U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–249 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–774 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

HEARING 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 4903/S. 2534 

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2015, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

Department of Homeland Security 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairwoman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Vice 

Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CHARLES E. KIEFFER, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE III, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

Professional Staff 

STEPHANIE GUPTA

CHIP WALGREN

SCOTT NANCE

DRENAN E. DUDLEY

KATHY KRANINGER (Minority) 

TOM BISHOP (Minority) 

AMBER BUSBY (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

COLIN MACDERMOTT
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2014 

Page 

Department of Homeland Security ......................................................................... 1 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2:07 p.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Landrieu, Leahy, Tester, Coons, Coats, Cochran, Murkowski, and Moran. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEH JOHNSON, SECRETARY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Welcome to this afternoon’s meeting. I would 

like to call the Homeland Security Subcommittee of Appropriations 

to order to consider the budget of this Department. Welcome, Secretary Johnson. This is your inaugural presentation before our 

Committee on the budget, and we welcome you. 

Let me begin by, of course, noting to the members of the Committee that the Secretary has been on the job for 3 months. A lot 

of this budget was put together before he arrived, but he will be, 

of course, presenting it to us today, and we look forward to a very 

robust and helpful discussion. 

Let me just begin by pointing out just a couple of priorities that 

I have as chair. Some of these priorities are shared by other members of the Committee and we have worked very well with Democrats and Republicans alike. I want to thank my ranking member, 

Senator Coats, for all of his cooperation as we have built these 

budgets. 

First, let me point out a couple of very important priorities as I 

review the budget for this year for me and others. We talk about 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which is very, very important. In last year’s budget we plussed up that number to secure our 

borders. You will hear some discussion about that this morning. 

But when we talk about CBP, we sometimes overlook Customs. 

And I want you and the members of the Committee to know, I am 

going to be focusing on the resources in this budget that help our 

Customs officers to make sure that our business are treated fairly 

in these global markets. So when we are talking about crawfish 

farmers in Breaux Bridge, Louisiana, Mr. Secretary, I want to 
2 

make sure that we are using the tools that are available to us to 

make sure that if illegal dumping is occurring, if their businesses 

are being constricted, if their abilities to make a profit and hire 

people in America are being restricted because Customs officers are 

not either bringing cases that are valid or collecting fees, it is 

something that this Committee is going to be focused on this year. 

We have had some problems in the past. I know Senator Cochran 

has shared those concerns with some fishery issues along the gulf 

coast, and I am sure there are members that have issues with some 

of their home State products. So we are going to be focused on that. 

Number two, flood insurance. The Senate is right now in the 

final stages of passing a reform of a bill that had good intentions. 

But in the view of the vast majority of Senators and over 300 Members of the House of Representatives, the flood insurance bill that 

falls under the jurisdiction of this Committee with the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had good intentions, but 

it had absolutely draconian consequences to middle class families, 

over 5 million flood insurance policy holders. We have or are in the 

process of rebuilding that program, restructuring it to give immediate relief to middle class families so that they can stay in communities, whether they are in Vermont, Louisiana, Mississippi, or 

New York. 

So I am going to be conducting some hearings and expect your 

help and cooperation—I know we will have it—to make sure that 

as this bill passes and gets signed by the President, which looks 

like it will, that we implement it with FEMA, giving them the resources, flood maps, accurate flood maps, and accurate community 

input. 

Third, I am going to continue my work as chair here with my 

members to continue to help build a smarter and better FEMA. 

Now, I came to this as an unwilling participant. As a Senator from 

Louisiana, I did not want Hurricane Katrina to hit. Senator Cochran did not enjoy the experience of Hurricane Katrina that devastated our two States. But then we have had to live through that. 

More recently Superstorm Sandy and some other terrible storms 

have struck the east coast, and there are wild fires out west. And 

so we feel like we are surrounded here by disasters. We keep our 

eyes on trying to mitigate against them, preventing them from happening where we can, but giving quick and able help. Our budget 

is what stands between communities either rebuilding or not. 

I am not going to go through verbally this morning all of the 

things that we have done through this Appropriations Committee 

and through the authorizing committee on which I serve to help 

build a stronger FEMA but you can be sure that that is a bipartisan priority of this Committee. I am proud of the arbitration 

panel that has been created, the ability for relief of loan forgiveness. We will continue to work on that. 

A fourth priority which Senate Coats and I most certainly share, 

and you do as well—I noticed in your testimony—is cybersecurity 

and cybercrime. The members of this Committee may be shocked 

to know that Norton, which is a premier, global software security 

company, has estimated that the cost of cybercrime is $398 billion—$114 billion direct, another $274 billion in consequences concerning that. But what is alarming about this is that this is more 
3 

than the total global black market in marijuana, cocaine, and heroin combined. So again, this is a priority to deal with cybercrime 

that is being committed to try to reduce it, minimize, respond to 

it, and protect not only our Government operations, but as far as 

we can to help our private sector. 

Let me just end 1 or 2 minutes on a few things that are specifically in the budget that I want to make note of because this was 

our work in the past year, too, which I am proud of. Today, 35 percent of the traveling public receives expedited security screenings 

due to a number of risk-based initiatives being undertaken by the 

Transportation Security Administration. This Committee was very 

aggressive in making sure that we were screening people smartly 

for their safety, for their security, but for their convenience, Mr. 

Secretary, and for our promotion of global trade and travel, which 

to many States, not just Louisiana, not just Indiana, not just New 

York and California, and Illinois, but to many States people being 

able to travel freely is important to the development of their business. 

This budget includes full funding for future disasters, $7 billion, 

with an ability to draw down another five if necessary in the emergency fund. So I believe starting this year, Senator Coats, that we 

are prepared for whatever disasters may come our way. And hopefully if we need additional funding, the Congress will step up. But 

we should have adequate funding for us to deal with what this year 

may present. 

A couple of just comments about concerns. Our budget is below 

last year’s budget. While it is promoted that it is a 2.8-percent cut, 

without being able to raise the fees that are required in the President budget, which are quite a lot—almost $1 billion. If we are not 

able to do some of that, which I do not believe we will be able to 

do all of it, and perhaps not even some of it, we will be almost 6 

percent below where we were last year without some important priorities like Coast Guard recapitalization, et cetera. 

I am going to submit the rest of my statement for the record. Immigration and customs enforcement, Coast Guard aging fleet continues to be a challenge. And then, of course, the financial operations of the Department itself, making sure that we are cutting 

out waste, fraud, and abuse, streamlining operations, and moving 

into the second 10 years of this virtually newest department of the 

U.S. Government. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Good afternoon. I call the subcommittee to order. 

This afternoon, I am pleased to welcome Secretary Johnson for his inaugural 

hearing in front of this subcommittee to kick off our review of the Department of 

Homeland Security’s fiscal year 2015 budget and ongoing activities. Secretary Johnson, you have been on the job for about 3 months now. And you have been tasked 

with taking a fresh look at where the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has 

been and setting its course for the future. 

From the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents who make sure that 

the crawfish producers in Breaux Bridge, Louisiana, are able to compete fairly and 

the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers who keep travelers secure—whether visiting New York for business or Florida for vacation—to the communities like Moore, Oklahoma, and Hoboken, New Jersey, that are still rebuilding 

after disasters—this budget impacts Americans’ daily lives. 
4 

In thousands of community newspapers across the country, there has been story 

after story about the impacts one agency of this Department is having in particular: 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). My office, along with many 

of my colleagues, has heard from many of the 5.5 million working, middle-class families facing skyrocketing flood insurance rate increases due to a well-intentioned— 

but flawed—law that Congress passed in 2012 to reform the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). That law, Biggert-Waters, which I raised objections about before it passed, removed affordability as a centerpiece of our National Flood Insurance Program. 

In January, the Senate—with strong support from Members of both parties— 

passed a fix that received 67 votes. Last week, the House passed a compromise bill 

that reestablishes affordability as a critical and necessary cornerstone of the NFIP, 

and I urge my colleagues to pass that bill this week. 

While far from perfect, the bill will stop the most draconian rate increases and 

reestablish affordability as a critical element of the program. I am proud that we 

were able to include an annual limit on individual rate increases and an overall affordability target to protect people against $20,000 and $30,000 premiums. FEMA 

will have to effectively coordinate with local, State and Federal stakeholders 

throughout the implementation process, and I will work with you to ensure FEMA 

has the resources it needs to accomplish this in a timely and transparent manner. 

Even after this bill passes, it will be the responsibility of this subcommittee, as 

well as other Committees in the Senate and House, to craft a program that works 

decade to decade so generation after generation can continue to affordably and safely live along our coasts and inland waterways where they work to power our Nation’s economy. 

I look forward to talking more about the NFIP and ensuring that flood maps are 

reliable and accurate later in the question and answer session. As chair of this subcommittee, I intend to hold one of my first hearings on the implementation of the 

new flood insurance fix. 

I represent a State that has experienced its fair share of disasters, some natural 

and others of our own making. During the last 9 years, I have worked tirelessly to 

create a more agile and responsive FEMA and provide it with the right tools that 

allow communities to recover faster and rebuild smarter. One of those tools is an 

arbitration process created to provide Americans impacted by disasters a fair and 

unbiased third party to resolve disputes between FEMA and local communities. 

Since I established this arbitration panel in 2009, it has ruled on dozens of cases 

ensuring the right people receive the assistance they need to rebuild smarter and 

stronger. Even today, the arbitration panel is considering a case involving Livingston Parish in Louisiana. The long delay has had a serious financial impact on the 

parish and local contractors, many of whom are small and family-owned. It is a victory that we have gotten to this point, but the battle is not finished. I am confident 

that the arbitration panel will review the merits of the parish’s claims and find favorably on behalf of the people of Louisiana. 

In addition to the arbitration panel, I changed the way FEMA calculates the impact of disasters to allow recovering communities the ability to accurately measure 

the devastation in the parish, county, and municipality when Federal funds are 

loaned to them for recovery. Through this change, communities in Louisiana have 

had $233 million in Community Disaster Loans forgiven, and that total will continue to rise. Finally, I continue to advocate for smart mitigation programs that 

save taxpayers $4 for every dollar spent for actions like elevating a home or office 

building. In this budget, I was encouraged to see a request for $400 million to promote resiliency before disaster strikes through Predisaster Mitigation Grants—I 

share this as a priority of the Administration—however I am disappointed that this 

request was not in the base appropriations bill but instead comes from a proposed 

funding source that is unlikely to be enacted. 

After reviewing some of your recent speeches and trip reports, I was pleased to 

find that you and I share many common goals when it comes to homeland security. 

I believe we are both firmly committed to strengthening our borders, deploying an 

agile and professional Coast Guard, as well as effectively training and educating our 

cyber workforce. In the budget I noticed a $379 million or 4.4-percent decreases in 

discretionary spending for the Coast Guard. We must be careful where we cut our 

national maritime defense, especially as we increase exports and trade through our 

waterways. In Louisiana where our shipbuilding industry is second to none, we are 

proud to build some of the finest cutters in the Coast Guard fleet, and I look forward to working closely with you to ensure that our Coast Guard has a robust and 

modernized fleet. 

According to Norton [software security company], the annual cost of global 

cybercrime is $114 billion with another $274 billion lost in terms of time spent on 
5 

cybercrime and its effects. That total is more than the global black market in marijuana, cocaine, and heroin combined. During previous conversations, you expressed 

the need for a robust cyber education push from the Department of Homeland Security. I echo those sentiments and look forward to building on the groundwork I’ve 

already laid in the fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill. 

In the last year, we have faced multiple threats to our homeland. The Boston 

Marathon bombing was followed by serious chemical incidents in Texas and West 

Virginia. A physical attack on electrical substations in California was also uncovered. Daily, we face a constant onslaught of cyber intrusions and attacks on our 

Government networks and critical infrastructure. While we must defend ourselves 

against these attacks and strengthen our borders, those same borders must also 

welcome travel and trade. We must strengthen acquisition and procurement practices and foster research and development partnerships with the private sector and 

academia so that we can outpace our adversaries. 

[Submit from here to the next bracket for the record if short on time.] 

After reviewing the budget, there are many commendable items and efforts: 

—Currently over 35 percent of the traveling public receive expedited security 

screening due to a number of risk-based initiatives being undertaken by TSA. 

By moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach to security, screening is expedited for all, shortening wait times and improving efficiencies, including a reduction in screening staff levels. I look forward to further expansion of this program, with up to 50 percent of the traveling public receiving some form of expedited screening by the end of 2014. 

—The budget includes full funding to respond to future disasters and recover from 

disasters of the past through $7 billion in the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund. 

—The budget includes $75.8 million to begin replacing aging inspection and detection equipment used by CBP, the Coast Guard and TSA to keep our ports secure from illicit radioactive and nuclear materials. 

—The budget includes $45 million to continue modernizing the Department’s financial systems for more accurate and timely reporting of fiscal data. It should 

be noted that for the first time ever, DHS received a clean financial audit in 

fiscal year 2013, which is a significant milestone for this maturing Department. 

[Continue delivery from here forward.] 

While this budget proposal is respectable, Secretary Johnson, I have a number of 

serious reservations about the fiscal year 2015 budget you are presenting today. 

This budget is more than $1 billion below the level we enacted for your Department 

less than 2 months ago. Yet what you claim is a 2.8-percent cut is really just the 

tip of the iceberg. The budget before us assumes the collection of new fees and taxes 

that have been rejected by this Committee previously. Notably: 

—This request reinstates the $420 million air carrier security fee, which was repealed in the bipartisan budget agreement the President signed less than 3 

months ago. Couple this with an increase in aviation passenger security fee 

means that TSA has a $615 million shortfall that this subcommittee will have 

to fill with appropriated funds if these fee proposals are not adopted. 

—The request assumes $332 million more in CBP fees, nearly half of which are 

out of this subcommittee’s jurisdiction. This means that in order to hire the additional 2,000 CBP officers you have requested, we will need to take unacceptably deep cuts in other DHS accounts. 

—The budget reduces funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement by $255 

million as compared to fiscal year 2014. This request reduces detention beds by 

over 10 percent when the agency has shown a need for a substantial number 

of beds due in part to a 73-percent increase in the apprehension of illegal immigrants coming through the Rio Grande Valley this year compared to last year. 

Many of these individuals are requesting asylum, which requires longer stays 

in our detention system. 

—Desperately needed acquisitions to update the Coast Guard’s aging fleet continue to receive less funding than is necessary to keep these upgrades on track. 

For the second year in a row, the budget only requests two fast response cutters 

(FRCs); yet for the past 3 years, this Committee has funded six FRCs, saving 

more than $30 million annually with these block purchases. 

—This request assumes a new grant structure, which for the past 2 years Congress has clearly stated must be enacted by the appropriate authorizing committees before we will consider change. We need to work together with the 

Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Coburn to enact these changes before 

we can consider them in the Appropriations Committee. In doing so, we can provide a clear path for our first responders to acquire they resources they need 

to do the hard work we demand from them every day. 
6 

Since this subcommittee was established, we have striven to do our work professionally, collaboratively, and in a bipartisan fashion. I look forward to continuing 

this strong, bipartisan working relationship with Senator Coats and the Department 

this year. With that, I will turn to my ranking member, Senator Coats, for his opening statement. 

