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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

55–886 PDF 2010

THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET FOR IMMIGRATION 

AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER PROTECTION, AND THE U.S. COAST 

GUARD 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, 

MARITIME, AND GLOBAL 

COUNTERTERRORISM 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 11, 2009 

Serial No. 111–24 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 


Congress.#13
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

EMMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

ERIE J.J. MASSA, New York 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

VACANCY 

PETER T. KING, New York 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Mississippi 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

I. LANIER AVANT, Staff Director 

ROSALINE COHEN, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

ROBERT O’CONNER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, MARTIME, AND GLOBAL 

COUNTERTERRORISM 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California, Chairwoman 

JANE HARMAN, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

AL GREEN, Texas 

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex 

Officio) 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michichgan 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

ALISON NORTHOP, Staff Director 

DENISE KREPP Counsel 

CARLA ZAMUDIO-DOLAN, Clerk 

MANDY BOWERS Minority Subcommittee Lead 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and 

Global Counterterrorism ..................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Mark E. Souder, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border, Martime, and 

Global Counterterrorism ..................................................................................... 2 

The Honorable Al Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas ..................................................................................................................... 42 

The Honorable Ann Kirkpatrick, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona .............................................................................................................. 34 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 38 

The Honorable Michael McCaul, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas ................................................................................................................. 35 

The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New Jersey ............................................................................................. 37 

WITNESSES 

Mr. John T. Morton, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security: 

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

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

Mr. Jayson P. Ahern, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15 

Admiral Thad W. Allen, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of 

Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 25 

FOR THE RECORD

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

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

APPENDIXES

Appendix I—Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request .................................................. 51 

Appendix II—Questions and Responses: 

Responses from Adm. Thad W. Allen ................................................................. 53 

(1) 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET FOR IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, AND 

THE U.S. COAST GUARD 

Thursday, June 11, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, MARITIME, 

AND GLOBAL COUNTERTERRORISM, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Loretta Sanchez [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Sanchez, Jackson Lee, Cuellar, Kirkpatrick, Pascrell, Green, Souder, Massa, and McCaul. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. [Presiding.] I believe that, with respect to time and 

everything, I know that Mr. Souder has said to go ahead with the 

hearing so I think that we will begin although he is on his way. 

But given some of the constraints, votes on the floor this morning, and I myself also being a senior member of the defense committee, we have markups in two of my subcommittees today, one 

starting at 11:00 and, of course, I have to be there, not only for my 

amendments but to provide the votes to move that bill along. 

So because of that, and I now see that we are going by one of 

our colleagues from the other side. So great, thanks for being here 

this morning, Mr. McCaul. And so I would like to begin and have 

this subcommittee come to order. 

This subcommittee, the Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on 

fiscal year 2010 budget for immigration and customs enforcement, 

Customs and Border Patrol section and U.S. Coast Guard. 

I think that this hearing is important because it will hopefully 

give us some more information for us to continue to analyze the 

budget, not only at the present put forward, but also the one that 

is moving through the appropriations subcommittee, which, as you 

know, met yesterday. And I believe either today or next week the 

full committee will take a look at the funding allocations. 

However, this being a policy committee I think we have a lot of 

the input to appropriators on that so I think it is important, because when we look at the budget, of course, we look at really the 

true priorities. 

We can say anything we want but if the monies aren’t in the 

places that are important, that we have talked about, that we have 

2 

analyzed as a committee, then, you know, what we are really saying is that we don’t believe those priorities. 

So I am glad that we have a strong showing. I know it is a very 

busy time right now in the Congress, and so I am very thankful 

that my colleagues on my side in particular have shown up in a 

strong force. 

I am supportive of the president’s $55 billion request for the Department of Homeland Security, and I agree with many of the allocations that have been made across the board. I in particular would 

like to highlight some of the areas. 

I am glad that we have a great panel this morning that cuts 

across all of our primary areas with the commandant and the assistant secretary and the acting commissioner. Thank you three for 

being here today. 

I think that we need to make sure that we need to have sufficient staffing given the border violence that we are seeing, in particular Mexico, Corsi underfunded or sometimes the lack of assets 

that we have had at the northern border we have also been looking 

at. The, what we call ‘‘the third border,’’ or the whole Caribbean 

initiative, then of course that falls strongly with respect to the 

Coast Guard. 

I saw that in the president’s budget he had put in funding for 

85 new CVP officers. I know that we are trying very hard to get 

staffing up and well trained so that we can do a good job. So I 

would like to hear a little bit about what your needs are and 

whether you think that that is enough in the budget. 

Also, as a member of the Human Rights Caucus I was pleased 

to see the request for $69.3 million for the development of ICE’s alternatives to detention programs. The assistant secretary and I had 

a little meeting yesterday where we talked something about that. 

Of course this involves some of our most vulnerable populations, 

such as the elderly, women and children. I know that the president 

is inclined to do feasibility about privatizing detention facilities. 

Just from the onset, I am probably not really thrilled about that 

proposal, just from the standpoint that we haven’t had enough 

oversight on what we have and to have it at an arm’s length away 

from even some oversight from this committee, I have some concerns with respect to that. 

And of course we have the Transportation Worker Identification 

Card program. The commandant and I have been meeting on that 

recently to see how that is rolling out. And I would love to receive 

an update, commandant, on how that is going. 

So I know that there are particular concerns and questions and 

issues that will be brought up by the members who are here. And 

so I would like to thank all of you for being here today. And I 

would like to yield to my ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana, for his opening statement. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am looking forward to 

hearing from this great panel of witnesses. I would like to recognize John Morton and highlight that this is his first congressional 

hearing other than his confirmation hearing, and I appreciate your 

willingness to work with this committee and those of us who are 

active on these issues. 

3 

Admiral Allen and Ahern are regulars on the Hill here. I want 

to thank you both for your longtime service and also appreciate you 

being here today as well. It isn’t often that we have the head of 

the Coast Guard, the CBP and ICE here together, and therefore I 

want to keep my statement relatively short so we have time for the 

testimony and questions. 

One issue, though, I want to explore is the coordination in intelligence stove piping. It has been a longtime challenge on all of our 

agencies and inside DHS. Once you hear interagency coordination 

between these three critical DHS components has improved over 

fiscal year 2010 budget will further strengthen operational coordination and intelligence sharing. 

Also important to this discussion is whether the DHS agencies 

have sufficient authority for your broad missions and how they are 

coordinating with other federal, state and local agencies. Another 

key issue that needs to be discussed today is the operational control of the border, including how new smuggling trends are being 

addressed, and sustainable efforts to prevent spillover violence and 

assist the government of Mexico with their domestic efforts to fight 

drug trafficking organizations. 

On Tuesday the chair and I had the privilege to manage the floor 

consideration on the House resolution recognizing the 85th anniversary of the border patrol. The 18,000 plus agents work around 

the clock to identify and apprehend illegal aliens and smugglers, 

always aware that there is a threat of terrorists seeking to exploit 

the border. 

The administration and Congress must provide additional tools 

and resources for them to successfully do their mission. This is true 

for all the agencies here, not just the border patrol. I am concerned 

that the fiscal year 2010 budget will fall short, especially in gaining 

operational control of the border. 

According to the budget documents, CBP does not expect to gain 

control of one additional mile of the border in 2010. Related to this, 

the schedule for SBInet deployment has been delayed again. It is 

my understanding that the earliest technology is expected to be deployed outside of the Tucson–1 area, which is basically the same 

area as Project 28 initiated in 2006, in the second quarter of 2010. 

I don’t see how this Congress can consider taking up immigration 

reform legislation until we control our land and coastal borders. 

Even more important is the continued opportunities for unsecured 

borders that they offer to violent criminal organizations and potentially to terrorists with access to the United States. 

In closing, this committee, and in particular this subcommittee, 

support the work of each of your agencies, everything you do, every 

day of the year to keep this country safe. Whatever the shortfalls 

may be in the budget request, whatever additional authorities or 

resources your agencies need, I am confident that we will continue 

to work together in a bipartisan fashion to provide the necessary 

congressional support and oversight. 

Thank you, Madam Chair for this hearing and I yield back. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I thank my ranking member. Other members of 

the subcommittee are reminded that, under the committee rules, 

opening statements may be submitted for the record. 

4 

FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BENNIE G. THOMPSON, 

CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

The FY 2010 Budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs 

and Border Protection, and the U.S. Coast Guard 

June 11, 2009 at 10:00 AM 

311 Cannon House Office Building 

• I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to testify in support of the 

President’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Coast Guard. 

• I would also like to congratulate Mr. Morton on his recent confirmation as Assistant Secretary for ICE. 

• As I stated when Secretary Napolitano testified before the full Homeland Security Committee last month, the Administration has managed to submit a very comprehensive budget that answers a lot of our questions about where the Department 

wants to go, despite having numerous challenges on its plate. 

• As our witnesses well know, ICE, CBP, and the Coast Guard shoulder responsibility for many of the Department’s challenges. 

• The men and women of these agencies are quite literally on the front lines of 

America’s security. 

• That is why I support the Administration’s funding request for the three agencies as well as several proposed programmatic changes in the budget. 

• For ICE, I am pleased that additional resources were requested for southwest 

border enforcement and for removal of dangerous criminal aliens. 

• Similarly, for CBP, I support funding requested to combat smuggling of firearms and currency, which fuels drug-related violence along the southwest border, 

and to deploy technology along our Nation’s borders. 

• For the Coast Guard, I am pleased that the budget provides the funds necessary 

to ensure it can move forward with long-overdue recapitalization of its fleet. 

• These resources will help ICE, CBP and the Coast Guard better secure our borders and the Nation as a whole. 

• While I support the budget proposal overall, I do have some concerns, however. 

• In certain instances, additional funding, personnel, or infrastructure may be 

necessary to ensure that ICE, CBP, and the Coast Guard have the tools they need 

to fulfill their missions. 

• These agencies must have adequate resources to carry out critical initiatives 

such as 100 percent scanning of inbound cargo, safe and humane detention of undocumented aliens, and deployment of effective border security technology. 

• It is also imperative that they have appropriate internal resources to oversee 

important procurements, such as SBInet and Deepwater, to ensure that our limited 

homeland security dollars are well spent. 

• In these tough economic times, I am committed to helping secure a budget for 

the Department that is both fiscally responsible and strengthens the security of the 

United States. 

• I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses today about how the proposed budget will help you meet the homeland security goals set forth by the President. 

• Going forward, I hope to continue working cooperatively with you to advance 

the Department of Homeland Security’s mission in the interest of the American people. 

• Again, thank you and I look forward to your testimony. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So I will welcome our panel of witnesses. 

Our first witness, John T. Morton, is the Assistant Secretary of 

Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, what we call ICE. He leads the principal investigative component of the Department of Homeland Security. It is the second 

largest investigative agency in the federal government, with more 

than 19,000 employees and an annual budget of more than $5 billion. 

5 

He came to ICE with an extensive background in federal law enforcement, immigration law and policy, having held a variety of positions within the Department of Justice. Mr. Morton was confirmed unanimously by the Senate last month, becoming the third 

assistant secretary to lead the ICE in the agency’s secured assistance. 

Our second witness, Jayson Ahern, was named acting commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection in March 2009, 

following the retirement of our former commissioner. And since August 2007, Mr. Ahern has served as CBP’s deputy commissioner. 

During this interim appointment as acting commissioner, Mr. 

Ahern will continue to serve as chief operating officer overseeing 

the daily operations of CBP’s 53,000 employee workforce and managing an operating budget of over $11 billion. He is in his 33rd 

year of public service. And of course you began your career in San 

Ysidro, California, so welcome again, 

To our third witness, Commandant Admiral Thad W. Allen, who 

is the 23rd commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, assuming those 

duties of May 2006. He leads about 42,000 men and women on active duty, 7,000 civilians, 8,000 reservists and 34,000 volunteer 

auxiliarists. 

In his 38 years of service, the admiral has held operational command both at sea and the shore, conducting missions to support 

the maritime safety security and environmental stewardship interests of our nation. 

And today the admiral is leading the Coast Guard through significant modernization to better organize, train, equip and deploy 

the men and women to meet the challenges of the 21st century. So 

we welcome you, Commandant. 

First of all I just would like to thank the three of you because 

this is the first time in any of the hearings that I have held as a 

chairman that we have received all of our witnesses’ testimony on 

time by the deadline that we asked that testimony for. So I hope 

it is the beginning of a good year for us with you. 

Without objection your full statements therefore are inserted in 

the record, and I will ask you to summarize your testimony in 5 

minutes or less, beginning with Assistant Secretary Morton. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN MORTON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, U.S. 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MORTON. Chairwoman Sanchez, ranking member Souder, 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here to 

review the president’s fiscal year 2010 budget request for ICE and 

to discuss ICE’s management, investigative and operational priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. 

As you mentioned, Chairwoman, ICE is the primary investigative 

agency within DHS. We have a diverse and important mission including the enforcement of more than 400 immigration and customs laws. 

Our principal aims are these: to protect national security and 

public safety by preventing the illegal entry of terrorists and contraband that would do us harm; to work with our partners at CBP 

and the Coast Guard to secure our borders both north and south; 

6 

and to assure, along with CPB and CIS, that our immigration and 

custom laws are credibly, but fairly enforced. 

While our responsibility to enforce the nation’s immigration laws 

receives much attention, I want to note that there are many other 

things that ICE does and does well. For example, we investigate 

human trafficking, sex tourism, human rights offenses and international child exploitation. 

We investigate the unlawful export and proliferation of military 

weaponry and technology, the smuggling of narcotics and the trade 

in counterfeit and substandard goods. We target international 

money laundering, bulk cash smuggling and international financial 

frauds. 

These are all vitally important tasks, and I thank you for the authority and support we have received from Congress, to date, to 

perform them. 

As the new assistant secretary of ICE, my priorities include 

strengthening ICE’s criminal law enforcement mission, improving 

the detention program, raising morale and managing our resources 

wisely and efficiently to advance the department’s priorities. 

Although I have been on the job a very short time, I have already 

been struck by the dedication of our men and women in the field. 

I have traveled three times, so far, and on each trip I met with, 

and heard from, our special agents, deportation officers and attorneys. We have some very, very good people, and I hope to support 

them and assist them in building creative and effective programs. 

One such program is our work site enforcement program. My 

goal is to implement a strategy that will both deter employers from 

hiring unauthorized labor and punish those who knowingly violate 

the law. 

To that end we will seek to identify, prosecute and fine employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, with a particular emphasis 

on those employers who violate the law on a grand scale, or subject 

workers to abusive conditions or illegal pay. 

If we are to restore integrity to our immigration system, we must 

address the magnet of unlawful employment that draws so many 

people here. As you recently heard from the secretary, one of the 

department’s priorities is to address crime and violence across the 

southwest border. 

This is another area that I want to address and one in which 

ICE has a very significant role to play. We have broad powers to 

investigate border crimes, including the illegal movement of drugs, 

money, guns and people. You can be assured that ICE will be attentive to the many problems along the border and that we will 

work well with our federal, state and international partners to get 

the job done. 

Another priority Secretary Napolitano and I share is the 

strengthening of our immigration detention system. When ICE detains people it is important that they be detained in appropriate facilities with good custodial conditions and high standards of medical care. 

The system needs to be transparent, well run and focused on the 

mission at hand, namely the civil detention of deportable immigrants who pose a serious risk of flight or a danger to the community. 

7 

The budget request presented today reflects the department’s priorities and outlines the resources need to support ICE in its mission to enforce laws and protect the public. I am confident that this 

budget request will help to advance the important mission of ICE, 

and I look forward to next year when I can share the results of implementing these priorities. 

The proposed budget builds on the foundation of ICE’s recent ac- complishments and totals nearly $5.7 billion. This request targets 

the administration’s priorities and will enable ICE to continue to 

address violence along the southwest border, to focus on core improvements to ICE’s infrastructure, to identify and remove criminal 

aliens from our communities, to strengthen state and local coordination and to provide improved medical care to those who we detain. 

I want to thank the subcommittee for its support of ICE and our 

law enforcement mission. And as a very recent and new member 

of the ICE family, I want to say that I personally look forward to 

a very long and productive relationship with the subcommittee. 

These are very, sort of, challenging and weighty issues that confront me and our country, and I look forward to working with people of goodwill to try to get to a good result. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Morton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN T. MORTON

INTRODUCTION 

Chairwoman Sanchez, Ranking Member Souder, and distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee: 

It is my honor and privilege to appear before you today to present the President’s 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 budget request for Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE), and to discuss our management, investigative, and operational priorities for 

the upcoming fiscal year. 

As you know, ICE has a diverse and important mission, including the enforcement 

of more than 400 customs and immigration laws. ICE is the primary investigative 

agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Our special agents target, investigate, and dismantle criminal organizations who threaten national security. ICE protects our borders—north and south—by investigating groups who exploit weakness in our legitimate trade, travel, and financial systems. ICE enforces 

the nation’s immigration laws and is committed to doing so effectively and efficiently. Although not the exclusive mission of ICE, immigration enforcement is a 

core mission and priority. 

In addition, ICE protects national security through an aggressive proliferation 

program and by investigating those who seek to import unsafe consumer products 

into the country. ICE also protects communities by identifying and removing criminal aliens, gang members, perpetrators involved with child pornography, trafficking 

and smuggling, and human rights violators. It is with your support that we succeed 

in our mission. 

As the new Assistant Secretary of ICE, my focus will include reforming the detention program, strengthening law enforcement mission, raising morale, and managing our resources wisely and efficiently to advance the Department’s priorities. As 

the Secretary has made clear, reforming the detention system is among her main 

concerns. I share that priority. I am committed to ensure people in our custody receive quality medical care and to enhance the oversight of the detention program. 

I recently toured several detention facilities and have faith that the good men and 

women of ICE are ready to meet the challenge we face. 

One of my first acts when I was sworn in was to travel and meet with ICE personnel in the places where they operate everyday. I was able to hear from some of 

the very talented special agents working to advance our mission and ensure safety 

and security in our country. I hope to support and assist them in building creative 

and effective investigative programs. My priorities include bolstering the investigation and prosecution of major crimes and increasing agency focus on several specific 

issues: international money laundering and organized crime, weapons proliferation 

and export controls, human trafficking and child exploitation, intellectual property 

8 

and counterfeiting, and immigration and identity fraud that promote travel by terrorists, criminals, and others who pose a threat to public safety. 

I also intend to bring new ideas and creativity to our enforcement program, including working with our federal, state and local partners to ensure that exploitative employers that violate labor and other laws are fully prosecuted. My goal is to 

implement a strategy that will not only punish employers who knowingly violate the 

law, but effectively deter employers from hiring unauthorized labor, addressing the 

demand that drives illegal immigration. This will reduce the effect of one magnet 

that encourages many people to enter the United States unlawfully. 

As you recently heard from the Secretary, another high priority for the Department is to address crime and violence along the southwest border. ICE has a significant role to play in this effort. The agency must effectively confront the illegal movement of drugs, money, guns, and people across the border. ICE continues to work 

well with our federal, state, and local partners to address border violence and related crimes. 

The budget request presented today reflects not only the priorities of the Department, but the resources necessary to support the vital roles that ICE plays in enforcing laws and protecting the public. I am confident this budget request will help 

to advance the important mission of ICE, and I look forward to next year, when I 

can share the results of implementing these priorities. 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST 

The proposed budget builds on the foundation of recent accomplishments and totals nearly $5.77 billion. This request targets the Administration’s priorities and 

will enable ICE to continue to address violence along the southwest border, focus 

on core improvements to ICE infrastructure, identify and remove criminal aliens, 

ensure individuals in ICE custody receive proper care, and strengthen coordination 

with our federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law enforcement partners in the 

fight against transnational criminal organizations. 

