. Even
though we know it is hard to be perfect with thousands and
thousands of miles of border, whether it is over the ocean and
the coast line, through the forest or through the desert, we
are still seeking 100 percent. We will continue to seek 100
percent.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, the question is difficult. If I
were a police chief and you were asking me am I going to seek
to eliminate all crime, I could say yes, but everyone would
know, well that is not going to happen. Some crime is going to
happen. So----
Mr. Perry. I understand what is----
Secretary Napolitano [continuing]. Our goals are always to
do the maximum we can. That is what you want to put as 100
percent, that is. But I will share with you that is really
probably not the best way to address the problem.
Mr. Perry. I am just thinking about--you know, I understand
that it might not be practical to get to 100 percent. But you
know, I am--like I said, I am picturing myself in my own
circumstance where I am trying to safeguard lives and bring
folks home and make sure none of the bad guys get in the wire
with us. We, you know, we strove for--that was our goal. Our
goal was always 100 percent.
Secretary Napolitano. We always strive for perfection, but
let me, if I might, make an important point here. We want to
focus our resources on those who are trying to get into our
border for bad activities like terrorism, human smuggling,
narcotrafficking, et cetera. The major drivers across that
border are the demand for illegal labor and the fact that our
overall visa process is so screwed up. That is a technical
term.
Mr. Perry. I understand.
Secretary Napolitano. So when the Congress takes up CIR,
and if you deal adequately with those two drivers, that frees
us up to focus more on where we should be focusing, which are
the bad guys, as you would describe them. So I hope that as you
think about this, it is not the border isolated by itself, but
see how it fits into the overall problem that we are
confronting.
Mr. Perry. I appreciate your explanation. It is a matter of
prioritization as well as seeking as close to you can as
perfection. With that, thank you, Madam Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meehan. I thank the gentleman.
Secretary, just a quick question.
We have a colleague who is also in the military. Actually
served during the break and was on the border.
One of the issues that was raised was the rules of
engagement. I don't completely understand it, but they would
apprehend people at the border, and, in effect, as soon as they
went back and put a toe in the water, they were then free sort-
of to not be further engaged.
Is there--is--well----
Secretary Napolitano. That doesn't sound--I am not sure
what he is referring to. Maybe I could follow up with you or
your staff?
Mr. Meehan. Yes. Well, I--perhaps, because I can put you in
touch directly with our colleague.
Secretary Napolitano. Why don't you do that?
Mr. Meehan. He expressed it from first-hand experience just
a week ago, and it surprised me. The question is rules of
engagement, and what can be done with regard to people who are
effectively, you know, on the river line or on the borderline.
But I will allow him to express it. I don't want to----
Secretary Napolitano. Right. There are rules of engagement
with respect to the DoD deployment at the border, and there are
reasons for that. So we will be happy to follow up as you
suggest.
Mr. Meehan. I would love to be able to put that together.
Thank you.
At this moment, the Chairman recognizes the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I just wanted to--in your 2014 budget
request, there is an item in there relative to a Northern
Border toll for--study.
Can you provide some background with respect to that?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think--I will--let me look
into that line item specifically for you, but, you know, the
issues of the Northern Border need to be paid attention to in
terms of the trade and commerce that happens up there.
We have a number of things underway with Canada on the ``be
on the borders'' initiative. We also--as you know, they are
doing some pilot projects with pre-inspection and the like, one
of which will be in New York. So--but I don't know whether that
particular town is intended for that or elsewhere.
So, I will follow up with you.
Mr. Higgins. Yes, I would just--for the record, I would
just like to say that, you know, the Peace Bridge that connects
Buffalo to Southern Ontario I think is the second-busiest
border crossing for passenger vehicles and third for commercial
vehicles.
It was built 84 years ago with three lanes. So half the
time, because they use an alternating lane system, you are down
to one line for all that traffic. It causes, obviously, volume
delays, but it has an adverse impact on the environment, as
well, relative to the air quality in and around that area.
Our emphasis is to expand the American Plaza, but to also
pursue a new bridge span, because we are all economic actors.
When we are competent, we move. When we are not, we don't.
The mindset in Buffalo and Western New York and Southern
Ontario is to avoid the bridge, because it is not reliable, it
is not predictable. So the only way you address it is to build
in capacity.
So, I would just, you know, want to emphasize that we are
trying to remove barriers to access, both physical and in
tolls. You know, when you look at, you know, the situation with
the Peace Bridge, a lot of the tolls are used to support their
debt service, which will be necessary to build and expand the
plaza to promote the efficient flow of traffic between the
United States and Canada.
So, this is something that obviously would be of concern.
Because my sense is that it would be a new agency-imposed toll
in addition to the bridge management tolls that are already in
place.
So, I just wanted to emphasize that to you. I appreciate
all of your help in helping us address the issues of the
Northern Border generally, and the Peace Bridge connecting
Buffalo and Southern Ontario, in particular.
I yield back.
Mr. Meehan. Thank the gentleman from New York.
Now turn to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Madam Secretary, thank you for your service.
Thanks for what has been, I think for you, probably a long
hearing. I am sympathetic because you don't know the line of
questioning, and it can kind of come anywhere. It requires you
to be an expert on nearly everything, and that is a great
challenge, I know, with the tremendous responsibilities that
you have.
I do have a couple things I would like to ask you quickly,
if I could.
Secretary Napolitano. Sure.
Mr. Stewart. As a former Air Force pilot, like most
military officers, I am fairly comfortable with handling a
weapon, whether it is a weapon system like I flew or, you know,
a .9 millimeter handgun. I think that there is something to the
idea of self-protection. After 9/11, I think that is
particularly true in the cockpit, of course.
I am sure you are familiar with the FFDO--the Federal
Flight Deck Officer program.
Secretary Napolitano. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Stewart. You know, it has been in place for, I guess, 7
or 8 years, and I think it has been quite effective in training
a large number of pilots to carry handguns in the cockpit with
them in order to protect themselves and, of course, their
passengers.
