U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–784 PDF 2010

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 25, 2010 

Serial No. 111–53 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

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

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 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

PETER T. KING, New York 

LAMAR 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, Michigan 

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’CONNOR, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

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

the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security .. 1 

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

of New York, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security ........ 2 

The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

WITNESSES

The Honorable Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

FOR THE RECORD

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

State of Indiana: 

Slides ..................................................................................................................... 36 

The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Alabama: 

Letter to Honorable Janet Napolitano, February 12, 2010 .............................. 42 

Letter to Honorable Nancy Pelosi, February 16, 2010 ...................................... 45 

APPENDIX

Questions Submitted by Chairman Bennie G. Thompson .................................... 77 

Question Submitted by Honorable Henry Cuellar ................................................ 88 

Questions Submitted by Honorable Christopher P. Carney ................................ 89 

Questions Submitted by Honorable Laura Richardson ........................................ 90 

Questions Submitted by Honorable Bill L. Owens ............................................... 92 

Questions Submitted by Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr. ........................................... 93 

Questions Submitted by Honorable Daniel E. Lungren ....................................... 95 

Questions Submitted by Honorable Mike Rogers ................................................. 96 

Questions Submitted by Honorable Michael T. McCaul ...................................... 99 

(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Thursday, February 25, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:07 p.m., in Room 311, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson [Chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Thompson, Harman, Lofgren, Jackson 

Lee, Cuellar, Carney, Clarke, Richardson, Kirkpatrick, Luja ́n, 

Owens, Pascrell, Cleaver, Green, Titus, King, Smith, Souder, 

McCaul, Dent, Bilirakis, Broun, Miller, Olson, Cao, and Austria. 

Chairman THOMPSON [presiding]. The Committee on Homeland 

Security will come to order. The committee is meeting today to receive testimony from Secretary Janet Napolitano on the President’s 

fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

I want to thank Secretary Napolitano for being flexible about testifying in support of the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request 

for the Department of Homeland Security after back-to-back snowstorms forced us to postpone this hearing. On February 1 President Obama requested just over $56 billion 

for the Department of Homeland Security as part of his fiscal year 

2011 budget request. Overall, under the President’s proposal, the 

Department’s budget is slated to increase by about 3 percent over 

last year’s funding level. Given the current fiscal environment, the 

President is to be commended for showing an on-going commitment 

to enhancing our Nation’s preparedness response and recovery capabilities. 

The Department’s mission, both homeland security and nonhomeland security, requires a budget request that is far-reaching 

and impacts the security of Americans who travel by air, rail, and 

sea; the capacity of communities to be prepared for and respond to 

terrorism and other hazards, including the threat posed by dangerous criminal aliens; and the ability of our Nation and operators 

of critical infrastructure to find innovative approaches to foster resiliency in the face of an ever-evolving terrorist threats. 

In reviewing this budget request, I am pleased to see that you 

tackle the issue of over-reliance on contractors and presenting a 

balanced workforce strategy. Since its inception in 2003, contractor 

dependence has stood in the way of DHS becoming the Federal 

agency that Congress envisioned and the American people deserve. 
2 

Madame Secretary, you are to be commended for taking on this 

challenge that for so many years went unaddressed by your predecessors and for setting a goal of converting 3,300 contractor positions to DHS positions by the end of the year. This is a step in the 

right direction. However, given that that the Department relies on 

more than 200,000 contractors to operate, a great deal more work 

will need to be done to ensure that DHS moves away from an overreliance on contractors. 

While I support the substance of most of this budget request, I 

do have some concerns. While I understand that reducing personnel at the U.S. Border Patrol and U.S. Coast Guard will bring 

short-term savings to the Department, I am concerned that years 

of knowledge and experience will be lost and that there may be a 

resulting reduction in DHS’ resource and capabilities to fulfill all 

its missions. 

I am also greatly concerned the budget seeks to consolidate a 

number of important free-standing grant programs into the State 

Homeland Security Grant Program. I worry that this consolidation 

will make it more difficult for local communities to receive muchneeded funding. It also troubles me that for the second year in a 

row, the budget decreases funding for vital first responder grant 

programs just as State and local communities are struggling to 

maintain the capability gains that have been achieved in recent 

years. 

I am particularly disappointed that Centers of Excellence and 

other university programs, including the Minority Serving Institutions Program that DHS has supported since DHS was established 

would be cut by nearly 20 percent under this budget. 

One last area that I strongly believe was not well-served by this 

budget is maritime cargo screening. I find it incredulous that this 

budget decreases funding for international cargo screening programs by almost 48 percent. It is hard to believe that these programs, which got short-shifted by previous administrations, are 

being further downscaled under this budget when there has not 

been a single legislative proposal submitted to alter the statutory 

mandate on international cargo screening. 

As you know, under the Implementing Recommendations of the 

9/11 Commission Act, DHS is responsible for ensuring that 100 

percent of the cargo that enters into the United States is scanned. 

I just do not see how moving the few DHS personnel that you have 

in the field, targeting cargo for screening, back to the United States 

gets you any closer to meeting the mandate. 

That said, I look forward to working with you, Madame Secretary, to ensure that the Department has the resources it needs 

to execute all its missions, including to prevent and respond to the 

threat of terrorism. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your testimony. 

The Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full 

committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. King, for an opening statement. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you very much, Madame Secretary. We welcome you here 

this morning. I hope your ankle or your leg is doing better. It was 

not caused by any Republican, was it—the injury? 
3 

[Laughter.] 

No? Okay. 

But on a—seriously now, let me thank you for offering to meet 

with Republican Members of the committee on a regular basis. I 

think it will go a long way to resolving some issues that we have 

before they become major issues and also let us get the benefit of 

your thinking before we just read about it in the newspaper and 

draw wrong conclusions. So I thank you for it. 

I think it is going to be very, very helpful to both sides. Also I 

think it will go a long way to continuing the bipartisan cooperation 

we have tried to have on this committee since the inception under 

both parties. 

Madame Secretary, much has happened since you last testified 

before the committee last May. We had the Vinas case, which actually involved someone from Long Island, who was—his indictment 

and conviction were announced. He was captured in AfghanistanPakistan. 

We had the Headley case involving Mumbai. We had the Zazi 

case in New York. We have had the Major Hasan case in Fort 

Hood. We had the Christmas Day bombing. We have the whole 

issue involving the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and where 

that is going to be held and under the conditions where it will be 

held. 

So a lot has happened. Obviously, it shows that the threat is as 

real as it ever was—maybe worse in that it is morphing, or it is 

almost like mercury. As we go after it in one place, it moved somewhere else and adopts a different form. 

So, obviously, your job is more significant and more important 

than ever, and the world is probably as dangerous, if not more dangerous—certainly, different types of danger from the same enemy, 

but different types of dangers, which is why there are several 

points I want to mention about your budget. I will follow up in 

questions. Other Members have various issues. I know Congressman Olson has a specific issue he is going to raise with you later. 

But on the issue, for instance, as the threat is getting larger and 

changing more, I am very concerned that Secure the Cities has 

been zeroed out. While this primarily benefits New York, it also involved other cities. It could be a prototype for other cities, as 

money is going to be shared with other cities. 

Just last month, I believe, on the House floor we adopted an authorization calling for continued funding of Secure the Cities, and 

on last year’s budget there was nothing in there. The House passed 

legislation for $40 million, came back from conference with $20 million, but this year there is nothing in there, which to me it is 

wrong. 

It is a mistake that is being made, and it involves not just New 

York, the entire tri-State region, and also, as I said, the money is 

available for other cities around the country. The system itself can 

be a prototype. Basically, this is to protect urban areas from attacks launched from suburban areas. 

Also, the issue which Chairman Thompson raised about the 

Coast Guard maritime safety and security teams. I believe five of 

the 12 are being decommissioned. Again, just speaking for the New 
4 

York area, I realize how valuable these teams are—how invaluable 

they are, actually. 

We have to have them, and how well-coordinated they are with 

the FBI and with local law enforcement. Again, whatever shortterm savings there might be, to be eliminating five of these 12 

teams I think is really going to be very, very counterproductive, 

and it is going to increase, you know, the danger level. 

Also, with the whole issue of the trials in New York City, we 

have the Federal Protective Service that was in here testifying, 

saying they do not have the funding or the personnel to adequately 

safeguard the Federal courts in New York in the event that a trial 

was held, and yet there is no increase in the budget at all for the 

Federal Protective Service. 

With UASI, while that has gone up $213 million, $200 million of 

that is allocated for court security in the event that the trials are 

held here in the United States. So in effect, there was no increase 

in the UASI funding, even though I believe the threats have increased. 

As far as the $200 million or whatever the final number ends up 

being, I do know that the Department of Homeland Security and 

other law enforcement agencies did do an analysis as to what the 

course could be, and to the extent you can discuss that with us and 

how that approximates the $200 million and without trying to 

sound overly partisan here, I know the Vice President said he 

thought the $200 million that Mayor Bloomberg spoke about was 

an exaggerated number, and yet that turns out to be the number 

that is in the President’s budget or in your budget, so I would just 

see if you can perhaps explain the Vice President to us. 

The issue of Guantanamo. Obviously, Members of this committee 

have different concerns and different beliefs as to what should be 

done with Guantanamo. I personally believe it should be open. I 

know others feel strongly it should be closed. But also, you are on 

the board, I believe, or the panel which is to decide the fate of 

Guantanamo or the prisoners at Guantanamo. I was wondering if 

any progress has been made on that at all? 

Similarly, the issue that really caused a lot of debate after the 

Christmas bombing is the whole issue of Miranda warnings and 

who should give them, when they should be given. I would like to 

hear from you or discuss with you during the question period as 

to who should be making that decision. 

Since obviously there was much more involved here than just an 

individual being apprehended on the ground and since the intelligence community is so far-reaching, it appears the attorney general was making that decision, but in making that, does he discuss 

that with the Director of National Intelligence? 

Does he discuss that decision with you? Does he discuss it with 

the CIA? Does he discuss it with any of the other counterterrorism 

or terrorism agencies and departments we have? Or does he just 

make that on his own without realizing the full consequences of 

what could happen? 

So in any event, these are all issues I would like to discuss with 

you, hear your thoughts on them. I am sure as the year goes on 

and we have our regular meetings, a lot more of these will be discussed. 
5 

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

to your testimony. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Other Members of the committee are reminded that under committee rules, opening statements may be 

submitted for the record. 

[The statement of Honorable Richardson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HONORABLE LAURA RICHARDSON

FEBRUARY 25, 2010 

Mister Chairman, thank you for convening this very important hearing today on 

the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security. Thank you to Secretary Napolitano for being here as well. 

It is an important duty of Congress to work with the President and the various 

agencies to come up with an appropriate budget, especially in these economic hard 

times. But it is equally important that we know exactly where these funds are going 

so the American public knows that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and effectively. 

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

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

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

home to many high-value terrorist targets, such as the Port of Long Beach. 

Therefore, I share the committee’s concern about the decrease in funding for international cargo screening. The proposal is $84.45 million, a decrease of $77.56 million below the fiscal year 2010 enacted amount of $162 million. This decrease is part 

of a shift towards remote targeting and examinations of freight instead of a physical 

presence of personnel at the ports. The 9/11 Act set forth a goal of working towards 

100 percent cargo screening, and this budget decrease indicates a movement away, 

instead of towards, that goal. While I recognize the fiscal constraints facing the 

President and the Department, I question the decision to deemphasize cargo screening at the expense of the safety of our ports. 

In addition, as chair of the Subcommittee on Emergency, Communications, Preparedness, and Response, I am pleased to see a 2.31 percent increase in FEMA’s 

budget. However, I notice that there is a cut of $200 million to the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Program and the Assistance to Firefighter Grants (AFG). I believe these cuts will severely limit the ability of local fire 

departments to meet community needs and maintain the readiness of local first responders during all types of emergencies. 

I agree with the committee that overall, we are pleased with the President’s budget request. However, I look forward to hearing Secretary Napolitano’s insight on the 

questions and concerns we have raised. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Again, I welcome our witness today, Janet 

Napolitano. She was confirmed by the Senate and sworn in on January 21, 2009, as the third Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. In her first year as the Secretary, she has conducted 

a Department-wide efficiency review, released the first Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, and submitted her first budget request to Congress. 

Madame Secretary, I thank you for your service and for appearing before this committee today. 

Without objection, the witness’ full statement will be inserted in 

the record. 

Secretary Napolitano, I now recognize you to summarize your 

statement as close to 5 minutes as possible. 
6 

STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative King and Members of the committee. It is a pleasure 

to be before you today to discuss the President’s 2011 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security. 

I want to thank the committee for the strong support it has 

shown the Department during my tenure as Secretary. I am glad 

to work with you as we work to secure the American homeland and 

also to ensure that we have the resources we need and that they 

are put to use effectively and efficiently. 

As noted, President Obama’s budget for the Department focuses 

our resources where they can be put to best use. The 2011 budget 

request is $56.3 billion. It equates to more than a 2 percent increase over last year’s funding. While we are always focused on securing and protecting the American people, we are also committed 

to exercising strong fiscal discipline, making sure that we are investing in what works. 

While this budget will not go into effect until next October, I 

think the events of the past months underscore the importance of 

the investment to our mission and to our on-going activities. The 

attempted attack on Flight 253 on Christmas was a powerful illustration that terrorists, especially al-Qaeda and its affiliates, will go 

to great lengths to try to defeat the security measures that have 

been put in place since September 11, 2001. 

This administration is determined to thwart those plans, to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat terrorist networks by employing multiple layers of defense, working in concert with one another to secure the country. This effort involves not just the Department of 

Homeland Security, but many other Federal agencies with responsibilities related to the safety of the homeland. 

As President Obama made clear, the administration is also determined to find and fix the vulnerabilities in our systems that have 

allowed not just the Christmas day breach to occur, but as we 

think forward proactively what could the next attempt be? What 

needs to be done in advance of that? 

We are working hand-in-hand across the Federal Government 

also on a number of other areas. A more recent example would be 

the response to the catastrophic earthquake in Haiti. 

As the Chairman noted, this year we submitted our first Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. This gives us a long-distance 

vision and template for the homeland security enterprise and identifies five major mission areas for us. 

The first is preventing terrorism and enhancing security. The 

second is securing and managing our borders. The third is smart 

and effective enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws. The 

fourth, and a new one, is safeguarding and securing cyberspace. 

The fifth is ensuring resiliency to disasters. Let me briefly go 

through those with budget highlights related to each one. 

Preventing terrorism and enhancing security, the President’s 

budget request enhances multiple layers of aviation security, a critical investment. We want to accelerate the placement of advanced 

imaging technology machines, that kind of machines that will increase our ability to detect nonmetallic explosives. 
7 

We also want to add to the Federal Air Marshal Service to train 

K–9 teams and the behavior detection officers in our domestic airports while we work internationally across the globe on increasing 

worldwide aviation security. 

To secure and manage the borders, the budget request strengthens initiatives that have already resulted in concrete border security successes this past year. We want to expand the border enforcement security task force teams, the best teams. They have 

helped increase seizures of contraband across the border. 

We want to continue to increase the use of intelligence for battling the drug cartels that are housed in Mexico, so the budget contains additional monies for intelligence analysts that will be focused on those efforts. 

We also have in the budget the money that is necessary to protect the Customs and Border Protection staffing levels, and I want 

to pause they are a moment. There has been some confusion. We 

have delivered a clarifying document. There was no cut to Border 

Patrol staffing contemplated in this budget. I think that needs to 

be made very, very clear. 

In addition, we want to continue our efforts with respect to Mexico. Just south of our border, the city of Juarez is one, quite frankly, where the rule of law has been lost. The fact that it is a bridge 

away from the United States should give us all pause. We are 

working very closely with the federal government of Mexico, just 

met last week with the president of Mexico, the Mexican federal 

police and others to make sure border-wide that we make sure that 

border is secure as possible. 

Additionally, in terms of enforcement and administration of the 

Nation’s immigration laws, the President’s budget request bolsters 

critical initiatives, such as our efforts to strengthen E-Verify, which 

is the tool we use to ensure that employers verify the legal presence of the workforce. 

We also want to expand Secure Communities. This is a program 

where we put access to immigration databases rights in local jails 

and State prisons so that we proceed with immigration removal 

and deportation while someone is still incarcerated. 

To safeguard and secure cyberspace, the budget request includes 

a total funding level of $379 million for our cybersecurity division 

in addition to the monies for the Secret Service for their investigation of cyber-related crimes. 

Under this, Mr. Chairman, we have already been granted by the 

Office of Personnel Management the ability to hire up to 1,000 

cyber experts by direct hiring authority over the next 3 years. This 

is an effort that we need to proceed on with due haste so that we 

have on the civilian side of cyber command just as we are developing on the military side. 

To ensure resilience to disasters, the President’s budget request 

includes an increase in support of the disaster relief fund and $100 

million in pre-disaster mitigation grants in support of State, local, 

and Tribal governments to reduce the risks associated with disasters. 

Finally, the budget includes increases that are attributable to 

our efforts to mature and strengthen the unity of the Department. 

Continuing to build out St. Elizabeths as a consolidated head-
8 

quarters, continuing to consolidate leases so that we are not in 

more than four dozen locations around the District, continuing to 

integrate various legacy data systems and IT systems that came 

into the Department when it was created that now need to be unified into one IT system are just several of the administrative functions here. 

They are put in headquarters, but they are designed to provide 

support and operational efficiency throughout all of the operating 

components. 

Mr. Chairman, I have more detail. It is contained in my complete 

statement, which I ask be included in the record. But I look forward to addressing the questions that you have posed, that Representative King has posed, and that the other Members might 

have. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Secretary Napolitano follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANET NAPOLITANO

Mr. Chairman, Representative King, and Members of the committee: Let me begin 

by saying thank you for the strong support you have provided me and the Department this past year. I look forward to another year working with you to make certain that we have the right resources to protect the homeland and the American 

people and that we make the most effective and efficient use of those resources. 

I am pleased to appear before the committee today to present President Obama’s 

fiscal year 2011 Budget Request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

As you know, the attempted attack on Northwest Flight 253 on December 25 was 

a powerful illustration that terrorists will go to great lengths to try to defeat the 

security measures that have been put in place since September 11, 2001. This administration is determined to thwart those plans and disrupt, dismantle, and defeat 

terrorist networks by employing multiple layers of defense that work in concert with 

one another to secure our country. This effort involves not just DHS, but also many 

other Federal agencies as well as State, local, Tribal, territorial, private sector and 

international partners. As President Obama has made clear, this administration is 

determined to find and fix the vulnerabilities in our systems that allowed this 

breach to occur—and the fiscal year 2011 Budget Request prioritizes these security 

enhancements. 

The Department is also working hand-in-hand with our Federal partners to respond to the devastation and loss of life in Haiti following the January 12 earthquake. Collaboration within DHS among our many components has allowed us to 

leverage unprecedented resources and personnel to assist with the humanitarian efforts in Haiti, once again demonstrating what these offices can accomplish together. 

The fiscal year 2011 Budget Request strengthens the on-going work in each of our 

Department’s offices to fulfill our unified mission. 

I will now summarize the fiscal year 2011 budget request along with some of our 

key accomplishments from last year. 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2011 DHS budget will strengthen efforts that are critical to the 

Nation’s security, bolster the Department’s ability to combat terrorism and respond 

to emergencies and potential threats, and allow DHS to tackle its responsibilities 

to protect the Nation and keep Americans safe. 

DHS executes a wide array of responsibilities in its unified security mission. To 

bolster these efforts, DHS collaborates and coordinates with many partners—State, 

local, and Tribal governments and law enforcement agencies, international allies, 

the private sector, and other Federal departments. These partnerships are essential 

to DHS’ ability to fulfill its security mission. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget continues efforts to use our resources as efficiently 

and effectively as possible. We must exercise strong fiscal discipline, making sure 

that we are investing our resources in what works, cutting down on redundancy, 

eliminating ineffective programs and making improvements across the board. 

To institutionalize a culture of efficiency across the Department, DHS launched 

the Department-wide Efficiency Review Initiative in March 2009. One major element of the Efficiency Review is the Balanced Workforce Strategy, a three-pronged 

approach to ensuring that the right workforce balance is achieved. First, we are tak-
9 

1Gross Discretionary funding does not include funding such as Coast Guard’s retirement pay 

account and fees paid for immigration benefits. 2This does not include fee collections such as funding for the Federal Protective Service 

(NPPD), aviation security passenger and carrier fees (TSA), credentialing fees (such as TWIC— 

TSA), and administrative costs of the National Flood Insurance Fund (FEMA). 

ing steps to ensure that no inherently Governmental functions are performed by 

contractors. Second, we put in place rigorous review procedures to ensure that future activities do not increase our reliance on contractors. Third, we are coordinating workforce assessments across the Department to seek economies and service 

improvements and reduce our reliance on contractors. In fiscal year 2011, the Department will continue executing the Balanced Workforce Strategy by converting 

contractor positions to Federal jobs. 

DHS secures the United States against all threats through five main missions, 

each of which is strengthened by this budget: 

• Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security.—Guarding against terrorism 

was the founding mission of DHS and remains our top priority today. A key element of preventing terrorism is recognizing the evolving threats posed by violent extremists and taking action to ensure our defenses continue to evolve to 

deter and defeat them. 

• Securing and Managing Our Borders.—DHS monitors our air, land, and sea 

borders to prevent illegal trafficking that threatens our country, while facilitating lawful travel and trade. We will continue to strengthen security efforts 

on the Southwest border to combat and disrupt cartel violence and provide critical security upgrades—through infrastructure and technology—along the 

Northern border. 

• Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws.—DHS is responsible for 

enforcing the Nation’s immigration laws while streamlining and facilitating the 

legal immigration process. In fiscal year 2011, we will continue to strengthen 

enforcement activities while targeting criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety and employers who knowingly violate the law. 

• Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace.—The Department defends against and 

responds to attacks on the cyber networks through which Americans communicate with each other, conduct business, and manage infrastructure. DHS analyzes and reduces cyber threats and vulnerabilities, distributes threat warnings, 

coordinates the response to cyber incidents and works with the private sector 

and our State, local, international, and private sector partners to ensure that 

our computers, networks, and cyber systems remain safe. 

• Ensuring Resilience to Disasters.—The Department provides the coordinated, 

comprehensive Federal response in the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other large-scale emergencies while working with Federal, State, local, 

and private sector partners to ensure a swift and effective recovery effort. DHS 

will continue its increased efforts to build a ready and resilient Nation by bolstering information sharing, providing grants and training to our homeland security and law enforcement partners and further streamlining rebuilding and 

recovery along the Gulf Coast. 

Ensuring shared awareness of risks and threats, increasing resilience in communities and enhancing the use of science and technology underpin these National efforts to prevent terrorism, secure and manage our borders, enforce and administer 

our immigration laws, safeguard and secure cyberspace, and ensure resilience to disasters. 

The total fiscal year 2011 budget request for DHS is $56.3 billion in total funding; 

a 2 percent increase over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Department’s fiscal 

year 2011 gross discretionary budget request 1 is $47.1 billion, an increase of 2 percent over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Department’s fiscal year 2011 net 

discretionary budget request is $43.6 billion,2 an increase of 3 percent over the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level. For purposes of comparison the Overseas Contingency Operation funding and transfer from the National Science Foundation are not included 

in the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

The following are highlights of the fiscal year 2011 budget request: 

PREVENTING TERRORISM AND ENHANCING SECURITY

• Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT).—An increase of $214.7 million is requested to procure and install 500 advanced imaging technology machines at 

airport checkpoints to detect dangerous materials, including non-metallic materials. This request, combined with units the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) plans to install in 2010, will mean that 1,000 AIT scanners, will 
10 

total AIT coverage at 75 percent of Category X airports and 60 percent of the 

total lanes at Category X through II airports. 

• Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) to Staff AITs.—An increase of $218.9 

million is requested for additional Transportation Security Officers (TSOs), 

managers, and associated support costs to operate additional AITs at airport 

checkpoints. Passenger screening is critical to detecting and preventing individuals carrying dangerous or deadly objects and materials from boarding planes. 

• Federal Air Marshals (FAMs).—An increase of $85 million is requested for additional FAMs to increase international flight coverage. FAMs help detect, deter, 

and defeat terrorist and other criminal hostile acts targeting U.S. air carriers, 

airports, passengers, and crew. 

• Portable Explosive Trace Detection (ETD).—An increase of $60 million is requested to purchase approximately 800 portable ETD machines ($39 million) 

and associated checkpoint consumables ($21 million). 

• Canine Teams.—An increase of $71 million and 523 positions (262 Full-Time 

Equivalents, or FTE) is requested to fund an additional 275 proprietary explosives detection canine teams, 112 teams at 28 Category X airports and 163 

teams at 56 Category I airports. 

• Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs).—An increase of $20 million and 350 BDOs 

(210 FTE) is requested to further enhance TSA’s Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques program. The fiscal year 2011 request includes a total of 

3,350 officers to enhance coverage at lanes and shifts at high-risk Category X 

and I airports and expand coverage to smaller airports. 

• Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Systems Engineering and Architecture.—An 

increase of $13.4 million is requested to fund systems engineering efforts to address vulnerabilities in the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture, the multilayered system of detection technologies, programs, and guidelines designed to 

enhance the Nation’s ability to detect and prevent a radiological or nuclear attack. 

• Radiological/Nuclear Detection Systems.—An increase of $41 million is requested for the procurement and deployment of radiological and nuclear detection systems and equipment to support efforts across the Department. 

• Law Enforcement Detachment Teams.—An increase of $3.6 million is requested 

to bring deployable U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET) 

teams to full capacity. LEDETs help prevent terrorism, secure U.S. borders, disrupt criminal organizations and support counter drug missions overseas. In fiscal year 2009, for example, LEDETs aboard U.S. naval and partner nation assets accounted for more than 50 percent of total maritime cocaine removals. 

• 2012 Presidential Campaign.—Total funding of $14 million is requested for 

start-up costs associated with the 2012 Presidential Campaign including training for candidate/nominee protective detail personnel. The Secret Service will 

also begin to procure and pre-position equipment, services, and supplies to support candidate/nominee protective operations throughout the country. 

• Secret Service Information Technology.—Total funding of $36 million is requested for the Information Integration and Transformation program. This 

funding will allow the Secret Service to successfully continue its comprehensive 

Information Technology (IT) transformation and provide a multi-year, missionintegrated program to engineer a modernized, agile, and strengthened IT infrastructure to support all aspects of the Secret Service’s mission. 

SECURING AND MANAGING OUR BORDERS

• Journeyman Pay Increase.—In the spring of 2010, DHS will implement the journeyman pay increase, raising the journeyman grade level for frontline Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) Officers (including Border Patrol agents and Agricultural Specialists) from GS–11 level to the GS–12 level. An adjustment to the 

base of $310.4 million will fund the full-year impact of the salary and benefit 

requirements associated with this implementation. 

• CBP Officers.—An increase of $44.8 million is requested to fund 318 CBP Officer FTEs within the Office of Field Operations and 71 support FTEs for CBP. 

The decline in the number of passengers and conveyances entering the United 

States in fiscal year 2009 resulted in an almost 8 percent decrease in revenues 

from inspection user fees. CBP, therefore, has fewer resources to maintain critical staffing levels for CBP officers. The proposed funding will allow CBP to 

maintain staffing for critical positions to protect the United States at its ports 

of entry. 

• Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BESTs).—An additional $10 million 

is requested to establish BESTs in three additional locations: Massena, NY; San 
11 

Francisco, CA and Honolulu, HI. These multi-agency teams work to identify, 

disrupt, and dismantle criminal organizations posing significant threats to border security, including terrorist groups, gang members, and criminal aliens. • Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Enforcement.—An increase of $30 million is 

requested to support CBP and ICE IPR enforcement efforts. This includes information technology systems that support IPR activities and implementation of 

the 5-year IPR Plan. An increase of $5 million is also requested for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)-led National Intellectual Property 

Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center). The IPR Center brings key U.S. Government agencies together to combat IPR violations that threaten our economic 

stability, restrict the competitiveness of U.S. industry and endanger the public’s 

health and safety. ICE will also use these funds to focus on disrupting criminal 

organizations through the internet and support for anti-counterfeiting efforts. • Intelligence Analysts.—An increase of $10 million is requested to fund 103 Intelligence Analysts for CBP. This staffing increase will support 24/7 operations of 

CBP Intelligence Watch, Operations Coordination, and the Commissioner’s Situation Room. • Coast Guard Asset Recapitalization.—A total of $1.4 billion is requested to continue recapitalization of aging Coast Guard surface and air assets. Included in 

this request is $538 million for production of the Coast Guard’s fifth National 

Security Cutter to continue replacement of the 378-foot High Endurance Cutters 

fleet. Also included is $240 million for production of four Fast Response Cutters 

to continue replacement of the 110-foot Class Patrol Boat fleet. The Fast Response Cutters have enhanced capability, high readiness, speed, and endurance, 

which will allow them to quickly and effectively respond to emerging threats. 

Additionally, $40 million is requested to purchase one Maritime Patrol Aircraft 

(MPA) HC–144A. The HC–144A will address the Coast Guard’s MPA flight hour 

gap by providing 1,200 hours every year per aircraft. Finally, $13.9 million is 

requested for improvement and acquisition of housing to support military families. 

ENFORCING AND ADMINISTERING OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS

• E-Verify.—A total of $103.4 million and 338 FTEs is requested for the E-Verify 

Program. In fiscal year 2011, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) will develop and implement an E-Verify portal that will provide a single-user interface for the program’s products and services. In addition, USCIS 

will enhance E-Verify’s monitoring and compliance activities through analytical 

capabilities that will support more robust fraud detection and improved analytic 

processes and will continue developing system enhancements in response to customer feedback, surveys, mission requirements, and capacity needs. 

• Secure Communities.—Total funding of $146.9 million is requested to continue 

fiscal year 2010 progress toward Nation-wide implementation of ICE’s Secure 

Communities program—which involves the identification, apprehension, and removal of all Level 1 criminal aliens in State prisons and local jails through 

criminal alien biometric identification capabilities. Secure Communities, in cooperation with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, will provide 

a safeguard to American communities by removing those criminal aliens from 

the United States who represent the greatest threats to public safety and by 

deterring their re-entry through aggressive prosecution. 

• Immigrant Integration.—A total of $18 million is requested to fund USCIS Office of Citizenship initiatives, including expansion of the competitive Citizenship 

Grant Program to support National and community-based organizations preparing immigrants for citizenship, promoting, and raising awareness of citizenship rights and responsibilities, and enhancing English language education and 

other tools for legal permanent residents. The Office of Citizenship will support 

the implementation of the Immigration Integration program and lead initiatives 

to educate aspiring citizens about the naturalization process, monitor, and 

evaluate the administration and content of the new naturalization test, and develop educational materials and resources for immigrants and the organizations 

that serve them. 

SAFEGUARDING AND SECURING CYBERSPACE

• National Cyber Security Division (NCSD).—Total funding of $379 million is requested for the NCSD to support the development of capabilities to prevent, 

prepare for, and respond to incidents that could degrade or overwhelm the Nation’s critical information technology infrastructure and key cyber networks. 

These funds will identify and reduce vulnerabilities, mitigate threats, and en-
12 

sure that cyber intrusions and disruptions cause minimal damage to public and 

private sector networks. • National Cyber Security Center (NCSC).—A total of $10 million is requested for 

the NCSC to enhance cyber security coordination capabilities across the Federal 

Government including mission integration, collaboration and coordination, situational awareness and cyber incident response, analysis and reporting, knowledge management, and technology development and management. 

ENSURING RESILIENCE TO DISASTERS

• Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).—The budget seeks funding of $1.95 billion, an in- crease of $350 million for the DRF. The DRF provides a significant portion of 

the total Federal response to victims in declared major disasters and emergencies. • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Facilities.—An additional 

$23.3 million is requested to address critical FEMA real estate needs. By fiscal 

year 2011, the capacity of FEMA facilities will be unable to accommodate key 

mission responsibilities and staff. FEMA also faces a critical need to maintain 

and repair aging and deteriorating National facilities. To address these needs, 

FEMA has developed a 5-year capital plan to begin critical regional facility acquisitions and repairs. • Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants.—Total funding of $100 million is requested to 

provide program support and technical assistance to State, local, and Tribal 

governments to reduce the risks associated with disasters, support the National 

grant competition and provide the required $500,000 per State allocation. Resources will support the development and enhancement of hazard mitigation 

plans, as well as the implementation of pre-disaster mitigation projects. 