Combating South west Border Violence 

Border enforcement and combating border violence is a key component of the ICE 

mission. ICE targets organizations that exploit our legitimate trade, travel, and financial systems. ICE uses all enforcement methods to ensure that cross-border 

crime is attacked from every possible angle. Indeed, the recent escalation of violence 

by Mexican drug cartels and other criminal organizations just over the border demonstrates the ongoing importance of our mission. As Secretary Napolitano recently 

testified, the violence in Mexico is a bi-national threat that affects security not only 

in Mexico, but also here at home. 

Mexico is battling the same cartels that use violence to put drugs on our streets. 

Illegal drugs, money, and weapons flow both ways across our border inextricably 

linking the U.S. and Mexico in efforts to combat drug cartels. Our countries share 

nearly 2,000 miles in border, billions of dollars in trade, a commitment to democracy, and the need to prevail against the transnational threats of organized crime. 

The DHS family must act in concert. The violence along our southwest border requires a comprehensive, multifaceted, and collaborative effort. Secretary Napolitano, 

who is very much aware of this matter, issued an Immigration and Border Security 

Action Directive in January 2009 to use the Department’s wide-ranging authorities 

to boost efforts to combat such violence. 

Additionally, on March 24,2009, DHS, DOJ and the Department of State (DOS) 

announced the Southwest Border Initiative designed to crack down on Mexican drug 

cartels through enhanced border enforcement. The plan calls for additional personnel, increased intelligence capability, and better coordination with federal, state, 

local and Mexican law enforcement authorities to target illegal guns, drugs, and 

cash. 

The ICE budget requests an additional $70 million for 349 agent and officer positions to increase enforcement staffing at the border, improve cooperative efforts with 

the Mexican government, and enhance the capabilities of the Border Violence Intelligence Cell in El Paso Texas. This cross-border initiative will increase national security by expanding activities to secure our southwest border. 

Partnering with Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and Foreign Law Enforcement 

Improving coordination and partnerships with federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, and foreign law enforcement, particularly in the border region, is essential to securing our nation against the threat of cartel violence. Law enforcement agencies 

at all levels of government have significant roles to play in addressing the current 

border violence and in preparing for scenarios where violence in Mexico could impact the United States. Law enforcement agencies at the state, local, territorial, and 

tribal level have dealt with border violence for many years, and have deep operVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:23 May 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-24\55886.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
9 

ational knowledge of the border region. To confront border violence effectively, federal agencies must collaborate and share resources and intelligence with our partners on the ground. 

ICE works closely with federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, and foreign partners 

in various ways. For example, in 2005, DHS created the Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BEST). BEST is an innovative model for collaborative law enforcement. At present, 15 BESTs are operational. Participants include ICE, CBP, the 

U.S. Coast Guard, the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Attorney offices, and 

state and local law enforcement agencies. Currently, Mexican law enforcement agencies also have officers assigned to five Indeed, the government of Mexico has agreed 

to provide representatives to every BEST team on the southwest border by FY2010. 

In addition, ICE participates in fusion centers in many states and large cities, particularly along the southwest border, in an effort to share information and intelligence among all partnering law enforcement agencies. 

The BEST model has been successful. ICE, with the help of our partners, has 

cracked down on arms trafficking, human smuggling, bulk cash smuggling, and narcotics smuggling organizations. These efforts have disrupted cartel operations in 

both the United States and Mexico. 

Since July 2005, the efforts of BEST teams, working in conjunction with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other law enforcement agencies, have been responsible for 2,238 criminal arrests, 2,924 administrative arrests, 1,014 indictments, and 

846 convictions. In addition, have seized approximately 9,070 pounds of cocaine, 

179,739 pounds of marijuana, 702 pounds of methamphetamine, 99 pounds of crystal methamphetamine, 1,161 pounds of ecstasy, 243 pounds of heroin, 97 pounds of 

hashish, 22 pounds of opium, 2,075 weapons, 820 vehicles, seven properties, and 

$24.7 million in U.S. currency and monetary instruments. 

Weapons and Bulk Cash into Mexico 

As President Calero ́n’s government continues its courageous struggle against the 

drug cartels in Mexico, it has become clear that stopping the flow of weapons southbound out of the U.S. into Mexico is an urgent priority. A large number of weapons 

recovered in the Mexican drug war are smuggled illegally into the country from the 

United States. President has identified the illegal flow of weapons from the United 

States as one of the biggest security threats to Mexico. Stopping weapons smuggling 

is a particular challenge, due to both the nature of the southwest border and that 

the majority of smuggling occurs in small shipments of a few weapons at a time. 

ICE’s border authorities are uniquely positioned to address this challenge. 

In June 2008, ICE, along with CBP and other federal, state, and local partners, 

launched Operation Cruzadas, a partnership with the government of Mexico to fight 

cross-border arms smuggling. Under Armas Cruzadas, ICE has taken an intelligence-driven and systematic approach to disrupting and dismantling arms trafficking organizations operating along the southwest border. As part of this effort, 

ICE initiated a Weapons Virtual Task Force to create a virtual community where 

law enforcement rapidly shares intelligence and communicates in a secure environment through the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN). ICE also 

worked with the Mexican government to create a U.S.-vetted Arms Trafficking Unit, 

comprised of Mexican law enforcement officers, to initiate investigations on the 

Mexican side of the border. 

Since its inception, Operation Armas Cruzadas has resulted in the seizure of 

1,441 weapons, more than $6 million in currency and monetary instruments, 

122,416 rounds of ammunition, and arrested 338 individuals on criminal charges. 

As a result, 94 people have been indicted and 51 convicted. 

In addition to weapons smuggling, ICE has partnered with CBP to combat the illegal movement of cash across the southwest border. Drug cartels pose a dangerous 

threat in part due to their extensive monetary resources. The U.S. must interrupt 

that illegal flow of money. Operation Firewall addresses the threat of bulk cash 

smuggling. ICE targets individuals and organizations that exploit vulnerabilities in 

financial systems to launder illicit proceeds. 

Operation has produced sustained results. In 2005, on the first day of operation 

at the Benito Jua ́ rez International Airport in Mexico City, Mexican authorities 

seized $7.8 million en route to Colombia, concealed inside deep fryers, rotisseries, 

and voltage regulators. Other notable seizures include $7.3 million hidden inside 

rolls of fabric and plastic and $4.7 million concealed inside air conditioning equipment and metal piping. Since its inception, Operation has led to 452 arrests and 

the seizure of more than $195 million, including $64 million seized overseas. 

10 

ICE also recently established a Trade Transparency Unit with Mexico to identify 

cross-border trade anomalies, which are often indicative of trade-based money laundering. Under this initiative, ICE and law enforcement agencies in cooperating 

countries exchange import and export data and financial information. ICE’s efforts 

led to more than $50 million in cash seizures in FY2008 

Criminal and Fugitive Aliens 

ICE is the primary agency responsible for locating and removing criminal aliens within the United States. $39.1 million of new funding is requested to hire, train, 

and equip 80 new enforcement personnel who will identify suspected criminal 

aliens, determine their immigration status, prioritize ICE enforcement actions 

against removable criminal aliens, and assist in the removal of arrested criminal 

aliens. Funding will also support our continued investment in information technology and allow ICE to more efficiently identify and remove criminal aliens. 

Through the Secure Communities Program, ICE works to identify criminal aliens 

in federal, state, and local custody—prioritizing the removal of convicted dangerous 

criminal aliens. Secure Communities provides technology to state and local booking 

locations so that booking officers are then able to simultaneously search a person’s 

criminal history and immigration information using a combined information platform. This process occurs for each person booked, either alien or citizen. The technology saves time, improves accurate identification of aliens, and gives our state and 

local partners a powerful tool to identify criminal aliens in their custody. This technology has already been deployed to 50 jurisdictions to support information sharing. 

This week, ICE will deploy to an additional six jurisdictions, all of which are along 

the southwest border. 

The prevention of re-entry into the U.S. by criminal aliens is an important component of the Secure Communities program. ICE’s Violent Criminal Alien Section, created as a result of Operation Repeat Offender, is an initiative by the ICE Office of 

Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) in collaboration with the U.S. Attorney’s 

Offices to prosecute dangerous criminal aliens who have been deported at least once, 

yet illegally return to the United States. Once convicted, aliens must serve their full 

federal sentence before they are removed from the United States. To assist United 

States Attorney Offices in handling increased prosecutions, ICE has assigned several agency attorneys to serve as Special Assistant United States Attorneys. 

ICE continues to identify and remove criminal alien gang members as part of Operation Community Shield. Since the program’s inception, ICE agents working in 

conjunction with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies have arrested 

more than 13,000 street gang members and associates throughout the country. 

ICE’s National Fugitive Operations Program (NFOP) also works to reduce the nation’s fugitive alien population with an emphasis on criminal aliens and aliens who 

pose a threat to national security and public safety. In FY2008, fugitive operations 

teams were responsible for more than 34,000 arrests. To date in FY2009, the teams 

have arrested nearly 6,000 fugitive aliens who are also criminal. Overall, our nation’s fugitive alien population fell by 37,000 individuals last fiscal year. 

ICE dedicates significant resources to obtaining final orders of removal. Similarly, 

the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review employs hundreds of immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals to 

adjudicate immigration cases. Final orders of removal must be enforced to ensure 

the integrity of the nation’s immigration system. 

Human Smuggling and Trafficking/Identity and Benefit Fraud 

I recognize that human smuggling and trafficking is an issue of great concern for 

this Subcommittee. I assure you that this has been—and continues to be—a significant priority for ICE. As you well know, criminal smuggling and trafficking organizations are not constrained by international borders. They operate in countries of 

origin, transit countries, and destination countries, including the United States. 

ICE proactively investigates groups engaged in human smuggling and trafficking 

by initiating investigations beyond U.S. borders. Organizations can charge thousands of dollars to smuggle aliens, including unlawful men and women who could 

pose a threat to the United States. ICE works aggressively with non-governmental 

organizations to identify trafficking victims, bring smugglers and traffickers to justice, and increase public awareness of modern-day slavery. In addition, CBP provides ICE with real time, law enforcement sensitive information derived from analysis of travel patterns and the statements from aliens that is critical to the progress 

of several ongoing, international alien smuggling investigations. 

ICE succeeds in combating alien smuggling, dismantling trafficking organizations 

and closing avenues for terrorist travel when we work with other agencies and turn 

collective intelligence into action. ICE participates in the interagency Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC), which targets human smugglers, human trafVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:23 May 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-24\55886.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
11 

fickers, and terrorist travel facilitators. The Director of the HSTC is an ICE Supervisory Special Agent. 

ICE has identified various methods and routes used by criminal networks to 

smuggle people into the United States. Subsequently, ICE and the Department of 

Justice (DOJ) formed the Extraterritorial Criminal Travel (ECT) Strike Force in 

June 2006 to target such smuggling methods and routes. The ECT Strike Force 

combines investigative, prosecutorial, and intelligence resources to target and aggressively pursue, disrupt, and dismantle foreign-based criminal travel networks. 

Complementary to the ECT program is the pivotal role ICE plays as co-chair of the 

targeting project of the Interagency Working Group on Alien Smuggling. This program facilitates ICE working with partners in the intelligence community to identify 

the most dangerous international human smuggling organizations for investigation 

and prosecution-especially those that pose a threat to our national security. 

ICE recognizes that combating transnational alien smuggling networks does not 

stop with the arrest and conviction of alien smugglers. Indeed, the agency uncovers 

ties between smugglers who illegally bring aliens into the country, and individuals 

and organizations who help aliens obtain benefits through fraud. Just as smugglers 

can earn large fees from aliens who desire assistance in crossing the U.S. border, 

immigration service providers have been known to charge aliens substantial sums 

to prepare and file fraudulent applications for visas and other immigration benefits. 

ICE created Document and Benefit Fraud Task Forces (DBFTF) in April 2006 to 

combat vulnerabilities exploited by identity and document fraud organizations. 

There are currently 17 located in major U.S. cities serving as models for multi-agency cooperation. Within these task forces, ICE works with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services the Department of Labor, the Social Security Administration, the 

U.S. Postal Service, the Department of State, and state and local law enforcement 

agencies. 

State and Local Law Enforcement Support 

ICE also continues to expand its partnerships with state and local law enforcement under the 287(g) Program, a force-multiplier, which gives specially trained officers authorization to perform immigration enforcement duties under the supervision of ICE agents and officers. ICE has 66 active Memoranda of Agreements 

(MOA) with law enforcement agencies in 23 states. As of May 2009, ICE’s 287(g) 

partners encountered more than 109,000 aliens screened for removability. 

Although the program has significant value, the program requires more robust 

oversight. ICE has carefully reviewed the recommendations in the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) report, issued in January 2009, and concurs with all of 

the recommendations. ICE takes the issue of racial and ethnic profiling seriously. 

The agency is committed to addressing these concerns. To that end, ICE works with 

the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and all interested stakeholders, 

while also independently and actively monitoring for indicia of profiling. 

In the past several years, the 287(g) Program has both grown quickly and caught 

the attention of both media and Congress. ICE is currently redrafting the MOA template used to delegate immigration authority to state and local partners. One major 

goal is to align state and local initiatives with the priorities of ICE. In addition to 

the template MOA, ICE credentials were issued to state and local 287(g) partners 

and is currently drafting a policy mandating ‘‘refresher’’ training through ICE for 

all active 287(g) officers. 

I am requesting an increase of $1 1.6 million for the Office of State and Local 

Coordination (OSLC) to oversee outreach activities for ICE Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (ICE ACCESS) initiatives, 

which includes the 287(g) Program. Increased funding will allow for permanent 

staff, including those dedicated to field oversight, in OSLC, continuation of ICE ACCESS, and training and information technology assistance for participants in the 

ICE ACCESS program. 

Worksite Enforcement 

The opportunity to work is a powerful magnet that draws many people to enter 

the country illegally. On April 30, 2009, the Department released worksite enforcement guidance to our agents in the field, marking a clear shift in how ICE now conducts worksite enforcement. The goal of the strategy is to (1) penalize employers 

who knowingly hire illegal workers; (2) deter employers who are attempting to hire 

illegal workers; and (3) encourage employers to take advantage of compliance tools 

and best practices. The strategy emphasizes both the criminal investigation of employers and the use of administrative tools such as Form I–9 audits and civil fines. 

In addition, ICE will focus on employers who undermine the security by employing 

undocumented workers in sensitive industries or at places of critical infrastructure 

12 

and continue to fulfill its responsibility in arresting and processing illegal workers 

encountered during enforcement operations. 

The most effective strategy in curbing illegal employment is criminal prosecution, 

the seizure of assets, and the imposition of meaningful civil penalties upon employers who use and profit from the labor of unauthorized aliens. ICE has also increased 

the act of debarring employers who fail to comply with the law, which precludes an 

employer from securing work on federal contracts of companies that have knowingly 

hired illegal workers. Since July 2008, 18 companies and 20 individuals have been 

debarred. With this approach, ICE intends to create an environment of compliance. 

The agency also proactively works with the private sector to train employers who 

want to avoid unwitting violations of the law through valuable compliance tools like 

E-Verify. 

There should be no doubt that ICE is committed to enforcement. On May 26 and 

27,2009, the ICE Kansas City office executed 10 federal search warrants and eight 

federal arrest warrants in the investigation of Giant Labor Solutions (GLS). ICE 

agents criminally arrested Abrorkhodja Askarkhodjaev, a citizen of Uzbekistan and 

owner and president of GLS, as well as seven other principals and officers of GLS 

and its associated companies. As part of this enforcement operation, ICE agents administratively arrested 30 undocumented alien workers. It is suspected that some 

of the workers arrested by ICE may have been forced or coerced into working at 

GLS. If so, then ICE will work with DOJ and other federal agencies, including the 

Department of Labor, to pursue all appropriate relief for the workers. 

Improved Detention and Detainee Healthcare Oversight 

The reform of the immigration detention system and improvement of healthcare 

and oversight of those individuals in our custody is another significant priority for 

ICE. ICE established the Detention Facilities Inspection Group (DFIG) to conduct 

independent assessment of detention facilities used to house ICE detainees. Last 

year, the DFIG conducted reviews of 38 detention facilities used by ICE, making 

recommendations for improving management and maintenance of the facilities in 

accordance with ICE detention standards. The DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties also conducts independent investigations regarding conditions of detention, 

and partners with ICE to improve conditions and develop or revise policy, which has 

resulted in the identification of deficiencies within ICE detention facilities so that 

corrective actions are taken. 

I am requesting an additional $12.4 million to expand the number and scope of 

independent inspections on ICE detention facilities. Such an increase in funding will 

improve the welfare, safety, and living conditions of ICE detainees and employees. 

ICE made several key improvements over the past year through the Division of 

Immigration Health Services (DIHS). For instance, standardized DIHS Staff and 

Patient Education training materials were developed. DIHS acquired mission-critical medical equipment including dental treatment and pharmacy automation capabilities for several facilities. Finally, with respect to infectious disease, DIHS developed new policies, procedures, and educational and training materials to protective 

our employees. 

ADDITIONAL FISCAL YEAR 2010 PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS 

ICE also requests program enhancements in the following key areas: 

Co–Location of ICE Facilities: A total of $92 million is requested to fund the 

second year of the ICE-wide co-location strategy to consolidate ICE personnel 

and operations scattered across multiple buildings in select metropolitan areas. 

The intent is to improve operational efficiency and long-term cost savings because 72 percent of ICE leases will expire over the next five years. If ICE remains in its current existing space and renews existing leases, ICE will incur 

an estimated increase of $69 million between FY2011–FY2013 over current 

lease costs. 

Information Technology Improvements: Total funding of $91.4 million is requested for the following: 

Atlas Infrastructure ($9 million): The request for Atlas Infrastructure, 

which is the information technology foundation on which ICE applications 

operate, will be used to plan, schedule, develop and implement the replacement of many legacy ICE area networks; modernize an additional 290 ICE 

sites with new file and print servers; complete the integration of 22 data 

collection systems into one database; and oversee the migration of ICE information technology assets from the Department of Justice Data Centers 

to the DHS Data Centers. 

• Detention and Removal Operations Modernization (DROM) ($22 million): 

Funding is requested for improvements to the system of detaining and removing illegal immigrants. The funds will be dedicated to developing and 

13 

deploying the Detainee Location Tracking Module as part of the Bed Space 

and Transportation Management System, expanding the ICE Data warehouse data capacity and reporting capability to support the Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) information technology data, and expanding Web services to all the Electronic Travel Document application to 

communicate with other internal or external applications. 

Law Enforcement Systems Modernization ($40 million): This initiative case 

management (including the TECS Modernization project), information sharing, and operational support service projects that will improve access to law 

enforcement information. 

($20.4 MILLION): This request will address the Division of Immigration 

Health Services infrastructure deficiencies and begin the design and development of an electronic health records system, which will allow real-time 

reporting of detainees’ medical information. 

T3Data Center Migration: A total of $33.9 million is requested to assist migrating 

data center operations, active on-line data, and other information technology assets from two Department of Justice (DOJ) data centers and multiple processing centers to two new DHS data centers. 

CONCLUSION 

The President’s FY2010 budget request for ICE reflects the Department’s ongoing 

commitment and the dedication of ICE employees to protect the American people. 

