U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

72–217 PDF 2012

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 3, 2011 

Serial No. 112–6 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

PETER T. KING, New York, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin Islands 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

VACANCY

MICHAEL J. RUSSELL, Staff Director/Chief Counsel 

KERRY ANN WATKINS, Senior Policy Director 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of New York, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security .................... 1 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 2 

The Honorable Blake Farenthold, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 4 

WITNESSES

Hon. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

APPENDIX

Questions From Chairman Peter T. King .............................................................. 47 

Questions From Honorable Blake Farenthold ....................................................... 52 

Questions From Honorable Laura Richardson ...................................................... 54 

(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Thursday, March 3, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:32 a.m., in Room 311, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Peter T. King [Chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives King, Lungren, Rogers, McCaul, Bilirakis, Miller, Walberg, Cravaack, Meehan, Quayle, Rigell, Long, 

Duncan, Farenthold, Brooks, Thompson, Sanchez, Jackson Lee, 

Cuellar, Clarke of New York, Richardson, Davis, Richmond, Clarke 

of Michigan, and Keating. 

Chairman KING [presiding]. The Committee on Homeland Security will come to order. 

The committee is meeting today to hear testimony from Secretary Janet Napolitano relating to the President’s fiscal year 2012 

budget request for the Department of Homeland Security. 

I would advise the Members that the Secretary’s office has notified us in advance that she has a commitment to be at the White 

House, and she must leave the hearing before noon. In fairness to 

the Secretary, she has rearranged her schedule to be here today, 

because we had to cancel out 2 weeks ago when we had a whole 

series of votes on the floor all day. 

So, Secretary, I want to thank you for adjusting your schedule 

for us. We will certainly have the hearing done in time for you to 

be at the White House. 

Today’s hearing is, as I said, to address the President’s budget 

for 2012. In a time of budget restraint and cuts have to be made, 

I actually commend the Secretary for putting forth a budget which 

I believe, while obviously we have certainly disagreements with it, 

is very much on target and is trying to accommodate the needs for 

cuts and also to protect our Nation. 

We saw just last week the importance of this, when we saw the 

arrest of Aldawsari, a Saudi Arabia national in Texas. This was another reminder of how serious the threat to our Nation is. 

Secretary, in your appearance here on February 9, you said that 

our Nation is at its highest level of terrorist threat since September 

11, 2001, and that is why to me we have to always equate Homeland Security with National security. Whatever money can be 

saved as far as programs and grants, et cetera, would be offset im-
2 

mediately, if we should see a successful attack launched in the 

United States. Apart from the tragic loss of human life, the devastating impact on our economy would be there as well. 

I am not going to make a full 5-minute statement, because I 

think it is important to get on, but I would say in view of the 

threats against the country and the deficit crisis we face, if you 

would in the course of your testimony specifically address why you 

make certain cuts, why you kept certain programs going forward 

as they are, how you think that does accommodate the threats that 

we face. 

For instance, you and I have discussed the issue of dirty bomb 

attacks over the years, and I certainly commend the Secretary for 

including the Secure the Cities initiative in the budget, which will 

affect cities across our Nation. 

Also, a concern I do have, though, is the cuts that were made as 

far as border protection in your budget—also in the Republican 

budget, so I am not trying to make a partisan issue here. But do 

you think that considering the importance we have attached to border security in recent years, whether or not there is sufficient funding in your budget to secure the border and to go forward with 

some of the significant movements that have been made under 

your watch? 

Also, the whole issue of the Saudi national who was arrested last 

week—do you feel that more should be done with visa analysis? I 

know the State Department is involved in that, but also, obviously, 

the Department of Homeland Security is involved as well with the 

large numbers of foreign students in our country. We do try to encourage that, but at the same time, should there be more of a level 

of surveillance, more of a level of scrutiny when they are coming 

into the country, to try to avoid the situations we saw last week? 

In closing, of course, we have to express our thoughts and prayers to the family of the ICE agent, Jaime Zapata, who was murdered, killed several weeks ago, as well as his partner, Victor Avila. 

I just want you to know that on both sides of the aisle the committee, obviously, our thoughts and prayers go out to them. 

I look forward to the testimony today. As I said, I know the 

tough job you have. Whether or not we always agree, there is no 

doubt of your commitments and I think that the good-faith efforts 

that are made in this budget is an example of that, and I hope we 

can have an honest dialogue as we go forward. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and I recognize 

the Ranking Member of the committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and today, 

as you know, we are here to receive testimony from Secretary 

Napolitano about the DHS budget request for fiscal year 2012. 

While I am keenly interested in the programs and plans that the 

Secretary has in mind for the next fiscal year, there are two potentially devastating developments outside this budget request that 

demand attention. 

First, we have the matter of the fiscal year 2011 budget. The 

112th Congress has not produced any of the 12 appropriations bills 

needed to fund the Government. Instead, to keep the Government 

operating, the House leadership has chosen to kick the can down 
3 

the road with continuing resolution after continuing resolution. 

H.R. 1 as approved by the House would reduce funding for the Department of Homeland Security by $1.1 billion, or 3 percent, in the 

middle of the fiscal year. 

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have consistently emphasized the business community’s need for predictability and certainty. Yet the same principle does not seem to extend to the public 

sector and the operations of Government. Surely, DHS has a right 

to expect some predictability and certainty as it pursues its 

counterterrorism and homeland security activities. 

Turning to my second concern, there is a very real threat that 

the funding for DHS operations for the next fiscal year 2012 will 

plunge to 2006 levels. My staff provided an analysis for how DHS’ 

fiscal year 2012 budget would be negatively impacted by H.R. 408, 

the bill put forward by the Republican Study Committee. 

The picture it presents is potentially devastating to the Depart- ment. DHS’ budget would be cut by $10.7 billion. This proposal 

would mean that Customs and Border Protection would lose $3 billion. Over 8,200 Border Patrol agents or 2,800 CBP officers will 

have to go. So much for operational control. 

It would also require that the Federal Air Marshal’s budget be 

cut by 20 percent, jeopardizing the security of the flying public. 

Our efforts to address one of the Nation’s greatest threats, cyber 

attacks from rogue nations, terrorists, and lone wolf activists, 

would be severely hampered also. NPPD, the home of DHS’ cybersecurity operations, would be cut by $275 million. 

The Coast Guard, which protects our Nation’s waterways, rescues boaters in distress and was the first to respond to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, will have to eliminate over 2,700 positions. 

The list goes on and on. I invite those who have an interest in this 

analysis to go to my committee’s website. 

Madam Secretary, we all have a stake in DHS getting the resources it needs to keep the homeland secure. 

The President also recognizes the importance of DHS’ role. Even 

in these austerity budgetary times, under the President’s budget, 

DHS will receive a slight increase. That said, I do have some questions about the proposal to make significant cuts for first responder 

grants. I also want to hear from you about the proposed cuts in 

University Programs. 

Before I yield back, I would like to note for the record my deep 

concern that H.R. 1, the continuing resolution approved by the 

House could create the kind of budgetary sinkhole that will swallow many of the quality proposals that you are here to present. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KING. Thank you, Ranking Member. 

[The statement of Hons. Farenthold and Richardson follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BLAKE FARENTHOLD

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome Secretary Napolitano. 

As we are all aware, a porous U.S.-Mexico border poses one of the greatest threats 

to all Americans in terms of crime and terrorism. Safeguarding the U.S. Southern 

border is one of the most complex and demanding homeland security challenges. 

Texas alone shares a 1,254-mile international border with Mexico—64 percent of the 

U.S.-Mexico frontier. 

Texas’ immediate proximity to Mexico poses security challenges related to criminal elements that are based in Mexico but who focus their criminal efforts in the 
4 

United States—principally Mexican cartels and gangs. These Mexican organized 

crime cartels and gangs exploit the porous border to smuggle drugs and humans 

into the United States. Organized criminals such as the Texas Mexican Mafia, the 

Texas Syndicate, and Los Zetas have increasingly been linked to acts of violence in 

both Mexico and the United States. Violence in northern Mexico has been on the 

rise as cartels become more powerful, and a significant law enforcement presence 

along the border is critical to prevent spillover violence. 

Recently, two immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) Officers were shot 

while working in Mexico. Special Agent Special Agent Victor Avila was shot twice 

in the leg and is still recovering. Tragically Special Agent Jaime Zapata was fatally 

wounded during the attack. We have also witnessed the tragic murder of David 

Hartley who was murdered by pirates while jet skiing on Falcon Lake which straddles the United States and Mexico. 

In addition to Mexico’s domestic criminals, a porous U.S.-Mexico border presents 

an opportunity for terrorists to enter the United States undetected. Since March 

2006, 739 special interest aliens from countries with known terrorist presence have 

been apprehended crossing illegally into Texas. On January 27, U.S. Border Patrol 

agents arrested Said Jaziri, a controversial Muslim cleric who was deported from 

Canada to Tunisia 3 years ago and was caught trying to sneak into California while 

hiding in the trunk of a car. 

Madame Secretary, I look forward to hearing your testimony in regards to the Department’s strategic goals, performance objectives, and overall priorities on how to 

secure the U.S. Southern border as reflected in the President’s fiscal year 2012 

budget request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LAURA RICHARDSON

FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

I would like to thank Chairman King and Ranking Member Thompson for holding 

this hearing today on reviewing the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for 

the Department of Homeland Security. I also thank Secretary Napolitano for appearing before the committee today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

I appreciate the cooperation that the Department of Homeland Security has given 

to this committee, and I would be remiss if I didn’t thank you, Secretary Napolitano 

for your leadership at the Department of Homeland Security. You have been very 

proactive in combating potential threats against our Nation. 

The 37th Congressional District of California, which I am privileged to represent, 

has a vital interest in ensuring our homeland security needs are adequately funded. 

My district is located in Southern California, which is no stranger to natural disasters ranging from earthquakes to mudslides to wildfires. The 37th district is also 

home to many high-value terrorist targets, such as the Port of Long Beach, oil refineries, gas treatment facilities, and petro chemical facilities. 

I was pleased to see that the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget increased funds 

for border security, and also invests in advanced screening technologies in our Nation’s airports. The President’s budget also helps defend our Federal networks 

against cyber-threats and attacks. I also support the increased funding to the Coast 

Guard for the construction of the Fast Response Cutters and Maritime Patrol Aircraft. 

I am concerned that the President’s budget seeks to eliminate the Emergency Operations Centers operated by FEMA. With the Port of Long Beach, the city of Los 

Angeles, various chemical and petroleum facilities, a centralized emergency response center would be vital to my district and the surrounding communities. I hope 

that we can work to restore funding and I look forward to working with DHS and 

my colleagues on possible solutions to address cutting funding for this essential program. 

Additionally, the proposed cuts in H.R. 1 would have a devastating impact on our 

Nation’s critical emergency response programs. Specifically, the proposed cuts would 

have eliminated funding for the SAFER program and would have reduced funding 

for the critical FIRE program by $90 million. By introducing such draconian cuts, 

these proposals could jeopardize our Nation’s first responders and firefighters and 

substantially hinder our National emergency response infrastructure. I look forward 

to working with my colleagues and the Department of Homeland Security on these 

very important issues. 

Once again Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 
5 

Chairman KING. Madam Secretary, I want to thank you again for 

being here with us. This is your third year of service as Secretary 

of Homeland Security. It probably feels like 300 at times, but it is 

good to have you back. 

I recognize Secretary Napolitano. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman, Representative Thompson and Members of the committee. First of all, 

I appreciate the flexibility of your schedule with this hearing this 

morning. President Caldero ́n of Mexico will be at the White House 

at noon, and that is what causes the schedule jam, so very grateful 

for your flexibility. 

I, too, will be somewhat brief in my opening comments in order 

to reserve, or save time for the Member’s questions, but I think it 

is fair to say that the demands on the Department have never been 

greater. This is especially true as we remember those at the Department who have given their lives in service to our mission, including most recently, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE 

Special Agent Jaime Zapata. 

Now, Mexico is leading the criminal investigation into the death 

of Agent Zapata. We are supporting them through a joint DOJ/DHS 

Task Force that the Attorney General and I announced 2 weeks 

ago. Recently, Mexican authorities have announced that they have 

apprehended some of the alleged killers of Agent Zapata, and we 

are conducting a number of operations in the United States related 

to the drug cartels from Mexico. 

But I can speak for the entire administration when I say we are 

not only saddened by the loss of an agent, we are outraged by this 

act of violence against an officer of the United States. Make no 

mistake, justice will be brought to those involved. We owe nothing 

less to the memory of Agent Zapata and to those who are still on 

the job in Mexico. 

Now, the loss of these brave agents is a stark reminder of the 

sacrifices made by the men and women of DHS every day. It also 

strengthens our resolve to continue to do everything in our power 

to protect against, mitigate, and respond to threats and to make 

our Nation more resilient. 

Today’s threat picture features adversaries who evolve quickly 

and are determined to strike us here at home, from the aviation 

system and the global supply chain to surface transportation, to 

critical infrastructure, to our cyber networks. 

President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget for the Department 

allows us to continue to meet these evolving threats and challenges 

by prioritizing our essential operational requirements, while reflecting an unprecedented commitment to fiscal discipline that 

maximizes the effectiveness of every dollar we receive. 

Reflecting the current fiscal environment in building the fiscal 

year 2012 budget, all DHS components identified savings associated with the Department’s 33 efficiency review initiatives. We cut 

administration and overhead, including my office’s budget, by over 

$800 million. 
6 

We also delayed construction of FEMA at the new DHS Headquarters at St. Elizabeth’s, and we deferred a number of office colocations. That accounts, Mr. Chairman, for some of the numbers 

at ICE that make it look like that budget is going down. That is 

almost all related to building, building maintenance, and not having office co-locations that we otherwise would have. 

Now, my written statement includes the comprehensive list of 

the operational priorities in the budget. Today I will only highlight 

a few. 

Preventing terrorism and enhancing security was the founding 

mission of the Department. It remains our top priority today. This 

budget safeguards transportation modes through a layered detection system, including the deployment of additional transportation 

security officers, behavioral detection officers, canine teams and advanced imaging technology machines at domestic airports, while 

expanding watch list vetting through the Secure Flight Program 

and enhancing screening and targeting of international travelers 

before they board U.S.-bound flights through the Immigration Advisory Program. 

This budget also strengthens surface transportation security by 

supporting 12 new visible and mobile prevention and response, otherwise known as VIPR Teams, which conduct operations throughout the transportation sector to prevent potential terrorist activity. 

The request also provides funding for Securing the Cities Program, to protect our highest-risk cities from a radiological or nuclear attack, and makes a significant investment in the National 

Bio and Agro Defense Facility, which will provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities to protect our country from foreign animal and 

emerging diseases. 

The request expands support for the National network of State 

and local fusion centers, to provide local law enforcement with the 

tools to address threats to our communities. 

Now to secure and manage our borders, the request continues 

the administration’s historic border security efforts by supporting 

21,370 Border Patrol agents and 21,186 U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection officers, both all-time highs. 

This budget also includes $242 million for the continued deployment of proven, effective surveillance technology along the highesttrafficked areas of the Southwest border to better meet the operational requirements of our agents on the front lines. 

For the Northern border, this budget request supports investments in technology tailored to the maritime and cold weather environment. For our Nation’s maritime borders, this budget includes 

funding to continue the essential National Security Cutter Program 

and it makes historic investments to recapitalize the Coast Guard’s 

aging assets, including six fast response cutters and 40 response 

boats. 

This budget also continues the Department’s focus on SMART, 

an effective enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws while 

streamlining and facilitating the legal immigration process. Building on our record over the past 2 years, the Department will continue to prioritize the identification and removal of criminal aliens 

who pose a threat to public safety and target employers who knowingly and repeatedly break the law. 
7 

This request enables ICE to fund 33,400 detention beds, remove 

over 200,000 criminal aliens and deploy secure communities to 96 

percent of all jurisdictions Nationally in fiscal year 2012 wile promoting compliance with worksite-related laws through criminal 

prosecution of egregious employers, Form I–9 inspections and continued expansion and enhancement of e-Verify. 

The request also funds integration efforts, including programs 

supporting English language and citizenship education, and continues the detention reform efforts currently under way. 

Now, to safeguard and secure cyberspace, this budget increases 

resources to identify and reduce vulnerabilities to our Nation’s key 

cyber networks. The request includes significant investments to expedite the deployment of Einstein 3, to prevent and detect intrusions on Government computer systems, increase Federal network 

security, and continue to develop a robust cybersecurity workforce. 

Now, to ensure resilience to disasters, the budget request focuses 

on moving resources out of Washington, DC, and into the hands of 

State and local responders by sustaining Federal funding for State 

and local preparedness grants, providing over $3.8 billion in fiscal 

year 2012. 

This funding includes $670 million for assistance to firefighter 

grants, and that includes $420 million to re-hire an estimated 

2,300 laid-off firefighters and retain veteran first responders. 

To lead and support a central National and economic security effort, this budget also expands the Coast Guard’s operational capacity by funding 50,682 military and civilian positions and establishing the Coast Guard’s first incident management response 

team—assistance team, excuse me, which will be deployed rapidly 

to support incidents of National significance. 

Mr. Chairman, this budget is the culmination of a major first-ofits-kind effort by the Department through their Quadrennial 

Homeland Security Review and the associated bottom-up review to 

align our resources with a comprehensive strategy to ensure a safe, 

secure, and resilient homeland, while making an unprecedented 

commitment to fiscal discipline. 

Chairman King, Representative Thompson, and Members of the 

committee, thank you for this opportunity to present some testimony to you. I have a more complete statement that I asked to be 

included in the record. I am happy to answer questions. 

[The statement of Secretary Napolitano follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO

MARCH 3, 2011 

Chairman King, 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 2 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 2012 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

The demands on DHS have never been greater and the threats we face pose new 

challenges that require an innovative and focused response. Today’s threat picture 

features an adversary who evolves and adapts quickly and who is determined to 

strike us here at home—from the aviation system and the global supply chain to 

surface transportation systems, critical infrastructure, and cyber networks. The Department’s fiscal year 2012 budget allows us to continue to meet these evolving 
8 

1For purposes of comparison to prior year funding levels, funding for Overseas Contingency 

Operations and National Science Foundation transfers are not included in these figures. 

threats and challenges by prioritizing our essential operational requirements—while 

reflecting an unprecedented commitment to fiscal discipline that maximizes the effectiveness of every security dollar we receive. 