• Flood Map Modernization.—A total of $194 million is requested to analyze and 

produce flood hazard data and map products and communicate flood hazard 

risk. The funding will support the review and update of flood hazard data and 

maps to accurately reflect flood hazards and monitor the validity of published 

flood hazard information. 

• Rescue 21.—A total of $36 million is requested for the Rescue 21 system, enabling the U.S. Coast Guard to enhance preparedness, ensure efficient emergency response, and rapidly recover from disasters. The Rescue 21 system replaces the U.S. Coast Guard’s legacy National Distress and Response System 

and improves communications and command and control capabilities in the 

coastal zone. The system is the foundation for coastal Search and Rescue and 

enhances maritime situational awareness through increased communications 

ability with mariners and other responders. 

MATURING AND STRENGTHENING THE HOMELAND SECURITY ENTERPRISE

• St. Elizabeths Headquarters Consolidation.—To streamline the Department’s 

core operations, $287.8 million is requested to consolidate executive leadership, 

operations coordination, and policy and program management functions in a secure setting at St. Elizabeths. The Department’s facilities are currently dispersed over more than 40 locations throughout the National Capital Region 

(NCR). This consolidation at St. Elizabeths will reduce the fragmentation of 

components and will improve communications, coordination, and cooperation 

across all DHS headquarters organizations. 

• Lease Consolidation—Mission Support.—A total of $75 million is requested to 

align the Department’s real estate portfolio in the NCR to enhance mission performance and increase management efficiency in conjunction with St. Elizabeths 

Headquarters Consolidation. 

• Data Center Migration.—A total of $192.2 million is requested for the continuation of system and application migration of legacy data centers to two enterprise-wide DHS Data Centers to meet current and anticipated data service requirements. Funding will also be utilized for upgrading infrastructure requirements. 

• Acquisition Workforce.—The fiscal year 2011 request includes an increase of 

$24.2 million to strengthen the Department’s acquisition workforce capacity and 

capabilities. The increase is requested to mitigate the risks associated with skill 

gaps of the acquisition workforce, ensure that the Department achieves the best 

terms possible in major acquisitions and improve the effectiveness of the workforce. 

• Science and Technology (S&T) Safe Container (SAFECON)/Time Recorded 

Ubiquitous Sensor Technology (TRUST) R&D.—A total of $8 million is requested for the S&T SAFECON and TRUST programs. These initiatives develop 
13 

high reliability, high-throughput detection technologies to scan cargo containers 

entering the country for weapons of mass destruction, explosives, contraband, 

and human cargo. 

• Grants.—A total of $4 billion is requested for grant programs to support our Nation’s first responders. This funding assists State and local governments in the 

prevention of, protection against, response to, and recovery from incidents of 

terrorism and other events. 
14 
15 

TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY BY ORGANIZATION 

Gross Discretionary & Mandatory, Fees, Trust Funds 

Fiscal Year 2009 

Revised 

Enacted 1

Fiscal Year 2010 

Revised 

Enacted 2

Fiscal Year 2011 

President’s 

Budget 

Fiscal Year 2011 

∂/¥ Fiscal Year 

2010 Enacted 

Fiscal Year 2011 

∂/¥ 

Fiscal Year 2010 

Enacted 

[Thousands] [Thousands] [Thousands] [Thousands] [Percent] 

Departmental Operations 3 ............................................... $659,109 $802,931 $1,270,821 $467,890 58 

Analysis and Operations .................................................. 327,373 335,030 347,930 12,900 4 Office of the Inspector General ........................................ 114,513 113,874 129,806 15,932 14 U.S. Customs & Border Protection .................................. 11,250,652 11,449,283 11,180,018 (269,265 ) ¥2 

U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement .................... 5,968,015 5,741,752 5,835,187 93,435 2 Transportation Security Administration ......................... 6,992,778 7,656,066 8,164,780 508,714 7 U.S. Coast Guard .............................................................. 9,624,179 10,122,963 10,078,317 (44,646 ) 0 U.S. Secret Service ............................................................ 1,640,444 1,702,644 1,811,617 108,973 6 National Protection and Programs Directorate .............. 1,188,263 2,432,755 2,361,715 (71,040 ) ¥3 Office of Health Affairs ..................................................... 157,621 139,250 212,734 73,484 53 Federal Emergency Management Agency ....................... 5,971,159 6,194,268 6,527,406 333,138 5 FEMA: Grant Programs ................................................... 4,220,858 4,165,200 4,000,590 (164,610 ) ¥4 U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services ....................... 2,876,348 2,859,997 2,812,357 (47,640 ) ¥2 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center .................... 332,986 282,812 278,375 (4,437 ) ¥2 S&T Directorate ................................................................ 932,587 1,006,471 1,018,264 11,793 1 Domestic Nuclear Detection Office .................................. 514,191 383,037 305,820 (77,217 ) ¥20 

TOTAL .................................................................... 52,771,076 55,388,333 56,335,737 947,404 1 .71 

Less Rescission of Prior Year Carryover Funds 4 ........... (61,373 ) (40,474 ) ......................... 40,474 ¥100 

ADJUSTED TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY ...... 52,709,703 55,347,859 56,335,737 987,878 2 

SUPPLEMENTAL5 .......................................................... 3,354,503 295,503 ......................... (295,503 ) .........................
16 

TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY BY ORGANIZATION—Continued 

Gross Discretionary & Mandatory, Fees, Trust Funds 

Fiscal Year 2009 

Revised 

Enacted 1

Fiscal Year 2010 

Revised 

Enacted 2

Fiscal Year 2011 

President’s 

Budget 

Fiscal Year 2011 

∂/¥ Fiscal Year 

2010 Enacted 

Fiscal Year 2011 

∂/¥ 

Fiscal Year 2010 

Enacted 

[Thousands] [Thousands] [Thousands] [Thousands] [Percent] 

Less Rescission of Prior Year Carryover Funds 5 ........... (100,000 ) ......................... ......................... ......................... .........................

1Fiscal Year 2009 revised enacted reflects: (1) Net reprogramming/transfer adjustments for OSEM ($17.4 million); OIG ($16.0 million); CBP (¥$24.1 million); ICE ($16.4 million); TSA ($14.4 million); USCG ($.400 million); USSS ($2.5 million); NPPD ($30 million); OHA ($.430 million); FEMA (¥$39.5 million). (2) Technical adjustments to revise fee/trust fund estimates for ICE—Immigration Inspection User Fee ($7.0 million); ICE—Detention and Removal Examination Fee ($1.4 million); ICE—Breached Bond/Detention Fund ($15.0 million); TSA—Transportation Threat and Credentialing—Registered Traveler (¥$10.0 million), TSA— Transportation Threat and Credentialing—Transportation Worker Identification Credentials ($22.7 million); TSA—Transportation Threat and Credentialing— 

HAZMAT (¥$3.0 million); TSA—Transportation Threat and Credentialing—Alien Flight School ($1.0 million); CIS ($185.4 million); USCG ($7.9 million). (3) Realignment of USCG Operating Expenses funding and Pursuant to Pub. L. 110–53 reflects TSA realignment of funds for 9/11 Commission Act implementation ($3.675 million—Aviation Security, $13.825 million—Surface, $2.5 million—Support). (4) Scorekeeping adjustment for a rescission of prior year unobligated balances from USCG—AC&I (¥$20.0 million). 2Fiscal year 2010 revised enacted reflects: (1) Technical adjustments for TSA Aviation Security Fees of ($128.9 million); USCG Health Care Fund ($5.0 million). (2) Scorekeeping adjustment for a rescission of prior year unobligated balances from USCG—AC&I (¥$.800 million). (3) For comparability purposes, ex- cludes USCG Overseas Contingency Operations ($241.5 million) and National Science Foundation transfer to USCG of $54.0 million. 3Departmental Operations is comprised of the Office of the Secretary & Executive Management, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, and the National 

Special Security Events Fund (NSSE). 4Pursuant to Pub. L. 110–329, reflects fiscal year 2009 rescissions of prior year unobligated balances: Analysis and Operations (¥$21.373 million); TSA 

(¥$31.0 million); FEMA—Cerro Grande (¥$9.0 million). Pursuant to Pub. L. 111–83, reflects fiscal year 2010 rescissions of prior year unobligated balances: 

Analysis and Operations (¥$2.4 million); TSA (¥$4.0 million); Counter-Terrorism Fund (¥$5.6 million); FEMA (¥$5.6 million); S&T (¥$6.9 million); DNDO 

(¥$8.0 million). 

5 In order to obtain comparable figures, Net Discretionary, Gross Discretionary, and Total Budget Authority excludes: (1) Fiscal year 2009 supplemental fund- ing pursuant to Pub. L. 110–252: USCG ($112 million). (2) Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 111–5 (ARRA): USM ($200 million); OIG ($5 million); CBP ($680 million); ICE ($20 million); TSA ($1.0 billion); USCG ($240 million); FEMA ($610 million). (3) Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pur- suant to Pub. L. 111–8: USSS ($100 million). (4) Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 111–32: CBP ($51.2 million); ICE ($66.8 million); USCG ($139.5 million); FEMA ($130.0 million). (5) Pursuant to Pub. L. 111–32 reflects fiscal year 2009 rescissions of prior year unobligated balances: FEMA 

(¥$100.0 million). (6) Fiscal year 2010 Overseas Contingency Operations funding provided in Pub. L. 111–83: USCG ($241.5 million). (7) Fiscal year 2010 Sup- plemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 111–117: USCG ($54.0 million). 
17 

NET DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY BY ORGANIZATION 

Excludes Discretionary Offsetting Fees & Mandatory, Non-Offsetting Fees, & Trust Funds 

Fiscal Year 2009 

Revised Enacted 1

Fiscal Year 2010 

Revised Enacted 2

Fiscal Year 2011 

President’s Budget 

Fiscal Year 2011 

∂/¥ Fiscal Year 

2010 Enacted 

Fiscal Year 2011 

∂/¥ Fiscal Year 

2010 Enacted 

[Thousands] [Thousands] [Thousands] [Thousands] [Percent] 

Departmental Operations 3 ............................................... $659,109 $802,931 $1,270,821 $467,890 58 

Analysis and Operations .................................................. 327,373 335,030 347,930 12,900 4 Office of the Inspector General ........................................ 114,513 113,874 129,806 15,932 14 U.S. Customs & Border Protection .................................. 9,803,667 10,134,554 9,817,117 (317,437 ) ¥3 

U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement .................... 5,005,615 5,436,952 5,523,800 86,848 2 Transportation Security Administration ......................... 4,369,358 5,129,505 5,724,000 594,495 12 U.S. Coast Guard .............................................................. 8,104,707 8,541,749 8,466,537 (75,212 ) ¥1 U.S. Secret Service ............................................................ 1,415,444 1,482,644 1,571,617 88,973 6 National Protection and Programs Directorate .............. 1,188,263 1,317,755 1,246,715 (71,040 ) ¥5 Office of Health Affairs ..................................................... 157,621 139,250 212,734 73,484 53 Federal Emergency Management Agency ....................... 2,777,560 2,963,268 3,292,860 329,592 11 FEMA: Grant Programs ................................................... 4,220,858 4,165,200 4,000,590 (164,610 ) ¥4 U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services ....................... 152,490 224,000 385,800 161,800 72 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center .................... 332,986 282,812 278,375 (4,437 ) ¥2 S&T Directorate ................................................................ 932,587 1,006,471 1,018,264 11,793 1 Domestic Nuclear Detection Office .................................. 514,191 383,037 305,820 (77,217 ) ¥20 

TOTAL .................................................................... 40,076,342 42,459,032 43,592,786 1,133,754 2 .67 

Less Rescission of Prior Year Carryover Funds 4 ........... (61,373 ) (40,474 ) ......................... ¥40,474 ¥100 

Mandatory, Fees, and Trusts ........................................... 12,694,734 12,929,301 12,742,951 ......................... .........................ADJUSTED TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY ................ 52,709,703 55,347,859 56,335,737 987,878 2 

SUPPLEMENTAL5 .......................................................... 3,354,503 295,503 ......................... (295,503 ) .........................
18 

NET DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY BY ORGANIZATION—Continued 

Excludes Discretionary Offsetting Fees & Mandatory, Non-Offsetting Fees, & Trust Funds 

Fiscal Year 2009 

Revised Enacted 1

Fiscal Year 2010 

Revised Enacted 2

Fiscal Year 2011 

President’s Budget 

Fiscal Year 2011 

∂/¥ Fiscal Year 

2010 Enacted 

Fiscal Year 2011 

∂/¥ Fiscal Year 

2010 Enacted 

[Thousands] [Thousands] [Thousands] [Thousands] [Percent] 

Less Rescission of Prior Year Carryover Funds 5 ........... (100,000 ) ......................... ......................... ......................... .........................

1Fiscal year 2009 revised enacted reflects: (1) Net reprogramming/transfer adjustments for OSEM ($17.4 million); OIG ($16.0 million); CBP (¥$24.1 million); ICE ($16.4 million); TSA ($14.4 million); USCG ($.400 million); USSS ($2.5 million); NPPD ($30 million); OHA ($.430 million); FEMA (¥$39.5 million). (2) Technical adjustments to revise fee/trust fund estimates for ICE—Immigration Inspection User Fee ($7.0 million); ICE—Detention and Removal Examination Fee ($1.4 million); ICE—Breached Bond/Detention Fund ($15.0 million); TSA—Transportation Threat and Credentialing—Registered Traveler (¥$10.0 million), TSA— Transportation Threat and Credentialing—Transportation Worker Identification Credentials ($22.7 million); TSA—Transportation Threat and Credentialing— 

HAZMAT (¥$3.0 million); TSA—Transportation Threat and Credentialing—Alien Flight School ($1.0 million); CIS ($185.4 million); USCG ($7.9 million). (3) Realignment of USCG Operating Expenses funding and Pursuant to Pub. L. 110–53 reflects TSA realignment of funds for 9/11 Commission Act implementation ($3.675 million—Aviation Security, $13.825 million—Surface, $2.5 million—Support). (4) Scorekeeping adjustment for a rescission of prior year unobligated balances from USCG—AC&I (¥$20.0 million). 2Fiscal year 2010 revised enacted reflects: (1) Technical adjustments for TSA Aviation Security Fees of ($128.9 million); USCG Health Care Fund ($5.0 million). (2) Scorekeeping adjustment for a rescission of prior year unobligated balances from USCG—AC&I (¥$.800 million). (3) For comparability purposes, ex- cludes USCG Overseas Contingency Operations ($241.5 million) and National Science Foundation transfer to USCG of $54.0 million. 3Departmental Operations is comprised of the Office of the Secretary & Executive Management, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, and the National 

Special Security Events Fund (NSSE). 4Pursuant to Pub. L. 110–329, reflects fiscal year 2009 rescissions of prior year unobligated balances: Analysis and Operations (¥$21.373 million); TSA 

(¥$31.0 million); FEMA—Cerro Grande (¥$9.0 million). Pursuant to Pub. L. 111–83, reflects fiscal year 2010 rescissions of prior year unobligated balances: 

Analysis and Operations (¥$2.4 million); TSA (¥$4.0 million); Counter-Terrorism Fund (¥$5.6 million); FEMA (¥$5.6 million); S&T (¥$6.9 million); DNDO 

(¥$8.0 million). 

5 In order to obtain comparable figures, Net Discretionary, Gross Discretionary, and Total Budget Authority excludes: (1) Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 110–252: USCG ($112 million). (2) Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 111–5 (ARRA): USM ($200 million); OIG ($5 million); CBP ($680 million); ICE ($20 million); TSA ($1.0 billion); USCG ($240 million); FEMA ($610 million). (3) Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursu- ant to Pub. L. 111–8: USSS ($100 million). (4) Fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 111–32: CBP ($51.2 million); ICE ($66.8 million); USCG ($139.5 million); FEMA ($130.0 million). (5) Pursuant to Pub. L. 111–32 reflects fiscal year 2009 rescissions of prior year unobligated balances: FEMA 

(¥$100.0 million). (6) Fiscal year 2010 Overseas Contingency Operations funding provided in Pub. L. 111–83: USCG ($241.5 million). (7) Fiscal year 2010 Sup- plemental funding pursuant to Pub. L. 111–117: USCG ($54.0 million). 
19 

KEY FISCAL YEAR 2009 ACCOMPLISHMENTS & REFORMS

In 2009, our 230,000 employees strengthened existing efforts and launched new 

initiatives to meet our five key responsibilities: Guarding against terrorism; securing our borders; engaging in smart, effective enforcement of immigration laws; preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters of all kinds; and building 

a mature and unified Department. 

DHS has emphasized three cross-cutting approaches to achieve these aims—increasing cooperation with Federal, State, Tribal, local, private sector, and international partners; deploying the latest science and technology to support our mission; and maximizing efficiency and streamlining operations across the Department. 

As a result, we have made major advances in addressing new and emerging 

threats to keep our homeland safe, fostering lawful trade and travel and continuing 

to build a ready and resilient Nation able to meet the challenges of the 21st century. 

The following are some key initiatives accomplished this past year. 

Guarding Against Terrorism and Threats to Cyber Networks and Critical Infrastructure 

Protecting the American people from terrorist threats is the founding purpose of 

the Department and a top priority. Over the past year, DHS has continued to guard 

against terrorism by enhancing explosives detection and other protective measures 

in public spaces and transportation networks, working with the private sector to 

protect critical infrastructure and cyber networks from attack, improving detection 

of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials, and building informationsharing partnerships with State and local law enforcement that enable law enforcement to better mitigate threats. 

• Fulfilling a key 9/11 Commission recommendation, TSA began implementing 

Secure Flight, which prescreens passenger name, date of birth, and gender 

against Government watch lists for domestic and international flights. 

• TSA achieved the 9/11 Act requirement of screening 50 percent of air cargo 

transported on domestic passenger aircrafts by February 3, 2009. Currently, 

100 percent of cargo is screened on more than 95 percent of flights originating 

in the United States and 100 percent of all baggage is screened for explosives. 

• The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office directly trained more than 3,600 Federal, State, and local officers and first responders in radiological and nuclear detection and began demonstrating the first-of-its-kind Cargo Advanced Automated Radiography System, which aims to detect special nuclear materials and 

shielding material in cargo at ports of entry. 

• DHS opened the new National Cyber Security and Communications Integration 

Center—a 24-hour, DHS-led coordinated watch and warning center that will improve National efforts to address threats and incidents affecting the Nation’s 

critical IT and cyber infrastructure. 

• DHS worked with the Office of Personnel Management to attain new authority 

to recruit and hire up to 1,000 cyber security professionals across the Department over the next 3 years to help fulfill DHS’ broad mission to protect the Nation’s cyber infrastructure, systems, and networks. 

• S&T partnered with the U.S. Secret Service, industry, and academia to digitize 

more than 9,000 ink samples to expedite the investigation of criminal and terrorist activities by reducing matching times from days to minutes. 

• DHS held the 5-day National Level Exercise 2009—the first National-level exercise to focus on terrorism prevention—in conjunction with Federal, State, local, 

Tribal, private sector, and international partners. 

• In accordance with the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards Act 

(CFATS), which allows DHS to regulate the security measures at high-risk 

chemical facilities, DHS is working with 2,300 facilities on strengthening security measures. In 2009, DHS received Site Security Plans from over 900 regulated facilities. 

• DHS signed agreements to prevent and combat crime with Italy, Greece, Portugal, and Spain. These agreements allow for the exchange of biometric and biographic data to bolster counterterrorism and law enforcement efforts while emphasizing privacy protections. 

• DHS and Spanish Interior Minister Perez Rubalcaba signed a Declaration of 

Principles formalizing the Immigration Advisory Program—which identifies 

high-risk travelers at foreign airports before they board aircraft bound for the 

United States. 

• DHS forged partnerships with Germany and Spain to facilitate scientific research and collaboration to combat transnational threats. 
20 

• DHS and Canadian Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan announced a series 

of cooperative initiatives between the United States and Canada to address terrorism and organized crime while expediting the lawful flow of travel and 

trade—including a biometric data sharing initiative also involving Australia, 

the United Kingdom and, eventually, New Zealand. 

Securing Our Borders While Facilitating Lawful Travel and Trade 

In 2009, DHS continued to strengthen security on the Southwest border through 

additional manpower and new technology to disrupt the flow of illegal drug, cash, 

and weapon smuggling that fuels cartel violence in Mexico. The Department also reinforced security on the Northern border while facilitating lawful travel and trade. 

• The Obama administration announced the Southwest Border Security Initiative, 

a joint effort of the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State to 

crack down on Mexican drug cartels by enhancing border security through additional personnel, increased intelligence capability, and better coordination with 

State, local, and Mexican law enforcement authorities. As of December 8, 2009, 

CBP has seized more than $38.3 million in southbound currency—an increase 

of more than $29.3 million compared to the same period in 2008. In total thus 

far in 2009, CBP and ICE have seized more than $101.7 million and nearly 1.59 

million kilograms of drugs—an increase of more than $48.2 million and more 

than 423,167 kilograms of drugs compared to the same period in 2008. 

• DHS implemented the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative for land and sea 

travel to the United States, increasing border security while facilitating lawful 

travel and trade by requiring U.S. and Canadian citizens to present a passport 

or other approved secure document that denotes identity and citizenship when 

crossing the border. 

• DHS and the Department of Justice joined with the Office of National Drug 

Control Policy to release the National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy, the Obama administration’s strategy to stem the flow of illegal drugs and 

their illicit proceeds across the Southwest border and reduce associated crime 

and violence. 

• The Department announced the expansion of Global Entry—a CBP pilot program that streamlines the screening process at airports for trusted travelers 

through biometric identification—as a permanent voluntary program at airports 

across the United States. Global Entry reduces average wait times by more 

than 70 percent and more than 75 percent of travelers using Global Entry are 

admitted in less than 5 minutes. 

• DHS launched a joint Coast Guard-CBP effort to use Predator Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) to provide improved surveillance of the United States’ maritime borders. DHS will conduct the first UAS operations along maritime borders in 2010. 

• DHS, the Department of Justice, and the Government of Mexico signed a Letter 

of Intent to develop a coordinated and intelligence-driven response to the threat 

of cross-border smuggling and trafficking of weapons and ammunition. This 

first-of-its-kind arrangement leverages the combined investigative capabilities of 

ICE, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Attorney 

General of Mexico to combat violence and criminal activity along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

• Through Global Entry, DHS launched a first-of-its-kind initiative with the 

Netherlands to open membership in U.S. and Dutch expedited air travel programs to citizens of both countries in an effort to streamline entry processes for 

pre-screened fliers. 

Engaging in Smart, Effective Immigration Law Enforcement 

Over the past year, DHS has strengthened its immigration enforcement activities, 

targeting criminal aliens and employers who violate the Nation’s immigration laws, 

while making improvements to the legal immigration system. 

• DHS implemented a new, comprehensive strategy to reduce the demand for illegal employment and protect employment opportunities for the Nation’s lawful 

workforce by targeting employers who knowingly hire illegal workers through 

investigations, prosecution, and civil and criminal penalties. Since January 

2009, DHS’ new worksite enforcement policies have led to 1,897 cases and 2,069 

Form I–9 inspections targeting employers, 58 companies and 62 individuals 

debarred, and 142 Notices of Intent to Fine totaling $15,865,181 issued. 

• DHS is reforming the immigration detention system, enhancing security and efficiency Nation-wide while prioritizing the health and safety of detainees. New 

initiatives include creating an Office of Detention Policy and Planning to ensure 

uniform conditions of confinement, medical care, and design; implementing a 
21 

medical classification system; centralizing all detention facility contracts under 

ICE headquarters’ supervision; developing a plan for alternatives to detention; 

more than doubling the number of Federal personnel providing on-site oversight 

at the facilities where the majority of detainees are housed; creating two advisory boards comprised of community and immigration advocacy groups; and establishing an independent Office of Detention Oversight reporting directly to 

the ICE Assistant Secretary. 

• DHS expanded the Secure Communities initiative—which uses biometric information to target criminal aliens in U.S. correctional facilities—from 14 to 107 

locations in 2009, reflecting an increased emphasis on identifying and removing 

criminal aliens who pose the greatest threat to public safety. To date, the program has identified more than 111,000 aliens in jails and prisons who have 

been charged with or convicted of criminal offenses. 

• USCIS and the FBI cleared the backlog of a year or more for background checks 

on people seeking to work and live in the United States or become citizens— 

reflecting DHS’ commitment to quick, thorough, and fair adjudication of immigration applications. The vast majority of these checks are now answered within 

30 days. At the end of fiscal year 2009, USCIS also reduced the backlog of pending immigration applications and petitions by more than 90 percent and reduced average processing times for naturalization applicants by nearly 5 

months as compared to fiscal year 2008. 

• USCIS launched a redesigned website—available in English and Spanish— 

which provides a one-stop location for immigration services and information, including real-time alerts on the status of immigration applications via text message and e-mail. 

• USCIS increased employer participation in E-Verify, the Nation’s preeminent 

employment eligibility verification system, from 88,000 companies at the end of 

fiscal year 2008 to more than 177,000 employers today. 

Preparing for, Responding to, and Recovering From Disasters 

In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other large-scale emergency, 

the Department provides a coordinated, comprehensive Federal response and works 

with Federal, State, local, and private sector partners to ensure a swift and effective 

recovery effort. This year, DHS increased efforts to build a ready and resilient Nation by providing grants and training to our homeland security and law enforcement 

partners, coordinating the Federal Government’s response to H1N1, and streamlining rebuilding and recovery along the Gulf Coast. 

• DHS led the Federal response to the H1N1 outbreak, creating regional coordination teams comprised of representatives from DHS and the Departments of 

Defense and Health and Human Services to oversee, coordinate, and execute 

National incident management responsibilities. DHS also coordinated outreach 

efforts to Congressional, State, local, Tribal, private sector, and international officials regarding the H1N1 outbreak. 

• Since January 20, 2009, Louisiana and Mississippi have received more than 

$2.1 billion in public assistance from DHS, including $125 million for debris removal and emergency protective measures, $935.5 million in public works and 

infrastructure projects, $258 million for mitigation activities to increase resilience and more than $542 million for K–12 education. In addition, more than 

6,000 displaced households in Louisiana and Mississippi have been transitioned 

to permanent housing. 

• To cut through red tape and streamline and expedite the decision-making process for public assistance for recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast, DHS established 

two joint public assistance teams and a new arbitration process to resolve longstanding issues over public assistance funding. Over the past 10 months, the 

Joint Expediting Team and the Unified Public Assistance Project Decision Team 

have resolved 156 projects, distributing more than $100 million dollars to support the repair and replacement of fire and police stations, schools like the 

Southern University of New Orleans and Holy Cross School, libraries, and other 

infrastructure critical to the recovery of Gulf Coast communities. 

• FEMA has responded to 47 declared disasters since January 21, 2009, including 

the Red River flooding in North Dakota and Minnesota, the September flooding 

in Georgia, and the earthquake and tsunami that struck American Samoa. 

Unifying and Maturing DHS 

Six years since the Department’s creation, DHS’ goal remains the same: One enterprise dedicated to a shared vision for homeland security. Over the past year, 

DHS implemented a series of wide-ranging efficiency initiatives that leverage the 

economies of scale in DHS in order to recover millions of dollars and create a culture 
22 

of responsibility and fiscal discipline. At the same time, the Department leveraged 

new technology to improve DHS operations, coordination, and outreach. 

• DHS broke ground on its new headquarters at the St. Elizabeths Campus. 

While DHS currently operates in more than 40 offices around the National Capitol Region, the consolidated headquarters will unify DHS’ many components 

into one cohesive department and is expected to save taxpayers $163 million 

over the next 30 years. 

• DHS launched the Efficiency Review Initiative to improve efficiency, streamline 

operations, and promote greater accountability, transparency, and customer satisfaction through a series of initiatives—including eliminating non-mission critical travel, renegotiating contracts, utilizing Government facilities instead of 

private rentals, reducing printing and postal mail and maximizing the use of 

web-based communication, training and meetings, implementing energy efficiencies in DHS facilities and maximizing DHS’ buying power to receive the 

lowest price possible when acquiring office supplies and software licenses. These 

initiatives collectively are expected to lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in 

cost avoidances. This past year, DHS identified more than $100 million in cost 

savings including $22 million by eliminating non-mission critical travel; $16 by 

utilizing software licensing agreements DHS-wide; $7 million through the mandatory review of contracts; $9 million by eliminating redundancy in processing 

mariner credentials; $8 million by consolidating the DHS sensitive-but-unclassified portal system; almost $4 million by posting documents on-line or using email in lieu of printing and postal mail; $2 million by streamlining boat maintenance and support schedules; $2 million by utilizing Government facilities instead of private rentals; almost $2 million by increasing energy efficiencies at 

facilities and many more examples across the Department. 

• S&T launched the Virtual USA initiative, an innovative, information-sharing 

initiative that helps Federal, State, local, and Tribal first responders communicate during emergencies by linking disparate tools and technologies in order 

to share the location and status of critical assets and information—such as 

power and water lines, flood detectors, helicopter-capable landing sites, emergency vehicle and ambulance locations, weather and traffic conditions, evacuation routes and school and Government building floor plans—across Federal, 

State, local, and Tribal governments. 

SELECTED DHS HIGH-PRIORITY PERFORMANCE GOALS

Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security 

• Improve security screening of passengers, baggage, and employees while expediting the movement of the traveling public (aviation and surface transportation 

security).—Fiscal year 2011 initiatives include deploying new technology, law 

enforcement, and canine assets at domestic airports, enhancing checkpoint technology, implementing the Transportation Workers Identification Credential 

(TWIC) program—which requires transportations workers to obtain a biometric 

identification card to gain access to secure areas of transportation facilities, and 

strengthening our Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams— 

which use unpredictability to deter, detect, and disrupt potential terrorist activities, will help us to achieve these goals. 

Securing and Managing Our Borders 

• Prevent terrorist movement at land ports of entry and maritime borders through 

enhanced screening while expediting the flow of legitimate travel.—Fiscal year 

2011 initiatives include implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative 

by deploying new technology, upgrading our processing capabilities at border 

checkpoints, and enhancing information sharing among law enforcement, as 

well as continuing recapitalization of aging Coast Guard surface and air assets 

to quickly and effectively respond to emerging threats. 

Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws 

• Improve the efficiency of the process to detain and remove illegal immigrants 

from the United States. 

• Improve the delivery of immigration services.—Fiscal year 2011 initiatives include increasing our targets for detaining and removing dangerous criminal 

aliens from the United States through our Secure Communities program— 

which uses biometrics to identify and remove criminal aliens incarcerated in 

State and local jails—by 4 percent per year. Additionally, we will improve the 

delivery of immigration services by modernizing our adjudication process for 

new immigrants and potential citizens. 
23 

Ensuring Resilience to Disasters 

• Strengthen disaster preparedness and response by improving FEMA’s operational capabilities and enhancing State, local, and private citizen preparedness.—In fiscal year 2011, FEMA will continue to enhance its training programs 

to help State and local entities prepare for all types of disasters. FEMA is also 

developing a National strategy to house up to half a million households within 

60 days of a disaster—increasing current capacity by 200 percent. 

Maturing and Strengthening the Homeland Security Enterprise 

• Mature and unify the Homeland Security Enterprise through effective information sharing. 

• Improve acquisition execution across the DHS acquisition portfolio, by ensuring 

key acquisition expertise resides in major program office and acquisition oversight staffs throughout the Department.—In fiscal year 2011, our efforts will 

focus on information sharing across all departmental components. Additionally, 

the Department is undertaking an initiative to enhance the capability and capacity of its acquisition workforce to ensure that major acquisition projects do 

not exceed cost, schedule, and performance objectives. 

We will focus on these goals over the next 2 years and continue to work closely 

with the Office of Management and Budget in the monitoring and reporting of milestones and performance measures associated with them. As we continue the BottomUp Review associated with the QHSR, we may update these goals and associated 

measures. 