Yet, I--it is my understanding that that program has been
entirely defunded in its late--latest budget request. I--and
that troubles me. I am wondering if you could just help me
understand your reasoning for not continuing funding for what I
think is very effective, and really, quite cost-effective
program.
Secretary Napolitano. I think two things, Congressman.
No. 1 is: We have offered FFDO training if the airlines
want to pay for it. The question is: Should the taxpayer pay
for it?
So if the air carriers want to pay for it, we are open to
that.
The second thing is that it is not a risk-based program.
So, in contrast to FAMS--air marshals, where we really look at
flights and risk and where we have concerns before we make an
assignment for FAM, FFDOs are happenstance. If a qualified FFDO
happens to be on a flight, so be it. Because we are moving to a
risk-based approach, FFDO didn't pass muster.
Mr. Stewart. You know, and I can accept that explanation if
you deem that this is not the highest priority. But the one
that I really have trouble with is this idea that the airlines
would be--you know, the burden of pay--paying for that would be
placed upon them because you could make that argument for any
of our security arrangements or costs. You know, that we could
defer some of those costs to essentially the customers or the
client, and, of course, we don't do that.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, we do. Cybersecurity is a great
example of where, in--because industry didn't want to be----
Mr. Stewart. Right.
Secretary Napolitano [continuing]. And mandated, they--we
are now involved in a public and voluntary process with them,
but they will have to pay for----
Mr. Stewart. Right.
Secretary Napolitano [continuing]. Security.
Mr. Stewart. I understand there are examples of that, of
course. But, you know, I think the preponderance of it is, this
is a Federal responsibility. It is a Governmental
responsibility, and therefore, the Government is going to pay
for that.
Let me shift, if I could, for just a moment, on an
unrelated, but, I think, still important topic. That is the--I
used to president of an environmental group. We worked with
many different agencies and groups that had interest in that.
One of the things that I became aware of that during that
time was that there are examples, in the Southwest,
particularly, where environmental concerns seem to outweigh the
concerns of border security. There are areas where agents are
limited in what they can do and how they can control because
of, you know, the desire to protect species or habitat.
It seems to me that that opens the door for incursions. I
am wondering if you could just comment on that policy, whether
you think that is a good idea, and whether you would continue
to support that.
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think--actually, we have a
very good MOU with the Department of the Interior on that. As
you know, there are a number of Federal protected lands along
that border, as well as Indian country. We have a very good MOU
with Interior as to those lands. So we are able to patrol. We
are able to do pursuit on those lands without having to stop
and ask for permission and the like.
So, I think from an operational standpoint, we have dealt
with the issues, but with--you know, cognizant of the fact that
there are protected lands in that arena.
Mr. Stewart. Well, and, of course, none of us want to
endanger species. But, on the other hand, there is a certain
priority here that I think many of us would say, ``What is the
greater risk? What is the greater danger?'' I can tell you,
having spoken with them, there is some frustration. Maybe even
more than some, but maybe in some cases, a great deal of
frustration with some of the agents, and their relationship,
and how they feel like they have been constrained because of
those environmental concerns.
My time is up, madam. Thank you for your time today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Meehan. I thank the gentleman from Utah.
I thank the Secretary for your professionalism and
leadership, as you bring the Department of Homeland Security
through its first decade, and for your vision as you lay out
the plans for the next important decade, facing the many
challenges that we do.
As I had stated in my own questioning, I see you again as a
symbol of those who are on the front lines each and every day
in this protection of our homeland, and the resilience and
courage of those, particularly as we are seeing in Boston. We
thank all those on the front lines.
So, I want to thank the witness for her very valuable
testimony and the Members for their questions.
The Members of the committee may have some additional
questions for the Secretary, and we will ask you to respond to
those in writing if they are submitted.
So, pursuant to the committee rule 7E, the hearing record
will be held open for 10 days.
Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Honorable Jeff Duncan for Janet Napolitano
Question 1. DHS has asked for almost double the amount of funding
for St. Elizabeths from fiscal year 2012 to begin construction of the
Center Complex Building, including the Secretary's office. Do you feel
it's appropriate that the Secretary's office is one of the top
construction priorities for the $4 billion St. E's campus in light of
other important items? Did DHS consider increasing priority for
operation centers that will be moving to the campus? Would it have cost
taxpayers less if the headquarters had not been on a National historic
area?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. You said before House Appropriations that St.
Elizabeths is a consolidation effort that could save costs in the long
run. My understanding, from our Oversight Subcommittee visit in March,
is that except for Coast Guard and FEMA headquarters, only primarily
the component leadership will be moved to the campus. Couldn't this
have a detrimental effect on component morale since their leaders will
no longer be seated in the same space as the normal staff?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Susan W. Brooks for Janet Napolitano
Question 1. Current grants provided to States, urban areas, ports,
and transit authorities require projects to have a nexus to the
prevention of, preparedness for, response to, mitigation of, and
recovery from acts of terrorism. However, the National Preparedness
Grant Program proposal seems to step away from that terrorism focus for
a more ``all hazards'' approach. As you well know, and as Boston
Marathon attack illustrates, the threat of terrorism has not receded.