I am committed to working with this Subcommittee and Congress to address the 

significant challenges we face in our efforts to enforce of our nation’s immigration 

and customs laws. 

I thank the Subcommittee for its support of ICE and our law enforcement mission. 

Your support is vital to the work of ICE. Your continued interest and oversight of 

our actions is important to the men and woman at ICE, who work each day to ensure the safety and security of the United States. I look forward to a long and productive relationship with this Subcommittee. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you have at this time. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Now we will have our commissioner, Mr. Ahern, for 5 minutes 

or less. 

STATEMENT OF JAYSON AHERN, ACTING COMMISSIONER, U.S. 

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. AHERN. Good morning, I certainly thank you very much for 

the opportunity to be here today. And Chairwoman Sanchez, ranking member Souder and to all those other members, CBP has a 

great story to tell, and much of the credit for our success is actually 

due to the Congress. 

Fortunately over the last few years, since 2004 our budget has 

been doubled, and we thank the Congress for that, and our agency 

has grown to over 53,000. It will actually be 55,000 by the end of 

this year, significant growth for protecting the country’s front line. 

Our 2010 budget request actually includes over $10 billion in appropriated resources and over $1.3 billion in user fees because we 

do have a lot of fees that are funded by international travel. And 

this will support our operational missions for the organization. It 

shows an increase of $229 million over our 2009 level. 

The 2010 budget, a couple of key initiatives to highlight, it certainly shows some of the evolving concerns we have with our border security. The southbound efforts we have for firearms, weapons 

going to Mexico, there is $26.1 in initiative for that, as well as continuing to focus on the northern border and deployment of technology there to meet the risk in the area on that northern border, 

given its remoteness, $20 million for northern border technology to 

continue to build on the technology suite we have up there. 

14 

Certainly the accomplishments, because of the support of Congress we have actually continued to use the effective combination 

of personnel, technology infrastructure to gain more effective control of our borders. 

And ranking member Souder talked about miles of effective control, and we continue to build more miles of effective control. We 

have over 700 on the southwest border, and we will continue to 

build as we go forward. 

Certainly the apprehensions along our ports of entry are going 

down substantially. I will be happy to talk in more detail about 

those on the southwest border. 

Also as far as the drug interdiction mission of our organization, 

oftentimes since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, it has been stated we perhaps might have overlooked our drug 

interdiction mission over the last few years. I would respectfully 

state that is not the case. 

And when you take a look at the 15 million pounds of drugs we 

have actually seized in the last few years, this is a significant accomplishment of critical note to show what we are seeing in the 

southwest area, specifically, a 49 percent increase in marijuana 

interceptions coming across versus last fiscal year-to-date. 

So that is a significant increase, and actually those numbers, just 

to put the percentages in perspective, that is 2.2 million pounds 

thus far this year. That is considerable. 

With any organization, particularly given the mission we have 

border security, our resources. Our most precious resources are 

people. Certainly continuing to build upon our resources, we now 

will have by the end of this year over 20,000 CBP officers at our 

ports of entry and will actually achieve a number later this year 

for 20,000 border patrol agents at our ports of entry. 

These two primary mission of entities that we have, or operational entities of our mission, our front line personnel will be complemented by over 1,000 pilots and vessel commanders to make 

sure that our air and marine division continues to be as robust as 

it needs to be in some of these areas between the ports of entry. 

And I think it is also important to recognize one of the other missions we have in the organization, and that is protecting the American industry or domestic industry of agriculture products. 

And we actually now have over 2,300 agricultural specialists that 

we have been able to afford to bring on board to protect the American food supply. That is a critical part of our mission with the organization. 

Technology, making sure as we continue to deploy not only 

SBnet-type technology but the suite of sensor and bubble surveillance systems, as well as our UAS’ along the border. Those are the 

key things we continue to deploy. 

And at our ports of entry more large scale x-rays, radiation portable monitors, things of that nature to make sure that we maintain 

not only the security that is necessary, but the flow of legitimate 

trade and commerce coming across those borders air, land and sea. 

Continuing to upgrade and modernize our ports of entry, we certainly thank the Congress for the funding that we were able to receive through the stimulus package. That certainly will be used not 

only to modernize and increase the security of our facilities, but 

15 

also to continue the efficient movement of people and goods coming 

across those borders, as well on the north and south, so we appreciate the support on that. 

I know it is a topic of interest, the number of border patrol 

agents that we actually have deployed to the northern border, and 

do we have the right balance? That is a key feature. We will actually have 1,845 border patrol agents on the northern border. 

That may not seem enough when you compare it to the 18,000 

that we will have at the end of the year on the southern border, 

but it is a 700 percent increase over our strength that we had in 

the time around 9/11. You know, we will continue to grow that 

number as we look to achieve 2,212 by the end of fiscal year 2010. 

Our organization also has deployed other resources to the northern border beyond just the border patrol agents, and that is opening five air branches and marine units as well as deploying our 

UAS’ in the environment. 

The southern border, just to close on that, will continue to be a 

focus as we go forward. We will be happy to take questions about 

the initiative we have in the funding package for the additional 

technology for license plate readers, as well as the deployment of 

personnel to combat the threat of movement of currency, which 

since the initiative started in March, there has been over $13 million in cash seized, joint participation with ICE in those very critical focus outbound operations, as well as weapons, going forward. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Ahern follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAYSON AHERN

Chairwoman Sanchez, Congressman Souder, esteemed members of the Subcommittee, it is a privilege and an honor to appear before you today to discuss the 

work of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), particularly the tremendous 

dedication of our men and women in the field both at and between our ports of 

entry. 

I want to begin by expressing my continuing gratitude to Congress for its enduring support for the mission and people of CBP. It is clear that the Congress is committed to providing us the resources we need in order to increase and maintain the 

security of our borders. We appreciate your efforts and assistance. 

I would also like to thank you for your support for provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provided $680 million to CBP for 

greatly needed improvements to our aging infrastructure, and for the addition of 

new technology at our nation’s borders. These funds will support planning, management, design, alteration, and construction of CBP-owned land ports of entry; procurement and deployment of non-intrusive inspection system; expedited development and deployment of border security technology on the southwest border; and 

for the procurement and deployment of tactical communications equipment. In addition, the bill included $300 million for the construction and repair of land ports of 

entry owned by the General Services Administration (GSA). Secretary Napolitano 

has made clear that we are to move swiftly and with great transparency as we put 

these investments to use. 

CBP is the largest uniformed, Federal law enforcement agency in the country. We 

station over 20,000 CBP officers at access points around the Nation, including at 

air, land, and sea ports. As of mid-May, we have deployed over 19,000 Border Patrol 

agents between the ports of entry. These forces are supplemented with 1,058 Air 

and Marine agents, 2,318 agricultural specialists, and other professionals. These 

personnel are key players to the implementation of Secretary Napolitano’s Southwest Border Security Initiative. 

I am pleased to report that CBP continues to perform all of our missions successfully, which include stemming the flow of illegal drugs and contraband, protecting 

our agricultural and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases, protecting 

American businesses from theft of their intellectual property, enforcing textile 

agreements, tracking import safety violations, regulating and facilitating interVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:23 May 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-24\55886.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
16 

national trade, collecting import duties, facilitating legitimate travel, and enforcing 

United States trade laws. CBP facilitates lawful immigration, welcoming visitors 

and new immigrants while making certain those entering this country are indeed 

admissible, and taking appropriate action when an individual fears being persecuted 

or tortured if returned to their home country At the same time, our employees maintain a vigilant watch for terrorist threats. In fiscal year 2008, CBP processed more 

than 396 million pedestrians and passengers, 122 million conveyances, 29 million 

trade entries, examined 5.6 million sea, rail, and truck containers, performed over 

25 million agriculture inspections, apprehended over 720 thousand illegal aliens between our ports of entry, encountered over 220 thousand inadmissible aliens at the 

ports of entry, and seized more than 2.8 million pounds of illegal drugs. 

We must perform our important security and trade enforcement work without stifling the flow of legitimate trade and travel that is so important to our Nation’s 

economy. These are our twin goals: border security and facilitation of legitimate 

trade and travel. 

Border Security Between the Ports of Entry 

The primary goal of our strategy between the ports of entry is to gain effective 

control of our Nation’s borders. Effective control is achieved when a Chief Patrol 

Agent determines that agents deployed in a given area consistently: detect illegal 

entries into the United States, assess and classify any threats associated with the 

illegal entries, respond to the area, and bring the situation to a successful law enforcement resolution. 

During Secretary Napolitano’s congressional hearing a few weeks ago, she explained the importance of having a border security strategy that incorporates the 

elements of effective control. CBP establishes operational control through a balanced 

combination of technology, personnel, and tactical infrastructure allowing Border 

Patrol agents to confront the criminal element. Secretary Napolitano often refers to 

this strategy as the ‘‘three-legged stool.’’ One of these legs cannot provide operational control by itself. The mix of these three elements will vary depending on the 

challenges of the focus area. Technology allows us to detect the entries and to assess 

and classify the threat. Personnel provide the response to confront the criminal element. Tactical infrastructure cludes—supports the response by either providing access or extending the time needed for the response by deterring or slowing the 

criminal element’s ability to easily cross the border and escape. 

As of May 31,2009, we have determined that 894 miles of border are under effective control. This includes 697 miles along the southwest border, 32 along the northern border and 165 in the coastal regions. Across the southwest border, we have 

made significant strides in increasing our situational awareness and tactical advantage over those seeking to violate our laws. With increased situational awareness, 

we can better understand where we have the highest threats and vulnerabilities, 

and assess where we need to apply our resources. Situational awareness also enables our agents to perform their jobs more safely and more effectively. This is especially critical during times such as these where we are experiencing higher levels 

of violence at our Nation’s borders. 

Between the ports of entry, the Border Patrol Sector Chiefs are the field commanders, and CBP personnel involved in border security include Border Patrol 

Agents and Air and Marine Interdiction Agents. Personnel in adequate numbers are 

highly effective resources. They can observe and therefore provide for the type of 

situational awareness that is necessary for operational control. Unique among the 

elements of the three-legged stool, personnel also have the capacity to respond. Personnel are highly effective and flexible, but the number of personnel required to perform the entire border security mission would be prohibitive if they were not properly augmented by tactical infrastructure and technology. 

Tactical infrastructure includes—among other things—pedestrian fence, vehicle 

fence, roads, and lighting. Tactical infrastructure supports CBP’s ability to respond 

in several ways. Fence, for example, is a fixed resource that provides a constant and 

continuous effect. I wish to be very clear—fence alone does not and cannot provide 

effective control of the border. It does, however, deter and delay illicit cross-border 

incursions. This continuous and constant ability to deter or delay is what we refer 

to as ‘‘persistent impedance.’’ There are areas of the border where we have concluded that we must have persistent impedance in order to achieve operational control, because we must at least delay attempted illicit incursions. These delays buy 

time for our agents to respond. This is critical in areas near cities, for example, 

where illicit border crossers can easily blend into the population before we interdict 

them. It is also critical in areas where vehicles reach nearby roads faster than we 

could respond without persistent impedance. 

17 

Technology is an important leg of the stool. Although some refer to technology as 

a ‘‘virtual fence,‘‘technology does not have the persistent impedance capability of a 

real fence. It does, however, provide timely and accurate information that physical 

infrastructure could not. Between the ports of entry, technology includes sensors, 

command and control systems, and communications. Technology is a powerful force 

multiplier because it has tremendous capability to provide the situational awareness 

that is a precursor to operational control. Sensors can ‘‘watch’’ the border continuously, guided by appropriate command and control systems. These command and 

control systems can also help sort the data coming from the sensors so that our 

agents have very quick access to the most critical information. Technology also supports response capability. With accurate information to identify and classify illicit 

incursions, agents have many more options about how and when they will respond 

to the incursion. Improved communications capability also supports response by ensuring our agents will be properly directed and coordinated. 

Over the past year, we have made significant strides in strengthening all three 

legs of our stool. As of mid–May, we had 19,065 Border Patrol Agents on-board. Of 

the 661 miles of southwest border identified by CBP as requiring persistent impedance, fencing has been constructed along 627 miles (as of May 22nd). Most of the 

remaining mileage is under construction and will be complete this summer. With 

respect to technology, we have purchased 40 mobile surveillance systems (MSSs) 

and deployed them to the northern and southwestern borders. These MSSs provide 

a flexible solution to give our operators radar and camera coverage in high priority 

areas, and serve as a gap-filler while we develop and deploy more permanent technology solutions. Later in the testimony, I will provide additional detail about our 

vision for those more permanent solutions. 

The northern border of the United States continues to be important to our national security. In fact, one of the first directives that Secretary Napolitano issued 

shortly after being confirmed was to review our strategies, plans and operational capabilities along the northern border. As we have designed programs to afford greater protection against the entry of dangerous goods and people at all our borders, 

we have also focused increased attention on specific needs along the Canadian border. 

For instance, the Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET) program, encompassing 15 regions along the northern border, is a multi-faceted law enforcement 

initiative comprised of both Canadian and American partners. The IBET core agencies include CBP, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and the Royal Canadian 

Mounted Police (RCMP). This longstanding, bi-national partnership has enabled the 

participating law enforcement partners to share information and work together 

daily with other local, State, and provincial enforcement agencies on issues related 

to smuggling, organized crime, the vulnerabilities associated with unguarded roads, 

and other criminal activities along the U.S.-Canada border at and between the ports 

of entry. 

In addition, DHS developed the Border Enforcement Security Task force (BEST) 

concept to coordinate the efforts of ICE, CBP, and DHS intelligence personnel working cooperatively with foreign, Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies 

to take a comprehensive approach to disrupt and dismantle criminal organizations. 

In early 2008, the first northern border initiated operations in Blaine, Washington 

and Buffalo, New York, The BESTs complement and increase the effectiveness of 

the IBETs by augmenting their investigative capability. 

We have also increased the number of Border Patrol agents deployed to the northern border. Our plans call for 1,845 agents by the end of this year, and 2,212 by 

the end of next year. Our Air and Marine organization has deployed significant resources to the northern border, including the recent deployment of an Unmanned 

Aerial System (UAS) based in Grand Forks. The DHS Science and Technology Directorate has a number of research projects designed to evaluate technology opportunities tailored to the northern border environment that will advise our plans in 

the future. Our Secure Border Initiative (SBI) program began implementing a measured deployment of fixed and mobile sensors in our Buffalo, Detroit, and Swanton 

sectors starting this spring. 

Travel Facilitation at the Ports of Entry 

CBP welcomes nearly 400 million travelers into the United States annually. While 

security will always be primary mission—we also continue to strive to make the 

process of entering the U.S. more streamlined, user-friendly and understandable. 

In past hearings, we have highlighted our initiatives to streamline the processing 

of travelers through our land ports of entry and to extend security beyond our physical borders. Those efforts continue and will continue for the future. CBP impleVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:23 May 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-24\55886.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
18 

mented the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) secure document requirements at land and seaports on June 1, 2009, on time and on budget. All the project 

pieces were carefully planned and executed in advance-Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) enabled documents, new software technology for the vehicle primary 

lanes, and the RFID physical infrastructure at our high volume land ports. CBP 

continues to remain practical and flexible in our implementation approach of the 

WHTI documentary requirements. 

Efficient and effective land border primary operations require a well-integrated 

strategy and as well as synchronized and coordinated technologies, processes, and 

infrastructure. Building upon the initial success of the WHTI deployment, CBP has 

identified other critical process areas to integrate, facilitate, and enhance border security such as our commerical—passenger dual use lanes, pedestrian processing, 

and traffic management strategies. 

We are continuing to enhance and expand our trusted traveler programs, which 

expedite the processing of known, low-risk travelers so that we can better focus our 

attention on higher risk, unknown travelers. Global Entry is another program to expedite processing of low-risk travelers-in this case, United States citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. This program is a pilot that we are testing in select airports. It provides automated kiosks to validate identification by matching travel documents with biometrics. 

The Importer Security Filing interim final rule, also known as ‘‘10+2’’ went into 

effect earlier this year and has already yielded some promising results. This program will provide CBP timely information about cargo shipments that will enhance 

our ability to detect and interdict high risk shipments. Comments on aspects of this 

rule were accepted until June 1, 2009, and implementation using informed compliance will continue until January of next year. This initiative will augment CBP’s 

efforts to review 100 percent of all cargo before it arrives in the United States using 

advanced cargo data, automated targeting and risk assessment systems, intelligence, and cutting edge inspection technologies such as large scale X-ray, gamma 

ray machines, and radiation detection devices. Shipments determined by CBP to be 

high risk are examined either overseas as part of our Container Security Initiative 

or upon arrival at a U.S. port. Additionally, over 98% of all arriving maritime containerized cargo is presently scanned for radiation through radiation portal monitors. 

The infrastructure and facilities supporting many of our ports of entry are outdated and aging. As mentioned earlier, the commitment within the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by President Obama, Secretary Napolitano, and Congress 

to enhance and improve the ports of entry is an important step to overhauling 

CBP’s infrastructure. We believe these funds will allow us to accelerate our upgrades, which will in turn increase our quality of service, throughput, and overall 

performance at the ports. 

Technology is also a key enabler for our operations at the ports of entry. A key 

focus is on the area of Non–Intrusive Inspection. The ability to non-intrusively 

screen and examine cargo and conveyances will allow us to interdict weapons of 

mass effect and other contraband more effectively while facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. 

Southwest Border Security Initiatives 

DHS continues to address cartel violence in Mexico through targeted initiatives 

and adept coordination with U.S. Federal, state, local, tribal, and Mexican authorities. In an effort to further facilitate these partnerships, Secretary Napolitano announced the appointment of Alan Bersin as DHS Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs. The recently announced Southwest Border Security Initiative, U.S./Mexican Counter Drug Initiative, and 2009 National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy all rely on this 

coordination. Through these initiatives, the Department will increase personnel at 

the border, position technology at strategic locations, and provide assistance for 

Mexican security needs through resources and partnerships. The recent Merida Initiative is a prime example of this kind of assistance. In the future, DHS will work 

closely to help Mexico build capacity for its long term border security needs. Taken 

as a whole, these initiatives aim to crack down on the illegal activities that fuel the 

drug war in Mexico. 

In March, DHS, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of State announced the President’s Southwest Border Security Initiative, which involves the 

deployment of hundreds of new personnel and enhanced intelligence technology to 

maximize capabilities and strengthen coordination with other federal law enforcement entities such as DOJ, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and ExploVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:23 May 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-24\55886.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
19 

sives, the DEA, and the FBI, as well as State, local, tribal, and Mexican law enforcement authorities. With regard to CBP, the President’s initiative: 

Initiates 100 percent southbound rail scanning—CBP previously did not 

screen any of the cargo traveling by rail from the United States into Mexico; it is 

now scanning all rail cargo for weapons, ammunition, and currency. Existing nonintrusive inspection equipment is being used to detect contraband in cargo on each 

of the eight rail crossings on the southwest border. 

Adds Border Patrol Agents at POEs—CBP is placing up to 100 Border Patrol 

agents at southwestern ports of entry to assist the Office of Field Operations (OFO) 

and to bolster outbound inspections from the U.S. into Mexico in order to detect 

arms and bulk-cash smuggling. 

Adds Mobile Response Teams—Three Mobile Response Teams of 25 CBP officers each are periodically deploying to the southwest border to participate in focused 

operations developed to combat arms and bulk cash smuggling. 