CONCLUSION

The fiscal year 2011 budget proposal reflects this administration’s continued commitment to protecting the homeland and the American people through the effective 

and efficient use of DHS resources. As outlined in my testimony today, the Department will build on past successes in several areas including information sharing 

with our partners, aviation and port security measures, and immigration reform efforts. 

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I look forward to answering 

your questions and to working with you on the fiscal year 2011 budget request and 

other issues. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I will remind each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes 

to question the Secretary. I will now recognize myself for the first 

question. 

Madame Secretary, it goes to the issue of maritime cargo screening. Congress thought, along with leadership, Ms. Harman and 

some other folks, that our ports and the whole issue of screening 

and the vulnerabilities associated with not knowing what is coming 

into the country was a real issue. We passed legislation mandating 

100 percent scanning by 2012. 

Since that time the Secretary before you and now you have taken 

the position that it can’t be done. This budget reflects a 48 percent 

decrease in resources to do that. Explain that to the committee, 

please. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The monies requested for the Container 

Security Initiative reflects the fact that with increasing technology 

and increasing implementation of initiatives that were begun under 

my predecessor, that we can achieve the screening necessary of 

containers and cargo with the 10∂2 rule, which is now in effect 

with electronic records of what is in cargo, which is now in effect 

with 24-hour notice of what is in cargo, which is now in effect, all 

things that didn’t exist, really, at the time that the 100 percent requirement was contemplated. So we have been addressing this 

from a risk-based and a technology-based approach to get to where 

we need to be. 
24 

Chairman THOMPSON. Are you going to propose to change the 

law that Congress established, saying 2012 is the date that the 100 

percent has to be maintained? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I think I have been pretty—my assessment, and I looked at it independently of my predecessor, but my assessment has turned out to be the same as his, 

which is that the 100 percent requirement is not achievable by 

2012. So we will need to work with the committee this year on 

what we are asking for, how it will secure our ports, and what statutory changes may need to be made. 

Chairman THOMPSON. So based on what you just said, what is 

your best guess as to when 100 percent cargo screening will be attained? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like the opportunity to address with the committee, if not today, at some other 

time, whether the 100 percent screening is really the way to go, 

now that we know more than we did when the 100 percent screening requirement was imposed. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Let me say it would benefit the relationship if that request would come before we read it in the paper that 

you can’t do it. Our expectations, Madame Secretary, is that if 

there is a law with deadlines on it and there are problems, please 

come talk to us. But when we read about it in the newspaper that 

you are not going to do it, it is a problem. 

I say to you if you can’t do it, we hear the part, but the public 

expects some direction toward satisfying the 100 percent mandate. 

Congress expects it. 

The other issue is last year you talked about the issue of collective bargaining rights for TSOs. Can you tell me, based on last 

year you told us that you were checking with general counsel and 

general counsel would tell you whether you could do it, do you have 

the authority to act administratively on collective bargaining 

rights? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me take two points, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I am sorry if you read about the 100 percent in the 

paper. I have testified on that before, before in the Senate, and I 

think I also submitted some statements in that regard. 

But I think we need to further that dialogue, because we need 

to look at what is the best way to secure our ports, the cargo that 

comes into the ports, and the myriad ways that cargo comes into 

our ports. The plain fact of the matter is I think we just plain know 

more now than we did when the 100 percent requirement was developed. 

So I look forward to testifying or bringing information before this 

committee, because we have—I know I have, at least—testified at 

least once on this. 

Moving forward on the collective bargaining issue, my understanding is that we do have the authority to collective bargaining 

under the current law. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Do you plan to exercise this authority? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We are working with our TSOs, but we 

are not collectively bargaining with them right now. 

Chairman THOMPSON. You are aware that we have had a vote in 

the House on this issue in the past—— 
25 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Chairman THOMPSON [continuing]. And that the House said it is 

fine to do it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. 

I will yield to the Ranking Member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madame Secretary, on the issue of Secure the Cities, you and I 

have been through this before, but the House has in a number of 

times in separate votes overwhelmingly indicated support for this 

program. I believe it is absolutely essential. If we look at Madrid, 

if we look at London, it is very likely the next attack against a 

major urban area is going to come from outside. 

The ultimate nightmare would be a dirty bomb coming in. New 

York City has set up a Secure the Cities nuclear detection system, 

basically, which forms a guard around the city, the highways, the 

bridges, tunnels leading into the city from the suburbs. It involves, 

I believe, 70 different law enforcement agencies from throughout 

New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and yet it has been zeroed out 

in this year’s budget. 

We seem to go through the same argument. The money hasn’t 

been spent. Actually, as far as I know—I have been going through 

it—all the money has either been spent or obligated or is awaiting 

approval. 

For instance, on the 2009 funding, even though the budget was 

adopted, you know, long ago, it was not awarded to New York until 

October 2009. Still, applications are in, and so there is really no 

money to be accounted for. It is either spent, obligated, or awaiting 

approval from the Department, from DNDO. 

I just think a serious mistake is being made here. It puts the city 

at risk, and not just New York City, but the way the legislation is 

drafted, money will also be spent in other cities around the country. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Congressman, first of all, I recognize that 

New York City and the area around it is a target, as far—and we 

know that. It receives literally hundreds of millions in various programs because of that. 

Securing the Cities, however, was one small program relative to 

the denominator. It was designed to be a 3-year grant program, 

after which if New York City wished to pursue it, they could use 

UASI or other grant monies. 

We do have one of these budgeteer issues going on. Has New 

York City actually even obligated the money they have already received that is in the pipeline or not? Our budgeteers say they 

haven’t. I am given to understand that New York City believes it 

has. Somewhere there ought to be an agreement there, but there 

is that. 

But the more important point, I think, is that as a pilot program, 

which it was, a 3-year, it has not yet now—it is now time for be— 

to be really assessed independently as to whether it is effective or 

not, given and comparing it to other types of protective technologies 

and programs that are available there. 

I think that that audit—or it is not an audit; it is really an assessment—will be happening this year, but we need to proceed for-
26 

ward and really make sure that if we are going to continue funding 

Securing the Cities, if the Congress wants to, it really is value 

added to the other millions of dollars that we are putting into the 

greater New York area. 

Mr. KING. Again, there is, then, I would say a basic misunderstanding. I don’t believe it was ever believed by New York that this 

was just going to end after 3 years as far as the funding—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. Just by the nature of the program. I think 

it is not just New York. It is New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, 

over 70 police departments and law enforcement agencies. I will let 

my friend, Mr. Pascrell, discuss it later. 

But it was never my understanding or anyone in the city, I don’t 

believe, that this was to end after 3 years. It just wouldn’t make 

sense. But in any event, I would like to follow this through with 

you and perhaps set up meetings with Commissioner Kelly on that. 

On the issue of the 9/11 trial in New York, were you ever consulted prior to the announcement by the Attorney General that it 

was going to be held in New York? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I was not. 

Mr. KING. Okay. My understanding is you have been appointed— 

you were, or the DHS was, part of a task force after the fact to determine the security course of the trial in Lower Manhattan. I had 

sent a letter to you and to the attorney general and to Director 

Leiter on January 29 requesting a copy of the classified threat assessment. I have not heard from you. 

I realize you have many letters on your desk and you have a broken leg, but if you could get that to us, because that to me, I would 

like to see how that threat assessment is being analyzed, what was 

taken into account, even if it was after the fact, especially in view 

of the Vice President’s statement that he thinks that the number 

of $200 million or $230 million is an exaggeration. So if you can 

make that classified report available to us on the committee, it 

would be very, very helpful. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, I will follow up on that. I believe the 

budget request is for up to $200 million for terrorism trials per se. 

I think that contemplates that there could be other trials as well 

during fiscal year 2011. I know, Representative, you are focused on 

the KSM announcement, the KSM trial, but I believe the actual 

budget request was a little broader than that. 

Mr. KING. I see my time is running out. Let me just ask one 

quick question for yes or no. Are you aware of any of the cities that 

are being considered for a Guantanamo detainee trial? You said the 

money could go places other than New York. Are you aware of any 

other city? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is my understanding that those assessments are being done by the Department of Justice. 

Mr. KING. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Now I recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes. Mr. 

Cuellar. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman—— 
27 

Madame Secretary, good seeing you again—just to note procedural issue that I think was raised by the Chairman, one of the 

questions that we had asked was what was it, the 181 Border Patrol. I think at one time you all had said we are going to cut them 

by attrition, and then it came back and said we are not going to 

cut them. 

Alison, our staff, got the e-mail from you all today saying, ‘‘Let 

Mr. Cuellar know we are not cutting 181 Border Patrol as originally proposed. We are taking this money elsewhere out from CBP 

to cover the $50 million comp.’’ 

The problem is we get this around 12:30 today, and we read it 

before that time in the—what was it—in the newspaper today. It 

is one of the issues that we have been asking, Madame Chair—I 

mean, Madame Secretary, that, you know, we are the oversight 

committee. We would like to get this before the media does, because when the media gets this—and nothing against the media— 

but when they get it before we do as oversighters, it just puts us 

in a very uncomfortable situation. 

So I would ask you again, you know, if you can just have your 

staff trust us and provide us the information before the media does. 

I mean, I have the memo here from Alison. I asked her, ‘‘When did 

you exactly get it,’’ and then the newspapers. So I would ask you 

as a procedural question to do that. 

The second thing is is the Coast Guard, the memo about them 

reducing the global terrorism missions. I am looking at it right 

now, and I am not going to go into detail, but if there is going to 

be a change in the mission, the mission of the Coast Guard, and 

you are taking the global terrorism mission to do more search or 

rescue, again, like the Chairman said, let us know before. At least 

give us a little heads-up on some of the matters again. 

We want to work with you. We want to be your friend and supporter on this. We want to just ask you to work with us on this. 

Do you want to address this? I want to talk about the good work 

you do with Mexico, which is what I want to conclude with. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, if I might, that clarification on the 

CBP budget request was that is an exchange that has been going 

on with the appropriators, and I will let staff work with your staff 

on it. Do you want that? But if the press picked up something that 

was going on back and forth with the appropriators, I think that 

explains that. That is traditionally how that has been done. 

I think the Coast Guard memo to which you refer is a internal 

draft option paper that goes all the way back to last November and 

before the President’s budget was even finalized. It is not something that is operative, nor is it where the President nor I believe 

the Coast Guard should go. 

So, unfortunately, it is one of those things in this town. Paper 

leaks out like water through a sieve, and that should—but that is 

an internal pre-decisional paper. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay. Thank you. So it is not—okay, good. 

On the story that came out also today, and the Washington Post 

apparently picked up a lot of things today, the question is about 

contractors outnumbering Federal workers. I saw your response to 

Senator Lieberman. My thing is I can understand the usage of 
28 

some contractors. I don’t have a problem against contractors, but, 

you know, you got to have some sort of balance. 

My only thing is that if you provide performance and oversight 

and performance measures to make sure that we are measuring 

that is that I am hoping that that is applying to those individuals, 

because if this story, and it is probably wrong, says that contractors employed by Homeland outnumber the number of Homeland 

Security people, I think that is going to raise some issues to a lot 

of Members on that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Does it outnumber? Do contractors outnumber? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, it doesn’t outnumber, but 

it is too high a number. There are reasons for that. When the Department was put together so quickly, given all the missions that 

it had and that were added to it, in order to move quickly enough, 

the use of contractors was required. 

What the Department has not had is a plan in place to convert 

those positions into Federal employees. That is what we are now 

pursuing through the Balanced Workforce Initiative. A problem we 

have in speeding that up—and I would like to speed it up, Mr. 

Chairman—is the pure length of time that it takes to on-board a 

Federal employee under the current statute rules and regs that 

govern civilian employment. 

It is something that at Senate Homeland Security yesterday, I 

said it is a problem Government-wide. But certainly for DHS as the 

newest department, it has slowed down, a conversion that we 

would like to do as rapidly as possible. 

Mr. CUELLAR. My time is up, but just whatever you do working 

with Mexico—I know you were over there, and I want to congratulate you—keep up the good work, because I think we need to do 

a little bit more. We might have to look at, my opinion, maybe at 

2.0, because they are in serious situations in what is happening. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madame Secretary, for the work that you do. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

Madame Secretary, if you could provide the committee with some 

outline of who these 200,000 people are. I know you can categorize 

them, you can do whatever you want, but based on what Mr. 

Cuellar is saying, we need to know are these professional people? 

Are these clerical people, or just what they are? So you don’t have 

to give the title position, but—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Kind of categories? 

Chairman THOMPSON. Absolutely. That would help. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think we already have that, but we will 

get that to you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to recognize Mr. Dent out 

of order. He has a family emergency he is going to have to attend. 

Without objection. Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the Members for your accommodation. 

Madame Secretary, thank you for being here, and particularly 

under your situation with your ankle. I just have a few questions 
29 

for you today, but first just let me discuss an issue near and dear 

to the hearts of my fellow Pennsylvanians. 

Madame Secretary, I cannot support and in fact, I will vehemently oppose any attempt by the administration to relocate Guantanamo terror detainees to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

whether for detention or for prosecution, especially given the Flight 

93 crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on 9/11. 

Having recently visited the Gitmo facilities, I see absolutely no 

reason why these trials must be held in this country in the United 

States, let alone in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and I will 

do everything within my power to prevent detainee trials from 

being held within the Commonwealth. Please, please encourage the 

Justice Department to look elsewhere. Certainly, I know that—I 

believe that is in their court. Please convey that message. 

That being said, I have some issues regarding the Department’s 

budget request that I would like to discuss with you. In 2008 the 

Department promulgated the Larger Aircraft Security Program, 

known as the LASP program, the proposed rulemaking regarding 

general aviation security. John Sammon from TSA was working 

with industry to redefine those requirements to ensure that they 

were smart, sensible, and most importantly, enforceable. 

In light of the Austin, Texas, incident, can you please tell me 

where we are in the issuance of either an amended rulemaking or 

a completely new rulemaking for general aviation security? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Representative. We are, obviously, 

taking a fresh look. We had done a proposed rule. We have been 

working with the general aviation community. We have the comments back. We had been prepared to issue a revised rule, but I 

have asked that we take another look at the rules in light of what 

happened to just to make sure that we are making the right judgments in terms of what kinds of security measures should be in 

place for what size of aircraft. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. Thank you. I have long been a proponent of 

using this advanced imaging technology or whole body imaging, 

and I know that you have been supportive as well, for improving 

our passenger security screening capabilities. I appreciate the investment that this budget proposes in these new state-of-the-art 

technologies. 

However, even if we had these 500 new AIT machines in place, 

they wouldn’t have stopped Abdulmutallab from killing 300 people 

on Christmas day. He was—from almost killing 300 people—he 

was screened overseas. 

While I understand you have been working with the International Civil Aviation Organization to strengthen these international security standards, are you willing to go it alone and require tougher security standards for flights entering the United 

States if the ICAO proves unhelpful? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the international aviation security 

work that we are doing right now is going very, very well. We have 

had meetings in Spain with my colleagues from the European 

Union. We just came back from Mexico City, where we had a Western Hemispheric meeting. 

Everybody realized that they all had citizenry on Flight 253—or 

could have—and that there was a necessity to raise world aviation 
30 

standards in terms of information collection, in terms of sharing information about passengers, passenger vetting, and in terms of airport screening and security itself. So that is going very well. We 

will be in Tokyo next week to meet with the aviation community 

in Asia. 

We always have the option, Representative, of refusing an airport to have a last point of embarkation to the United States. I 

don’t know that that option has ever been employed, but we always 

retain it. But I think it better, given the fact that people need to 

be able to travel and commerce needs to be able to move and as 

well as meeting our security demands, to see if we can in this global world raise the overall level of aviation security. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. Well, thank you for that update. 

In August of this year, the 9/11 Act passed by Congress 3 years 

ago would require all foreign in-bound passenger aircraft to screen 

its cargo prior to the aircraft’s entry into the United States. The 

Department and TSA made it quite clear that they will not be able 

to meet the statutory requirement. 

Since the law requires you to ensure that 100 percent of all air 

cargo is screened, how are you going to handle those foreign inbound aircraft who on August 4 had not screened their cargo? Will 

you prohibit their entry into the United States? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, I would prefer to brief 

you a little bit individually on that, but let me just say by the end 

of the year we should meet that 100 percent requirement on the 

air-bound cargo. 

Mr. DENT. Foreign air-bound cargo? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Foreign. We will by early this year we 

will be all domestic, but my understanding is by the end of the 

year we will get to 100 percent on air-bound cargo from international. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. I was under the impression that we were not 

going to meet that foreign standard by August 4, so I would be curious—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Not by August 4, but by a few months 

after that. I think we are on track to meet that standard. I will 

have that double-checked. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. Thank you. 

I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the accommodation. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Carney. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary, thank you for coming in today. It is good to see you. 

To start, I am going to start talking to you about the QHSRs. As 

you know, as the Chairman of the Management, Investigations and 

Oversight Subcommittee, we are pretty concerned about it. We 

have held a number of hearings and a number of briefings. I was 

really pleased to see the final product come out, although I think 

that there is probably some detail that is missing. 

Now, I know that you are going to issue fairly soon the BottomUp Review, the BUR. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The BUR, yes. 
31 

Mr. CARNEY. Yes. I am very interested to know a number of 

things. First of all, what is the date we are going to have that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, the BUR process is well 

under way. Sometime between the end of March and the beginning 

of April or the middle of April you should have the BUR. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. That is pushed a bit from what I was told 

earlier, but make it closer to the end of March, please. When will 

the Department start working on the next QHSR? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I have kind of been focused with getting 

that BUR done. Let me get back to you on that. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. When do you begin—when do you think you 

are going to start requesting funds for the next QHSR, though? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am not sure I understand the question, 

Representative. You mean to do the QHSR? 

Mr. CARNEY. If you do the next one, exactly, yes. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Okay. I apologize. I didn’t understand the 

question. I think it may be something that we look at in the 2012 

budget. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. Going forward, will the QHSR and the BUR 

be one document, then? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think that is ideally yes, for obvious 

reasons. But I think that in our desire and yours to move the 

QHSR through and given that when I began as Secretary, it really 

was not—— 

Mr. CARNEY. Ready for prime time. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. Had not been moved along, 

we wanted to move very, very rapidly and really establish the vision for the Department, matched by the BUR, which you will have 

very shortly. By the time we get to our second QHSR, we should 

be through that kind of disconnect. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. Good. 

I want to switch gears here slightly. As you know, at yesterday’s 

budget hearing in the Senate Homeland Security Committee, the 

Ranking Member stated that the inspector general was unable to 

make comments on time to OMB regarding the OIG budget request. The Ranking Member also stated that the IG told her that 

the budget requested for the OIG would ‘‘significantly inhibit his 

ability to carry out the responsibilities of his office.’’ 

Like many other offices, the OIG’s budget was flatlined. For fiscal year 2011 you are requesting $129 million, and according to the 

IG Reform Act, your budget request must include comments from 

the IG’s office about the resource needs, and no such comments 

were furnished for the 2011 budget. Do you know why that happened? Can you explain that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Again, I can explain because the IG’s 

budget has been increased the last few years, it was flatlined this 

year in light of the fiscal discipline that we were all undertaking. 

As I understand it, the IG put the comments in the Congressional 

justification, but again, you know, the IG is kind of a semi-independent wing, and they don’t go through us in that regard. 

Mr. CARNEY. Are they supposed to go through you in that regard? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No, I don’t think so. 
32 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. I want to read you an e-mail that we received 

this morning in my district office, and they forwarded to me before 

I came on. 

It said, ‘‘Dear Congressman Carney, I am very happy to know 

that you support the work of the Border Patrol in curtailing illegal 

immigration. For this reason I feel compelled to write you about a 

matter that my son recently spoke to my husband and I about. My 

son is a Border Patrol agent stationed in Tucson, Arizona. He has 

told us that funding for the Border Patrol has been cut and as a 

result, vehicles and equipment are not being maintained, overtime 

is being cut, and adequate manpower to provide backup and cover 

the vast terrain is not available. As parents, our concern for his 

safety while on the job is paramount. As an agent who loves his 

job, however, my son’s concern is that areas are being left 

unpatrolled and will allow free passage of drugs and illegals into 

the U.S.’’ 

How can we respond to this person’s mom? Is this true? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I would say, ‘‘Dear Mom, your son is 

highly misinformed.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

I know that Tucson sector like the back of my hand. I worked 

that Tucson sector since 1993. We have increased every possible resource there—manpower, equipment. We have built a new Border 

Patrol station. It is a key area for us, because the Arizona Sonora 

quarter is a lead quarter for illegal immigration and drug trafficking. I would be happy to give you some direct numbers just on 

the Tucson sector, but I would be happy to write the mom myself, 

if you would like me to. 

Mr. CARNEY. Well, I may take you up on that offer. Thanks. 

[Laughter.] 

But I am fairly familiar with the sector as well, and we have 

some issues, of course, with P–28 and the fencing and things like 

that, and we can address that perhaps in the next round of questions. 

I yield back. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madame Secretary, let us go to the subject of worksite enforcement. Today in the United States there are 15 million people who 

are out of work. They and their families are hurting greatly, yet 

at the same time we have about 7 million people in the country 

who are working here illegally. If we were to just enforce the current immigration laws on the books, we might cut unemployment 

in half. 

When I think about the impact that could have on our country 

if we did enforce laws and cut that unemployment rate in half, you 

have the opportunity to be a National heroine by enforcing the 

laws. 

Let me give you some facts about what I perceive as a lack of 

enforcement. In the area of administrative arrests are down 68 percent, criminal arrests down 60 percent, criminal indictments down 

58 percent, and criminal convictions down 63 percent. In all those 
33 

categories—arrests, indictments, convictions—they are all down 58 

to 68 percent, all in 1 year. That is quite a record. 

My question is why don’t we enforce immigration laws and create 

more jobs for unemployed Americans? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Representative Smith, let me just 

say that I believe that enforcement of our Nation’s immigration 

laws is not only important, but particularly when we have an unemployment rate in the country the way we do, to make sure that 

we have effective worksite enforcement. So let me describe how we 

have gone about it. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, if you would answer my questions first about 

why these statistics are down so much. The arrests, the indictments, the convictions are all down. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed. So let me, if you might—let me 

answer that directly. First of all, I–9 audits of companies are up 

substantially—record numbers. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We can bring more—— 

Mr. SMITH. Let me concede that. Audits are up, notices of intent 

to fine. By the way, notice of intent. Even when they are fined, the 

companies consider it just the cost of doing business. If you want 

to reduce the number of illegal workers, these statistics should 

have gone the opposite direction. Why don’t you let your ICE 

agents arrest more people, detain more people, and free up those 

jobs for unemployed Americans? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Can I speak? 

Mr. SMITH. Please. I hope you will answer the question. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. All right. Let me describe what we are 

doing. We have substantially increased I–9 audits. More employers 

are being subject to fines. We have more employers than ever 

signed up on E-Verify to verify legal residency before you even 

begin employment. We have record numbers of criminal alien removals from this country, record numbers of criminal alien arrests 

in this country, more than any other year prior to this. We have 

had more I–9 audits this year—— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. But we are talking about worksite enforcement—worksite enforcement. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. And worksite enforcement is 

all part of that. 

So I think if you spoke with members of the business community, 

they would say, ‘‘Get ICE off our backs, because they are all over 

the place, making sure that we comply with the immigration laws.’’ 

We will continue to do that. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I am not hearing that. I don’t think many of 

those criminal aliens were worksite enforcement cases. I am talking about individuals who are working illegally in the country, and 

if we were to enforce immigration laws, we could free up those positions for a lot of unemployed Americans. 

Let me go to US–VISIT. As you know, we have a budget this 

year proposed by the administration that did not request a single 

dollar for the US–VISIT exit side of the program. US–VISIT was 

implemented. It was a bill that I introduced in 1996 that became 

law. 
34 

As you know better than I, 40 percent of all the people in the 

country illegally are visa over-stayers. If you want to know who 

they are, if you want to know whether they have left this country 

or not, you have to have an exit system. 

The administration does not have any money for that biometric 

exit system. Why aren’t they interested in reducing the 40 percent 

number of the people who are in the country illegally? You can’t 

do it unless you know who they are. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I don’t think—Representative, your 

question presumes that there is no money for US–VISIT. The fact 

of the matter is that—— 

Mr. SMITH. No, I just asked you why there wasn’t an increase, 

if you are going to increase the money for US–EXIT. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Please, there is $50 million that it has 

been unallocated that we are carrying forward for US–VISIT. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Let us hope you implement the program, if you 

are serious about addressing that problem. 

My last question is a follow-up to the Ranking Member’s question a while ago when he asked you what other cities were being 

considered as locations to try the Gitmo detainees. You responded 

by saying that DOJ was assessing it. But his questioning was what 

other cities are being considered, not who was assessing it. Let us 

stipulate that no decision has been made as to which city, but surely you know what cities are being considered. On behalf of the 

American people, I would like to ask you what are those cities. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, I am not privy to that information right now. 

Mr. SMITH. You do not know what cities are being considered, 

and you are Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Sir, I personally am not part of those discussions. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. 

Cleaver, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madame Secretary. I want to talk—let us talk technologies. Last October GAO submitted a report to us that identified 

underlying weaknesses in TSA’s decision-making with respect to 

acquiring new screening technologies. 

If we are going to assess intelligently your proposal that TSA receive $700 million to purchase and deploy these new technologies, 

it would be important, at least for me, to know whether TSA plans 

to or has prepared risk assessments and cost benefit analysis with 

performance measures to support the decision to deploy these technologies. 

Does the Science and Technology Directorate have—what role 

does science play in these technologies? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. It is in two ways. First of all, yes, 

we are using risk assessment. Yes, we are employing performance 

metrics. As part of our efforts now, actually the S&T Directorate 

of the Department has entered into MOUs with two of the National 
35 

labs to work on a screening technology and how we continue to improve the airport and security screening environment. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Let us move to the WBIs. I am in the process of 

writing an op-ed piece for my hometown newspaper, and I have 

struggled with this whole issue, as I am sure all of the Members 

of this committee. But the administration has decided that they are 

going to support this. We are talking about 100—1,000, I guess, 

whole body imaging machines. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Scanners, right. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Scanners, equipment. There is always paranoia by 

travelers, and I think that this, while it may maybe end up—I may 

end up being one of the strongest supporters of it. But is there any 

kind of way that we can convince the public with factual information that the machines are not storing images and that we won’t 

see them on somebody’s Facebook—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER [continuing]. Or on the internet or on the Salahi’s 

program? 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. First of all, the current iteration of the 

technology doesn’t really even show a face at all. It really is designed to ascertain anomalies that can be further looked at through 

secondary inspection. Second, the reader isn’t even where the person is, so there is no association there. 

Third, the image is not stored. That is part of the—how can I say 

it—it is part of the contract, the technology, everything else, that 

there is no storage of the image itself. It is merely designed to ping 

upstairs to an examiner downstairs if there is an anomaly that 

shows. 

I have seen some of the newspaper pictures of the image. They 

used a very old first-generation version of what actually shows up. 

The technology now has really mitigated the privacy concerns, so 

hopefully we can work with you, but also with the committee, too, 

because I do think it is a very important investment for the country to make, to satisfy people that this is not designed to be anything other than an objectively better way to protect people on aircraft. 

Mr. CLEAVER. My final question, and I agree with you, but, you 

know, people are concerned nonetheless. Then we have a religious 

group that is also concerned about it because of their own religious 

beliefs, which I respect. 

But I wonder if we reduce the paranoia, the skepticism, if we 

have same-gender scanners like we do presently when we go 

through the screening. I mean, you know, the men are going to be 

dealt with by men, and women by women. So I am wondering can 

we do that with screening? Or does that generate a cost factor that 

causes it to be cost-prohibitive? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, a couple of things. One is, remember, the person who is reading the screen is not down there—— 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes, I understand that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. All right. 

Mr. CLEAVER. But what I am saying, Madame Secretary, I mean, 

to somebody sitting at home, who flies three or four times a year, 

and they are scared that, you know, that their beauty will be seen, 
36 

I mean, it seems to me we need to do everything we can to create 

comfort. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. We are working through that particular issue, but remember the passenger always has the alternative of going through the standard way, the magnetometer with 

the possibility of a patdown. They would have to do that anyway, 

if they were trying to get on the plane. So that option is retained. 

What we have seen in the pilot projects in the airports where the 

scanners have been deployed is that 98 percent of the passengers 

prefer just to go through the scanner. So but again, airports are retaining an optional avenue as well. 

Mr. CLEAVER. If the Members of our committee could go through 

and then we come to have a committee hearing and see if we could 

find that—see if we can figure out who is who. I think if we can’t 

figure out who is who, then I think it ought to run. Makes it a good 

deal. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 

Souder. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madame Secretary, you said that securing the border is one of 

the most important missions in the Department, and I have several 

slides I would like to show. 

[The information follows:] 
37 

Mr. SOUDER. The first slide, if you could put that up on the 

screen, basically just states the fundamental problem we have. We 

have 6,000 miles of border. The Border Patrol says we have 936 

under control, meaning we have 5,064 that isn’t under control. Ba-
38 

sically, we have less than 15 percent under control. This 15 percent 

safety standard—I mean, it is something I am sure the car companies would like, and I am not sure why car company safety standards should be different than our standards on terrorism. 

If we could put our second slide up—I believe that you were provided with copies of those as well—this is extremely troubling. Discuss the Border Patrol agents in a minute, but no increase for CBP 

officers, a reduction in air and marine interdiction pilots, no new 

hard fencing, no expansion of the virtual fence, no additional detention bed space. It seems like you are going backwards rather than 

forwards, even though we are less than 15 percent. 

Now, I heard you say and explain earlier. The minority has not 

received any confirmation that you changed your budget. Perhaps 

we should read the Washington Post more closely, but we didn’t receive any e-mails that at least that would mean if you are reversing yourself on the cuts, that you have a freeze. But when you only 

have less than 15 percent covered, it is not clear why we would 

even be having a freeze. 

I think the American people would say if we are going to spend 

money, this is one of the places we want the money spent, that you 

really can’t control our borders State-by-State. If we could go to the 

last slide, I think it is extremely telling that the figures in this 

draft, which came—the line is hard to see there—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I can’t quite see it. 

Mr. SOUDER [continuing]. Basically at—and I think you have a 

copy—basically, after 2008 it stops. According to the Border Patrol, 

once we received the hard fence and the electronic fence, in 2010 

there was nothing, in 2011 nothing to expand it, and you have no 

future plans that show you intend to expand it, no vision that is 

stated for how you are going to do it. 

You are doing BEST teams, and that is good, and ICE teams, 

and we have a few things in the air, but as far as functional control 

of the border, which leads to contraband and people—and contraband and people can be terrorists, it can be narcotics, it can be illegal immigration, but it is basically contraband and people, effective 

control, not just seeing them, but effective control. 

So is your testimony that this budget is sufficient and will increase control of the borders and move us towards control? Are you 

saying that having 4,300 miles not under control is acceptable? Do 

you think that our border is still vulnerable? Do you believe that 

terrorists will exploit this weakness and smugglers such as what 

we have seen recently with Somalia and how they came across? It 

was a bunch of Somalians, and we can’t find them. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Can you go back to slide No. 2? 

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let us each take one by, if I might just 

go through, Representative. First of all, again, as I explained, those 

positions are not being eliminated. The Border Patrol will have the 

same, and sustain the same number on the Southern border, and 

meet the Congressional mandate on the Northern border. In terms 

of no increase in CBP officers, I think that is related to No. 1. 

Reduction for air and marine interdiction pilots. Really what we 

are talking about there is some consolidation and some elimination 

of one-time equipment purchases. 
39 

No new fencing and SBInet. Let me pause a moment there. First 

of all, we will complete and virtually—virtually—have completed 

what Congress appropriated the money for in terms of tactical 

fence, SBInet. My understanding is—from this Congress and from 

this committee—is you want to make sure that I spend money 

smartly and efficiently. 

SBInet, a contract and a concept that was entered into years ago, 

has been plagued with troubles from Day 1. It has never met a 

deadline. It hasn’t met its operational capacities, and it doesn’t give 

us what we need to have. We will complete the first phase of that, 

but I don’t think it would be responsible of me to come to this committee and say based on the performance and the difficulties we 

have had standing up the first phase, that we should do it all 

around the border. 