After that, we will hear from Secretary Johnson. Once the Secretary concludes his 

statement, each member will be recognized in order of arrival for up to 5 minutes 

for remarks and questions. I now recognize Senator Coats for any opening remarks 

he may wish to make. 

Senator Coats. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. I appreciate your commitment to 

tackling our many diverse and prolific homeland challenges head on. And I look forward to welcoming you to my great State of Louisiana in the months to come. Please 

proceed with your statement. 

[Recognize members in order of arrival for 5 minutes of remarks and questions.] 

Senator LANDRIEU. So we look forward to having you as a partner to work with you. We will try to be as honest and as forthright 

in our assessments of what this budget is reflecting. We share 

some of these priorities, but we will push you on some other things 

that are not as, shall I say, high up on the priority list as I think 

some of the members of this Committee would like to have. 

And with that, let me turn this over to Senator Coats for his 

opening statement, and then we will hear your opening testimony, 

Mr. Secretary, and then do a round of questions for the members 

that are here. 

Senator Coats. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL COATS

Senator COATS. Mr. Secretary, welcome. First of all, I congratulate you. Though I wonder if it is really congratulations given the 

work yet to be done. But congratulations to you for assuming this 

vital position, and best wishes to you as we go forward with a number of important issues and threats to address. 

You know, a year ago when your predecessor was here testifying 

before us, it was the week when the Boston Marathon attack took 

place. A Texas fertilizer plant exploded. There was a mysterious attack on a power substation in California and ricin incidents, and 

at the time, we were discussing immigration reform. That was all 

in 1 week. Are you sure you want this job? Let us hope you do not 

have weeks like that going forward. 

But I do appreciate and I know the chairman appreciates the 

way you have reached out to us. You have been in my office. You 

have been in Senator Landrieu’s office. We had breakfast yesterday. Starting a good relationship, dialoguing with each other about 

the breadth of homeland security and all that encompasses, and 

working together at a time when budgets are tight. There are 

things that we would all like to do that we cannot afford to do. We 

have to find a way to do those things better, more efficiently and 

in a cost-effective way. 

I have a number of things that I want to ask you about. I want 

to second the chairman’s mention of the passenger security fees 

that present a potential budget problem for us over and above the 

cuts already taken. It may not be politically feasible to impose 

those fees, particularly since the Murray-Ryan budget that we just 

enacted included an increase of these same fees. And that increase 

has not even kicked in yet. So imposing new fees on top of the in-
7 

crease being implemented is very problematic. So we are going to 

have to look at where we find money to pay for aviation security, 

unless we are successful in advancing fee changes, and I do not believe we will be. 

There are a number of other issues that we have talked about 

previously, which I want you to address—first border security and 

the Rio Grande Valley issue. A surge of illegal immigrants is coming across the border there, and a great number of them are juveniles in particular. 

And then I just want to say something about cybersecurity. I 

think this clearly has become an essential priority because of the 

threat that it poses. Whether you are talking to military officers in 

uniform or those representing our intelligence community or our 

various law enforcement agencies, cyber has moved to the top of 

the list as a threat to America. And the Department of Homeland 

Security plays a significant and essential role in all that. Working 

through cybersecurity issues, implementing protective measures, 

and establishing the right kind of coordination is very essential. 

So I will wait until the question time, and if others do not bring 

up these topics, I will, and we can talk through these issues. Mr. 

Secretary, we are glad you are here. We look forward to working 

with you. Madam Chairman, we look forward to the hearing today. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Secretary. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. JEH JOHNSON

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you very much. And I want to begin 

by, first of all, saying you have my prepared statement for the 

record. In my 5 minutes, let me just say a couple of things. First 

of all, I appreciate the personal courtesy and friendship that I have 

received from the members of this Committee in this new appointment. You probably cannot appreciate how invigorating it is for 

someone to step into a public position like mine when I have your 

support and friendship and the various courtesies that you have 

shown me. It is a reaffirmation for me. So I very much appreciate 

that on a personal level. 

I was chatting with Senator Leahy before we got started, and it 

reminded me that every time I walk into this office building, I 

think back to the summer of 1978 when I was a college intern for 

Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We worked in this building on the first 

floor on the other side. And one day I was on mail room duty, and 

it was a day when I thought the Senate was in recess. And the 

Senator’s driver convinced me to take a ride with him on the Senators-only elevator because we thought no one would be around. It 

has been 36 years, so any statute of limitations has probably run 

out by now. 

And so, we pushed the button, and I am dressed in my jeans and 

T-shirt. And the door opens, and I am standing in front of the door, 

and there—it is one of these moments you will never forget—and 

there is Barry Goldwater. And he looks at me eye to eye, and I cannot remember exactly what he said, but what I think he said, without batting an eye, was, ‘‘Hello, Senator,’’ and just kept right on 

walking. One of those memorable moments. 
8 

Let me say this. You know the basic missions of the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS). It is a large, decentralized organization. I believe it made tremendous sense in 2002 to consolidate 

these various functions under the broad theme of homeland security. I have already seen, in 21⁄2 months in office, the various symmetries that are achieved by having the components that manage 

land, port, air, maritime security when we look at threats to the 

homeland. 

The basic missions obviously are counterterrorism, border, port 

security. One of the things that has been brought home to me in 

my brief time in office is that the job of the Secretary of Homeland 

Security is to also facilitate trade at our various—lawful trade and 

travel at our various ports of entry. I appreciate that that is an important mission of the Department of Homeland Security. It is not 

just simply preventing unlawful trade and travel, but promoting 

lawful trade and travel. 

Cybersecurity is a big priority, which I think is satisfied by this 

budget request. Responding to natural disasters, as the chair mentioned, is obviously an important priority. I believe that FEMA is 

doing a better and better job of that, and we have learned from the 

days of Hurricane Katrina. I hope to personally travel to places 

that have been affected by hurricanes, like Hurricane Katrina, very 

soon. I hope to travel to Louisiana, Mississippi, and other places. 

Filling the various vacancies that exist at the senior levels of our 

Department is an important priority of mine. I spend virtually 

some part of every day filling vacancies, recruiting highly qualified 

personnel for these vacancies. I am very, very happy and pleased 

that the Senate last week confirmed three of our nominees to senior leadership positions: CBP, National Protection and Programs 

Directorate (NPPD), and our new inspector general. We have three 

more awaiting Senate confirmation. I believe one had his confirmation hearing this morning. The other had a confirmation hearing 

last week. So we are making good progress filling the vacancies 

there. My mission is to fill the vacancies with highly talented public servants because I believe good leadership begins with finding 

other good leaders. 

Last, because of the environment in which we operate, I will repeat here what I have said many times. I believe I am obligated 

to look for, identify inefficiencies, duplications of effort wherever 

they exist within the Department. One of the things that we are 

doing is building a budget process that is very mission oriented, 

getting away from budget requests that are made through stovepipes from each component where we begin the process by developing the basic strategy, the basic mission; developing the requirements to satisfy that mission, and then looking at and helping the 

components develop their own budget requests based on the larger 

mission. My hope is that we reduce inefficiencies in that way. 

We are developing a similar approach when it comes to acquisition, the acquisition process, to try to make it a little more department-centric so that we avoid duplications in acquisition requests, 

the acquisition process. And overall, one of my goals is to make the 

Department of Homeland Security a more efficient place, a more effective place, and to improve morale, which I believe that we are 
9 

doing every day through visible, aggressive, and effective leadership. 

So I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEH JOHNSON

Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Coats, and members of the subcommittee: 

I begin by thanking this subcommittee for the strong support you have provided to 

the Department the past 11 years. I look forward to continuing to work with you 

in the coming year to protect the homeland and the American people. 

I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee to present President Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The 

fiscal year 2015 budget request builds on our accomplishments over the past 11 

years while providing essential support to national and economic security. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget reflects President Obama’s strong commitment to protecting the homeland and the American people. It supports and continues our focus 

on preserving frontline priorities across the Department by cutting costs, sharing resources across DHS components, and streamlining operations wherever possible. It 

will ensure our men and women on the frontlines are well trained, equipped, and 

supported while continuing to maximize Department-wide efficiencies. It will also 

continue to make responsible investments in personnel, technology and asset recapitalization that are critical to ensuring our future security, while recognizing that 

difficult fiscal choices must be made. 

The basic missions of DHS are and should continue to be preventing terrorism 

and enhancing security; securing and managing our borders; enforcing and administering our immigration laws; safeguarding and securing cyberspace; and strengthening national preparedness and resilience. The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget 

request provides the resources necessary to maintain and strengthen our efforts in 

each of these critical mission areas. 

In all, the fiscal year 2015 budget requests $60.9 billion in total budget authority, 

$49.0 billion in gross discretionary funding and $38.2 billion in net discretionary 

funding. 

The cornerstone of the Homeland Security mission is protecting our Nation 

against terrorist attacks. Through the efforts of both the Bush and Obama administrations, we have put al-Qaeda’s core leadership on a path to strategic defeat. But 

the terrorist threat has continued to evolve. We must remain vigilant in detecting 

and preventing terrorist threats that seek to penetrate the homeland from the land, 

sea or air. We also must continue to build relationships with State and local law 

enforcement, and the first responders in our communities, to address the threats we 

face from those who self-radicalize to violence, the so-called ‘‘lone wolf’’ who may be 

living quietly in our midst, inspired by radical, violent ideology to do harm to Americans—illustrated last year by the Boston Marathon bombing. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget strengthens the Department’s antiterrorism efforts. 

It requests $3.8 billion for TSA screening operations to continue improving aviation 

security effectiveness by aligning passenger screening resources based on risk. It 

also requests more than $1 billion for FEMA’s preparedness grants with particular 

emphasis on building and sustaining capabilities that address high consequence 

events that pose the greatest risk to the security and resilience of the United States 

and can be utilized to address multiple threats and hazards. 

Border security is essential to homeland security. Good border security is both a 

barrier to terrorist threats, drug traffickers, transnational criminal organizations, 

and other threats to national security and public safety, and a facilitator for legitimate trade and travel. We are gratified by the support Congress has provided to 

improve security at our borders and ports of entry. With that support, we’ve made 

great progress. There is now more manpower, technology and infrastructure on our 

borders than ever before, and our men and women in and around the border are 

producing results. But we must remain vigilant. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget builds on this progress by providing $362.5 million 

to maintain the necessary infrastructure and technology along the Nation’s borders 

to ensure that law enforcement personnel are supported with effective surveillance 

technology to improve their ability to detect and interdict illegal activity in a safer 

environment. The budget invests $90 million in technology that will improve remote 

and mobile video surveillance systems and $11.7 million to recapitalize non-intrusive inspection equipment. The budget will allow DHS to complete the hiring of up 

to 2,000 new Customs and Border Protection officers, which commenced in fiscal 

year 2014, and an additional 2,000 officers funded by fees in fiscal year 2015, result-
10 

ing in faster processing and inspections of passengers and cargo at U.S. ports of 

entry, which is projected to add nearly 66,000 new jobs, add $4 billion to GDP and 

result in more seizures of illegal items, such as drugs, guns, and counterfeit goods. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget supports the salaries, benefits, and operating costs for 

21,370 Border Patrol agents and 25,775 CBP officers. 

With respect to removals and immigration enforcement, we must continue to 

prioritize our resources on those who represent threats to national security, public 

safety and border security. The fiscal year 2015 budget will provide $2.6 billion to 

support Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities to identify, apprehend, and remove aliens from the United States. The fiscal year 2015 budget also 

includes $124.8 million to continue expansion and enhancement of the E-Verify program. 

We will continue to streamline and facilitate the legal immigration process while 

enforcing U.S. immigration laws through the smart and effective use of resources. 

As I have said many times, we must also take serious steps forward on immigration 

reform legislation and find common sense solutions to a problem we all know we 

have. I am committed to working with Congress to achieve that goal. 

In addition, we must continue efforts to address the growing cyber threat to the 

private sector and the ‘‘.gov’’ networks, illustrated by the real, pervasive, and ongoing series of attacks on public and private infrastructure. The fiscal year 2015 budget includes $1.27 billion for DHS cybersecurity activities, including $377.7 million 

for Network Security Deployment, including the EINSTEIN3 Accelerated (E3A) program, which enables DHS to detect malicious traffic targeting civilian Federal Government networks and prevent malicious traffic from harming those networks. It 

also includes $143.5 million for the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation program, 

which provides hardware, software, and services designed to support activities that 

strengthen the operational security of Federal civilian networks. In support of Executive Order 13636, the budget will also provide $8.5 million to establish a voluntary 

program and an enhanced cybersecurity services capability. 

DHS also must be vigilant in preparing for and responding to disasters, including 

floods, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, and most recently, chemical leaks like the 

2014 spill into the Elk River in West Virginia that threatened the water supply of 

hundreds of thousands of people. We have come a long way since the days of Hurricane Katrina. We have improved disaster planning with public and private sector 

partners, nonprofit organizations, and the American people. With the help of this 

Committee, we have also improved the Department’s emergency response agility 

through important changes to the structure of the Disaster Relief Fund, which 

brings immediate help and resources to our communities in their most dire times 

of need. 

Of particular note, the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget funds production of national security cutter 8, as part of the recapitalization of the Coast Guard, and requests $300 million to complete the funding necessary to construct the National Bioand Agro- Defense Facility, a state-of-the-art bio-containment facility central to the 

protection of the Nation’s food supply and security. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget will provide $10.2 billion to support disaster resiliency, primarily through the grants programs that are administered by FEMA and 

the Disaster Relief Fund. Of this total, $2.2 billion in total grant funding will support State and local government efforts to prevent, protect against, respond to, and 

recover from incidents of terrorism and other catastrophic events. Also included are 

Firefighter and Emergency Management Performance Grants that support local first 

responders in achieving their missions, and $7 billion in DRF funding to provide immediate and long-lasting assistance to individuals and communities stricken by 

emergencies and major disasters. 

Lastly, the budget includes the President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative, which provides a roadmap for additional investments to help secure our Nation’s future. Specifically, this initiative funds $300 million for FEMA’s reformed, 

risk-based approach to increase preparedness, mitigation, and emergency response 

to disasters and other threats in communities across the country. The Opportunity, 

Growth, and Security Initiative also dedicates significant resources to help our communities prepare for the effects of climate change, including $400 million to support 

planning and pilot projects for cities and communities through FEMA hazard mitigation assistance and national preparedness grants, and $10 million to help the National Protection and Programs Directorate identify critical infrastructure facilities 

and analyze their ability to remain functional after disasters. 

As Secretary of Homeland Security, I am mindful of the environment in which we 

pursue each of these important missions. The days are over when those of us in national and homeland security can expect more and more to be added each year to 

our top line budgets. I therefore believe I am obliged to identify and eliminate ineffi-
11 

ciencies, waste, and unnecessary duplications of resources across DHS’s large and 

decentralized bureaucracy, while pursuing important missions such as the recapitalization of the aging Coast Guard fleet. Over the past 2 years, the Department has 

found innovative ways to reduce cost and leverage efficiencies, reducing DHS-wide 

expenses by over $2.7 billion during that period. We also reached a major milestone 

last year when the Department achieved its first unqualified or ‘‘clean’’ audit opinion on its financial reporting. These are important steps in maturing the Department’s management and oversight functions, but there is more to do. 