Augments Search Technologies—An additional two low-energy mobile x-ray 

units have been moved to the southwest border, in addition to the seven already 

present, to help CBP identify anomalies in passenger vehicles. 

Engages Canine Teams—A total of twelve teams of ‘‘cross-trained’’ canines 

-trained to identify both firearms and currency -have been deployed to the southwest border. 

Adds License Plate Readers—Outbound lanes currently equipped with license 

plate readers will receive upgraded license plate reader technology to improve CBP’s 

ability to identify the vehicles of known or suspected smugglers of cash, weapons, 

drugs, or persons. This information is shared with other law enforcement agencies 

through EPIC and the OCDETF Fusion Center. 

Enhances Operation Stonegarden Grant Funding on the Border—Grant 

guidance for the remaining balances in Operation Stonegarden from fiscal year 2006 

to fiscal year 2008 will be modified to enhance current State, local, and tribal law 

enforcement operations on the southwest border. The new guidelines will expand 

the scope of what the funds can be used for, freeing up to $59 million for State, 

local, and tribal law enforcement on the border to pay for additional law enforcement personnel, operational overtime expenses, and travel or lodging for deployment 

to the southwest border. 

Actively Engages State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement—DHS is aggressively reaching out to law enforcement in border communities, recently conducting a firsthand tour of State and local law enforcement operations along the 

southwest border and leading bi-monthly conference calls with chiefs of police and 

sheriffs in a classified setting. 

We have already begun to feel the impact of this initiative. Between March 12 

and June 1, CBP seized over $13.2 million in outbound currency. On May 10, CBP 

seized $200,000 in U.S. currency during outbound inspections in Progreso, Texas, 

when officers detected anomalies while performing a routine X-ray scan on a pickup 

truck. Following a canine inspection, the officers discovered 18 heat-sealed packages 

of U.S. currency hidden in a roaster oven inside the vehicle. In addition, on May 

2, CBP officers and ICE agents in Laredo, Texas, seized more than $302,000 in 

American currency hidden in boxes of detergent during a joint outbound operation. 

The funding for these efforts will be from budget realignments and reprogramming from lower priority activities. The President’s fiscal year 20 10 budget continues to support these efforts by providing funding to combat southbound firearms 

and currency smuggling. 

Support of U.S./Mexican Counter-Drug Initiatives 

A key and growing area of emphasis involves DHS’s role in interdicting the illegal 

flow of weapons and currency into Mexico. The recent surge in violence in the interior and border cities of Mexico poses a significant threat in Mexico and is a serious 

concern of the United States. Secretary Napolitano has tasked all DHS components, 

including CBP, to examine how we can reasonably increase our enforcement activities in an effort to identify and interrupt efforts to smuggle weapons and bulk cash 

shipments into Mexico. 

A large portion of illegal drugs consumed in the United States pass through Mexican territory and territorial seas. Illicit trafficking profits flow back to Mexican drug 

trafficking organizations across our common border. The Mexican Government’s 

ability to confront its drug trafficking industry and its willingness to cooperate with 

U.S. efforts directly affect the impact of any southwest border activities. 

CBP works with its partners in the Drug Enforcement Administration and the 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area centers to expand the National License Plate 

Reader (LPR) initiative to exploit intelligence on drug traffickers and drug trafficking organizations. The LPR initiative will utilize established locations to gather 

20 

information regarding travel patterns and border nexus on drug traffickers to enable intelligence driven operations and interdictions. While the LPRs are currently 

deployed along the southwest border, the program will be expanded to encompass 

the northern border and other areas throughout the country in the near future. Its 

capabilities can be utilized to assist other law enforcement entities in their investigations of their high value targets, by combining existing DEA and other law enforcement database capabilities with new technology to identify and interdict conveyances being utilized to transport bulk cash, drugs, weapons, and other illegal 

contraband. 

In a spirit of cooperation, CBP has established positions at the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force 

(OCDETF) Fusion Center, and the DEA Special Operations Division. These initiatives enhance interaction with the Intelligence Community (IC) and law enforcement agencies to more effectively facilitate the collection, analysis, and dissemination of actionable drug-related intelligence. CBP has also established two full-time 

positions at the National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) and has partnered with 

the National Gang Targeting, Enforcement and Coordination Center (Gang TECC). 

Additionally, CBP’s Office Intelligence and Operations Coordination established a 

National Post Seizure Analysis Team (PSAT) at the National Targeting CenterCargo, and is in the process of establishing Intelligence Operations Coordination 

Centers (IOCC) with the first one under construction in Tucson, Arizona. The 

IOCCs will make CBP a more fully integrated, intelligence driven organization by 

linking intelligence efforts and products to operations and interdictions. 

CBP views the border as a continuum of activities with the physical border being 

the last line of defense, not the first. As such, effectively securing the border requires attention to processes that begin far outside U.S. borders, occur at the border, and continue to all interior regions of the United States. Consequently, CBP’s 

strategies address the threats and challenges along the entire continuum. For this 

reason, CBP takes part in various initiatives, including Operation Panama Express, 

which relies on strategic partnerships. 

Operation Panama Express is an OCDETF initiative, executed through OCDETF 

Co-located Strike Forces, in which CBP participates with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, Internal Revenue Service–Criminal Investigations Division, 

the U.S. Coast Guard, and multiple State and local law enforcement agencies in a 

multi-agency international drug flow investigation that combines detection and 

monitoring, investigative, and intelligence resources to provide actionable intelligence to Joint Interagency Task Force–South (JIATF–S) operations to interdict the 

flow of cocaine from northern South America to the United States. JIATF–S interdiction operations in the transit zone, supported by CBP P–3 Airborne Early Warning, CBP P–3 Tracker aircraft, and Coast Guard HC–130, along with U.S. Coast 

Guard surface vessels, interdict large, sometimes multi-ton, shipments before they 

can be split into smaller loads for movement across the southwest border over multiple routes and distributed to U.S. cities, towns, and small communities. Interdicting these large loads in the Transit Zone supports the Southwest Border and 

Merida Initiatives by preventing illicit drugs from entering the distribution networks through Central America and Mexico. This deprives the violent Drug Trafficking Organizations of the product and subsequent cash flow that supports their 

operations. 

CBP is also responsible for detecting and preventing unauthorized incursions into 

the United States. Toward this end, CBP continues to work with the Mexican Government in the development of increased law enforcement surveillance and interdiction capabilities. Detection of U.S./Mexican border air intrusions is essential to effective interdiction operations along our borders with Mexico. The primary means of 

detection is a large radar network, monitored at the Air and Marine Operations 

Center (AMOC) in Riverside, California. Information is fed to the AMOC through 

a network of airborne early warning, aerostat, Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), and ground based radar systems. Both CBP and Mexican Law Enforcement 

Personnel stationed at the AMOC detect aircraft ‘‘short landings‘‘and border penetrations and coordinate CBP and Mexican interdiction assets to intercept, track, and 

apprehend smugglers as they transverse the U.S./Mexico border. 

The Government of Mexico maintains a strong commitment to interdiction. CBP 

will continue to assist the Government of Mexico in its counter-drug effort, including 

Command, Control, Communications, and Information support. 

Intelligence and Operational Coordination 

CBP continues to evolve into a more integrated, intelligence driven organization 

and partner in the DHS Intelligence Enterprise. We are in the process of estabVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:23 May 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-24\55886.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
21 

lishing a more robust field organization by means of several programs. For example, 

the CBP Office Intelligence and Operations Coordination is in the process of developing capabilities which will integrate CBP intelligence and operational elements 

for more effective command and control, mission deployment, and allocation of resources. 

Intelligence gathering and predictive analysis require new collection and processing capabilities. CBP is developing the Analytical Framework for Intelligence 

(AFI), a set of data processing tools that will improve the effectiveness of CBP and 

other DHS analysts in detecting, locating, and analyzing terrorist networks, drug 

trafficking networks, and similar threats. CBP has instituted training for Border 

Patrol Agents and CBP Officers to better recognize indications of human trafficking, 

hosted a Human Trafficking Symposium in 2008, and has developed a Human Trafficking Public Awareness Campaign which includes the use of informational posters 

located in public areas of U.S. ports-of-entry and Human Trafficking Information 

Cards that are designed to raise the awareness of the both the traveling public and 

potential victims to the crime of human trafficking These intelligence and operational coordination initiatives complement the Secure Border Initiative’s (SBI) 

technology programs and will be shared with other agencies, including—but not limited to—the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

Secure Border Initiative (SBI) 

The Secure Border Initiative (SBI), as currently configured, contributes to two of 

the three legs of our border security stool. 

As I previously mentioned, the Border Patrol identified 661 miles along the southwest border where persistent impedance was a necessary condition for effective control. In those areas, the only cost-effective options to provide persistent impedance 

are physical infrastructure or personnel. Within the miles identified by the Border 

Patrol, our analysis shows that technology is not an adequate substitute. Technology 

might well allow us to watch illicit border crossers blend into the population or travel to a route of egress—but it does not delay or impede the crossers long enough 

to enable an effective response. 

Going forward, the BSFIT appropriation, which is managed by the SBI office, will 

continue to dedicate funding to additional tactical infrastructure programs. Much of 

the focus, however, will be on high priority infrastructure projects other than 

fence—for example, roads and lighting. With the fence projects largely complete, we 

will be increasing our emphasis on technology within the SBI program—SBInet. 

Our recent activity has been focused on development of the SBInet Block 1 system, which we are deploying this year to two locations in Arizona known as Tucson– 

1 and Ajo 1, totaling about 53 miles of border. After completing System Qualification Test (SQT) last December, while CBP had confidence in the overall system design, there were some open issues that needed to be resolved prior to giving the go 

ahead to move forward with these initial operational deployments. The SBInet team 

worked with Boeing to resolve the issues from SQT and complete the appropriate 

analysis in order to provide adequate confidence in the system design. This analysis 

suggested that, to a reasonable level of engineering confidence, the system meets 

its design requirements. Further confirmation will require actual deployment and 

checkout of the system in the real operational environment -an opportunity that will 

be provided with the deployment of the system to Tucson- which began on May 4. 

The deployments of Tucson-1 and Ajo-1 will lead to a more formal operational test 

and assessment by the Border Patrol to determine how well the system meets the 

agents’ needs. The results of the engineering tests and the Border Patrol’s operational testing will then advise future changes and enhancements to the system, as 

well as a decision to deploy the system to additional locations. 

FY2010 Budget 

The Department of Homeland Security’s Budget will strengthen current efforts 

that are vital to the nation’s security, bolster DHS’ ability to respond to emerging 

and evolving threats, and allow DHS to embrace new responsibilities in order to secure the nation. This budget puts forward critical investments in the protection of 

the American people. With these priorities in place, the budget expands activities 

that secure our nation’s borders. 

A responsible budgeting process not only identifies funding needs, but also ways 

to save taxpayer dollars. To this end, Secretary Napolitano recently launched an Efficiency Review initiative. This program is committed to improve efficiency and 

streamline decision making through a series of agency wide initiatives ranging from 

eliminating non-mission critical travel to acquiring enterprise licenses for commonly 

used software, which are collectively expected to lead to millions of dollars in cost 

avoidance across the department. 

22 

CBP’s fiscal year 2010 budget reflects $10 billion in appropriated resources and $1.4 billion in funding acquired through user fees, for a total of $11.4 billion. The 

direct appropriated request for fiscal year 2010 represents an increase of $230 million, or 2.3% over fiscal year 2009. Highlights of fiscal year 2010 major initiatives 

are provided below: Data Center Migrations...............$38.6M (0 FTE) 

Resources are requested to provide a standardized information technology (IT) resource acquisitions across DHS Components, and streamline maintenance and support contracts, allowing for less complex vendor support and expediting response 

times in the event of an emergency. Benefits derived from consolidation are enhanced DHS IT security posture, improved information sharing with stakeholders, 

and increased operational efficiencies over time. Combating Southbound Firearms and Currency Smuggling .......$26.1M (63 

FTE) 

Resources are requested to provide CBP with an enhanced capability to combat 

southbound firearms and currency smugglers through additional personnel at and 

between the ports of entry and along the southern border, as well as to continue 

to expand and maintain the Licensed Plate Reader (LPR) program. The combating 

firearms initiative will add 44 Border Patrol agents, 65 CBP officers and (CBPOs) 

16 support staff to expand capacity to effectively combat firearms and currency 

smuggling. The LPR program reads license plates as vehicles pass through the ports 

of entry and automatically queries the TECS database for law enforcement information. This information is then passed to the officers. Placement of LPR along the 

southern border will be based upon current and developing intelligence. Law Enforcement Enhanced Retirement.........$25.0M (0 FTE) 

Public Law 1 10–16 1 established special retirement provisions for CBP officers, 

similar to the retirement coverage for law enforcement officers and firefighters. The 

enhanced retirement package became effective on July 6,2008, covering 19,865 employees. Funding was included in the fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 appropriations for this purpose. An additional $25 million is requested in fiscal year 2010 

as the final increment to fully fund the new retirement coverage. CBP officers face 

the same risk and challenges as law enforcement personnel in other organizations 

as they are accountable for ensuring the security of our nation. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)......$20.9M (0 FTE) 

Resources are requested to continue maintaining and operating the WHTI program that supports Departmental efforts to facilitate the efficient movement of people at the land border ports. WHTI provides a tool to conduct the necessary document authentication at the time of crossing and it also accelerates the verification 

process mandated by law to the extent possible with Radio Frequency Identification 

(RFID) Technology and communications technology. Northern Border Technology........$20.00M (0 FTE) 

Resources are requested to assist CBP in providing situational awareness along 

the northern border. Funding will also support the design, deployment, and integration of surveillance, sensing platforms, detection technologies and tactical infrastructure requirements. This technology will serve as a force multiplier and increase the 

probability of successful detection. The systems capability will provide increased detection and a higher probability of successful detection. 

Air and Marine (A&M) Personnel..........................$19.1M (72 FTE) 

Resources are requested to hire 68 pilots, 20 marine, and 56 support personnel. 

These positions are necessary for A&M to achieve maximum compliance with strategic goals and objectives and to support Border Patrol agents on the ground. During fiscal year 2010, A&M plans to continue the expansion of its capabilities across 

the northern and coastal border and place heavy emphasis on the maritime requirements along the southeast/Carribbean borders. 

Import Safety and Trade Enforcement...................$9.3M (52 FTE) 

Resources are requested to hire 12 scientists, 1 paralegal, 34 international trade 

specialists, 32 auditors, 10 attorneys, 3 import specialists and 1 1 support personnel 

to implement the Action Plan on Import Safety developed in response to Executive 

Order 13439. The increase of personnel will offer an optimal mix of trade activities 

and resources that allow CBP to meet the growing demand in trade volume, meet 

CBP’s mission of enforcing trade laws and collecting revenue, achieve executive 

management goals and objectives for the trade mission, align activities with the appropriate skill levels, leverage efficient gains from technology process improvements, 

and combat risks inherent in priority trade areas. 

Cyber Security............$5.0M (0 FTE) 

Resources are requested to provide continuous Top Compartmented Information 

and collateral classified processing capabilities within a ‘‘Focused Operations‘‘branch 

that will provide tactical cyber intelligence of ongoing threats to CBP and DHS 

23 

while also providing skilled forensics experts capable of staffing a DHS/CBP Digital 

Media Analysis lab to identify and attribute cyber attacks. 

Global Advanced Passenger Information (API)/Name Record 

(PNR).....$3.0M (0 FTE) 

Resources are requested to continue the program in two key security partner 

countries (including continuing the program for a country previously identified in 

fiscal year 2008), and to implement the program in one additional key country, resulting in the deployment of three countries by the end of fiscal year 2010. Funding 

will also support start up costs, acquisition of hardware and software, recurring information technology costs, training and travel expenses. 

Analyze and Employ Information and Intelligence................$2.8M (11 FTE) 

Resources are requested to hire a total of 20 CBP officers and two support positions. The 20 CBP officers would be evenly split between the passenger and cargo 

facilities of the National Targeting Center providing additional operational and analytical support, which is needed in both environments. The increased staffing levels 

will also ensure that NTC continues to provide CBP personnel with immediate responses to targeting and research inquiries. 

Conclusion 

Madame Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, your continued support 

of CBP has led to many positive outcomes in border security and improvements in 

travel and trade facilitation. The results of your recent investments to improve 

CBP’s aging infrastructure will soon be evident. The resources we put at our border, 

whether it is people, technology, or tactical infrastructure, enhance our ability to address hazards and threats at our Nation’s borders. 

We believe the next logical investment is in the workforce itself. A very important 

aspect to our staffing is being sure that our officers and agents have the right training, pay, and benefits commensurate with their complex and often dangerous work. 

Over the next year, we will be looking closely at ways to ensure we have the ability 

to recruit, retain, and compensate our workforce. 

Thank you for the opportunity to describe our plans for border security and to 

highlight some of our progress to date. With President Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request for the Department of Homeland Security and your continued support of DHS 

and CBP, I am confident that we will continue to make tremendous strides in increasing control of our borders. 

I look forward to your questions. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Commissioner, now we will hear from 

our commandant for 5 minutes or less. 

Commandant Allen? 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THAD W. ALLEN, COMMANDANT, U.S. 

COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Admiral ALLEN. Madam Chairwoman Sanchez and ranking member Souder, thank you very much for having us here today. And, 

ma’am, I think you are right. I think this is a historical hearing 

today with the three of us here. And I want to congratulate you 

and the ranking member on your leadership for bringing this together. 

Some of the oversight issues in Congress are very complicated 

right now, but I think this is a very important hearing. And again, 

I thank you very much. 

When we talk about Coast Guard operations a lot of folks tend 

to think of the coast, but we are much broader in scope and mission than that both geographically and what we do with our statutory authorities. 

And as we speak here this morning, we have Coast Guard personnel deployed in the Persian Gulf protecting oil platforms off of 

Iraq. The Coast Guard Cutter Boutwell which is transiting through 

the Mediterranean right now just finished a historic port call in 

Turbruq, Libya, the first time a U.S. ship had been in there in 40 

years working with U.S. African command and General Kip Ward. 

24 

We have challenges in the Arctic with increased open water up 

there right now and extensive counter drug operations in the Caribbean and in the eastern Pacific, also South America in the transit 

zone where we work very closely with our CBP partners and DOD. 

We talk a lot about the southwest border and the issues related 

to drug movement down there. I would tell you a very critical 

southern border is the southern border of Mexico with Guatemala 

and Central America, where the majority of the cocaine enters the 

United States first. 

It is the Central American–Mexican corridor. We work very 

closely as a team on that challenge and moving forward, work very 

close with the combatant commanders. We are very much involved 

right now in issues related to piracy off the Horn of Africa and U.S. 

flagships that are operating there. I would be glad to discuss that 

moving forward as well. 

Madam Chairwoman, as you noted in your opening remarks the 

number one job right now in the Coast Guard is to reposition ourselves in the 21st century to be a more flexible, agile organization. 

And we are conducting probably the largest modernization since 

the modern Coast Guard was formed in 1915, looking at anything 

from our acquisition organization, and some of the issues that were 

identified several years ago with our deep water program, to logistic support and basically reinventing the Coast Guard and changing our business practices to make us more effective and also to integrate into Homeland Security. 

The demand for our services has never been greater. In addition 

to what is normally thought of as Coast Guard classic missions 

there is a vast expansion of maritime transportation, especially the 

energy realm with oil and off-shore gas explorations, movement of 

liquefied natural gas, which presents both safety and security 

issues for the homeland. 