Reflecting the current economic environment, we are preserving essential frontline operations and bolstering our operational strength by decreasing administration 

and overhead, including the overall budget for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management. All DHS Components identified reductions associated with the 

Efficiency Review initiatives currently underway as well as administrative savings 

totaling more than $800 million to strengthen mission-critical activities across the 

Department. Savings were accomplished through efficiencies in acquisition, asset, 

and real property management as well as employee vetting/credentialing, hiring/onboarding and information technology; and administrative savings through reductions to professional services contracts, printing, supplies and materials, travel, and 

training. The Department also proposes to delay construction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) headquarters at St. Elizabeths as well as the 

deferral of other office co-locations, and building maintenance and enhancements to 

prioritize front-line security operations. 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2012 budget request for DHS is $57.0 billion in total funding, 

$47.4 billion in gross discretionary funding, and $43.2 billion in net discretionary 

funding.1

DHS’s fiscal year 2012 budget request is the culmination of a major, first-of-itskind effort undertaken by the Department to align DHS resources with a comprehensive strategy to meet our Nation’s homeland security needs. Last year, DHS 

completed the first ever Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), which established a unified, strategic framework for homeland security missions and goals, 

as well as the first ever Bottom-Up Review (BUR), which aligned DHS programmatic activities and organizational structure to better serve those missions and 

goals. The third and final step of this process is the fiscal year 2012 budget submission, which begins the next phase in strengthening DHS efforts to ensure a safe, 

secure, and resilient homeland. 

This process identified six DHS missions, each of which is strengthened by this 

budget: 

Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security.—Protecting the United 

States from terrorism is the cornerstone of homeland security. DHS’s counterterrorism responsibilities focus on three goals: preventing terrorist attacks; preventing 

the unauthorized acquisition, importation, movement, or use of chemical, biological, 

radiological, and nuclear materials and capabilities within the United States; and 

reducing the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and key resources, essential 

leadership, and major events to terrorist attacks and other hazards. 

Mission 2: Securing and Managing Our Borders.—DHS secures the Nation’s air, 

land, and sea borders to prevent illegal activity while facilitating lawful travel and 

trade. The Department’s border security and management efforts focus on three 

interrelated goals: effectively securing U.S. air, land, and sea borders; safeguarding 

and streamlining lawful trade and travel; and disrupting and dismantling 

transnational criminal and terrorist organizations. 

Mission 3: Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws.—DHS is focused 

on smart and effective enforcement of U.S. immigration laws while streamlining and 

facilitating the legal immigration process. The Department has fundamentally reformed immigration enforcement, focusing on identifying and removing criminal 

aliens who pose a threat to public safety and targeting employers who knowingly 

and repeatedly break the law. 

Mission 4: Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace.—By statute and Presidential 

directive, DHS has the lead for the Federal Government to secure civilian government computer systems and works with industry and State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments to secure critical infrastructure and information systems. DHS 

analyzes and reduces cyber threats and vulnerabilities; distributes threat warnings; 

and coordinates the response to cyber incidents to ensure that our computers, networks, and cyber systems remain safe. 

Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters.—DHS provides the coordinated, comprehensive Federal response in the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or 

other large-scale emergency while working with Federal, State, local, and private 

sector partners to ensure a swift and effective recovery effort. The Department’s ef-
9 

forts to build a ready and resilient Nation include fostering a community-oriented 

approach; bolstering information sharing; improving the capability to plan; and providing grants and training to our homeland security and law enforcement partners. 

Mission 6: Providing Essential Support to National and Economic Security.—DHS 

leads and supports many activities that provide essential support to National and 

economic security including, but not limited to: Maximizing collection of customs 

revenue; maintaining the safety of the marine transportation system; preventing the 

exploitation of children; providing law enforcement training; and coordinating the 

Federal Government’s response to global intellectual property theft. DHS contributes in many ways to these elements of broader U.S. National and economic security 

while fulfilling its other five homeland security missions. 

The following are highlights of the fiscal year 2012 budget: 

PREVENTING TERRORISM AND ENHANCING SECURITY

• Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT).—$105.2 million and 535 positions are included for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to purchase, install, and operate 275 AITs at airport checkpoints. The fiscal year 2012 request, 

combined with prior requests, will result in 1,275 AIT units deployed by the end 

of 2012. The requested funding covers the cost of new Transportation Screening 

Officers and managers to operate the new AITs, as well as the associated support and airport management costs. Continuing to increase AIT deployments 

while ensuring privacy safeguards are in place is critical to address the current 

threat by safely screening passengers for metallic and non-metallic threats—including weapons, explosives, and other objects concealed under layers of clothing. 

• Explosives Detection Systems (EDS).—$273 million is requested to support the 

recapitalization and deployment of state-of-the-art EDS for checked baggage to 

efficiently screen baggage for explosives, reducing the number of re-scans and 

physical bag searches. Beginning in fiscal year 2012, over 800 EDS in our largest airports will exceed their planned 10-year service life. 

• Assistant Field Security Directors—Law Enforcement (AFSD–LEs).—Requested 

funding of $22.5 million supports 82 AFSD–LEs currently deployed and provides 22 additional AFSD–LEs for major airports, where they serve as the primary liaison to local law enforcement as AIT expansion continues. 

• Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS).—The fiscal year 2012 budget requests 

funds to maintain the FAMS surge deployment levels for domestic and international flight coverage that began in response to the attempted terrorist attack 

on December 25, 2009. Members of the FAMS, TSA’s law enforcement entity, 

are deployed on flights around the world and the United States based on risk 

in order to detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts targeting U.S. air carriers, airports, passengers, and crews. 

• Enhanced Watch List Vetting.—$12.4 million is proposed for maintaining the 

expanded watch list vetting initiative, which, through the Secure Flight program, enables TSA to identify individuals who may present a threat to passenger air travel. Through Secure Flight, TSA pre-screens passenger name, date 

of birth, and gender against terrorist watch lists before passengers receive their 

boarding passes. In addition to facilitating secure travel for all passengers, the 

program helps prevent the misidentification of passengers who have names 

similar to individuals on Government watch lists. 

• Immigration Advisory Program (IAP).—A total request of $14.1 million will permit the IAP to expand in Paris, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Amman. IAP is a part 

of Custom and Border Protection’s (CBP) layered risk-based security approach, 

which includes working with international partners to post CBP officers at foreign airports and use advanced targeting and passenger analysis information to 

identify high-risk travelers at foreign airports before they board U.S.-bound 

flights. 

• Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs).—The fiscal year 2012 budget request of 

$236.9 million funds 3,336 BDOs, which includes 350 new positions. BDOs 

serve as an additional layer of security in airports by providing a non-intrusive 

means of identifying individuals who may pose a risk of terrorism or criminal 

activity. 

• Canine Teams.—Requested funding of $125.7 million allows TSA to sustain the 

deployment of 900 canine teams supported by reallocations made under the continuing resolution, providing an important layer of security to complement passenger checkpoint screening at airports, assist in air cargo screening, and enhance security in the mass transit environment. 
10 

• Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams.—$109 million requested supports 37 VIPR teams and includes12 new multi-modal VIPR Teams 

proposed in the fiscal year 2012 request in addition to the 10 existing teams 

in aviation and the 15 VIPR teams dedicated to surface transportation added 

in the fiscal year 2010 budget. VIPR teams are comprised of personnel with expertise in inspection, behavior detection, security screening, and law enforcement for random, unpredictable deployments throughout the transportation sector to deter potential terrorist and criminal acts. 

• Passenger Security Fee.—The fiscal year 2012 budget reflects a proposal to increase the Aviation Passenger Security Fee by $1.50 per enplanement beginning 

in 2012. The Aviation Passenger Security fee has not changed since the TSA 

was established following the events of 9/11, even though the overall cost of 

aviation security has grown by more than 400 percent. The administration’s 

proposal makes progress towards fulfilling the intent of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act to cover the costs of aviation security through fees and 

not by the general taxpayers. 

• BioWatch Gen 1/2.—$90 million is requested to continue operating the Gen 1/ 

2 BioWatch detection network, a Federally-managed, locally-operated, Nationwide bio-surveillance system designed to detect the intentional release of aerosolized biological agents in more than 30 cities. 

• BioWatch Gen–3.—The fiscal year 2012 budget provides $25 million to continue 

Gen–3 development, which is expected to significantly reduce the time between 

a release of a biothreat agent and confirmation of that release by BioWatch 

technology. Operational Testing and Evaluation of Gen–3 technology will begin 

in one of four test cities in fiscal year 2012 with full deployment expected in 

fiscal year 2014. 

• Securing the Cities.—$27 million is requested for Securing the Cities to continue 

the build-out of the domestic portion of the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture, the multi-layered system of detection technologies, programs, and guidelines designed to enhance the Nation’s ability to detect and prevent a radiological or nuclear attack in our highest-risk cities. 

• Radiological/Nuclear Detection Systems.—The fiscal year 2012 budget requests 

$57 million for the procurement and deployment of Radiation Portal Monitors 

and Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems, providing vital detection 

equipment to CBP and the U.S. Coast Guard to scan for radiological and nuclear threats. 

• Countermeasures and 2012 Presidential Candidate Nominee Protection.—The 

fiscal year 2012 request funds critical Secret Service operations and countermeasures to protect the first family and visiting dignitaries, including the 2012 

Presidential campaign and three anticipated National Special Security Events 

(NSSEs). The budget also restores the Secret Service’s base funding—supporting the replacement of protective equipment, vehicles, training of personnel, 

and other infrastructure to allow the Secret Service to improve the execution 

of its protective and investigatory missions. 

• National Network of Fusion Centers.—The fiscal year 2012 budget expands support for the National network of fusion centers in order to provide State and 

local law enforcement with the tools they need to address threats in their communities. The request focuses on integrating and coordinating cross-Department 

and cross-government interaction with fusion centers focused on enhancing 

baseline capabilities. 

• State and Local Law Enforcement Training.—The fiscal year 2012 budget provides funding to train 64,000 individual Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and its 

total budget of $276 million. 

• National Bio and Agro Defense Facility (NBAF).—$150 million is requested to 

begin construction of the NBAF, which will serve as a new, state-of-the-art biosafety level 3 & 4 facility. Work performed at NBAF will lead to the development of vaccines and anti-virals and enhanced diagnostic capabilities for protecting our country from numerous foreign animal and emerging diseases. 

SECURING AND MANAGING OUR BORDERS

• CBP Law Enforcement.—The fiscal year 2012 budget supports 21,370 Border 

Patrol agents and 21,186 CBP officers at our ports of entry who work 24/7 with 

State, local, and Federal law enforcement in targeting illicit networks trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons, and money. This reflects the largest 

deployment of law enforcement officers to the front-line in the agency’s history. 

The request annualizes positions supported by the fiscal year 2010 Emergency 
11 

Border Security Supplemental for the Southwest Border, including 1,000 Border 

Patrol agents and 250 CBP officers. Funding is provided to support 300 new 

CBP officers above the fiscal year 2011 budget and additional canine assets to 

support Port of Entry operations. The request supports the mobile response 

surge teams created with the Supplemental funding to respond rapidly to emergent situations without depleting Border Patrol staffing from other locations. 

• New Southwest Border Technology.—$242 million 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, distinct terrain, and population density of each 

border region. These funds will allow CBP to fully deploy a mix of Integrated 

Fixed Towers and other mobile equipment in three of the five Border Patrol 

Stations’ areas of responsibility in Arizona. 

• Northern Border Technology.—The request includes $55 million to support investments in technology systems which address security needs for the Northern 

Border maritime and cold weather environment, as well as innovative technology pilots. It will also deploy proven, stand-alone technology that provides 

immediate operational benefits. These demonstrations and deployments explore 

how best to integrate various sensors, border security organizations, and mission operations in order to optimize border security in this challenging environment. 

• CBP Journeyman.—The request includes $229 million to fully fund the increase 

in journeyman grade level for frontline CBP officers, Border Patrol agents, and 

CBP agricultural specialists from GS–11 to GS–12. 

• Tactical Communications (TACCOM).—The fiscal year 2012 budget includes 

$40 million to continue the transition of the TACCOM program to a robust, 

open architecture system that will increase interoperability with other law enforcement, expand coverage, and improve agent safety in the Houlton, El Paso, 

Laredo, and Rio Grande Valley sectors. 

• National Targeting Center—Passenger (NTC–P).—T1 A total of $47 million is 

requested to enhance CBP’s ability to interdict dangerous individuals or terrorists traveling from foreign locations before boarding flights destined for the 

United States. The funds will be used to hire additional staff and implement 

enhancements in targeting priorities. 

• U.S. Coast Guard Recapitalization.—The fiscal year 2012 request fully funds 

the fifth National Security Cutter (NSC), supports 40 Response Boats and six 

Fast Response Cutters, as well as a sizable investment in the renovation and 

restoration of shore facilities. The budget also provides resources to ensure that 

the Coast Guard’s aviation fleet is mission-ready through the acquisition of two 

Maritime Patrol Aircraft, one HH–60 helicopter, and conversion and 

sustainment projects of multiple aircraft. Funding for the NSC underscores the 

Department’s support of this program which is important to the Coast Guard’s 

long-term recapitalization effort and, most importantly, to allow the Coast 

Guard to replace its aged, obsolete High Endurance Cutter fleet as quickly as 

possible. The total request for U.S. Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and 

Improvements is $1.4 billion. 

• Maritime Safety and Response.—$115.5 million remains in Coast Guard’s base 

resources for 11 Maritime Safety and Security Teams and their associated 921 

personnel, who conduct port security activities and provide support to NSSEs. 

ENFORCING AND ADMINISTERING OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS

• Detention Beds.—The fiscal year 2012 budget increases U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) Custody Operations funding by $157.7 million to 

support 33,400 detention beds and remove more than 200,000 criminal aliens 

in fiscal year 2012. 

• Detention Reform.—ICE plans to continue building on its detention reform efforts in fiscal year 2012 by improving detainee access to quality health care, reducing the average length of stay, and facilitating access to family members and 

legal representation by adding functionality to the recently released on-line detainee locator system. 

• Worksite Enforcement.—Requested funds continue the Department’s focus on 

worksite enforcement, promoting 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 fiscal year 2012 request continues support for E-Verify operations and enhancements, including continued funding for new monitoring, com-
12 

pliance, and outreach positions necessitated by program expansion. The continued success of E-Verify demonstrated by recent independent reports reflect the 

administration’s commitment to smart, tough, and effective strategies that build 

a strong foundation upon which immigrants can exercise their rights and responsibilities as Americans. 

• Secure Communities.—A total of $184 million is requested for Secure Communities—which uses biometric information and services to identify and remove 

criminal aliens in State prisons and local jails. The $64 million program increase will expand deployment to 96% of all jurisdictions nationally in fiscal 

year 2012 and provide resources to confirm the identification of an estimated 

199,000 more criminal aliens through interoperability in fiscal year 2012 than 

fiscal year 2010 and transport more than 44,000 criminal aliens from State and 

local jails into the custody of ICE following the completion of their sentences. 

ICE will work with DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Department of Justice to develop a robust oversight and evaluation process of Secure Communities and to provide training to State and local law enforcement. 

Secure Communities is on track for Nation-wide deployment by 2013. 

• Visa Security Program.—The budget requests $29 million to continue the Visa 

Security Program at current locations. This program enhances National security 

by preventing terrorists, criminals, and other ineligible applicants from receiving visas. 

• Immigrant Integration.—The fiscal year 2012 request expands U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services (USCIS) effort to support immigrant integration efforts, including funding for new programs supporting English language acquisition and citizenship education. 

• SAVE.—The fiscal year 2012 request continues support for USCIS SAVE operations and enhancements to assist State, local, and Federal agencies in determining individuals eligibility for public benefits based on their immigration status. 

• USCIS Business Transformation.—The fiscal year 2012 request continues the 

multi-year effort to transform USCIS from a paper-based filing system to a customer-focused electronic filing system. 

SAFEGUARDING AND SECURING CYBERSPACE

• Federal Network Protection.—$233.6 million is requested to expedite the deployment of EINSTEIN 3 to prevent and detect intrusions on computer systems and 

to upgrade the National Cyber Security Protection System, building an intrusion detection capability and analysis capabilities to protect Federal networks. 

• Federal IT Security Assessments.—A total of $40.9 million in requested funds 

will support the Department’s efforts to strengthen Federal Network Security 

of large and small agencies by conducting an estimated 66 network assessments 

to improve security across the Federal Executive Branch. 

• Cybersecurity Workforce Needs.—$24.5 million is proposed to provide high-quality, cost-effective virtual cybersecurity education and training to develop and 

grow a robust cybersecurity workforce that is able to protect against and respond to National cybersecurity threats and hazards. 

• Cyber Investigations.—The fiscal year 2012 budget continues to support cyber 

investigations conducted through the Secret Service and ICE, targeting largescale producers and distributors of child pornography and preventing attacks 

against U.S. critical infrastructure through Financial Crimes Task Forces. 

• Cyber Mission Integration.—The fiscal year 2012 request includes $1.3 million 

to enable DHS to coordinate National cyber security operations and interface 

with the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DOD) National Security Agency (NSA) 

at Fort Meade, Maryland. This funding will support a landmark memorandum 

of agreement signed by Secretary Napolitano and Secretary of Defense Robert 

Gates that aligns and enhances America’s capabilities to protect against threats 

to critical civilian and military computer systems and networks. 

• Cybersecurity Research.—The fiscal year 2012 request includes an increase of 

$18 million for the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative to support 

research and development projects focused on strengthening the Nation’s cybersecurity. 

ENSURING RESILIENCE TO DISASTERS

• State and Local Grants.—The fiscal year 2012 request sustains Federal funding 

for State and local preparedness grants totaling over $3.8 billion, highlighting 

the Department’s commitment to moving resources out of Washington, DC and 
13 

into the hands of State and local first responders who are often best-positioned 

to detect and respond to terrorism, other threats, and natural disasters. 

• Assistance to Firefighters Grants.—The fiscal year 2012 request includes $670 

million. Included in this amount are $420 million for Staffing for Adequate Fire 

and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grants to rehire laid-off firefighters and retain veteran first responders—totaling 2,300 firefighter positions—and $250 

million for equipment, training, vehicles, and related materials. 

• Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).—$1.8 billion is requested for the DRF to allow 

FEMA to continue to address the impacts of a disaster on individuals and communities across the Nation. The DRF provides a significant portion of the total 

Federal response to victims in Presidentially-declared disasters or emergencies. 

• Regional Catastrophic Event Planning.—$8.5 million is requested to continue 

development of catastrophic plans, with a focus on plans for response to biological events and earthquakes. 

• National Exercises.—FEMA’s participation in National Level Exercise–12, an 

exercise to test FEMA’s ability to respond to a catastrophic cyber attack, is 

funded with $3 million through the request. 

• Emergency Management Oversight.—The fiscal year 2012 request includes $20 

million for the Office of the Inspector General to continue its Emergency Management Oversight operations. 

PROVIDING ESSENTIAL SUPPORT TO NATIONAL AND ECONOMIC SECURITY

• Patrolling the Exclusive Economic Zone.—The Coast Guard patrols the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone boundary areas to reduce the threat of foreign poaching 

of U.S. fish stocks and ensure compliance with international living marine resource agreements. The budget includes $47 million to extend the service life 

of five Medium Endurance Cutters critical in support of this mission. 