As part of this agenda we are tackling our budget structure and process. DHS currently has 76 appropriations and over 120 projects, programs or activities, and there 

are significant structural inconsistencies across components, making mission based 

budget planning and budget execution analysis difficult. We are making changes to 

our budget process to better focus our efforts on a mission and cross-component 

view. I, along with the Deputy Secretary, am personally engaged to provide the necessary leadership and direction to this process. I look forward to further discussing 

these ideas and strategies with this subcommittee as we develop ways to refine our 

planning process and appropriation account structure in order to improve how the 

Department resources its missions. 

As part of a management reform agenda, I am also doing a top to bottom review 

our of acquisition governance process—from how we develop our strategies, to the 

development of our requirements, to how we sustain our platforms, equipment and 

people and everything in between. Part of this will include the thoughtful, but necessary, consolidation of functions to provide the Department with the proper oversight, management and responsibilities to carry out this task. This will allow DHS 

to more fully ensure the solutions we pursue are responsive to our strategy, technologically mature, and cost-effective. I look forward to sharing our ideas and strategies with this subcommittee as we move forward in this area. 

In closing, the Department’s fiscal year 2015 budget request recognizes our current fiscal realities and works within them. It is a responsible plan that will 

strengthen our Nation’s security while allowing the Department to continue to 

achieve its core objectives. I thank the Committee for inviting me to appear today. 

In the pursuit of our important mission, I pledge to this Committee my total dedication and all the energy I possess. I look forward to working with you to meet our 

shared priorities. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, very much. There 

have been two votes called at 2:30 p.m. I am going to start the line 

of questioning, and then I will go vote. Senator Coats will continue. 

We will try to keep the hearing moving through the voting process 

if we can. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I can stay past 4 p.m. if you need me to. 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes, that is okay. We are going to try to do 

our work before 4 p.m. 

Let me begin where I started, national flood insurance. And I 

hate to sound like a broken record, but I have got 400,000 people 

in Louisiana, 500 million across the country affected by this. This 

budget was put together before, Mr. Secretary, as you know our 

new bill had passed. So the budget that we are looking at now was 

built on an old law, which hopefully will be old in just a few weeks 

when the President signs a new one. 

It was built on Biggert-Waters, which is happily going out, and 

a new bill coming in. The new bill requires limiting annual individual premium increases, putting affordability back in the formula, issuing refunds to people that were overcharged in the last 

year, and, as I said, reinstating affordability. 

You know that only 60 percent of the people in our country that 

should be compliant with flood insurance are currently compliant, 

which is one of the problems with the program, limiting the premiums being paid into the program. So I have questions. Do you 
12 

agree that increasing program participation is critical to the longterm solvency of this overall program? What efforts do you plan to 

take to accomplish that objective? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, I agree with that basic principle. The 

more participants you have in an insurance program, the healthier 

the program ought to be. That depends in part on the nature of 

who the participants are, but an overall goal ought to be to broaden 

the base of those who participate in the program. 

I think the overriding objective has to be, whether it is through 

Biggert-Waters or some other law that the Congress may pass, to 

ensure that we have a solvent program for the benefit of everyone 

who needs it or who might need it. So solvency has got to be the 

key. That was an objective of Biggert-Waters, but there are issues 

with affordability and I understand that. 

I think one of the things that I can do on the executive branch 

side is to ensure that communities understand that when they 

have issues with the maps, there is a process, under current law 

at least, that they raise objections and that they work with FEMA 

on any issues they have with resolving the maps. There is a public 

process, and there is an appeal process to that. 

I have had conversations with several Governors in which I 

thought it was not apparent to them that there was this built-in 

process to raise issues like this. And so, I want to make sure that 

we are highlighting that. But I support the overall goal of a solvent 

program that does not raise all kinds of affordability issues for people who need it. 

COAST GUARD FLEET

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I appreciate that because if people cannot afford to be in the program, then you will not have a program, 

and the debt will increase, and the program will collapse. So the 

issues of solvency and affordability are two equally important 

goals, and that is what our new law attempts to secure. 

On the Coast Guard, your testimony notes the importance of pursuing important missions, such as recapitalizing the aging Coast 

Guard fleet. That is a high priority of several of us on this Committee, and thank you for mentioning that in our meetings that we 

have had. 

Can you talk about your efforts to modernize the fleet, specifically the fast response cutters and others, and what your impressions are of our efforts to be successful in that regard? This budget 

includes only two. Ideally we need six. Please respond. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am convinced that there is a need for all 

three classes of ships—the national security cutter (NSC), the offshore patrol cutter (OPC), and the fast response cutter (FRC). I 

know that the Coast Guard fleet is supposedly the most aged fleet 

of any navy in the world. We need to recapitalize, so I support the 

overall goal of recapitalization. 

I am pleased that in this budget request, we have made a request to fund the last NSC. We have a funding request to continue 

production down the line toward production of the OPC. And we 

had to make some choices, but we wanted to also maintain each 

line of recapitalization effort. So in our request is a request for two 

additional FRCs. In different times, I would have preferred that we 
13 

had asked for more, but I thought it was important that we maintain that assembly line; we maintain that flow. So we have asked 

for two to keep each of these lines open. 

CYBERSECURITY: EDUCATION

Senator LANDRIEU. We will continue to work. And my final question is on the cybersecurity education. I was really happy to hear 

you say that that is a concern of yours because it is a concern of 

mine, that the threats are obviously real and growing, and the 

numbers are being calculated each day. But the kinds of graduates 

that we see from our high schools, our technical schools, are they 

producing what we need to address these cyber threats? Could you 

comment about some of your ideas and thoughts about that? And 

as we have discussed, we have got a fairly robust model in Shreveport, Louisiana, actually in Bossier, a cyber innovation center. I 

have been pleased to have the former Secretary there who was very 

impressed with our cyber education component that can be scalable 

and moved to other areas of the country as well. Would you just 

take a minute to comment on your understanding of the challenge 

before our Nation in terms of educating the workforce in cyber defense and offense? 

Secretary JOHNSON. In addition to the basic missions of securing 

the dot.gov world and the private cyber world, I think that a key 

to all of that is recruitment of the next generation of cyber specialists. And so I am personally on a recruitment tour. I have visited 

various colleges and universities so far to talk about this issue, to 

try to recruit young talent who will not only consider cybersecurity 

in the private sector, but also cybersecurity serving their country. 

So I am on that personal mission, and I believe cyber education 

and recruitment of those in cyber education is crucial. It is a high 

priority of mine. And one way or another, I think we need to fund 

these programs. And I want to work with the Committee to ensure 

that we do that. Senator, you and I have had conversations about 

some of the cyber talent that exists in your State, and I definitely 

want to tap into that. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, and believe me, there is talent all 

over the country outside of what we call the blast zone, which is 

the zone that we are sitting in. 

I am going to turn it over to Senator Coats, but please note, 

members, that there has been an $8 million reduction of cyber education in this budget, and I think it is very important for our budget to maintain a commitment, along with education and defense, on 

meeting the challenge today and working cooperatively with those 

other departments. 

So I am going to turn it over to Senator Coats. I am going to go 

vote and then come back, and we will try to continue the hearing. 

Senator LEAHY. And then after Senator Coats finishes, I will ask 

my question. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Senator Leahy, okay. 

Senator LEAHY. We still have time. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes. 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is fine. If you need to break, that is 

fine. 

Senator COATS. Well, we can kind of juggle back and forth. 
14 

Senator LANDRIEU. Senator Leahy can chair. 

Senator COATS [presiding]. The chairman will go and vote, and 

then I will go and vote. And I will try to be brief also, Mr. Secretary. 

Since we ended on cyber, let me start on cyber. There is no question that DHS plays a seminal role in cybersecurity, and you are 

responsible for protecting the dot.gov domain, which is critical, I 

think, in many, many different ways. But despite the nature of the 

threat and the elevation of the threat, in fiscal year 2014 when it 

was clear that DHS could not spend all of the funds that were requested, Congress reduced the level of funding. 

Would you comment on that and tell me where are we in terms 

of getting cybersecurity capabilities in place? Are they up and running, are they effective? If we need more, if you need more, tell us 

what is needed. Clearly it is a top priority, and we ought to make 

sure that it is adequately funded. There have been a number of 

question marks about whether DHS can handle this mission. I 

think you can. But what do you need in order to do it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We made a funding request for $377 million 

for the EINSTEIN system to protect the dot.gov world. I am told 

that we expect to deploy that system very soon—— 

Senator COATS. What does ‘‘very soon’’ mean? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Perhaps within the next year or so, I believe. 

Senator COATS. Okay. 

Secretary JOHNSON. So we are close to being ready with that. I, 

too, believe that DHS should be the coordinator of the Federal Government’s efforts in this regard, both with respect to the civilian 

government world and the private sector. I think DHS is the appropriate interface with the dot.com world in this regard. But we 

made a significant funding request so we can get EINSTEIN up 

and ready, and I hope to do that soon, certainly on my watch. 

IMMIGRATION REFORM

Senator COATS. And I would just urge you—I think you are very 

effective in reaching out to private industry, and I would urge you 

to work with them. Information sharing is critical to cybersecurity. 

It must be done in a way that protects privacy while providing security for our Nation. We are going to make another attempt at 

legislation this year. I serve on the Intelligence Committee and the 

Commerce Committee, and both Committees feel the urgency of the 

need to get some legislation in place. 

So I simply want to say we want to work with you. You will play 

an essential role in all of this. But we have to assure members and 

the public that the role you are playing is going to be an effective 

one. So I want you to keep that high on your list of priorities for 

the Department. 

Let me just address the issue of the proposed passenger security 

fee increases. My suggestion is that we start working together to 

find a potential plan B. I am not saying that you ought to give up 

on the budget proposal. What I am saying is that having just gone 

through fee changes in the agreed-upon budget, the Ryan-Murray 

budget agreement, I cannot find a lot of political support for another fee increase. And I’m not pushing for any such support. So, 

it is likely we will not see more fee changes this year. 
15 

That creates a hole in the budget, and I think we need to start 

looking at where we can try to fill that hole. I am not asking you 

for an answer on that now, but that is something we need to work 

on. 

I would like you to talk to me a little bit about the reduced funding for detention beds. We talked about border security and the situation in the Rio Grande Valley. If we are going to move forward 

on immigration reform, the public has to understand and the Congress has to understand the basis on which we have secured the 

border. And without that preceding comprehensive immigration reform, I do not think we are going to be successful moving forward. 

At least that is what I hear from the House of Representatives. 

So my question is, with the decrease in funding for detention 

beds and with the surge that is coming across, particularly in the 

Rio Grande Valley, does that not potentially jeopardize our ability 

to arrest, detain and remove illegal immigrants? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think comprehensive immigration reform is 

critical as a matter of Homeland Security. Others talk about it in 

terms of economic growth. I agree with that. But from my perspective, as a matter of homeland security, it is critical that we have 

comprehensive immigration reform. 

A component of that is border security. I believe that we can secure the borders in a number of ways, including detention space. 

You are correct that the current law for fiscal year 2014 requires 

us to maintain 34,000 beds—an average of 34,000 beds in the 

course of the fiscal year. Our best estimate is that and our best assessment is that we need space for 30.6 thousand, coupled with 

other things to promote border security. 

We are putting an unprecedented level of assets on border security, and I think we are making good progress. And we are also 

asking for $94 million for a program for alternatives to detention. 

So those are a number of ways in which I think we need to secure 

the border. 

Senator COATS. Thank you. And now onto someone who has had 

a lot of experience chairing a committee, Senator Leahy. I am going 

to turn it over to you, Senator. I am going to run to the floor for 

the vote. Hopefully Mary will be back, but take charge. You know 

how to do it. 

BORDER PATROL AGENT STAFFING

Senator LEAHY [presiding]. I am going to ask and run also, but, 

Secretary Johnson, I have enjoyed the times we have met and 

talked, including today when you talked about Barry Goldwater. In 

1980, I had the second closest election in the United States. Back 

home right after, somebody said, ‘‘Did that election teach you nothing, the closeness?’’ And I said, ‘‘It must be my philosophy.’’ So I 

said I am going to call the Senator who had the closest election in 

the United States. So I called him up and I said, ‘‘Senator Goldwater, what is the lesson they are telling us?’’ After that, he asked 

the retiring Senator from New England, Senator Ribicoff, he said 

we have to change—I am moving into Senator Ribicoff’s office, you 

move into mine. I have been there since 1980. Senator Goldwater, 

he was a good friend. I can just imagine him making that comment. 
16 

You were very helpful and the Department of Homeland Security 

and FEMA were very helpful when we got hit with Tropical Storm 

Irene. And I appreciate that. I spent a lot of time with them. We 

have some things to be completed yet, so please tell FEMA do not 

forget the little State of Vermont. They have done a wonderful job, 

and we still have things to get done. 

The other thing, Senator Coats and you talked about border 

staffing. Usually when we talk about our border, everybody thinks 

of the southern border, and when we add more people, they go to 

the southern border. Canada is our biggest trading partner. It’s a 

very long border. I can drive to the Canadian border in an hour 

from my home in Vermont. My wife’s family came from Canada, 

used to going back and forth. It has become far more difficult. 

We included funds in the omnibus for hiring 2,000 new agents, 

and that is good. But we also have agents retiring. I am afraid they 

will all go to the southern border, and the problem we have now, 

even though they are our biggest trading partner, we have huge 

delays. People are just used to going back and forth easily on that 

border, even so much so that radio stations in Montreal are telling 

people do not go down and spend in the United States. Here is how 

long the border crossing is as of this moment. 

They are expanding their Auto Route 35, the U.S. border in 

Vermont. A lot of these travelers come to upstate New York, to 

Vermont, New Hampshire, Boston. Can you assure me that as you 

fill these positions, attention will be given to the northern border? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, Senator, absolutely. 

CYBERSECURITY: COLLABORATIVE EFFORT

Senator LEAHY. It has become really worrisome, and I know a lot 

of these people—businesspeople in Vermont and others, and people 

who are tourists, members of my own family, who suddenly will sit 

there for 2 hours to go across the border, but they are going up for 

just 2 hours or 3 hours. 

Cybersecurity I think is very important. You submitted budget justification materials for $1.25 billion for cybersecurity. Will you 

work with private institutions and public agencies and try to bring 

everybody together so that we do not end up with a situation where 

all of a sudden the day after a cyberattack, everybody is coming together? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I agree with that. The request is for funding 

across the entirety of DHS, which includes, for example, Secret 

Service’s law enforcement efforts. Secret Service is responsible for 

finance crimes, including the current investigations of the Target 

matter and the Neiman Marcus matter. So the request is significant, and I believe it should be, for purposes of cybersecurity. 