How will the NPGP ensure that grant funding is allocated to those areas
at the greatest risk of attack?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. Under the NPGP how would urban areas, ports, and
transit agencies, fusion centers, and non-profits receive funding in
the proposed NPGP?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. For the first time, a peer review process is proposed
to evaluate grant applications. Who will be involved in the review
panels and how the process will work?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4. How will the process ensure that projects that are
identified as a high priority of a State or locality in their THIRA,
which may not be as high a priority for FEMA, will be given adequate
weight during the review process?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5. The NPGP proposal would eliminate the PSGP grant
program as a stand-alone program and would require port areas to apply
to the State for funding. How would the NPGP proposal account for port
areas that cover multiple States? How would we continue to ensure
coordinated investments in these port areas, rather than stove-piped
investments in these areas by the State in which they reside?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6. When I served as U.S. Attorney General for the Southern
District of Indiana, I very proudly helped establish the Indiana
Intelligence Fusion Center. I recently had the opportunity to visit it
again as a Member of Congress. I was then, and I remain, a firm
believer in the value of both individual fusion centers and the
National Network of Fusion Centers. Fusion centers are a vital partner
in the vast National homeland security mission space including, in many
cases, a partner in emergency response and recovery efforts. We're
already hearing stories coming out of Massachusetts of the great work
being done by its fusion centers in the aftermath of the attack in
Boston this week. Does the new NPGP continue to prioritize fusion
centers and law enforcement prevention efforts as it has in the past?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 7. The budget proposes to eliminate the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium (NDPC) and instead fund a new $60 million
competitive Training Partnership Grant Program. The NDPC has been
providing training to first responders since 1998 and has curricula and
facilities in place. The budget anticipates that new recipients of
training funds will receive multi-year funding for curricula
development. Considering that there are current programs with robust
training curricula already in place, do you believe a reduced amount of
training opportunities will be available to first responders in fiscal
year 2013 if grant recipients are developing curricula for the first
time?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 8. President's fiscal year 2014 budget request again
proposes to eliminate funding for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)
program within FEMA. According to the budget documents, FEMA does not
believe this elimination will impact FEMA's mitigation efforts due to
duplication with other FEMA grant programs, including the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). During last year's appropriations
cycle, there was bicameral, bipartisan opposition to eliminating the
PDM. In a study conducted by the Multihazard Mitigation Council, it was
found that for every $1 paid towards mitigation, an average of $4 is
saved in future recovery costs. Are there any other mitigation-related
grants or programs that FEMA administers to assist States and local
governments, universities, and communities with mitigation-related
projects prior to a disaster?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 9. For fiscal year 2013, Congress appropriated $44 million
for the United States Fire Administration (USFA), or approximately $42
million after the mandated rescissions. The administration's budget
proposal for fiscal year 2014 requests $41.306 million for USFA. Among
the savings outlined in the budget submission, the administration plans
to eliminate 18 courses at the National Fire Academy (NFA),
discontinuing Wildland/Urban Interface-Fire Adapted Communities and
reducing support to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group, and
``transferring'' the State Fire Training Assistance Grant Program to
the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. As you know, part of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-
239), reauthorized USFA through 2017. Included in this law were
instructions for the U.S. Fire Administrator to ``conduct a study on
the level of compliance with National voluntary consensus standards for
staffing, training, safe operations, personal protective equipment, and
fitness among the fire services of the United States.'' Additionally,
that same law charged the Secretary of Homeland Security with
establishing the Task Force to Enhance Firefighter Safety. With the
administration requesting a reduction in USFA's budget, I am concerned
with the agency's ability to complete the study mandated by Congress
and the ability of the Secretary of Homeland Security to convene the
Task Force. Additionally, USFA is charged with providing ``National
leadership to foster a solid foundation for our fire and emergency
services stakeholders in prevention, preparedness, and response.'' How
can USFA provide leadership if it is eliminating courses at the
National Fire Academy and reducing support for the National Wildfire
Coordinating Group?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 10. Additionally, the administration's proposal to shift
the State Fire Training Assistance Grant Program from the National Fire
Academy to FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate, as part of the Assistance
to Firefighters Grant Program, has caused some concern among
stakeholders. In 2012, Congress reauthorized the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program and made State fire training academies
eligible applicants for the grants--but only for apparatus, equipment,
and personal protective equipment. The administration's proposal
essential eliminates funding for the training of firefighters. It is
estimated that the elimination of the State Fire Training Assistance
Grant Program will result in approximately 45,000 less students trained
per year. The amount of funding per State under this program is
approximately $26,000. It is an extraordinarily efficient and low-cost
training initiative. Can you address each of these concerns and explain
how the USFA will continue to meet its mission with a reduced budget?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Scott Perry for Janet Napolitano
Question 1. Madame Secretary, you continuously state that the
border is more secure than ever; however, the Department has yet to
produce a successful border security metric and has inflated its
deportation statistics since 2007 by including ``voluntary removals''.
Individuals may voluntarily be removed numerous times, with each case
included in your record. How do you expect Congress to appropriate
funds adequately to your Department without knowing Custom and Border
Patrol's overall effectiveness rate?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. How do we move forward on comprehensive immigration
reform without a legitimate understanding of the degree to which our
borders are secure?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. Do you believe that an increase in the use of unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs)--like ``Vader''--could give us a better
understanding as to the efficiency of Custom and Border Patrol and aid
in the prevention of illegal immigrants crossing our border?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Janet Napolitano
Question 1. Madam Secretary, at the hearing, we discussed a report
published by the Office of the Inspector General that indicated that
the Department had spent $430 million on developing interoperable
communications capabilities, but had failed to achieve cross-component
interoperability (OIG-13-06). The problem was not technology; the
problem was management and training. What are you doing to ensure
interoperability within the Department?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. What entity within the Department is responsible for
ensuring cross-component interoperability and enforcing Department
interoperable communications policies?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. It is my understanding that the Department has expanded
CBP preclearance operations to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.
In what I believe to be an unprecedented arrangement, the cost of CBP
officers and staff for the preclearance location will be paid by a
foreign entity. Abu Dhabi has a relatively low volume of travelers to
the United States, with only three flights per day, and other locations
have a higher number of travelers of potential concern from a security
perspective. Given the limited number of personnel, please explain how
deploying CBP officers to Abu Dhabi makes sense from a risk-based
perspective.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4a. Should we be concerned about a foreign government or
entity paying for our security operations?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4b. What risks are associated with such an arrangement?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5. The budget proposes an increase of $77.4 million for
integrated fixed towers (IFTs) to provide surveillance technology along
the highest-trafficked areas of the Southwest Border in Arizona. The
committee has long conducted oversight of the Department's efforts to
deploy security technology to our Nation's Southwest Border, most
recently in the largely failed SBInet program. CBP's efforts to deploy
IFTs to Arizona have been delayed, and there is growing concern that
the project may suffer from similar issues that plagued its
predecessors. What can you tell us about the current status of CBP's
efforts to deploy IFTs and other technology to the Arizona border? What
is the current time line for deployment of the IFTs? Can you assure us
the initiative will not be further delayed?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6a. The budget requests $37.4 million to provide for the
continuation of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) program,
which is currently operated by the Department of Defense, under CBP.