I talked about more open water in the arctic, we are about ready 

to issue regulations that will bring the towing vessel industry 

under an inspection regime that will place more demands on us as 

well as the safety of the commercial fishing vessel industry. 

Taken collectively that is a very broad set of mandates, and in 

addition to that we will continue to support our combatant commanders overseas. The current budget that is before the Congress 

right now for 2010 totals $9.96 billion. 

The increment over the prior year enacted level is $284 million. 

It is slightly more than current services, keeps us at pace for capital replenishment that we vastly need in the Coast Guard to replace our aging assets and some modest program enhancements. 

On the recapitalization side we are very much concerned about 

the aging high endurance cutter fleet that we have right now and 

their ability to carry out their mission. We want to put our fourth 

national security cutter under contract with this budget. 

We want to continue to build out our new patrol boats and move 

response boats out to the field as fast as we can. In enhancing safety, security and stewardship we have some modest additions in the 

budget this year that will help us meet some of the issues with 

maritime transportation systems growth. 

We are looking to put more marine inspectors out there to increase our safety and inspection capability, and we are also workVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:23 May 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-24\55886.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
25 

ing very hard to increase our biometrics at sea capability. This is 

something that we have worked over the last 3 or 4 years and has 

resulted in a significant downward trend in illegal migration from 

the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. 

We are now deploying that to both waters off Haiti and Cuba. 

Also, looking to improve our command and control with $1.1 million that will go into the Charleston Harbor Operations Center, 

which is one of our integrated operations centers which we are trying to deal with around the country. 

In closing we have talked about gaining control of the southwest 

border, if you look at the maritime borders of the United States including the Great Lakes, Alaska and the rivers and the other navigable waterways we have to defend we are looking at 95,000 miles. 

I wouldn’t sit here this morning and even pretend to tell you that 

is under control. 

What constitutes an adequate maritime security regime in this 

country moving forward, I think, will be the subject of an ongoing 

discussion, but it will only be met through a one DHS posture moving forward. 

And again, I want to congratulate my fellow leaders who are sitting here at the table with me today and their willingness to work 

with us on these very difficult problems as we move forward. And 

I look forward to answering your questions this morning. Thank 

you. 

[The statement of Admiral Allen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADM. THAD W. ALLEN, COMMANDANT

INTRODUCTION 

Good afternoon Madame Chairwoman and distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for the enduring support you have shown to the men and women 

of the United States Coast Guard. 

Over the past year, Coast Guard men and women -active duty, reserve, civilian 

and auxiliarists alike—continued a consistent trend of delivering premier service to 

the public. They performed superbly in the heartland, in our ports, and while deployed at sea and around the globe to safeguard America’s maritime interests. They 

saved over four thousand lives; worked closely with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) partners to respond to last summer’s damaging floods in Missouri and 

North Dakota; conducted 680 domestic icebreaking operations to facilitate the movement of more than $2 billion in commerce; operated with other federal partners at 

sea and in the air to prevent nearly 400 thousand pounds of cocaine from reaching 

America’s borders or streets; and continued to serve on the front lines to support 

Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. 

When I became Commandant in 2006, one of my primary objectives was to evolve 

the Coast Guard into a change-centric organization through a modernized command, 

control and logistics support structure, an optimized workforce and improved business practices. Building upon the Coast Guard’s culture and bias for action, we have 

made significant strides toward those goals. As we have carried out our modernization efforts, the dedication, expertise and professionalism of your Coast Guard has 

been a constant. The impacts of the global economic crisis, climate change, activity 

in the polar regions, persistent conflict, piracy, drug and human smuggling, and the 

increasing expansion and complexity of the Marine Transportation System (MTS) 

call not only for a modernized Coast Guard, but for authorities and capabilities 

needed to carry out all of our safety, security and stewardship missions in a rapidly 

changing operating environment. 

Coast Guard authorities must keep pace with evolving threats. The recent prosecution of the first self-propelled semi-submersible (SPSS) operator under the Drug 

Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act of 2008 is an important example. 

26 

Self-propelled smi-submersible 

This law provides our men and women with the tool necessary to deliver consequences to drug traffickers who would otherwise scuttle their vessels, destroying 

any evidence that may have been captured, and allowing them to return to their 

country of origin as a search and rescue victim. I applaud Congress for their responsiveness to this threat and appreciate the close cooperation that led to the creation 

of this vital legislation. 

I also appreciate Congress’ continuing efforts to coordinate closely with the Coast 

Guard to support our progress in modernizing our acquisitions program. I look forward to working with the Committee on this effort and several other modernization, 

management and operational issues as we move together to achieve our shared 

goals of a stronger, more capable and effective Coast Guard across all of our safety, 

security and stewardship missions. 

Roles and Missions 

The U.S. Coast Guard is one of the five Armed Services of the United States and 

the only military organization within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

Unique among the Armed Services, the Coast Guard is also a law enforcement and 

regulatory agency with broad domestic authorities. The Coast Guard delivers innovative solutions and services across a spectrum of authorities, capabilities, competencies, capacities, and partnerships (ACCCP). Today, as in the past, the Coast 

Guard continues to leverage its multi-mission structure, guardian ethos and established partnerships to protect the American public and global marine transportation 

system. 


11124-11.eps 11124-12.eps
27 

Modernization 

The Coast Guard’s modernization efforts represent our commitment to improving 

the effectiveness and efficiency of not only our mission execution, but also our stewardship of the public’s trust and resources as well. The establishment of the Surface 

and Aviation Forces Logistics Centers introduced immediate improvements to our 

logistics system through the use of a proven, bi-level maintenance model that minimizes both costs and operational down time. Moreover, our Headquarters policy and 

management functions were streamlined as well with the establishment of the Deputy Commandant for Operations and Deputy Commandant for Mission Support. 

These organizations ensure our strategies, policies and human, information technology and capital resource management efforts focus on long-term planning, goals 

and objectives without sacrificing the organizational agility necessary to address 

emerging and evolving operational threats and national priorities. 

Functional alignment and agility at all levels within our organizational structure 

are critical to our modernization effort. With the appropriate authorities, we will be 

able to continue to this effort with the stand up of the Operations Command 

(OPCOM) and the Force Readiness Command (FORCECOM). 

Although the current Area Command have served us well, they creat a bifurcated 

command, control and support structure that no longer meets our operational coordination and readiness requirements. Increasingly complex transnational and regional threats demand a centralized command and control structure with the ability 

to allocate, coordinate and surge assets regionally and globally both independently 

and in cooperation with our DHS, Department of Defense and international partners. Similarly, we must be able to sustain our aging cutters, boats and aircraft, 

and train and equip our workforce to operate at maximum efficiency and effectiveness using standardized Coast Guard-wide procedures and processes. OPCOM and 

FORCECOM will give us the ability to meet these requirements and deliver unsurpassed service to the American people. The modernized command and control structure will significantly improve our ability to support and execute missions. I ask for 

your support to provide the Coast Guard with authority to carry out the remainder 

of our modernization efforts, which is known as the Admiral and Vice Admiral provision. 

Marine Safety 

In 2007, I introduced the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Improvement Plan, which 

was followed shortly thereafter by the Marine Safety Performance Plan. Expanding 

the Coast Guard’s capacity and continuing to develop the expertise of our marine 

safety workforce is an-essential component of my plans to ensure the Coast Guard 

remains strong and ready to serve the nation and around the world. I appreciate 

Congress’ support in the effort, but there remains a great deal of work to continue 

to achieve our shared goals in the Marine Safety program. 


11124-13.eps
28 

As I have stated before, there are still too many lives lost at sea, too many people 

injured, and too much property and environmental damage because of avoidable accidents in our nation’s maritime industries. Commercial fishing continues to be one 

of the most dangerous occupations in the world, yet the Coast Guard has no mechanism to require uninspected fishing vessels to carry minimum safety equipment or 

meet minimum vessel safety standards. Maintaining such standards, in addition to 

expanded licensing requirements for towing vessels, would have a positive impact 

on our ability to protect lives and property in these vital industries. 

The safety of recreational boaters and sport fishers is also an important component of the Coast Guard’s efforts, in partnership with State and local authorities, 

to reduce the number of deaths and injuries in our nation’s waterways. Reauthorization of the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund (SFRBTF) supports State 

boating safety and education and law enforcement. 

Maritime Security 

As the violence by Mexican drug cartels increases along our Southwest border, it 

has become abundantly clear more must be done to stop of the flow of drugs into 

Mexico and across our borders. The Coast Guard plays a vital role in reducing the 

flow of cocaine trafficked through Mexico and the rest of Latin America from South 

America with record cocaine removals in 2007 and 2008. By the end of 2009, it is 

likely the Coast Guard, in cooperation with our partners in support of Joint Interagency Task Force—South, will have stopped over one million pounds of cocaine 

from reaching the United States over the last three years. Our modernization efforts 

and sustained recapitalization of our aging cutters and aircraft is essential if we are 

going to address this persistent threat to our Nation. 

Similarly, alien migrant smuggling presents a persistent threat to the security of 

our Nation. Human smugglers are following the lead of Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTO) and are using more aggressive and dangerous tactics including the use 

of go-fast vessels to evade Coast Guard interdiction assets. As efforts continue to 

increase security at the land border, I am concerned smugglers will shift to maritime vectors, where the unique operating environment and current legal constraints 

make consequence delivery more difficult. I am grateful for Congress’ ongoing consideration of the Maritime Alien Smuggling Law Enforcement Act (MASLEA) to address the shortfalls in current statute and provide the U.S. Government with appropriate law enforcement and prosecutorial tools that are uniquely tailored to the 

maritime environment in which this crime occurs. 

As we pursue strategies, tactics and authorities to secure our borders from entry 

of dangerous materials and people, we must also consider the security of legitimate 

commerce in the maritime domain. This is particularly important when considering 

the health and safety risks vessels carrying Certain Dangerous Cargoes (CDCs) 

such as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), chlorine, anhydrous ammonia and various petroleum products present in our ports, waterways and adjacent population centers. 

The expansion of LNG facilities and corresponding increase in waterborne LNG 

shipments to meet our nation’s energy demands is well known. However, LNG is 

just one of many CDCs transported through the MTS that must be considered in 

a national dialogue on cargo and energy infrastructure security. 


11124-14.eps
29 

LNG Tanker security zone enforced by Coast Guard small boat. 

In their maritime security plans, LNG, high capacity passenger vessels and critical maritime infrastructure must pay particular attention to vulnerabilites to small 

vessel attacks. Since small vessels are not required to participate in a tracking or 

reporting regime as larger, commercial vessels, they can operate virtually without 

restriction in our ports and waterways. In 2008, DHS promulgated the Small Vessel 

Security Strategy. The Coast Guard was an integral part of the development of this 

strategy in partnership with the Department and other DHS components including 

Customs and Border Protection. The Coast Guard is currently working with our 

DHS partners to develop an implementation plan. 

Small boats are also the conveyance of choice for pirates to use in assaulting commercial vessels. Piracy presents an international maritime security challenge. Similar to the shared security responsibilities associated with Especially Hazardous 

Cargo vessels, the security of commercial vessels against piratical acts requires a 

coordinated strategy across the Federal government, industry and the international 

community. Although the U.S. Government has been successful negotiating an arrangement with the Government of Kenya to begin prosecuting Somali pirates captured in the Horn of Africa, more international engagement and coordination on this 

issue is required. 

Stewardship 

Whether enforcing fisheries in the Arctic or responding to hazardous materials 

spills in the Gulf of Mexico in the aftermath of a hurricane, I am committed to ensuring the Coast Guard maintains the capability to protect our environment and our 

natural resources. The Coast Guard’s authorities under our stewardship missions 

are extensive. We are currently developing new Ballast Water Discharge and Non– 

Tank Vessel Response Plan regulations to decrease the introduction of invasive species in U.S. internal waters and ensure industry has sufficient response capability 

to minimize the impact of hazardous materials spills. 


11124-15.eps
30 

The Coast Guard routinely investigates allegations of wrongdoing that turn on the 

availability of a foreign seafarer witness who possesses direct knowledge of how 

damage to the environment, cargo, and vessel, as well as loss of life, occurred. The 

ship owner—who is aware of the importance of foreign seafarer witnesses to an investigation, as well as his practical ability to control the continued availability of 

the witnesses in the United States—will threaten to abandon the crew to protect 

his interests in a criminal or administrative investigation. Without the ability to 

protect and temporarily support these crewmembers in the case of abandonment, 

the Coast Guard’s ability to investigate alleged criminal or illegal activity is severely 

impaired. In addition, seafarers may be abandoned in the United States for purely 

economic reasons. There is currently no authority nor resources for the Coast Guard 

to assist these seafarers, and no incentive for other nations to assist American seafarers in a similar situation. 

CONCLUSION 

As a maritime Nation and leader in the global maritime environment, our security, resilience, and economic prosperity are intrinsically linked to the oceans. Safety 

and freedom of transit on the high seas are essential to our well-being, yet are very 

fragile. Threats to border security, growth in the global marine transportation system, expanded use of the Arctic, and burgeoning coastal development are challenging conventional paradigms. The Coast Guard is ideally-suited to help the Nation address these and other challenges through its comprehensive, complementary 

authorities, flexible and adaptive operational capabilities, and centuries of experience 

protecting America’s maritime security interests. Full support for the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request is an important step forward. Our ability to optimize 

our broad spectrum of authorities, capabilities and partnerships remains critical to 

effectively allocating resources across the Coast Guard’s broad mission portfolio. 

As our Nation faces the challenges of a global economy, the environmental impacts of climate change, piracy, and the long-term struggle against radical extremism; the Coast Guard must be equipped to conduct preparedness and response operations across a broad spectrum of potential risks, threats and hazards. The men 

and women of the Coast Guard with courage, sacrifice and dignity and are eager 

and prepared to answer the Nation’s call now and into the future. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am pleased to answer 

your questions. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you so much, Admiral. With now having 

heard the testimony I want to thank you for that. I will remind 

each member that he or she will have 5 minutes to question the 

witnesses, and I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Assistant Secretary Morton, again, welcome to your new job. We 

look forward to working with you. Back in March the full committee had a hearing on the 287(g) program and recommendations 

were made by a Government Accountability Office report. Some of 


11124-16.eps
31 

those recommendations were improving ICE supervision of participating communities and documenting program objectives. 

What is the status of improving the 287(g) program through the 

recommendations from the GAO report? And are there any specific 

budget requests that will carry out those recommendations? 

Mr. MORTON. Here is the latest on 287(g). We are in the process 

of revising our memorandum of agreement that will govern all of 

the 287(g) agreements that we have. 

That revision is directly related to the criticisms that were in the 

GAO report, and although we are not quite finished, I think the 

final MOA will address each and every one of the concerns, namely 

the concerns about oversight, the lack of performance standards, 

the lack of an appropriate level of supervision by ICE and a lack 

of clear priorities within the agreements. So I expect that shortly. 

Secondly, the budget request itself that is now before the Congress includes money within the office that is responsible for the 

oversight and execution of the program, and there are several 

pieces to it. 

There is a component of oversight. There is additionally monies 

for independent OPR inspections and then a request for officers 

and employees to permanently staff the office so that we can have 

sort of a sustained good management of the program. 

So in short, I am fairly confident that we are turning an important page on the program. It is an important statutory authority 

that Congress has provided for, and my objective is to see that it 

is implemented in a way that meets the objective of our state and 

local partners, but at the same time reflects the priorities of the 

federal government—focuses the agreements on, you know, the appropriate priorities within the immigration enforcement arena. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Do you know about how many local agencies now 

use this program, and does this infrastructure that you are putting 

in to oversee this program, does it include increasing the number 

of jurisdictions where 287 might apply? Or is this infrastructure 

more to get under control what we already have in agreements? 

Mr. MORTON. We have 66 agreements right now. There are a 

number of pending agreements that we are waiting on the revision 

of the MOA to move forward on. We have a lot of additional requests for authority and some of those requests I anticipate will be 

granted. 

The principal focus of the budget request is to solidify the management of the program and to provide for an appropriate level of 

oversight and to address some of the concerns in the GAO report. 

But I do anticipate that additional counties and cities will come 

to us and ask for authority, and I do anticipate that some of those 

in the future under the new regime will be approved, in addition 

to the ones that we already have, 66. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. Assistant Secretary, an Associated 

Press Article earlier this year stated that ‘‘more than half of the 

detainees held by ICE had no previous criminal record.’’ Given that 

statistic I believe that ICE should explore alternatives to detention 

for people who don’t pose a threat to our communities, possibly including non-criminal elderly people for example, asylum seekers. 

32 

I think the majority of the people that we are holding in detention are those that we have a fear will flee before we finish the paperwork and decisions on them. 

Could you tell us what the field guidance is, too, for screening 

vulnerable populations for possible alternatives to detention? What 

are you doing about that, and what is your plan to expand and explore the different community-based alternatives for detention? 

Mr. MORTON. I mentioned in my opening statement the strengthening and improvement of the detention system is a single priority 

for me, and it is something that I want to spend a lot of time on. 

Alternatives to detention are a critical piece of that. We have important statutory responsibilities to detain and remove people who 

pose a serious risk of flight or a danger to the community. But just 

as in the federal criminal system there are various ways to go 

about that, and sometimes detention is not necessary in some lesser form, that is, an alternative to detention isn’t appropriate. 

The key is to come up with alternatives to detention that work. 

I don’t want to spend the precious dollars that the taxpayer provides us on alternatives that don’t achieve the basic aims that Congress has provided. 

That said, I think alternatives to detention are a very promising 

alternative, and they are something that we are exploring right 

now. I am going to put a lot of time into it, and I think you will 

see that we are going to do more of that and still find that we can 

enforce the law, particularly for the vulnerable populations that 

you mentioned. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I will now recognize the 

ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana 

for questions. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Before getting to the main part of my 

questions, and it would be easy to use more than 5 minutes on 

each category, I wanted to make a couple of brief requests and 

comments. 

One is Congressman Pascrell and I had had some discussions in 

a previous hearing about how we cooperate with our allies on 

some—whether it be the BEST teams or some air resources. I think 

it would be good if we could have, most likely, a classified briefing 

because some of that is not necessarily what we would want in an 

open hearing, and I am sure—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Expand on that a little bit? Is that with our counterparts from other nations? 

Mr. SOUDER. No, no, no. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Or is that within the agency? 

Mr. SOUDER. How our area resources are used, how some of the 

intelligence and cooperation of law enforcement. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I think we have had one briefing already a little 

bit on that. But we will do it again. 

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. Second thing is that I have also asked the Ambassador from Mexico, and have not had this back, if we are going 

to have a serious arms trafficking discussion. And this is probably 

Mr. Morton as well as Mr. Ahern, that the 90 percent figure we are 

hearing from the U.S.—anybody who is tracking this understands 

that it is only the 3 percent of the guns that have a marking on 

it, and since we are the only country that asks for a marking, of 

33 

course, those would be from the United States. The question is 

where are the other 97 percent coming from? 

And Mexico is also trying to figure this out when we were down 

in Mexico, but we need to be very cautious about making assumptions about the extent of the problem. It is likely that many are 

coming from the United States, but we need that statistic or there 

is going to start to be some balking in Congress about the heightened focus on this because the data is not there right now. 

The third thing is I noticed in Mr. Ahern’s testimony that you 

mentioned a number of agencies and this proliferation and stove 

piping and how do we get cooperation. You didn’t mention HIDTAs 

and HIDTAs are one of the most important parts because that is 

what local law enforcement supports the most. 