• U.S. Coast Guard Staffing.—The request strengthens the Coast Guard’s operational capacity by funding a total of 50,682 civilian and military personnel in 

fiscal year 2012. 

• Enhancing Maritime Safety.—The fiscal year 2012 budget requests $686.3 million and 4,717 FTEs for the Coast Guard’s maritime safety activities. The fiscal 

year 2012 budget provides 105 new Marine Safety Inspectors and Investigators 

to staff ship inspections and post-incident investigations. 

• Enhancing Marine Environmental Protection and Response.—The fiscal year 

2012 budget requests $225.2 million and 1,362 FTE to enable the Coast Guard 

to conduct Marine Environmental Response. This includes 87 new environmental response personnel and creates the Coast Guard’s first Incident Management Assistance Team, a highly trained team that will be deployed rapidly 

to augment the Coast Guard command structure when an incident of National 

significance occurs. 

• Investigate Cultural Antiquity Trafficking and Coordinate Repatriation.—The 

fiscal year 2012 budget continues to support ICE seizures and repatriation of 

cultural property, art, and antiquities illegally imported into the United States 

and the investigation of illegal trafficking of artwork, especially works that have 

been reported lost or stolen. 

• Forensic Support for Missing and Exploited Children.—Funding is requested for 

the Secret Service to provide forensic support to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which provides state-of-the-art forensics support for 

investigations involving missing and exploited children and grant funds for activities related to the investigations of missing and exploited children. 

• 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 U.S. Government. Customs and Border Protection 

has set revenue collection as a Priority Trade Issue to ensure effective internal 

controls that protect the duties and taxes (over $29 billion in 2009) collected for 

the U.S. Government. 

• Protect U.S. Intellectual Property Rights.—The fiscal year 2012 budget request 

funds to support CBP’s enforcement program to prevent trade in counterfeit and 

pirated goods, and enforce exclusion orders on patent-infringing and other Intellectual Property Rights violative goods. The ICE HSI Intellectual Property 

Rights (IPR) Center investigates the smuggling and distribution of counterfeit 

goods and products that pose risks to public safety and security. Counterfeit 

pharmaceuticals and critical technology components, such as computer chips for 

defense systems and airplane equipment, were among the top-seized commodities in IPR investigations. 
14 

MATURING AND STRENGTHENING THE HOMELAND SECURITY ENTERPRISE

Maturing and strengthening the homeland security enterprise—the collective efforts and shared responsibilities of Federal, State, local, Tribal, territorial, non-governmental, and private-sector partners, as well as individuals, families, and communities—is critical to the Department’s success in carrying out its core missions and 

operational objectives. This includes enhancing shared awareness of risks and 

threats, building capable communities, and fostering innovative approaches and solutions through cutting-edge science and technology, while continuing to foster a culture of efficiency, sustainability in accordance with E.O. 13514 and fiscal responsibility and streamline management across the Department. 

While the Department proposes significant cuts to administrative support across 

all components in order to maintain front-line operations, the following activities are 

supported through the fiscal year 2012 budget: • St. Elizabeths.—$159.7 million is requested for the St. Elizabeths project. This 

funding enables DHS to complete the Coast Guard Headquarters facility and to 

continue work on the National Operations Center. The request, however, will 

defer the FEMA headquarters consolidation. • Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC).—The fiscal year 2012 budg- et proposes $11 million to fund the TASC program, which supports the modernization of the Department’s financial, asset, and acquisition management 

systems—a key priority for the Department and a step towards addressing recommendations on the GAO High-Risk list. • Acquisition Workforce.—$24.2 million in requested funds will increase the Department’s acquisition workforce capacity by 150 positions, including additional 

systems engineers, program managers, logisticians, and business cost estimators, to ensure operational requirements are properly developed and included 

in DHS contracts and to provide greater oversight and accountability. This too, 

is consistent with previous recommendations from the Government Accountability Office and Inspector General. • Information Security and Infrastructure.—$32.3 million is requested to establish 

a unified email network for DHS-wide use, and provide Single Sign-On and 

other capabilities. These activities will leverage technologies to strengthen DHS 

operations and enhance communications with Federal, State, local, and private 

sector partners. • Coast Guard Housing and Child Care.—The health and welfare of military families is the heart of Coast Guard operational readiness. The fiscal year 2012 

budget includes $29 million to address critical housing shortfalls and improve 

access to affordable, quality child care. These initiatives will ensure Coast 

Guard members can maintain both strong families and a high state of readiness. 

CONCLUSION

The fiscal year 2012 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, the Department 

will continue to build upon past successes in several areas including securing U.S. 

air, land, and sea borders; safeguarding lawful trade and travel; securing Federal 

networks; and disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal and terrorist organizations that engage in cross-border criminal activity while maximizing every taxpayer dollar we receive. 

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 2012 budget 

request and other homeland security issues. 

Chairman KING. Thank you, Madam Secretary. The issues seem 

to evolve week by week. Last week, of course, was the Khalid 

Aldawsari case in Texas, and which shows we still have 

vulnerabilities in our student visa program. 

Following the September 11 attacks, Congress passed a visa security program to deploy DHS personnel to high-risk visa issuing 

posts. Section 428 of the Homeland Security Act specifically requires that DHS personnel be assigned to Saudi Arabia. 

Can you describe for us the role that DHS plays in analyzing 

these visa applications—how and if that overlaps with the State 

Department? Can you get—are there any lessons learned from last 
15 

week? Is there anything that occurred in that case that could be 

prevented in the future, as far as addressing our visa procedures? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, actually, I think that case 

is a good news story, and I will tell you why. 

First of all, the individual involved entered the country the first 

time on a student visa, attended college, went back to Saudi Arabia, and then was issued a second visa—there was, to my knowledge, no derogatory information discovered either by DHS or the 

State Department in connection with that—returned to the United 

States. 

What ICE does with students who are here on these kinds of 

visas is it monitors them on a continuing basis, and through that 

monitoring discovered a SAR, a Suspicious Activity Report of unusual banking activity by this individual. It notified the FBI. The 

FBI and ICE then pursued an investigation. Of course, that led ultimately to the arrest of the individual involved. 

I think what the case illustrates is a need to have a layered approach here. At any one time you may not have derogatory information about an individual. It may develop subsequently. So what 

we have been working on and developing in our country is we want 

students to come from other lands. There is a huge benefit for the 

United States in that. We also need to attend to our security concerns. This kind of layered approach allows us to do that. 

Chairman KING. Okay. Without discussing the details of the 

case, because, obviously, the case is still proceeding, but was he 

found because of what ICE detected with the questionable bank 

transactions? Or was it because the person in the chemical supply 

company notified the FBI that he was asking to have the materials 

sent to his home? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. My understanding is that the first notice 

to the FBI was from ICE, from the SAR report. 

Chairman KING. Okay. Would that have been sufficient, do you 

think? Oh, yes, I am not trying to find fault. I am just saying—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Chairman KING [continuing]. Can there be any lessons learned 

from this? What could be possible also is that ICE did learn of this, 

something was done, but there was not sufficient follow-through, 

because my understanding is if he had gotten the phenol, the bomb 

would have been ready to go, so even though ICE had made this 

initial discovery, still he was in a position, though, to possibly 

launch an attack. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think that illustrates why you have to 

have many layers in the homeland security arena. It is why the 

‘‘See Something, Say Something’’ campaign has been instituted by 

the Department to go National, because we want individuals and 

companies, particularly those that run things like chemical plants, 

to know if they see something unusual, they need to report it as 

well. 

It increases the likelihood that we will pick up something before 

an act can be completed. So we give credit there. We give credit 

to ICE. We give credit to the FBI. They all ultimately were converging on one individual. 

Chairman KING. You may have violated Chairman Lungren’s 

copyright on layered defenses. He started using the term 5 years 
16 

ago. That one issue we had, he was able to plug the layered defense rationale. I agree with you on that. 

Just one final question on D Block. In light of the President’s announcement that he fully supports the reallocation of the D Block 

to public safety, do you insist that your Department get involved 

in that effort in doing all that can be done to work with Congress 

and the administration to get it through? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. Yes. In fact, the DHS and the Department of Justice were heavily involved in the decision to stop 

the option of the D Block and to reserve it for public safety. We 

anticipate being involved on an on-going basis. 

Chairman KING. I know there has been continuing controversy 

over it, certainly, within Congress, but right now I think we are 

getting closer to getting the votes we might need. I am working 

with Senator Rockefeller, Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, so 

any assistance you can give us. I look forward to working with you 

and the Attorney General on that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, sir. Yes, absolutely. 

Chairman KING. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Mississippi. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, recently, Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) released its high-risk list. Once again, many of the processes 

of integration and transformation of DHS have been identified. In 

light of this budget, the new initiatives that you are putting forth, 

would you be able to address some of those issues that GAO highlighted? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Mr. Ranking Member. The GAO report—it had good and bad. It had good in the sense that it recognized a number of the transformational management activities that 

have been under way over the past years as we worked to integrate 

these 22 agencies into one large department. 

It also pointed out, as you note, some other areas where we need 

to put in some continued effort. I believe that those efforts will continue under the President’s budget. 

I will say that if the House CR that was passed by the House 

becomes effectively the fiscal year 2012 budget as well, that is 

going to have some impact on the Department both on front-line 

operations, but also on the management side. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Let us take maritime cargo. As you know, Congress some time ago passed a 100 percent screening mandate, and 

there have been issues around it. You testified last year that you 

couldn’t meet it. Some of us are convinced that it was a Congressional mandate, and we want to know how and what you plan to 

do to address this Congressional mandate that, obviously, you 

won’t be able to meet. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Representative Thompson. I could 

give you a very, very long answer, but let me try to keep it brief. 

First of all, I think the mandate was constructed at a time before 

we had really a mature understanding of what that meant and 

what the possibilities were or were not in that regard. 

One of the things that has happened over the past 8 years is we 

have developed a much more mature understanding of what homeland security means and how we link with National security and 
17 

with issues around the world. What sounds easy and foolproof in 

the end turns to be neither easy nor foolproof. That is really what 

has happened with that requirement. 

So what we are doing is working on an entire global cargo security initiative that involves the International Maritime Organization, involves the International Aviation Organization, involves the 

World Customs Organization, really dealing with the point of time 

from which a good enters the global stream of commerce to the 

time that it reaches its end user and different things along that entire chain that need to be done to make sure that cargo remains 

secure, is secure at the outset, remains secure through the stream 

of commerce. 

We would be happy to brief you in greater detail on that work. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I would really like to have it, because, you 

know, Congress passed the mandate. We didn’t say to the Department, ‘‘Look at it. Tell us what you think.’’ 

I think part of the discomfort for some of us is that if Congress 

decides in its wisdom to so do it, then we expect the agencies to 

follow the Congressional mandate. Obviously, that was not followed. I know you inherited part of it, but nonetheless, the mandate stands. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The statute also provides, however, that 

the Secretary can extend the time. As we have been doing that, we 

have been keeping the committee briefed, and we will keep you 

briefed, Mr. Representative Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, that is fine. I think ultimately by extending the time, I think the scanning mandate would be something 

that some of us would expect to be followed. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KING. Thank you, Ranking Member Thompson. 

Now recognize Members of the committee for 5 minutes for questions. As I said at the beginning, the Secretary has to leave here 

before noon, so I would ask the Members, observe the 5-minute 

rule and not go over, in accordance with our committee rules. I 

plan to recognize Members who were present at the start of the 

hearing by seniority on the committee. 

Recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the Chairman. I hope that caution wasn’t 

just directed at me, but I will try and stay within the 5 minutes. 

First of all, Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for going forward with things such as ‘‘See Something, Say Something’’. I think 

that makes a good deal of sense and gets us in a cooperative venture, if you will, with the citizens of this country. I think we need 

to go forward. 

The context in which we are appearing here today—you are appearing here today—is set really by the chief of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last year, who said 

that the greatest threat to National security is our fiscal irresponsibility. I mean, he told us that, even from his vantage point, we 

have got to get our fiscal house in order. 

So that puts constraints on all of us, Democrat, Republican, Executive branch, Legislative branch. I want to applaud you for your 

answer to the last question, with respect to 100 percent cargo 

screening or scanning. 
18 

We need to do what works, and we need to use the layered approach. The height of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over 

and over again and expect different results. If you have run into 

bumps on the road in doing 100 percent cargo screening, the idea 

that you are going with layered approach, with the entire supply 

chain, makes eminent sense, at least to this Member. I thank you 

for it. 

I would like to ask you a question, though, in these tough budget 

times about a couple of the priorities you have set. One for which 

I would applaud you is your fiscal year 2012 request for cybersecurity. 

It appears to be the largest increase in the category of NPPD. I 

think that makes eminent sense. Maybe you could tell us exactly 

why you have that as a priority. 

On the other hand, I have a concern on the Customs and Border 

Patrol, where it appears in the 2012 budget justification documents 

that your Border Patrol plans to only maintain the current 1,007 

miles under control for the rest of fiscal year 2011 and 2012. 

So, on the one hand, there appears to be, I think, an appropriate 

emphasis and priority given to cybersecurity. On the other hand, 

there does not appear, at least from my reading of your budget documents, a similar stress on the area of border control. Now maybe 

you can talk to those two things, please. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, yes. With respect to cyber, we have 

identified that as one of the five key mission areas of the Department. 

One of the things I have tried to do as the Secretary is to take 

all the myriad agencies, departments, whatever, that were merged 

in the DHS, with all of the hundreds of missions that they have, 

but to consolidate into five major mission areas. 

We have identified cyber. The point of fact is, is that between 

DHS and DOD, we possess probably 95 percent of the cyber responsibilities in the United States Government. 

We need to protect the civilian side of the Federal networks from 

attack. We need to accelerate the deployment of Einstein 3, which 

is the program we are using to do that. There are a whole other 

host of activities we need to undertake, including increasing our 

cyber workforce. 

This is a key need of the Department and the Federal Government at large is to have more cyber-competent individuals working 

for us. Office of Personnel Management has now given us direct 

hire authority. We are actively going out. We are actively going to 

your State to try to recruit individuals to come into the public service and to help us out. 

With respect to the border, I think you are referring to a GAO 

report on operational control. I think what your question presumes 

is that, A, that report is correct and, B, that the President’s budget 

is not the most aggressive in history with respect to the border. 

As I have explained before, operational control is used and referred to in a GAO report as a very narrow term of art. It doesn’t 

include, for example, force multipliers like all the technology and 

infrastructure that has been deployed to the border. 

If the President’s budget is adopted, we will have more Border 

Patrol agents at the border than at any time in our Nation’s his-
19 

tory. They will be accompanied, however, by a technology laydown 

that will greatly expand their ability to make great use of their 

man-hours. 

As you also know, the President has also sent the National 

Guard to the Southwest border. 

In contrast, however, I must say that I am very troubled by the 

House Resolution 14, particularly if it becomes the basis for the 

2012 budget, because it does not fully protect those expansions in 

CBP and ICE in all of their operations that we have seen under 

the President’s budget. 

So I would ask the House, as it gets us, hopefully, out of continuing resolution land and into a real budget for fiscal year 2011 

and looks at fiscal year 2012, that we really reexamine those priorities. 

Chairman KING. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being before us once again. 

There are several issues I would like to ask you about. The first 

one is about the UASI grants, the Urban Area Security Initiative 

grants, which you know are to do basically mutual benefit for regions of the United States. 

I know that in 2012 you have increased the President’s budget 

$33 million. But the Republicans cut out $67 million from the program during the CR debates these past 2 weeks. 

Can you explain to me how detrimental it is to—if you think the 

UASI grant program is, in fact, something we should have and how 

detrimental it is, if we should begin to cut it? 

I mean, if in 2 weeks they go to cut—I mean 2 weeks ago to cut 

$87 million from it, if we continue to see those sorts of cuts, what 

would that do with your local partnerships that you are trying to 

do from a terrorist or National disaster situation? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative Sanchez, the House concurrent resolution, as I understand it, actually ends up cutting almost a billion dollars from FEMA grants. That is troublesome in 

a number of areas. 

I think it reflects perhaps a different philosophy about what 

grants are for. But what these grants are for is to make sure that 

we have a homeland security architecture that works. That means 

States and localities all have to have certain base capabilities. 

Then in particular areas of the country, we need even more than 

that. 

In addition, I mentioned fusion centers in my opening statement. 

What these are are a network of 72 centers. They are relatively 

new, only a few years old. Most of the things in the Department 

are relatively new. 

What they are designed to be are Federal, State, local co-located 

entities where information intelligence from Washington, DC, at 

the secret and above level, can be transmitted as well as trends 

and tactics, techniques, things that we are seeing, as well as realtime threat information, so it can get quickly out to the country, 

and also so we can receive information back about tactics and 

trends and things they see. 

Let me give you a practical example. The Zazi case, Zazi was an 

individual who was participating in a plot to come into the New 
20 

York subways and blow up the subways. He was going to use explosives that used a lot of hydrogen peroxide as part of the basis 

for those. 

So one of the things you could do through a fusion center is immediately go out and look around the country for unusually large 

purchases of that material by individuals who normally purchase 

it. So the fusion centers really become a way to share intel across 

the country and come back. 

Part of our budget allows us to place our own intelligence analysts in the fusion centers, which is a way, also, to increase that 

capability around the country outside of the beltway. So these 

grants serve a lot of different purposes and they begin, however, 

with the philosophy that we need a comprehensive homeland security architecture at the State and local level. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Ms. Secretary. I also believe that, obviously, you have been working with my local State as well as the 

Federal agencies that protect areas like Orange County, where we 

have Disneyland, and some of the largest entertainment venues, 

where we are 25 minutes’ drive away from the port of Los Angeles 

and Long Beach. The list goes on and on. 

Let me ask you about the US–VISIT program, because the last 

time you were before us, I asked you about that. I see that in the 

President’s budget, the program has been cut by 19 percent. So, of 

course, I am very interested about this visa overstay issue, which 

has a lot of implications like with visa waiver programs. Of course, 

when we saw the 9/11 people, a lot of them overstayed. Terrorists 

overstayed their visas. 

So my question is this: We are cutting the monies to the VISIT 

program. How are we going to get this exit piece done with respect 

to the US–VISIT program? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, that, again, probably requires a 

longer answer than I have time right here. But let me just respectfully suggest that, again, we will provide you with some supplemental information. 

But a biometric exit program is, for a country like the United 

States, where you have air, sea, and huge land borders, is going 

to be extraordinarily expensive to accomplish. Our view is that, at 

this point in time, that is something that we could better accomplish right now in terms of detecting or picking up overstays by 

making sure that ICE is properly funded to go ahead and pick up 

people. 