The TARS program provides air surveillance in support of DHS's counter-
narcotics mission through the deployment of tethered aerostats at sites
along the Southwest Border and certain coastal areas. Some have
expressed concern that it may cost DHS significantly more than it did
DoD to operate the program, and note that not all of the TARS sites are
currently operational and utilize older technology and equipment that
is difficult and costly to repair or replace. What benefits do the TARS
provide to CBP operations that cannot be provided through other means?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6b. Do those benefits justify the cost of the program?
Please elaborate.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 7. Are there currently negotiations or plans to expand
eligibility for the Global Entry Program or any other trusted traveler
program to nationals from any country not in the program?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 8. The budget proposes to reduce the number of immigration
detention beds from 34,000 to 31,800, while increasing the Alternatives
to Detention program. Can you assure us that this number of beds would
be sufficient for ICE to detain criminal aliens and other priority and
mandatory detainees, while utilizing lower-cost alternatives to
detention only for low-risk detainees who are most likely to appear for
immigration proceedings? Please explain.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 9. ICE recently received a great deal of criticism for
releasing from detention a significant number of detainees, including a
handful of Level 1 criminal violators, ostensibly due to budget
concerns. It seems that ICE had been detaining, on average, more than
34,000 individuals per day and needed to bring that number in line with
the authorized number of beds. If ICE cannot adequately manage its
detainee population when the agency is funded for 34,000 beds, how can
we expect it to do so with only 31,800 beds?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 10. Under this budget proposal, what assurances can you
provide that no priority or mandatory detainees, including Level 1
criminal aliens, would be put in an alternative to detention rather
than being detained?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 11. The President's fiscal year 2014 budget proposes a
savings of over $88 million and a reduction of roughly 1,500
Transportation Security Officers by transitioning responsibility for
staffing exit lanes from TSA to airports. As justification for this
transition, the administration has argued that staffing exit lanes is
not a screening function, but rather, falls under the purview of access
control, which is the responsibility of the airport operator. When was
the determination made that staffing exit lanes is an access control
function and thus the responsibility of the airport operator?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 12. Did the Department engage in formal consultation with
airport operators and the exclusive representative for TSOs regarding
the decision to remove TSA personnel from exit lanes as a cost-savings
measure prior to the budget being released?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 13. Was there a risk assessment done on this change and
its implications for perimeter security?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 14. In section 1615 of the ``Implementing 9/11 Commission
Act of 2007,'' Congress mandated that a law enforcement biometric
credential be established to ensure that law enforcement officers
(LEOs) needing to be armed when traveling by commercial aircraft would
be verified and validated as authorized to do so. It is my
understanding that TSA screening efforts of flying LEOs today is
currently carried out by a TSO in the exit lane. How does this proposal
to transfer exit lane staffing to airports impact this statute?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 15. Has TSA established a program using biometric
information to track armed LEOs when flying commercial aircraft?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 16. The fiscal year 2014 Congressional Justification for
TSA's aviation security functions states that over $11 million will be
saved in fiscal year 2014 due to TSA reducing all non-essential travel
by 50 percent.Why would you only reduce non-essential travel by 50
percent rather than eliminating it all together?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 17. According to data provided by TSA, the cost of using
contract screeners for passenger and baggage screening at domestic
commercial airports is consistently higher than if the screening was
conducted by the Federal workforce. Indeed, it cost 46 percent more to
use contract screeners at Rochester International Airport in 2012,
according the numbers provided to the committee by TSA. At what point,
in these tight budgetary times, is the cost of using contract screeners
deemed detrimental to the cost efficiency of conducting screening
operations?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 18. Secretary Napolitano, the President's budget proposes
a restructuring of the September 11 Passenger Security Fee. In short,
it proposes to replace the current fee structure with a structure that
is expected to increase collections by an estimated $25.9 billion over
10 years. Of this amount, $7.9 billion will be applied to increase
offsets to the discretionary costs of aviation security and the
remaining $18 billion will be treated as mandatory savings and
deposited in the general fund for deficit reduction. Can you please
elaborate as to why you would have the American public foot the bill on
deficit reduction instead of streamlining other expenses at TSA?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 19a. What types of programs and discretionary costs are
covered under this fee?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 19b. Can you please provide us with a specific security
benefit supported from this fund?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 20. Secretary Napolitano, the President's budget requests
that $4.4 million be allocated for use by TSA to continue its
assessment of pipeline security efforts. According to the proposal, TSA
evaluates the physical security of 90-100 pipeline facilities and
conducts 12-15 Corporate Security Reviews of the top 100 natural gas
and hazardous liquid transmission pipelines and natural gas
distribution systems within the United States. Who conducts these
pipeline assessments and the Corporate Security Reviews?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 21. Is it a Transportation Security Inspector or does the
Department use a subcontractor for this activity?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 22. In December 2012, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) issued a report raising serious concerns regarding TSA's
oversight and enforcement of its 2008 incident reporting regulation.
The report indicated that there were several inconsistencies with the
data collected by stakeholders and that TSA did not offer clear and
consistent guidance on what should be reported. The President's budget
requests $22 million be allocated for the operational support of the
Transportation Security Operations Center, which correlates and
integrates real-time intelligence and operational information, ensuring
unity of action in the prevention of, and response to, terrorist-
related incidents across transportation modes. Without proper
administration and guidelines, however, I am concerned that the TSOC
will not achieve its full potential.