The monies of the budget for technology that are border-related 

are things like mobile imaging technology and the like, which are 

more facile, which are easily maintained, which are more operable 

by an actual Border Patrol agent. We want to re-look at SBInet. 

We will share that with the committee. We intend to do that, but 

the technology dollars that need to match up with the boots on the 

ground may be better spent in another fashion. 

Mr. SOUDER. Ma’am, Secretary, that in your answer—and I understand the SBInet is being used in the evening, the Border Patrol is still going through the tests, and they are relatively happy 

with the tests—you have outlined not a single mile of additional 

control. You are basically saying, oh, well, we are not cutting back. 

We are doing some consolidation, but we are not cutting back. 

Your vision was for partial tracking. Are you saying that there 

will be additional miles under functional control somewhere in this 

administration, since we have gone 2 years without an additional 

mile being added? 

What you are saying is you are finishing the Bush proposals, 

which were 2 years old, but is there going to be another mile done 

of this part that is it down? Are you saying you are going to have 

functional control? Border Patrol says there will be no additional 

miles of functional control. Do you agree with that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I don’t know where that statement came 

from, and I am not going to debate a statement I haven’t seen the 

source of or whatever, but let me tell you this. The Southern border 

is important to us. It is important for any number of reasons, as 

is the Northern border. 

We keep expanding control. We have, for example, with the 

funds of the Recovery Act, been able to add funding in improvements and technology particularly at the Northern border. A lot of 

that number you are talking to is really the Northern border. 

The Southern border, we are completing the tactical fence you 

appropriated money for. The technology is going to be there, the 

manpower. If you look at numbers—and if you want to look at 

numbers, look at numbers in terms of illegal immigrants, look at 

numbers of contraband seized—and you will see that we are 

going—— 

Mr. SOUDER. I am sorry. Reclaiming my time, under—— 

Chairman THOMPSON. Excuse me, but you had—— 

Mr. SOUDER. Unemployment is not a way—— 
40 

Chairman THOMPSON. Excuse me. 

Mr. SOUDER. Unemployment rates are not a way to control immigration. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. Controlling immigration. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is not correct. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The gentlelady from Arizona. Mrs. Kirkpatrick, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madame Secretary, nice to have you here. 

Thank you. 

You know, I share your concern about SBInet, and I am glad 

that you are reassessing the value of that. Does that signal a lessening of commitment to use SBInet or any other kind of technology 

along the border? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. No. That is what I was trying to clarify 

this with Representative Souder. Look, that is a big investment. 

There is a lot of money. It is presumed to have cell tower after cell 

tower after cell tower across some of the most hostile aspects of the 

United States in terms of geography and weather and the like. 

It has been very difficult to deploy. It has been very difficult to 

operate. We will finish the first phase, which is actually the Arizona phase, but it has caused a lot of frustration. Rather than be 

wasteful or unduly delay further technology or other types of technology being used at the border, we think it deserves and merits 

a fresh look. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you. 

Now, I am going to switch direction here a little bit and talk 

about your fifth mission, which is ensuring resilience to disasters. 

We recently had a heavy winter storm in northern Arizona, and 

about a week ago I visited with folks on the Navajo Nation to talk 

with people—first responders—and we met in an emergency command center that was set up in the community to help folks 

through. 

I wanted to hear from them first-hand what worked and what 

didn’t. It was very apparent that the grit and the guts of the local 

people really pulled them through the disaster, and thankfully, 

there were no casualties. But the concerns about what didn’t meet 

are in four areas. 

The first one is communication. Communication just did not 

work, did not work between the National Guard, FEMA, the local 

first responders. It just fell apart in numerous ways. Maybe I can 

get you more detail on that. 

The second thing was that it is evident that there needs to be 

more training in the rural areas regarding emergency relief efforts. 

There was also a lack of collaboration between the various units, 

so in other words it looked like FEMA didn’t know what the National Guard was doing. They didn’t know what local communities 

were doing, a real breakdown in collaboration. 

I will just give you one example. They were taking food out eventually with our National Guard trucks to communities, but they 

couldn’t take hay for the livestock. So there was some kind of regulation. They couldn’t have hay and food on the same truck. So that 

is just one example. 
41 

But the last thing about what was really interesting is they 

brought up to me they think there needs to be training regarding 

cultural sensitivity with the Federal agencies who might be there 

responding, that there would seem to be a whole lack of understanding of the local culture. 

So is there any funding in this budget that you think could be 

directed to address some of those needs? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, first of all, Representative, what I 

would—first of all, I will take those suggestions back to the director of FEMA and have them look at this situation directly. 

With respect to coordination with the National Guard, that 

should be occurring, and there should be interoperability. I have 

some familiarity with those individuals, so I don’t know what broke 

down, but there have been joint exercises, and indeed, in responding to forest fires up in northern Arizona, that that has happened 

almost without a hitch and very smoothly. 

So I think we need to troubleshoot this one in particular and say, 

well, what happened here. That doesn’t normally happen during 

forest fire season in northern Arizona, where FEMA and the National Guard work together hand-in-hand and have interoperability 

and have things. For example, I know the National Guard has the 

accessibility to patch trucks that can be used to patch different 

types of radio systems with one another. So we will have to troubleshoot this one in particular. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you. I will be happy to get you more 

detailed information about that. Thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. I yield back my time. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 

Rogers, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here, Madame Secretary. 

I hope that since the Christmas day bombing attempt, that you 

have explained it to the attorney general that you are in a very 

critical National security role and that from now on before he decides to go off half-cocked, that he should consult with you and 

your counterparts in the National intelligence before making decisions. You don’t have to answer that, but I hope you have explained that to him and the President. 

Secondly, right after that attempted attack, one of the co-chairs 

of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, came out and reminded us 

that it is time for the Congress and the administration to use the 

political will to follow through on the last major recommendation, 

which was consolidating jurisdiction for homeland security in this 

committee. 

It is going to be a tough political lift, but I hope you will urge 

the Speaker and the Majority Leader in the Senate that it is time 

to do it. You all having to come up here to 86 different committees 

and subcommittees is just absolutely indefensible, and it is causing 

problems for the Department as far as direction and goals and 

such. 
42 

To that end, I would like to offer for the record without objection, 

Mr. Chairman, the two letters that we have sent to the Secretary 

and the leader, Speaker Pelosi, urging that consolidation. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

I want to talk to you about the budget. All in all, I am pretty 

pleased. I want to thank you, CDP, Center for Domestic Preparedness. You have adequately funded them and put some money for 

maintenance in that was critically needed at that facility and the 

Noble Hospital training facility there where we train health care 

professionals to be prepared to respond after a natural major disaster. 

But one thing that I am concerned about was the elimination, or 

what appears to be the elimination, of a chief veterinary officer. Dr. 

McGinn has been sent out to North Carolina, and I understand 

that position is not going to be filled. They are just going to consolidate that with the Director of Food Veterinarian Animal Defense. 

The chief veterinary role is a very critical role. We need to make 

sure that we are protecting our food safety and preparing for ag 

terrorism. I am going to introduce a bill. I talked yesterday to Dr. 

Garza, who assures me that position, the role is going to continue 

to be fleshed out under that new directorate. 

I am going to introduce a bill, which has got broad bipartisan 

support in the committee, to ensure that that position continues to 

exist. He can call it director of food veterinarian animals if he 

wants to and chief veterinary officer, but we want to make sure 

that somebody has those responsibilities going forward to make 

sure we are protected against those threats. 

Then the thing I want to talk to you most about, though, is I 

want to applaud you. I have been for years advocating higher use 

of canine assets for people screening. Your predecessors have given 

it lip service, and you have put some real money in there. You are 

to be commended for the $71 million you put into the budget to expand the Lackland facility. 

What I would urge you to do—I had your TSA officials come in 

and brief me earlier this week about our capacity, what we are 

going to be able to accomplish with this—this program, and I am 
48 

not going to go into detail here. I do want the Members to get a 

briefing like I did, though, later about the coverage we are going 

to have. 

My request to you is that while you are doing this—this is going 

to give us 275 additional teams a year out there—we need to plus 

that up. I would urge you that while you are doing it to do it right. 

Instead of making it $71 million, make it $100 million. Have a second location so we can get about 600 dogs a year—teams a year 

out into the field. 

That would get us in 5 or 6 years to where we have more complete coverage of the 430 airports that we got to be concerned 

about. At the level we are at now, it would be 10 or 12 years, and 

that is not acceptable. So I would urge you to consider going into 

the line item that you have $360 million for new equipment, scanning equipment. Pull that $30 million off of that and add it to that 

canine item. 

I think that would be a good, robust level for us to be able to get 

to comprehensive coverage of these airports in a reasonable amount 

of time. I will be happy to talk more with you and your folks about 

that. There is just no way we can do it just at Lackland is my 

point. We got to have at least a second facility that is doing that. 

But again, you are to be applauded. You put some muscle behind 

what you said you were going to do after the Christmas day bombing, and I appreciate that. 

Last, the ICE budget. I am a little concerned that I didn’t see 

more money in there for ICE agents. We really have a shortage of 

ICE agents, and there are only 52 positions that are being added. 

Can you tell me why? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think the budget, I think, adequately meets ICE’s enforcement responsibilities. As I suggested 

earlier, one of the things that we are increasing in the budget is 

Secure Communities, which really is a force multiplier. Where we 

have Secure Communities, we identify criminal aliens and can do 

more deporting and removals more effectively than ever before. 

So I think while the number of agents is only up to 52, if you 

look at that in conjunction with Secure Communities, you see how 

we are using that as a force multiplier. 

Mr. ROGERS. This last one, going back to the canines, do you think that it is reasonable to look at plussing that up by $30 million to get a second location? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, as my staff will tell you, 

I am a big believer in dogs and what dogs can do. So it is a resource split and allocation issue, but my mind is very open and I— 

dogs used properly with the properly trained handler can really 

help improve safety. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the thing that I have told the other Members, 

we are talking about a new technology, this vapor weight technology, where the dog doesn’t have to sniff the person. You just 

walk by them. That would be very helpful at our airports where 

people who, before they go through technical screening, can just 

walk by these canines. The Christmas day bomber would not have 

gotten on that plane if we had it. 

Thank you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 
49 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey 

for 5 minutes, Mr. Pascrell. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Where do we start here? First of all, I would like to associate myself with the comments of the Ranking Member concerning the categorical assistance to cities and regional areas, areas around those 

cities which were expanded, if you remember, 5 years ago. I think 

that is, hopefully, not just an oversight here. I think it is critical 

to defending America. 

Second, you testified last year after you raised your hand that 

you were going to take a specific look at the bureaucracy that you 

heard my good friend from Alabama talk about. I asked you the 

questions then. You assured the committee that you are going to 

address the issue of bureaucracy, because when you have bureaucracy, you have less accountability. 

You saw that in the December 25 episode where who pushed 

Jake was the main question. We realize that DHS is the consumer 

of intelligence and is not the vehicle. The fact of the matter is, 

though, that we don’t know who to hold accountable, because this 

bureaucracy is growing and becoming worse—worse. 

Tell me one instance that you have recommended to us in 1 year 

where you wanted us to be of assistance to you—and we thank you 

for your service to your country; we want to be helpful—I can’t recall it, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. Give me one instance. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am not sure I—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. Give me one instance where you recommended to 

this committee that we assist you in breaking through the bureaucracy of the Department that you head? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I don’t know exactly where your 

question is headed, but I will tell you—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. You don’t know where exactly—I mean, I can’t be 

more direct than that, Madame Secretary. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. We want to be helpful. We are not asking the 

questions and we are not making the comments here because we 

want to give you more work. We want to give you less work. You 

just testified this morning before Appropriations Committee. If you 

want to continue to go crazy, continue. If you want to be going to 

86 committee meetings, continue. 

You were asked a year ago. We wanted to be helpful. You ignored us, because I haven’t seen any recommendations on your 

part. Now tell me where I am wrong, and I will apologize. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think you are wrong in a number 

of ways, but—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. Where am I wrong, Madame Secretary? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. I don’t think—I also—well, 

let me finish my answer. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Sure. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I believe that the Department and this 

committee need to have more, not less, communication. We are endeavoring to do that both on the Democratic side and on the Republican side. We have endeavored to provide you every bit of information that you have asked for. 
50 

We have asked the Congress for the ability to get some administrative resources, which are called bureaucracy but are in essence 

the ability to have the infrastructure necessary to run what is now 

the third largest department of the Government. I would love to 

talk about that with you. 

Mr. PASCRELL. We have had a year. I am not incorrect. The Department is incorrect. This committee stands to be helpful to you, 

and it has not been given that opportunity. 

The second issue. I appreciate the difficulty of your job—anybody 

who sits in that position—and I think you appreciate it, too. You 

have to create a budget that meets all the needs of the Nation, this 

Nation, greatest nation in the world, during this economic crisis, 

while at the same time you are working our way out of this deficit 

hole. 

We understand that. We deal with this every day and with every 

department. I am satisfied with the budget, especially the necessary increase in funding to boost aviation security. You went into 

that, I believe, in your testimony. 

However, I am greatly dismayed and indeed disturbed that for 

the second year in a row this administration has decided to cut 

critical Fire Grants program that provides equipment and training 

to our firefighters. This year he has decided to cut the SAFER program as well, which helps maintain staffing levels in our Nation’s 

firehouses. 

Overall, these two programs have been cut by $200 million, 

which is 25 percent less than we passed in fiscal year 2010. At a 

time when we are still fighting our way out of that deep recession, 

those towns can’t afford to do it on their own, and municipalities 

are being forced to slash public safety budgets every day. 

This is exactly the wrong time to cut vital grants programs. They 

are necessary. They were necessary before 9/11—before 9/11 is 

when we started the program—and they are necessary today. In 

fact, there is $3 billion to $4 billion of applications in those programs every year. 

Second, I was extremely surprised to see that the budget called 

for four stand-alone grant programs to just be folded into the large 

State Homeland Security Grant Program. Look, I know the game. 

I was the mayor of a city once. It is a very interesting way to hide 

what you really want to do. 

This includes the interoperable emergency communications. I 

guess there is no word that has been used more in this committee 

since 2001 than the word ‘‘interoperable.’’ But they are gone. We 

worked to create in the 109th Congress in order to support our first 

responders. This looks like a way to do a backdoor cut of these programs. There will be no way to compare it, if you fold that into the 

larger program. 

I think that this is a wrong way to go. I understand it is a great 

way to hide would you really want to do. I assume that that is not 

what you want to do. What in God’s name do you want to do? 

If I may ask that, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, listening to mayors and Governors, 

one of the things they asked of me last year was to reduce the 

amount of grant applications and grant reports that they had to do. 

They wanted more flexibility. They wanted the ability to use grant 
51 

funding for things like sustaining and maintaining equipment as 

compared to having to buy new equipment all the time in order to 

achieve grant funding. The proposal this year was designed to meet 

those requests. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, let me tell you something. That is not acceptable. The mayors of this country feel that the program of the 

Fire Act and the SAFER Act are the best-run bureaucratic programs in the Federal Government, because there isn’t any bureaucracy. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The gentleman’s time from New Jersey 

has expired. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, I have to respond to answers that don’t really go to the question. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Well—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. We are in the same place we were a year ago. 

Chairman THOMPSON. I think you have made your point, Mr. 

Pascrell. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madame Secretary, welcome. Last week a small aircraft slammed 

into a Federal building in my district, reminding us that we are 

still vulnerable. The devastation from what was a very small plane 

was really highly destructive. I walked away thinking how could 

such a small plane almost bring down an entire Federal building? 

It is a threat. I want to also commend the first responders, because the loss of life could have been so much more severe than 

it actually was. My thoughts and prayers go out to the family of 

the one Federal employee who was injured and killed. 

I would just recommend, though, also as you look at—and you 

mentioned General Aviation and I would recommend you continue 

to work closely with them as you look at rulemaking. I think, as 

I have met with them after this tragedy, I think they have some 

very, very good ideas where we can work with industry, not against 

industry, in making this situation and helping the American people 

be safer. 

Another incident, ironically, just north of my district not too long 

ago—Fort Hood. I went to the memorial service. I talked to the 

commander, General Cone. We found out since then the Joint Terrorism Task Force had information about this individual, that he 

had been contacting an al-Qaeda operative in Yemen, a DOD representative on the JTTF, and yet that information was not shared 

with the base. 

I asked General Cone, ‘‘Would you like to have had that information?’’ You had a major at your base, you know, who was in contact 

with the top al-Qaeda leader, and yet they didn’t know about that. 

I find that to be really inexcusable. His question to me was, ‘‘How 

many more Hasans are out there?’’ 

It is a DOD issue. It is a JTTF issue, but it is also, when you 

talk about military bases in the United States, it is a homeland security issue as well. I know you are smart enough to recognize 

that. 

I do have a few budget questions, but I want to ask you on that, 

because we know al-Qaeda has targeted military installations. Fort 

Dix is another good example. What are you doing to ensure that 
52 

the information-sharing process is improved so we can prevent, in 

this case, 14 individuals from being killed in the future? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed, without going into the Fort Hood 

situation specifically, but one of the things we have really been 

working on this past year is the amount of sharing of intelligence 

with State and local law enforcement about threats and threat 

streams that are within their jurisdictions so that they can be 

watching out for them. 

Our first responders, in particular 800,000 or so police officers, 

are a force multiplier way beyond whatever Federal presence that 

we have. We have greatly bolstered the fusion centers, and I think 

you will see a lot of activity in that regard over this next year really strengthening the standards there. 

What really qualifies as a fusion center? What that is designed 

to do, Representative, is have in one place State, local, and Federal 

not only trained officers, but databases and analysts. It is not just 

sharing data that is important. It is the analysis that is important. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I agree. It is also acting on information coming in, 

because there was information on Fort Hood. There was information on the Christmas bomber case. There were flags being raised. 

There were dots not only not being connected, but dots not being 

acted upon that I think, had they been acted upon, we could have 

avoided the Fort Hood tragedy and also could have revoked the 

visa of the Christmas bomber. 

I know this is a budget hearing, so I want to ask you a couple 

of questions. I would first like to—as Mr. Cuellar mentioned, I really commend you for your efforts working with Mexico that is so important with the violence in Juarez, as you mentioned, is probably 

one of the most violent cities in the world. Mexico has suffered 

more killings than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. 

Three programs that I saw—one, the Operation Stone Garden— 

I mean, you were in Arizona. It has been a very successful program, and yet it is being cut from $60 million to $50 million. 

Second, that 287(g) program, which has also been very successful, is just maintained at the current level. Then finally, the ICE 

Detention and Removal Office, when I talk to ICE officials particularly in the Houston area, they tell me they don’t have the resources they need to carry out their mission. That is just coming 

from your people on the ground. 

So if you could explain to me those three budgetary items, because I think they would go a long way in helping us better secure 

this border. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, No. 1 was—which was No. 1? 

Mr. MCCAUL. Operation Stone Garden. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Stone Garden. What happened last year 

was there was some extra money that we redeployed to Stone Garden. $50 million is what we have had. That is a pretty consistent 

budget request. 

What we have done, however, is basically steer all of that money 

to the Southwest border, whereas previously it could be shared, 

and part of it was used on the Northern border. You might imagine 

yesterday I heard from some Northern border representatives that 

weren’t happy about that decision. But my decision was that that 

is where the money is best used right now. 
53 

Mr. MCCAUL. I agree. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. With respect to 287(g), the strategy we 

are using as we are continuing to assign 287(g)s that we are really 

plussing up Secured Communities. They are more effective in 

terms of actual yielding criminal aliens that have entered the 

United States, so we think that is a better strategy. 

In terms of beds, detention and removal beds in the Houston 

area, Representative, that is one we will get back to you specifically 

on. The bed request, the head request is based on our National estimate about what we need. Maybe there needs to be adjustment 

within that National number. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Because finally, as you mentioned, you said when 

you were attorney general that the Federal Government needs to 

pay its bills when it comes to the burden on State and locals. My 

home State of Texas has a tremendous burden in that regard. 

I thank you very much. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey— 

New Mexico, Mr. Luja ́n? 

[Laughter.] 

I was trying to give him some more time. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I hope my friend 

from New Jersey doesn’t get any—just yet, Mr. Chairman. 

Madame Secretary, thank you for being here as well. I want to 

tell you how much I appreciate the fact that DHS and DOE are 

working closely with one another now. After the failed attempt on 

Christmas day, we did very clearly hear the directive from the 

President, asking for DHS and DOE specifically in NSA facilities 

to collaborate to try to solve some of these real problems. I want 

to thank you for not wasting any time on doing that. 

A few things that I want to bring up, and some of the testimony 

that we heard from Dr. Albright in our Science and Tech Committee, who is from Lawrence Livermore, highlighted the importance of the President’s directive, but went on to say this: 

That explosives have long presented the most prevalent threat to 

transportation security, to critical facilities and to individuals. Current events show that explosives continue to be the weapon of 

choice for terrorists worldwide. The threat is evolving, and increased access worldwide to the internet has provided the terrorists 

with information to manufacture homemade explosives using readily available chemicals. 

Explosives are very difficult to detect in some cases. Only trace 

evidence is available for sampling, and bulk quantities of explosive 

matter must be detected in the presence of other potentially confusing or benign materials. TSA officers only have a short time to 

detect explosives and assess the situation, if they are to maintain 

the flow of people and goods. 

Continuous and concentrated research and development is fundamental to understanding the threat and creating the tools that will 

give our Nation the capability it needs to decrease our vulnerability. We now know that there is progress being made in bringing 

technologies forward that will strengthen our capabilities and give 

our TSA agents the tools they need to preventing materials from 

moving forward. 
54 

The one concern that I have, Madame Secretary, is the commitment to the investment—substantial investment, up near $700 million, if I have my numbers correct, with other detectors to—really 

around metals. 

I wanted to hear from you how we are going to move forward so 

that we are able to bring these technologies forward, also deploy 

and get your ideas on if you feel that it is important that rather 

than a short-term relationship with the NSA DOE facilities with 

Homeland Security, if that should turn into a long-term relationship to make sure that we are working closer in that regard, and 

also your thoughts on taking a whole system systematic approach 

in trying to understand the threat that we are going to see as opposed to reacting to what we know that just happened. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me address the last first. We need to 

react to things that happen—it would be foolish not to—and to adjust in light of what we have already seen. But at the same time 

we need to be thinking ahead. So there is a reaction and a pro-action that need to be happening simultaneously. 

One of the ways this can occur is with greater use of science and 

technology. That is why the President has directed that we really 

tighten up the relationship with our National labs so that their research is really designed, or at least partly designed, to help us 

operationally to think through what the next iteration of threat, 

the materiel used, et cetera. 

So I hope that this relationship, which was really catalyzed by 

the December 25 attempt, becomes part and parcel of our National 

homeland security framework and that we use that brain capacity 

we have in those National labs to greater effect for homeland security purposes. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, this is just one area that I hope that 

we can work on together with yourself, with Ranking Member, and 

with all Members of the committee, because when we look specifically at these relationships and what some of the brightest minds— 

scientists, physicists—have to offer not only with their capabilities 

with tech transfer and commercialization, what that means to creating jobs, but also looking at problems like this, where we have 

threats like this every day. 

They really wanted to highlight that, Mr. Chairman, as we begin 

to look at this in a different way and think outside of the box, 

where we can bring together the brightest minds that we have that 

we have made investments in. The modeling capabilities, the simulation capabilities that lead to technologies that are going to make 

a difference and save people’s lives is somewhere that I hope that 

we turn. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Madame Secretary, I sent a letter to you on January 21 regarding the visa security program. When can I expect a response? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Hopefully, very soon. We are trying to, 

and greatly by and large are moved to the point where we can respond to every Congressional inquiry within a month. 
55 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. I have a couple of questions regarding 

that issue. 

How many visa issuing posts are there overseas currently? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. For the State Department? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes, State Department. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I don’t know the overall number. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. How many of these locations—can you tell 

me how many locations have visa security units currently? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am going to ask. A small percentage. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Well, I think it is about 14, from my estimations. How many have been identified as high-risk locations? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we just added two—I know of 

that—the past week. I don’t know—a number. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Okay, so my understanding is that there 

are 40 high-risk locations, and the State Department has 220 locations and that we have units in 14 locations. 

So the next question is on the current pace, how long would it 

take to establish visa security units in locations the Department 

has identified as high-risk? If you can’t answer that question, I 

would like to get a response as soon as possible. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, that is reasonable. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Do you believe that it is—you know, we 

want to make sure we beef up this program. An example of this 

was the Christmas bomber. I think that could have been prevented. 

So, you know, and I understand that the budget recommendation 

is flat for this year, and that is unacceptable to me. So if you could 

respond to me as quick as possible, I would really appreciate it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, Representative. Part of that is this 

is not just the Department of Homeland Security’s decision. This 

is really the Department of State where the Department of Homeland Security will be allowed into an embassy facility to work 

there. So that is something that we are having to work through at 

the interagency level. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes, that is what I am concerned about is that 

there may be some resistance from the Department of State in establishing these units. If so, I would like to know which locations, 

where the resistance lies. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Harman. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madame Secretary, I apologize to you, but the intelligence authorization bill is on the House floor this afternoon, and that is 

why I was absent for much of this conversation. I did, however, 

hear your testimony. 

As you set out the five priorities for your agency, the first one 

was counterterrorism. I want to applaud that and recognize and, 

I think, agree with you that the Homeland Security Department 

exists to protect the homeland, and there is a large terrorist threat. 

I have a question about that and one other. I want to put them 

to you at the same time so that I observe my time limit. 

On the subject of terrorism, I think probably, besides the technological corrections that we have already made since the Christmas 
56 

bomber problem, the other problem was the absence of sustained 

leadership focusing specifically on what could happen both to aircraft and other things, but certainly, sustained leadership at the 

top. 

So one question I have is what are you personally doing, given 

your busy, hugely busy life and professional obligations, to sustain 

your leadership on the terror threat? 

My second question is to pick up on some of the questions, some 

of the issues Mr. Bilirakis was posing on visas. It is my understanding that since the 1990s there has been a requirement for a 

capable exit visa system. It is good to know and to have a secure 

visa entry program, and we are doing better at that, I believe, but 

we still have not implemented our visa exit program up to any reasonable, by my lights, standards. 

I was a member of the Congressional commission on terrorism 

that existed between 1999 and 2000. We predicted a major terror 

attack on the United States. Sadly, we were right. But one of the 

gaps we found in U.S. security was a capable exit visa system. If 

people can come here legally and then get lost here, that is an 

enormous vulnerability. 

So my two questions are what sustained leadership are you personally giving to the terror, the huge terror threat against us, and 

two, what can we do to expedite an effective and fully developed 

exit visa system? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. I think 

two things. One is that you are right. Sustained leadership is important here. It takes a number of forms. One is making sure that 

we have a clear vision for the Department. That is reflected in the 

QHSR, which we really went from 0 to 60 on this year. 

The second is to make sure that we have a better integration of 

our intel analysis within the Department, with other intelligence 

assets around the Beltway, and that we are doing a better job of 

connecting our intel analysis with information threat streams so 

that can be used by State and local law enforcement, so very important around the country. I think we have made great progress 

in that regard this year. We are going to be continuing to push that 

issue. 

The third is really focusing on the sustained effort, and I think 

somewhat creatively, quite frankly—areas like aviation, where we 

have instituted an international aviation initiative, where we have 

entered into MOAs with the National labs that didn’t exist before. 

So those are the kinds of things that we are working on in all 

the iteration of the Department. But they all blend together under 

the guise of guarding against terrorism and ensuring the security 

of the United States. 

With respect to exit and exit visas, we do have—as someone 

noted before, we have not requested new money there. We have 

$50 million we are going to pull forward into this year for U.S. exit. 

That will be for the air environment. 

The big problem, and one that I have asked the scientists and 

others to look at it: How do we handle the fact that the United 

States has such a huge land border with so many land ports of 

entry and so many lanes? That is under the current iteration of 
57 

technologies a huge, huge budget number. It was not one I was 

prepared to bring forward to the committee this year. 

Ms. HARMAN. Well, I thank you. I just in 12 seconds urge you 

personally to keep asking about what your Department is doing on 

a daily basis, or frequent basis, to focus on the terror threat so that 

it is clear from the top how urgent that is. 

On the U.S. exit program, I think we are going to have to step 

up and write the checks, because I think it is unacceptable to have 

the ability for people to come here and then get lost in our country 

and possibly cause harm against us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Broun, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madame Secretary, I am very pleased to see you in attendance 

today. I hope that you will agree with me that it is critical for the 

Secretary of any Federal agency to be present at important oversight hearings. I hope that we can be assured that in the future 

you will be personally present at all these extremely important 

oversight hearings. I hope you assure us of that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, I think improving communication and being available to the committee is a very important part of my responsibilities. 

Mr. BROUN. I certainly hope so, and I trust that you will be. 

I was also extremely pleased to see that just recently you admitted that the Fort Hood massacre was a terrorist attack. I think 

that admission is long overdue, and I am pleased to see you finally 

go ahead and make that admission. 

Madame Secretary, I have serious concerns about regarding how 

your Department plans to use its resources, and I would like some 

clarification on some issues that I feel that the American people deserve to hear from you for the recent actions of the Christmas day 

bomber and the open intelligence opinions that al-Qaeda will most 

likely attempt to attack our homeland within the next 6 months. 

It is more apparent now than ever that our enemies will stop at 

nothing to attack us. We must work even harder to stop them. As 

I have said before in here in this committee, the Marine Corps 

teaches that you must know your enemy to defeat them. 

Many brave Americans work hard to pinpoint and identify those 

who wish us harm. It is foolish for this or other Federal agencies 

tasked with protecting our homeland and our country to ignore the 

hard work and waste of our resources. 

What I would like to see from this Department is greater effectiveness at collecting and sharing vital information on those who 

are most likely to attack us, whether that information comes from 

our intelligence agencies or our global partners who serve as our 

first line of defense. Closing these gaps in our human intelligence 

and informational networks is absolutely essential. 

One way for us to focus our attention on those people in those 

countries that we know will try to attack us. Time wasted screening a grandmother in her mid-80s or a 10-year-old on vacation with 

his family could better be used in screening individuals who are 

coming from somewhere who are more likely to produce known en-
58 

emies to our country and who want to harm us and destroy this 

Nation and everything that we are founded upon. 

You stated in your testimony that you and this administration 

are determined to find and fix our security vulnerabilities, and I 

really trust that that is so. I look forward to you going on to do 

so. 

Do you believe, Madame Secretary, what I have suggested could 

prove more effective than our current methods? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. In what respect, sir? 

Mr. BROUN. In focusing upon the countries and the individuals 

and groups of individuals who are most likely to be those individuals who want to do us harm? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Doing things on a risk-based or intelbased way, obviously, is something that we endeavor to do across 

the Federal Government. When you are talking about the travel 

environment, I think it is important to add to that a certain 

amount of unpredictable randomness, which disables a terrorist 

from being able to predict with certainty whether they will be subject to secondary screening or the like. 

So it is intel-based, but it is also the greater utilization of algorithms of randomness, if I can use that phrase, to add onto that 

to defeat predictability. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I certainly agree with that. There is no such 

thing as 100 percent safety, 100 percent certainty, but I think, particularly with limited resources, that it is very important to focus 

upon those nations and those people groups who we know want to 

do us harm. There may be other individuals, other people groups, 

and maybe even homegrown terrorists that we have got to focus 

upon, but we do know without a question that there are those. 

I encourage you. I hope that you will utilize your very limited resources, because we and the Federal Government are out of money. 

We don’t have the money. We are stealing our grandchildren’s future by creating huge amounts of debt. 

But homeland security is one of the—and National security is the 

primary focus of the Constitution for the Federal Government. So 

focusing upon those individuals, those countries, those groups of 

people that we know the greatest preponderance of individuals who 

want to do us harm come from those areas, I hope that you will 

really focus upon them with random screening and other things. I 

understand the problems that you face, but I just encourage you to 

consider that. 

Are there other an additional methods that could be deployed in 

defense of our homeland that would close those gaps and 

vulnerabilities? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Let me ask you to say that again, please? 