So you have to look, I think, at ICE and US–VISIT and identify 

all of those things together. 

Chairman KING. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, will be followed by 

Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. McCaul, and Mr. Cuellar. 

The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary, thank you for being here. I always look forward to 

having your feedback. 

Recently, I had Chief Fisher in here for my subcommittee, and 

we had a problem in coming up with the definition that DHS is 

using for determining whether or not they have secured the Southwest border. The term is defined in the law. Operational control is 
21 

defined as being the prevention of all unlawful entries into the 

United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful 

aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband. 

But when we asked Chief Fisher to define operational control, he 

had the Department’s definition, which was different. Why don’t 

you all use the definition that is used in—that is set out in Federal 

law? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Congressman, I think you will 

probably find throughout Federal law different definitions of different things where security is concerned. What we are certain 

about is making sure that that border regions, both the Northern 

and Southern, are safe and secure. 

We have some key concerns there. We have been making a lot 

of progress, as you know. The President has put more resources on 

the border, the Southwest border, than at any time in our Nation’s 

past. Numbers that need to go up are going to and down or going 

down. We want to continue that progress. 

I would say that the House concurrent resolution, by the way, 

again, if that is what we have to live under, is very problematic 

in that regard. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I understand, but I do want to point out that 

I am talking about the Secure Fence Act of 2006. That is a pretty 

specific Federal statute that deals with that definition, and it 

seems to me that the Department ought to be adhering to that definition when trying to determine whether or not they have actually 

achieved operational control. 

Another thing, ICE—as you know, I have talked to you in the 

past about my concerns that we have not adequately funded ICE 

to increase the number of ICE agents in the field, particularly, of 

course, when you look at what we have done with CBP it is just 

there has been no significant increase in ICE agents. 

But earlier this week, I met with some ICE folks about the detention of people here in the country that are found to be illegal 

and was surprised to find that if somebody in Alabama is detained, 

we have two jails in north Alabama where they are held until they 

could be taken to New Orleans for a hearing, which is the closest 

immigration judge. 

My question is: Why don’t we have an immigration judge in Alabama, because just the transportation costs alone are just unbelievable? So to that end, I have spoken with Chairman Aderholt of the 

Homeland Approp. Subcommittee, and he and I are going to work 

to try to get an immigration judge in Alabama. We are going to 

work with Lamar Smith of Judiciary to that end. 

My question is would you support that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we certainly would look at that, because you are right to identify the transportation costs and delay, 

because then you take an ICE agent off the line to do the transportation. 

I think your question, though, also illustrates when you are talking about immigration, we really go from CBP and ICE to Justice. 

It is a system. From a jurisdictional standpoint, there is kind of a 

break, so this committee looks at all the way up to apprehension 

and detention, and then everything else is over on the Justice side 

of the ledger. That is where the judges would be found. 
22 

Mr. ROGERS. I am going to work to that end, but I would like 

for you to be supportive in that effort to the extent that you can 

be. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. ROGERS. Then finally, my staff and I have been engaged with 

TSA regarding using CR funds for the procurement of vapor wake 

canines. My question is are you on board with allowing those CR 

funds to be used to procure those assets? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we are, but I will tell you that as 

we look at the fiscal year 2011 House CR, it has a big cut for the 

canine teams, so that also is problematic. As we look at what our 

fiscal year 2011 budget really ought to be and fiscal year 2012, I 

think you and I both agree that canines should be maximized. 

Mr. ROGERS. Great. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KING. The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank both you and the 

Ranking Member. 

Madam Secretary, I don’t know how often you hear this, but let 

me personally thank you for your service. Let me thank the Department of Homeland Security for their service. We interact with 

your team every day of our lives and recognize that you are on the 

front line. I would almost say that we are all working to put ourselves out of business, but we realize the challenges that we are 

facing. 

Let me quickly lay the groundwork for my questions and just, 

first of all, thank you for the fiscal year 2012 budget and your commitment to Federal Air Marshals surge after the Christmas day 

bombing incident. I join with my good friend from Alabama. We are 

canine teams supporters, and I hope that we can work against H.R. 

1—at least, I want to work against it in terms of those potential 

cuts. 

I believe you were questioned extensively about the passenger security fee. I would almost say that most Americans would accept 

that fee. Every time I am traveling through airports, I see a sense 

of comfort and recognition that they are being secured by the enhanced services that they see. 

I am concerned as I notice the H.R. 1, and I just jumped from 

your fiscal year 2012 budget to H.R. 1 and saw that you would actually lose under this budget some 50 percent in technology and 

tactical communications, for border security. You would lose some 

800 positions under border security. 

What disturbs me are the advanced imaging technology machines. You lose a number of them. So I am concerned about that, 

and I wish to ask these questions, if I might. I am just going to 

ask them and then yield to you. 

The H.R. 1, $1.1 billion in reductions—I would just like an impact from you losing that money in our present state. I think most 

people don’t realize this is to finish out what you had already committed to. 

Also, do you support the position of Mr. Pistole on Standard Security Program (SSP)? I am reminded of how we were rushing 

around after 9/11 to find out what happened. 
23 

I also would appreciate—I had asked you a question in your last 

meeting with us about the minority personnel, whether you have 

a chief human services officer that looks at that and looks at procurement. 

Then lastly, this is an issue that has struck me. I am a supporter 

of comprehensive immigration reform. You might want to comment 

on maybe how that would even save some money. But I would like 

to know how ICE might interface and be of help to local law enforcement. 

I have lost two alleged criminals. One drunk driver killed two 

teenagers, and one ultimately committed suicide—under 15—because she thought she should have died in the accident. That person was allowed to go home. They left for Nepal. 

In the last 3 days or 4 days, a woman who has a Nigerian relative was a caretaker for seven babies. Four died in a fire. The allegation is that she left the home and went shopping, and these babies died. She was not picked up, and she left for Nigeria. 

It seems that maybe our local enforcement could interact with 

ICE and say, ‘‘We have suspicions. Can you hold this person?’’ But 

even not, if I can get in a discussion with you on that, we are just 

outraged. The Nepal person has not been found, and the person in 

Nigeria we are still looking for. So I would just appreciate your 

commentary. 

Might I just add my sympathy and respect for Mr. Zapata and 

his family and his partner? We know that we have to do better 

with respect to our ICE partner nations and those who serve overseas, particularly those who are unarmed. 

Madam. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. With respect to cooperation between ICE 

and local law enforcement, I think a key tool is our Secure Communities program. If they make an arrest, if a locality makes an arrest, and they have Secure Communities in the jail, that means 

when the fingerprints are run, they are run not only against the 

FBI criminal databases, but also against the immigration databases to determine legal presence. 

If an individual is not legally present, there is a transfer over to 

ICE after whatever criminal punishment is merited is carried out. 

So that is why the budget continues funding into fiscal year 2012 

for Secure Communities. We will be almost 100 percent complete 

by the end of fiscal year 2012. 

With respect to hiring and diversity in hiring, we have been aggressively moving in that direction. From Senior Executive Service 

(SES) and above positions, we have increased diversity hires by 

17.5 percent over the last year, which is a significant increase. 

The percentage overall employees who are members of ethnic minorities or who led to our diversity is well over—I think I have an 

actual number. I think it is—we have gone from 38 percent to 40.6 

percent in the last—from January 2009 to December 2010. 

So we are really moving aggressively on both of those fronts, the 

SES and then the other positions within the Department. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But there are dollars out of H.R. 1 that you 

are losing. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, as I have mentioned before, it will 

mean—because we are halfway through the fiscal year, so, you 
24 

know, H.R. 1, you almost have to multiply everything times two 

from a management perspective. I am not sure everybody understands that, but because we are already halfway into the year, that 

is what the practical impact is. 

But it will cut the number of AIT machines we were intending 

to deploy by half. It will cut the number of portable explosive trace 

detection machines by half. It will cut the number of canine teams 

by almost two-thirds. I think it will result in longer wait times in 

the airports for the passengers. It will cut funding for 250 ICE 

agents along the Southwest border. It will reduce the FEMA 

grants. I have already commented to that. 

It cuts science and technology research by 50 percent. If I might 

comment to that, people are always asking me, you know, when are 

we going to be able to keep our shoes on and take bottles of water 

on the planes and so forth? Well, that is the kind of technology and 

science research that S&T Directorate funds. Those will be cut dramatically under H.R. 1. 

Chairman KING. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you so much for being here today. 

I want to first express my sympathy to the family of Agent Zapata and, as know you do as well, in the survival of Agent Avila, 

which is nothing short of a miracle, given what happened down 

there. I think it was an intentional ambush, a bit of a game changer that they are now targeting our guys down there, U.S. law enforcement—83 rounds fired from this AK47. 

First, I want to thank you for the good work to apprehend these 

suspects down there. It was their view that this was a case of mistaken identity, that this was a rival drug cartel gang. The briefings 

I have received were that the two agents were American diplomats. 

They have a U.S. diplomatic tag. I saw reports the Mexican Army 

seemed to be reporting what the Zetas were saying in terms of mistaken identity. 

What is the position of this administration with respect to the 

claim that this was mistaken identity? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Representative McCaul, thank you 

for your expressions and your support on this matter. I think it 

would be inappropriate for me to comment on the actual evidence 

that will come in. This obviously is a matter that is being, you 

know, prosecuted. My understanding is that it will be prosecuted 

in the United States, but again those are decisions that are yet to 

come. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I appreciate that, but on my own behalf I will take 

the eyewitness account of our agent over the Zetas who have been 

apprehended any day. I hope the administration would back that 

eyewitness account. With respect to extradition, I am glad you 

brought that up. Is it the administration’s position that we will be 

seeking extradition into the United States? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. MCCAUL. That is very good news. I know President Caldero ́n 

is in the United States, and it is probably a good time to talk to 

him about that. 
25 

Before I get into the budget, one last question with respect to 

that shooting was that I was surprised to find out that there is a 

1990 agreement that prohibits our officers from carrying weapons 

down in Mexico. Things have dramatically changed from 1990. 

There is a war going on, as you know, and it seems to me our 

agents should be armed, if we are going to put them down there 

in harm’s way. 

Would you support a revision of that agreement? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well I think the issue of agents and arming is one that is something that probably should be discussed in 

a more classified setting than a public hearing. Perhaps we can 

provide for that, Mr. Chairman, because it is an issue that involves 

not just Mexico but some other countries as well. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Okay. I look forward to that as well. 

On the budget, I looked at the—it has CBP decrease the border 

security fencing, infrastructure, and technology account by $300 

million, so from $800 million to $500 million, if what I have in 

front of me is correct. 

This was given to us by staff. Do you know what happened to 

that account or whether the monies have decreased? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is not. No, what is happening is we are 

not buying SBInet, because SBInet doesn’t work. I think for the 

first, the Tucson and the Ajo sectors, it was far enough along that 

we completed it and given the topography there, it made sense. But 

border-wide it doesn’t make sense. So what the budget requires, or 

what the budget buys is $242 million of technology that the Border 

Patrol agents can actually use. 

It is remote video, video surveillance equipment. It is mobile 

video equipment, a whole laundry list of things that our agents can 

actually use right now. 

Mr. MCCAUL. So that discrepancy, that is probably just a cancellation of SBInet that appears, but that money will still be used 

towards technology down on the border. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, there is an entire technology plan 

that we have developed for that. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I think that is critically important. You know, in 

my State of Texas there is really almost zero technology down 

there. Congressman Cornyn and I took—as you know, down to the 

border of Laredo with some very good sensor surveillance technology that the Department of Defense had been using. I think he 

was receptive to that idea and commend you. 

I would ask that you look at deploying that type of technology 

all across the southwest border. I think technology is going to be 

the answer down there. Then, of course, we need the manpower to 

respond to it and so—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Well thank you so much. I yield back. 

Chairman KING. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and the Ranking Member for having this meeting. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here with us. Again I 

also want to extend my prayers and sympathies to the ICE family, 

not only the immediate family but to the ICE family here also. He 

was from Brownsville, from Mr. Farenthold’s area, and he was sta-
26 

tioned in Laredo, was part of the BEST program, which is again 

a good coordination program that you all have there. 

What I want to do is focus on the budget. When you look at all the accounts, I believe it is about $500 million impact cut to the 

CBP budget. Could you tell us what the continued resolution, if it 

passes as is, what sort of impact it would have on border security 

operations? Again, look at all the accounts and tell us what sort of 

impact it would have on us. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we will give you a thorough list, 

but as I said, it basically stops our progress in its tracks. If anything, reduces our ability to move ahead. As you know, we have 

been adding record amounts of agents and record amounts of technology, as Representative McCaul just mentioned, to our border 

and, if anything, we are going to have to cut back. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Right. One other thing the American people have 

been saying, especially because of what has been happening across 

the river, that we got to do more for border security, but then with 

this $500 million cut, that pretty much stops the progress that you 

are referring to. Isn’t that correct? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, and what we want to do is continue 

to add to the border. Our goal, as you know, is to have a safe and 

secure border zone, both for the public safety of our communities 

along the border, some of which, Mr. Cuellar, you represent, but 

also recognizing the amount of legitimate trade and travel that 

needs to traverse that border. If it is not safe and secure, it will 

impact the commerce and that impacts jobs, so there are lots of 

ramifications for not continuing with the President’s program. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Right. I think, as Mr. Rogers mentioned a few 

minutes ago, a lot of people when they talk about border security, 

they talk about just among the men and women in green, which 

are the Border Patrol which I support, but you got to have the ICE 

agents. You got to have other agents there. You got to have the 

men and women in blue, which are the ones that guard border—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Ports. 

Mr. CUELLAR [continuing]. I mean, our bridges, the ports of 

entry, which are so important. 

Those are the areas especially trying to find the right border security with the right legitimate balance of trade and tourism, 

which is so important. Laredo is the largest inland port in the 

southern part of it, and that is why the men and women are so important to us. So, I mean, I certainly agree with Mr. Rogers that 

we got to find that balance. In my opinion, the $600 million that we added last year, that 

was probably the largest infusion of cash, will be taken back by 

cutting at least $500 million from the CBP budget for all the advances that we are trying to do. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, if H.R. 1 becomes the 

basis for the fiscal year 2011 budget, that is really a concern, because it will not annualize all of the additions that Congress has 

put down at the border. 

Mr. CUELLAR. I think you hit it right, that we are talking about 

7 months. We are already—it is not a full year, is it? This is just 

addressing part of the remaining year, which makes it a greater 

impact. 
27 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Mr. CUELLAR. I got about a minute and 20 seconds. Let me ask 

you, what about detention beds, that H.R. 1 doesn’t help maintain 

the 33,400 detention beds we need, because when we catch somebody here without the proper documentation, we just can’t catch 

them and release them. We got to detain them before we hit 

them—before we send them off. How does that hit the detention 

bed needs that we have? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, again, we think we need 33,400 detention beds. Now, we don’t need them 33,400 every day. I mean, 

you know it fluctuates a little bit. But we think you need to have 

a constant presence of 33,400 to support the removal of all of the 

individuals we seek to remove from the country this year and next 

year. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Right. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. So and if you—in a way we are caught, 

because you fund the detention bed at 33,400 and the officers necessary to guard those beds, then the cuts can only come out of one 

place and that means the officers that are out in the field. I don’t 

think either makes sense. You have the officers in the field, and 

you have to have the officers in the detention centers. 

Mr. CUELLAR. I have got 11 seconds. Just real quickly, last time 

you said that it would be a good idea to have a fusion center in 

Laredo. We have been talking to your folks, who have a different 

opinion. We don’t have a fusion center at the border and would ask 

you to consider adding a fusion center to the border. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KING. The gentleman only 3 seconds over. Good job, 

Henry. 

The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Cravaack. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, to extend appreciation for all the Homeland Security Officers and their families for what they do on a daily basis. I actually 

had Homeland Security credentials as a Federal flight deck officer 

when we first started that program, so that was many years ago, 

but thank you very much for all the homeland security for what 

they do just on a daily basis, so. 

I agree with you very much and appreciate you working with this 

CR. Unfortunately, you are at the tail end of this whip that has 

been going back and forth, and I appreciate you as a manager 

being able to work through this. 

I will also assure you that this Congress, the 112th, will provide 

a budget for you that will be able to give you stability to make sure 

that you can make those critical decisions that you need to make 

in the future, ensuring that we get the right money to the right 

missions to protect the homeland and people within the United 

States. So I thank you very much for that. 

One of the things I did want to ask you about, though, is just 

recently you were able to—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am going to write that down, by the 

way. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Yes, you betcha! 

I want to make sure that—I just had a couple questions in regards to just recently you went over to Afghanistan. 
28 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. You are thinking about deploying agents over in 

Afghanistan. Could you expand upon that, and why you think that 

is necessary? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, what we are doing, and we have 

about 25 total over there right now, but what we are engaged in 

is basically a training capacity building on the customs side with 

Afghanistan so that they can develop their own customs service, 

particularly at their big land ports like Torkham Gate, which is a 

port between Afghanistan and Pakistan, governing who goes back 

and forth, but also the ability to collect customs revenues so they 

have some revenue for their Government to exist upon, as we continue to convert from a military to civilian presence. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you for that. I think that is a critical mission as well, so thank you for that. 

Also, being an airline pilot, I took a look at the aviation passenger security fee. You are planning to increase that by $1.50 for 

reimbursement. In the reports that I read, that is basically to fund 

TSA costs that have risen by, like, 400 percent. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is true. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Can you tell me why we have had such a dramatic increase in costs in the TSA? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, because the threat to aviation has 

increased. Also because the amount of security we have to supply 

now in airports and for aviation is a very layered approach. But it 

means behavior detection officers. It means K9s. It means explosive 

trace detection equipment. It means the conversion from 

magnetometers to the AIT machines. It means, most importantly, 

personnel. 

What has happened with the fee is that the fee has never been 

increased. It was established in 2002, and it has never been increased at all. So it doesn’t cover. It was intended to cover the cost 

of security for aviation. When it was enacted, that was the Congress’ intent. But because the fee hasn’t gone up, you have now 

this huge gap. It is about a $600 million gap between what we need 

to pay for security in the aviation environment in 2012 and fees. 

We believe it is time for the Congress in this fiscal environment—we will work with the authorizing committees like this one; 

we will work with the appropriations committees—but it is time to 

increase that fee. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. So you are saying, basically, the fees are going 

towards personnel and capital investment. Would that be a fair 

statement? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Okay. The other thing is, being a former Federal 

flight deck officer, where do you see the Federal Flight Deck Officer 

Program? I know it is under TSA but do you still consider that a 

vital portion in our layered defense in terrorism for aircraft? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Well, that was a great answer. I appreciate that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am trying to help the committee 

with—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I appreciate it. With my 51 seconds left—— 

Chairman KING. [Off mike.] 
29 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I will yield, sir. 