Not OCEDEF or others, because they don’t have votes at the 

same level. They would like all the different agencies, but was that 

an omission or are you back tracking? We have had some problems 

with some agencies pulling out of the HIDTAs. 

Mr. AHERN. No it was not an omission. Certainly we could give 

you the details of how many agencies involve—— 

Mr. SOUDER. Okay. Thank you. Now I would like to follow up 

with you a little bit in my remaining time on the border. That first 

off we have moved from operational to effective control. In your 

budget you state just control. First let me get the mileage sorted 

out. In your testimony it was 697, a total of 895, the budget says 

815? 

And it also says not additional mileage in 2010? Does that mean 

what the budget says, the 85 miles isn’t the biggest concern, the 

question is that are we stopping at either 812 or 895? Can you hit 

your—— 

Mr. AHERN. How about that? 

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. 

Mr. AHERN. Certainly as far as we are not stopping, a lot of this 

certainly is funding dependent as well. We are taking a look at the 

miles of fence. We currently have 627 miles of fence. We will have 

the remaining 34 miles to actually get to the point of 661 within 

the coming months. 

We will get those construction projects done. We will then assess, 

as far as the additional areas that we need to continue to build, 

those miles should be very few because we did the gap analysis initially, and we have not seen any changes in the patterns that could 

have been created by putting that tactical infrastructure in place. 

So that continues to be a key part of the strategy. Putting the 

border patrol agents out there, one of the key things that we have 

talked about which is why you wouldn’t see such a significant resource request for this year. 

This is needed, stabilization for our workforce. We now have 

close to 46 percent of our workforce in the border patrol with less 

than 3 years of experience. We need to stabilize that going forward 

to make sure that we continue to build their capability into gaining 

and maintaining control. 

And as was noted early on was the SBI deployment. Certainly 

we have wanted from the beginning to make sure that we deploy 

an effective technology and be good stewards of the taxpayers’ dolVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:23 May 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-24\55886.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
34 

lars so we have not just certified deployment until we were certain 

it was going to work more effectively. 

We just did begin in the last 2 weeks with the beginning of the 

construction and deployment in the Tucson–1 area, and we will actually then begin in August of this year to get Aho–1, combining 

those two locations that will give us 53 miles as we go forward. 

After we then make those deployments we need to assess how effective that technology is going forward because this is going to be 

a performance assessment. What we need to do after it is deployed 

we then need to determine its cost effectiveness. 

Mr. SOUDER. Let me ask you a question then. Are you counting 

those miles as effective control before you have measured whether 

they are effective control? 

Mr. AHERN. I do not believe we have added those in at this point, 

but I can give you a more exact answer. 

Mr. SOUDER. And when you say effective operational control, 

does that mean, since you are saying you have 697 miles of a 2,000 

mile southern border and approximately 100 miles of a 4,000 

northern border, are you saying you don’t have effective control 

then of 1,300 miles of the southern border and of 3,900 miles of the 

northern border? What is effective control and not effective control, 

what is the difference? 

Mr. AHERN. Right. And we will be able to give you the precise 

definitions we have used on each one of those categories to be able 

to identify, detect, classify and be able to bring to a law enforcement resolution—— 

Mr. SOUDER. It is pretty tough to convince members to pass an 

immigration bill when you say, in public testimony, that you have 

control of 700 of 2,000 miles. That is a rather gaping hole. 

Mr. AHERN. Well that certainly is one conclusion that could be 

drawn. That is not necessarily the one that we would draw because 

we do have resources and technology and other capabilities in other 

areas along those borders as well. 

We have, again, had some—— 

Mr. SOUDER. Right, in other words you have a sight strategy 

looking towards the roads and so on. 

Mr. AHERN. Right. 

Mr. SOUDER. And that is why the definition of effective control 

becomes very important here because in effect, most people would 

like 2,000 miles of effective control on a border. Is that less than 

effective, partially effective? 

How does the department distinguish becomes a critical matter 

if we are ever going to have any real reform because American citizens want to know that the border is controlled and we aren’t—if 

we, for example resolve status domestically that we don’t have another millions of people coming up. 

That is the immigration side for narcotics and terrorism. We 

want 100 percent effective control for nuclear, for example. So this 

is an ongoing discussion, but I wanted to raise those points. 

Mr. SOUDER. Absolutely, and if you would like, we would be able 

to give you the precise breakdown of the different levels of control 

for each mile of the border we have on the southern tier. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Kirkpatrick. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you Madam—— 

35 

Ms. SANCHEZ. For 5 minutes. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My first 

question is for the Assistant Secretary Morton. And let me just say 

that I had the opportunity to visit an ICE detention center near 

Coolidge, Arizona, which is in my district, and I was very impressed with the professionalism of the people working there. 

Quite a facility and, you know, seeing firsthand just the difficulty 

in detaining that many people. They do an excellent job. I was especially interested in how they handled the various drug cartel, 

gang members that they have that require, you know, keeping 

them apart. And so I just want to let you know that, I think you 

are doing an excellent job there. 

Mr. MORTON. Thank you. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. I am very glad to see the commitment to border security demonstrated by the nearly 10 percent increase in the 

request for ICE. Currently only about 1,300 ICE agents are certified to enforce drug laws under Title 21. 

If ICE were provided full Title 21 authority, would the additional 

enforcement role require more funding for the agency or would you 

be able to roll that responsibility into your requested budget without needing to make cuts elsewhere? 

Mr. MORTON. Title 21 authority is, at the present, is principally 

an issue of making sure that with our existing resources we can 

bring the appropriate level of special agents to bear. And as you 

have noted, right now the agreement has a cap. 

And so regardless of what our overall resources are, we are limited in the number of agents who can be authorized to perform 

these duties. It is something that I am very concerned about. I am 

working with the administrator of DEA as we speak to try to come 

to a revised understanding between our agencies and a much better working relationship. 

What I will say is I have found the acting administrator to be 

very reasonable on this point. We are working very hard together 

and sort of, say, stay tuned, but I think things are generally moving in a very positive direction. 

We take the narcotics, the anti-narcotics mission very seriously 

along the southwest border. The southwest border was the first 

place I went to as assistant secretary. And I went to Arizona, and 

I went to Tucson and Nogales. 

And I am very focused on making sure that we have the appropriate authority to carry out our mission to make sure that illegal 

contraband doesn’t come in to the United States. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, 

Mr. Chair, I mean. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank the witnesses. I also commend the shift of attention to the southwest border, and as certainly coming from my state of Texas, it has been 

a concern we have had for many years, and I appreciate that. 

I have got several questions, one is following up on Madame 

Chair, she is no longer here, on the 287(g) program for you, Mr. 

Morton. It has been in my view, a very successful program and experience I have seen in my state, and it is something that is a force 

multiplier. 

36 

I think more people would like to participate. More law enforcement would like to participate. One of the concerns or issues that 

would come up when I would meet with ICE officials, for instance 

in the Houston area, was the detention and removal operations. 

That when these criminal aliens, and we are not talking about 

illegal aliens, we are talking about aliens in the country committing crimes. They were very candid, the ICE officials, and they 

would literally point the finger at me being a member of Congress 

that I was to provide the solution in terms of funding. 

And that there was a lack of funding and a lack of resources necessary to process these criminal aliens. I see the budget numbers 

have risen, but not very significantly. I introduced a bill that would 

double these resources because that was what the guys on the 

ground are telling me that they need. 

So with that being said, you are in charge of this whole operation, Mr. Morton. Can you tell me what you opinion is? 

Mr. MORTON. It is my 4th week on the job, so? 

Mr. MCCAUL. And I appreciate that. 

Mr. MORTON. —bear with me a little bit. But the detention and 

removal operations are obviously critical if we are going to have 

some level of true border security. And as part of the secretary’s 

announcement, before I even became assistant secretary, we sent 

a fairly healthy level of additional deportation and removal officers 

to the southwest border to focus on exactly that, the identification 

and removal of criminal aliens. 

One of the very first jobs I ever had in government was as an 

INS trial attorney, and I worked the detained criminal docket. So 

I can tell you to rest assured that the identification and removal 

of criminal aliens is a real priority for me. 

I need to get in to the weeds a little bit more on the detention 

and removal program. A very significant amount of the agency’s 

budget is diverted to detention and removal operations. It is a very, 

very big operation, but I want to make sure that we have got the 

right level of focus, the right level of resources. 

I have myself, every time I go out on these trips I talk to the detention and removal folks, and they tell me similar things to what 

they tell you. And so I hear that message loud and clear, some of 

our deportation officers handle a huge docket. And what I would 

say is I am on it. I want to take a look at it. It is a serious part 

of what we need to do, and we need to do it well. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Let me say also I appreciate your background. I 

think you bring a great experience to your position. And I would 

encourage you to talk to them at the field level because I think you 

will hear a consistent theme and message of we need more to adequately do our jobs. We are strapped. We are completely underfunded. 

And again, when they look to me as a member of Congress for 

the solution, I think we do have that responsibility in the Congress, 

and that is the whole point of this hearing is to look at your budget 

and determine whether we should be providing more funding for 

you. 

I happen to think that we do, and I have introduced a bill to do 

just that. But I would encourage you not to be shy. and that when 

you talk to your men in the field and women, when they tell you 

37 

that you report that to the Congress so that we can provide you 

the resources that I believe they desperately need. 

And I see that my time is running out. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. PASCRELL. [Presiding.] Thank you, gentleman from Texas. I 

am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes. Mr. Morton, I want to 

pursue, continue to pursue what two members have already 

brought up, and that is the subject that is before us right now on 

dangerous criminal aliens. 

In September of 2006, a memo came out of the department to the 

agencies within Homeland Security, and specifically we are talking 

at the National Fugitive Operations Program. And that memo said 

that there would be quotas that each of these teams established 

throughout the United States of America. We wanted to gather 

numbers apparently. 

And the agency that I am referring to today in 2006, there was 

a tremendous drop in my state of New Jersey of how many criminal undocumented aliens were arrested, a 42 percent decrease, 

making the country more vulnerable since we were concentrating 

on how many rather than to whom we went after. 

First of all, Congress was not told about this. None of us were, 

that I know of, that policy to do that. We were slow learners but 

we finally find out many times later on, I know that. 

Now I am going to ask you some questionss and the first question, which is a yes or no answer, is are those quotas still in order? 

Mr. MORTON. No. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. 

Mr. MORTON. And if I could just follow up on that, I mean I addressed this question in my confirmation. And my view is that hard 

quotas and law enforcement are not a good mix. That is different 

from saying that there should be priorities, but as you noted when 

you have a hard quota it can be skew the end result. 

And it leads people to focus on achieving the number rather than 

focus on the mission at hand. And so you can find yourself in a situation where the agency’s priorities for focusing on the worst of the 

worst then get skewed because at the end of the day people need 

to? 

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, I am concerned about what happens when 

the, you know, we know very specific anecdotal stories now. In the 

city of Paterson, New Jersey, I have lived there all my life, I know 

something about it. 

Walter Chavez, his home was raided by ICE agents just last 

year. And this is what he said, ‘‘They zealously came into our home 

with guns and hostility.’’ He is 44. He is legal, as his wife is legal 

and his now 10 year old son is legal. 

‘‘They asked us to show we were legal. And when we showed 

them, they demanded to know where the illegals were in the 

house.’’ These folks were not looking after criminals, Mr. Morton. 

‘‘They terrified my son, who was nine at the time, came running 

out of his room, and an agent held a gun to him.’’ 

He is a traumatized child because of that. At the same time in 

2007, we had a shooting in Newark, New Jersey by a gentleman 

called, and I used the word loosely, Jose Carranza who shot, execution style, three citizens of Newark. Shot them down and killed 

them. They were students. Shot them down in a school yard. 

38 

He was an illegal alien with impending violent criminal indictments, and yet he was roaming the streets of Newark. He was not 

detained. 

Mr. Morton, I can cite other cases. I cite these because they are 

pretty close to home. This is not acceptable for the Congress. And 

this is the result of bravado and trying to create fear rather than 

attacking the issue and the problem. We don’t want any criminals 

on the street, whether they are legal or not legal. 

The department had a recess from its original policy, and I think 

it has led to all kinds of major problems. Would you just quickly 

comment, and then we will move on. 

Mr. MORTON. I am not familiar with the individual cases that 

you cite, but I don’t doubt that they occurred. Obviously they just 

occurred before my time. What I will say is that, and I think the 

point that you touch upon, is that in a world of limited resources, 

the agency needs to make a rational set of priorities for the execution of its authorities and resources. 

In my view I don’t think that there is any daylight between us 

on this, nor do I suspect there is much daylight between us and 

any other members of the committee when it comes to the identification and removal of people who are here unlawfully. 

We start first and foremost with those people who are committing crimes. And it doesn’t make a lot of sense to have large numbers of people who are committing crimes not be the focus of the 

agency. It is going to be my focus. We are going to spend a lot of 

time on it, and I want to have, you know, fewer of the concerns 

that you cited be the ones that are raised to me. 

And that is why we have the request in here for secure communities. It is part of just a sustained effort that we are going to stay 

focused on to identify and remove criminal aliens from all of 

the—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Morton, and good luck on your 

new job. 

Mr. MORTON. Thank you. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Chair recognizes my friend from Texas, Ms. Jackson. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

thank the witnesses for their presence here. I believe congratulations are in line for Assistant Secretary Morton. And just for my 

edification, Mr. Morton, your background includes what? I was not 

obviously at the confirmation hearings. You seem to suggest that 

you were at INS for a period of time? 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Foremost, I would like to extend my thanks to Chairwoman Sanchez for hosting 

this important hearing today. I would also like to thank our distinguished witnesses: • Mr. Morton, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security 

• Mr. Ahern, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security 

• Admiral Allen, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security 

I thank you all for bringing your advice and expertise today as we work together 

to determine budget priorities for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

within the context of the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request. This hearing 

39 

1This number excludes the decrease of 1,225 of FPS personnel proposed for transfer from ICE 

to NPPD. 2The FY2009 figure in the President’s FY 2010 Budget request does not include an additional 

$680 million provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111–5) for construction at ports of entry, non-intrusive inspection equipment at ports of entry, SBInet technology, 

and tactical communications modernization along the southwest border. 

will examine the financial needs and requirements for the U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) respectively. 

BACKROUND 

On February 26, 2009, President Barack Obama submitted a ‘‘Budget Blueprint’’ 

as a preliminary budget request to Congress, with the intention of submitting a 

complete budget proposal at a later date. On May 7, 2009, the President submitted 

the FY 2010 budget request to Congress. In the budget proposal, the President requests $55.11 billion in total budget authority for the Department of Homeland Security, a $2.63 billion (5%) increase over the FY 2009 enacted budget. The request 

for discretionary spending for the Department is $42.7 billion, an increase of $2.66 

billion (6.6%) over the FY 2009 enacted budget. 

The President’s Budget request states that increases in net discretionary spending 

will further strengthen the Department’s ability to fulfill its mission through five 

main action areas: (1) Guarding against terrorism; (2) Securing our borders; (3) 

Smart and tough enforcement of immigration laws and improving immigration services; (4) Preparing for, responding to, and recovering from natural disasters; and (5) 

Unifying and maturing DHS. 

On June 8, 2009, the house Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, marked up the FY 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. The 

subcommittee reported out a $42.6 billion bill for the Department, which would provide a 6.5 percent increase over fiscal 2009 but about 1% less than the President’s 

request. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is responsible for investigating the 

illegal introduction of goods, terrorists, and criminals across our borders, detaining 

criminal and undocumented aliens, and protecting critical infrastructure. Therefore, 

the Committee supports the FY 2010 Budget request as is, is adequate for this mission, though increased resources may be necessary in certain areas. 

The President’s FY 2010 Budget request for the Coast Guard provides the agency 

with much-needed funding to replace aging assets. The Committee recognizes it is 

necessary to provide the Coast Guard with the tools it needs to ensure our Nation’s 

shores are protected from possible harm. 

Overall, the President’s Budget request provides adequate funding for Customs 

and Border Patrol (CBP), especially given the significant investment in border security this Congress has already made in recent fiscal years. However, there are a few 

areas that may need more resources. For example, hiring of CBP officers has long 

lagged behind hiring of Border Patrol agents, and this budget does not improve 

their numbers significantly. Furthermore, with the agency’s rapid growth in recent 

years, it remains to be seen how CBP would manage without constriction funds over 

the long term. 

OVERVIEW OF FY2010 

On June 8, 2009, the house Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, marked up the FY 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. The 

subcommittee reported out a $42.6 billion bill for the Department, which would provide a 6.5 percent increase over fiscal 2009 but about 1% less than the President’s 

request. 

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement 

The President’s FY 2010 Budget requests $5.76 billion in total budget authority 

for ICE. Although this appears to be a decrease of $171 million (3%) from the 

FY2009 enacted budget, the Department proposes to transfer the Federal Protective 

Service (FPS) and its $640 million in funding from ICE to the National Protection 

and Programs Directorate (NPPD). Excluding the FPS budget, the FY 2010 budget 

request in net discretionary spending for ICE is actually an increase of $496 million 

(9.9%) over the FY 2009 enacted budget, including an additional 1,229 FTEs.1

Customs and Border Protection 

The President’s FY 2010 budget requests $10.1 billion in net discretionary spending for CBP, which is $229.8 million (2.3%) above the FY 2009 enacted budget 

amount of $9.82 billion.2 The FY 2010 budget request provides a modest increase 

40 

for CBP, including 2,524 FTEs, which should meet most of the agency’s needs, 

though there are a few programs that could benefit from additional resources and 

personnel. 

U.S. Coast Guard 

The President’s FY 2010 Budget request in net discretionary spending for the Coast Guard is $8.37 billion, an increase of $268 million (3.3%) in comparison with 

the FY 2009 enacted budget. The request for FY 2010 includes the addition of 715 

FTEs. The Committee believes this request will provide adequate funding for the 

Coast Guard to meet its safety and security missions. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, I support the President’s comprehensive FY 2010 $55.11 billion budget proposal for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes $42.7 billion in net discretionary spending. This budget will enable the Department to efficiently carry forth its obligations as well as address any remaining departmental 

management and operational challenges. Furthermore, I support ICE, CBP, and 

USCG requests, as these important divisions are in need of additional funding and 

personnel in order for them to function at their full potential. I urge my colleagues 

to support the President’s FY 2010 budget proposal for the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

Thank you Chairwoman, I yield the rest of my time. 

Mr. MORTON. I am a career federal prosecutor. I have been, until 

4 weeks ago, I was a career government employee my entire professional career. I started at the Department of Justice as an INS 

trial attorney. I then went on to work for the deputy attorney general, who as it turns out ended up being the attorney general, Eric 

Holder. 

And I was also a federal prosecutor at Alexandria, Virginia for 

nearly 7 years. And then I ran part of the criminal division in main 

justice for 3 years, ending up as the acting deputy assistant attorney general before I became the assistant secretary. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you, and I know the other gentlemen, let me welcome them again to our hearing. And I think 

that background, Mr. Morton, is enormously important. First of all 

your commitment to public service, but I do hope as we help you 

establish priorities in this committee that we have a breath of fresh 

air. 

Frankly, I think enforcement is very, very important. However, 

the comments that you heard from my colleagues I want to associate myself with coming from Houston, Texas, and want to particularly focus in on two aspects of your work. That is again the 

criminal aliens and the history of raids. 

Frankly, I think the raiding instructions or directives were politically based. It was a mixture of the frustration of local authorities 

and local populations who were saying enough is enough. And our 

inability as a Congress to put in place comprehensive immigration 

reform, which would have been the kind of roadmap that then allows enforcement to follow a particular track. 