What steps has TSA taken to develop a uniformed interpretation of
the regulation's reporting requirements for rail and surface
transportation operators?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 23. How is TSA making sure that local TSA inspection
officials have provided rail agencies with adequate guidance on what
TSA needs from operators?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 24. Has TSA standardized a definition for all rail
stakeholders on what constitutes a ``nexus to terrorism''?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 25. What does TSA believe would include incidents that
should be reported to TSOC by rail operators and owners?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 26. The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Coast
Guard provides the agency with much-needed funding to replace aging
assets, but I want to ensure that there is no gap in security or
available personnel during this period of transition. Please explain
the extent to which Coast Guard decommissionings are being coordinated
with new assets coming on-line.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 27. What, if any, are the operational and response
capacity implications of these decommissionings?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 28. This committee has a long-established history of
oversight and support of the National Security Cutters. The fiscal year
2014 budget requests $616 million to complete construction of the
seventh National Security Cutter. However, no funding is requested for
Long Lead Time Materials building materials for the eighth National
Security Cutter. I am concerned that the lack of funding will delay the
production of the eighth National Security Cutter and increase costs.
Please explain why this request makes no requests for future purchases
related to the eighth National Security Cutter.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 29. The original Coast Guard recapitalization plan called
for eight National Security Cutters. Will Coast Guard still seek to
build an eighth National Security Cutter?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 30. The fiscal year 2014 request proposes to cut the size
of the Coast Guard's workforce by 931 positions. This includes a
reduction of 850 service members and 81 civilians. While I understand
that most of these reductions represent a decline in positions
associated with decommissioning assets and the closings and or
consolidation of facilities, headquarters, and the Coast Guard Academy,
I have concerns that Coast Guard may be losing years of investment in
training, service, and institutional knowledge. How will Coast Guard
ensure that personnel capabilities remain intact if their workforce is
reduced by 931 positions?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 31. Will this personnel reduction take place through
attrition or other means? Please explain.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 32. Madam Secretary, the Best Places to Work in the
Federal Government survey breaks down numerous categories and ranks
Federal agencies against like-sized Departments to determine where each
agency stands. One such category is Senior Leaders. According to the
survey, this ``measures the level of respect employees have for senior
leaders, satisfaction with the amount of information provided by
management, and perceptions about senior leaders' honesty, integrity,
and ability to motivate employees.'' When compared against other large
agencies, the Department only scored 41.4 out of 100 and ranked last at
number 19 out of 19. This indicates that any attempt to improve morale
and performance must start with changes from the top down.
As the head of the Department, how do you plan on addressing this,
either real or perceived, problem with senior leaders at DHS?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 33. Madam Secretary, this year, DHS is required to submit
its second Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) to Congress.
Presumably, plans are already underway in preparation for the
submission. To what extent, if any, did the Department's leadership
coordinate with the QHSR team to ensure that the current budget
reflects the priorities that will be set forth in the QHSR?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 34. Madam Secretary, in August, the U.S. Coast Guard will
be the first component to move to DHS headquarters at St. Elizabeths.
If the Headquarters Consolidation project had remained on schedule it
would be much further along. The total project completion date is now
estimated at 2021, and even that is fluid. Funding delays have added an
estimated $500 million to the cost, which has now ballooned to $3.9
billion. The fiscal year 2014 budget request for St. Elizabeths is
$92.7 million. How will the current request, along with GSA's funding,
position DHS to stay on its current schedule and move forward with this
important endeavor?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 35. Please explain how the headquarters consolidation
project will aid DHS in fulfilling its mission.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 36. If DHS does not receive the fiscal year 2014 request,
what impact will that have on the project?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 37. Madam Secretary, the budget includes a request for
$54.2 million to fully complete the consolidation of DHS's 24 data
centers to two enterprise-wide locations, led by the Office of the
Chief Information Officer. What is the current status of the
consolidation effort and when do you expect its completion, based on
the current request?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 38. According to the CFO, DHS the consolidation of 10 of
the 24 data centers has resulted in a savings of 14%, which is equal to
$17.4 million in savings annually. Once the project is closed out--
which this request aims to do--how much do you estimate saving on an
annual basis?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 39. Madam Secretary, DHS is estimating that it will save
$1.3 billion in fiscal year 2014 from management-related areas.
Although I applaud this effort, how will this effort, combined with
sequester-related cuts, impact operations?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 40. Madam Secretary, for far too long DHS has relied on an
extraordinary number of contractors to fulfill it homeland security
missions. This has resulted in a lack of institutional knowledge at
DHS, in addition to waste and abuse resulting from a lack of proper
contracting oversight. DHS recently began implementing the Balancing
Workforce Strategy (BWS), which will be used to ``right-size'' the
number of Federal employees and contractors at DHS and reduce DHS'
overreliance on outside contractors. The budget contains a request for
funding and personnel to staff this effort. How will the Department use
the requested funds and personnel to implement the BWS program?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 41. It would be extremely counterproductive for the
Department to use contractors to determine whether it is over-relying
on contractors. Does the Department plan to staff this effort with
Federal employees, and to what extent, if any, will contractors be used
in the BWS effort?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 42a. Madam Secretary, in early March the Department's
Chief Procurement Officer sent a notice to the Department's contractors
advising that sequestration may result in both planned and existing
procurements being cancelled, reduced in scope, terminated, or
partially terminated.