Mr. BROUN. Are there other additional methods, besides focusing 

on those things that we have already talked about, that could be 

deployed in defense of our homeland and that would close those 

gaps and vulnerabilities? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think several. One, as I already 

mentioned, you have got to add a random aspect to all of this. In 

other words we are not doing the same thing at every airport 

across the country. Why? Because we don’t want there to be predictability. 
59 

I think there is a huge untapped role for science and technology 

here that we should pursue, and I already mentioned with Representative Luja ́n working with, in particular, the National labs. I 

think there we can do more. 

Then third, making sure that across the global environment we 

have increased information collection and sharing to the maximum 

extent that we can. Working with our allies and others, I think, 

really helps provide us with a greater security network. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Madame Secretary. 

I appreciate the extra time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The gentleman from Alabama. 

Mr. ROGERS. Just I wanted to inquire, do you expect to have a 

second round of questions or—— 

Chairman THOMPSON. We will probably finish just about the 

time for votes. We had thought we could do it, but it looks like, because I have been generous with my time on the questions, we 

might not be able to do it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The gentlelady from New York, Ms. 

Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Madame Secretary, it is great to have you here and really providing us with some insight into this year’s budget. 

I just wanted to sort of add my voice to that of Ranking Member 

King with regard to the Securing the Cities grant. I understand the 

dilemma of the funding, which we tend to always in some fashion 

come up with, whether it is through appropriations. 

But when you talk about looking at some of the work that the 

labs have done, there are also other ways of looking at how we can 

address the threat of radiological, biological, chemical, and nuclear 

weapons, and I hope that we will get some finding from the Securing the Cities model that could hopefully be something that can be 

helpful for the rest of the Nation. 

We are all very used to the explosive—unfortunately, become 

used to the explosive event that we witnessed in 1993 in New York 

and again in 2000. But there are other very, just as meaningful 

threats to us that we are not conscious of, and it is, I think, tools 

that we develop along the way in anticipation of someone utilizing 

one of these types of weaponry that will bode well for the Department and for our Nation, so I hope you will give that your highest 

consideration. 

I also wanted to just let you know how pleased I am that the 

budget acknowledges the on-going real possibility of a cyber attack. 

This budget requests $379 million for a National Cyber Security 

Division and $10 million for the National Security Cyber Center. 

I know that you touch on this in your testimony, but can you elaborate a little bit more on how this funding would be used to buttress 

your cybersecurity capability? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, it is a number of ways, and perhaps 

one of the things to suggest to this committee is a classified briefing on all of the efforts on cyber at a certain point in time. 

But it is deployment of prevention and detection technology. It 

is working to secure the .gov domains. It is working with the private sector on the .org and .com domains. We have opened up this 
60 

year the NCIC, which is a consolidated cybersecurity facility in Virginia, which has allowed us to do some things we could not before. 

But I will share with you, Congresswoman, one of our greatest 

challenges—if this committee would ask me what are some of the 

greatest challenges, I would say one of them is getting enough 

cyber experts into Federal service to really work on the civilian 

side of cybersecurity. 

We have direct hiring authority, but I think, as we can all appreciate, the length of time it takes to on-board a Federal employee 

takes too long, and for those youngsters that are young scientists 

who really know the cyber world, they get impatient. So that is 

something that we are really going to have to work together on. 

Ms. CLARKE. I look forward to that, Madame Secretary. You are 

absolutely correct. I think that we have to come up to speed, those 

of us who are of a certain age, about the realities of the technology 

around us and the young people, who are very agile with it, and 

their attention span. 

I think that it will bode us well if we can demonstrate how important it is to get young people with that expertise, that talent, 

and maybe not-so-young people, but people who are seasoned 

enough in the technology used, on-board with us before the private 

sector snatches them out. 

Another area that I am concerned about and wanted to just raise 

with you is the area of ASP. We have supported pursuit of the 

laudable goal of improving detection performance, but have been 

concerned with the performance of the system, as well as some of 

the testing over the years. Can you give me a sense of the analysis 

that you and DNDO did to determine the ASP? If you can’t finish 

right now, can you get us something in writing? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, and indeed we actually took some 

action within the last week. So we will get back to you on that. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, 

Mrs. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary, we are delighted to have you here today and appreciate your testimony. 

One of the issues that—really, a principal advocacy for me is 

Northern border security, as you know. You and I have had some 

conversations about that. You have been very gracious with your 

time, as has your Deputy Lute. She has been great as well. 

But I just say that because, coming from Michigan, Northern 

border, it is so important to my reason, and I have been fully appreciative of what is going on in the Southern border and the 

measures that have been necessary to address the drug cartels 

coming across the border, et cetera, et cetera. 

But I have to go back—circle around here a bit to the Stone Garden grant and make my pitch for that. Our area, just my immediate region, since everyone’s being somewhat parochial talking 

about their region, we have the Ambassador Bridge, which is the 

busiest commercial artery in the Northern tier of our Nation. We 

have the Windsor Tunnel under that. 
61 

We have the Bluewater Bridge, which is the second-busiest commercial artery on the Northern tier and the only one that you can 

transit hazardous materials there. We have the CN rail tunnel, 

which is the largest rail entry incarnation, there. 

Immediately across the St. Clair River in Sarnia, we have the 

largest concentration of petrochemical plants, I think, in the hemisphere, maybe next to New Jersey, but it is enormous, along with 

the Great Lakes—a number of unique dynamics is what I am saying. 

One of my counties was able to get a Stone Garden grant several 

years ago. Now, of course, with the experience, Stone Garden at the 

Southern border got 59 percent in 2008. In 2009 it was 84 percent. 

In 2010 it is 100 percent. Now, according to the budget here, they 

are not even eligible. Northern border can’t even apply for these. 

I am appreciative, as I say, you have to ship the resources where 

you think are necessary. But to go to zero seems rather extreme 

to me, and we need some resources as well. What do you think? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I appreciate that, and I have heard 

that from others. I will say that Stone Garden shouldn’t be looked 

at in isolation from other grant monies that have been available 

and made available up in the Northern region. 

The bulk of the ARA money that was appropriated for ports went 

to the Northern border ports and technology at the ports and improvement at those ports, which go to some of the structures that 

you alluded to. So in a tough budget year with some decisions to 

be made, that is where we were. But I think that that is something 

that will continue to be worked on throughout the process. 

Mrs. MILLER. I appreciate that, and I hope you do revisit that, 

because it really is a policy question. One thing with a Stone Garden grant, it is a force—and I am appreciative of what you are saying to go to the infrastructure of the grants for that, but Stone Garden really has been a force multiplier for the locals, which has really been such a fantastic assist to whether it is the Coast Guard or 

the CBP or what have you. So that is my pitch on the Stone Garden. 

In regards to the SBInet, and there has been a lot of talk about 

this today, and I am not sure what all has happened on the Southern border with the SBInet, but, you know, on the Northern border 

sometimes maybe we even do things—I won’t say better, but different. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Right. 

Mrs. MILLER. We actually have the SBInet, as you know, in my 

district, where you are standing up currently. There are 11 towers 

that are being constructed. We actually had an ice jam in my area, 

and I took an air boat out to see the last tower being constructed 

on Sunday afternoon, and our experience, I think, with SBInet is 

we are looking forward to this. 

We haven’t had much problems, and I think it is going to be completely turned over to the CBP in March. So we are looking forward to a good experience there—just my pitch on that. 

Since I have limited amount of time, there has been a lot of talk 

about the Christmas day bomber. As the representative from 

Michigan, where this airplane was coming down, you might imag-
62 

ine it has been on the front page. It has never fallen off the front 

page of our newspapers. 

Everybody is totally engaged in the debate about whether or not 

the Christmas day bomber should have gotten court-appointed, taxpayer-funded attorneys—not one, but three in this case. I do know 

there is money put in here for the KSM, perhaps, trial in New York 

or wherever it is going to go. 

I don’t think there is any money that has been budgeted for the 

Christmas day bomber, who has already been arraigned in the Federal building in downtown Detroit. I guess I am just looking for a 

little guidance on that. What does that mean there? 

You cannot imagine how bad the economy is in Michigan and in 

Detroit and with the resources that we are now faced with on 

something that we are not too happy about to begin with, but just 

from a budgetary standpoint. Do you have any comment on that, 

Secretary? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, I was just with Governor 

Granholm and know that the situation in Michigan is so serious. 

I think the actual budget request was not for KSM-specific. It was 

for terrorism-related trials. Right now sitting here with you, I don’t 

know how that is to be apportioned or utilized, but there was a recognition by the administration that there would be terrorism-related trials in the United States in 2011, and they require additional security—— 

Mrs. MILLER. Well, even in 2010 that is happening, so perhaps 

you could get back to me on if you find out any information about 

any budgetary relief for Michigan for the Detroit area for that. 

Since you have been good with your time, I will just very quickly 

also say the Air and Marine Wing of the Great Lakes Northern 

Border Wing that is being set up at Selfridge Air National Guard 

Base in my district currently as we speak as well, we are looking 

forward to a UAV mission this year. I know you have spoken about 

that. 

We are never going to put SBInet all the way around the Northern or Southern border or a fence, nor do we want to. But I do 

think that this is a critical component of utilizing off-the-shelf 

hardware that has been so effective in theater and utilizing with 

CBP. We are looking forward to that mission as well. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Very good. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman recognizes the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Titus, 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madame Secretary, nice to see you again. Before I ask my question, I would just make two comments. I would like to also have 

the record show that I share the concerns of the gentleman from 

New Jersey about cutting the Fire Grants, because Nevada is in 

special session right now, looking at ways to cut, as other cities in 

Nevada. We really need that money. 

Second, if I could just go back to Mr. Broun’s comment about 

looking for alternative ways to make us more secure, Creech Air 

Force Base is in my district, and I visited them and witnessed 
63 

some of the flying of the remotely piloted aircraft. I think that is 

a possibility for use in border control and pirates and other things. 

I would be interested in kind-of how you see that as future technology. 

But my question is in the wake of Mumbai in 2008, there was 

a real focus on the problem with a soft target. I think that was critical, and I think the Department increased its emphasis there. 

Over time, though, that seems to have diminished. But the threat 

has not diminished. 

Representing a community like Las Vegas, where this is a real 

possibility, I would ask you to show me where in the budget or explain what parts of the budget have some commitment to going 

back to that emphasis on the soft target. 

I would also remind you that I sent a letter a couple of weeks 

ago, inviting you to come to Las Vegas and see that unique community—we have got a transient population, we have got thousands 

of visitors on any given day, a host of potential targets in the 

area—just so you could see how the public and private sectors are 

working together and see how we might incorporate some more of 

that as part of our National policy. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Indeed, I think that, if we can, we have 

got to get up there. 

On the soft target issue, you will find most of that under the 

NPPD directorate and also in the private sector office. We have had 

a lot of outreach. We have had outreach with the hotel associations 

and the hotel operators in the past months. 

Over the holiday season we met with the representatives of the 

700 largest shopping malls in the country, and we also prepared 

and had on-line training for shopping mall employees on what to 

watch out for, what to look for, and the like. 

That is the kind of thing that provides direct assistance in the 

soft target environment that I think is very, very useful. 

Ms. TITUS. We look forward to seeing you, and I thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Olson for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Madame Secretary, welcome. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. Good to see you again. 

I am going to talk about issues concerning the budget in the 

United States Coast Guard. Madame Secretary, I understand in a 

tight fiscal environment sacrifices have to be made, but some of the 

Coast Guard budget cuts seem penny-wise and pound-foolish. 

We have invested over $100 million in maritime safety and security teams, yet your budget proposes to cut that capacity by 42 percent to save $18.2 million. You propose to move to a ‘‘regional concept’’ with the Maritime Safety and Security Team program, yet 

you terminate 395 active-duty military personnel instead of transferring them to other MSST units. 

You cut the aviation support to the Maritime Security Response 

Team, the Coast Guard elite counterterrorism team, thus eliminating the Coast Guard’s tactical ability to board a vessel that is 

actively opposing being boarded by a law enforcement agency. 
64 

What is even more disconcerting is that as the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, you are supporting a potential successor to the 

current commandant who wants to further degrade both the homeland security and search and rescue functions of the Coast Guard. 

I have here a memo from Vice Admiral Papp, recommended by 

you and nominated by the President to be the next Commandant 

of the United States Coast Guard. In this memo Admiral Papp indicates a willingness to ‘‘incur additional risk in order to inform the 

fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2016 budget bills.’’ 

Madame Secretary, when Admiral Papp talks about incurring additional risk, he is not talking about risk to the Coast Guard. He 

is talking about risk to the American public. Given that risk continues to threaten our Nation—terrorism, the drug trade, human 

trafficking—why is it sound to put greater risk on the American 

people? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, as I said earlier—I don’t know 

whether you heard me; there was a question raised about that— 

that was an early interagency memo that was leaked based on earlier budget assumptions that are not in fact the out-year budget assumptions for the Coast Guard. 

That is not the policy of the Coast Guard, nor the Department 

of DHS, and so it is difficult to respond to a leaked pre-decisional 

draft document in a public hearing of this nature. But Admiral 

Papp is highly, highly qualified to be the next Commandant of the 

Coast Guard, and I think the Senate and the people of America 

will agree. He has a very, very distinguished service record in the 

Coast Guard and has served the people of this country very, very 

well. So let us just go there. 

Now, with respect to the MSSTs, you are right. We have consolidated and regionalized them. It was the combined judgment with 

the Commandant of the Coast Guard that we could have the same 

reach in terms of response to possible terrorism activities at the regional level as opposed to having so many different places with 

their own MSST. There I understand there can be disagreement 

about that. I am sure those will be discussed throughout the appropriations process. 

Mr. OLSON [continuing]. I know you don’t agree with me, because 

you are rolling your eyes there, but, you know, the Coast Guard’s— 

to have an asset on the scene within 2 hours. When your life is on 

the line, 2 hours is it might be an eternity—is an eternity if you 

are in the water. But again, Admiral Papp in his memo seems to 

be willing to modify those standards. I don’t want to go further, but 

do you support his assertion that more risk is acceptable, loosening 

the standard for on-scene response time? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, with all respect, I am 

just not going to get into a dialogue about a draft leaked memo. 

That is not the policy of the Coast Guard, nor the policy of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. OLSON. Again, I understand that. But the nominee—this is 

his memo. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well—— 

Mr. OLSON. He wrote it. 

A couple of more questions, then. Admiral Papp seems also to reduce the security patrols by 10 to 15 percent, reducing the number 
65 

* The information has been retained in committee files. 

of Coast Guard response boats in both groups by cutting drug enforcement efforts by 25 percent. 

Finally, he will end the Coast Guard’s Maritime Security Response Team and has said that these reductions are ‘‘just a fraction 

of what is needed, and I am prepared to go further.’’ 

In my humble opinion, he has gone too far. In conclusion, again, 

I know you responded to my fellow Texan about his questions, and 

I appreciate your position, but if these radical proposals that this 

nominee—if these are things that he is actually thinking about 

that are good for the Coast Guard that he will enact when he gets 

into office, I think he is unqualified, and I ask that you reconsider 

supporting his nomination. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the 

memo be added to the record. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Without objection.* 

Mr. OLSON. With that, I yield back my time. Thank you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. 

The Chairman now will recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you, Madame Secretary, for appearing today. Just as an 

aside, I maintain a prayer list, and I assure you that I am adding 

you to my prayer list. God bless you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, thank you very much. 

Mr. GREEN. Madame Secretary, quickly, would the imaging—we 

seem to be getting some feedback—would the imaging equipment 

that we have, the full body scan equipment at AIG, would that 

equipment have detected the bomb that was to be employed on 

Christmas day? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, I don’t want to go into 

detail in an unclassified setting. Let me just articulate it this way. 

There is no doubt in my mind—— 

Mr. GREEN. Let me if I may, I will take it—I am going to retract 

that. I will retract that and just ask you this. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. All right. 

Mr. GREEN. Is it perhaps among the best equipment that we 

have to do it? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. It is objectively better than the current 

iteration of technology. 

Mr. GREEN. Exactly. I listened to your testimony, and here is 

where I am going. I thought you had good retorts for privacy concerns. It is unfortunate that we don’t have that message pervasive 

to the extent that privacy advocates across the length and breadth 

of the country would at least give consideration to it, if they 

haven’t already—ACLU, for example. 

My question is to what extent have we had an opportunity to sit, 

dialogue, and try to work out these concerns with organizations 

like the ACLU? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, the chief privacy officer 

of the Department has been meeting with a number of members of 
66 

the privacy advocacy community, for lack of a better word. Whether 

she has met directly with the ACLU I do not know, but we have 

been trying to educate that community on the fact that the earlier 

technology and how it works is just not the same as it is right now. 

So we continue that. 

Privacy is a very important value for us. Civil liberties are important values for us. If we are going to continue to use different 

types of technology, we need to take those accounts into consideration at the front end. 

Mr. GREEN. At the risk of being rude, crude, and unrefined, I 

have to go on quickly. 

I think, Madame Secretary, that the logic we employ today will 

not be the logic that we will employ the day after—God forbid— 

a plane traveling at 500 miles per hour has its structural integrity 

compromise at 35,000 feet. Many of the folks who would say today, 

‘‘I have a problem,’’ the day after that occurs—and God forbid that 

it will—they won’t use that same logic. 

The beautiful thing about being a member of the public is you 

can be here today and there tomorrow and there are no consequences. We have the challenge of dealing with the consequences 

of our actions or our inactions, which is why I am just encouraging 

you to do as much as you can as fast as you can to get the answers 

that you have to the public, because I think you do a good job at 

responding to the privacy concerns. I really do. I think we need to 

get that message out. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. GREEN. I want to encourage you to do what the President is 

doing, but I will tell you today with the health care issue and C– 

SPAN live, but I would tell you that it wouldn’t hurt to have some 

of those people who have some of the sharp questions in the same 

room with you, televised so that people can hear you respond and 

know that this has been addressed, that it is of importance to you. 

Now, quickly, there is about $21 million that has been estimated 

to be the cost to transition from the Federal Protective Service, 

FPS, to the National Protection and Programs Directorate. Apparently, there is not a request for this $21 million in the budget. Can 

you tell me quickly does this mean that we are now abandoning 

this program? Or does it mean that you have some other plans that 

we are not privy to? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, we have a spend plan, 

and that transition has basically occurred from ICE to the NPPD. 

The budget accordingly reflects that that transfer has basically occurred. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. Let me move—— 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. In addition, there was in the FPS account—my understanding is there was approximately $200 million 

that had been unspent so that there are unspent monies as well 

to be deployed for FPS. So those two things go together. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. Quickly now, the TWIC card. Some 

ports, as I understand it, are employing a card that is local along 

with the TWIC card, which is mandatory. Is there a need for multiple cards at these ports, or is the TWIC card one that should suffice for all ports? 
67 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. You know, I would have to know more 

about the local port setting and which workers are being used for 

it. But the TWIC card is designed to be a National—you know, it 

is a National check, a National card. 

Mr. GREEN. The reason I ask is because there are the workers— 

I have had some to complain to me about having to have multiple 

cards. Apparently, there may be multiple costs associated with it. 

Just when you make wages, every dollar counts, and I want to represent them well. 

Final question on TWIC is this. Do we have the scanners for all 

of the TWIC cards now? Are scanners in place across the country 

for the cards? We deployed the cards before we deployed the scanners, so have we deployed the scanners? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. We have a schedule to deploy the scanners beginning at the larger ports, but they are not all in place 

right now. 

Mr. GREEN. There is a concern about fraudulent cards being developed. I am sure you are aware of it. There is even some question 

as to what crime is committed when that card is used. We know 

crimes are committed, but there is some debate about whether we 

go Federal, whether you are going to go local in terms of the crime. 

Perhaps some directive to some of the ports may be helpful. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, we will take a look at that. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from New Orleans, Mr. Cao. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Five minutes. 

Mr. CAO. Madame Secretary, I just want to say that I have been 

one of your biggest fans, and I continue to be one of your biggest 

fans of the Congress, because I feel that you have done a tremendous job, given the complex environment in which we live. I would 

also like to thank your staff, who have worked very closely with us 

to promulgate rules in connection with CDLs that are very, very 

favorable to recovery. 

But with that being said, I just wanted to reiterate the issues 

that we discussed prior to the hearing. In connection with the rules 

that are being promulgated, a problem might arise in connection 

with adjacent parishes to Orleans, who right after Katrina experienced a short period of increase in income, and it might present a 

problem for them in getting the CDL loans forgiven. So I would ask 

that you and your staff look, revisit the rules in connection with 

those parishes. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, sir. We would do that. 

Mr. CAO. The second issue that I would like to address is the 

special CDL to private entities with service agreements with local 

governments. We have also discussed this prior to the hearing. I 

just want to give you the background of it. 

Ochsner and Jefferson Parish have been working unsuccessfully 

since 2007 to obtain funding under this special CDL program enacted following Hurricane Katrina. This special CDL program assists local governments in providing essential services to their communities, and under the implementing regulations promulgated by 
68 

DHS, private nonprofit hospitals such as Ochsner are eligible to 

use these special CDL proceeds. 

I just want to point your attention to the preamble to the regulations, which basically states to that fact. Because of this regulation, 

Jefferson Parish has deemed it appropriate to provide special CDL 

loan proceeds to Ochsner, because they provided Jefferson Parish 

with the essential health care services after Katrina when Charity 

Hospital was destroyed. 

Based on my understanding, Jefferson Parish and Ochsner have 

corresponded and met with FEMA officials numerous times and as 

of February 2010, FEMA has yet to approve Jefferson Parish’s application for this special CDL for Ochsner. So if you can look into 

that issue I would really appreciate it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will ask FEMA to do that. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you very much. 

My last question that I would like to ask you concerns the Maritime Safety and Security Team. Based on what I have heard so far, 

I guess, based on your budget, the team will be eliminated. The 

team in New Orleans serves a special role in security post-Katrina, 

and I wonder whether or not there is a way that this team can be 

pared down instead of fully eliminated. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think the theory of the Coast Guard 

there, Representative, was that particularly in places where we 

have also another, a large Coast Guard footprint, that simply paring down didn’t make as much sense as simply consolidating to another nearby area. 

Of course, New Orleans has a huge Coast Guard footprint. It is 

the same with New York. With the consolidation of the MSST 

team, they still have one of the largest Coast Guard deployments 

in the United States, so kind of the theory in terms of making 

smart and effective use of the dollars that we do get appropriated 

was that it was better to handle it this way rather than simply reduce the size of teams. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you. That is all the questions I have. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madame Secretary, for your presence here today. 

I want to talk a little bit about how we approach some of these 

complicated technological questions. I will tell you that I was frustrated for a number of years on not only the results, but the process of how we were mapping vulnerabilities for infrastructure in 

the United States, most of it held in the public sector. 

At one point I suggested that we outsource, for lack of a better 

word, the mapping to the National labs, who actually have some 

of the expertise available that we really didn’t have, and I think 

still do not have, in the Department. That also relates to cybersecurity. 

I know it is important that the cybersecurity function be in the 

Department. I don’t quarrel with that. But I do think that there 

is an expertise that could be brought in from the National labs that 

is really hard to hire. I am wondering if you have thought about 

that. That is question No. 1. 
69 

Question No. 2, I will never forget in this room the testimony we 

received from the inspector general. I asked the question whether 

there had been the US–VISIT. US–VISIT had been hacked, and he 

said, ‘‘Who would know?’’ They didn’t even deploy detection intrusion security. So I think from that, we need to do an assessment, 

a cyber assessment of our own Department. It is always better to 

have somebody from outside—that than to do it yourself. 

Finally, I am interested—I know that your ICE director is a career prosecutor from DOJ. The responsibilities are split between 

departments, and I am wondering what kind of mechanisms have 

been put into place for the ICE director to share with the DOJ the 

need for additional immigration judges. 

We are so short on immigration judges, and I remember when I 

was in local government, we had, I think, the second-largest county 

jail in the State of California. We had an overcrowding problem, 

but the answer was, in large measure, judges. It wasn’t the need 

for more space. It was a need to process cases. 

I think if you look at the amount of delay and the—not in every 

case, but when you have somebody who stays for a very long time, 

they are eating up a big budget at $90 a day. It really makes more 

sense for the Government overall in some cases to hire, but it is 

different departments. I am wondering what kind of mechanisms 

to share that mechanism exist, if there is anything we can do to 

assist in that. 

The final question is—it is kind of a little one, but I promised 

I would ask—customs and border security at Dulles Airport. They 

are not highly paid. They have got, you know, crummy hours and 

a hard job. I was shocked to find out that they have to pay for their 

parking on top of everything else out at Dulles. Is there any way 

to do something about that? So those are my three questions for 

you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. On parking, I don’t know. I will find out. 

On the judges and the relationship between what we are doing 

on the enforcement side, we have the impact on the justice system. 

There were at least two joint meetings between DHS and DOJ at 

OMB when the President’s budget for 2011 was being prepared to 

look at precisely that intersection. That is having been a prosecutor 

and a practitioner in the Ninth Circuit, I really appreciate that 

particular issue in a fundamental way. 

With respect to cyber and use of the National labs and redteaming ourselves, as I suggested earlier, it might be time for this 

committee to have a cyber hearing of some sort, perhaps in a classified setting, to get—excuse me, to get a better sense of where it 

is that we are heading. I think we have made great strides this 

year, but there is no doubt that we have much work to do. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Can I follow up on the infrastructure vulnerability, because it is not just cyber? I mean, it is cyber, but they 

are—you know, we had, harking back to some of the lists we had, 

we had, I mean, the Santa Cruz Boardwalk placed in Santa Clara 

County and miniature golf courses on the list. I mean, it was an 

embarrassment to everyone. 

I spent a lot of time on it, and the real problem was that we were 

asking people who really didn’t know in local governments and in 
70 

law enforcement to do something that was outside their field of expertise. 

When you look at the entire system—and I don’t think we have 

accomplished it yet—you know, you can’t protect unless you know 

the critical vulnerabilities. Have you given a thought on how we 

might team that, how to swarm that effort? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we have done a lot in the sense of 

really looking at where are the Nation’s critical and what—first of 

all, what is a critical infrastructure? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. How do you define it? Where is it? How 

is it protected? What private sector section does it belong in that 

we need to interact with? Then how do we—to the extent that is 

a cyber network, how do we deal with that? To the extent it could 

be a possible target, how do we deal with that? Also the relevant 

consequence management, should there be a successful attack. 

I would just suggest that I think that there again, there has been 

a lot of good work done in the last 7 years. There is more work to 

be done, and the National labs can be very helpful there as well. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I wonder—certainly, we don’t want to discuss 

here publicly what we know has not been attended to in our various jurisdictions, but maybe we can look to have a more confidential session with the Secretary to explore that, and I think that—— 

Chairman THOMPSON. We had already taken note based on an 

earlier conversation. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Oh, very good. 

Chairman THOMPSON. We will coordinate their schedules for that 

to occur. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Whew! I don’t know about you, but I am glad 

we are getting down the line here. Madame Secretary, it is great 

to see you as always, and thank you for your attendance and your 

frankness regarding this serious issue. I have got four key questions, so I am going to ask them quick, and if I can get your indulgence, I would appreciate it. 

No. 1, your fiscal year 2009 budget was 52.7. How much of that 

did you actually spend—was expended? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I will have to get back to you on that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. My second question. Madame Secretary, 

we on the committee are very much aware of the administration’s 

supplemental budget request to provide an additional $5.1 billion 

to the disaster relief fund. Of these funds, $1.5 billion is to be used 

to pay for arbitration judgments in favor of the entities affected by 

Hurricane Katrina, such as Charity Hospital in New Orleans. 

Looking past the significant amount of money that is needed, I 

am troubled that the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals found in 

at least two cases that the experts representing FEMA were less 

experienced and less credible and have spent less time in the building than the entities’ representatives, and were also unlicensed. 
71 

In other words the officials chosen by FEMA to make the judgments related to public assistance decisions were not the type of individuals who should have been making the decisions in the first 

place. I realize that initial part was done prior to you coming; however, what are you intending to do to ensure that we have the right 

people making the decisions on public assistance? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we have done a lot of work in 

FEMA, as I think Representative Cao acknowledged. Part of that 

is making sure we do have the right people making the right judgments. 

One of the really reforms that happened this last year was the 

Congress passing the ability to arbitrate some of these claims so 

that we could get them resolved, decisions made, and people could 

get on with their lives. 

The supplemental that the President has submitted will cover those arbitrations. It will also cover, I think, $1.1 billion that will 

be necessary for the schools and their reconstruction, the ones that 

are still left. And so with that, we think we will really end the year 

with the Katrina-Rita arbitrations done. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. According to my notes, $1.5 billion, which is 

quite a lot of money. I think what this committee is looking for are: 

Have specific standards been put in place to ensure that the new 

people who are coming in or the people who are there at a minimum are licensed? As this report said, less experienced, less credible and all those things—do we have some sort of standards in 

place to ensure that that has been corrected? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Congresswoman, I have asked the general counsel to make sure that we have the right people in place 

to do that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. My third point—and I am now down to 

2 minutes—looking at the budget, and what I really have spent a 

lot of my time working on, I want to associate myself with all of 

my colleagues, their concerns with the SAFER and firefighter 

grants. 

I am going to have a—I don’t see myself supporting the budget 

as it is with that decrease. Also, the Emergency Operation Centers, 

I just find something that I personally worked on for about 10 

years from the local government to today, seeing it evaporate before our very eyes is disturbing. 

Then finally, looking at the Coast Guard as well, you know, it 

just makes us wonder. We understand the size of your Department 

and all the areas, but these suggested decreases are very concerning to us as the committee and to me personally. 

But finally, the cargo security, which you know I have a great 

interest in, and we have had a couple of discussions, and I think 

your first time here I mentioned to you the 9/11 requirements that 

were coming forward, and it is my understanding the Chairman 

mentioned it to you as well, and I am very concerned with the potential, from what I see here, of 47.87 percent. In my business 

here, what I know about money, once you cut that much, you probably never get it back. 

When I look at on the flip side more money being spent for Secret Service—now, in this very committee we had the head of the 

Secret Service say that the complaints or the threats that have 
72 

come through have not been any greater than any other President, 

which I found surprising, but that is what he said—candidate protection and all that. 

You know, I am concerned that the pendulum is not swinging too 

far one way and we are missing the foxes, literally, in our bedroom. 

So for me, because this happens to be my bedroom community that 

I live in, I would just have serious issues with the decisions made 

regarding cargo security and wanted to hear your thoughts. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think I have already shared those. 

We will be happy to provide you with further. 

But we think with the 10∂2 rule, with 24-hour notification, with 

the transformation to electronic record collection as opposed to having to move paper, that that combined with the fact that you can’t 

just look at cargo coming in one way—that is just one way; if you 

were to view the United States as a house, it is only one way to 

the house—there are a lot of things, other things that need to be 

covered. 

But that, the methodology that we are using, will yield the greatest security and that the margin added for the 100 percent requirement doesn’t give you that additional amount of security where we 

would be better off doing some other things. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, Madame Secretary, and as I close, your 

predecessor was not particularly supportive of the reality of achieving the 9/11 time frames. I believe when you came, you were equally not as committed of meeting those time frames. So I hope to 

work with the Chairman and this committee. I view it as a serious 

issue. 

We went on a Congressional delegation, and when I asked at 

that port, and it was a foreign port, how many of the cargo are you 

inspecting other than what is required of being pulled aside, and 

the answer was none. 

I believe, just as we saw, you know, we can all panic and respond 

and knee-jerk with the Christmas day bomber, but I believe it is 

not a question of if. It is when eventually this will come back to 

bite us. 

So I look forward to working with you. I know you believe in security, and that is why you are serving, and we are grateful for it. 

But it is a No. 1 priority for me. Thank you very much for your 

time. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. 

Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and 

sorry for my delay managing bills on the floor. 

I thank you, Madame Secretary, for being here. Let me start out 

by acknowledging all the men and women that work for the Department of Homeland Security. I am still trying to calculate 

whether it is the largest or next-to-largest of our departments, but 

certainly it has had some steep mountains to climb in terms of the 

many district groups that have come together. I want to thank 

them very much for their service and thank you. 