Chairman KING. Madam Secretary, in the 45 seconds I have, on 

a serious matter—they have all been serious matters—but especially in view of the shootings in Germany yesterday, does DHS 

have any information whether or not this was a lone wolf attack 

or any links to al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me just say that, Mr. Chairman, I 

think that matter is under investigation and with lead, of course, 

by German authorities, since it occurred in Germany. But I think 

any information about that should be released in a classified setting. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. If you get—let us know if any data or information 

does come in, we would greatly appreciate that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Chairman KING. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Clarke. 

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Napolitano, it is great seeing you again. I wanted to 

thank you for your leadership, your knowledge, your ability to be 

able to handle the threats that our country is facing, and also for 

considering proposals from people like us in the legislature. 

My concerns are about the security of the Detroit sector border 

in particular and about the Northern border. I have got three questions. My first is about the President sending 12 proposals, and it 

is regarding the recent Canada Vision agreement that was entered 

into between the United States and Canada and if you had 

thoughts on how that agreement could better supplement security 

in the Northern border. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think that agreement is a landmark agreement for a number of reasons. But one of them is because it recognizes the need to have a perimeter security around 

Canada so that we begin utilizing some of the same criteria for who 

can enter Canada as they enter the United States, as we begin to 

understand the need to exchange information about travelers and 

the like. 

That will have an impact on the actual physical border, such as 

the border at Detroit, because we will, you know, have the ability, 

I think, to have equivalent information and equivalent standards 

and the like. That will facilitate, I believe, the legitimate trade and 

travel that needs to be able to cross, particularly at the Detroit 

area. 

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Thank you, Secretary. 

My other two questions go to the impact that the House-passed 

continuing resolution would have on border security. 

As I mentioned to you before, the Detroit sector is the busiest 

international border crossing, huge population center, international 

airport, large regional water system. Because of our declining State 

and local revenue, our first responders really don’t have the capacity to protect us. 

In my opinion I believe that that sector warrants a Tier 2 consideration rather than the current Tier 1 status. I appreciate your 

willingness to listen to me earlier this month on that issue. 

One concern I have in the House-passed CR is that it limits the 

Urban Area Security Initiative funding to the top 25 urban centers. 
30 

Do you think this restriction will impact your Department’s ability 

to protect urban areas? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think the intent of that provision 

is to make sure that our largest, highest-risk areas do not get 

shorted on grant monies. Without commenting on that, let me just 

say that overall H.R. 1, by cutting almost $1 billion out of the 

grant process, it is going to affect everybody. I don’t—you are going 

to—up and down the list of cities. 

So without commenting further on the amendment that was 

passed, again, nobody will escape unscathed if that budget remains 

the budget. 

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Thank you. My last question deals with 

the border security sensing infrastructure and technology account 

that is within CBP. The current CR made a huge cut to that. What 

type of impact would that have on the security of the Detroit sector 

border, if you have any opinion on that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I don’t know that I have broken it out 

sector-by-sector to that level of detail, but it would certainly limit 

our ability to invest in new technology. I think a number of Members on both sides have recognized that you can’t do this job with 

manpower alone. We need to be able to deploy the best available 

technology that our agents can use in the field. 

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Thank you, Secretary. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KING. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RIGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Napolitano, thank you very much for your testimony 

today. I would like to just share with you a comment that was 

made to me by a local sheriff and just get your perspective on it. 

He commented that the sheriff’s office is required by law to notify ICE every time that they have an illegal immigrant. Very rarely does ICE respond back if they are or are not an illegal alien. 

However, it would make no difference, because they would not put 

a hold on them anyway. This is due to funding problems, since ICE 

does not have enough beds to act on the reported aliens. 

The court process takes 18 months to determine whether or not 

that person is indeed an illegal alien. This would require more 

cells, prosecutors, clerks and attorneys, and no one would fund 

what it actually costs to deport all the illegal aliens. The local sheriff’s office does not have the resources to do ICE’s job. 

Now I have learned in life that there are always two sides, and 

there is more to this than maybe what is here. So would you kindly 

comment on that and give that some perspective? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well yes, Representative, and I would 

kind of like to know which sheriff we are talking about. I think I 

actually do know. 

Mr. RIGELL. Okay. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. But in any event, we work very closely 

with the sheriffs and police chiefs around the country. 

One of the key challenges we have is, you know, estimates vary, 

but estimates vary from between 8 to 12 million people who are in 

this country illegally. Plain fact of the matter is that if you look 

at the cost of removing an individual you can—the Congress has 
31 

funded the removal of about 400,000 a year. We have prioritized 

in that 400,000 to say that the No. 1 priority is for those who are 

convicted of crimes. 

That is why the President’s budget expands what is called Secure 

Communities and puts it in the jails of our country, which are operated by the sheriffs, and the prisons of the country, which are operated by State Bureau of Prisons, because that is a way to make 

sure that those are committing crimes in addition to being in the 

country illegally are being removed through the immigration process. 

So in that 400,000, last year we removed over 200,000 who were 

criminal aliens, which was a record number by a large percentage. 

That is what Secure Communities enables us to do. 

Now, I don’t know whether this particular sheriff has a jail 

where Secure Communities is not yet installed. If it is, it is something that we could get that information from and work with him 

on. But that is probably the easiest way to deal with his base concern. 

Mr. RIGELL. Okay. Thank you for your response. 

You know, I have come to this body as an entrepreneur business 

owner, first-time elected official, and I have just been struck by, 

frankly, the tangled web of reporting relationships and the complexity of the committee structure and the organizational chart of 

the House, and I am sure that like every organization it can be refined and improved upon. 

Would you kindly give us your perspective on the number of committees that oversee Homeland Security and how that might be 

streamlined? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I appreciate that question. This is something the Chairman and I have discussed. If oversight is a blessing, 

I guess you could say DHS is particularly blessed. 

When we were created, what happened was a number of departments were merged into DHS, and we all carried with—everyone 

carried with them their committees. None of the committees were 

reorganized, really, to match the new Department. 

So the end result is we report to 108 committees of the Congress. 

The overwhelming majority of those are committees and subcommittees of the House. In the 111th Congress we testified 285 

times, 140 times with component heads who had to come down and 

testify. We provided 3,900 briefings to the Congress in the 111th 

Congress—3,900. 

We are required to file something around 425 written reports a 

year. So it is a huge manpower drain on the Department. We 

would like to take some of those resources and put them into operations, particularly given the fiscal environment we are in, and we 

will support any effort by the committee to help us achieve that 

goal. 

Mr. RIGELL. Well, thank you. I would want to join you in that 

effort, and I believe the committee generally would. Thank you for 

your testimony. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KING. I can safely say this is one issue where the Secretary, the Ranking Member, and I agree 1,000 percent. It is absolutely disgraceful, the current system we have. 
32 

The gentlelady from New York, my colleague, Ms. Clarke. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, how are we doing questions? 

Mr. Davis was here. I was here—several Members. It seems like 

we are getting a little out of order, although I love my—here. 

Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Chairman, no problem. I yield 

the—— 

Chairman KING. Fine, okay. I will recognize Mr. Davis. 

Mr. Davis is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here and for your testimony. I also want to express the sentiments conveyed by my colleagues in reference to imminent danger that all of our personnel 

involved in homeland security and other aspects of Government 

face on a daily basis. So we appreciate their services. 

There has been a great deal of progress in relationship to surface 

transportation, but I also think that buses still remain pretty easy 

targets. What funding options do you think might help sustain our 

security for this sector of transportation? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Representative, that funding, because buses are operated primarily, you know, at the municipal 

level, you would find funding for that. There are transit security 

grants, but there are also UASI grants, other sorts of grants that 

can be used for transportation security. So you would find those, 

you know, primarily under FEMA and primarily under the grant 

programs there. 

Mr. DAVIS. I noticed that the Transit Security Grant Program 

has been reduced to $200 million below the current levels. Does 

DHS have a way or do you have any thoughts about how you can 

help again with the security needs of this type public transportation in local areas? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. What we have recommended, Congressman, is that the number of grant programs under FEMA be consolidated from 17 to 9. That will reduce overhead at FEMA, which 

is where we put our grants. 

It will reduce overhead in localities in terms of how many applications they have to submit and making sure that the grants that 

remain are broad enough to include local decisions. If that is where 

they want to put their security money, they can put it into, say, 

the bus system, the subway, wherever. 

Mr. DAVIS. I also think we have made a tremendous amount of 

progress in this area, but I note that the President’s requested 

funding calls for an increase in video agents that will bring us up 

to over 3,000. What civil rights, human rights, and private rights 

protections are we dealing with in order to assure that these individuals are not—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Profiled. 

Mr. DAVIS. That is right. They are not racially profiled or ethnically. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. I think it is very important, given 

the very important Constitutional safeguards Americans have. But 

our video program has been developed with internal oversight by 

our own civil rights component and our own office of privacy component. The training has been viewed and approved. 
33 

We are constantly looking at what best practices are so that we 

do not fall into the trap of profiling, which, by the way, does not 

give—you know, you want to do intelligence-based, you want to be 

looking for tactics, you want to be looking for techniques and behaviors, not ethnicity or race, when you are really providing security. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Finally, do you support TSA Administrator Pistole’s decision not to expand the SPP program for private 

airport screeners? Do you think this is good for security? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think Administrator Pistole, who, of 

course, was a former deputy director of the FBI, has made the 

right call here for several reasons. One is he wants to maintain 

flexibility to surge resources when he needs to, and there are issues 

there when you are talking about privatization of the screening 

population. 

Secondly, the studies that have been—you know, they still have 

to meet TSA requirements in terms of what they do, so it is not 

like there are different screening requirements. They are more expensive than simply maintaining it within the TSA structure, and 

that is an issue. 

Third, I think it is important to recognize that even when you 

privatize, you still have unions. Several of the privatized 

workforces are indeed also unionized. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman KING. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did you need me to yield 

a minute? 

Chairman KING. No, you don’t. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LONG. Okay. They told me earlier, but—— 

Thank you, Secretary, for being here. Back in December, you announced that additional DHS officers were being sent to Afghanistan to assist in border control and customs. Would you please further explain the value of having DHS employees overseas and expand on some of the work being done by DHS officials in Afghanistan and other countries around the world? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, this is actually one of those things 

one recognizes is that the Department of Homeland Security actually has a footprint that is around the world. 

As I explained a little bit earlier, we have about two dozen employees in Afghanistan. They are training customs and customs officers so that Afghanistan can have its own customs force and also 

learn how to—or exchange about how we operate major ports of 

entry like the ports between Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

But we also have employees around the world at international 

airports, where they are a last point of departure for the United 

States. We have immigration officials at embassies around the 

world, such as Riyadh, for example, to help do security checks on 

individuals seeking visas. 

We have individuals around the world, who are working on protecting against human trafficking into the United States, protection 

of our intellectual property from the United States. There is actu-
34 

ally quite an extensive international force laydown from the Department. 

Mr. LONG. So the employees that we have over there are not 

training themselves. They are doing the training. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Correct. 

Mr. LONG. Okay. That is not how I interpreted it. 

You also mentioned that more Border Patrol agents than ever 

would be employed under this budget, and Black Hawk helicopters 

have become an effective and safe weapon in the toolbox of our 

Customs and Border Patrol agents. The Customs and Border Patrol 

have a great need of Black Hawk helicopters in carrying out their 

missions. Are you aware of this, and does your budget request reflect this? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, yes, but we request other kinds of 

air support as well as fixed—as well as helicopters, also fixed wing 

support. There is also Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) support in 

the fiscal year 2012 budget so that we have and want to have total 

air coverage, particularly on the southwest border all the way from 

El Centro through Texas. 

Mr. LONG. Oh, the agents, Border Patrol agents and ones who 

have contacted us expressing interest, they feel that the Black 

Hawk is probably their best, and if they could—I know that it is 

surplus equipment, and when they buy the Black Hawks, they are 

surplus, so just if we can look at that for them, I would appreciate 

it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Oh, absolutely. The Black Hawks have 

many uses. I will share with you that there is a great demand for 

Black Hawks by the Department of Defense, by us, by others, so 

they are really greatly in demand around the world. 

Mr. LONG. One other thing, small business—I, like Mr. Rigell, 

come with a small business background, not a political background, 

ran my own business 30 years, of which part was real estate 

broker. 

A title company in our district in the 7th recently had $400,000 

stolen, sent to Pakistan through cyber. The Secret Service has jurisdiction over these crimes, I understand, but what they did, effectively they came and emptied their bank account, which was not 

their money. The title company, of course, it is fiduciary. They are 

holding money for real estate closings. 

Secret Service, as I said, has jurisdiction over these crimes. How 

does the President’s budget help protect our small business from 

these types of crimes, where they can come in and empty out bank 

accounts? The money goes to Pakistan. Secret Service has jurisdiction. Is there anything in the budget to help or give small business 

a solace? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would have—well, first, No. 1, I would 

have to know more about the facts to say definitively the Secret 

Service has jurisdiction, but the President’s budget includes a great 

increase for cyber security on the civilian side. 

That means the protection of the civilian side of the Federal Government and our intersection with key sectors like the banking sector in the United States in terms of how they protect their own 

cyber networks, because realize the Government, you know, doesn’t 
35 

own the banking structure. I mean, that is owned by the banks 

themselves. They have their own cyber protection. 

What we are doing is working with them as to what that protection entails. We are working with them to let us know when they 

have been hacked into and funds have been stolen and issues like 

that. So the President’s budget greatly increases the amount available to us for cyber protection generally. 

Mr. LONG. Okay. Thank you again for being here today and fitting us in your schedule. 

I have no time to yield back, but if I did, I would. 

Chairman KING. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson, 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, let me start off by saying thank you for coming, as always, and your work in this area has been, I think, when 

you look at the history of the secretaries in this area has been really commendable, so thank you. 

I want to join in with Ranking Member Thompson in asking for 

the briefing on the cargo inspection and security piece. 

Also I want to reference a question I asked, seems like a couple 

of weeks ago when you were here last, about a briefing on continuity of Government. When I say continuity of Government, I am 

not referencing agencies. I am talking about with elected officials 

and how we respond and assist, if and when a disaster occurs. 

Thirdly, I want to commend you. I have observed one of the new 

Coast Guard cutter response vehicles. There was an oil spill in my 

district last week, and I saw the 45 and the ability to navigate 

from side to side, the ability to stop on a dime. I mean, it just 

seemed like we are really finally getting to the point where we can 

be as good as the bad guys. So congrats on that effort. 

My questions are as follows. No. 1, I want to talk about the trade 

agreements. I asked you last time had your department had an opportunity to work with Ambassador Ron Kirk to see if we could engage some of these cargo screening issues, because last time when 

I asked you the question, about 2 years ago, you said the reason 

why we couldn’t deploy it was because we needed all this global cooperation. 

So my question is: With the impending trade agreements, have 

you had an opportunity to work with Ambassador Kirk to make 

sure we can resolve these issues? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. To date, I have not yet been involved 

with Ambassador Kirk. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. When could I expect that, because I did 

ask it last time when you were here. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me look into it and we will get back 

to you as soon as possible. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Thank you. 

My second question has to do with the reviewing of allocation of 

grant funds. It is my understanding from the courts in my area 

that UASI Tier 1 level has changed from five cities to now 10. That 

has a lot to do with the significance in drops of grant funding. 

So I was just wanting to ask if you would consider relooking at 

that and seeing why has the change occurred, because I think one 

of the great things about your Department was that you honestly 
36 

viewed things based upon their merit and the significance and not 

getting into the political, you know, fights that we might have here 

in Washington. 

So if you could review that and get back, that would be helpful. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mrs. RICHARDSON. Thank you. 

No. 3, I wanted to talk about cargo inspection. One of my colleagues said, well, you know, the layered effect and all of that. I 

will admit it is kind of a personal issue, because it is reflective of 

my district. 

I would venture to argue that if, in terms of traveling by air, we 

use the same systems, you look on the computer, you are checking, 

you know, who the people are and all of that, but everyone isn’t 

just simply walking through the airport. You still have a layer of 

inspection that occurs at the airport that we all have to go through. 

So I want to echo my concerns on, as the Ranking Member did, 

that I am just really concerned of where we are. I realize the chatter doesn’t raise to the level as you are dealing with with aviation. 

I get all of that. But all we need is one problem, and suddenly 

things will change. 

So you were quoted as saying that you are looking to extend the 

deadline to July 2014. Do you really honestly see implementing 

this program? Or do you just think you are going to keep kicking 

the can down the road? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am hopeful that we can persuade the 

Congress that the statute itself, the statutory requirement, is not 

the best way to secure the global supply chain, and that there are 

better ways, and that we are engaged in those. 

But even given the existing statute, given that we would have to 

have agreements with, I think, 700-plus different ports, given the 

configuration of ports around the world, given the expense of some 

of the equipment that is associated by only focusing on what happens at the ports as opposed to the entire supply chain, by focusing 

on one area, we really don’t fully get to the goal I think we all 

share, which is to make sure that materiel entering the United 

States is safe. 

So I think that this is going to have to be an area where we continue to work with the Congress, work with the committee moving 

forward. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. I am going to be really quick, because 

I have one last question. Would you be open, then, to at least working with us, because since I have been here in the last 3 years, it 

seems like we are at the same point. You say I want to do it the 

way I have been doing it. We kind of express other concerns. 

What I would like to maybe say is could we all get together, 

maybe in a working session, and kind of talk about what are concerns and maybe come to a compromise instead of us, you know, 

just kicking the football back and forth. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. I know we have briefed the committee multiple times on what we are doing on cargo, but we would 

be happy, as always, to work with the committee. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, could I have an additional 30 seconds? 

Chairman KING. Thirty seconds to the lady. 
37 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Secretary, as I mentioned, there was 

an oil spill in my district. I was not notified by DHS or anyone. I 

read it in the newspaper. 

So what I would like to talk about, as I said, is continuity of Government of what—and I am willing to work with you. It is actually 

a passion of mine that I see as a huge weakness, from Hurricane 

Katrina and so many other areas. But I still don’t think we have 

mastered how we engage this end of the rail in these disasters. So 

I would like to work with you on that. 

Chairman KING. Okay. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. 

Chairman KING. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The gentleman, Mr. Duncan, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Napolitano, thank you for coming back before this committee. I reviewed in the written statement that you gave us the 

six identified Department of Homeland Security missions. I appreciate you breaking that out for us. 

Last month, this committee had the opportunity to discuss the 

border situation, the Southern border situation mainly, with Chief 

Fisher. At that time, I read the definition of operational control 

from the Secure Fence Act of 2006, in which Congress defined operational control as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the 

United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful 

aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband. 

This definition is brought more to the forefront with the understanding that Hezbollah is in cahoots with a cartel. I am concerned, 

as many Americans, that they are using smuggling routes of the 

cartel to bring God knows what into this country. 