NORTHERN BORDER

Senator, if I could just go back to your other comment about the 

northern border, I have had conversations with a number of Members of Congress about the importance and the emphasis on the 

northern border both in terms of trade and travel and border security. I have had conversations with the Canadians about this, too. 

I think a big milestone for us was what we did at the Peace Bridge 

in Buffalo a couple of weeks ago. 
17 

So I can assure you that when we make these allocations, we are 

paying attention to the northern border as well as the southern 

border. 

IMMIGRATION: EMPLOYMENT CREATION IMMIGRATION VISA PROGRAM

Senator LEAHY. I will invite you to come to Vermont with me 

some time, not today. We are having about 20 inches of snow, and 

it is so bad that some of the schools will open an hour late tomorrow with that kind of snow. Some may not open, which would be 

unusual. 

And lastly, the EB–5 program has been extremely helpful to us. 

We used to adjudicate applications within 6 months. It is now taking 12 to 14 months, which really cripples the program. I do not 

expect a full answer here, but will you look into that and find out 

why they have gone from 6 months to as much as 14 months to 

adjudicate applications? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, and I have already begun looking into 

that. 

Senator LEAHY. I am sure. Thank you, and remember that invite 

to Vermont at some time. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. And we will stand in recess subject to the call 

of the chair. 

[Whereupon, at 2:46 p.m., the hearing was recessed, subject to 

the call of the chair.] 

Senator LANDRIEU [presiding]. The subcommittee will come to 

order. Let me continue with the line of questioning, and members 

will be coming back as the votes continue on the floor of the Senate. I know that Senator Coats had his questions asked and answered. Senator Leahy, he brought up another important program, 

the EB–5, which is under evaluation and restructuring. Very promising program, as you know, to create jobs and spur investment 

here if it can be worked and improved. 

Before I go into my question, could you do another 2 minutes— 

I can read the testimony, but 2 minutes on the EB–5 program and 

what you are doing to make it work effectively, transparently, and 

what are your hopes for, let us say, the next 18 months in terms 

of job creation in America? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, we have a review ongoing of the EB– 

5 program that several people have asked me to do. And I agree 

that it is an important, worthwhile program for job creation in this 

country. At the same time, we have to be mindful of any security 

concerns that may exist around the program, which often can lead 

to delays in the application process. 

So I think that we can always do a better job in terms of efficiency and security, and I want to look for ways to accomplish that. 

And so, I am waiting to hear from my people about how we might 

do a better job around the EB–5 program because I believe that 

overall, it is a very worthwhile program. 

GRANTS: MITIGATION GRANTS

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. Mr. Secretary, I noted in the President’s budget the $400 million in Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants 

was included not as a part of the base budget because of restric-
18 

tions, but as part of the aspirational budget, as I should say, 

should we be able to identify revenues. 

Can you talk for a minute about your views or understanding of 

what these mitigation grants might be used for and how they 

would be distributed? Is it based on need or competitive proposals? 

Do you have any detailed information? If you do not, you could submit it. But any general ideas about how these mitigation grants 

might be used around the country and for what purposes? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would like to give you an informed, detailed answer. So if I could take that question for the record, I 

would very much appreciate doing that. 

[The information follows:] 

Answer. Enactment of the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative (OGSI) would provide $400 million for this program. Funding would support competitive 

grants to State, local and tribal governments through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation 

program. This program provides grants for eligible mitigation planning and projects 

that reduce disaster losses and protect life and property from future disaster damages. This includes support for adaptation planning and pilot projects for cities and 

communities through hazard mitigation assistance, building on administration efforts to implement the National Mitigation Framework. Furthermore OGSI provides 

cost-effective project grants to reduce flood losses, structure elevation, retro-fitting 

of existing buildings, soil stabilization; and management costs for the State to help 

administer mitigation programs. 

Projects that propose mitigation to address climate change weather extremes such 

as winter storm severity; landslides; flooding; earthquake; tsunami; and drought, for 

example, will receive additional consideration. 

Each State will receive a minimum allocation of 1 percent of total funds available. 

FEMA will allocate the remaining funds to States, territories and tribal governments on a competitive basis. 

CYBERSECURITY: EINSTEIN PROGRAM

Secretary JOHNSON. If I could, and I will not take too much of 

your time on this, Senator, but I did want to clarify something I 

said earlier about the EINSTEIN program. We are right now at 

phase three. The program is operational in certain limited respects. 

We expect to complete phase three, which is the last phase, within 

the next year. But it is operational with respect to email and denial 

of services right now, and so, we are getting to the last phase. So 

I just wanted to clarify that. Sorry. 

BORDER SECURITY

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. Thank you. Let us go to illegal border 

crossings, which is a very important issue before our Committee 

and the authorizing committee as well. Members that represent 

States along the southern border tend to be more concerned and focused than others, but it is an issue for the Congress. 

I think we have done some extraordinary work in the last couple 

of years securing our border, building a smarter fence, not just a 

higher fence, but a smarter fence. We have been apprehending— 

in the past at least, apprehensions have been up. But I understand 

that there has been a recent change—in apprehensions. 

And I would like you to talk about that and explain to the Committee the ages of people that are being apprehended. Are they 

adults? Are they teenagers? Are they children? I understand undocumented children or unescorted children are an increasing concern to you and to your Department. The Rio Grande Valley sector 

has now surpassed the Tucson sector as the busiest crossing on the 
19 

Southwest border. Forty-four percent of all undocumented aliens 

are apprehended along this border entering through the valley. 

Over the past 6 months, they have grown by 72 percent compared 

to the same time in 2013, and again, one of the increases that is 

troubling is unaccompanied children. 

So what we can attribute this increase in illegal border crossings 

to? It is good that they are being apprehended, but what are your 

thoughts on that? And what can we do to get a handle on it? What 

are some of the suggestions you have, and what is represented in 

this budget to address it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is a very good and big question. Where 

do I start? I want to say all of the above. Border security is something that can be very fluid because there are different magnets 

that operate at different points of time in different regions of the 

border. It is a constantly evolving situation. 

So right now, for example, we are seeing—we have an overall decrease in the number of apprehensions, which I regard as a good 

thing as reflective of overall attempts to cross the border illegally. 

But we have seen a recent backup again just within the last year 

or two of some small measure, but overall we have seen a decrease 

in the level of apprehensions. The spike upward some would attribute to an improving economy in the United States. 

The phenomenon that I noticed that was called to my attention 

very vividly when I was in south Texas not long ago was the number of third country nationals who were attempting to cross our 

borders in south Texas from places other than Mexico. So the day 

I visited the detention center in Brownsville, we had 995 detainees—you and I have discussed this, Senator—and only 18 percent 

of those were Mexican. And there were some from 30 other nationalities there. 

Senator LANDRIEU. What would be the three or four other countries that were most notable? I think you said Guatemala? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Guatemala is one, but it is not at all limited 

to the American continent. It is nationals from the other continents 

as well who are coming to the American continent, working their 

way up through Mexico, trying to get into our border. So this is an 

issue that I am working with the Mexican Government on. 

And the good news here is that we have devoted a lot of resources to the overall effort, an unprecedented level. Overall I 

think we are making good progress, but we have to remain vigilant. And we have an issue with third country nationals, as you 

point out. We have an issue with unaccompanied minors. By law, 

when we have an unaccompanied minor, we are obligated to turn 

that child over to the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) to reunite with his or her family, either in the country of 

origin or some family unit in the United States. We try to accomplish that as quickly as possible. 

I am concerned about aspects of the system that may serve as 

magnets for additional immigration—illegal immigration, and so 

we have to be mindful of that. But overall, we have to remain vigilant and monitor the challenges as they may migrate from one part 

of the border to the other. 

And so, this budget request I think accomplishes that with new 

personnel and with about $100 million, maybe $90 million for in-
20 

creased mobile and remote surveillance on the border. I think that 

is very important. And our border security specialists have told me 

that added surveillance equipment, in particular, is important. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. I think this is shocking actually— 

70 percent of all Southwest border apprehensions are apprehensions other than Mexican. 

So the vast majority are not Mexicans that are being apprehended. They are people from all other countries. 

I noticed on the list, which I do not have in front of me, but it 

was over 30 or 40 additional countries. And you are right, it is not 

focused just on the Americas. It was from other countries and continents as well. In addition, the increase in unaccompanied alien 

children, that would be defined as children under the age of 17 or 

16, or do we know what the cut off is? Does anybody know? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am not sure whether it is 17 or 18 or 16. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Or 18? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I can get that for the record for you. 

[The information follows:] 

Answer. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 first defined the term unaccompanied 

alien child as a child under the age of 18 years with no lawful immigration status 

who has no parent or legal guardian in the United States or no parent or legal 

guardian is available in the United States to provide care and physical custody. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. Let us be clear about the ages. And 

can you talk about children under the age of, let us say, 10, what 

you noticed when you went on your trips down there? Were there 

dozens, hundreds of children under the age of 10 that would be unaccompanied? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have not personally observed that phenomenon on my trips to the border. I know it is a phenomenon of 

great concern. It should be of national concern to us. And so, I 

want to really work on this problem with HHS to make sure that 

when it happens, we unite the child with a family member as 

quickly as possible, and that there is nothing in our process that 

may serve to encourage this type of migration because it is obviously not a good phenomenon. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And I think it is important for the record that 

65 percent of all the border juvenile apprehensions, with 65 percent 

is almost—well, it is 18,500. So I am assuming that is between the 

ages of zero and 16 or zero and 17. We put language in our budget 

last year on this subject because this issue came up. We have not 

had a major piece of legislation regarding it. I think there might 

have been some pieces of the immigration reform that passed the 

Senate addressing this. 

But in our appropriations bill last year, we put in language requiring you to work with HHS on this issue because, you know, 

that is 19,000, 20,000 very young people. I think when people think 

of illegals crossing the border, they are thinking of 20-, 30-, 40- 

year-olds. But there are 19,000 that are under the age of 16, many 

of them unaccompanied. And we know what happens when children are not in the protection of the family. Horrible things happen. So let us stay focused on that. 

I have got to go vote and come back. I have got two additional 

questions, but I am going to turn the questioning now over to Sen-
21 

ator Coats. And I will come back, and I just have a few more questions for the record. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Senator COATS. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you. It just occurs to me, the Secretary and I can come to some conclusions here 

and wrap this baby up. But I will not do that. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. 

Senator COATS. I promise you. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I could ask my two questions. 

Senator COATS. Yes, you can. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Senator, really I can be flexible. So if you 

need to break for another vote, that is totally fine. It is at your convenience. 

Senator COATS [continuing]. Madam Chairman, you can probably 

ask your questions, because they are going to hold the vote open 

for you. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Okay. Well, why do we not take a recess for 

just a few minutes and vote, and I will have a few when I come 

back? Thank you, and if you want to continue you can. 

Senator COATS [presiding]. Okay. We will make keep the hearing 

going. Well, I do not, Mr. Secretary, know exactly what you talked 

about while I was away. My staff has indicated that you discussed 

the tragic and complex issue of unaccompanied minors. And so, I 

will get back briefed on that discussion. 

But talk a little bit about your border security strategy and how 

you fight this sort of Whack-a-Mole problem that happens when 

you secure the border in California or deal with issues in Arizona, 

and they find an opening in the Rio Grande Valley. How do you 

attempt to address this so that we put in place the security we 

need across the Southwest border? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is a good question. And I think the key 

is—you are correct. If you plug a hole one place, somebody is going 

to dig a hole in another place. I think the key is to stay one step 

ahead of the problem. Our budget includes about $90 million for remote and mobile surveillance equipment on boats that patrol the 

border and the Rio Grande and other types of mobile surveillance 

equipment, in addition to personnel. That aligns with what patrol 

border agents have told me when I visited the border. And I asked 

them what do you need, and they talk in terms of more surveillance equipment. 

So I think that surveillance is a very important way of staying 

one step ahead of the trends that may emerge each time you concentrate a lot of assets in any one particular place. My predecessor 

used to say, build a 50-foot wall, and I will build a 51-foot ladder 

or a tunnel. So I think we need to stay one step ahead of the issue, 

and I think technology goes a long way in that regard. 

Senator COATS. As you know, there was a run made at that putting a ‘‘virtual’’ border in place with sensors and so forth, and it 

did not turn as effectively as people had hoped. Now we are making a second attempt. What kind of confidence do you have that 

that technology has now arrived and can give us the kind of border 

security and situational awareness that we need? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think our technology is pretty good, and we 

need to make further investments in it. I know from my experience 
22 

at the Department of Defense (DOD) that technology in this regard 

is pretty sophisticated. It exists, and we just need to invest in it. 

Senator COATS. I think it is a great asset for us that you have 

experience with the military and with DOD. That you know who 

to talk to, and how to track down what works and what would be 

most suitable. I think that experience is going to be very valuable 

for DHS. Senator Cochran, have you had an opportunity to ask 

questions? 

Senator COCHRAN. No, I have not. 

Senator COATS. Well, I am going to give you that right now. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Senator, the United States military for 4 

years was my client. The military is a very can-do organization, 

and I hope I have brought some of that with me to the Department. 

Senator COATS. Good. Thank you. 

DATA CENTER CONSOLIDATION

Senator COCHRAN. Let me ask you this. Mr. Secretary, your Department has led the Federal Government in finding cost savings 

through the consolidation of data centers. This activity is already 

resulting in millions of dollars in annual savings, with even greater 

savings predicted for the future. How critical do you believe data 

center consolidation is to the Department’s ability to operate effectively and efficiently? And how much can it save the taxpayers? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think consolidation of data centers and 

other resources we have to achieve efficiencies is important. It is 

important. It is one of my goals. I know we are working on data 

center consolidation right now. I believe we have funding adequate 

to complete the projects that we have in this regard. And I would 

like to see us do more of this kind of work for the benefit of the 

taxpayer. 

NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER: FUNDING

Senator COCHRAN. I noticed, too, in the budget request submitted 

by the Department there is included a request for full funding to 

construct a seventh national security cutter— 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator COCHRAN [continuing]. And to begin the procurement of 

parts of the eighth national security cutter. With increasing concerns about border security and protection of our natural resources, 

the maritime domain’s strategic importance continues to grow. How 

have the current national security cutters improved your capabilities to accomplish the missions? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We have an aging fleet. As I said earlier, I 

am told that the current Coast Guard fleet is the most aged fleet 

of any navy in the world. I tend to believe that is true when you 

look at the age of a lot of our vessels. 

I have had several conversations with the commandant of the 

Coast Guard about how a more modern fleet can promote maritime 

security, national security, and border security, and I am convinced 

that that is correct. I am convinced that a more modern fleet can 

also promote commerce, and it is something that we need to remain 

committed to doing. 
23 

We exist in a fiscally constrained environment, but I am determined to continue forward progress on Coast Guard recapitalization in every respect that we can. 

CYBERSECURITY: RESEARCH

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Secretary, recent cyberattacks have highlighted vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure and in private 

companies as well. I think we all recognize the important role that 

cybersecurity research and development plays in keeping head of 

our adversaries in order to protect our national computer systems 

and critical infrastructure. 