As was indicated when we conversed, I do understand that the 

Christmas day bomber had origins beyond some of the boundaries 

and responsibilities of TSA, in particular the TSO officers, and I 
73 

think that should be noted. But we know that we want to be perfect. We have to, because we are in the business that we are in. 

So I have a series of quick questions, and since this is a budget 

hearing, I would like to mention some policy issues that you might 

not have time to talk about, but I would suggest starting out with. 

I do think we need a time frame for discussions on comprehensive immigration reform. Of course, there are overlapping jurisdictions, and that might be a policy question that one might want to 

have in our budget writing to at least set us on track for something 

that I think is enormously important. 

My committee has held several hearings on encouraging private 

sector entities to secure themselves against a potential attack. As 

you know, this is generally not done by regulation, but through 

DHS voluntary partnership with the private sector. 

We had a hearing on the Mumbai attack so that we would understand what could happen in the United States and what is being 

done in the United States. The PS–Prep program, a part of the 

9/11 Act, was discussed. It is clear that this program could be leveraged to assure that our private sector partners are taking tangible steps to secure facilities that have been targeted by terrorists. 

Please discuss the status of this program, when it will begin to 

certify businesses and the amount of money dedicated to it in the 

budget both at FEMA and the Office of Infrastructure. That is the 

PS–Prep program—I don’t know if you heard me. Then I will just 

leave you. 

I would appreciate whether or not we are funding Science and 

Technology more or staffing it up, because the complaint is that we 

cannot get needed security inventions or technology confirmed 

quick enough. 

I understand the air cargo question was asked, but if you have 

a better answer as to when you might think we would complete 

that requirement. I would like to find out whether or not the Gallatin match, where they don’t have to match, has been added. 

Then the Citizen Corps—I understand we are not funding it, and 

we were just making progress. Administrator Fugate was in Houston talking about the value of the Citizen Corps. We were working 

to get the Corps—this is the response teams citizens in minority 

neighborhoods, which we had really not reached. I just want to 

know are we lowering the funding, or do we have funding that we 

can utilize? I would like to see it bumped up. 

I yield to the Secretary. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Representative, on several of these, why 

don’t I ask your indulgence and just get back to you with specifics 

on those? 

I do want to pause a moment on S&T, however. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Just let me know the ones you are going to 

get back to me on. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, the rest of them. I have got them 

here. We are taking notes. 

But we now have an Under Secretary for Science and Technology 

in place. She was confirmed not too long ago, but we have been 

working really vigorously to make sure that Science and Technology is really incorporated throughout the Department, not just 

in that directorate. 
74 

But we are using that in terms of helping set standards, set requirements for the contracting that we do moving forward. That, 

we think, will help drive innovation on the vendor side, which is 

very important. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But it is the speed as well. It is too slow, and 

you are hurting small businesses. We really want to work with you 

on that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. We would be happy to work with 

you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. Thank you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

Unanimous consent to recognize Mr. Rogers for a follow-up question. 

Mr. ROGERS. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madame Secretary, earlier our colorful good friend from New Jersey was trying to get you to name one thing in the last year you 

had asked us to do. What he was after was a follow-up to my questioning about jurisdictional consolidation. We need you to urge the 

President and Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid to make this political lift. 

As you had mentioned early, the size of your Department is substantial. This Congress had the same difficulty when it established 

the Pentagon and put everything under HASC in the House and 

SASC in the Senate for the Armed Services, the various branches. 

We need you to exercise what Lee Hamilton called for, and that 

is the call for the political will to consolidate jurisdiction in this 

committee. That is what he was trying to get you to say. What 

have you done? Have you asked for it? 

We have had so many of your people in leadership positions testify before this committee about their frustration of having 86 different committees and subcommittees they have to answer to. I 

heard Ms. Richardson make a reference to our joint concern about 

the Fire Grants and the SAFER grants. Those come out of the 

Science Committee. Transportation has Coast Guard as well as on 

and on and on, Judiciary, Oversight. 

It is a political lift, because they are going to aggravate a lot of 

Chairmen when they start trying to take jurisdiction away from 

them and consolidate it here, but it needs to be done to make sure 

your Department has uniform and consolidated leadership in the 

Congress, know what the Congress is expecting for you, and take 

a lot of burden off of you all. 

So I would like to ask are you willing to do that? Are you committed to trying to see that the Congress pursue that remaining 

9/11 Commission recommendation that has not been satisfied? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, Representative, it is something we 

have discussed with Congressional leadership. We have raised not 

just the number of committees, but the amount of work attendant 

upon that. 

Just this morning in our Appropriations Subcommittee, the 

Chairman was making some very legitimate complaints, really, 

about the delay in getting some reports. But I think he was surprised when I pointed out that just in that subcommittee we had 

300 mandatory reports. That doesn’t even include this committee 
75 

or the volume of correspondence and hearings that this committee 

generates. 

So the answer is that that is one recommendation of the 9/11 

Commission we would like to see pursued. It is something that we 

have spoken with Congressional leadership about. 

Mr. ROGERS. Great. Have you spoken about it with the President 

as well? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I have. 

Mr. ROGERS. Excellent. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Texas had a follow-up. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. You indicated, Madame Secretary, that you 

were going to deploy the TWIC card readers, but you did not give 

me the date. I would like to have the date of deployment for those 

readers, please. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I think some have been deployed. There 

is a schedule by which they are rolling out. We will get that schedule to you. I don’t have it at my fingertips. 

Mr. GREEN. All right. I would like to get the schedule. 

Finally, I would like to associate myself with the comments of 

the Chairman with reference to the 9/11 Commission recommendation of 100 percent cargo screening. It is important to us. Thank 

you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Madame Secretary. 

I have one question before we close the hearing. I understand that 

the President has established a long-term natural disaster recovery 

working group. Can you just kind of give the committee: If you are 

involved in that at all, and just how is it coming? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes, I co-chair it with the Secretary of 

HUD. It is designed to—we have a National Response Framework, 

which is what you do in the immediacy of a disaster and the immediate aftermath, but what you do long-term to restore housing, 

small business, neighborhoods, communities. 

At what point does HUD take over the housing? At what point 

is SBA brought in? Do you waive certain requirements for loans 

and CDBG grants and the rest if it is part of a long-term recovery 

from a natural disaster that you otherwise wouldn’t have? 

I believe we are scheduled to give our recommendations to the 

President in early April, and we are on schedule to do that. We 

would be happy to conduct a briefing for the committee after the 

President has a chance to look at them. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Right. One of the issues I want you to look 

at is to what extent does pre-disaster mitigation come into being. 

We are still, as you know, paying a tremendous tab for Katrina and 

some other natural disasters. 

But if we have in place some pre-disaster mitigation program, 

even though hurricanes and other things would come, to the extent 

that we could fortify areas with significant construction requirements and some other things, the cost over time would be less than 

what we are faced with right now. So I would hope that you would 

look at it. 

We have been working with a number of groups around the country, trying to see whether or not there are some opportunities. 
76 

There are some real smart people who have looked at cost-effective 

mitigation efforts, especially for homeowners and other people who 

live in some of those impacted areas. 

With a little help from HUD and DHS, I think we could push the 

concept that would drive down insurance rates and a number of 

other things so that the dollar figure for the cost would not be less. 

Let me suggest that there is a group called the smartersafer.org. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I am sorry—the Smarter Safer—— 

Chairman THOMPSON. Smarter Safer Coalition. They have been 

corresponding with your office. We will provide to you some information on it. These are people who come up with bright ideas. I 

would think that some of those vetting of those ideas would bear 

fruit for what you are looking at, and I would suggest that after 

we provide it, if you would do it, we would appreciate it. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Be happy to look at those. Absolutely. 

Chairman THOMPSON. I thank you for your time. You have been 

most gracious. Four hearings in 2 days is probably a record, but 

if this one was any indication of those, you have done all right, and 

I want to thank you for that. The Members of the committee might 

have additional questions for you, and we will ask you to respond 

expeditiously in writing to those questions. 

Hearing no further business, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:59 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(77) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN BENNIE G. THOMPSON OF MISSISSIPPI FOR

JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1a. I am pleased that you are taking on this major challenge to the institutional stability of your agency by proposing a ‘‘Balanced Workforce’’ program in 

your fiscal year 2011 budget request. The ratio of contractors to Federal employees 

at the Department is an issue that the committee has repeatedly identified. This 

new initiative to address this over-reliance is certainly encouraging; however, I do 

have some questions. 

What is the Department’s strategy to determine what positions will be changed 

over from contract to Federal? Will you simply stop renewing large contracts that 

are slated to expire or will there be a position-by-position analysis? 

Answer. We will use workforce planning efforts to identify the proper balance of 

Federal employees and contractor resources to achieve the Department’s mission. To 

this end, under direction of the Under Secretary for Management, the Office of the 

Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) has established a Balanced Workforce Program office. The executive for this office will work closely with key stakeholders in 

developing a long-term comprehensive strategy for the Department. Contracts will 

be reviewed to ensure that the work is not inherently Governmental, unauthorized 

personal services, or core/critical competency. 

Question 1b. I agree with the statements by contractor industry groups that ‘‘insourcing solely for the sake of in-sourcing or on the basis of arbitrary quotas’’ would 

be a detriment to the Department as it fulfills its missions. How are you avoiding 

arbitrary quotas and ensuring that there is a systematic approach in identify positions for conversions? 

Answer. We are not setting quotas, but under the leadership of the Balanced 

Workforce Program office, assessing the unique workforce need of each Component. 

Our approach is to ensure that functions that are identified as inherently Governmental, unauthorized personal services, or core/critical competency are performed by 

Federal employees. Approximately 3,500 positions have been identified as such and 

will be in-sourced. Thereafter, the Balance Workforce Program office will provide 

the oversight necessary to ensure the Department develops a systematic approach 

to determine the appropriate ratio of Federal employees to contractors. 

Question 1c. Please provide a breakdown of how many positions you expect to 

transition in fiscal year 2011, Department-wide and by agency, and the anticipated 

cost savings or avoidance for such position conversion. 

Answer. Please refer to the chart below. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WORKFORCE BALANCING 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 

[Dollars in Millions] 

Component Contractor 

Positions FTEs 

Fiscal Year 

2011 Cost 

Savings 

Fiscal Year 

2011 Total 

Cost Reduction to Contractual 

Services 

Fiscal Year 

2011 Increase in 

Federal 

Personnel 

Funding 

CBP ............................ 950 475 $40 .6 $140 .6 $100 .00 

OHA ............................ 20 16 2 .30 4 .20 1 .90 

S&T ............................ 35 35 0 .42 7 .12 7 .12 

USCG ......................... 300 300 2 .70 41 .33 26 .83 

NPPD ......................... 306 360 13 .20 56 .90 43 .70 

ICE ............................. 47 47 2 .35 9 .40 7 .05 
78 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WORKFORCE BALANCING 

FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[Dollars in Millions] 

Component Contractor 

Positions FTEs 

Fiscal Year 

2011 Cost 

Savings 

Fiscal Year 

2011 Total 

Cost Reduction to Contractual 

Services 

Fiscal Year 

2011 Increase in 

Federal 

Personnel 

Funding 

20 ................ 2 .50 2 .50 .................

OSEM—Executive 

Secretary ................ 1 1 0 .23 0 .11 0 .87 

FEMA ......................... 28 14 1 .46 3 .03 1 .56 

A&O ............................ 138 125 17 .77 36 .89 19 .11 

USM—Office of 

Human Capital ...... 15 15 0 .00 6 .10 2 .30 

USM—HRIT .............. 25 25 0 .00 5 .40 3 .87 

USM—Office of Procurement ................. 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 

USM—Office of Security .......................... 72 72 0 .00 6 .08 2 .85 

CFO ............................ 38 19 0 .00 1 .85 1 .85 

OCIO .......................... 27 106 0 .00 12 .41 12 .41 

WCF ........................... 0 34 0 .00 6 .48 5 .27 

Total DHS ....... 1,322 1,419 $72 .75 $329 .61 $236 .69 

Question 2. As you know, this committee has raised many concerns with the development of the Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC). We have determined that the previous administration failed to conduct the proper due diligence 

prior to issuing a ‘‘Request for Proposal.’’ Keeping that in mind, and seeing that 

there are funds within the fiscal year 2011 budget to fund TASC, what steps are 

you taking to make sure that the Department will get a system that will resolve 

DHS’ well-documented financial management issues? 

Answer. The Department has taken a top-down approach in guiding the consolidation of financial, acquisition, and asset management systems. DHS is in the process 

of establishing an Executive Steering Committee (ESC), which will provide strategic 

leadership and direct the Department’s vision for TASC. It is anticipated that the 

ESC will be headed by the Under Secretary for Management and membership will 

be derived from the Department’s CXOs and Components. 

A departmental Integrated Management Team (IMT), consisting of the Offices of 

the Chief Financial Officer (OFCO), the Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO) and the 

Chief Information Officer (OCIO) are performing a thorough review of the TASC initiative. DHS has developed program management planning documents, processes, 

and plans in accordance with DHS Acquisition Directive 102–01 (AD 102–01) and 

insights gained from the IMT. DHS is also taking steps to ensure adequate staffing 

for the TASC program management office (PMO) that continues to build a robust 

team of full-time Federal employees with expertise in project management, systems 

accounting, change management, acquisition management, business intelligence, accounting services and systems to successfully manage TASC. TASC leadership has 

a risk management plan which was presented to Congress in the fiscal year 2010 

TASC Report to Congress. 

Based on recommendations contained in the December 2009 GAO report titled, 

‘‘Financial Management Systems: DHS Faces Challenges to Successfully Consolidating its Existing Disparate Systems, GAO–10–76,’’ the oversight of the Independent Verification and Validation (IV & V) team is now performed by the Department’s OCIO. 

Independent verification and validation (IV & V) contractors continue to support 

the Department’s CFO, providing comprehensive and mature oversight throughout 

the program life cycle. Specifically, IV & V reviews documents and processes for 

completeness and correctness; quality assurance over project deliverables and cost; 

and compliance assessments against enterprise architecture, security, performance 

requirements, and organizational standards. 

Question 3. Like you, I am concerned about the human resources challenges that 

DHS faces. Accordingly, I want to make certain that the Office of the Chief Human 

Capital Officer has an adequate budget to address the Department’s long-standing 
79 

problems with morale and diversity and to promote a common culture among all 

DHS employees. The budget request for this office is $24.9 million; a slight decrease 

from fiscal year 2010 enacted levels. 

Please outline what portion of the Department’s $24.9 million request will be allocated to meet your goals for: (1) Hiring reform; (2) workforce diversity and outreach; 

and (3) leadership development? 

Answer. 

The Department expects to allocate a portion of its $24.9 million as follows: 

• Hiring Reform.—$7.6 million (to include policy development, workforce engagement, human capital planning, and human resources program accountability, 

but not information technology-related investments.) 

• Workforce Diversity and Outreach.—$2.7 million. 

• Leadership Development.—$6.3 million (not including the operational component of SES candidate development programs, which is within the working capital fund). 

Question 4a. Having the appropriate personnel to carry out the important mission 

at the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) is essential. However, in previous 

years, I&A has been unable to hire and sustain the number of FTEs requested. 

What steps are you taking to improve the process by which you recruit, clear, and 

hire personnel to meet your FTE request for this year? What improvements do you 

expect to have in place to fill the FTE request for fiscal year 2011? 

Answer. The Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) senior leadership has made 

hiring up to full strength as rapidly as possible a top priority. Internal improvements include: 

• Weekly senior leadership meetings chaired by the Under Secretary to focus on 

the hiring effort; 

• Working with the Department’s Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer 

(OCHCO) to establish open continuous announcements, whereby the best qualified group of candidates is referred for selections to multiple similar positions. 

This significantly improves the overall efficiency of our hiring process; 

• Drastically decreasing the time it takes to process hiring packages—from 

crafting position descriptions to selecting candidates, to staffing hiring packages, managers are held accountable for making hiring a top priority; and 

• I&A has a full-time trained Recruitment and Outreach Coordinator focused on 

a targeted college and university recruitment program. Recently, I&A participated in a virtual career fair with other Intelligence Community (IC) organizations, where over 8,000 applicants registered for I&A’s virtual booth. 

I&A is also working with relevant stakeholders to improve the efficiency of the 

external processes that affect hiring time frames. 

• I&A is working with OCHCO on regaining some form of Direct Hire Authority. 

• To reduce the amount of time it takes for a selected candidate to clear the investigation process, I&A has increased coordination efforts with the Office of 

Personnel Management by assigning a Security Specialist from I&A to the Department’s Office of Security to facilitate rapid processing of I&A applicants 

through the DHS security clearance process. 

Question 4b. Are there additional authorities you need in order to better execute 

the hiring and/or retention of qualified personnel? 

Answer. Direct Hire Authority would increase I&A’s ability to compete for talent 

with the IC and the private sector and I&A is working with OCHCO and OPM on 

regaining some form of Direct Hire Authority. 

Question 4c. What steps have you taken to ensure you are hiring, retaining, and 

developing a diverse workforce? 

Answer. I&A is committed to actively seeking a diverse and competent workforce. 

In the first two quarters of fiscal year 2010, the I&A Recruitment and Outreach Coordinator and I&A managers participated in numerous college and university career 

fairs and job fairs likely to provide candidates to help I&A increase its diversity 

numbers with regard to African Americans and Hispanics. Examples include participation in the Norfolk State University Career Fair and University of Texas-Pan 

American Career Fair. I&A also has participated in events sponsored by U.S. Military affiliates and veterans groups and plans to participate in upcoming events with 

groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, Asian Pacific American Association, Blacks In Government, Society of American Indian Government 

Employees, and Federally Employed Women, as well as the Federal Hiring Event 

for People with Disabilities. 

Question 5a. In June 2009, Mr. Bart Johnson, the then-Acting Under Secretary 

for Intelligence and Analysis, testified before our Subcommittee on Intelligence that 

contractors made up 60 percent of I&A’s workforce. He acknowledged that this was 
80 

a problem and that I&A was working to shift the balance between contractors and 

Federal employees. 

How does your budget request support a contractor-to-Federal employee conversion? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes conversion of 87 contractors 

to permanent Government employees. This is in addition to the conversion of 110 

contractors appropriated to I&A in fiscal year 2010. 

Question 5b. What percentage of I&A’s workforce is currently made up by contractors? 

Answer. I&A’s workforce is currently made up of 55 percent contractors. 

Question 5c. By the end of fiscal year 2010, what will the percentage be? 

Answer. I&A’s goal for the end of fiscal year 2010 is to have the percentage of 

contractors at no greater than 47 percent. 

Question 5d. By the end of fiscal year 2011? 

Answer. I&A’s goal for the end of fiscal year 2011 is to have the percentage of 

contractors at no greater than 38 percent. 

Question 6a. In light of the attempted terrorist attack on Flight 253 on Christmas 

day 2009, I am surprised that the budget does not request greater investment in 

CBP’s passenger prescreening programs and technology, such as CBP’s National 

Targeting Center and Advance Passenger Information System. That said, how does 

CBP plan to change or improve its passenger prescreening processes in the upcoming fiscal year? 

Answer. The administration had to weigh a number of competing and worthy priorities while it was formulating the fiscal year 2011 budget. However, after careful 

consideration of its priorities, the needs of the American public and all the available 

options, the administration decided to focus its resources on the priorities contained 

in the President’s budget. 

CBP carefully examined its passenger screening processes and procedures and has 

already implemented or planned a number of initiatives that will improve its capabilities. The most significant of these include the Pre-Departure Program, exploring 

expansion of the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP), and the CBP partnership 

with TSA. 

The Pre-Departure program was created to identify and prevent the boarding of 

high-risk travelers who seek to travel on a commercial air carrier destined for the 

United States. The Pre-Departure Program mirrors the IAP vetting procedures; the 

NTC-Passenger works with the CBP Regional Carrier Liaison Group, which then 

reaches out to the local U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Attache ́, CBP 

Attache ́, Air Carrier Security Office, etc to assist with contacting the specific airlines to recommend that these identified travelers not be permitted to board an aircraft destined to the United States. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget request maintains IAP operations at its current level 

and allows for evaluation of expansion to various other sites. Expansion criteria is 

based on several factors, including but not limited to, the amount of passenger traffic from the airport to the United States; the number of high-risk passengers traveling from the airport to the United States; and the conclusion of successful negotiations between the United States and the respective foreign government. 

Question 6b. The budget requests an additional 103 intelligence analysts for 

CBP’s Office of Intelligence and Operations Coordination (OIOC). According to the 

budget, these analysts are to support CBP Intelligence Watch, Operations Coordination, and the Commissioner’s Situation Room. 

Please elaborate on the kind of work that these analysts will perform, and how 

their activities will fit into the mission of CBP and DHS. Also, please describe the 

OIOC’s relationship with I&A. 

Answer. The CBP Office of Intelligence and Operations Coordination (OIOC) is responsible for providing intelligence support to decision-makers from the policy level 

to the action level—officer and agents responsible for securing the U.S. border. 

OIOC is CBP’s representative in the DHS Intelligence Enterprise, led by the DHS 

Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A). The relationship between the Components 

is collaborative and mutually supporting. 

The additional 103 intelligence analysts will enable OIOC to enhance current programs, including: 

• 24x7 National Intelligence Watch that provides watch and warning to the entirety of CBP; 

• 24x7 Tactical Intelligence Cell that provides direct support to the CBP National 

Targeting Center-Passenger; 

• Management of CBP intelligence collection and requirements processes; 

• Short-term analytic efforts focused on immediate and near-term threats; 
81 

• Begin development of a CBP-wide common intelligence picture (CIP) providing 

real-time intelligence and basic war-gaming capability throughout this agency. 

Question 7a. On the morning of February 18, a dog involved in a CBP training 

exercise at Dulles International Airport bit a 4-year old girl. This was an unusual 

incident in the otherwise impressive record of the program’s 40-year history. However, I am aware that there have been changes to the curriculum and training and 

a discontinuation of the Labrador breeding program. Please provide answers to the 

following items: 

What actions has CBP taken since February’s attack to reassess its program? 

Answer. On the advice of Counsel, we are declining to respond, as we anticipate 

that this matter will soon be in litigation. 

Question 7b. Describe changes made to the training prior to February’s incident. 

Answer. No changes were made in the training of the passenger processing subdiscipline prior to the February incident. 

Question 7c. Explain the rationale used in discontinuing the Labrador breeding 

program. 

Answer. The breeding program has not been discontinued; however, it has been 

temporarily suspended pending a reassessment, due to the numerous discrepancies 

found during an initial evaluation. This evaluation consisted of reviewing all the administrative functions of the breeding program, as well as selection testing of the 

canines in the rearing program at the time. The decision was made to temporarily 

suspend the breeding program due to the fact that all the canines in the program 

failed to demonstrate that they possessed the necessary genetic drives to perform 

detection work at the required level. 

Question 7d. Have there been any studies to compare breed characteristics in the 

various CBP work environments such as airports, land ports of entry, border checkpoints to verify how breeds respond in those locations? 

Answer. No conclusive studies comparing breed characteristics in the various CBP 

work environments have been conducted. 

Question 7e. Has there been any discussion within CBP of how different breeds 

are perceived by the public and how the public responds to them? 

Answer. No, the CBP Canine Program is focused on procuring canines that possess the necessary genetic drives to fulfill its mission. 

Question 8a. Section 428 of the Homeland Security Act authorized the creation 

of the Visa Security Program, which deploys ICE agents to high-risk areas worldwide to conduct security reviews of visa applications. According to a 2008 DHS Office of Inspector General report, ICE’s Visa Security Units offer valuable resources 

to consular officers in support of visa operations. However, I understand that DHS 

has run into resistance establishing these units at certain embassies and consulates. 

Have there been delays in the establishment of visa security units in new locations? If so, please identify the source(s) of the delays. 

Answer. In 2008, ICE and the State Department collaborated on VSP’s site selection methodology and presented the joint findings to the HSC. Additionally, DOS 

and ICE VSP released a 2008 cable to all posts highlighting the joint accomplishments of the State Department and ICE VSP efforts overseas. At posts where ICE 

VSP operations have been established, DHS and State Department personnel have 

established strong and productive partnerships that enhance the security of the visa 

process. 

While ICE VSP’s cooperation with the State Department has been largely successful, ICE VSP has occasionally faced concerns from individual Chiefs or Deputy 

Chiefs of Mission towards the establishment of new VSUs in certain locations. The 

process for evaluating an agency’s request for locating a position in a Mission overseas is set forth in NSDD–38. Under NSDD–38 procedures, a Chief of Mission must 

determine whether to accommodate additions to Mission personnel. The Chief of 

Mission will consider available space, resources, support capabilities, the threat 

level at post, and existing presence at post of the agency requesting new positions 

when making a determination on an NSDD–38 request. 

Question 8b. Have these delays contributed to the fact that there is no additional 

request of funds for the program for the next fiscal year? 

Answer. Based on the funding provided in each year, ICE has been able to deploy 

to approximately 3–4 posts per year. ICE presently has fiscal year 2010 funds available to open new Visa Security Units (VSUs) in Sana’a, Yemen; Tel Aviv, Israel; 

Jerusalem, Israel; and London, United Kingdom, and to expand ICE’s existing presence in Amman, Jordan; Saudi Arabia; and Frankfurt, Germany. ICE is currently 

moving forward with deployment to these posts. ICE currently has funds to sustain 

operations at the new posts, but will require additional funds for future expansion. 

Question 8c. What effect has the Flight 253 incident had on prospects for expansion of the Visa Security Program? 
82 

Answer. The determination of high-risk locations is a fluid and dynamic process 

that changes as new threats are identified. Since Flight 253, ICE is updating the 

list of high-risk posts. Based on this new analysis, ICE will continue to aggressively 

expand the VSP within its allotted resources. 

Question 9a. Our current immigration detention system is comprised of a patchwork of ICE-owned facilities, private detention centers, and hundreds of State and 

local facilities. 

How will ICE use the funding proposals in this budget request to accomplish the 

ambitious detention reform goals ICE announced last year? 

What role do you see the Alternatives to Detention programs playing in ICE’s detention management strategy in the future? 

Answer. ICE will use the funding proposals in the fiscal year 2011 budget request 

to accomplish detention reform goals by: • Monitoring and adjusting, as needed, the implementation of a medical classification system to support immigration detainees with unique medical or mental 

health needs. • Minimizing transfers, thus decreasing costs associated with transportation and 

delays in proceedings. • Creating a library of contracts for all facilities with which ICE has active agreements, and centralizing all contracts under ICE headquarters’ supervision. At 

present, the Office of Acquisitions at ICE headquarters negotiates and manages 

only 80 of the approximately 270 contracts for detention facilities. The remaining contracts are overseen by several ICE field offices and the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee. ICE will aggressively monitor and enforce contract performance in order to ensure contractors comply with terms and conditions—especially those related to conditions of confinement. When confronted with repeated contractual deficiencies, ICE will pursue all available avenues for remedying poor performance, including termination of contracts. In the long term, 

this effort is expected to yield cost savings and a better managed and more efficient contracting process, though these initiatives may require additional resources at headquarters. • Completing the hiring of 39 Federal employees to provide on-site oversight at 

ICE’s largest detention facilities, where more than 80 percent of immigration 

detainees are housed, and strengthening the day-to-day oversight at these facilities. ICE is developing training courses, policies, and procedures to ensure this 

cadre of personnel is well-trained and managed. These 39 Federal employees 

will replace ICE employees who were given temporary duty assignments in fiscal year 2010 to perform this mission. • Continuing to house non-criminal, non-violent populations based on a risk assessment and custody classification in the appropriate facilities. ICE is planning 

to pilot this risk assessment tool beginning in May 2010. These populations include arriving asylum seekers, who are generally housed at facilities such as 

the Broward Transitional Center, in Florida. ICE will also complete two residential facilities as immigration detention facilities for non-criminal, non-violent 

populations. In fiscal year 2010, DRO transitioned the T. Don Hutto Residential 

Center in Taylor, Texas, from holding families, to holding 512 single adult females in a residential custody environment. 

• Updating the Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS), 

which are currently with the publisher and implementing new Family Residential Standards. 

• Continuing our efforts to consolidate existing detention facilities into fewer facilities that are more in line with the administration’s detention reform initiatives. 

• Continuing the recently established Detention Monitoring Council reviews of detention facility inspection reports, assessments of corrective action plans, ensuring remedial plans are implemented, and determinations of whether the use of 

a facility should continue. 

The Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program has a critical role in ICE’s detention 

management strategy, by providing ICE with the option to release individuals that 

are considered to be low-risk. Each potential participant will be evaluated on a caseby-case basis by trained ICE officers using a refined risk assessment tool created 

by the Office of Detention Policy and Planning. This tool will assist the officers in 

making a determination on an appropriate level of reporting and technology, based 

upon multiple factors that include, but are not limited to, ties with the community, 

family obligations, criminal history, and their stage in the immigration court proceedings. With the assistance of the ATD program, ICE will be able to release lowrisk individuals and families from detention and free up bed space for higher-risk 

aliens, criminals, and others who could be a danger to the community. 
83 

On January 25, 2010, the Executive Office for Immigration Review and ICE began 

a fast-tracking pilot for participants on ATD in Baltimore and Miami. The goal of 

the pilot program is to reduce the average length of time that participants remain 

on ATD, pending a hearing, from 310 days to 180 days. As of April 13, 2010, 213 

participants have been placed into the pilot program. 

Question 10. The committee is pleased to see that the TSA budget provides resources to address the video surveillance gap that was identified earlier this year, 

when a security breach shut down the Continental Airlines terminal at Newark 

International Airport. Certainly, we could have seen a better response from TSA 

and local law enforcement authorities if the Port Authority’s video surveillance system had been fully operational at the terminal exit lane. 

What steps is TSA taking, in conjunction with its local law enforcement and aviation partners, to ensure that surveillance programs are operational and effective at 

all times? 

Answer. Following the security breach at Newark International Airport on January 3, 2010, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) immediately deployed a team of security experts to visit numerous airports to review breach compliance plans, discuss and observe breach drills, share best practices, review and observe Closed Circuit Television systems (CCTV), and conduct training as required. 

Additionally, the TSA directed a Nation-wide data call of all airport-owned CCTV 

systems to ensure proper operational capabilities are maintained. 

Question 11. The budget requests approximately 4,000 new personnel for TSA, 

with the majority of them providing checkpoint support at the Nation’s airports, including administering AIT systems. 

How do the additional 4,000 positions fit in the checkpoint support model? 

By the end of fiscal year 2011, how will the addition of 1,000 new AIT machines 

affect TSA’s workforce overall? What percentage of the TSO workforce do you project 

will be working on AIT systems in fiscal year 2011? 

Answer. The additional 1,000 Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machines will 

require 3,550 more Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), which will be distributed to the receiving airports based on the Transportation Security Administration’s Staffing Allocation Model. Also included in the fiscal year 2011 request are 210 FTE for Behavior 

Detection Officers (BDOs) to enable expansion of the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) program at additional airports. 

As Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) are cross-utilized for multiple screening functions, the majority of new TSO positions requested in fiscal year 2011 will 

operate the AIT machines on a rotational basis. 

Question 12a. Please provide an update for when TSA will complete the implementation of its Secure Flight passenger pre-flight watch list matching program for 

all carriers operating domestic flights, and what the schedule is for implementing 

Secure Flight for foreign and domestic air carriers operating in-bound flights to the 

United States. 

Answer. Secure Flight will ultimately conduct watch list matching for approximately 68 covered domestic airlines and 148 foreign airlines. The Secure Flight program began operational cutover to airlines on January 27, 2009. To date, 41 airlines 

have successfully cutover to Secure Flight, including four foreign airlines. Eleven 

airlines are partially cutover. Testing is underway with 29 airlines. Secure Flight 

is deploying to domestic and foreign airlines in a phased process. Each airline will 

integrate the capability to submit Secure Flight Passenger Data over the coming 

months. Secure Flight deployments for domestic airlines began in early 2009. Testing and deployment with foreign airlines began later that year. The anticipated cutover for both domestic and foreign airlines is the end of calendar year 2010. 

Question 12b. What type of coordination efforts are occurring between TSA and 

Customs and Border Protection now, what will those efforts look like with the implementation of Secure Flight? 