Did the Department have to take this step?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 42b. If so, how many contracts were cancelled and at what
dollar amount?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 43. What steps, if any, were taken to ensure that small
and minority-owned businesses were not disproportionately harmed?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 44. The fiscal year 2012 Congressional Justification
states that Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will begin training
efforts for Countering Violent Extremism. Please give us an update on
this effort.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 45. In an effort to address its acquisition workforce
needs, the Department's fiscal year 2012 budget request included $24.2
million for an acquisition workforce initiative. However, the House
Committee on Appropriations declined to provide funding for the
initiative, stating that the information it received from DHS was
insufficient to enable the committee to understand the basis for the
proposed increase. The fiscal year 2014 budget, however, includes a
decrease of $14.16 million from the fiscal year 2012 base due to
reductions that include scaled back of in-residence course offerings
and acquisition workforce programs. Given the need expressed in the
last budget and the Department-wide benefit that would be result in an
increased acquisition workforce, this appears to be a step in the wrong
direction. Why did DHS take this course?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 46. What resources does the Department of Homeland
Security have to train State and locals to detect and prevent the
detonation of improvised explosive devices (IED)? What resources have
you sent to communities through your grants programs to work with
preparedness in the event these bombs are detonated?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 47. Has any of that funding been reduced?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 48. Defending our homeland relies on effective information
sharing between various intelligence agencies and also from our
international partners. Since 9/11 how has information sharing improved
amongst the intelligence community and where is there significant room
for improvement?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 49. How can DHS improve intelligence sharing with foreign
countries in order to ensure that terrorists are not permitted to board
a flight to the United States?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 50. How effective has the United States been in ensuring
that foreign countries share vital intelligence and implement crucial
security measures at their ports and borders?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 51a. In an interview with CNN, President Obama stated that
``the biggest concern we have right now is not the launching of a major
terrorist operation, although that risk is always there, the risk that
we're especially concerned over right now is the lone-wolf terrorist,
somebody with a single weapon being able to carry out wide-scale
massacres of the sort that we saw in Norway recently.'' Do you agree
with the President?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 51b. Is there anything DHS is doing to prevent these types
of lone-wolf attacks?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 52. We have seen a rise of domestic terrorism incidents
throughout the country, marked most recently by the events during the
Boston Marathon. Earlier this year, several public servants throughout
the country have been targeted and killed by people that are presumed
to be affiliated with white supremacy. What is DHS doing to help State
and local officials identify and prevent domestic terrorism?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 53. This week there have been incidents of letters
containing suspicious powders, including ricin, addressed to a United
States Senator and the President of the United States. We know that the
FBI will be taking the lead on the investigation involving these
letters. However, I believe that DHS has a role in preventing attacks
such as these. Please tell us how DHS is involved in the prevention of
biological attacks. Additionally, if any of these programs are
receiving budget cuts, please let us know.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 54. Last Congress, this committee held hearings on weapons
of mass destruction, which include attacks from biological agents. One
of our witnesses, a former WMD Commissioner, testified that the United
States still lacks preparedness for an attack such as these. The
Commissioner cited that State and local authorities were not equipped
to handle preparedness or response to an attack. Madam Secretary, given
the cuts to State and local preparedness from the Department of
Homeland Security grants program, do you think that jurisdictions can
ever be adequately prepared from an attack from a biological agent or
other weapon of mass destruction?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 55. There have been conflicting reports about the
explosive devices that were found at the scene in Boston. Could you
explain in detail what you know about the devices so far?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 56. DHS has a bomb detection capability. Has DHS been
involved in trying to preserve shrapnel for the investigatory process?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 57a. It has been widely reported that DHS' Intelligence
and Analysis circulated a bulletin back in 2004 warning local law
enforcement that pressure cookers could be used to develop an
improvised explosive device (IED). Could you provide more background on
that document?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 57b. To whom are these disseminated?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 57c. Have officials found these helpful?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 57d. As we face budget cuts, do releases such as these
face danger of being reduced?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 58. Recent increases in apprehensions in other areas along
the Southwest Border, specifically south Texas, indicate that area may
benefit from additional technology. What is being done to send
technology and other assets to this increasingly active area of the
border?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 59. In 2012, this subcommittee and both House and Senate
Appropriations Committees rejected the National Preparedness Grant
Program (NPGP) proposal for fiscal year 2013, because the proposed
program had not been authorized by Congress, lacked sufficient details
regarding its implementation, and lacked sufficient stakeholder
participation in its development.
Please inform us of the Department/FEMA's stakeholder outreach
methods regarding the current fiscal year 2014 NPGP proposal.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 60. Which stakeholder organizations were involved in this
process?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 61. The goods, services, and jobs from each seaport are
relied upon by an average of 15 States across the country. By
eliminating the Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) at the Federal level
and giving the particular State in which a seaport happens to reside
the sole discretion, based on its own State-created THIRA, on how
funding for its security is to be allocated, how can we be certain that
the other States' reliance on that port is not unduly harmed?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 62. Currently, the Coast Guard Captains of the Port play a
key role in prioritizing projects submitted for funding under Port
Security Grant Program (PSGP).
What role will they play in the proposed National Preparedness
Grant Program (NPGP) program?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 63. Unlike the other Homeland Security Grant Programs, the
Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) funds commercial entities, marine
terminal operators, to support the Federally-mandated MTSA and the SAFE
Port Acts. Are the State Administrative Agencies' (SAA) prepared to
deal with these issues?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 64. In the past, funding for State and local grants
programs have been cut considerably in addition to funding cuts for
port security grants. Is this program going to be funded at an
accumulated level that is as low as funding has been for these programs
in the past, and if so, how do you expect ports to compete with other
entities vying for grants in an environment with such little funding to
go around?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 65. The ``Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act'' established a segregated public transportation
security assistance grant program now known as the Transit Security
Grant Program (TSGP). As you know, under TSGP eligible transit agencies
can directly apply for and receive funding from DHS and under the NPGP
proposal transit agencies are not eligible applicants and must include
their funding requests ``along with'' State Administrative Agency (SAA)
funding applications. Do SAA's have the final say on whether or not a
transit agency's individual application is included ``along with'' a
State's larger funding application?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 66. Do you believe that at present, there is NOT
sufficient interaction between transit agencies and local and State
agencies re: planning, etc.?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 67. Do you believe that transit agencies are best able to
determine and prioritize their own security needs?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 68. DHS has struggled to compete with the private sector
and other Federal agencies in attracting a skilled cyber workforce.