Because the Department is still a relatively young one and you 

do not have a robust laboratory network, how important is it for 

you to leverage other departments’ laboratories and existing university capabilities to complete important research in 

cybersecurity? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am also interested in leveraging the assets, 

know-how, and experience of other agencies, and I would like to try 

to accomplish that. I would note also that in our budget request, 

there is within Science and Technology Directorate a request for an 

investment of $72 million in cyber research by the Department of 

Homeland Security. And I do think that that is a priority. 

But I agree if we can leverage experience, assets from other departments, like the Department of Defense, we should try to do 

that. 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator COATS. Thank you. 

Senator Murkowski. 

ARCTIC OPERATIONS

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, welcome. Thank you for your leadership in so many different areas. I 

will start off my questions to you by inviting you to Alaska. You 

do not need to come right now. It is still winter there, but it is actually going to be a little bit colder here in Washington, DC, than 

it will be back home. So any time you want to come north, it is 

going to be safe, and we will welcome you warmly. 

I want to ask you the same question that I will be asking all of 

the secretaries throughout the appropriations hearings, and that is 

to define or clarify from your Department’s perspective where this 

Administration is placing its budget priorities when it comes to the 

Arctic. 

You will recall that the President released the implementation 

plan for the national strategy for the Arctic region in January. This 

plan lists the Department of Homeland Security as the lead agency 

for seven different objectives here, and the supporting agency for 

a host of others. 

As I look through the budget, I see that there is $2.1 million for 

Arctic operations. Of course, we are going to be stepping up next 

year as the United States will be chair of the Arctic Council, a 

leadership role that really the rest of the Arctic world and truly the 

globe is looking at our leadership. 

Very briefly, if you can define for me what level of emphasis are 

you placing on the Arctic objectives, and how do you anticipate that 
24 

you will implement this Arctic plan in the next several years—and 

specifically in the next fiscal year. 

Secretary JOHNSON. First of all, I have no trepidations about 

Alaska cold weather. I was in Dead Horse, Alaska exactly 3 years 

ago—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. You are a tough one, I know. 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. To get on a submarine going to 

the ice in the Arctic. That was exactly 3 years ago in March, and 

I have been to Barrow, Alaska, in December—in the month of December. So I know cold. 

I believe, first and foremost, that our priorities in the Arctic surround increasing commerce there. I think that people might debate 

the cause, but as the Coast Guard has observed less freezing over 

of the Arctic, more open water, that leads to more commerce. 

Therefore, we need an increased Coast Guard presence in the Arctic, which is why—it is one of the reasons why I think recapitalization of the Coast Guard is so important. 

So that, to me, is first and foremost in my mind in terms of the 

importance of the Arctic region and the emphasis we ought to place 

in investments there. 

NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER: HOME PORTING

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I appreciate you saying that, and I 

appreciate your response to several different members on the significance of the recapitalization. I could not agree with you more. 

I also acknowledge, as I am sure that you do, the role the Coast 

Guard is taking on increased priority and presence as we are seeing different levels of operations in the Arctic, whether it is cruise 

ships coming up over the top, or whether it is container vessels 

through the Bering Strait. The level of activity that we are seeing 

there is unprecedented, and how we handle that is going to be key 

going forward. 

We mentioned that one of the aspects of Customs and Border Patrol that perhaps many folks are not thinking about is you have 

some wide open border along the coast of Alaska where you might 

have German tourists that are disembarking off of a cruise ship 

coming into Barrow. How we handle that going forward is going to 

be something of interest. And I just want to make sure that it truly 

is on your radar screen. 

You have mentioned the national security cutters. I would agree 

with you on their significance and that they are a priority. I have 

asked for the Coast Guard to look very, very critically at home 

porting a national security cutter in Kodiak. Currently, the closest 

home port for the national security cutter is based out of Alameda, 

California. I am told that it takes 24 days to get a national security 

cutter from Alameda up to the Chukchi Beaufort sea area. That is 

a long way to be underway when we have an incident that would 

require that type of vessel up there. 

So I would ask if you would consider taking another look at the 

Coast Guard’s home porting strategy and locating a national security cutter there in Kodiak, really closer to where we are seeing 

such a greater degree of activity. 

Secretary JOHNSON. We could look at that, yes. 
25 

ICEBREAKERS

Senator MURKOWSKI. I would appreciate that. And then because 

probably none of my colleagues are going to be asking about polar 

ice breakers, as you know, the Coast Guard high latitude study 

back in 2011 identified a need for three heavy and three medium 

ice breakers. Currently we have got one heavy icebreaker in the 

water. We have one medium strength icebreaker, the Healy, and 

then of course we have one heavy icebreaker that is currently out 

of service. 

This is an issue that as we deal—as we prepare for an increasing 

role in the Arctic, quite honestly you have to have a way to move 

through the ice. The question to you is three-fold. How many heavy 

ice breakers do you think we need to keep us safe and protect U.S. 

Arctic interests, whether or not the Coast Guard has plans for additional ice breaking capability as we advance the Arctic strategy, 

and whether or not there are plans—further plans to recapitalize 

and repurpose the Polar Sea, which is currently up in dry dock 

right now. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Let me try to answer the question this way. 

The Polar Star is quite old. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes. 

Secretary JOHNSON. We need to replace it. We have a long-term 

acquisition plan to do that, which the cost of that will be considerable because, as you know, heavy ice breakers are big ships, and 

they tend to be very expensive. But we recognize the need to replace the Polar Star. The Polar Sea is not quite as old, and as you 

point out, it is dry docked right now. We have not made a decision 

yet as to what its future will be. There have been no decisions at 

that point. 

But overall, I do recognize the importance of having heavy ice 

breakers, not just for maritime security, but to keep the flow of 

commerce open in the Arctic and other places. That is the principal 

reason we have them, and the ones we have are pretty effective at 

doing that. So I am not familiar with the particular assessment 

that we need three. I am happy to look at it. But it is something 

that I have paid close attention to in listening to the Coast Guard 

about what their needs are. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. I 

look forward to working with you on many of these Arctic issues. 

I think this is an area, again, where in many senses this is a new 

frontier out here. We are asking more of the Coast Guard, and yet 

we are not giving them sufficient assets to do what we are asking 

of them. And so, how we stay on top of this is going to be key, and 

I look forward to working with you on that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COATS. Good. Senator Moran, Senator Coons has graciously offered to let you go first since—we go back and forth normally, but he has always been a gentleman and continues to be. 

He saw that you were here first and said my friend Jerry ought 

to go. 

Senator MORAN. The trouble with that scenario is that now it 

makes me feel guilty. 

Senator COATS. Good. You owe him one. 
26 

NATIONAL BIO- AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY

Senator MORAN. That also makes me nervous. Mr. Chairman, 

thank you very much. Senator Coats, thank you very much for the 

opportunity to question. I am actually going to take advantage of 

the offer that you have given me. Secretary Shinseki is testifying 

in the Veterans Committee Appropriations Subcommittee as well 

at this time, and I am anxious to hear and question him as well. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. It has been a pleasure to 

get to know you. I appreciate the outreach that you have provided 

to me and my office, and how kind and accommodating you and 

your staff have been to us. 

Kansans and really the country have a significant issue that the 

Department of Homeland Security has been fully engaged in, and 

we are very grateful for that. Thank you for your continued support 

for a facility called the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility 

(NBAF), and we appreciate the President’s budget recommendation 

of an additional $300 million with the plan of completing the construction of that project as a result of this hopefully final appropriation. 

Let me just ask the general question because this is the first 

time at least on the record that you have been able to express your 

opinion about the value of this facility, what is means to the safety 

and security of our animal industry, our husbandry, as well as the 

food supply, why it is important in regard to any potential terrorist 

or accidental threat to the United States. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Senator, as you and I have discussed privately, I am fully committed to the NBAF project. I am convinced 

of the need for a new facility in this regard, in part because of the 

capabilities or better research, more aggressive research that a 

brand new facility like this one would create for us. 

And so, we have made a considerable ask of $300 million to complete this facility. I am fully committed to doing that. And I very 

much appreciate that the State will contribute to the support and 

the funding of this as well, which is evidence obviously of the importance of the mission. So I am fully committed to the mission, 

and I want to see it get done. 

Senator MORAN. I appreciate that, and I particularly appreciate 

it in respect to your experience and background as someone who 

has for a long time been involved in trying to protect the United 

States from a variety of threats. So thank you for your expert as 

well as your testimony as the Secretary. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator MORAN. Let me ask the significant question of the moment. We have appropriated significant amounts of money in the 

past in Congress based upon, and the President has approved, a 

number of appropriations—last year $404 million; previous to that 

$202 million. Now, there is a request for $300 million. And as you 

indicate, the State of Kansas has made a significant commitment 

to this project, initially $105 million, and then followed by an additional $202 million based upon the Department of Homeland Security’s request that we increase our commitment—the State of Kansas increases its commitment as a result of the cost going up. 
27 

And it is that cost going up issue that I want to raise with you, 

as well as the—based upon your indication of how important this 

facility is. If it is important to accomplish the goals that NBAF will 

accomplish, my assumption is it is important to accomplish them 

sooner rather than later, as early as possible. As that facility is 

operational, the safer and more secure our country will be. Is that 

accurate? 

Secretary JOHNSON. My experience in the Department of Defense 

and the Department of the Air Force, and of the Department of 

Homeland Security is that the longer a project takes, the more expensive it tends to become. The quicker you can complete the 

project, the more efficient the cost. And so, if there are ways to finish this project with funding Congress has given us sooner, I think 

that would be a good thing. 

Senator MORAN. Well, Mr. Secretary, what I would like to ask 

you to agree to do is to work with perhaps it is Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Administration, the as well as your 

folks at the Department of Homeland Security. We are happy to 

participate in that process. 

What we would like to see happen is the opportunity for a contract for construction to begin based upon the amount of money already appropriated, which is that $202 plus $404. So there’s $606 

million Congress has already appropriated, plus Kansas is prepared to release its additional $307 million. And I think what is 

missing today is an ability or willingness on the part of the Department of Homeland Security to secure bids and enter into the contract. 

And what I am hoping that you would agree to do is to work with 

us to see that we do not have to prolong that process while we accomplish the additional $300 million appropriation that the President has requested. 

Secretary JOHNSON. If it is something that will save the Federal 

and State taxpayer money to accomplish the same mission, then I 

definitely think we should look into that. 

Senator MORAN. And based upon your experience, you just testified that—I do not know that you said never, but I would guess 

there has never been an experience in which delaying actually 

saves money. So based upon your previous comment, I assume that 

you are—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I cannot think of one. 

Senator MORAN. I cannot either. And we look forward to trying 

to accomplish that. If we can have a conversation about how to resolve this and move forward between you and OMB, let us see if 

we can accomplish that we mutually share. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am going to look into that. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator LANDRIEU [presiding]. Thank you. I believe Senator 

Coons is next, and I thank the members for being so cooperative 

on attending in between votes. 

Senator Coons. 

IMMIGRATION: ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

Senator COONS. Thank you, Madam Chair. And it is always a delight when I have the opportunity to facilitate Senator Moran doing 
28 

his duty on behalf of the people of Kansas, so I was happy to defer 

on the previous round. And great to have you with us, Madam 

Chair and ranking member. You are next, I know. 

If I might, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for the chance to 

be with you again. I would like to start with two questions around 

issues relating to immigration that we have discussed before, but 

that I think are worth pursuing in a little more detail given that 

we now have the budget. 

First, alternatives to detention have been proven to be significantly less costly, incomparably effective in terms of our larger 

goals of deporting those who ultimately need to be deported, and 

retaining here for trial those who need to be trained. I think one 

study suggested $17 for an alternatives to detention program 

versus $159 per person per day. And yet DHS has continued to 

have imposed upon it or provided to it, depending on your view of 

Congress, a bed count. In the latest budget, you are requesting $1.3 billion for detention beds and only about $94 million for alternatives to detention. Do 

you think that pursuing alternatives more actively might produce 

good results? Is there something I am missing here where alternatives to detention have not proven to be effective? Would you 

welcome more resources to work with the alternatives program? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The answer is yes, which is why we have 

asked for $94 million to support an alternatives to detention program, which I am told has been pretty effective. I have had many 

discussions with Members of Congress about the 34,000 bed requirement, which is an average requirement over the course of the 

years. Our request, based on what we assess to be our current 

needs for prioritization is 30.6 thousand, but coupled with that, 

very importantly, is the request for the alternatives to detention 

program. 

IMMIGRATION: REPATRIATION

Senator COONS. I would like to support that and work closely 

with you on it because, at least my very local experience, there was 

an unintended result that there were people being detained longer 

than needed to be and in ways that were not entirely constructive 

to achieving our law enforcement goals. 

Second, the Alien Transfer Exit Program, known as ATEP, has 

in the past led to lateral repatriation, nighttime deportations, and 

deportations to dangerous locales in which families are broken up, 

some elements of the families bussed hundreds of miles away, and 

then folks being forcibly returned to their country of origin, often 

at night and sometimes in ways that have been dangerous for 

them. 

Having conducted a review, do you think lateral repatriation, 

nighttime deportations, and deportations in arguably dangerous 

circumstances will continue to be a broadly used practice by the 

Department? 

Secretary JOHNSON. This is something that—this exact issue is 

something that I am looking at right now. In the course of looking 

at the issue, I found out that there is 2004 guidance that says that, 

in the repatriation process, we should not break up families. 

Senator COONS. Right. 
29 

Secretary JOHNSON. And so, I am contemplating various things 

to address this particular issue. It has been raised with me from 

a number of different sources, and so we are assessing it right now. 

Senator COONS. I think we have some international obligations 

at issue here as well, and I would welcome a chance to be supportive when you complete your—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is why I mentioned a number of 

sources. 

CYBERSECURITY: SECRET SERVICE CAPABILITIES

Senator COONS. Thank you. Third, if I might, on cybersecurity, 

others have asked questions on some of the broader cybersecurity 

issues I might have brought up. The Secret Service, relatively 

smaller in scale than some of the other elements of the Department, has a highly skilled and relatively low head count, Electronic 

Crimes Task Force. And they make it possible for us to leverage 

their expertise with law enforcement and intelligence agencies 

around the world. 

And I wondered, given the scope of the cyber threat and given 

the significant demands we have scaling up the workforce needed 

to meet the cyber threat, whether you were giving any thought to 

scaling the Secret Service’s counter cyber capabilities. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Our total proposed investment in 

cybersecurity is $1.2 billion across the entire Department. We have 

capabilities in a number of different components. I am very impressed by the Secret Service’s capabilities in this regard as a matter of law enforcement investigation of cybercrime. As you probably 

know, the Secret Service is the lead investigative agency for the 

Target investigation. I think that that is also the case with regard 

to the Neiman Marcus investigation, and they are doing an excellent job. 

And so, I believe we need the Secret Service to remain committed 

to the cybersecurity mission and do so consistently with the fiscal 

constraints that we face. But I believe it is an important mission, 

and I think the Secret Service needs to continue to pursue it. 