Answer. The Transportation Security Administration and the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection jointly operate the Secure Flight International Capabilities 

Project. This project, which began in January 2009, identifies and coordinates the 

capabilities and activities required to align CBP and TSA with respect to policy, 

process, and technology for handling foreign airlines. To date, this project has been 

successful in putting in place the policy, process, and technology required for a 

seamless transition from CBP-performed watch list matching to Secure Flight. 

Question 13. Given the delays in issuing regulations, the prolonged grant application processing time, and the relative shortage of expertise in surface transportation 

modes generally, why is there a decrease in funding requested for TSA for ‘‘Surface 

Transportation Security Operations and Staffing?’’ 

Answer. The development of various regulations directed by the Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 continues to advance and the 
84 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) believes that these are critical regulations that need to be implemented. TSA has streamlined its grants processes to ensure that its responsibilities in this area are completed well in advance of the onset 

of the grant period of performance. TSA has identified efficiencies to support critical 

operations in fiscal year 2011. To do this, TSA looked across all of its programs and 

identified reductions that could be made without degradation to the existing level 

of service. 

Question 14. Throughout the budget request, Coast Guard listed that it is responsible for the inspection of over 48,000 Transportation Worker Identification Credentials but there were no funding requests tied to TWIC inspections. Additionally, the 

Coast Guard has the lead role in overseeing security for the MTSA facilities. 

For fiscal year 2011, what resources are allocated for the Coast Guard to conduct 

TWIC inspection? Similarly, what resources are allocated for MTSA enforcement? 

Answer. Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) inspections are 

carried out as part of the Coast Guard’s Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 

(MTSA) enforcement program. Funding and personnel associated with MTSA implementation for vessel and facility security in fiscal year 2010 is $44.7 million and 

372 positions. These resources are part of the existing base of Coast Guard resources that support the Ports Waterways and Coastal Security and Marine Safety 

missions. 

Question 15. I understand that recapitalization is a necessary task since many of 

the Coast Guard’s surface and air assets are aging and need to be replaced. To that 

end, Coast Guard has requested funding for several replacement surface and air assets including the purchase of the fifth National Security Cutter, Fast & Medium 

Response Cutters, and a Maritime Patrol Aircraft. 

How will these new assets affect Coast Guard’s ability to carry out its homeland 

security missions? 

Answer. Recapitalizing aging assets is necessary to sustain mission performance. 

The Coast Guard’s effort to replace high and medium endurance cutters (HEC and 

MEC), patrol boats (WPBs) and medium-range surveillance fixed-wing aircraft at, 

near, or beyond their service life is an on-going, sustained initiative to provide capable and cost-effective assets for our personnel to execute Coast Guard missions. 

These assets directly contribute and enhance the Coast Guard’s missions (e.g., ports, 

waterways, and coastal security, drug and migrant interdiction, defense readiness, 

search and rescue and other law enforcement, etc.). New assets will expand maritime domain awareness, enhance end game capabilities through advanced flight 

decks and small boats, and improve C4ISR capabilities to enhance interoperability 

with partner agencies. 

Question 16. The 2012 Presidential campaign preparations include a temporary 

shift of 22 special agents from investigative units to the program in order to support 

future staffing requirements. 

How will the transfer of these agents from the investigative unit to the Candidate 

Nominee Protection program affect the Service’s on-going criminal investigative mission? 

Answer. The administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget request seeks to reallocate 

FTE from the Investigations and Field Operations account to the Protection, Administration, and Training account to cover the specialized training requirements in advance of the 2012 Presidential campaign. 

While agents assigned to Investigations are routinely used to staff temporary protective details and other protective support functions, the Secret Service will continue to sustain a robust and viable investigative agenda. As in previous campaign 

periods, the Secret Service will prioritize our investigative initiatives as necessary 

to efficiently manage the investigative case load during this challenging period. The 

Secret Service will focus on crimes involving organized criminal groups, large financial losses, and those investigations with significant community impact. 

The Secret Service continues to build unique partnerships with other agencies 

which aid our investigative mission during campaign years. The Secret Service has 

established a National network of Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTF) to leverage 

the resources of academia; the private sector; and local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies in an organized effort to combat threats to our financial payment 

systems and critical infrastructures. The Secret Service currently maintains 29 

ECTFs, to include the first international ECTF located in Rome, Italy. 

Additionally, the Secret Service has established a network of Financial Crimes 

Task Forces (FCTF). These FCTFs, located in 38 cities across the United States, 

combine the resources and manpower of multiple local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies to combat organized criminal groups. 

Through the use of the ECTFs and FCTFs, the Secret Service leverages law enforcement resources from other agencies and departments to sustain on-going inves-
85 

tigations. The task force model allows us to maintain continuity of investigative operations while Secret Service agent personnel are assigned to temporary protective 

assignments. 

To further manage increased investigative demands, the Secret Service, in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, developed the National Computer Forensics Institute (NCFI) in Hoover, Alabama, a cyber crimes training facility designed to provide State and local law enforcement officers with training, equipment, and expertise in computer forensics and digital evidence analysis. To date, 

roughly 420 State and local police officers have completed training at the NCFI. 

These officers are now available to assist with Secret Service investigations as necessary. 

The Secret Service has also positioned Criminal Research Specialists (CRS) in 

major field offices throughout the United States. CRS personnel assist special 

agents with criminal investigations, but they do not participate in protective duties. 

Therefore, CRS personnel can further sustain continuity of investigative operations 

while agents are performing protective duties. 

Question 17. Madame Secretary, Congress in the SAFE Port Act authorized $400 

million for port security grants for fiscal year 2011. However, the President’s fiscal 

year 2011 budget only requested $300 million. Please explain why the Department 

will only request $300 million to help localities protect their ports, especially in light 

of an anticipated reduced U.S. Coast Guard presence at a number of ports? 

Answer. Section 112 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 

(SAFE Port Act) amended 46 USC § 70107 and authorizes $400 million for the Port 

Security Grant Program (PSGP) for fiscal years 2007 through 2011. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes the same amount of funding that was appropriated in fiscal year 2010: $300 million. In fiscal year 2009, the PSGP 

received its full authorized amount of funding ($400 million) and received an additional appropriation of $150 million through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, providing a total of $550 million for the program. 

Question 18. It has been the committee’s longstanding conviction that the Office 

of Risk Management and Analysis needs to take on a more prominent role within 

DHS and work in a consistent manner with DHS components on how to establish 

and follow risk-management protocols. Please explain why you are seeking a $152,000 decrease in Risk Management and 

Analysis’ budget for technical assistance to other DHS components? 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is committed to risk management as a means to achieve homeland security. As stated in the Quadrennial 

Homeland Security Review, homeland security is ultimately about effectively managing risks to the Nation’s security. The Office of Risk Management and Analysis 

(RMA), in conjunction with partners from across DHS and the homeland security 

enterprise—including Federal, State, local, Tribal and territorial government organizations, the private sector, and our international partners—is working to achieve a 

consistent and integrated approach to risk management that will increase the effectiveness of homeland security risk management. RMA has taken several critical 

first steps for building and institutionalizing integrated risk management. The office 

established a risk governance process with the DHS Risk Steering Committee 

(RSC). The RSC ensures that there is collaboration, information-sharing, and consensus-building across the Department as we identify and integrate best practices 

for risk management and analysis. In September 2008, the RSC published a DHS 

Risk Lexicon that establishes a common language for discussing risk-related concepts and techniques, and then in January 2009 released an Interim Integrated Risk 

Management Framework that sets the foundation for a common approach to homeland security risk management. 

The projected decrement in program funds will not significantly impact RMA’s capability to provide technical assistance. In fiscal year 2010, RMA converted program 

dollars for contract support into salaries and benefits for an additional 13 Federal 

employees. By establishing an ‘‘in-house’’ technical assistance capability, RMA is 

able to more effectively and efficiently meet the needs of the Department’s components. For example, RMA is currently providing risk management technical assistance to the Office of Policy, the Science and Technology Directorate, the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In addition, for longer-term 

projects, RMA has established the business protocols for having DHS components 

provide the funding to RMA for their specific technical assistance requirement. 

Question 19a. As you know, the committee has been very concerned about the cost 

overruns and development missteps associated with the SBInet program. The budget request goes as far as to defer a funding request for the next fiscal year due to 

SBInet’s delays in deployment. 
86 

How is S&T’s Testing/Evaluation Division working with SBInet program officials 

to establish operational testing requirements? 

Answer. The S&T Director, Test and Evaluation and Standards, and the S&T Director, Operational Test are the final approval authority for the SBInet TEMP. S&T 

is also a member of the SBInet Test & Evaluation (T&E) Working Integrated Product Team (WIPT). While the Office of the Border Patrol will serve as the Operational Test Director, S&T is providing oversight and guidance for the test process 

and procedures and will participate in the actual conduct of the test. 

Question 19b. What responsibility does this division have to establish testing requirements for other operational components? 

Answer. Paragraph (12) of Section 302 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

charges the Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for S&T with the responsibility for ‘‘coordinating and integrating all research, development, demonstration, 

testing, and evaluation activities of the Department.’’ To carry out these and other 

test and evaluation (T&E) related legislative mandates, S&T established the Test 

and Evaluation and Standards Division (TSD) in 2006 and created the position of 

Director of Operational Test & Evaluation in 2008. 

To fulfill its mission, TSD develops and implements robust Department-wide T&E 

policies and procedures. Working with the DHS Under Secretary for Management, 

TSD approves Test and Evaluation Master Plans (TEMP) that describe the necessary Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E) and Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) tasks that must be conducted in order to determine system technical 

performance and operational effectiveness based upon vetted Operational Requirements Documents. In addition, the Director of OT&E approves the operational test 

plan for oversight programs, to ensure adequacy of the T&E activity in support of 

Acquisition Decision Event 3 program reviews. 

Question 20. The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request calls for a nearly 20 

percent cut in the University Programs portfolio. This is the largest single cut to 

the S&T budget. Even in this tight fiscal climate, the Domestic Nuclear Detection 

Office and other agencies throughout the Government have found a way to continue 

supporting science research. Yet, S&T plans to eviscerate the Centers of Excellence, 

Minority Serving Institutions Program, and University Scholars—programs that 

enjoy strong Congressional support. What is the reason for the decrease? 

Answer. There were many competing priorities facing the Department as the fiscal year 2011 budget was being built. Many hard decisions and trade-offs had to 

be made in order to provide funding for the highest priority needs across a vast and 

diverse mission space. The Department still feels that the long-term development 

of basic research capabilities is the future of DHS and is supportive of the Science 

and Technology Directorate’s University Programs. The Department maintained 

University Programs at the level possible, but delivery of near-term operational 

technologies was a higher priority. 

The reduction to the University Programs budget, specifically Minority Serving 

Institutions and Educational Programs, will not impact any students who have already been awarded scholarships or fellowships. All scholarships and fellowships are 

fully funded for the length of the award when the candidate is selected. 

Question 21. The committee has repeatedly voiced concerns with the large number 

of inaccuracies that have been discovered within the E-Verify program. 

Question 21a. How is DHS working to improve the accuracy of the data contained 

in the system in order to provide timely verifications? 

Question 21b. What resources do you need in fiscal year 2011 to improve the program? 

Answer. The 2009 Westat report of the E-Verify program used a model to estimate the program’s total accuracy rate for the first time, finding that 96 percent 

of all E-Verify initial responses was consistent with the person’s work authorization 

status, and finding the remaining 4 percent of queries was inconsistent with an individual’s work authorization status, which the study found was primarily due to 

identity fraud. The report evaluated the program covering the time period of September 2007 to June 2008 and provided recommendations for system improvements. 

USCIS has already implemented or is planning to implement over two-thirds of 

the primary recommendations that relate to program improvements. Several of the 

remaining recommendations are aimed at informing future policy-making and require legislative changes. The recommendations that we have addressed since June 

2008 are part of our work to continuously improve E-Verify. USCIS has several initiatives planned that will continue to improve E-Verify accuracy by expanding the 

Photo Tool, enhancing monitoring and compliance activities, improving data matching and providing an avenue for employees to check themselves in E-Verify prior 

to employment to combat employment-related discrimination. These initiatives include: 
87 

• Expanding the E-Verify Photo Tool by September 2010 by adding Department 

of State U.S. passport photos to the E-Verify system. Adding U.S. passport 

photos would assist employers in authenticating the validity of a U.S. passport 

presented by an employee during the Form I–9 process. Currently, the Photo 

Tool only checks against DHS-issued documents (any permanent resident card 

or employment authorization document presented by the employee). 

• Exploring the feasibility of adding driver’s license data to E-Verify. E-Verify is 

examining the possibility of a pilot program with one State. If deployed, EVerify will match presented driver’s license data with the data on record with 

the issuing State, thereby reducing the possibility of fraudulent driver’s licenses 

being used to gain employment authorization. 

• Expanding current monitoring and compliance efforts by revising existing algorithms to better detect misuse and identity fraud in the system, as well as expanding the number of employer behaviors monitored to better detect employer 

misuse, abuse, and discrimination. 

• Developing a Fraud Alert tool which will further identify Social Security Numbers potentially used fraudulently in E-Verify and lock them to prevent further 

use. 

• Working to deploy E-Verify Self Check, which will allow individuals to verify 

the accuracy of their Government records outside of the employment process. 

Self Check will allow workers to update their records before being hired while 

protecting the privacy and security of personal information and ensuring the 

system is not used to pre-screen applicants or discriminate in the hiring process. We anticipate Self Check will result in fewer adverse actions against authorized workers. 

• Improving helper text to decrease typos and strengthening data-matching algorithms. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget request for E-Verify is $103.4 million. In addition, the 

fiscal year 2010 appropriation included $30 million of 2-year funding for E-Verify. 

Of the $30 million, USCIS expects to carry over approximately $15 million into fiscal year 2011. The 2-year funding was specified by the Congress for continued improvement of the E-Verify system including: 

• an identity assurance tool, which will be deployed with the Self Check feature 

and expanded at later phases to include users of the system; 

• additional capacity to investigate fraudulent use of the system, which is reflected in the expansion of our monitoring and compliance program; and 

• development of a Self Check tool to allow authorized workers to validate the 

accuracy of their records on file with Federal Government agencies. 

Question 22. Various outbreaks—including H1N1—have tested the ability of the 

National Biosurveillance Integration Center to obtain and integrate biosurveillance 

data from throughout the Government. To date, NBIC has struggled to stand up operations. Secretary Napolitano, having just gone through the H1N1 crisis, can you 

speak to the value of the NBIC and its future given the meager budget request— 

just $7 million for fiscal year 2011? 

Answer. The $7 million requested in fiscal year 2011 to support NBIC is sufficient 

to maintain current operations. Funding will support development of analytical biological surveillance and impact reports—similar to the reports completed during the 

2009–H1N1 pandemic. These reports are collaboratively developed among interagency partners and will be made available for interagency use. 

The $1 million reduction from fiscal year 2010 funding reduces the amount available to reimburse detailees or liaison officers from partner agencies to serve at 

NBIC to provide analytic and collaborative capabilities. The reduction in funding 

could affect up to six detailees depending on grade. While the lack of reimbursements may be interpreted as a disincentive to interagency participation in NBIC, 

as highlighted in the Government Accountability Office’s report, ‘‘Biosurveillance: 

Developing a Collaboration Strategy is Essential to Fostering Interagency Data and 

Resource Sharing,’’ Federal agencies are not actively participating in NBIC. To foster collaboration and information sharing between agencies, we must reevaluate 

NBIC’s structure to ensure its mission is transparent and participating agencies understand its value-add during biological incidents. 

To further information flow into NBIC and strengthen collaboration with State 

and local partners, the DHS Office of Health Affairs (OHA) is working to enhance 

partnerships with specific States, the private sector, non-governmental agencies, 

and the international community. Beginning with the $5 million provided to NBIC 

in fiscal year 2010 to support a demonstration project with the North Carolina 

Collaboratory for Bio-Preparedness, we aim to validate integrated information sharing of public health, animal surveillance information, environmental monitoring, 
88 

and other biosurveillance information. We continue to work with our Federal partners. In addition to North Carolina, NBIC is engaging with other States to establish 

biosurveillance data-sharing pilot outreach programs. These States include: New 

Jersey—a State with a very mature DHS-State fusion center relationship and a robust information sharing tool; Minnesota—a State nationally known for their superior food defense capabilities through information analysis; and, Washington State— 

a State that has demonstrated advanced capability to integrate critical infrastructure analysis into decision-making schemes. As we work with State and local partners and follow GAO’s recommendations, we hope to demonstrate the value of situational awareness to respond to biological incidents. 

Question 23. For the 476 new BioWatch detectors that OHA seeks to purchase 

with the increase requested in the fiscal year 2011 budget, will any or all be deployed to any new locations or will they all be used to replace and add to existing 

BioWatch detection systems in the 29 host cities where BioWatch systems are currently located? 

Answer. DHS agrees that the BioWatch program is a much-needed system that 

provides early detection of a biological attack and the Department remains focused 

on supporting this program. In fiscal year 2011, $173.5 million is requested to support the BioWatch program. Approximately $84 million will be used to procure and 

potentially deploy units for a four-city operational field test of the Generation-3 system. The four-city operational testing will include inserting Generation-3 detectors 

alongside existing Generation-1 and Generation-2 detectors in each of the four 

areas. The specific locations within each jurisdiction will include existing sites, and 

will consider new locations to improve the networks (i.e., additional sites both indoors and outdoors.) 

The Generation-3 program consists of a multi-year deployment strategy over a 4- 

year period. The Generation-3 revised baseline schedule is reflected by the major 

milestones below: 

• Field Test Program Contract Award (Phase I)—November 12, 2009; 

• Field Test Program Task Order 1 Award—February 2, 2010; 

• Field Test Program Task Order 2 Award—3rd Quarter fiscal year 2010; 

• Completion of Field Testing—2nd Quarter fiscal year 2011; 

• Technology Readiness Review—2nd Quarter fiscal year 2011; 

• Phase II Contract Award for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E)—4th Quarter fiscal year 2011 or 1st Quarter 

fiscal year 2012; 

• Conduct OT&E: Start—4th Quarter fiscal year 2012, Finish—3rd Quarter fiscal 

year 2013; 

• Initial Operational Capability (IOC)—3rd Quarter fiscal year 2013; 

• Deployment of Gen-3 detectors Nation-wide, fiscal year 2013–fiscal year 2016; 

• Completed network fiscal year 2017. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HONORABLE HENRY CUELLAR OF TEXAS FOR JANET

NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1a. Since its implementation in 1997, the Foreign Language Awards Program (FLAP) has been instrumental in identifying and utilizing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) employees who are proficient in a foreign language, a skill especially important in their role of dealing directly with foreign travelers and trade. 

Under the program, which incorporates more than two dozen languages, CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists who qualify after language proficiency testing can 

earn awards of between 1 and 5 percent of their pay if they use a language other 

than English for more than 10 percent of the time during their daily duties. Thousands of frontline CBP employees use their language skills in this way every day. 

CBP employees’ foreign language skills enhance the agency’s important homeland 

security and trade-related missions. Rewarding employees for using their language 

skills to protect our country, facilitate the lawful movement of people and cargo 

across our borders, and collect revenue that our Government needs makes sense. 

Congress agreed that employees should be encouraged to develop their language 

skills by authoring FLAP. Not only does it improve efficiency of operations, it makes 

the United States a more welcoming place when foreign travelers find CBP Officers 

can communicate in their language. 

At CBP, this program has been an unqualified success, and not just for employees 

but for the travelers who are aided by having someone at a port of entry who speaks 

their language, for the smooth functioning of the agency’s security mission. For 

these reasons I am quite concerned that the fiscal year 2011 DHS budget proposed 

to eliminate this Congressionally-authorized program, and was further surprised to 
89 

learn that, on February 4, 2010, CBP notified its employees that it was immediately 

suspending this program citing lack of fiscal year 2010 funding. 

Why was this program immediately suspended? 

What budget planning went into this decision to immediately suspend and eliminate FLAP at CBP? 

Question 1b. How will the suspension of this program impact recruitment and retention of employees who are proficient in a foreign language? 

Answer. CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists hired since June 2004 and initially assigned to the Southern border, Puerto Rico, and Miami have a minimum 

Spanish proficiency requirement as a condition of employment. Officers and Agriculture Specialists lacking sufficient proficiency in Spanish receive five additional 

weeks of language training. Notwithstanding the suspension of the FLAP, managers 

will continue to encourage all employees to utilize their enhanced foreign language 

proficiency to accomplish the agency’s mission. Managers also have the option to use 

other traditional awards (e.g., ‘‘on the spot’’ and ‘‘time-off’’) to recognize employees 

who utilize their superior foreign language proficiencies and significantly contribute 

to the accomplishment of the mission. 

CBP believes there will be a minor impact on the agency’s ability to retain employees. FLAP was originally implemented as an incentive for CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists to learn foreign languages to complement duties at the ports 

of entry. However, since the initiation of FLAP there have been some changes to 

benefits available to CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists: 

• These personnel now receive enhanced retirement benefits similar to other law 

enforcement officers; and 

• Journeyman-level increases are being pursued to address the heightened responsibility due to the increased scope and complexity of these core positions 

since 9/11. 

Question 1c. FLAP has a dedicated funding source—customs user fees collected 

from the traveling public and the trade community. How will customs user fees that 

formerly funded FLAP now be distributed? 

For what programs will these user fees be used? And is this customs user fee diversion supported by statute? 

Answer. Currently, FLAP awards are funded through customs, immigration, and 

agriculture user fees. Due to a substantial reduction of airline travel and commercial conveyances entering the United States in recent years, there has been a substantial decline in fee revenues. The customs user fee currently supports approximately $10.2 million of the FLAP program. This funding will be redirected towards 

other requirements that are eligible under the fee legislation. The savings in customs user fees from the FLAP reduction will allow CBP to more fully fund overtime 

and premium pay. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY OF PENNSYLVANIA

FOR JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1. Madame Secretary, in 2008, the TSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for the Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP) which would create a set 

of security standards for large general aviation aircraft. My understanding is that 

the initial proposed rule did not address security and operational issues sufficiently 

and is now being revised with appropriate technical input from stakeholders. I know 

that you’ve testified before about this issue and have expressed your desire to work 

with stakeholders to get this and other rules completed cooperatively. 

Since it decided to revise the LASP, the TSA has taken this approach and is now 

nearing completion on a supplemental rulemaking. However, I understand that the 

agency missed a self-imposed deadline to get this rulemaking out before the end of 

last year and that it does not expect to issue it until later this year. Although I understand that the TSA still does not have an administrator, I worry that this rule 

is being delayed too long. 

When do you expect to issue the supplemental rulemaking for the LASP? 

Does the Department have adequate resources to complete this rule? 

Answer. The Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) is currently developing a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) for the Large Aircraft Security Program, taking into consideration more than 7,000 public comments 

received from the original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and input from the use 

of open public forums, workshops, and stakeholder meetings. TSA expects to issue 

the SNPRM later this calendar year. 

Question 2. When will the Department start work on the next QHSR? 

When do you expect to request funding to begin the work on the next QHSR? 
90 

Answer. Focused efforts on the next QHSR, due to Congress on December 31, 

2013, are anticipated to begin sometime in early 2012. The Department is currently 

focused on completing the Bottom-Up Review (BUR), which was initiated shortly before the completion of the 2009 QHSR and will inform the development of the fiscal 

year 2012–2016 budgets. Departmental initiatives and analytic efforts that flow 

from the BUR and budget build, as well as development of the next DHS Strategic 

Plan, will be principal focus areas through calendar year 2011; all of which are necessary antecedents to the next QHSR. 

The Department will request funding for the next QHSR as part of the fiscal year 

2012–2016 budget request. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HONORABLE LAURA RICHARDSON OF CALIFORNIA FOR

JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1. A number of steel pipe and tube producers are located in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, including Western Tube & Conduit located in Long Beach 

in the 37th Congressional District. Western Tube along with others in the domestic 

industry have joined together and filed cases on imports of circular welded steel 

pipe and light walled rectangular tubing from China. The industry obtained relief 

from these unfairly traded imports in 2008 and antidumping and countervailing duties were put into place ranging from 100 percent to 300 percent. 

In mid-2009, industry officials began to monitor imports of light-walled rectangular (LWR) tubing into the West Coast sea ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. 

Their research uncovered anomalies with many shipments of LWR products that indicated that some of these entries were being misclassified as another product, i.e. 

‘‘used books’’ or violating country of origin rules by having incorrect labeling. In 

some instances the industry tracked the shipping records and noted that while the 

product may have been listed as made in Vietnam the contents of the shipment 

never originated from that country, but instead came from China. The domestic industry documented this information beginning in September 2009 and presented the 

data to officials at Customs Headquarters in Washington, DC. 

In an effort to elevate this issue of customs fraud and circumvention the industry 

obtained support from members of the California delegation and a letter was sent 

in late December 2009 by Representative Richardson and Representatives Farr, 

Napolitano, Roybal-Allard and Rohrabacher to Customs. The Acting Deputy Commissioner for Customs provided a response to Members in mid-January 2010 and 

indicated that the agency was reviewing the information. 

Secretary Napolitano, over the past 5 months I have been working with officials 

at steel pipe and tube companies located in my district and others located nearby 

on issues related to circumvention of duties specifically of entries arriving at the 

Long Beach and Los Angeles seaports. The industry has taken great steps to provide my office with documentation of entries of steel tubing entering at these ports 

without correct classification. This has resulted in a loss of collection of duties on 

these imports from China which were found to be traded unfairly in 2008. The duties range from 100 percent to 300 percent and were put into place to provide relief 

for the industry. As each day passes, the industry who makes these products in the 

region and who employs approximately 2,000 workers in the area are losing the opportunity to compete in their own market because these unfairly traded imports are 

entering duty-free. 

I believe that the Department should communicate throughout the agency that 

commercial enforcement is critical to the economic security of the company. I also 

believe that it is equally important that the Secretary send a strong message to everyone in the agency and especially to those at Customs that any type of fraud will 

not be tolerated and if anomalies are reported that the agency take swift and appropriate actions to ensure that these practices end. What can we do to ensure that 

this issue is resolved as quickly as possible to help protect the companies and jobs 

in my district and around the country? 

Answer. CBP is aware that U.S. industry is highly concerned with the evasion of 

Antidumping/Countervailing Duties (AD/CVD) that includes not only steel tubing 

but all products, and how this evasion erodes the ability for U.S. industry to successfully compete. Please know that CBP takes all matters of evasion of duty very 

seriously, and in coordination with ICE, the investigative arm of DHS, employs 

every available method in accordance with law to address these matters. 

CBP is not permitted to disclose the details of an on-going investigation and or 

trade enforcement action (including CBP fines, penalties, or forfeitures cases) or any 

significant action taken by CBP to enforce the customs and related laws—including 

but not limited to seizures, exclusions, or collection of duty. If the investigation or 

action results in judicial action, the conclusion of a commercial allegation can and 
91 

often does take years for completion. The effect of this lengthy process is the assumption by U.S. industry that AD/CVD cases are not being actively enforced. 

CBP is currently monitoring 288 AD/CVD cases under order and 12 AD/CVD 

cases in preliminary status that have been issued by the Department of Commerce 

(DOC). The number of AD/CVD cases that enter the preliminary stage of investigation continues to increase. In many of these cases, CBP has encountered various 

types of circumvention schemes such as the misuse of entry type, misdescription or 

misclassification, false country of origin, smuggling, and transshipment. 

To direct an effective trade facilitation and enforcement approach, CBP focuses its 

actions and resources around priority trade issues (PTIs) that pose a significant risk 

to the U.S. economy, consumers, and stakeholders, such as AD/CVD. CBP’s Office 

of International Trade (OT) is responsible for the trade policy, program development, and regulatory oversight functions of CBP. 

Within OT, the Commercial Targeting and Enforcement Division is charged with 

the development of operational plans to address non-compliance; manage targeting 

criteria; develop audit and other post-entry verification actions; and develop penalty 

and enforcement procedures for all of the PTIs. This is done through a series of offices located around the country, staffed by subject matter experts. These offices are 

designated as National Targeting and Analysis Groups (NTAGs). 

The sole focus of the South Florida NTAG in Plantation, Florida is AD/CVD enforcement. The South Florida NTAG is responsible for monitoring and analyzing all 

newly instituted AD/CVD cases and establishing criteria to ascertain whether applicable entries are being entered as AD/CVD entries (type 03). The research conducted involves analyzing the use of entry type codes and changes in import patterns, importers, manufacturers, and changes in price/quantity. 

On a local level, Import Specialists monitor their PTI areas and/or commodity, 

and initiate trade enforcement actions. Those actions are recorded in CBP systems 

and available at a National level for other Import Specialist and NTAGS for review. 

NTAGs will review those results and determine if National and/or further action is 

necessary. 

CBP Service Ports are equipped with Commercial Enforcement Analysis and Response (CEAR) Teams, comprised of subject matter experts from local CBP and ICE 

commercial fraud enforcement operations. With the combined expertise of the CEAR 

members, the group identifies viable enforcement actions to take on violations presented to the group, which may include the initiation of an investigation by ICE, 

a penalty imposed by CBP, or a combination of both criminal and civil actions. 

CBP has been successful in many instances in stopping evasion that we have detected or when U.S. industry provides us with an allegation of evasion. With every 

success, however, there are likely evasion schemes that go undetected. ICE can only 

investigate so many importers, and many cases cannot be proven, especially with 

transshipment issues. Several nations do not allow CBP or ICE teams to investigate 

in their respective countries. Additionally, some importers are foreign entities and 

cannot be thoroughly investigated and pursued in the United States as to their duty 

liability, and CBP is left with only the bond amount for duty collection. 

We understand that there is a monetary gain in not paying the AD/CV duty on 

these subject products, and that certain foreign manufactures and U.S. importers 

will attempt to circumvent AD/CVD cases. As such, CBP will continue to target importers and manufactures for potential evasion of AD/CVD cases and use all available means to enforce the cases. 

Question 2a. Madame Secretary, in 2008, the TSA issued a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking for the Large Aircraft Security Program (LASP) which would create a 

set of security standards for large general aviation aircraft. My understanding is 

that the initial proposed rule did not address security and operational issues sufficiently and is now being revised with appropriate technical input from stakeholders. 

I know that you’ve testified before about this issue and have expressed your desire 

to work with stakeholders to get this and other rules completed cooperatively. In 

my opinion, this is the best way to approach the rule-making process because it ensures that policy-makers have developed rules utilizing needed security and technical expertise from the industry. 

Since it decided to revise the LASP, the TSA has taken this approach and is now 

nearing completion on a supplemental rulemaking. However, I understand that the 

agency missed a self-imposed deadline to get this rulemaking out before the end of 

last year and that it does not expect to issue it until later this year. Although I understand that the TSA still does not have an administrator, I worry that this rule 

is being delayed too long. 

When do you expect to issue the supplemental rulemaking for the LASP? 

Question 2b. Does the Department have adequate resources to complete this rule? 
92 

Question 2c. Do you plan to make it a priority of yours to see that the LASP rule 

is completed as soon as possible? 

Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) views strengthening 

general aviation security as one of its top priorities. The TSA is currently developing 

a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) for the Large Aircraft Security Program, taking into consideration more than 7,000 public comments received 

from the original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and input from the use of open 

public forums, workshops, and stakeholder meetings. TSA expects to issue the 

SNPRM later this calendar year. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HONORABLE BILL L. OWENS OF NEW YORK FOR JANET

NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1a. I am pleased to see that ICE’s budget request includes the establishment of a Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BEST), including one in 

Massena, New York. 

What kind of results can the community expect to see from a BEST? 

Answer. Establishing a BEST in Massena will allow ICE and its law enforcement 

partners in the region to efficiently focus on investigating cross-border criminal activity related to contraband smuggling, human smuggling, money laundering, weapons trafficking, and its associated violence on the Akwesasne Mohawk Indian Reservation. Since 2005, the BESTs have been extremely successful in addressing the 

threats of cross-border crime. The BESTs are flexible platforms from which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) investigates and targets transnational criminal organizations and emerging threats that exploit vulnerabilities along the Nation’s borders. The Massena BEST, through its partnership with local, county, State, 

Tribal, Federal, and international partners in the region, will address transnational 

criminal organizations operating and living in the shared communities of New York 

State and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. In addition, the Massena 

BEST will complement and enhance already established BESTs in Detroit and Buffalo to effectively target and dismantle major criminal organizations based in the 

greater Toronto area that use smuggling routes through all three locations. 