The Customs and Border Patrol is publishing data stating that 

only 44 percent of the Southwest border is under operational control. We see that a border State, Arizona, is suing the Federal Government, your home State. 

Yet, earlier, Chief Fisher had earlier stated that they had acceptable level of operational control. I stated to him the acceptable level 

of operational control to the American people means that we control who enters this country. 

On February 11, a Arizona sheriff, 34-year law enforcement veteran, Larry Dever, he said this. ‘‘I can’t stand publicly and endorse 

a political initiative part of this,’’ said Dever, whose county borders 

Mexico in the southeast Arizona area. ‘‘I can’t stand up side by side 

with people who say that this border is safe and secure when it is 

not.’’ 

This came only a few days after the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection Commissioner Al Bersin came to Arizona to meet with 

border sheriffs to discuss border security. Dever stated that the 

President—the administration—‘‘was seeking to sell the belief to 

the American people that the border is safe and secure as part of 

a publicity campaign.’’ Those are his words. 

So my question for you this morning is just a further understanding of what Chief Fisher and this administration and your office means when they talk about operational control. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Representative, as I have said 

many times, what we want to have is a safe and secure border zone 
38 

from San Diego to Brownsville. No one is more familiar with that 

Arizona border than I am. I have worked that border as a prosecutor, as a Governor, and now as the Secretary since 1993. So I 

have a lot of years as experience with that border. 

There are disagreements among the sheriffs along that border, 

by the way, so I would just simply note that. Not all the sheriffs 

are in agreement with Sheriff Dever, who I also worked with for 

many years. 

But here is the point that I think is so important. The point is, 

is that we have a pathway forward on that border. It includes manpower. It includes technology. It includes infrastructure. It is a 

combination of all three of those things. 

It also includes effective interior enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws, because the big driver of illegal immigration across 

that border is the opportunity to work in the United States, make 

a wage, and send it back to another country, primarily Mexico 

right now. 

So that is what the pathway forward is. That is what the plan 

to build-up has been. That is why the President has put more Border Patrol agents in his budget than any time in our Nation’s history. 

That is why he put more funding into technology. That is why 

he has put more funding into ICE. That is why he has supported 

the largest deployment of technology at the Southwest border in 

our Nation’s history. That is the pathway forward. That is the 

plan. 

Unfortunately, the H.R. 1 that passed here contradicts that plan. 

It goes backwards. It will take us back to where we were several 

years ago in terms of the actual resources that are available at the 

Southwest border. So I would respectfully ask this committee to 

look at the continuing resolution and look at our fiscal year 2012 

budget requests with those priorities in mind. 

But I think we all share the same goal. The goal is to have a 

safe and secure border. The goal is to have a border through which 

legitimate travel and trade can go back and forth. We have some 

huge land ports of entry along that border. 

Mexico is the No. 1 or 2 trading partner of, I think, 23 of our 

States. So that needs to be facilitated, even as we increase the 

manpower and equipment laydown between the ports. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I thank you. I think our goal is the same in 

securing the border, determining what comes in here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KING. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating, is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for being here today. 

Last month we had the chance to discuss the aftermath of the 

death of a 16-year-old, Delvonte Tisdale, tragically, whose mutilated body was found in eastern Massachusetts in the direct line 

of a 737 commercial flight that left Charlotte on its way to Logan. 

Forensic experts have ascertained that Mr. Tisdale reached the 

perimeter at Charlotte Douglas International Airport, hid before 
39 

takeoff in the wheel well of the airplane that was bound for Boston 

Logan International Airport. 

To date, there has been no video surveillance that surfaced that 

could detail how Mr. Tisdale was able to breach airport operation 

in that area in Charlotte Douglas. The case surely suggests that 

there may be perimeter and airfield access vulnerabilities in other 

airports as well. Now, this week Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department released a public version of their investigation. 

Indeed, the police department’s investigation, the local police department’s investigation concluded there is a need to strengthen 

the perimeter security in many respects. 

I am glad that this airport, a major hub, will be working with 

TSA to implement these new security measures. I am sure that you 

agree that if there is a security breakdown in one airport, particularly a hub such as Charlotte Douglas, that countless airport and 

cities are vulnerable. So I had four questions I would just like to 

pose. 

I would like to make sure, if it is possible, that the Members of 

this committee are briefed on the classified police department report that they had issued. Can you agree to work with our committee in that respect? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, it is a matter that is still under investigation, how that particular breach occurred, so I am not at liberty to discuss it in a public setting, but we will explore when the 

investigation is complete how we go about sharing it. 

Mr. KEATING. My understanding is that the local police investigation is complete from local officials. Could you share that local 

police report, at least, with this committee? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, let me look into this. 

That was not my understanding, so let me look into that. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. 

Ranking Member Thompson and myself asked TSA to conduct its 

own investigation in this matter. Now that the TSA has the report 

from the police department, when will TSA commence that investigation? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well I believe that TSA—their investigation is underway. In addition, you know, we learn from all these 

incidents. You know, this is a—you know every time there is a 

breach of whatever type, it is something that we say, well, okay, 

what happened here? Is it capable of repetition? What needs to 

happen systemically? 

You are right to point out the hub nature of Charlotte, if that 

is indeed where this individual got on board. It is something that 

reminds us of, you know perimeter, which as you know, the TSA 

doesn’t control the perimeter. It has standards that airports are 

supposed to abide by with respect to perimeters. So we are looking 

at all of that afresh in light of this incident and any kind of incident. 

Mr. KEATING. Well let me try and, for the sake of time, combine 

my third and fourth questions together. Let me express this. All 

the way along I have a greater sense of urgency when a breach of 

this nature occurs that could threaten not only this airport, but 

other airports than I suppose that many other people, it seems. But 
40 

to me I am a bit dumbfounded that that sense of urgency hasn’t 

resulted in quicker action. 

I have had the chance on my own, and with some assistance, to 

look at some of the minimum standards, which I will not discuss, 

because I don’t think it is great to discuss publicly what some of 

the minimum standards are in terms of the perimeter at airports. 

But suffice it to say looking at those from my perspective that 

I have been able to view, I am not satisfied and I will tell you the 

truth, I don’t think the public would be satisfied if they knew what 

those minimum standards are. 

My question to you is: Given the minimum standards and given 

the fact that you just expressed that there is another jurisdiction 

often involved in implementing those standards, what can we give 

you for authority, if necessary, to make sure there is a seamless 

approach to making sure those perimeter and tarmac areas are as 

secure as they should be? Because my view of what happened in 

Charlotte clearly indicates that there is a major breach. 

In a bank robbery you can go back after someone did it and get 

video tape, forensic evidence. There is no sign in the videotape from 

anything I have seen that they can even locate how he did it, yet 

he did. 

So I see a major problem, and we are going to work with you as 

a committee to see if we can give you more authority, if necessary, 

more resources, if that is necessary. But to me that is a profound 

danger to the traveling public where they are barraged at the gate, 

which is fine, and we all accept those kind of intrusions, but you 

look out the window at the tarmac and perimeter and, frankly, I 

don’t feel safe when I am taking a plane. 

Chairman KING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

In consultation with the Ranking Member, we are asking unanimous consent to have all future question periods limited to 3 minutes, so the Secretary can make it to the White House for her 

meeting with the President of Mexico. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We will work with the committee on this. 

Chairman KING. Thank you. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. 

Chairman KING. Without objection, the time limit is now 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Getting back to the student visa issue, describe the enhanced 

monitoring capabilities of SEVIS–2 as opposed to SEVIS–1. If you 

can tell me when—I know the program, the system has been delayed. It hasn’t been deployed, scheduled to be deployed last year. 

Give me a time line: When do you think this will be implemented? What are we doing? What is ICE doing to monitor, enhance monitor these individuals in the mean time? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I will get back to the exact time 

line Representative, but you know, as I mentioned earlier at this 

hearing, ICE is able, under the current SEVIS system to monitor, 

to monitor for suspicious activity reporting in bank accounts and 

the like, and that is indeed one of the ways in which this individual 

was detected. 
41 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. What is the current level of coordination 

and information sharing between DHS and the State Department 

regarding student visa issuance? Then, again, why didn’t the President—actually the budget is flat on the visa security units, and I 

know we have identified—I think there are 17 that are actually in 

place, and I know we have close to 70 identified high-risk areas in 

the world. 

Can you explain to me why? Is this not a priority of this administration? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, all issues of security are a priority 

and all of them have a sense of urgency about them in reference 

to the prior question. I think we put ICE individuals into embassies upon agreement with the State Department as to where they 

should go, and we have requested funding for where we have 

agreements. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay, thank you. 

I will yield back in the interest of time. Thank you. 

Chairman KING. Thank the gentleman. 

The gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke, is now recognized 

again. 

Ms. CLARKE of New York. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It is so good to see you, Secretary Napolitano. Thank you for your 

forthrightness in the responses to what is a very challenging budget. I was sitting here and just thinking that some of what our concerns are almost diametrically opposed to what has come forth in 

the House-passed CR. It is interesting to hear the conversation. 

But I have a question about cybersecurity. The National Cyber 

Security Division is currently planning to deploy five Einstein monitors and five key nodes on the dot-gov domain that should be used 

to protect and to detect intrusions on computer systems. If the continuing resolution is adopted by the Congress and you don’t receive 

your requested funds for fiscal year 2011, how would it affect this 

much-needed project and the request for $236.6 million in the fiscal 

year 2012 budget? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It will cause significant delay, Representative. I think for the deployment of Einstein 3, we would see that 

moved back at least 2 or 3 years in terms of our ability to deploy 

it. Talk about an area where there is urgency, the cyber area has, 

has real urgency associated with it, so we hope we can work with 

the Congress to revisit that issue. 

Ms. CLARKE of New York. Yes, I think that that is an area of 

concern that both sides delay the radar for whatever reasons, and 

it is going to take, I guess, us, as my father would say, to feel it 

before we realize how much of a priority it is. 

I want to move quickly to interoperability and the whole question 

of the D Block spectrum. There seem to be dueling opinions around 

the D Block spectrum and I see that, you know, you and the President have been focused on reserving in support of the reallocation 

of the D Block to public safety. 

Can you elaborate to the committee the level of involvement the 

Department has had in the D Block debate and how you envision 

fiscal year 2012 budget helping the Department and the Office of 

Emergency Communication to preserve that for public safety communication networks? 
42 

You know, this is a key area in light of what we have seen and 

what we have witnessed during the 9/11 terrorist event and Hurricane Katrina. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Representative. We have been very 

involved ever since the FCC initial decision was announced that 

they wanted to auction off the D Block. 

Ms. CLARKE of New York. That is correct. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, we both raised our hand and said, ‘‘Wait, there is 

a public safety issue involved here.’’ We have reached agreement 

within the administration. Absolutely, the D Block ought to be reserved for public safety. I believe we will all be working with the 

Congress on the statutory changes needed to effectuate that. 

Ms. CLARKE of New York. Fabulous. 

Just in closing, Madam Secretary under the continuing resolution, the DNDO would lose at least $20 million for acquisition this 

fiscal year. I am coming around to the issue of Securing the Cities 

and how this would impact Securing the Cities, human portable detectors, and other deployments. Can you share that with us, 

please? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, the budget for (Domestic Nuclear 

Detection Office) DNDO would affect both of those things and, as 

I noted in my opening statement, we have asked for money in the 

fiscal year 2012 budget to not only continue Securing the Cities, 

but to add to it. 

Chairman KING. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

I would add that in the CR, Securing the Cities is protected, I 

believe. We can discuss that, as I said to the Secretary, before, and 

we will—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, I was referring to the other detection—— 

Chairman KING. Securing the Cities is protected. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. But it is true that in the fiscal year 2012 budget, Securing the Cities is sustained—— 

Chairman KING. Right. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. And we want to add another 

city to it. 

Chairman KING. Right. 

The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Quayle, is recognized for 3 

minutes. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for coming here. 

There has been a lot of talk I think in this talk with the budget 

of 2012 with the CR that just went through the House and will be 

going through the Senate and coming back, probably. 

But one of the focuses of both the media and here this afternoon 

has been what effects it is going to have on securing the Southwest 

border. I just wanted to give a little lay of the land of how this CR 

is going, because from my looking at it, it is going to be adding 

more border agents, not decreasing more border agents. It has increased funds for CVP by $147.9 million over what it 

was for fiscal year 2010, which was an increase compared to what 

the administration fiscal year 2011 request was. It also provides 

$550 million for fencing infrastructure and technology, $57.8 mil-
43 

lion for ICE to maintain new Southwest border hires, and no fewer 

than 33,400 detention beds. 

It also includes $60 million for Operation Stonegarden, which is 

the same as fiscal year 2010. Now in going forward with the CR 

and then also with the fiscal 2012, what in terms of priorities do 

you think that we should be focusing on for the Southwest border? 

Is it technology, more Border Patrol agents? Which do you think 

is most important in that regard? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, first of all, I think there is a lot 

of—I really can’t agree with the laydown you gave of the facts in 

terms of how they really affect funding for the Southwest border, 

Representative Quayle. I will be glad to get with you after this 

hearing, because time is precious. 

But I think even Senator Kyl yesterday put out an article expressing concern about H.R. 1 and how it affects the force laydown 

for border and immigration enforcement. So I think there is some 

bipartisan disquiet there. 

It is not a good border budget. It is not a good immigration budget, and we believe very strongly that just to keep moving in the direction we are moving is the right thing. The numbers that need 

to change are all going in the right direction, and dramatically so, 

particularly in Arizona. 

We need more manpower, we need more technology, and we need 

more funding for infrastructure put in the right places, and the 

right kind of infrastructure. It is hard to say, well, one, two and 

three. It is all of the above, because it is a system. 

Then you need to back that system up with enforcement in the 

interior of the country, which is primarily ICE. So, when you have 

that system in place, you begin to see the dramatic impacts that 

we have seeing over the past several years. 

Mr. QUAYLE. All right. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KING. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond, 

is recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

We are having an issue in Louisiana that I think rises, in my 

opinion, to a Homeland Security issue, especially when you talk 

disaster response. You talk about dredging of the Mississippi River, 

and you talk about all the ships that come through with petrochemicals, and so forth. 

What if those ships run aground and we have a leak then that 

falls smack-dab under your agency in terms of the response? Are 

you at all involved in making sure that our ports are dredged to 

a safe level, at least to their authorized level, so that we don’t have 

that? 

Our river pilots, who navigate the ships on the Mississippi River, 

had to issue a warning in a memorandum to their pilots not to traverse the river at night-time, wait ’til high water, because of a fear 

of running aground and having a spill. So I know that agencies 

don’t talk to each other, but that is a big concern of mine. Have 

you paid any attention to that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am not personally familiar with that 

particular issue, or that particular port issue. But I can say that 
44 

the Coast Guard works very directly with the shipping industry, 

with those involved—we have the captains of the ports, for example—and with the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Mr. RICHMOND. The other thing I would just like to add, especially as States start to deal with major budget problems, especially 

Louisiana, and we deal with our own budget problems up here, the 

grants for emergency preparedness, for event planning, exercises, 

management, and all of those things, if we see a reduction in those 

grants, is it possible that we create a more general pool so that the 

local emergency preparedness offices can better utilize or prioritize 

what they need to use the grants for? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, that is one of the reasons why we 

recommended consolidating the current list of 17 to 9, to give localities some more flexibility to reduce the number of grant applications and the paperwork they have to submit. It was something 

that we asked for last year. We are asking for it again in the fiscal 

year 2012 budget. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KING. Thank the gentleman. 

The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the 

Chairman of the counterintelligence subcommittee, Mr. Meehan, 

for 3 minutes. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being with us here again, and 

for your extensive preparation. I, among many in Washington in 

the last 48 hours, have been with those who have been sort of dogearing the most recent report from GAO. 

It was a pretty tough challenge in many parts of Government, including our own backyard here, as we all collectively look at the 

issue of homeland security. They were looking at overlap and fragmentation among Government programs. 

But a particular area, the area of bioterrorism—and I quote from 

the report—‘‘at least five departments, eight agencies, and more 

than two dozen Presidential appointees oversee $6.48 billion related to bioterrorism.’’ 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. MEEHAN. If you go deeper into it, it says at one point, ‘‘there 

is no broad, integrated National strategy that encompasses all 

stakeholders with biodefense responsibilities’’—this is on the front 

end—‘‘with respect to systematically identifying risk, assessing resources needed to address that risk, and then prioritizing and allocating the investment.’’ So that goes to sort of our preparedness for 

an event. 

Then it says that, ‘‘there is no National plan to coordinate Federal, State, and local efforts following a bioterror event, and the 

United States lacks the technical and operational capabilities required for an adequate response.’’ 

That is a tough accusation for all of us who share a concern 

about this issue. I know you represent just one of the multiple 

agencies, but this is a big challenge for all of us in Government. 

How do we begin to look at this incredible problem? This is a canary in a coal mine, in my mind, right now. 
45 

How do we begin to look at the issue of a National strategy and 

get that focal point, go across the multiple agencies, but not only 

be better with our resources in terms of fiscally responsible, but 

deal with issue of appropriate preparedness and response? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, well first of all, if I might 

suggest something for the committee to consider? That is, I don’t 

think it is overall helpful for GAO reports that are allegedly pointing out alleged vulnerabilities to be put out in an unclassified format. I think that is a problem. I think I have referenced it several 

times. I would respectfully ask the Congress to really look at that, 

for obvious reasons. 

Second, the issue of bio, I believe—it is very complicated, because 

you are quite correct. It does cross multiple agencies. You have got 

entities at Health and Human Services (HHS), you have got us, 

you have got the DOD. You have got some smaller agencies, all of 

which have a piece of this. 

We have been working primarily with HHS on merely trying to 

create or construct a pathway forward at the interagency level 

where bio is concerned. What I would like to do is have some of 

the people directly involved with that brief you in a classified setting. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I would thank you. That would be great. That 

would be a great opportunity to begin trying to work on something, 

whether we like it or not, that is out there now in public and we 

are going to be asked about. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman KING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Farenthold. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I would like to personally thank you for being 

in Brownsville attending a memorial mass for Agent Zapata. My office has continued to be in contact with the Zapata family and let 

them know that you would be here today, and actually asked if 

they had any questions for you. 

They sent a list of 17 that definitely points out the fact that it 

is a family dedicated to law enforcement. Mr. McCaul has asked a 

couple of them, and a couple of them are in details that aren’t appropriate for the scope of this meeting. 

But the one that I don’t think was asked that I do think is important that we address is: What concrete steps are we taking to 

make sure that something like this doesn’t happen again? Are 

those steps addressed in the budget proposal that was put together 

clearly behind the scenes before this event that I consider being an 

escalation in the war against drugs on our Southern border? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think, first of all, thank you for 

being at the service. It was very moving and it was the Zapata 

family. You have two other—it was five sons, and I think two others are DHS employees, and the father is a law enforcement official, retired now—so really, a great Brownsville family and great 

citizens of our country. 