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Senator COONS. Thank you. Last question, if I might, Mr. Secretary, about Customs and Border Patrol. My hometown port, the 

Port of Wilmington, lands a significant amount of produce, produce 

that spoils rapidly and that arrives sort of in a wave in particular 

times of the year, whether it is grapes from Chile or bananas from 

Central and South America. And one of the things that surprised 

me most about the CBP and its role there was that they literally 

cannot pay overtime to get inspectors there at times of the year 

when it would be particularly valuable in terms of the timeliness 

to market. 

There is an issue there, a longstanding challenge, between Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and CBP, and 

there is an initial authority in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus to establish public-private partnerships. This is something I know is at 

a very small scale, but has significant impact for those of us who 

have active ports. 
30 

The private sector has repeatedly raised to me that they are willing, even eager, to pay overtime. Impacts of the sequester have led 

to a number of unfilled inspector and other customs clearance positions. And so, when we have an opportunity through resolving 

what is an accounting issue between two different agencies, we 

should take it. And if I can be helpful in advancing this, I would 

really like to. It would make a big difference for a few businesses 

that employ a lot of people in my home port. 

Secretary JOHNSON. We can look into that, Senator. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator Coons. 

Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologize. 

Senator LANDRIEU. No worries. 

SURVEILLANCE DRONES: PRIVACY RULES

Senator TESTER. And to Senator Coons from Delaware. Senator 

Moran and I have had somewhat of a battle over the NBAF, and 

the first thing I heard when I walked through the door was a discussion about NBAF. 

I did not have any questions, but I just wanted to say that I 

know this project started long before you came on board. In fact, 

it started long before President Obama was in office. And it still 

mystifies me how a decision was made to do research on very, very 

contagious diseases in the middle of Tornado Alley in the heart of 

this country. I will just leave it at that. He has won this battle. It 

is going to be funded. It is going to be built. And I hope I am 

wrong. 

I would say that in the area of drones, the Associated Press reported last month that DHS loaned its drones to other agencies— 

local sheriffs, National Guard—700 times over the last 3 years. It 

brings up some questions about how many hours DHS loaned out 

drones, who paid for the operations and maintenance, how the missions are related to border security, and, most importantly, what 

kind of surveillance was done potentially on Americans. 

DHS was tasked to develop privacy rules governing the use of 

drones for surveillance. Could you give me an update on where the 

agency is in the development of those rules? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Senator, if you do not mind, I would like to 

take that question for the record so I can give you a more detailed 

answer. I believe that aerial surveillance is important—— 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. Coupled with adequate privacy 

policies and restrictions. And I think that is something you and I 

have discussed. 

[The information follows:] 

Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) employs several types of aircraft including manned helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, and Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (UAS) for border surveillance and law enforcement purposes. These aircraft 

are equipped with video, radar, and/or other sensor technologies to assist CBP in 

patrolling the border, conducting surveillance as part of a law enforcement investigation or tactical operation, or gathering raw data that may assist in emergency 

response. Video, images, and sensor data collected through these aircraft systems 

alone cannot be used to identify a person, but they may later be associated with 
31 

a person as part of a law enforcement investigation or encounter with CBP officers 

or agents. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently conducted a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) to evaluate the privacy impact of sensor technology use on 

CBP aircraft, both manned and unmanned. The PIA concludes that the DHS/CBP 

collection of data by its aircraft assets is within the scope of its authorities, but that 

there are privacy risks associated with using sensors on aircraft to collect personally 

identifiable information (PII). A privacy concern, specific to UAS, is that they 

present a perceived risk to privacy because they are able to fly for longer hours than 

manned aircraft and conduct surveillance undetected. CBP manages this risk by following strict mission priorities, by operating its aircraft in accordance with Federal 

Aviation Administration requirements, and by controlling access to data collected by 

UAS. The PIA finds that CBP has rules in place to exercise strict control over the 

collection, use, retention and dissemination of information obtained from the deployment of cameras, radar, and other sensor technology on its air assets. The PIA 

found that the raw information collected from technology deployed on aircraft rarely 

provides images that may independently identify persons, and is not maintained in 

and covered by a Privacy Act System of Records Notice (SORN) until it is associated 

with a person as part of a law enforcement investigation or encounter with CBP officers or agents. The PIA notes that images associated with case information allow 

for the identification of persons in the image and are subject to the full range of 

privacy protections (Privacy Act SORNs, PIAs, and Redress) accorded law enforcement case information. Lastly, the PIA concludes by noting that as technology improves, DHS and CBP will review and update the PIA to ensure that it remains 

current with the use of the aircraft and the information collection technology. 

Personally identifiable information obtained through the sensors/cameras on an 

unmanned aircraft is treated no differently by the Privacy Act of 1974, the E-Government Act of 2002, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and departmental privacy 

policies and directives than personally identifiable information input into an online 

form or handwritten in a proffered document. Nonetheless, the DHS Privacy Office 

is working with the DHS components that operate, or may operate, unmanned aircraft to communicate and clarify unmanned aircraft operators’ privacy obligations. 

Thus far, the DHS Privacy Office has conducted two PIAs and has analyzed three 

prospective acquisitions of unmanned aircraft. These are the first PIAs addressing 

Government use of unmanned aircraft in the Federal Government. 

DHS is finalizing a UAS ‘‘best practices’’ document that is being submitted to 

OMB for comments and clearance. DHS is also working with other executive agencies to develop common privacy, civil liberties, civil rights, transparency, and accountability principles that would apply to all agencies’ UAS programs. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am committed to further refining those 

protections. But I would like to take this question for the record. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, you absolutely can. I mean, I think that 

you touched on it. I think the fact that drone technology is being 

loaned out to local agencies is not necessarily a bad thing, as long 

as the surveillance and civil liberties are respected in that process. 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is correct. 

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION FACILITIES

Senator TESTER. And the other thing is if you can give me an 

idea on how much it was not used for border security purposes. 

And by the way, I think drones on the border, particularly the 

northern border, which is what I know better than anything, is 

something that can save some money and probably some time, and 

stop some bad guys. 

CBP facilities. I recently learned that an under-used Border Patrol facility—and I am not being critical—in Shelby, Montana, is 

costing the Federal Government about $30,000 bucks a month, and 

that lease will continue until 2025. Now, $30,000 bucks a month 

for a facility in Washington, DC, is probably pretty cheap. In Shelby, you could probably buy a decent house for $30,000, okay? 
32 

The General Services Administration (GSA) has said that due to 

the necessity of Border Patrol facilities, remote areas, CBP specifications, they had a long-running list of things that were wrong. 

This also happened on a port when they were talking about building housing some time ago. And I said—I cannot even remember 

how much it was, but it was well, well into the hundred thousand, 

maybe even a quarter million for this house. And I said are you 

kidding me? You can buy the town for what you are spending on 

this house. And do not tell me because it costs money to get the 

products up there. 

The fact is that I live there. It was way, way, way overpriced. 

They were using different metrics than what they needed to use to 

determine what the rental fees are supposed to be. 

I guess it is a management issue. I think that as I look at it, are 

there things that your Department can do, working with the GSA, 

to make sure that we get fair market value for the money that we 

are spending when taxpayers are dropping this kind of money, because quite frankly, I mean, it is one of those $500 hammer kind 

of deals. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I cannot argue with anything you just said. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I cannot. And it is part of my mission to look 

for inefficiencies in the Department. 

DISASTER RELIEF FUND

Senator TESTER. That would be great. I mean, if you could just 

take a look at it because it does not—and maybe there is a perfectly good reason and I just missed it. And there might be, but I 

missed it, and I need to figure it out because it does not make any 

sense to me. 

We have got a winter that started out pretty easy and it ended 

up pretty extreme in the last actually 3 weeks. Record snow. It is 

going to flood. I do not think there is any doubt about it. We have 

seen it with past disasters. There will be damage whether it is to 

infrastructure—roads, bridges, whatever. And given the past decade with more and more costly weather events—we can have the 

debate about climate change, but things are changing. 

Do you believe you have allotted enough money for your Disaster 

Relief Fund? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We have asked for an additional $7 billion 

to the Disaster Relief Fund. There is no doubt that we have seen 

in recent years weather of a severe nature coupled with aging infrastructure that causes things like the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel to 

completely flood. When I saw that happen during Hurricane Sandy, 

I asked myself, well, it is amazing that it has not happened before 

in the history of that tunnel. And there are reasons for those kinds 

of things. 

So we exist in a fiscally constrained environment. I believe that 

what we have asked for should be adequate. If there is an emergency that requires emergency relief, we will need to come back to 

Congress for additional funding. 
33 

REAL ID PROGRAM

Senator TESTER. That is good. I just wanted to make sure you 

were thinking about it when you put the budget together. That is 

basically where I was coming from. 

One last question, and I have got some others I may submit for 

the record. I want to talk about REAL ID for a second. There are 

15 States facing this issue mainly because the national ID issue is 

a bit of a hot potato. And I know this is a different world we live 

in after 9/11, and I know that there are some out there that have 

no—they are going to use it for all the right reasons and not abuse 

it. 

The fact of the matter is, though, that what we are doing here 

is at this point in time, DHS will be able to enforce compliance by 

denying access to Federal buildings, even getting on a plane, and 

residents from other States have opted out of REAL ID. 

I guess the bottom line and the big concern is you have got one 

database with all this information. We can talk about breaches. 

They happen all the time. And then the fact that Montanans’ personal information could be accessed by somebody from, say, Louisiana or Indiana, which is scary in and of itself. 

But the fact is that, number one, is that something that we 

should be concerned about? Number two, is it really going to improve national security? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I guess—I recently had a discussion 

with my staff about the REAL ID Program because I wanted to get 

an update on where we are and understand fully the nature of the 

program. At the end of the day, this is a program enacted by Congress. Congress saw the wisdom of a REAL ID Program, and it 

passed by a majority of its members signed into law. And so, my 

obligation is to enforce the law. I am trying to do so in a phasedin, reasonable manner. I understand the resistance to this program, but it is a Federal legal obligation that I have been charged 

with enforcing. 

I mean, to answer your question, though, I do see a national security value to having certain basic standards that go into how 

someone obtains a driver’s license. So I do not want to make light 

of that at all. I do see a value to that. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. Well, I would just say thank you for that. 

I mean, I voted for your confirmation, and I would do it again. I 

think you have the toughest job in Government, in the Administration right now. This is a big department. It has a lot of issues, a 

lot of concerns around civil liberties. The REAL ID issue is a hot 

button issue. I was going to ask you if you would support repealing 

it. Since you said it was law, we could certainly do something like 

that, but I think you answered that question as a no. 

So I would just ask that you do all you can do to respect the 

States’ rights as you move forward with this issue. I think it may 

not be able to be done, but I will tell you that it is a difficult issue, 

and it is an issue that being a libertarian tilt in the State of Montana, it is an issue that people are concerned about. So thank you 

very much for your service. 
34 

GRANTS: CONSOLIDATION PROPOSAL

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator Tester. Mr. Secretary, I 

have only two final questions, and as promised we will be out of 

here before 4 p.m. I thank the members for their excellent questions and review of the budget. 

My last two have to do with the State and local preparedness 

grants reorganization legislation that was submitted with this 

budget. You may be familiar with the work that has gone on to reform the local community preparedness grants. It combines State, 

urban area, port, and transit into one program. It requires participation by previous grantees on the advisory board to prioritize future investments. 

There is a requirement in this new proposal that 80 percent of 

the grant funding must be passed onto local communities and 

States, local communities not held by States or Federal. And the 

requirement that ensures at least 25 percent are committed to law 

enforcement is eliminated. 

Do you support this proposal? If so, what do you think its 

strengths are? If not, why? 

Secretary JOHNSON. My understanding of the grant consolidation 

proposal is that it will add efficiencies, both in terms of Federal 

oversight and State oversight, such that the overhead to the administration of the grants program is reduced, and more grant dollars reach the intended beneficiaries. I know that there are a number of people in our Government who think that is a very good idea 

that will promote efficiencies, and this Administration supports 

doing that. 

JONES ACT

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. Many Senators, including myself, 

strongly support the Jones Act, which has been a very important 

part of our maritime infrastructure in this country for a long time. 

The Department has over the past several years, and I think going 

back some time, but definitely in the last few years, has requested 

waivers for the Jones Act periodically. 

And it got to be such an abusive, in my view, situation that I put 

language in last year’s appropriations bill to prohibit you all from 

moving around the Jones Act, which requires you to use U.S. flag 

vessels, building ships in America. Our merchant marines, our 

maritime industry is a very important industry to our country, not 

just to the State of Louisiana, which is a proud tradition. 

So what are your views of the Jones Act, and under what circumstances can you imagine it would have to be waived, and can 

you anticipate—I know we cannot anticipate anything. But in what 

circumstances would you think that it would have to be waived? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have had occasion to deal with the Jones 

Act both at DOD and at DHS. Waivers under the Jones Act can 

be granted for reasons of national security and if there is no—I 

may not be getting the words exactly right—readily available U.S.- 

flagged alternative. 

I have had occasion to consider waivers under the Jones Act and 

reached the determination that the waiver request did not meet the 

legal standard. So I think that there are circumstances where a 
35 

waiver would be appropriate. In my experience as Secretary of 

DHS, I have not seen that yet. And so, we have maintained and 

enforced the general rule that U.S. port to U.S. port should involve 

a U.S.-flagged vessel. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, excellent because I think that the 

vast—I could be wrong, but I think that the vast majority, or let 

me just say the majority of members of Congress would feel strongly about that. And that is the law, and I appreciate that answer. 

We will be carefully monitoring it, and thank you for your response. 

I think, Secretary, this has been a very good and complete hearing and review of the budget. Of course, we will submit more questions for the record. You have some to submit to us. 

This is going to be a challenging year for all of us, but I am committed to doing what I can to see that your Department has the 

resources that it needs to do the job that we have asked you to do. 

I look forward to working with my ranking member. We had a very 

cooperative and, I think, helpful and productive year last year. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

So the record will remain open until close of business Wednesday, March 26. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. JEH JOHNSON

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM REFORM

Question. The current budget proposal includes funding for 331 employees for implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), an increase of 6 percent over fiscal year 2014. This budget was formulated after Biggert-Waters Flood 

Insurance Reform passed but prior to the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability 

Act now enacted into law. 

The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act places significant new requirements on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) such as limiting annual individual premium increases, issuing refunds, and reinstating affordability as 

a priority of the program. With only a 60-percent compliance rate among those required to have a flood insurance policy, program participation has been a systemic 

issue for many years. I included language in the compromise flood bill now directing 

the Administrator of FEMA to strive to limit premiums to no more than 1 percent 

of the value of the policy and report any instances when premiums exceed that 

level. 

Additional effort will be required to ensure the provisions are implemented in a 

timely and transparent process that ensures impacted homeowners get the immediate relief they deserve. I am committed to working closely with FEMA to ensure 

the proper implementation of this new law. 

When will you know the estimated additional number of employees needed to effectively implement the new legislation? 

Answer. It is too early to determine the impact of new legislation on our 

resourcing. We were in the process of expanding our workforce when the new legislation passed. In fiscal year 2014, FEMA was authorized 14 new staff positions and, 

in the fiscal year 2015 request, we have requested an additional 17 new positions. 