What effect do you anticipate the reduction of cyber vacancies and
budget cuts in general having on DHS's ability to attract and retain
qualified candidates to work within DHS's cyber workforce?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 69. Madam Secretary, the President's budget requests $17.4
million dollars to purchase commercial cyber threat information. I
think the average citizen would wonder why the mighty Federal
Government, with all of its access to intelligence, would need to be
purchasing commercial cybersecurity products. Can you explain to us why
this is necessary?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 70a. The budget requests $197 million dollars for
EINSTEIN-3A, which will leverage commercial internet service providers
to more quickly extend intrusion prevention coverage to Federal
Government agencies. Can you give us an update of how many of our
Federal agencies are currently covered by EINSTEIN-2, the previous
iteration, and how many are currently covered by EINSTEIN-3?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 70b. What is the path forward to full coverage of the
Federal Government?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 71. The President's budget requests $168 million for the
continuous diagnostics program, which is DHS's operations to implement
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) compliance across
the Federal Government. This funding will enable DHS to develop a suite
of programs that will be deployed at Federal agencies to provide DHS
with an almost real-time capability to monitor what safeguards are in
place to protect the .gov. The budget request is light on
implementation details, however, and a workable time line. As of now,
what is the time line for implementing this program?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 72a. Both the recent Executive Order, and current and
future legislation, are expected to increase DHS' cyber information
sharing with State, local, international, and private-sector partners.
How does the budget request reflect the Executive Order's new
initiatives with respect to DHS, including the greatly expanded
Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program and the development of the
Cybersecurity Framework?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 72b. Does DHS have the resources it needs to fulfill its
new responsibilities?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 73. In late December 2011, a news outlet obtained a leaked
copy of an internal memo evaluating the Chemical Facility Anti-
Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program. When we finally saw it here at the
committee, we found it to be a frank assessment of the program's
shortfalls and helped our understanding of why there has not been more
progress in this program. The memo identified a number of human
resources, technical, and organizational challenges that have impeded
the program. The process of approving site security plans has been
taking longer than anyone would have expected, and GAO in its recent
report suggests that it could take another 7-9 years to complete. That
GAO report, and another from the DHS Office of Inspector General,
brings to light even more disturbing issues involving questions about
the risk analysis processes involved in the program, and other sober
conditions that point to problems with the capability of the program to
achieve any of its goals and core mission. Do you anticipate the CFATS
program to be fully implemented in fiscal year 2014? Specifically, when
do you anticipate CFATS moving into its compliance phase?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 74. At this time, what are your expectations for this
important program?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 75. Do you anticipate needing more resources for the
inspector workforce to conduct compliance in fiscal year 2014?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 76a. The fiscal year 2014 budget reflects a funding cut in
the on-line reporting system (CSAT) used to submit CFATS information.
Does this account reflect the development of the ammonium nitrate
sales, registration and verification process, and field enforcement?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 76b. If so, what is the allocation to each process?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 76c. Is DHS proceeding under the assumption that the sales
registration and verification process will proceed as stated in the
ammonium nitrate rule that will be published by the end of this year or
has another process been contemplated?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 77. It is well documented that ammonium nitrate has been
exploited by terrorists to create improvised explosive devices to
deadly effect. This committee has worked diligently, over the years on
legislation authorizing the program and has actively tracked the
progress of this rulemaking, and the Department published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on August 3, 2011. I know that during the comment
period you heard from a lot of people--particularly in the
agricultural, explosives, and mining sectors--about some potential
unintended consequences and harmful impacts of aspects of the proposed
rule.
Can you give us an update on the status today?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 78. When do you expect to finalize the rule?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 79. The same division that oversees the Chemical Facility
Anti-Terrorism Standards Act is responsible for this program. Can you
tell us how you intend to ensure that this division issues and
implements a final rule, given CFATS' other current distractions and
shortcomings?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 80. The President's fiscal year 2013 request contained no
funding at all for the construction of the National Bio and Agro-
Defense Facility (NBAF) to be built in Kansas. This year, the
administration is requesting full funding for construction of NBAF in 1
year, $714 million. Given the condition and continued deterioration of
the Plum Island laboratory, and the need to have a Level 4 agricultural
laboratory in the United States even more necessary, please explain
your reasoning for requesting full construction monies in 1 budgetary
year?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 81. How do you intend to proceed on NBAF construction, and
what are your time lines for completion?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 82. Madam Secretary, there are some discussions about the
advisability of merging the BioWatch responsibilities of the Office of
Health Affairs with DNDO to form what would essentially be a Weapons of
Mass Destruction division or directorate within DHS. The idea is based
on combining the technological R&D and acquisition needs of advanced
sensor technologies for CBRN--chemical, biological, radiological, and
nuclear detection--into one concerted program. I personally think we
need to examine this policy question with a meaningful and deliberate
hearing process. What are your preliminary thoughts on such a merger
involving the Office of Health Affairs BioWatch program and DNDO?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question From Honorable Loretta Sanchez for Janet Napolitano
Question. At the hearing, we discussed the new production path for
Coast Guard's fast response cutter. Please submit the new production
plan to the committee for our review.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee for Janet Napolitano
Question 1. At the hearing, we discussed the Department's role in
the response to the chemical facility explosion in West, Texas on April
17, 2013. What resources was the Department able to deploy to the area?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. We also discussed the public outcry regarding
Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) decision earlier this
year to allow certain knives and sports equipment in the passenger
cabin of airplanes. You noted that you would work with the TSA
administrator to improve stakeholder outreach in advance of changes in
TSA's prohibited items list. How will you ensure that relevant
stakeholders are consulted and involved in decisions regarding changes
to the prohibited items list and other security policies?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Yvette D. Clarke for Janet Napolitano
Question 1a. As we discussed at the hearing, although I am
supportive of the enhancements to the DHS cybersecurity mission for
core programs, such as EINSTEIN, I have been concerned that DHS appears
to be placing a lower priority on key ``defense-in-depth'' strategies
such as public outreach, education, and workforce development. You
indicated a willingness to work with me to ensure that proper resources
are allocated to public outreach, workforce development, and education.