Moving forward, first of all, we have been working on a very intensive basis with the Government of Mexico and with DOJ on not 

only the investigation of the shooting of Agent Zapata, but what 
46 

can be done to deal with some of the entire organizations that are 

now plaguing Mexico? 

What more can we do to assist the Caldero ́n administration in 

their fight against the cartels? What more do we need to do to 

make sure that our agents are properly supported in the field? 

What more we can do in the continental United States, to the extent the cartels have fingerprint presences here, to go after them? 

There have been, at least in open source reporting, I think I can 

say that there have been a number of activities on all of those 

fronts. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I would urge you to stay in close communication with the Zapata family. They are law enforcement agents that 

will work with you and have the curiosity that only a law enforcement family might have there. 

I don’t have a whole lot of time left. The budget indicates that 

there is actually no funding in the request for UAVs that have 

been found to be effective on the border. Is there a reason for that 

omission? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I believe—let me clarify that for you—I 

believe there is funding for two more UAVs at the border. We now 

have the capability to traverse the entire border by UAV. So we 

have greatly expanded that capability. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, I am out of time. I do have some more 

questions. We will probably follow up with them at some future 

point in time. 

Thank you very much. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Fair enough. Thank you. 

Chairman KING. Madam Secretary, thank you very much for 

your time. I wish you good luck at the White House with the President of the United States and the president of Mexico. Members of 

the committee may have some additional questions. I would ask if 

they could respond to you in writing, and if you would respond to 

them. 

The hearing record will remain open for 10 days, without objection. 

The committee stands adjourned. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(47) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN PETER T. KING FOR JANET NAPOLITANO

Question 1. Madam Secretary, the committee was impressed to learn of the Office 

of Emergency Communications’ extensive outreach to stakeholders to assist them in 

meeting the requirements of Goal 1 and Goal 2 of the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP). Specifically, the committee was encouraged that OEC 

worked with so many local first responders and leaders to assess the UASIs in Goal 

1, and now the Nation’s counties in Goal 2. As you assess the fiscal year 2012 budget for the Department, what commitments can you provide to the committee that 

OEC will maintain its level of outreach to the stakeholders to meet Goal 3 of the 

NECP—which states that ‘‘by 2013, 75 percent of all jurisdictions are able to demonstrate response-level ecomms within 3 hours, in the event of a significant incident 

as outlined in National planning scenarios’’? 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) supports the Office of 

Emergency Communications’ (OEC) efforts to advance Nation-wide interoperable 

emergency communications, consistent with Congress’ direction under Title 18 of 

the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, that OEC is to conduct ‘‘extensive, 

Nation-wide outreach’’ to foster the development of interoperable emergency communications capabilities by Federal, State, regional, local, territorial, and Tribal governments and public safety agencies. 

OEC effectively used a stakeholder-driven process to develop the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP), coordinating with more than 150 representatives from Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments, as well as the 

private sector and all major public safety organizations. Stakeholder involvement 

has continued to be a critical element in the implementation of the NECP, as OEC 

has worked closely with public safety agencies at all levels of government to implement the Plan’s milestones and assess responders’ capabilities as set forth in its 

Goals. DHS believes that the success of Goal 3 will require continued outreach and 

coordination with the stakeholder community and is committed to supporting OEC 

in its successful implementation of NECP Goal 3. This commitment is reflected in 

the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget submission. 

Question 2a. According to the fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Department 

of Homeland Security, the administration has proposed to eliminate direct funding 

for the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grants Program (IECGP). As you 

know the IECGP is intended to enhance and improve interoperable communications 

at all levels of government. 

Given the continued challenges to achieve interoperability and the emerging technologies such as the deployment of a public safety broadband network, how does 

DHS plan to achieve the goals of the IECGP without the direct funding? 

Question 2b. Other than the IECGP, what else is the OEC doing to promote interoperability? In your response, please address OEC’s continued commitment to meeting the goals of the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP)—which 

drives the decisions to award the IECGP. 

Answer. The budget request seeks to consolidate IECGP into the broader grant 

program State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) in order to maximize the ability 

of State decision-makers to set priorities and to reduce the administrative barriers 

to grants. 

Since fiscal year 2008, the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP) has awarded $145,150,000 to the 56 States and territories. IECGP 

provides governance, planning, training, and exercise funding to States, territories, 

and local and Tribal governments to carry out initiatives to improve interoperable 

emergency communications, including communications in collective response to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters. State and local governments have used IECGP awards to fund State-wide Interoperability Coordinators 

(SWICs), develop State-wide Communication Interoperability Plans (SCIPs) and 
48 

periodic updates, and meet the strategic goals of the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP). The State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) and Urban 

Areas Security Initiative (UASI) allow for funding of similar efforts and indeed have 

been the primary funding sources for interoperable emergency communications 

equipment funding. 

In regard to your question about the Office of Emergency Communications’ (OEC) 

other efforts to promote interoperability through outreach to stakeholder groups, 

below is a list of programs and efforts administered by OEC to enhance communications interoperability at the Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal levels. 

Furthermore, DHS continues to promote interoperability through the Science & 

Technology Directorate’s (S&T) Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC). 

OIC conducts research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) on existing 

and emerging technologies as well as promotes the acceleration of standards to 

achieve interoperability for local, Tribal, State, and Federal first responders. 

SAFECOM Executive Committee and Emergency Response Council 

• OEC, through SAFECOM, collaborates with emergency responders and policy 

makers across all levels of government to improve multi-jurisdictional and 

intergovernmental communications interoperability. The Executive Committee 

and Emergency Response Council have been instrumental in the creation of key 

documents such as the Interoperability Continuum, the SAFECOM Guidance 

for Federal Grant Programs, and the National Emergency Communications 

Plan (NECP). 

• Members of the SAFECOM Executive Committee and Emergency Response 

Council promote interoperability to their respective associations and the local 

public safety community. 

State-wide Interoperability Coordinators 

• The creation of the State-wide Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC) position is 

improving coordination of emergency communications activities and investments 

throughout all 56 States and territories. 

• All 56 States and territories have identified a point of contact for State-wide 

interoperability coordination, and 44 States and territories have full-time SWIC 

or equivalent positions. These important leadership roles and planning mechanisms are critical for the continued funding, accountability, and execution of 

emergency communications activities at the State and local levels. 

• OEC provides SWICs with templates and guidance documents to promote interoperability within the States. OEC supports bi-annual meetings that allow 

SWICs to share best practices, lessons learned, successes, and challenges related to State-wide Communication Interoperability Plan implementation with 

their peers. 

Regional Coordination Program 

• In 2009, OEC established the Regional Coordination program to provide additional support to Federal, State, local, and Tribal stakeholders across the Nation. Regional Coordinators support OEC’s mission by strengthening emergency 

communications capabilities across Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal 

governments at the regional level through trusted relationships, collaboration, 

and knowledge sharing. There is a regional coordinator located in each of the 

10 FEMA regions. 

Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC) 

• OEC promotes interoperability at the Federal level through the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC). The ECPC is the central Federal 

coordination point for interoperable and operable emergency communications. 

Technical Assistance and Guidance Documents 

• OEC has implemented a technical assistance strategy to ensure that all States 

and territories can request and receive assistance, while focusing support on the 

States that are most in need. 

• Since 2008, the 56 States and territories have combined to request more than 

750 individual technical assistance services from OEC. These services support 

the priorities of the State-wide Communication Interoperability Plan in each 

State or territory SCIP and the objectives of the NECP. 

• To improve emergency responders’ capabilities in this area, OEC’s Communications Unit (COMU) training for All-Hazards Communications Unit Leader 

(COML) and All-Hazards Communications Unit Technician (COMT) has resulted in more than 3,500 responders being trained to lead multijurisdictional 
49 

communications at incidents across the Nation, including local floods, blizzards, 

and wildfires. • OEC also develops guidance documents and templates that promote best practices. Recent publications, available on the SAFECOM website, include A Practical Guide to Narrow-banding, Plain Language FAQs, National Interoperability 

Field Operations Guide (NIFOG), and Regional Intrastate Governance Guide. • To support the FCC mandate to convert to narrow-band operation by January 

2013 OEC’s Frequency Mapping Tool (FMT) provides stakeholders a snapshot 

of their respective frequency assignments directly from the FCC database. • Another support service OEC provides for all public safety agencies to store, retrieve, and visualize radio communications assets is the Communications Assets 

Survey and Mapping (CASM) Tool. 

OEC measures progress by State, local, territorial, Tribal, and urban areas towards meeting the NECP Goals through several performance metrics: • The NECP Goals establish operational targets that OEC is assessing through 

a process that engages Federal, State, local, and Tribal emergency responders. 

To evaluate NECP Goal 1, OEC conducted an assessment of response-level 

emergency communications among public safety agencies during a planned 

event held in each Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) regions. • Based on communications capabilities documented at each event, since fiscal 

year 2008 all 60 UASIs that were funded that year were able to demonstrate 

Goal 1 of the NECP. The Goal 1 assessments also showed areas for continued 

improvement. 

• In 2011, OEC will collect data from more than 3,000 counties Nation-wide for 

NECP Goal 2 to determine whether non-UASIs can demonstrate response-level 

emergency communications within 1 hour. 

• OEC will be using the results of the goal assessments—including Goal 2, which 

is scheduled for completion in 2011 and Goal 3 in 2013—to better target resources, such as training and planning, for improving interoperable emergency 

communications Nation-wide. 

Technology Advancements and Acceleration of Standards 

• Multi-Band Radio (MBR) technology provides first responders with the capability to communicate on all public safety radio bands. OIC has helped spark 

industry investment and stimulate this marketplace for first responders. 

• The Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) project focuses on connecting disparate 

land mobile radio IP-based systems, which are used by first responder agencies 

to transmit voice communications. By bridging these proprietary systems, OIC 

is helping to not only achieve interoperability, but reduce an agency’s cost for 

system design and installation. 

• In 2009, OIC established the Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program (P25 

CAP) to ensure that emergency communications equipment complies with P25 

standards and thus is interoperable across manufacturers. P25 CAP provides 

first responders with a traceable method to gather P25 compliance information 

on the products they buy. Finally, through coordination with OEC, P25 CAP 

provides a means of verifying that Federal grant dollars are being invested in 

standardized solutions and equipment that promote interoperability for the public safety community. 

• In coordination with Customs and Border Protection, OIC is working to deliver 

converged mission critical voice, data, and video capabilities merging land mobile radio and broadband networks. This approach can be leveraged across all 

DHS components, and thus end the model of expensive, stand-alone, stove-piped 

land mobile radio networks. DHS is establishing an executive steering committee (ESC) comprised of appropriate members from DHS Components with 

radio systems and creating a DHS joint tactical communication program management office that includes members from each of those Components. 

Question 3a. As you know Madam Secretary, I introduced H.R. 607, a bill calling 

for the reallocation of the D-block so that more spectrum can be made available to 

public safety agencies and to promote the deployment of a wireless public safety 

broadband network. We were encouraged to hear of the administration’s support for 

the reallocation of the D-block to support a public safety communications network. 

Does the DHS plan to seek additional budget support for the deployment of the 

public safety broadband network? 

Answer. On February 10, 2011, President Obama announced his Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative. In that announcement, he outlined the plan to develop and deploy a Nation-wide, interoperable wireless network for public safety. To 

seize this opportunity, President Obama is calling for an investment of $10.7 billion 

to ensure that our public safety benefits from these new technologies: $3.2 billion 
50 

to reallocate the D-block, $7 billion to support the deployment of the network; and 

$500 million from the Wireless Innovation Fund for Research and Development and 

technological development to tailor the network to meet public safety requirements. 

This investment, in coordination with the investment in rural buildout (a one-time 

investment of $5 billion and reform of the Universal Service Fund), will ensure that 

the rollout of wireless broadband services in rural areas serves the needs of public 

safety and the broader community. 

Question 3b. Please explain to the committee the role of the Office of Emergency 

Communications to support the deployment of the public safety broadband network. 

Answer. The Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) is supporting the deployment of the Network in a variety of ways. These include helping to set the 

broad policy framework for the Network and ensuring that framework aligns with 

existing emergency communications policy, coordinating among stakeholder groups 

on broadband issues, developing and aligning broadband grant policies with current 

programs that support emergency communications, and providing technical assistance to jurisdictions that have received Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

waivers to begin deploying public safety broadband facilities and other early adopters of broadband solutions to ensure that their activities remain aligned with the 

vision of a nationally interoperable network. 

Policy.—As noted in more detail below in response to the last subsection of this 

question, OEC is in the process of updating the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) through the addition of a broadband addendum, which will identify key challenges and recommend near-term actions to foster the integration of 

broadband technologies and data capabilities to address emergency responders’ tactical and operational needs. In addition, this addendum will propose further actions 

to support current interoperability efforts, and ensure that existing communications 

capabilities continue to function until broadband networks are ready to provide the 

mission-critical capabilities that public safety requires. 

Coordination.—OEC is using its existing stakeholder bodies to ensure that the 

views and requirements of the public safety community are fully represented in Network broadband planning and implementation efforts. These outreach activities include the SAFECOM Executive Committee and Emergency Response Council (EC/ 

ERC), State-wide Interoperability Coordinators (SWICs), the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC), and the One DHS Committee on Emergency 

Communications. OEC also participates in regular conference calls with the Public 

Safety Spectrum Trust Operators Advisory Committee, a group comprised of the 700 

MHz waiver jurisdictions. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also hosted a Public Safety Communications Planning Forum in September 2010. The forum brought together more 

than 100 representatives from Government, associations, public safety, and industry 

to address key issues related to the development and deployment of a Nation-wide 

public safety broadband network. Discussion topics included operational requirements, funding, standards, spectrum requirements, and governance for the network. 

A working group, comprised of SAFECOM members and SWICs, is currently developing an educational brochure to help elected and budget officials understand 

where public safety currently stands regarding land mobile radio and broadband, 

where it hopes to go in the future, and the challenges that exist. OEC will also leverage SAFECOM members and SWICs to provide input on the policy, grants, technical assistance, and guidance document activities described in this section through 

additional working groups and regular stakeholder meetings. 

ECPC activities include the identification of Federal broadband requirements, development of a consolidated view of emergency communications assets, resolution of 

associated legal and regulatory barriers, development of coordinated departmental 

positions on pending broadband regulatory matters and rulemakings, and establishment of standardized grant guidance and processes. For the coming year, the ECPC 

has identified the development of broadband standards and research and development as strategic priorities. 

Concurrently, the One DHS for Emergency Communications Committee, comprised of senior executives across DHS headquarters and component entities, is 

working collectively to provide consolidated departmental inputs into Federal interagency efforts, as well as to develop strategies for broadband technology migration 

(e.g., transition from current land mobile radio technology). OEC will also work with 

jurisdictions to incorporate deployed broadband technologies into State-wide Communication Interoperability Plans through the development of a guidance document 

described below. 

Finally, OEC is drafting a suite of wireless broadband guidance documents, which 

are intended for SWICs, urban area and regional interoperability coordinators, public officials and executives, and emergency responders. The documents are to sup-
51 

port current NECP initiatives on interoperability planning and will provide emergency response stakeholders with a reliable and comprehensive source of information about wireless broadband in the emergency response environment. 

Grants.—OEC has made significant strides in improving coordination of Federal 

emergency communications grants policy through its administration of the ECPC 

Grants Focus Group and its development of the annual SAFECOM grants guidance. 

OEC utilizes stakeholder input from State, local, territorial, and Tribal responders 

in those activities. OEC’s current grant guidance contains a number of key provisions pertaining to broadband deployment, and the guidance developed for new Federal grant programs or financial support for the deployment of the Nation-wide Public Safety Broadband Network should build upon these provisions and continue to 

leverage the success of these coordination efforts. 

Technical Assistance.—OEC has developed a wireless broadband technical assistance offering and has included that offering in its fiscal year 2011 Technical Assistance catalog. This offering will assist State, local, territorial, Tribal, and regional 

users to understand and implement options for the use of broadband technology in 

public safety. The offering, which will be tailored to an audience’s specific needs, 

provides a range of services including informational briefings, development of governance models and standard operating procedures, project planning, and engineering support. 

Question 3c. Which DHS component serves as the lead on the deployment of the 

public safety broadband network? 

Answer. The Office of Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C) within the National Protection and Programs Directorate is the Department’s overall lead in regards to issues related to the deployment of the Public Safety Broadband Network. 

CS&C coordinates closely with DHS operational and headquarters components on 

issues related to the Public Safety Broadband Network through the One DHS Emergency Communications Committee. Through the One DHS Committee, DHS is 

working collectively to provide consolidated departmental inputs into Federal interagency efforts, as well as to develop strategies for broadband technology migration. 

Question 3d. What is DHS, and OEC in particular, doing to ensure that the 

NECP—which serves as the Nation’s roadmap to improve emergency communications capabilities at all levels of Government—is instructing all the key partners involved in the deployment of the National Broadband Plan (NBP)? 

Answer. OEC developed the NECP in coordination with more than 150 representatives from Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments, as well as 

major public safety organizations and the private sector. Many of these public safety 

organizations also participated in FCC forums to develop the National Broadband 

Plan. Since the NECP’s release in 2008, OEC has worked with its partners at the 

Federal, State, local, territorial, and Tribal levels to implement the Plan’s goals and 

milestones. As of April 1, 2011, more than 85 percent of the NECP milestones were 

achieved, and all Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) regions met Goal 1 of the 

Plan. OEC is currently working with State, local, Tribal, and territorial jurisdictions 

to implement Goal 2 of the NECP. 

OEC is leading the Department’s efforts to update the NECP in 2011 to address 

the integration of emerging broadband technologies with traditional Land Mobile 

Radio (LMR) technologies used by emergency responders. OEC is coordinating with 

Federal agencies, State, local, Tribal, and territorial jurisdictions, major public-safety organizations, and the private sector to develop a National Strategy for incorporating emerging broadband technologies while maintaining the mission-critical 

voice-over LMR that responders use every day to save lives. The NECP update will 

focus on key issues that must be addressed (including partnerships, planning, user 

requirements, standards, research and development, and funding) so that emerging 

technologies are interoperable, reliable, and secure for use by public safety personnel. 

Question 3e. Will OEC update the NECP to include emerging technologies such 

as the proposed public safety broadband plan? If so, when and what impact will 

such an update have on the NBP? 