So in Houston we had what we call the Rags Company’s raids. 

Let me count that scene since some of them were in my congressional district, and I went to visit those business persons. And the 

raid was on a workday. 

It had workers climbing up bundles of clothing at the large warehouse, pregnant women running for their lives and some even falling off the large stacks of items that were in the warehouse. I have 

not followed the case to give you a precise detail as to its status, 

but I will tell you that the owner said they had documentation, as 

much as what was required at that time. 

41 

So my question is what is the status of random and reckless 

raids? And what priorities are you putting on enhanced training to 

assure the capture and prosecution of criminal aliens? 

One of the issues that provoked our community extensively was 

the shooting death of Officer Johnson, beloved officer, family man, 

father, husband, by someone, a child predator, who had come back 

across the border. This individual certainly should have been captured and not released. 

So I want to try to get down to the priority, the training, the collaboration with the FBI, the DEA, U.S. Marshals, ATF, et cetera, 

in honing in on criminal aliens. I almost would like to hear that 

we have designated a task force and we have trained individuals 

to be specifically keenly expert in going after criminal aliens. And 

then if you would, the question of the raids. 

Mr. MORTON. Thank you. Very briefly and in light of my time let 

me review some of the—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And let me do this so that I can have it on 

the record please. Admiral Allen, if you could explore, and thank 

you again for your service, could you explore the comfortableness 

that you feel that your team, your operations are handling TWIC 

and its enforcement and explain for us, I may have the wrong terminology, but I visited our Coast Guard unit in Houston for what 

we call Rescue 21 or the new services that we are going to have. 

And on Mr. Ahern, your work, I understand that you may not 

have as many opportunities for hiring as the border patrol. I want 

to know where you stand on the need for more hires on the border 

protection. Mr. Morton, thank you. 

Mr. MORTON. Let me start by saying we have a lot that is ongoing in the area of the identification and removal of criminal aliens. 

And I would be happy to come and focus a little bit more on the 

details with you and your staff. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. MORTON. The major initiative that we have, particularly in 

your area, obviously we have secure communities which is the sort 

of, from our perspective, the future of identifying all criminal 

aliens, regardless of where they are arrested and booked. And with 

time, I am happy to go into that in more detail. 

We also have the border enforcement and security task forces 

that as you noted bring together not only federal law enforcement 

FBI, DEA, ATF with ICE, with CBP but also state and local law 

enforcement and for the first time members of international law 

enforcement along the southwest border. We have five officers from 

Mexico now participating in our task forces. 

And there are monies in this budget for both of those things. And 

I just reiterate my personal commitment to improving our efforts 

on identifying and removing criminal aliens. I just don’t think 

there can be a higher priority for us as an agency. And I am more 

than happy to learn if there are frustrations or things that you 

think we can improve on, I would love to know that. 

Very briefly on the question of worksite enforcement, we have 

new guidelines that were just issued. I think you will find that we 

are going to engage in a sustained focus on employers, first and 

foremost trying to deter people through criminal investigation and 

prosecution. That is going to be the primary focus of our program. 

42 

Obviously we are going to enforce the law across the board. But 

we are going to try to do it with a much more targeted focus on 

employers, first and foremost, rather than the employees as the 

only focus. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Ahern, Mr. Allen. Thank you. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. AHERN. Just very briefly to answer your question. As you 

know border patrol is part of Customs and Border Protection and 

certainly the growth that they have seen, the doubling of the border, if you look at 2001 they were able to get over 18,000 to approach 20,000 by the end of the year. They were grossly understaffed and were in need of those enhancements. So I think that 

speaks for itself. 

On our CBP officers at the ports of entry, if you look from 2004 

to present we have actually had an increase on 20 almost 21 percent, 20.6 percent actually for ports of entry. Those are significant 

numbers as well. 

I think again one of the important things to note, too, is if you 

look at the 2010 submission you will see very modest increases that 

are requested as part of the southwest border initiatives. For officers at the ports of entry to sustain the efforts, we are looking at 

65 and for border patrol agents to support that initiative, 44. And 

those are appropriate numbers. 

As I stated at the beginning of the hearing today, this year coming up really is the need for us to stabilize the organization with 

the growth that we have had and the maturity of the organization 

continuing to grow. Those are critical factors to go forward. 

And my final note is one of the things that has not yet taken 

shape, is Congress was very kind to us for the fiscal year 2009 appropriations, providing additional resources for us. But the downside and factual side is 734 additional positions for our officers at 

the ports of entry were only funded from August 1st forward. 

So we still have 734 that we will be bringing onboard as the 

funding is available from August 1st going forward that will take 

us into the beginning of fiscal year 2010. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. We have to vote in a few minutes so 

I want to make sure we recognize you. I want to thank the 

gentlelady from Texas. 

Mr. GREEN FROM TEXAS. The gentleman has 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the witnesses for appearing as well. Friends, I hold in my hand, hands if 

you will, a news article from today’s Houston Chronicle. 

And it addresses a White House report and the opening sentence 

reads, ‘‘Not only is Houston a major center for Mexican cartels 

smuggling drugs and weapons, but banks and financial institutions 

in the nation’s fourth largest city also are targets for the gangsters 

trying to hide millions of dollars in profits, according to a White 

House report released Wednesday.’’ 

Then it goes on to talk about 201 international drug and money 

laundering organizations in a 16 county region that includes Texas 

and Mexico. It goes on to indicate that there are truckloads of cash 

heading south. That Houston remains the number one source in 

the United States for guns traced from organized crime scenes in 

Mexico. 

43 

Another excerpt, ‘‘Mexican drug trafficking organizations and 

their associated enforcement groups rely on firearms trafficking 

from Houston.’’ Final thing, ‘‘Crack cocaine is the primary drug of 

abuse in Harris County, notwithstanding marijuana.’’ 

I am mentioning these excerpts and this article because, obviously, I am from Houston, and my constituents are concerned about 

this. And I would like to know if we have properly budgeted such 

that we can confront and eliminate this kind of activity in the nation’s fourth largest city. And I welcome comments from whomever 

would like to respond. 

Mr. MORTON. I would be happy to start. I think this is an area 

where there is a lot of good work to be done. It is a major focus 

for me and as I mentioned—— 

Mr. GREEN. Because my time is limited—— 

Mr. MORTON. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. —please excuse me for interrupting. Could you go 

straight to the point because I have one more question? 

Mr. MORTON. Sure. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. 

Mr. MORTON. We have, as I mentioned in my opening statement, 

we have very broad authorities that touch on pretty much everything that you have just described. And just to give you an indication of what we are doing. We are trying to build up these task 

forces along the border to address this. 

The first international trip that I took was to Mexico to address, 

again, pretty much every one of the issues that you just described. 

They are serious issues. They are ones that we are working on. I 

don’t want to underestimate the challenge that we face in tackling 

them. They are very serious. 

But I can tell you there is a lot of focus on it. We work very 

closely with CBP on the southbound smuggling of both weapons 

and money. We are focused on it. We are going to you know really 

up our efforts there. I can let Mr. Ahern add to that. 

Mr. GREEN. And before he adds, permit me to ask an additional 

question, we here in Congress, and I will use a personal pronoun, 

I would like to be of help to you. Do we need some additional legislation to help you in this endeavor? While we may be winning, it 

appears that the challenge is continually growing. 

So if there is some additional legislation, I think you should address that as well. So before you pass the baton, if you would, 

would you tell me if there is any additional legislation that you 

think we need? 

Mr. MORTON. Again, I would say I am on my 4th week on the 

job. It is a little hard for me to know for sure. 

Mr. GREEN. I accept that as a pass. Let me go to the next gentleman because I only have 1 minute and 3 seconds. 

Mr. AHERN. Yes, sir, very briefly, you know, with money and 

guns going southbound into Mexico, we need to have a layered 

strategy, just as we do for drugs and other concerns coming at our 

borders from the south. 

So certainly our role at the borders is to try to go ahead and 

intercept as much as we can going southbound which is why Secretary Napolitano announced in March the Southbound Initiative, 

44 

and why you see $26 million in our budget for combination of some 

technology but also personnel to sustain this effort. 

And then the final point is continuing to work in Mexico—— 

Mr. GREEN. Let me quickly ask you about—thank you, and I appreciate all of you. Please forgive me for being rude, crude and 

unrefined, but I have to ask these questions quickly. With reference to laws, you see, you are on the front line. You know what 

is needed to help you get the job done. 

I am in the position to some limited extent of helping you with 

the laws that you need to get the job done, anything that you can 

call to my attention that we need to do to help you. 

Mr. AHERN. I would state that we annually look at all the legislative initiatives. I know that the department under new leadership 

will be examining that as well, and I think it would be best for the 

department to provide a collective package back at the appropriate 

time in the very near future. We will pass that to the secretary. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. May the Admiral respond please? Admiral, thank you for being here. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir, just very quickly, if you look at the 

threat from South America and cocaine flow up north, I said earlier 

in my testimony we need to be concerned about the southern border with Mexico as well. The majority of cocaine that enters the 

United States moves from non-commercial maritime means from 

South America into Central America and Mexico. 

So while we focus on the southwest border, we need to make sure 

we have an even response in what we would call the transit zone, 

where we work with Customs and Border Protection and the Defense Department under U.S. Southern Command to interdict cocaine before it even gets to Mexico and Latin America. And I can 

give you a more detailed answer for the record. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, sir. Any laws? 

Admiral ALLEN. Well, let me congratulate the Congress because 

last year you passed legislation that banned the operation of selfpropelled semi submersibles as a violation of federal law. This is 

an emerging threat from South America. 

These are low profile vessels, very difficult to detect, and the 

Congress made the operation of those on the high seas illegal, and 

we are up to our third prosecution on those this year. It was a tremendous help, and I thank the Congress. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PASCRELL. And I thank the gentleman from Texas. I want 

to thank the Admiral for bringing up a very, very cogent point 

there, and I didn’t want that to go by. I want in all fairness to go 

back to the gentlelady from Texas and allow the Admiral to respond to her very specific question because you didn’t get a chance. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Admiral again for the service of the Coast Guard and all others that 

are present before us. Thank you. 

Admiral ALLEN. Thank you for your sustained support, especially 

from our people in Houston. Got a tremendous cap in the port 

down there in Bob Diehl who will be retiring, and I know he has 

really enjoyed working with all of you in the area. 

First of all regarding Rescue 21, for the committee’s information, 

this is the maritime mobile radio system for the country. It also is 

45 

the Coast Guard’s command and control system. It allows borders 

to call us, pass a mayday and allows us to respond. 

This is being put in around the country and the Rescue 21 system around the Houston–Galveston area we conditionally accepted 

in October of 2008. It added 857 miles of coverage along our coastline. 

This allows us to hear somebody with a one watt transmission, 

one meter high, 20 miles off shore, allows us to direction find and 

hone rescue units in. It basically takes the search out of search and 

rescue. 

This is a very significant system for the country and this year 

we have $117 million to continue to expand that. We will look for 

the support of the Congress to continue that ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Just one moment, would that be practical in 

the tragedy in the present Air France situation if that was in 

place? Some, because I kind of— 

Admiral ALLEN. No, this is short term line of sight—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Because when I saw the exhibition when I 

went to the station, that was what they suggested, you could pinpoint someone, if they had a walkie-talkie, is that it? 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes ma’am, and it allows direction finding on 

the signal, but this particular radio frequency signal is line of sight 

and very short duration. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes ma’am. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you Admiral. Go ahead, Admiral. 

Admiral ALLEN. Regarding Transportation Worker Identification 

Program, just know that we had a conversion of two requirements, 

one was for the Maritime Transportation Security Act, to have people vetted that were going to have access to secure portions of facilities and vessels. 

We have been working with TSA on that for a couple of years. 

Also, the requirement to issue new Merchant Mariner Documents 

and go to a similar biometric system to capture those and do background checks for both systems. 

They basically came on line on the 15th of April and are moving 

forward. The next critical step in the Transportation Worker Identification card is the Phase Two rulemaking which will put card 

readers in and establish the requirements for how they will make 

sure the facilities are in compliance. 

Now, we put out an advance notice of the proposed rulemaking 

in March for 60 days, got a significant number of comments back. 

We have also done some prototype beta testing of some mobile card 

readers. We are analyzing all that now, and hope to go to a notice 

of proposed rulemaking later this summer. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is the final word. You know I chair the 

subcommittee on transportation and security, Admiral. I would appreciate it if we can have a meeting on this issue of the card readers which has been quite a?maybe we will have a group meeting, 

but it has been quite a stick in the mud on this enforcement point. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes ma’am, and Chairwoman Sanchez has some 

concerns, and I would be glad to meet. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. 

46 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you gentlelady. Thank the Admiral, and 

we have a few more moments because we have just taken a recess, 

and so votes will be delayed. We are going to have a second round, 

and I will recognize the ranking member. 

Mr. SOUDER. I thank my friend from New Jersey, and I want to 

point out to the Commandant that they kind of ignored in some of 

the first questions is a unique form of congressional flattery. We 

appreciate all of you being here and doing that, and particularly 

with reference to deep water. 

This has been a critical part, because obviously if your vessels 

are in port all the time, getting repaired, or can’t get out far 

enough into the east Pacific, or out fast enough everything else becomes more or less irrelevant in safety, terrorism and narcotics. 

I have two basic and we need to support that including up in the 

Arctic because as there is melting up there, and we see the energy 

up there, as you have pointed out to me and you referred to it in 

the testimony, that we could get blindsided from the north whether 

it is terrorists or contraband, if we don’t control some of the waters 

up there. 

And right now the Russians are going after it directly and we are 

behind. We are only other people there, but that that is part of the 

reason you have been pushing that request. 

I have two basic questions. One relates to the Secure Freight Initiative in trying to reach the 100 percent goal. Secretary Napolitano says we are not likely to meet that. This is a multi-part, how 

will the nine additional ports be selected? Are there other countries 

requesting the SFI presence, and would you support a change in 

the law that says what 100 percent mandate isn’t achievable, how 

are we going to address the question? 

The other category, which you have done a little, but to illustrate 

in the drug trafficking organizations in Mexico, what the role of the 

Coast Guard has been. You have had some major cooperative efforts there. 

They have been much more cooperative through President 

Calderon than in the past, and how some of that might be, whether 

it is the east Pacific transiting from Colombia, parts hitting Guatemala, in the time you have here. 

Admiral ALLEN. Yes, sir. If I might, we have a role in the Secure 

Freight Initiative, but it is largely in support of customs, and I 

would defer to Commissioner Ahern to answer that question, and 

then I will follow up with the drug question, sir. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thanks. 

Mr. AHERN. Thank you very much. As you know, we have been 

working and studying that legislation since it was passed. Actually 

I believe it was introduced by this committee or the full committee 

as part of the 9/11 Act in August of 2007. 

Secretary Napolitano did state in her confirmation hearing I believe it was, that the implementation of that for the 2012 timeframe is not going to be achievable at this point in time. 

I have testified before about this in the full committee, as well 

as our appropriations committee on numerous occasions in the 

past, as well, speaking to the challenges and issues on that topic, 

and believe there needs to be a continued thoughtful discussion 

47 

about moving forward with 100 percent initiative which is the 

foundational issue of concern. 

As for the Secure Freight Initiative, which is a subset of our Container Security Initiative, looking at what do we need to add for additional security in very precise locations, SFI is something that 

makes sense in locations of risk, as an additional layer of risk mitigation. 

For instance, before even the Safe Port Act was passed and then 

the 9/11 Act came along, we were actually looking and deployed 

and have deployed now for over 2 years in Port Qasim Pakistan a 

full technology sweep for radiation scanning as well as x-ray of 

every container coming to the United States. In that location it 

makes perfect sense. 

So we need to continue to study all the different logistics, the financial impact, the sovereignty issues of all the different nations 

throughout the world, the fact that over 700 ports ship to the 

United Sates, and just the logistics and doability are extremely 

challenging. So I know that the secretary has made her statement 

on that and will continue to study the issue in great detail. 

Admiral ALLEN. Sir, I would like to add a comment and then go 

to the answer to your second question. If you look at the overall 

issue of port security, and waterway security in this country and 

around the world, while I agree the containers are important and 

I know the acting commissioner does as well, there are a variety 

of threats to our ports. 

There are boat cargos that are being moved. We have liquefied 

natural gas that is being moved. They are dangerous cargos. A sole 

focus on containers to the exclusion of all other risk factors in a 

port may in the long run not serve us well, and I believe a more 

measured discussion that takes a look at all the spectrum of 

threats into our ports is probably a better context for the discussion. 

Mr. SOUDER. And Mexico, can you mention about that? 

Admiral ALLEN. I would be happy to. A significant thing happened this year, sir. We celebrated the 20th anniversary of the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act in 1989 that allowed DOD to enter detection and monitoring support for the war 

on drugs, if you will. That is embodied as you know in Joint Interagency Task Force South and Key West which works for U.S. 

Southern Command. 

There has been an extraordinary maturation of coordination and 

inter-agency cooperation down there including international coalition partners that is resulting in record drug seizures in the transit 

zone where we have a fusion of intelligence, inter-agency cooperation at a level that I have not seen in my career in the Coast 

Guard. 

It has contributed to 3 successful years of record seizures for the 

Coast Guard, but we don’t do it alone. It has to deal with P–3 aircraft that are provided by Customs and Border Protection, Navy 

gray hulls, our coalition partners from Europe and South America. 

And I only bring this up in that as I said earlier, we need to be 

concerned about the southern border of Mexico as well, and one 

very key incident occurred last year, and I will use this as a viVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:23 May 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\111-CONG\111-24\55886.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
48 

gnette and be happy to follow up with any other information you 

might have. 

We had a customs P–3 aircraft flying off the coast of Mexico that 

spotted a self-propelled semisubmersible, so we called a cold hit. 

There were no surface assets in the area that could be employed 

to stop that vessel. 

In a full, open, transparent information sharing with Mexico, we 

passed that to the Mexican authorities. They launched forces within 1 hour to respond to that event, and Mexican Marines vertically 

inserted under that self-propelled semisubmersible and took it 

down, and we participated in the exploitation of the intelligence associated with that earlier on. 

This is emblematic of the level of cooperation we have, Coast 

Guard with the Mexican Navy, but overall the change in attitude 

and the international cooperation down there, sir. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, and I appreciate those comments because it tends to get lost in a lot of our debates how far Mexico has 

come both in their capability and their willingness to cooperate. 

That is it. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Admiral, for your response. Mr. 

Ahern, I have two quick points. One, is not a question, first point 

is I am glad that the president has recognized, this president, that 

we have in the northern border, and that the budget has been increased to add patrol agents, border agents to the northern border. 

I think the figure is $20 million, you can correct me. I would 

hope that you can report to this committee our efforts in bolstering 

our protection up on the northern border. You know the pitiful 

amount of agents that were there in 9/11, around 9/11, and we 

have attempted, the Congress, to increase but we don’t hear much 

about the northern border, and I would hope that you could put 

something before us to tell us of your efforts. 

My question has to do with the electronic system, what the travel 

authorization. The 9/11 Recommendations Act, the committee 

worked hard to strengthen the Visa Waiver program in that act. 

We required travelers to transmit CVP vital passenger information 

before boarding an aircraft to the United States. 

The system known as the Electronic System for Travel Authorization is currently funded through annual appropriations. However, the Department of Homeland Security is also authorized to 

collect a fee for the administration of the program. 