These positions will support development of the required regulations, provide additional actuarial support and ensure full implementation of the Biggert-Waters Flood 

Insurance Reform Act. FEMA is assessing the use of temporary measures to support 

rapidly implementing some of the newer reform requirements. 

Question. What other resources will FEMA need to properly implement the law 

(i.e., unique expertise, data collection, etc.)? 
36 

Answer. No additional resources are required until a full assessment of the legislation’s impact is completed. 

Question. How do you intend to work with Congress to ensure we know your new 

requirements as we draft the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill over the coming months? 

Answer. FEMA is still assessing the impacts of the new law. We will keep your 

office informed of progress and any challenges in implementing the law. 

FLOOD MAPS

Question. Accurate flood maps are crucial to informing citizens about their risk 

and setting their flood insurance rates. 

The justification of the fiscal year 2015 budget request touts that the relationships and flood risk data developed through FEMA’s mapping program had a ‘‘profound impact on the speed and strength of recovery in New York and New Jersey’’ 

during Hurricane Sandy. While this is a good news story, not all communities are 

satisfied with the accuracy of their maps. Lafourche Parish has been appealing its 

new FEMA flood map since 2008 because FEMA cannot figure out how to give them 

credit for a 16-foot, $450 million, 40-mile ring levee that was initially authorized by 

Congress in 1965 and has held through Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, and 

Isaac. 

The budget justification also highlights stakeholders have expressed concern 

about the remainder of areas that do not have modernized maps. Yet, just like last 

year, the budget request only includes $84 million for flood hazard mapping. An 11- 

percent decrease from fiscal year 2014 and a pittance compared to the $400 million 

annual authorization established in Biggert-Waters. I am happy I was able to restore the proposed cut in fiscal year 2014. 

Are there other resources proposed in the fiscal year 2015 budget to be dedicated 

to mapping activity through fees or other accounts? 

Answer. Yes, FEMA’s Risk MAP program, which encompasses the National Flood 

Insurance Program mapping activities, is funded from two sources—the $84 million 

in appropriated funds under Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis and another 

$121 million in fee income from the insurance program under the National Flood 

Insurance Fund. The funding from fees advances mapping while also paying for 

things like call centers, data management and archive, Web presence, business functions, internal controls and program management. The appropriated funding is focused exclusively on map production and update. 

Question. If funds are restored to the fiscal year 2014 level of $95 million—as I 

was able to accomplish last year—will you commit to ensuring the mapping effort 

is implemented with urgency? 

Answer. FEMA, through Risk MAP, is committed to addressing the most urgent 

flood data update needs. The Risk MAP program is focused on the importance of 

making sure communities and property owners understand their flood risk accurately. However, map updates take time to complete. The process is designed to 

allow for public engagement, careful, technically credible analysis, public review and 

legal due process for affected parties. 

Question. In the 2012 Risk MAP Progress Report, FEMA was striving to have 

quality data that could be relied on to reflect current conditions for 56 percent of 

their flood maps in fiscal year 2013. What percentage of FEMA’s flood maps currently meet this definition and how much funding is needed to bring all the flood 

maps into compliance? 

Answer. The percent of the flood map inventory reflecting current conditions as 

defined in the 2012 progress report is 61 percent. Under this older definition, the 

percentage was measured as a fraction of the maps that have been converted to digital format under Map Modernization. FEMA has transitioned to measuring this 

percentage against the full map inventory including the modernized maps and the 

legacy paper inventory. Under this definition, the percentage meeting new, validated, or updated engineering (NVUE) currentness standards is 48 percent. 

One of the core goals of Risk MAP is to reach 80 percent NVUE. It is not possible 

to have 100-percent compliance because older maps continually move out of compliance until they are reviewed and because map updates take several years to complete, resulting in a significant number of updates in progress. The Risk MAP strategy is to continually increase the percentage of the inventory that complies with the 

NVUE standard over a number of years as proposed in the budget. Under this approach, the ongoing costs for Risk MAP include both the costs to validate or update 

the inventory that is currently not verified as meeting the standard, and also to revalidate or update the inventory that is in compliance today, but will expire in future years. They also include related costs for outreach and coordination, call cen-
37 

ters, data management and archive, Web presence, business functions, internal controls and program management. The long-term costs have a high degree of uncertainty. The recent flood insurance reform legislation from 2012 and 2014, calls for 

implementation of a number of new mapping requirements in coordination with the 

new Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC). Until the coordination with 

TMAC is completed and the new mapping requirements are fully defined, the costs 

will be very difficult to estimate. The extent to which the preliminary flood maps 

are appealed by communities also has an impact on costs, and advancement in technology and progress in complimentary Federal, State, and local mapping efforts also 

affect future costs. 

Currently there are about 550,000 miles that do not meet the NVUE standard 

and where updates are not underway. Some of these miles have already been identified as needing new analysis, but most still need to be assessed. A thorough cost 

analysis of the remaining miles that require study has not yet been conducted. 

PROTECTING FEDERAL CYBER NETWORKS

Question. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plays a critical role in 

protecting Federal civilian cybersecurity networks. The proposed funding level for 

cybersecurity programs across DHS is about $1.25 billion—the same amount as last 

year. Funding for Secret Service and ICE investigations is similar to last year and 

there seems to be a few prudent, but small, adjustments in some programs due to 

timing of contract execution. But, I could not find any proposed new and innovative 

efforts or prevention measures. 

I am worried that budget constraints are stifling critically needed proactive efforts 

to combat a known economic and security threat. 

The lead DHS component for protecting the Federal Government—the National 

Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)—has a budget request that merely 

maintains current programs. In last year’s act, I included a requirement to do an 

in-depth review of the Federal computer intrusion detection system, known as EINSTEIN, to ensure effectiveness of design and innovation in developing future requirements. And while I look forward to those findings, treading water in the meantime is not acceptable. 

Are you satisfied that this budget proposal is as cutting edge as the issue of 

cybersecurity demands? If so, what programs specifically provide you this assurance? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2015 builds upon the investments that the Department 

has already made in investigating cyber-crimes and protecting critical infrastructure; Federal civilian agencies; and State, local, tribal, and territorial partners. DHS 

leverages its interagency partnerships to complement its cyber capabilities resident 

in the National Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. 

Coast Guard, and the Science and Technology Directorate. 

NPPD has made great strides over the last several years in developing core 

cybersecurity capabilities, such as the National Cybersecurity Protection System 

(NCPS) (EINSTEIN), Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation Program, and the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center. These capabilities enable DHS to protect Federal civilian agencies, support the protection of critical infrastructure, and respond to and mitigate cyber incidents. The fiscal year 2015 request continues to build on these foundational programs by providing $746.4 million 

in funding for NPPD cybersecurity efforts to drive toward innovative technologies 

and programs to better understand the cybersecurity and communications environment, reduce risk, and build capacity of our partner’s capabilities. 

The Secret Service is a leading law enforcement agency in investigating cybercrime, having first been assigned jurisdiction for investigating unauthorized access 

to computers in 1984. Today, the Secret Service continues to investigate the largest 

data breaches experienced by our businesses and bring to justices the sophisticated 

cyber criminals responsible. The fiscal year 2015 request builds upon this by providing the Secret Service $100.4 million for its efforts to investigate cyber-crime, implement cybersecurity measures as part of its protective mission, and secure its own 

computer systems. 

DHS deploys a comprehensive cybersecurity approach in which each part of DHS’s 

cyber efforts contributes to the mission. The programs and operations run by the 

Department have matured considerably over the past several years and lead national efforts to enhance the security and resilience of the Nation’s critical infrastructure; Federal civilian agencies; and State, local, tribal, and territorial partners. 

—The Department has stood up the Critical Infrastructure Cyber Community Voluntary Program (C3 Voluntary Program) to link critical infrastructure owners 
38 

and operators to resources and capabilities that reinforce cyber risk management planning and promote use of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Cybersecurity Framework. 

—The C3 Voluntary Program (pronounced ‘‘C-Cubed Voluntary Program’’) is the 

coordination point within the Federal Government for critical infrastructure 

owners and operators interested in improving their cyber risk management 

processes. The goals of the C3 Voluntary Program are to support industry in increasing its cyber resilience, increase awareness and use of the framework, and 

encourage organizations to manage cybersecurity as part of an all-hazards approach to enterprise risk management. 

—DHS established the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services Program to protect critical infrastructure from cyber threats. This program enables the private sector 

to leverage Government resources to provide enhanced protection to the Nation’s critical infrastructure, which is mostly owned and operated by the private 

sector. This program is based upon the capabilities of EINSTEIN 3 Accelerated, 

which provides intrusion prevention capabilities to Federal civilian agencies. 

—EINSTEIN 3 Accelerated provides intrusion prevention capabilities to .gov networks. The program focuses on providing a wide range of protection capabilities 

to improve the security of Federal civilian Executive branch networks. 

—The Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) Program provides tools and 

services to Federal civilian agencies to automatically identify known 

cybersecurity vulnerabilities on an ongoing basis and prioritize vulnerability 

mitigation based upon the likelihood and impact of a cybersecurity incident. 

—By identifying basic cybersecurity problems and prioritizing them for mitigation, CDM will measurably reduce cybersecurity incidents across .gov. 

—The Secret Service has continued to develop and grow its Critical Systems Protection program, to provide cybersecurity protection in direct support of Presidential and Vice-Presidential domestic and international visits, as well as DHSdesignated special security events. 

—Both the Secret Service and ICE-HSI continue to partner through the Secret 

Service’s growing network of Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs), to develop 

innovative means to investigate and apprehend transnational cyber criminals. 

Question. What in the budget before us is most critical to you in our war against 

cyber attacks? 

Answer. Cybersecurity is an integrated effort that leverages the strengths of multiple programs and partners. Singling out one program or aspect of the Department’s cybersecurity efforts is impractical due to the nature of our work and the 

threat. The Government’s cybersecurity efforts depend on numerous programs and 

operations that span multiple agencies. These programs and operations depend 

upon the strength of other programs and operations. For instance, the National 

Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), which shares cyber 

information and analysis, among other things, depends on programs such as Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation, the National Cybersecurity Protection System, the 

Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program, and the development of frameworks, 

data models and specifications for information sharing, including the Structured 

Threat Information eXpression and the Trusted Automated eXchange of Indicator 

Information. Programs like CDM and NCPS, for instance, depend upon the NCCIC 

and the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team to disseminate threat information and act on it. 

Ensuring that the Government maintains a robust cybersecurity capability requires continuous integration of the programs and operations within DHS and 

across the Federal Government. 

DISASTER SPENDING—FEDERAL STATUS AND STATE RESPONSIBILITY

Question. With a record number of disasters in recent years, we have to plan for 

spending on response and recovery. Through the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) 

we obligated $7.5 billion in fiscal year 2012 and $11 billion in fiscal year 2013. Since 

2005, a total of $115 billion has been obligated. 

After Hurricane Katrina, I had to battle to make sure that DRF funding was 

spent in a way that made common sense. We have learned how to do disaster recovery in Louisiana and through the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act 

and the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act we have modernized disaster recovery. 

I am proud to say that 11 of the 18 major requirements in the Sandy Recovery 

Act are complete. A legitimate arbitration process is now available to expedite funding decisions, communities are taking advantage of the alternate procedures for rebuilding by consolidating projects, and debris removal procedures have been simplified. And the law is just over 1 year old. 
39 

Can I get your commitment that FEMA will be supported in its efforts to continue 

to implement its improved authorities? Further, please provide a report on the savings in costs and time the new authorities have produced? 

Answer. DHS is committed to continue implementing the improved authorities 

provided to FEMA. The authorities allow FEMA new opportunities to be innovative 

and to continue to improve ways to provide disaster assistance to the survivors. 

FEMA is collecting data to determine the effectiveness (savings in costs and time) 

of the procedures introduced under the new authorities. The implementation of the 

most recent programs/authorities has not been established long enough to be able 

to provide a report at this time. FEMA implemented its pilot programs for Alternative Procedures for Debris Removal and Alternative Procedures for Permanent 

Work on June 28, 2013, and May 20, 2013, respectively. Most subgrants are in 

project formulation and/or the subgrantees are continuing to complete the work. The 

Dispute Resolution Pilot Program for Public Assistance Appeals was effective on August 15, 2013, but to date, no subgrantee has requested use of this process. The new 

Simplified Procedures thresholds were effective on the date of publication in the 

Federal register, February 26, 2014. Four disasters have been declared since this 

date. 

Question. Do you believe the request of $7 billion is adequate to respond to future 

disasters and support recovery from past disasters such as Hurricane Sandy, recent 

tornadoes, wildfires, and floods with these expedited procedures in place? 

Answer. Based on current projected resources needs, FEMA believes that absent a new catastrophic event, the $7 billion requested for fiscal year 2015 is sufficient 

to both respond to new events and continue ongoing support for survivors and communities recovering from past events. 

There is certainly no doubt that Federal assistance is appropriate when a State 

is overwhelmed. Of course, the Stafford Act requires a cost share for the Federal 

contribution. Our State governments have a responsibility for disaster response 

costs. This is a highly predictable expenditure, especially in light of the fact that 

every State has been hit by a major disaster within the last 3 years. It is frustrating 

to hear some States rail against spending in Washington when so few plan ahead 

for disaster costs. 

Question. Will you work with me to incentivize States to plan ahead for disaster 

costs? What current ideas do you have to create this incentive? 

Answer. We are committed to working with the Congress to create and promote 

incentives to plan ahead for disasters. While traditional approaches to disaster preparedness, including mitigation, response and recovery, have leaned heavily toward 

a Government-centric model, the evolving nature of disasters in the United States 

calls for a broader perspective by bringing the whole community—local, State, tribal, and Federal governments, along with private sector and voluntary organizations—together to identify and implement ways of addressing the escalating financial and social costs tied to these catastrophic events. 

The following are examples of areas in which incentives could be more closely 

aligned to promote disaster cost reduction and increased resiliency across all levels 

of government, the private sector, and individuals: 

—Consider tying community participation in the NFIP to eligibility for post-disaster assistance. Currently, if a community with a special flood hazard area decides not to participate in the NFIP, the individual residents are not eligible 

for post-disaster assistance. However, a strategy could explore ramifications of 

limiting post-disaster assistance for both individual homeowners and public infrastructure within flood-prone communities that do not participate in the 

NFIP. This could generate greater incentives for a community to practice flood 

plain management techniques that protect development from future flooding. 

—Explore alternative disaster declaration criteria and reimbursement approaches, 

such as a deductible model. Under the Sandy Recovery and Improvement Act 

(SRIA) of 2013, FEMA is currently examining criteria for Individual Assistance 

(IA) disaster declarations, while Public Assistance (PA) disaster declarations are 

based in part on estimates of per capita disaster damages to eligible infrastructure and other costs under the PA program. However, a deductible model might 

encourage States and communities to take additional disaster preparedness 

measures that could positively affect disaster planning efforts and contribute to 

a reduction in costs, lives lost, or injuries. 