Answer. OEC is leading the Department’s efforts to update the NECP in 2011 to 

address the integration of emerging broadband technologies with traditional LMR 

technologies used by emergency responders. OEC is coordinating with Federal, 

State, local, Tribal, and territorial jurisdictions, major public-safety organizations, 

and the private sector to develop a National strategy for incorporating emerging 

broadband technologies while maintaining the mission-critical voice-over LMR that 

responders use every day to save lives. The NECP update will focus on key issues 

that must be addressed (including partnerships, planning, user requirements, standards, research and development, and funding) so that emerging technologies are 

interoperable, reliable, and secure for use by public safety personnel. 
52 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE BLAKE FARENTHOLD FOR JANET NAPOLITANO

Question 1. During my line of questioning I asked you about the absence of funding in President’s fiscal year 2012 budget to purchase additional Unmanned Aerial 

Vehicles. In your response, you stated there was in fact funding for ‘‘two more UAVs 

at the border.’’ My understanding is there is no such funding in the fiscal year 2012 

budget. 

Could you please clarify as to whether the fiscal year 2012 budget provides funding for additional UAVs. If so, have locations been identified as to where these additional UAVs would be flown from? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President’s budget does not provide funding for two 

more Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). However, the fiscal year 2012 request includes additional funds to: Complete the acquisition of the two new systems funded 

in the fiscal year 2010 Supplemental ($32 million); cover the first year of operations 

and maintenance; and provide for the facilities and support infrastructure associated with the expansion of UAS operations on the Southwest border, principally 

from the Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, TX. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Air and Marine (OAM) operates UAS from Cape Canaveral, FL, Corpus Christi, TX, Grand Forks, ND, and Sierra Vista, AZ. CBP OAM asset bed-down, area of operations, and assigned tasks 

are based on continuing and deliberate consideration of shifting threats to National 

Security. As such, a decision has not been made where the next two UAS will be 

deployed once CBP takes possession of these assets late this calendar year. DHS 

and CBP remain committed to maintaining flexible deployment capability of these 

National assets to respond to changing and emerging threats. 

Question 1b. How many UAVs does the Department plan on purchasing and 

maintaining over the next 2 years? 

Answer. DHS plans to have purchased and maintain a total of 10 UAS through 

fiscal year 2014. As of February 2011, OAM has seven operational MQ–9 Predator 

B UAS. Five UAS are the land variant, 2 are maritime variants. Two additional 

land variant UAS will be purchased with fiscal years 2010 supplemental funds and 

be delivered in calendar year 2011. A third maritime variant UAS will be on order 

shortly. For an expected delivery in early 2012. 

Question 2a. The Customs and Border Patrol Office of Air and Marine recently 

took possession of a Predator in Corpus Christi. These Predators are considered by 

law enforcement at the Federal, State, and local level to be a vital force multiplier 

in our on-going efforts to gain operation control of the Southwest border. 

Is the Predator currently operational? 

Answer. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) stationed at Naval Air Station 

(NAS) Corpus Christi is operational and capable of supporting border-centric missions with its full array of optical and infrared video systems via a satellite command link. These existing capabilities regularly satisfy requirements for UAS border 

security missions. 

Question 2b. How many land operations has it run along the Rio Grande? 

Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has supported over 61 operations to date utilizing UAS resources located at NAS Corpus Christi. 

Question 2c. How many maritime operations has it conducted in the Gulf? 

Answer. The maritime radar designated for the UAS stationed at Corpus Christi 

NAS is undergoing engineering modifications and is planned for installation in midsummer of 2011. The ground control station (GCS) at Corpus Christi is being modified so that it may also leverage the functionality of this maritime radar. The GCS 

modification is scheduled to be completed by late calendar year 2011. Until that 

time, collection with this UAS along the border or near the Gulf coast is limited to 

employment of the high-resolution electro-optical and infrared video systems, which 

are best suited for land-based missions. Despite the restricted maritime capability 

of this system while radar and GCS modifications are taking place, the UAS at Corpus Christi NAS has recently supported a USCG requested maritime search and 

rescue operation near South Padre Island for an individuals that had been pulled 

out to sea by rip currents. Similarly, when the Guardian UAS at Cocoa Beach, Florida, was limited to its electro-optical and infrared video systems, it participated in 

the Gulf surveillance operations following the Deepwater Horizon incident; successfully completing 3 maritime missions and flying over 34 hours in support of National imagery requests. 

Question 3a. The Predator operations are planned and conducted by CBP, correct? 

Answer. Predator operations are planned and conducted by U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP); some with Coast Guard UAS-trained aircrew participation. 

These operations are conducted in coordination with the organization planners from 

any agency requesting surveillance support. 
53 

Question 3b. How does CBP coordinate where and when these operations take 

place with State and local law enforcement prior to an operation? 

Answer. DHS, as well as CBP Office of Air and Marine, maintain a productive 

working relationship with State and local law enforcement, including with the employment of the Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). For example, in Texas, State and 

local intelligence requirements are solicited through a variety of mechanisms conducive to the customer, including teleconferences and regular meetings held at the El 

Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) and at multiple CBP locations across the State. 

UAS mission coordination is an on-going process, taking into consideration such elements as desired outcomes, target access and time constraints, weather, and mission priorities. 

Question 3c. Also, how does CBP share the information, during an operation, with 

State and local law enforcement? 

Answer. DHS and CBP have invested heavily to ensure real-time information is 

available to the customers the UAS supports, including providing State and local 

law enforcement access to DHS BigPipe, an unclassified web portal that enables 

registered users to monitor UAS video and geo-referenced metadata as it is being 

collected. As another example, CBP and Texas Department of Public Safety have established robust law enforcement radio communications with associated frequencies 

and encryption to allow real-time coordination between UAS crews and State law 

enforcement agents. 

Question 3d. Are they able to watch the real-time feeds and act on the timely intelligence? 

Answer. Yes, the advanced DHS BigPipe system, which allows CBP’s partners to 

watch the UAS video feeds in real time, dramatically improves the options for actionable law enforcement. 

Question 3e. Are these Predator flights pre-coordinated to allow State and local 

law enforcement to run concurrent operations to boost the effectiveness of these 

flights? 

Answer. Predator flights are pre-coordinated to allow partners including Federal, 

State, and local law enforcement agencies to run concurrent/integrated border security, commercial enforcement, and trade facilitation operations. 

Question 4a. I have heard that the administration plans to end the deployment 

of 1,200 National Guard currently deployed along the Southwest border with Mexico 

in June. Was this your recommendation to the President? 

Answer. National Guard personnel have been providing support to law enforcement in accordance with the Federal Southwest Border Security Implementation 

Plan. The Plan synchronizes, to the extent possible, the employment of Federal law 

enforcement and law enforcement support resources along the Southwest border for 

the current year. The Plan is designed to optimize the augmentation of the 1,200 

National Guard personnel for up to 1 year. 

Question 4b. Is it fair to say that the drug cartels are still smuggling drugs and 

humans northbound across the border? 

Answer. While our work is not yet completed, every key measure indicates the 

progress we are making along the Southwest border. As a key indicator of illegal 

immigration, Border Patrol apprehensions have decreased 36 percent in the past 2 

years, and are less than a third of what they were at their peak. DHS has matched 

these decreases in apprehensions with a 16 percent increase in seizures of drugs 

compared to the previous 2 years. 

Question 4c. Kidnappings and murders are still a daily occurrence. Cash and 

weapons still flow southbound? 

Answer. DHS’s mission is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient 

against terrorism and other threats. Along with the record apprehensions and seizures of drugs compared to the previous 2 years, the seizure of illegal currency has 

increased 35 percent and 28 percent increase in the seizure of weapons. 

Question 4d. What matrix, criteria, benchmarks, are you, Secretary Gates, and 

the administration using to justify pulling these troops off the border? 

Answer. The level of National Guard support has been carefully calibrated to 

maximize effectiveness and efficiency in the face of both the existing threats and 

the anticipated addition of law enforcement personnel and resources, including more 

than 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents being brought on line as a result of the 

Southwest border security supplemental funding provided by Congress in the fall of 

2010. 

Question 5. Is there not a potential for an increase in border violence, and are 

you not putting Texans living along the border in harm’s way, if we pull these 

troops off the border? 

Answer. With the aid of the Southwest border security supplemental funding, we 

are deploying additional personnel to the border, including 1,000 new Border Patrol 
54 

Agents, 250 new Customs and Border Protection Officers at our ports of entry, and 

250 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents focused on transnational 

crime. We are also working closely with our Mexican partners to dismantle 

transnational criminal organizations and guard against spillover effects into the 

United States. 

Question 6. Especially at a time when our Governor has been requesting 1,000 

National Guard in Title 32 status to be deployed along the border until CBP stations another 3,000 agents in Texas? 

Answer. Over the past 2 years, the Department of Homeland Security has dedicated historic levels of personnel, technology, and resources to the Southwest border. 

In its 86-year history, the Border Patrol is better staffed having doubled the number 

of agents from approximately 10,000 in 2004 to more than 20,500 in 2010. The number of Border Patrol Agents along the Southwest border has been increased to 

17,600, which is nearly an 85% increase from 2004. In addition, Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement has deployed a quarter of its personnel to the Southwest border. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE LAURA RICHARDSON FOR JANET NAPOLITANO

Question 1a. You were recently quoted as saying that the Department of Homeland Security will push back the 100% container screening deadline from July 2012 

to July 2014. 

What was the justification for this? 

Question 1b. Why would we not want 100% of the containers entering our country 

to be screened as soon as possible? 

Question 1c. Will the July 2014 be a firm deadline or will it be delayed again? 

Answer. One of DHS’ primary National security interests is to prevent adversaries 

from smuggling a nuclear weapon into the United States. This is also the motivation 

behind the provision in the 9/11 Act requiring all U.S.-bound maritime containers 

to be processed through radiation detection systems and imaging equipment at foreign ports before being loaded onto vessels. DHS agrees with the motivation behind 

the 9/11 Act provision and remains committed to the continued support and deployment of scanning procedures and equipment abroad under risk-based, feasible, and 

sustainable models. 

However, DHS has also outlined the significant challenges associated with the full 

implementation of a scanning regime as envisioned in the 9/11 Act provision. These 

challenges were experienced during several years of operational testing in several 

foreign ports under the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI). Despite the considerable efforts of the Department, our efforts under SFI and continued dialogue with industry 

and foreign government partners have led DHS to conclude that 100% scanning as 

prescribed by the 9/11 Act provision is unlikely to be achieved soon, if at all. Therefore, DHS anticipated the need to employ the authorized extensions as we approach 

the 2012 deadline. 

As we move forward, it is important to underscore that maritime cargo containers 

are only one of a number of potential ways that terrorists or other adversaries could 

exploit to bring a nuclear device into the United States. Even if scanning could 

guarantee the security of all maritime containers, focusing a disproportionate 

amount of our efforts and resources on maritime cargo does not address other significant vulnerabilities. In combating the radiological and nuclear threat, we always 

keep in mind a pair of principles: First, that a layered approach is more effective 

than a single point of security; and second, that risk management is a critical tool 

we can use to make sure we are addressing this threat effectively. We have implemented a number of programs structured around these principles. We gather intelligence regarding the intent and capability of terrorists and other adversaries. We 

control and secure nuclear material at its source. We interdict illicit acquisitions. 

We detect and prevent smuggling into the United States. We also conduct extensive 

activities to prepare for any potential incident. The deployment of scanning systems 

both domestically and abroad represents only a piece of a much bigger picture. 

Under the provisions of the 9/11 Act, the Secretary of DHS must submit a certification for a 2-year extension to Congress no later than May 2, 2012, 60 days prior 

to the statutory deadline of July 1, 2012. Then, 60 days following the Secretary’s 

certification to Congress, the extension shall take effect and remain valid for a period of 2 years. At this time, several of the conditions that would require DHS to 

seek an extension to the deadline are anticipated to be in existence for the foreseeable future. This includes the lack of available technology and likely negative impacts on the free flow of legitimate commerce. Although we anticipate seeking an 

extension to the 2012 deadline, DHS will work with Congress to determine the best 

approach and next steps beyond 2014. 
55 

Question 2. Last week a Libyan tanker in the Port of Long Beach spilled 700 gallons of oil. I found out about the spill from our local newspaper. What is DHS’s process for notifying local, State, and Federal officials about incidents that occur in their 

jurisdiction? 

Answer. Under the National Response System, the National Response Center 

(NRC) is the primary Federal point of contact for reporting oil and chemical spills. 

As stated in 40 CFR 110.6, ‘‘Any person in charge of a vessel or of an onshore or 

offshore facility shall, as soon as he or she has knowledge of any discharge of oil 

from such vessel or facility in violation of section 311(b)(3) of the Act, immediately 

notify the National Response Center (NRC) (800–424–8802; in the Washington, DC 

metropolitan area, 202–426–2675). If direct reporting to the NRC is not practicable, 

reports may be made to the Coast Guard or EPA predesignated On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) for the geographic area where the discharge occurs.’’ 

Upon receiving notification of an oil or chemical spill, the NRC immediately transmits the report to the appropriate Federal On-Scene Coordinator and other State 

and Federal organizations that would need awareness of the report. This particular 

spill is classified as a Minor Spill (less than 10,000 gallons) in the Coastal Zone. 

Minor spills generally do not trigger further notification to the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

In addition to the Federal and State notifications by the NRC, local notifications 

about and responses to a spill would be coordinated by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator using the affected port’s Area Contingency Plan (ACP). ACPs are designed 

to manage incidents at a local level, are designed by Captains of the Port and local 

stakeholders, and have lists that contain stakeholder contact information. 

For this incident, the responsible party notified the NRC shortly after the spill 

was discovered on February 21, 2011, thereby generating NRC Incident Report No. 

968166. The NRC immediately transmitted the report to: U.S. Attorney’s Office, 

Central District of California (Main Office); U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District 

of California (National Security Section); U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District 

of California (Main Office); California Department of Fish and Game (Office of Spill 

Prevention and Response); California State Emergency Services, State Terrorism 

and Threat Assessment Center; Department of Transportation Crisis Management 

Center; Environmental Protection Agency Region IX (Main Office and Secondary Office); National Infrastructure Coordination Center; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Reports for CA; DHS National Operations Center; Federal 

Emergency Management Agency Region 9 (Situation Awareness Unit); Coast Guard 

Intelligence Coordination Center; Coast Guard Investigative Service; Coast Guard 

Field Intel Support Team San Francisco; and Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach. 

Question 3. The FEMA Administrator has emphasized the need to promote the 

‘‘Whole of Community’’ concept within emergency management. The concept highlights the important role of different non-governmental agencies in emergency preparedness, which includes non-profit, faith-based, and private sector entities. Additionally, the Department emphasizes the important role of citizens which is demonstrated by the recommendation to maintain level funding for a relatively small 

allotment of $13 million for the Citizen Corp grant program. Given the many natural and man-made threats we face, how does the Department’s grant realignment 

strategy, based on decreased dollars, consolidation, and elimination, support the 

‘‘Whole of Community’’ concept? 

Answer. The Whole Community concept will continue to be addressed through the 

use of targeted investments in several homeland security grant programs, including 

the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG), the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP), and the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI). In 

coordination with FEMA’s multiple private and public sector stakeholders, FEMA 

will use existing authorities to incorporate specific opportunities for grantees to develop community-oriented projects that may essentially mirror projects currently 

funded by any grants that would be subject to consolidation or elimination. FEMA 

will also modify current investment justifications to ensure that whole community 

concepts and objectives are reflected in project design whenever possible. 

Question 4a. Madam Secretary, it was determined that DHS was out of compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by not having a program in place to ensure that recipients of Federal funds do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, 

and national origin. The President’s request seeks $377,000 to create a program 

that will bring DHS in compliance. 

How does the Department intend to roll out this program? 

Question 4b. Since FEMA serves as the primary Component for issuing Federal 

financial assistance, how will the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office work with 

FEMA, or any other Component, to implement this program? 
56 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security has not been out of compliance 

with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although there has not been a Title 

VI coordinator at the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), CRCL staff 

have conducted activities to assure Title VI compliance as a collateral duty. In addition, FEMA—which as you mention is the largest source of DHS Federal financial 

assistance and therefore has the largest Title VI obligation of any component—has 

had an active Title VI program, covering complaint investigations and compliance 

reviews. Over the past several years, the Department has carried out several activities to implement the provisions of Title VI and the Department’s Title VI regulations, including: Finalizing consolidated terms and conditions for grant recipients 

setting out their non-discrimination obligations; ensuring that grant guidance documents include language prohibiting discrimination; and drafting Title VI guidance 

for recipients of DHS financial assistance relating to the requirement of meaningful 

program access for individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP). 

With respect to this last item, the Title VI LEP Guidance, the Department published the draft guidance for comment in the Federal Register, and received numerous responses. After CRCL considered each response and accordingly edited the 

guidance, the Department of Justice, which has coordinating authority conferred by 

Executive Order 12250, approved the final document. The final guidance was recently published in the Federal Register at 76 Fed. Reg. 21,755 (April 18, 2011). 

But more is needed, and accordingly, CRCL is developing a coordinated Title VI 

program to ensure nondiscrimination in programs and activities that receive DHS 

financial assistance. A policy advisor working exclusively on Title VI and the development of this program joined CRCL in September of 2010. That position was 

backfilled this March following the original staff member’s departure. CRCL has 

since hired a second staff member to focus on antidiscrimination issues in the context of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) support of State and 

local law enforcement. 

While the program needs the resources requested in the President’s budget to 

meet the full need, CRCL is already leveraging all resources at its disposal. Activities in fiscal year 2011 involve planning, policy development (including moving to 

finalize the Department’s interim Title VI regulations at 6 C.F.R. Part 21), identifying key stakeholders and activities, communication, and the beginnings of implementation. CRCL is, for example, working with FEMA to identify current recipients 

and sub-recipients of Departmental financial assistance. We have begun to develop 

training on anti-discrimination principles and processes for grantees and grant administrators. All this should put us in a good position to roll out a fuller program 

beginning fiscal year 2012 that will: 

(1) Establish and implement a training program for grantees and grant administrators, using a variety of delivery methods. 

(2) Develop technical assistance materials. 

(3) Establish and implement system for grantees to self-assess anti-discrimination tools and practices. 

(4) Establish processes for paper-based evaluation of anti-discrimination compliance by DHS-supported programs. 

(5) Solidify the process to address allegations of discrimination within DHS supported programs, including outreach, receipt, investigation, resolution. 

(6) Conduct at least several investigations. 

(7) Establish a discretionary process for document-assisted on-site anti-discrimination evaluation of DHS-supported programs. 

Coordination throughout the Department will be accomplished by using the DHS 

Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Council, a new cross-Department entity chaired by the 

Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. In addition, a cross-Department Title VI 

working group will identify current compliance activities, share existing expertise in 

the components, and build shared ideas about best practices for reviewing and monitoring recipients for compliance with Title VI and related statutes. In FEMA activities in particular, FEMA will continue to be responsible for complaint investigations 

of its funding recipients, with CRCL functioning as Departmental lead, focusing on 

coordination, policy development, training, and oversight. 

Æ