How is the implementation of that program going, in your estimation, and what percentage of Visa Waiver program travelers are 

complying with the present requirements, and third, what happens 

to travelers at a port of entry if they do not have an ESTA? 

Mr. Ahern? 

Mr. AHERN. Thank you very much. And we will be happy to provide as much detail as you would like or individual briefing on the 

northern border. With all the assets we have deployed beyond border patrol agents, SBInet—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. Right. 

Mr. AHERN. —as well as aviation assets and certainly the Coast 

Guard with their Shiprider and other programs they have throughout the northern tier. I think it is an impressive story and great 

49 

steps for the northern border. I think that would be important to 

hear. 

For the ESTA program, on the first part of the fees, certainly it 

is not currently funded through a fee structure. It is through the 

appropriated monies. We actually do have a contract study going 

on right now to actually make a determination and a recommendation. I will be forthcoming on whether we actually should establish 

a fee structure or not. 

I am not sure exactly where it stands at this point, but I know 

that there is also a proposal that is circulating here on the Hill for 

a travel promotion act, I believe is what the label is, to potentially 

create a fee that would go to commerce department, if I am correct, 

to generate travel. And I believe it is under the guise of ESTA, but 

I am not sure how that would work. I have not seen that and have 

not had an opportunity to comment on it formally, but I think we 

should take a look at that. 

But clearly, we need to find out what is an appropriate fee structure going forward, if there is one, because I am not sure if this 

is certainly a fee-dependent proposal solely. 

You know, this is part of our mission set, something that is critical for us to do to make sure that we vet these individuals before 

they actually begin their travel to the United States because we 

look at it as a continuum that begins when somebody actually buys 

a ticket, applies for an ESTA before they actually board an aircraft 

in a foreign location. 

As for the specific compliance rates, I don’t have that today, and 

I can certainly provide that in detail for the record. 

Mr. PASCRELL. I will mention to Chairman Thompson about getting that report about the northern border, see what is convenient 

for you and the committee itself. I want to personally thank the 

witnesses on behalf of the members new and old, and that is tenure I am speaking of. 

Mr. Morton, wish you the best of luck. It is a tough task you are 

taking on, and you are joining some very professional people here, 

Mr. Ahern and Admiral—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, one question? 

Mr. PASCRELL. Make it a quick one please? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

interested—this is, I think, to Mr. Morton on the 287(g) program, 

which has likewise had its birth and its health in the inability for 

comprehensive immigration reform. 

My question is you are part of this whole idea of comprehensive 

immigration reform. Do you believe immigration enforcement, immigration reform is a federal issue? Is that the priority of the department? 

Mr. MORTON. Well, there is no question that immigration enforcement is a basic responsibility of the federal government. And 

the Immigration and Nationality Act has been Congress’ direction 

on that score for, you know, well over 50 years. So I do think that 

that is the principal responsibility. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What I would encourage and I understand 

your comment on that, but as we move toward the possibility of 

comprehensive immigration reform, we have found the 287(g) program from my perspective drains federal funds. It takes away the 

50 

prioritization of local crime which may include arresting someone 

who is, in fact, happens to be undocumented, but that is in the normal course of business. 

I would like to get a sense if we have comprehensive immigration 

reform, the right kind of funding, the right kind of directions for 

ICE for example and the funding needs that they have. I would 

like a reconsideration of the value of the 287(g) program that really 

takes money away from federal enforcement and clouds the responsibilities of local enforcement. 

And your assessment of that or the ability to reconsider whether 

that program is valuable as we move forward? 

Mr. MORTON. I would be happy to do that as we go forward. Obviously as you know the 287(g) is now presently part of the law—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I understand. 

Mr. MORTON. —and part of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

and I will say that cooperation with state and local law enforcement is a critical thing, and that is much of what 287(g) was designed to do. And in many contexts it works quite well, particularly 

in the jail setting. It does address many of the concerns that you 

outlined earlier about identifying and removing criminal aliens. 

Just one very quick point just to respond to something earlier, 

you said. And I just want to let you know that we have, as part 

of the secretary’s initiative on the southwest border, brought additional detention and removal officers to bear. 

I believe some of those are actually in the Houston area, and I 

would be more than happy to find out if they are there and let you 

know if they are in place and what they are doing. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would be delighted, and I would like to sit 

down with you. And my last point is on the 287(g) for you to consider, is that news reporters and others and the various groups 

that may be opposed to immigration reform will call cities sanctuary cities. 

And when they do that they put in a bad light very hard-working 

police departments and other law enforcement. That was what happened to Houston. We have not been a 287(g) city. We denounced 

doing that. We felt it was important to have a good relationship 

with the immigrant community so that we could solve crimes. 

We got labeled a sanctuary city, and before you know it we have 

a 287(g) application in place. Many of us oppose that, and so to utilize the 287(g) process to clear your name, and I believe you will 

find that happening across America and you should look at that. 

That is why I think that program has a lot of faults to it, and 

frankly we need to move the enforcement of immigration issues 

back where it deserves, and that is the federal government. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, gentlelady. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. PASCRELL. The members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses and if they do we will ask you 

to respond expeditiously in writing. Hearing no further business 

the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(51) 

Appendix I—Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request 

The Coast Guard’s fiscal year 2010 budget request maintains DoD Parity for its 

workforce and continues critical recapitalization efforts while focusing on: enhancing 

maritime safety and security and modernizing business practice. Highlights include: 

Recapitalizing Aging Assets 

Deepwater—Surface Assets $59 

(50 Full–Time Equivalents (FTE)) 

The President’s Budget requests $591.4Mfor the following surface asset recapitalization or enhancement initiatives: completion of National Security Cutter 4; continued analysis and design for the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC); production of Fast 

Response Cutters #5–#8; production of Deepwater Cutter Small Boats; and crucial 

operational enhancement of five Medium Endurance Cutters and three 110-foot Patrol Boats at the Coast Guard Yard through the Mission Effectiveness Program. 

Deepwater–Air Assets FTE) 

$305.5M (0 FTE) 

The President’s Budget requests $305.5M for the following air asset recapitalization or enhancement initiatives: delivery of HC–144A Maritime Patrol Aircraft #13– 

#14; HH–60 engine sustainment and avionics, wiring, and sensor upgrades for eight 

aircraft; HH–65 conversion to modernized components, cockpit, and enhanced interoperability for 22 aircraft; and HC–130H avionics and sensor upgrades for eight aircraft, as well as four center wing box replacements. 

Deepwater–Other (0 FTE) 

$154.6M (0 FTE) 

The President’s Budget requests $154.6M for the following equipment and services: Government Program Management funds for critical oversight and contract 

management; Systems Engineering and Integration funds for continued integration 

of complex and diverse technical configurations for all projects; continued development of logistics capability and facility upgrades at shore sites where new assets 

will be homeported; upgrades to command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4isr) items; and prevention of asset obsolescence by replacing aging technology. 

Response Boat Medium (RB–M) 

$103mm (0 FTE) 

The President’s Budget requests $103M to order 30 boats to replace the aging 41- 

foot utility boat and other non-standard boats with an asset more capable of meeting the Coast Guard’s multi-mission requirements. 

Rescue 

$117M (0 FTE) 

The President’s Budget requests $117M for California and New England Sectors 

to receive Rescue 21 capability, and continued development of Great Lakes, Hawaii, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico Sectors. 

Shore Facilities and ATON ecap Projects FTE) 

The President’s Budget requests $10M to support shore facility and ATON recapitalization. The Coast Guard received $88M from Recovery Act funding for shore 

projects. The Coast Guard occupies more than 22,000 shore facilities with a replacement value of approximately $7.4B. FY 2010 funding supports $6M for Survey and 

Design (planning and engineering of outyear shore projects) and $4M for ATON infrastructure (improvements to short-range aids and infrastructure). 

Enhancing Maritime Safety and Security 

Marine Safety Program (37 FTE) 

$7.5M (37 FTE) 

52 

The President’s Budget requests $7.5M to support 74 additional personnel including marine inspectors and investigating officers at field units, marine inspector 

training officers at feeder ports, staffing for the Steam and Vintage Vessels Center 

of Expertise, engineers for standards development and review, and expanded training curricula at the Marine Safety School in Yorktown, VA. 

Armed Helicopters Enhancement 

$0.845M (7 FTE) 

The President’s Budget requests $845K for 14 gunners to support an additional 

450 armed deployed days away from home station (DDAS), increasing the total 

DDAS to 1,450. This additional capability will significantly improve the Coast 

Guard’s ability to deter drug trafficking and maritime threats, and will play a vital 

role in establishing an integrated, interoperable border security system. 

Biometrics at Sea System 

$1.183M (1 FTE) 

The President’s Budget requests $1,183M to purchase equipment and provide 

maintenance on 18 cutters currently operating the Biometrics at Sea system 

(BASS), as well as engineering development and program management. BASS enables Coast Guard personnel to identify dangerous individuals documented in the 

U.S. Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology (US–VISIT) database including known felons, those under deportation orders, and those on a terrorist 

watchlist. With a nearly 75 percent reduction in undocumented migrant flow from 

the Dominican Republic, the BASS pilot program demonstrated its effectiveness in 

deterring attempts by undocumented migrants to enter the United States illegally. 

SeaHawk Charleston IOC Sustainment 

1.088M (1 FTE) 

The President’s Budget requests $1,088M to fund SeaHawk Charleston. SeaHawk 

is a multi-agency collaborative, unified command-based work environment with the 

cooperative and complementary capabilities of an intelligence cell. Members include 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and other Federal, state, and local agencies. 

Modernizing Business Practices 

Financial Management Oversight 

$20M (44 FTE) 

The President’s Budget requests $20M to support critical modernization of the 

Coast Guard’s financial management structure, which includes processes, internal 

controls, IT systems, and human resources. The goals of this transformation are to 

improve the Service’s ability to link mission performance to budget and ensure compliance with the DHS Financial Accountability Act. Financial management modernization will create an environment for a sustainable clean audit opinion on annual financial statements. 

Reinvestments 

(88.4M) (399 Full-Time Positions (FTP)) 

FY 2010 savings include: 

Termination of FY 2009 one-time costs ( $32.7M) 

decommissioning of four aging aircraft ($11.2M) 

Annualization of FY 2009 management of technology efficiencies ($4.9M) 

LORAN-C termination ($36M) 

OSC Martinsburg earmark reduction ($3.6M) 

LORAN–C Termination 

As a result of technological advancements over the last 20 years and the emergence of the 

U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS), LORAN–C is no longer required by the 

Armed Forces, the transportation sector, or the Nation’s security interests. The 

LORAN–C system was not established as or intended to be a viable backup for GPS. 

Consistent with the Administration’s pledge to eliminate unnecessary Federal programs and systems, Federal broadcast of the LORAN–C signal will be terminated 

in fiscal year 2010 after satisfying domestic and international notification obligations. The Coast Guard will systematically close, harden, and de-staff its 24 

LORAN–C stations and associated support units. 

Termination of LORAN–C will result in a savings of $36M in FY 2010 and $190M 

over five years. In total, 293 FTP associated with LORAN–C will be eliminated during the fiscal year and military personnel will be reassigned to other missions. 

(53) 

Appendix II—Questions and Responses 

QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE LORETTA SANCHEZ, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON BORDER, MARITIME, AND GLOBAL COUNTERTERRORISM

RESPONSES FROM ADMIRAL THAD W. ALLEN, COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST GUARD, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1.: The President’s budget includes funding for additional contracting officers for the Coast Guard. How does the Coast Guard plan to 

build its own acquisition workforce? 

Response: Following participation in a DHS-wide pilot, the Coast Guard awarded 

a contract with Dayton Aerospace, Inc. to provide a Sustainment Acquisition Composite Model (S/ACOM) for project acquisition workforce staffing requirements. The 

model will project current and future year (5 year) requirements in accordance with 

the DHS Future Years’ Homeland Security Program (FYHSP), as well as provide 

a functional breakout for all major system acquisition projects. The first model results are expected to be available in the summer of 2009. The model results will 

help to establish the optimum size of the Coast Guard acquisition workforce. Guided 

by this model, the approved Coast Guard Human Capital Plan will be used to build 

the appropriate acquisition workforce. 

Under what circumstances will private contractors continue to be used? 

Response: Coast Guard acquisition is accomplished by Coast Guard personnel 

(civilian and military), Other Government Agency (OGA) personnel, and support 

contractors. The acquisition support contractors (private contractors) will provide assistance only with non-inherently governmental work in the areas of project management, logistics, engineering, administration, and business analysis and only 

when the nature of the task is best accomplished by support contractors, e.g., best 

value to the government, short duration needs, etc. The Coast Guard anticipates the 

number of acquisition support contractors to increase some over the next year or 

two as ICGS work decreases and then start to decline based on the increased number of Coast Guard and OGA personnel. 

How will the Coast Guard decide what roles contractors may fulfill and 

what jobs only government employees can perform? 

Response: The Coast Guard is executing Version 3.0 of its Blueprint for Acquisition Reform, the comprehensive plan for improving acquisition capability within the 

service. In accordance with ′′The Blueprint,′′ the Coast Guard Acquisition Directorate published Standard Operating Procedure #18, Guidance on Inherently Governmental Functions and Commercial Activities on 16 June 2009. A copy is attached 

which provides additional information for the work that support contractors can accomplish related to Coast Guard acquisitions. 

Question 2.: The President’s budget requests $1.05 billion for the Integrated Deepwater Program. A significant portion of this request is for the 

construction of National Security Cutters #2 and #3. Can you please provide us with information about the status of these ships? When will they 

be completed and fully operational? 

Response: The President’s Budget for FY 2010 does not request funds for National Security Cutter (NSC) #2 or NSC #3, but does request funds to award NSC 

#4 Production. 

NSC #2 is approximately ninety percent complete. Builders and Acceptance Trials 

are planned for the fourth quarter of FY 2009 and delivery is scheduled for the first 

quarter FY 2010. NSC #2 will be fully operational within two years of delivery. 

NSC #3 is approximately twenty percent complete. The keel laying is planned for 

July 2009 and the cutter is scheduled for delivery in the fourth quarter of FY 2011. 

NSC #3 will be fully operational approximately two years later. 

54 

Question 3.: The multinational patrol force Combined Task Force 151 (CTF–151), 

currently under the command of the U.S. Navy, was established in early 2009 specifically to target piracy. It is my understanding that the Coast Guard has deployed 

a law enforcement detachment to Navy ships participating in Combined Task Force 

(CTF)–151. 

In general, how effective have this coalition’s efforts been to deter or 

interdict piratical attacks? 

What other Coast Guard assets, if any, are currently allocated to counterpiracy efforts in the Horn of Africa region? 

Response: CTF 151 is a multinational task force that conducts counter-piracy operations in and around the Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and the Red 

Sea and was established to create a lawful maritime order and develop security in 

the maritime environment. The coalition’s efforts provide an effective maritime 

interdiction and response force, but to deter piratical attacks also requires a shoreside solution. • The Coast Guard supports the combatant commander’s by deploying Coast 

Guard assets (LEDETs, MSSTs, Patrol Boats and High Endurance Cutters) to 

support CTF 151 efforts to deter and disrupt acts of piracy. Coast Guard personnel are seen as the subject matter experts in the conduct of boarding’s and 

preparation of case packages in support of follow-on prosecution. • CG LEDETs have embarked in US combatants serving within CTF 151. 

They augment US Navy and coalition VBSS teams, and provide training on: • Maritime Laws • Boarding policies and procedures • Evidence Collection and preparation • Tactical procedures 

As of June 1, 2009 USCG Maritime Safety and Security Teams (MSST) replaced 

CG Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) as the deployed force supporting CTF 

151. 

The Coast Guard has also been working with industry, international, and interagency partners to reduce the risk profile offered by vessels transiting the high risk 

area. In terms of effectiveness, the following case specifics are offered. 

FACTS 

February 2009—CG LEDET operating with USN VBSS teams from the USS Vella 

Gulf apprehend 16 suspected pirates. • The team conducted a boarding of a suspected pirate skiff and found several 

weapons. The seven suspected pirates were brought aboard Vella Gulf, where 

they were processed and then transferred to a temporary holding facility on 

board the supply ship USNS Lewis and Clark. 

• Nine additional suspected pirates were apprehended after VBSS teams from 

Vella Gulf and Mahan boarded a vessel that contained assorted weapons and 

one rocket propelled grenade launcher. Those suspected pirates were also transferred to a temporary holding facility on board Lewis and Clark. 

• In both events, the VBSS teams were comprised of Coast Guardsmen and 

Sailors and marks the first time CTF 151 has apprehended suspected pirates. 

March 2009—CG LEDET operating with USN VBSS teams from the USS Gettysburg apprehended 6 suspected pirates. 

• At approximately 4:30 a.m., the Philippines-flagged Motor Vessel Bison Express sent a distress call to all ships in the area reporting they were being pursued by a small skiff containing six heavily-armed suspected pirates. 

• The six suspected pirates were apprehended and transferred onto the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer. 

April 17, 2009—CG LEDET operating with a USN VBSS team apprehended 8 

suspected pirates. 

• Danish-flagged dry cargo carrier M/V PUMA sent a distress call indicating an 

ongoing attack by a pirate speedboat while transiting the Gulf of Aden. 

• PUMA’s crew of three Danes and four Filipinos zig-zagged the vessel and 

used flares to avoid the speedboat carrying five armed pirates. The speedboat 

returned to the Mother Ship. 

• A Maritime Patrol Aircraft located the Mother Ship and speedboat, and directed a USN asset with embarked LEDET to intercept. Upon boarding, the 

LEDET discovered 80 people: 8 Somali Pirates and 72 people being smuggled 

into Yemen. 

• The LEDET detained the Pirates, and confiscated automatic weapons, Rocket 

Propelled Grenades, and ammunition. 

• Disposition for detained people, evidence, and pirate vessels are pending at 

this time. PUMA’s crew was uninjured. 

55 

May 13, 2009: CG LEDET operating with USN VBSS team from the USS Gettysburg apprehended 17 suspected pirates. 

• USS Gettysburg received a distress call fm the Egyptian flagged M/V AMIRA 

claiming they were under attack from a skiff containing 7 pirates. AMIRA 

claimed that they were struck 3 times with anti-tank rockets and small arms 

fire. They also indicated that the pirates had attempted to board their vessel. 

• A South Korean helicopter arrived on scene and thwarted the attack. The 

skiff was then taken in tow by the Yemenese flagged M/V ISHAK. 

• A joint USN/USCG VBSS team conducted a boarding of M/V SIAHK and discovered assault rifles, small arms, ammunition, and an anti-tank rocket launcher with rocket. In addition, the team discovered boarding ladders and grappling 

hooks. 

• 17 suspected pirates were taken into custody and were awaiting disposition 

to Kenya. 

May 23, 2009: A helicopter from the USS Gettysburg discovers a suspicious skiff 

loitering in the internationally recommended transit corridor (IRTC). 

• While on patrol, a helicopter from the USS Gettysburg sighted a skiff with 

8 POB and 2 boarding ladders. As the ship closed to investigate the skiff made 

an attempt to flee towards Somalia waters. 

• USS Gettysburg successfully intercepted and stopped the fleeing skiff. 

• A joint USN/USCG VBSS team conducted a boarding of the skiff and discovered assault rifles, small arms, and ammunition. 

• 8 suspected pirates were taken into custody. On May 24, 2009 the decision 

was made to release the suspected pirates in their skiff. 

Æ