Given the relative low cost of these endeavors, how do you justify
these cuts?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1b. Is there no way to slightly decrease funding for the
top-priority programs to fully fund education?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. The President's budget requests more than $27 million
for the creation of the Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis to
synthesize the analytic efforts of the Office of Infrastructure
Protection and the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications. Can you
talk about why you need this new office and how soon you think the
Office will be fully operational?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question From Honorable Brian Higgins for Janet Napolitano
Question. I expressed my concern regarding an item in the fiscal
year 2014 budget request which would ``study the feasibility and cost
related to imposing a crossing fee on pedestrians and passenger
vehicles along the northern and southwestern borders.'' Such an
increase could devastate commerce along the Northern Border, and
particularly in the Buffalo-Niagara region which is already struggling
to rebuild its economy. Please provide any and all materials associated
with this proposal.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question From Honorable Ron Barber for Janet Napolitano
Question. At the hearing, we discussed the effect of sequestration
and the fiscal year 2013 spending bill on Border Patrol Agents. There
remains significant uncertainty among the Border Patrol Agents in my
district regarding how their employment and compensation will be
impacted. When will the Department give Border Patrol Agents concrete
information about how sequestration and the fiscal year 2013 spending
bill will affect their employment, overtime, and income?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr. for Janet Napolitano
Question 1. As we all saw following the Boston Marathon attack, the
efforts of first responders and State and local authorities were
integral in saving lives and stabilizing the area. The last
appropriations for Homeland Security significantly cut grants to State
and local governments, transportation security, as well as other
Department areas. Further cuts are now imposed due to sequestration.
Are you concerned that the sequester and cuts to grants to State
and locals inhibit our ability to detect and deter possible threats to
the homeland?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2a. What resources does DHS have to train State and locals
to detect and prevent the detonation of improvised explosive devices
(IED)?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2b. What resources have you sent to communities through
your grants programs to work with preparedness in the event these bombs
are detonated?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2c. And has any of that funding been reduced?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. We now have almost a decade of spending money in the
homeland security arena. I have heard from many in my district that
having the tools and resources is not the problem, but the necessary
manpower and training is the problem.
Since you have been Secretary, what have you learned about what
spending works and what does not work?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4. As you continue through the sequester, what areas of
homeland security funding have been most successful, and what programs
can be cut without damaging our homeland security?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5a. Secretary Napolitano, Newark Liberty International
Airport is one of the main engines for economic growth in my District
and in the entire region. In fact, I was just at the airport touring
the Customs and Border Patrol's inspection facility less than 2 weeks
ago, learning more about the work they do. The Customs officers do a
remarkable job, but they have a tough job, especially as a result of
budget constraints. Considering those problems, I was puzzled when I
learned that our Government is establishing a preclearance facility in
Abu Dhabi. Although I do wish to facilitate tourism and trade in my
district, I nevertheless have concerns regarding whether this is the
best use of our resources considering the relatively low volume of
travel from Abu Dhabi. Could you please explain how deploying our
already-limited CBP officers to Abu Dhabi makes sense considering the
present budget constraints being imposed on CBP. Should we be concerned
about a foreign government or entity paying for our security
operations?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5b. What risks are associated with this arrangement? This
matter is of great importance to me and my constituents. I have some
reservations about the plan considering the speed at which it is moving
and the lack of information so far. I look forward to learning more
about it in the weeks and months ahead.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6. My district sits directly across the river from New
York City and includes an airport, a sea port, rail lines, bus lines,
and chemical plants. As such, my district relies heavily on several of
the Department of Homeland Security's individual grants like UASI, the
Port Grant Program, and the Transit Security Grant Program. Therefore,
I am particularly concerned about DHS's proposal to consolidate 16
grant programs into a single National Preparedness Grant Program
(NPGP).
In the past, funding for State and local grants programs have been
cut considerably, so I am also concerned about a further reduction in
the funds available. How do you expect ports and transit that rely on
their specific grant program to compete with other entities vying for
grants in an environment with such little funding to go around?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 7. According to data provided by TSA, the cost of using
contract screeners for passenger and baggage screening at domestic
commercial airports is consistently higher than if the screening was
conducted by the Federal workforce. In some airports the cost is close
to even 40 or 50 percent more to use contract screeners. At what point,
in these tight budgetary times, is the cost of using contract screeners
deemed unfavorable to the cost efficiency of conducting overall
screening operations?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 8a. The administration's fiscal year 2014 budget proposes
a reduction in funding for VIPR teams that monitor and detect potential
terrorist threats across surface and mass transportation hubs. In light
of the events occurring in Boston is this wise?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 8b. And if there is a reduction in the number of VIPR
teams, will there be training to the front-line employees of public
transit agencies, rail carriers, and intercity bus carriers?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 9. At the hearing, we discussed the impact of grant
funding reductions on State-wide Interoperability Coordinators (SWIC),
noting that States have lost SWICs as Federal grant funding has become
unavailable. As we make significant investments in First Net, I am
concerned that interoperability capabilities we have developed over the
last decade and the capabilities we hope to achieve with First Net will
be undermined by the fact that States are losing their SWICs. What
steps is the Department taking to ensure that States without SWICs will
continue to maintain State-wide Communications Interoperability Plans?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 10. What resources and guidance will the Department
provide to States without SWICs who will be forced to designate another
individual--who will likely have primary responsibilities outside of
interoperable communications policy--to coordinate the State's
communications with FirstNet?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Beto O'Rourke for Janet Napolitano
Question 1a. At the hearing, we discussed my concerns about CBP
staffing levels. I noted that the administration's proposed budget
requests funding for 25,252 CBP officers, which includes an increase of
1,600 CBPOs funded by appropriations and up to 1,877 CBPOs funded by a
proposed increase to customs and immigration user fees. Adding CBP
officers is necessary to enhance security, facilitate legitimate trade
and travel, and reduce wait times at our ports of entry. Is this
proposed increase sufficient to fully meet the staffing needs
identified by CBP's fiscal year 2013 Report to Congress on Resource
Optimization at Ports of Entry?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1b. How would these officers be utilized? Please explain.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. I also noted that Members of this committee have
repeatedly requested a copy of CBP's staffing model, including staffing
information for each port, but that request has never been honored by
the Department. At the hearing, you agreed to provide a staffing model
to the committee. We anxiously await the transmission of that model.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.