Question 1b. What other steps is DHS taking to improve the security of tribal 

lands along our borders? 

Answer. ICE is addressing the security of tribal lands along our borders primarily 

through the Shadow Wolves. The Shadow Wolves are Native American trackers that 

patrol the Tohono O’odham Indian Nation, a 2.8 million-acre reservation in Arizona 

with a 75-mile-long border with Mexico. The Shadow Wolves were established by 

Congressional mandate in the early 1970s in response to the rampant smuggling occurring through the Tohono O’odham Indian Nation. The Shadow Wolves’ primary 

mission is to interdict smuggled narcotics using both modern technology and the ancient art of tracking. 

In fiscal year 2007, several Shadow Wolves were detailed to the Blackfeet Indian 

Reservation (Montana) and the Bay Mills Chippewa Indian Reservation (Michigan) 

to assess the viability of establishing similar units along the Northern border. Although the details did not produce any enforcement results, they were successful in 

creating points of contact and opening dialogue between the Tribal governments and 

the local ICE Resident Agent in Charge offices. The Shadow Wolves details were 

coordinated with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Office of Field Operations 

(OFO) and Office of Border Patrol, along with Tribal and local law enforcement 

agencies. 

DHS is also addressing the security of our Tribal lands along the border through 

its Southwest border efforts. Personnel from ICE’s Office of Investigation (OI), Detention and Removal Operations (DRO), and Office of Intelligence (INTEL) as well 

as myriad Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies are currently 

partnering in BEST and the Southwest border surge; efforts that will improve security along the Southwest border. ICE has also increased participation with government of Mexico agencies to assist in providing additional security to border communities at large. Furthermore, other DHS initiatives undertaken by CBP, particularly 

OBP, will also impact the security of these communities. 

Question 2. Northern border communities have historically benefitted from Operation Stonegarden, a program that provides grants to local law enforcement on the 

border to increase their operation readiness. Northern border States have always 

been eligible for these grants and received funding in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal 

year 2009. Yet the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2011, which includes 

$50 million for Operation Stonegarden, proposes limiting eligibility to the Southern 

border only. What is the rationale for excluding Northern border communities from 

applying for this funding? 
93 

Answer. The fiscal year 2011 request for Stonegarden is only for the SW border 

because of DHS concern about the continuing threats on this border. 

Question 3. I would like to know if the Department of Homeland Security has considered streamlining the Trusted Traveler Program so that participants can use a 

single card at international points of entry along the U.S.-Canadian border. Further, 

has TSA considered creating dedicated security screening lanes at airports for participants in one of CBP’s Trusted Traveler Programs? 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) operates four Trusted Traveler Programs: NEXUS, Free and Secure Trade (FAST), Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection 

(SENTRI), and Global Entry. There are over 730,000 approved, low-risk travelers 

enrolled in these programs, which offer secure and expedited immigration, customs, 

and agriculture processing on arrival into the United States. 

Over the last 2 years, CBP has taken steps to streamline all of its Trusted Traveler Programs so that they are easily accessible and convenient for international 

travelers. For example, all of the Trusted Traveler Programs are served by a single 

on-line application system called the Global Online Enrollment System (GOES). The 

integration of all the programs into a single database and on-line application is key 

part of a unified trusted traveler program. 

Whereas Global Entry does not have a separate credential, CBP redesigned the 

credentials for NEXUS, SENTRI, and FAST to make them more secure and have 

the same look and feel. All three credentials comply with requirements of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI); members holding a credential receive facilitated processing when entering at the land border through trusted traveler dedicated lanes but can be used by U.S. and Canadian citizens to enter the United 

States through any lane at any land or sea port of entry. NEXUS, SENTRI, and 

FAST cards can be verified at the border electronically through CBP’s databases. 

All three documents are accepted by the Transportation Security Administration as 

identity documents for the purposes of entering the sterile area of an airport. 

Although virtually harmonized, it is unlikely that CBP will change the names of 

the respective programs due to bi-national agreements and brand recognition. The 

NEXUS program is jointly managed by the United States and Canadian governments. NEXUS allows entry from Canada into the United States at land, and designated air, and small boat arrival locations. SENTRI is managed solely by the 

United States. 

Global Entry is a CBP Trusted Traveler pilot program that provides expedited 

clearance of pre-approved, low-risk air travelers into the United States. Global 

Entry allows approved members to use an automated kiosk at designated airports 

to bypass the regular CBP Passport Control queues so that customs, agriculture, 

and immigration processing is expedited. Membership is currently limited to U.S. 

citizens, U.S. nationals, and U.S. lawful permanent residents, as well as to citizens 

of the Netherlands via a joint arrangement. Unlike the other programs, Global 

Entry does not require the use of a separate credential; the traveler presents his 

or her passport or lawful permanent resident card, which is linked to Global Entry 

membership. 

TSA piloted the Registered Traveler program, which provided a service similar to 

your proposal to dedicate security screening lanes at U.S. airports for members of 

CBP’s Trusted Traveler Programs. At the conclusion of the pilot, Registered Traveler transitioned to a private sector-run, market-driven program. Three Registered 

Traveler vendors provided operations at participating airports, but have since 

ceased operations due to financial reasons. TSA has encouraged interested vendors 

to work directly with airports and air carriers if they wish to develop similar Registered Traveler programs. DHS will evaluate future private sector proposals to include consideration of possible benefits to members of CBP’s Trusted Traveler Programs. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HONORABLE BILL PASCRELL, JR. OF NEW JERSEY FOR

JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1. I was extremely surprised to see that the budget called for four standalone grants programs to just be folded into the larger State Homeland Security 

Grant Program. This includes the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grants 

that Mr. Reichert and I worked to create in the 109th Congress in order to support 

our first responders in the wake of the lessons we learned on 9/11. If these critical 

grant programs are folded in we have no way to track their funding from year to 

year—to me this looks like a way to do a back-door cut of these programs. Will the 

Department commit to the committee that if these grant programs remain folded 

into the State Homeland Security grants that in next year’s budget you will ensure 
94 

that there is a breakdown of how much funding went directly for these priorities 

including interoperability grants? Without that information this committee is blind 

to understanding if key priorities are being properly addressed. 

Answer. FEMA’s Grants Reporting Tool (GRT) is built to track both sub-program 

spending as well as National priority data. As such, if the Interoperable Emergency 

Communications Grant Program (IECGP) is consolidated as a stand-alone program 

into the larger State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), the GRT would be configured to capture the IECGP spending data independently. The GRT would also continue to be configured to track overall National spending activities relative to interoperable communications; this data would be construed across a plethora of grant 

programs for which interoperable communications is an allowable spending area, including IECGP. If the IECGP is subsumed into the overall State Homeland Security 

Program (i.e. it would not continue to be stood up as a separate grant program, even 

if consolidated into SHSP), the GRT would still be configured to track spending activities—including planning, training, exercises, equipment, and personnel—relative 

to the Interoperable Communications National priority. 

Question 2. In recent years we’ve seen CBP try to focus its limited resources by 

creating new programs that grant significant benefits to companies that can demonstrate strong internal controls. An example of this is the Importer Self-Assessment Program. This permits importers to self-assess their customs compliance to 

avoid official CBP audits and reduce the threat of delays for Government inspections. The new Broker Self-Assessment pilot program follows a similar model, and 

allows customs brokers to police themselves if they agree to follow approved security 

plans. These programs are designed, in large part, to help alleviate CBP’s audit burden and facilitate trade in a speedier fashion. Of concern, however, is the lack of 

a specified standard for measuring HS classification accuracy. 

After all, how effective is it to have participants in such programs audit themselves without any CBP-provided objective standards for measurement? 

Do you believe that such programs would have greater success if CBP established 

objective, standardized controls for measuring HS classification accuracy? 

Answer. The annual compliance measurement of the Importer Self-Assessment 

participants has been 99.5 percent overall and slightly over 99 percent in classification (major transactional discrepancies) over the last 4 years. CBP will explore ways 

to enhance the self-testing conducted by participants, which may include establishing measurement standards for particular risk areas. 

Honing measurements and standards can be effective in sustaining and possibly 

surpassing the overall compliance goals of the ISA program, which would include 

HS classification accuracy. 

Question 3. According to CBP, commodity reporting errors contribute significantly to the estimated $1 billion in duty revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury per year. 

What’s more, substandard commodity reporting plays a significant negative role in 

Customs targeting efforts. Presumably, CBP is trying to address these shortcomings 

through the Importer Security Filing (also known as ‘‘10∂2’’). However, 10∂2 remains critically dependent on timely and accurate commodity classification, and 

there has been no evidence to suggest that commodity classification accuracy has 

improved. 

What are some of the major reasons why classification errors are so pronounced? 

What will you do to help remedy the problem? 

Answer. CBP uses an annual statistical audit to measure revenue loss due to noncompliance. Our measurements of this revenue loss over the last 5 years have declined from $470 million in fiscal year 2005 to $285 million dollars in fiscal year 

2009. As a percentage of all duties, fees, and taxes that CBP does collect, these statistical estimates represent about 1 percent on average of the roughly $30 billion 

that the agency collects within a given year. Misclassification of goods is a primary 

cause of this revenue loss, mainly because the complexity of the tariff allows for 

even the most common of mistakes to cause a wide percentage shift in the rate of 

duty applied to imported goods. 

However, classification is an area that we directly address through targeting, operations, and other enforcement activities. These activities provide a benefit in both 

reinforcing compliant behavior from importers 99 percent of the time as the statistical audits show, while allowing the agency to focus on the 1 percent of revenue 

that is not paid to the agency when duties are due. 

Regarding the Importer Secure Filing (ISF), the law requiring importers to supply 

this information strictly prohibits CBP from using it for purposes other than ensuring cargo safety and security and preventing smuggling. As a recent source of data 

layered on top of existing ones, CBP cannot use it to address revenue issues. However, this does not impact the other existing and well-used data sources available 

to the agency for cargo and post-release trade enforcement, and CBP remains com-
95 

mitted to measuring, targeting, and applying risk management principles to revenue loss related to non-compliance and fraud. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HONORABLE DANIEL E. LUNGREN OF CALIFORNIA FOR

JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1a. The request for the chemical and biological program at the Science 

and Technology Directorate is slightly decreased from fiscal year 2010 levels. The 

Congressional justification states that the decrease reflects the ‘‘funding of higher 

priority items within the Department.’’ It also states that as a result of the decrease, 

subject matter expertise and support for the NBIC will be reduced. 

Is it fair to assume, therefore, that the NBIC is not a terribly high priority for 

the Department, at least not until its fate is determined, and that Congress will 

continue to see budget requests for this program decrease? 

What is the plan for the NBIC? Are we wasting time and money by continuing 

an endeavor that is not achieving its goals, or do those goals need to be redefined? 

In what way will the Department engage the Congress in its discussions surrounding the future of NBIC? 

Answer. The $7 million requested in fiscal year 2011 to support NBIC is sufficient 

to maintain current operations. Funding will support development of analytical biological surveillance and impact reports—similar to the reports completed during the 

2009–H1N1 pandemic. These reports are collaboratively developed among interagency partners and will be made available for interagency use. 

The $1 million reduction from fiscal year 2010 funding reduces the amount available to reimburse detailees or liaison officers from partner agencies to serve at 

NBIC to provide analytic and collaborative capabilities. The reduction in funding 

could affect up to six detailees depending on grade. While the lack of reimbursements may be interpreted as a disincentive to interagency participation in NBIC, 

as highlighted in the Government Accountability Office’s report, ‘‘Biosurveillance: 

Developing a Collaboration Strategy is Essential to Fostering Interagency Data and 

Resource Sharing,’’ Federal agencies are not actively participating in NBIC. To foster collaboration and information sharing between agencies, we must reevaluate 

NBIC’s structure to ensure its mission is transparent and participating agencies understand its value add during biological incidents. 

To further information flow into NBIC and strengthen collaboration with State 

and local partners, the DHS Office of Health Affairs (OHA) is working to enhance 

partnerships with specific States, the private sector, non-governmental agencies, 

and the international community. Beginning with the $5 million provided to NBIC 

in fiscal year 2010 to support a demonstration project with the North Carolina 

Collaboratory for Bio-Preparedness, we aim to validate integrated information sharing of public health, animal surveillance information, environmental monitoring, 

and other biosurveillance information. We continue to work with our Federal partners. 

In addition to North Carolina, NBIC is engaging with other States to establish 

biosurveillance data-sharing pilot outreach programs. These States include: New 

Jersey—a State with a very mature DHS-State fusion center relationship and a robust information-sharing tool; Minnesota—a State nationally known for their superior food defense capabilities through information analysis; and, Washington State— 

a State that has demonstrated advanced capability to integrate critical infrastructure analysis into decision-making schemes. As we work with State and local partners and follow GAO’s recommendations, we hope to demonstrate the value of situational awareness to respond to biological incidents. 

DHS has and will continue to make every effort to engage interagency participants as well as promote outreach and data sharing with appropriate State, local, 

Tribal, and territorial agencies. NBIC and the biosurveillance Federal agency participants are now engaged in a formal review of the biosurveillance mission-space, 

interagency value of data-sharing and data integration, methodology to enhance collaboration and the development of metrics to monitor and evaluate mission success. 

As we work to refine NBIC by engaging State, local, Tribal, and territorial partners, we will update Congress on the status of NBIC and associated challenges that 

arise. 

Question 2. Some have argued that despite improvements in the interagency process and the issuance of several important reports and other strategy-type documents, the Nation does not have a truly National biodefense strategy. And that, 

more specifically, DHS does not have its own Department-wide biodefense strategy. 

When can we expect a biodefense strategy and implementation plan from DHS? 

Answer. The recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on BioWatch and Public 

Health Surveillance recommended that ‘‘DHS enhance efforts to develop a mecha-
96 

nism for providing a national situational awareness of biological threats and significant disease outbreaks, to better inform rapid decision-making and response 

through cross-jurisdictional data sharing and analysis of data.’’ OHA takes this report seriously and sees great value in the Commission’s work. The Obama administration has taken steps to enhance the Nation’s capabilities. After this Report was 

published, Assistant Secretary Dr. Garza met with the Executive Director of the 

WMD Commission to discuss OHA’s related efforts and to build a relationship that 

will allow DHS to use the report card as a catalyst for continuing to improve National capabilities. 

A National Biodefense strategy to detect and protect the Nation against biological 

threats requires coordination among Federal agencies, State, local, Tribal, and territorial officials, and representatives from the private sector. DHS is working internally and in coordination with key stakeholders to develop an approach that can effectively and systematically address detection, preparedness, and response to biological threats. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HONORABLE MIKE ROGERS OF ALABAMA FOR JANET

NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1. Strategic planning is key when proposing any budget. We must be certain that our homeland security dollars are being spent wisely, with adequate attention not only to the Office of Health Affairs immediate goals, but to those of the 

entire Department and the Nation. With that in mind: 

When can we expect a strategic plan from the Office of Health Affairs? 

What are the specific goals of that strategic plan? 

How do these goals reflect the work currently on-going within the three OHA divisions (Weapons of Mass Destruction & Biodefense, Medical Readiness, and Component Services)? 

What are the primary tasks each of your employees will deliver on in the coming 

year? 

How do these break down into monthly deliverables and 90-day deliverables? 

I would like a list of the deliverables for each main division and each office within 

each division for these time periods. 

Has the Science and Technology Directorate reviewed the draft strategic plan, and 

what were their comments? 

Have OHA staff been afforded the opportunity to provide anonymous input and 

feedback on the plan? Please provide a written copy of this feedback. 

Answer. I agree that strategic planning is essential when developing a budget request. It is for this reason that I directed the Deputy Secretary to conduct a bottomup review of the Department’s activities, to ensure that future budget requests align 

to National priorities. 

The Office of Health Affairs (OHA) is finalizing a Strategic Framework the week 

of April 5, 2010. The Framework will outline goals and strategic objectives for fulfilling OHA’s responsibilities in support of my priorities, the DHS mission, and in 

alignment of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR). We will provide 

you will a copy of the framework when it is complete. On April 6, 2010 all the employees of OHA will gather for an ‘‘All Hands’’ meeting to discuss the new Framework and their path forward. 

OHA’s updated milestones and measures will be included in the Fiscal Year 2011– 

2015 Future Years Homeland Security Program report to Congress. 

Question 2. As important as the strategic plan itself are the people who draft and 

carry out that plan. 

What are the qualifications of senior leadership within OHA? Please demonstrate 

that your top-level management meets these qualifications. 

What is the position description and qualifications required for the Director of the 

Food, Agriculture, and Veterinary Defense Division? 

Answer. OHA senior leadership consists of a Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and Assistant Secretary, Deputy CMO/Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, an Associate 

Chief Medical Officer for Medical Readiness, an Associate Chief Medical Officer for 

Component Services and a Deputy Assistant Secretary for WMD Biodefense. The 

qualifications of the individuals holding those positions are listed below. 

• CMO/Asst Sec.—Senate-confirmed position, qualifications public record. MD, 

MPH, 13 years as a practicing physician and medical educator. 

• DCMO/PDAS.—Vacant. 

• ACMO Medical Readiness.—MD, 17 years experience in emergency medicine. 

• ACMO Component Services.—MD, MPH, EMS Fellowship, 18 years emergency 

medical experience. 
97 

• DAS WMD-Biodefense.—Career SES, 20 years military experience in operational, finance, and policy-making roles; 7 years at DHS in Executive positions. 

The qualifications required of the Director of the Food, Agriculture, and Veterinary Defense Division include, but are not limited to: 

• Doctor of Veterinary Medicine required; a Master of Public Health or Master 

of Science in Epidemiology, or similar Master’s degree in a relevant health 

sciences discipline is preferred. 

• Demonstrated ability to serve as an expert and advisor on incidences of animal 

and food-borne disease conditions, as well as the public health impacts of 

zoonotic and infectious diseases. 

• Knowledge of veterinary and/or public health emergency management and operations. 

• Ability to lead and manage the agricultural security and food defense activities 

within the division, OHA, and DHS. 

• Demonstrated skill to plan, organize, and recommend implementation of a National level animal disease program and food defense program which results in 

substantial favorable consequences. 

• Ability to lead the development of strategies and recommendation and the implementation of operational plans that will promote improvement in safety of 

animal agriculture, reduction in animal disease risk, and prevention of foodborne illnesses. 

• Demonstrated skill in effective and clear communications to senior-level Government and private sector officials on a variety of policy, programmatic, and 

scientific information. 

• Skill in building consensus among internal and external stakeholders and in obtaining and maintaining cooperation and support to resolve policy and program 

issues. 

• Ability to communicate technical information in a non-technical environment. 

Question 3. I understand that Dr. Jon Krohmer, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (PDAS) and Deputy Chief Medical Officer (CMO), has been detailed to work 

on health matters for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I would like to request the document showing the line of succession for the position of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs/CMO. My understanding is that it is the PDAS who is in 

charge in the absence of the Assistant Secretary/CMO. Statutorily, the Chief Medical Officer is required to be a medical doctor, and it would therefore follow that 

the PDAS/CMO would also be. In Dr. Krohmer’s absence, then, do you have a medical doctor as the Acting PDAS/CMO? 

Answer. Per the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, the 

Chief Medical Officer (CMO) ‘‘shall possess a demonstrated ability in and knowledge 

of medicine and public health.’’ The statute does not require the individual appointed as Chief Medical Officer to be a medical doctor. Any individual that meets 

the qualification standard set forth in 6 U.S.C. 321e(b) would be qualified to be appointed by the President to the position of CMO, subject to the advice and consent 

of the U.S. Senate. 

Dr. Garza, as CMO and Assistant Secretary of Health Affairs, possesses both an 

M.D. and a Masters in Public Health (M.P.H). The position of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (PDAS) and Deputy Chief Medical Officer (DCMO) is vacant at 

this time. At this time, there is no Acting PDAS/DCMO. The duties of this position 

are currently being fulfilled by others in senior OHA management. 

The line of succession for the Office of Health Affairs is depicted in the table 

below. 

Office of Health Affairs Career Status 

Assistant Secretary and Chief Medical Officer ..... Presidential Appointee with 

Senate Confirmation. 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Deputy 

Chief Medical Officer.

Career. 

Director of Operations ............................................. Career. 

Chief of Staff ............................................................ Non-Career SES or Schedule C. 

Associate Chief Medical Officer, Medical Readiness.Scientific Professional. 

Associate Chief Medical Officer, Component Services.Career. 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Weapons of Mass 

Destruction and Biodefense.

Career. 
98 

Question 4. Last fall, DHS published proposed guidance for first responder preparedness and response to a widespread anthrax attack. I submitted public comments at that time, and I again commend OHA for taking this important step and 

for giving State and local officials needed guidance. 

When do you plan to publish the final guidance? 

What will your guidance recommend with regard to the anthrax vaccine in the 

Strategic National Stockpile—in terms of placement on an approved equipment list 

to facilitate State access, and in terms of dealing with expiring vaccine? 

Answer. Representative Rogers, thank you for your commendation. An interagency working group produced the guidance for first responder preparedness and 

response to a widespread anthrax attack. During the public comment period, approximately 300 comments were received. The DHS Office of Health Affairs (OHA) 

is leading the adjudication process and the guidance document is currently under 

review by our Federal interagency partners. 

The guidance recommends pre-event vaccination for high-risk responder groups. 

However, the guidance does not make any recommendations regarding expiring vaccines contained in the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS). Though the guidance does 

not address expiring vaccine, there are on-going discussions as to how to best manage the expiring vaccine in the SNS, including the option of making expiring vaccine 

available to responder organizations considered to be in the high-risk categories on 

a volunteer basis. 

Facilitating State access to Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA) vaccine by including 

it on FEMA’s Approved Equipment List (AEL) has been a priority for OHA. We 

have been working closely with the Interagency Board (IAB), an organization sponsored by the Federal Government that serves as an independent and unbiased expert panel to make recommendations related to standardization and appropriate deployment of technologies to first responders. We hope to gain the support of the IAB 

to include AVA on the Standardized Equipment List (SEL), from which FEMA bases 

the AEL. OHA will continue to work with the IAB and FEMA to ensure our Nation’s 

first responders are protected from and prepared to respond to biological threats. 

Question 5a. The Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Commission just released 

a report card that flunked the administration in several areas of WMD preparedness. How is your budget reflective of the WMD Commission’s recommendations to enhance laboratory biosecurity and other biopreparedness needs, in particular those 

areas deemed insufficient by the latest report card? 

Answer. DHS takes the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism Report 

Card produced by the Graham-Talent Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of 

Mass Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism seriously and sees great value in the 

Commission’s work. The Obama administration has taken steps to enhance the Nation’s capabilities. After this Report was published, Assistant Secretary of the Office 

of Health Affairs (OHA) Dr. Garza met with the Executive Director of the WMD 

Commission to discuss OHA’s related efforts and to build a relationship that will 

allow DHS to use the report card as a catalyst for continuing to improve National 

capabilities. 

The National Biosurveillance Integration Center (NBIC) was authorized in 2007 

to enhance the capacity of the Federal Government to rapidly identify, characterize, 

localize, and track biological events of National concern through integration and 

analysis of data relating to human health, as well as animal, plant, food, and environmental monitoring systems (both National and international). Since it was initiated, NBIC has provided critical biosurveillance information on a number of incidents including the 2009 Salmonella St. Paul event and the 2009–H1N1 pandemic. 

NBIC works to identify biological incidents early and alerts senior leaders of 

emerging threats against the population. It is critical that the Nation has the ability 

to recognize and track biological events early to prevent or mitigate associated consequences. 

Question 5b. In what ways does your budget support the need for enhanced guidance for emergency planning and citizen engagement, specifically in terms of the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s request? 

Answer. The report card recommends that we ‘‘work with a consortium of State 

and local governments to improve preparedness in the event of a WMD attack’’ and 

highlights our efforts relating to Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101. It goes on 

to recommend working with citizens, private sector, and non-governmental organizations to improve guidance and preparedness. 

While a number of the items in the fiscal year 2011 budget will advance this effort, two in particular will make targeted advances to address this recommendation. 

The Technical Assistance Program provides needed support to State and local governments to implement a variety of preparedness programs across the continuum 
99 

of homeland security. The lessons learned from the program, along with the materials developed in support of the program, serve as the foundational materials for 

the enhancement of the Comprehensive Preparedness Guides as well as public education materials in support of Community Preparedness. This will include a joint 

effort with the private sector community to update the existing planning recommendations issued in 1993, as well as guides addressing the variety of hazards 

faced by a community. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL T. MCCAUL OF TEXAS FOR JANET

NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Question 1a. For fiscal year 2011, Congress provided $20 million for the Homeland 

Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)–12 program for fiscal year 2010 to issue 

new, secure identity cards to Department of Homeland Security employees and contractors to access secure facilities, communications, and data. With the increasing 

prevalence of our Government computers being infiltrated the HSPD–12 program 

needs to be deployed as quickly as possible to lock down our computer networks 

from hackers. 

Congress has also directed the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Security, to provide a report on your progress in issuing new identity cards and remaining needs for additional infrastructure and materials needed to complete the project. 

Please give us an update on the issuance of the HSPD–12 cards including a 

timeline on the obligation of the funds and progress on deployment of these secure 

cards for this fiscal year. 

Answer. The Department has made the issuance of the DHS PIV card to DHS 

employees and contractors a top priority. At the beginning of the DHS PIV card 

surge deployment, DHS had issued 21,372 as of January 22, 2010. At the end of 

second quarter of fiscal year 2010 (March 31, 2010), DHS issued an additional 

16,738 cards for a cumulative total of 38,110 PIV cards issued. The Office of the 

Chief Security Officer is working closely with DHS Components to ensure that DHS 

will have issued 100,000 PIV cards across the components in fiscal year 2010. The 

Department will issue 250,000 PIV cards by the end of fiscal year 2011 utilizing existing resources. 

The following table provides the projected timeline for obligating funds for HSPD– 

12 cards: 

HSPD–12 Card Issuance Procurement Plan Amount 

($000) Contract Awarded 

U.S. Treasury Certificate Authority Services ... $267 Fiscal year 2010 Q 2 

DHS HSPD–12 Core Infrastructure (operations/network costs).$159 Fiscal year 2010 Q 2 

DHS PIV Card Stock .......................................... $245 Fiscal year 2010 Q 2 

NCR Card Issuance, Installation Support, & 

Enterprise Training.

$1,330 Fiscal year 2010 Q 2 

GPO Security Printing of DHS PIV Cards ....... $1,770 Fiscal year 2010 Q 3 

Enrollment/Card Issuance Workstations and 

Consumables.

$3,765 Fiscal year 2010 Q 3 

Card Issuance Contract Labor and Deployment Support.$10,385 Fiscal year 2010 Q 3 

Internet-based Appointment Scheduling Tool .. $145 Fiscal year 2010 Q 4 

PKI Certificates and CIWS Interfaces .............. $1,909 Fiscal year 2010 Q 4 

Reserved for contract overages or miscellaneous expenses.$25 

Total IMD Costs ....................................... $20,000 

Question 1b. What are you requesting for fiscal year 2011 for HSPD–12 deployment? 

Answer. The Office of Security fiscal year 2011 budget request does not include 

funding for HSPD–12 Deployment. The Department expects to obligate fiscal year 

2010 funds for contracts in the third quarter that will carry the Department’s efforts 

into fiscal year 2011. The Department is working with components to identify funding, such as component base funding for legacy badging systems, to meet any other 

fiscal year 2011 and the out-year requirements. The Department is committed to 

fulfilling its requirements under HSPD–12 utilizing base resources in fiscal year 

2011. 
100 

Question 2. During the President’s State of the Union message he highlighted 

‘‘bio-terrorism.’’ But when I read through the supporting document the next day I 

noticed he was referring to a plan to stockpile medications for a possible bio-attack. 

There is a Bio-Watch program underway. Are we keeping our focus on this most 

needed detection system? 

Answer. DHS agrees that the BioWatch program is a much-needed system that 

provides early detection of a biological attack and the Department remains focused 

on supporting this program. The fiscal year 2011 budget request maintains current 

biodetection capabilities, referred to as the Generation–1 and Generation–2 program, and moves forward with the major acquisition to upgrade systems with autonomous biodetection capabilities, referred to as Generation–3. Significant testing and 

evaluation is required of all potential autonomous biodetection capabilities to ensure 

the technology is capable of meeting end user requirements prior to DHS committing to a procurement decision. The updated timeline for the Generation–3 program 

is reflected by the major milestones below: • Field Test Program Contract Award (Phase I)—November 12, 2009; • Field Test Program Task Order 1 Award—February 2, 2010; • Field Test Program Task Order 2 Award—3rd Quarter fiscal year 2010; • Completion of Field Testing—2nd Quarter fiscal year 2011; • Technology Readiness Review—2nd Quarter fiscal year 2011; • Phase II Contract Award for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E)—4th Quarter fiscal year 2011 or 1st Quarter 

fiscal year 2012; • Conduct OT&E: Start—4th Quarter fiscal year 2012, Finish—3rd Quarter fiscal 

year 2013; • Initial Operational Capability (IOC)—3rd Quarter fiscal year 2013; • Deployment of Gen-3 detectors Nation-wide, fiscal year 2013-fiscal year 2016; • Completed network fiscal year 2017. 

The deployment of an automated biodetection capability may facilitate expanding 

biomonitoring efforts to indoor locations that are not well-supported by the current 

technology as well as shortening the detection time following an attack. The Nation’s detection capability through the BioWatch program is augmented by coordination of State and local assets through local BioWatch Advisory Committees and Jurisdictional Coordination programs, organization of interagency support on the Federal level and a robust exercise program directed towards notification through response. DHS also leads an interagency effort that produces guidance documents to 

support State and local responses. 

Question 3. It seems to me we need the earliest possible detection system to alert 

emergency rooms and citizens, and properly deploy countermeasures and vaccines. 

Is the $89 million in the proposed budget enough for the full deployment of biowatch units next year? 

Answer. DHS agrees that the BioWatch program is a much-needed system that 

provides early detection of a biological attack and the Department remains focused 

on supporting this program. In fiscal year 2011, $173.5 million is requested to support the BioWatch program. Approximately $89.5 million will be used to maintain 

the current National network, establish a more comprehensive quality assurance 

program, optimize the BioWatch network to maximize probability of detection of an 

attack, expand the current BioWatch exercise program that includes extensive interaction with Federal, State, and local partners, provide State and local partners better situational awareness with web-based modeling capabilities backed up by a robust reach-back capability to the National laboratories, and work with the interagency on technology evaluations. 

Approximately $84 million will be used to procure and potentially deploy units for 

a four-city operational field test of the Generation-3 system. If one or both candidates pass current testing, we plan to procure units for deployment into other existing BioWatch jurisdictions. The four-city operational testing phase will evaluate 

BioWatch systems in a variety of outdoor and indoor environments to ensure the 

systems operate properly before committing the Government to a large-scale buy. 

The final Generation-3 National network will be deployed over a period of 3–4 

years after the aforementioned operational test and evaluation in four cities. The 

Generation-3 schedule is reflected by the major milestones below: 

• Phase I Contract Award—November 12, 2009; 

• Task Order 1 Award—February 2, 2010; 

• Task Order 2 Award—3 Q fiscal year 2010; 

• Completion of Field Testing—2 Q fiscal year 2011; 

• Technology Readiness Review—2 Q fiscal year 2011; 

• Phase II Contract Award for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E)—1 Q fiscal year 2012. 
101 

• OT&E: 

• Start—4 Q fiscal year 2012; 

• Finish—3 Q fiscal year 2013; 

• Initial Operational Capability (IOC)—3 Q fiscal year 2013; 

• Approval for Full Rate Production (FRP)—3 Q fiscal year 2013; 

• Contract Award for FRP—4 Q fiscal year 2013; 

• Deployment of Gen-3 detectors Nation-wide, fiscal year 2013–fiscal year 2016; 

• Completed network fiscal year 2017. 

Æ