—Explore options to align incentives between Government and private-sector companies to promote risk reduction and resilience actions. For example, the World 

Economic Forum’s 2012 Global Risk Report features a special chapter on the 

global impacts of the Fukushima, Japan, tsunami and earthquake, citing examples of disruptions to global supply chains and stating that the Development 

Bank of Japan became the first bank in the world to offer better borrowing 
40 

terms to companies that take steps to increase resilience. We should seek to improve understanding of private-sector incentives and to capitalize on practices 

that promote disaster risk reduction and resiliency. 

—Promote improved coordination and efficiency measures in all phases of emergency management. Adopt mechanisms for more effective funds management at 

all levels of government. For example, FEMA could fully implement a strategic 

funds management approach to ensure funds are made available once States 

have the capacity to execute them. 

DISASTER FUNDING RESILIENCY

Question. Building communities to withstand the disasters they are likely to face is just common sense. Smart building also saves money—$4 for every $1 invested. 

As we watch communities rebuild—from New York and New Jersey to Louisiana 

and Mississippi, we are encouraged by their innovation as they build stronger, 

smarter and more resilient communities. 

For the third year in a row the budget request proposes eliminating the $25 million Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program. These grants help officials plan for and 

build more resilient communities, ultimately saving money and lives when the next 

disaster strikes. 

I do note that $400 million in Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants was included as 

part of the President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative but the funding 

source for this Initiative is not under the jurisdiction of this Committee and is not 

likely to come to fruition. 

Through the passage of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act we have given 

FEMA authorities to build communities better and stronger after a disaster. But I 

am disappointed Pre-Disaster Mitigation funding can only be found in an initiative 

that is unlikely to pass. 

If not through this program, what viable funds are included in the request to promote resiliency which will save Federal funds in future years? 

Answer. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program helps officials plan for and 

build more resilient communities, ultimately saving money and lives when the next 

disaster strikes. The Administration’s fiscal year 2015 request includes $400 million 

in Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants as part of the Opportunity, Growth, and Security 

Initiative. 

Risk MAP and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) also promote resilience. One of the key features of the NFIP being based on accurate flood maps is 

that it builds resilience before disaster hits. Homeowners with flood insurance are 

much more likely to quickly and fully recover from a flooding disaster than uninsured homeowners who must rely on their own resources and the limited funds 

available if there is a Federal disaster declaration. Risk MAP provides communities 

data and tools, including a new suite of flood risk analysis products designed to complement the regulatory flood maps, that can help inform State and local preparedness, hazard mitigation plans, emergency response plans, and disaster recovery 

plans. The NFIP requires communities to take basic actions to regulate land use 

and building codes in the floodplain, and Risk MAP works with communities to 

identify other actions to reduce risk and increase resilience. The Risk MAP program 

also increases State and local Risk Management capabilities by building relationships and fostering an ongoing dialog about flood risk and flood risk management 

throughout the Risk MAP process. In many cases, State and local governments build 

even greater capabilities by taking the lead in implementing Risk MAP through the 

Cooperating Technical Partner program. 

STATE AND LOCAL PREPAREDNESS GRANTS REORGANIZATION

Question. The legislative proposal to reform the preparedness grants which accompanied the budget combines the current State, urban area, port, and transit security 

grants into one program and requires participation by previous grantees on an advisory board to prioritize future investments. 

How will this process ensure all security needs receive the required analysis and 

consideration? 

Answer. Under the proposed National Preparedness Grant Program, States will 

submit one application which will address capability requirements identified at the 

State and sub-State level, including those of local governments, ports, transit agencies, and nonprofit organizations as applicable and appropriate. Separate funding 

will be reserved, as is presently the case, to meet the unique needs of high-risk 

urban areas. 

While FEMA cannot prescribe the makeup of any statewide governance structure, 

the agency has issued guidelines on how States should engage with their various 
41 

partners to carry out their Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments 

and investment justifications. To ensure that States are adequately engaging with 

local governments, port and transit agencies, urban areas, nonprofit organizations, 

and other ‘‘whole of community’’ partners, FEMA will require that the State Administrative Agency submit: 

—A detailed description of the Senior Advisory Committee’s composition and an 

explanation of key governance processes, including how the Senior Advisory 

Committee is informed by the State or territory’s Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment and State Preparedness Report data reflecting capability shortfalls and the approach to address shortfalls in core capabilities; 

—A description of the frequency with which the Senior Advisory Committee will 

meet; 

—How existing governance bodies such as Urban Area Working Groups and Transit Security Working Groups will be leveraged by the Senior Advisory Committee; 

—A detailed description of how decisions on programmatic priorities are made 

and how those decisions will be documented and shared with its members and 

other stakeholders as appropriate; and a description of defined roles and responsibilities for financial decisionmaking and meeting administrative requirements. 

Question. While a specific program for urban areas is no longer separate, a requirement that 80 percent of the grant funding must be passed on to local communities is included. 

Is that correct? 

Answer. While the legislative proposal does eliminate the Urban Area Security 

Initiative as a stand-alone program, the Administration recognizes the on-going requirements of high-risk, high-density urban areas and intends to set aside funding 

under the proposed National Preparedness Grant Program to address the capability 

requirements of those urban areas. 

The requirement that States pass on to sub-State recipients at least 80 percent 

of the non-urban areas grant funding they receive will remain in effect. 

Question. How will this ensure the areas at most risk receive adequate consideration of their security needs? 

Answer. Allocations to States and to high-risk urban areas will continue to be risk 

informed, using the formula currently in effect as prescribed in the 9/11 Act. 

Question. The requirement to ensure at least 25 percent of the grant funds are 

committed to law enforcement activities would be eliminated. The requirement to 

ensure at least 25 percent of the grant funds are committed to law enforcement activities is eliminated. 

Why? 

Answer. The proposed National Preparedness Grant Program aims to strengthen 

coordination among States, local governments, ports, transit agencies and other 

stakeholders to ensure that preparedness grant dollars are utilized strategically to 

address the highest priority capabilities within a State. The Threat and Hazard 

Identification and Risk Assessment process and the capability estimation process 

that stems from it are essential to that strategic decisionmaking. 

Question. States, in collaboration with their partners, will determine where to 

apply grant dollars in any given year to address capability requirements across the 

five National Preparedness Goal mission areas of protect, prevent, mitigate, respond 

and recover. The proposed National Preparedness Grant Program is designed to provide States and their partners with the flexibility to allocate dollars to address their 

self-identified priorities; requiring that 25 percent of their funding to be allocated 

to specific activities removes a significant amount of that flexibility and is inconsistent with the overall approach envisioned in the National Preparedness Grant 

Program proposal. 

How will this impact security investments? 

Answer. Maintenance and sustainment of core law enforcement prevention capabilities—including fusion centers, countering violent extremism and State, territory 

and local information sharing—remain key Administration priorities, and law enforcement activities previously funded under other grants, such as Operation 

Stonegarden and the Port and Transit grant programs, will continue to be eligible 

activities under the proposed National Preparedness Grant Program. 

The National Preparedness Grant Program also will continue to support State, 

territory, and local law enforcement efforts to understand, recognize, and prevent 

pre-operational activity and other crimes that are precursors or indicators of terrorist activity, in accordance with applicable privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties 

protections. Such efforts include: 
42 

—Maturation and enhancement of State and major urban area fusion centers, including training for intelligence analysts and implementation of Fusion Liaison 

Officer Programs; 

—Implementation of the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative, including training for frontline personnel on identifying and reporting suspicious 

activities; 

—Continued implementation of the ‘‘If You See Something, Say Something TM’’ 

campaign to raise public awareness of indicators of terrorism and violent crime. 

Question. Great emphasis has been placed on the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) process to identify risks and ultimately influence 

funding distribution. THIRA in its current form is still relatively new to communities. 

What improvements need to be made to THIRA to ensure it is as good a tool as 

possible? 

Answer. FEMA’s ongoing effort to strengthen the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment is focused on developing and providing tools and technical 

assistance to support grantees in refining and updating their Threat and Hazard 

Identification and Risk Assessments. FEMA’s specific efforts include: 

—Developing and providing Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment technical assistance which can be delivered to grantees both virtually and 

in-person; and 

—Streamlining and improving the Unified Reporting Tool to make it easier for 

grantees to input their Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment 

information in a consistent fashion. 

Question. What data is still needed to improve the information we have to work 

with and who has it (Federal agencies, private sector, etc.)? 

Answer. FEMA believes that data, expertise, and experience of the whole community is crucial in our collective efforts to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond 

to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk to the Nation. FEMA is continuing to work with partners to enhance the participation of the 

whole community in the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment 

process. Specifically, FEMA is working with the DHS Office of Intelligence and 

Analysis to assist jurisdictions with better understanding their threats of concern. 

In addition, FEMA is coordinating with the DHS National Protection and Programs 

Directorate to assist jurisdictions with engaging their protection partners, including 

Government and non-Government partners—academia and the private sector in the 

Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment process. Lastly, FEMA is 

working on the release of the National Protection Framework, which will provide 

the whole community with additional information on the protection core capabilities. 

This additional information will help grantees better refine capability targets and 

capability estimation within the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments. 

Question. What funding is included in the budget to address the two previous 

questions? 

Answer. FEMA’s fiscal year 2015 budget request accounts for the personnel and 

activities needed to develop and deliver technical assistance to support the evolving 

needs of grantees in improving, refining and analyzing their Threat and Hazard 

Identification and Risk Assessment. This includes funds for two full-time employees 

plus additional subject matter expertise and support staff as needed, travel for inperson technical assistance delivery and instructional materials, and required training and equipment for virtual technical assistance delivery. Threat and Hazard 

Identification and Risk Assessment content development and delivery is funded 

through TAP appropriations; staff support is funded through National Integration 

Center and TAP salary budget. 

AVIATION SECURITY FEE PROPOSALS

Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget proposes to increase TSA offsetting collections by $615 million in fiscal year 2015. First, it reinstates the annual $420 million 

in aviation fees billed directly to the airlines, which was eliminated in the RyanMurray budget agreement. Second, your budget would generate $195 million in additional collections by raising the current per-passenger fee from $5.60 to $6 for a 

one-way trip. This fee was just increased in the Ryan-Murray budget agreement. 

While there is merit to having users pay for their security rather than general 

taxpayers, the reality is that there is little chance Congress will re-open the bipartisan budget agreement this year and enact these proposals. So as chairman of this 

subcommittee, I will either have cut TSA’s budget by $615 million or find scarce appropriated funds from somewhere else to fund your request. 
43 

For the record, will you provide the Committee with the impact in fiscal year 2015 

of cutting TSA’s budget by $615 million below what you are proposing—specifically 

the impact to security, personnel, passenger wait times, and procurement of screening technology? 

Answer. A reduction of that magnitude would have to be accommodated across the 

Department. The proposed reinstatement of the Aviation Security Infrastructure 

Fee and increase in the Aviation Security Passenger Fee is intended to reflect a better alignment of costs to the direct beneficiaries of aviation security, and thus the 

total discretionary funds required for the Department of Homeland Security programs. It was not the intent of the fee proposal to imply that the funding requirements of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) programs would be reduced absent the proposed fee changes. This is especially true given the efficiencies 

and program savings already included in the request for TSA. 

ENHANCING TSA OFFICER SAFETY AND SECURITY

Question. On March 26, 2014, in response to the deadly shooting at the Los Angeles International Airport in November 2013, TSA released a report entitled ‘‘Enhancing TSA Officer Safety and Security: Agency Actions and Path Forward.’’ The 

report’s conclusions included the need for mandatory training, improved communication systems and policies, and enhanced law enforcement presence. 

What is the timeline for ensuring that airports are in compliance with TSA’s updated requirements for law enforcement presence? 

Answer. On March 26, 2014, and in accordance with its discretionary authority 

under 49 CFR 1542.303, the Transportation Security Administration issued Information Circular 14–01 (IC 14–01) to all Airport Operators regulated under 49 CFR 

part 1542 to notify them of security concerns. IC 14–01 sets forth recommended 

standards for airport operators to increase law enforcement officer or airport security guard presence at high traffic locations within the airport such as during peak 

travel times at checkpoints and ticket counters to provide visible deterrence and 

quicker incident response. While there is no explicit timetable for implementation, 

the Transportation Security Administration recommends airports authorities incorporate these standards as soon as practicable. 

Question. Does TSA anticipate any changes to the Law Enforcement Reimbursable 

Program as a result of these requirements? 

Answer. The Transportation Security Administration is beginning the process of 

assessing the funding distribution methodology for airports’ law enforcement and 

will consider the degree that risk can be reduced as a component of that analysis. 

Given constrained resources, any change in the reimbursement distribution to target higher risk airports may result in less support for lower risk airports. 

CREATIVE FINANCING FOR COAST GUARD CUTTERS

Question. Mr. Secretary, given your Defense background and DOD’s use of multiyear procurement authority, I wanted to ask you about similar authority for Coast 

Guard cutters. The Coast Guard plans to build 25 offshore patrol cutters (OPCs) to 

replace its medium endurance fleet of cutters that are technologically obsolete and 

poorly suited for performing deepwater missions. It is estimated that the total acquisition cost of 25 cutters will exceed $10 billion. The Coast Guard recently awarded three design contracts for the OPC, will downselect to one shipyard in fiscal year 

2016, and have the lead ship commissioned in 2020. 

Multi-year procurement authority provides the potential for significant cost savings in the acquisition of major vessels by using a single contract to buy multiple 

ships over a number of years. Savings are achieved because the shipyard has more 

certainty in funding, which allows for efficiencies in planning, a steady workforce, 

and lower overhead costs. The Department of Defense has used this type of contracting for DDG–51 destroyers, Virginia-class submarines, and the V–22 Osprey. 

According to a recent CRS report, this type of contracting arrangement could save 

more than 15 percent over the life of an acquisition. For a $10 billion effort like 

the OPC, that could result in real savings. 

Would you exercise such authority if it was provided for the acquisition of offshore 

patrol cutters? Would you please look into this and follow up with the subcommittee? 

Answer. The Coast Guard currently has multi-year procurement (MYP) authority 

under 10 U.S.C. section 2306b. While the OPC acquisition strategy is not currently 

structured to use this authority, I will consider all available options to ensure cost 

efficiencies are maximized. 
44 

UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN

Question. There have been large annual increases in the number of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) crossing the Southwest border. Many of the children 

are smuggled into the United States by individuals, paid by their parents’ who are 

already in the United States (often illegally), to get them here. 

The majority of these children come from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. 

A smaller number are from Mexico. The most heavily impacted area is the Rio 

Grande Valley, which consists of 316 border miles between Del Rio and Brownsville, 

Texas. 

There has been a 200-percent increase in UACs apprehended in the Rio Grande 

Valley sector in fiscal year 2014 compared with the same time period in fiscal year 

2013 (17,708 vs. 5,906). 

Under the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Public Law 113– 

4), these children are to be transferred to the custody of Health and Human Service’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within 72 hours of their being encountered. Unfortunately, ORR often does not have sufficient shelter space to accept 

these children within the legal timeframe. This results in children being kept in 

Border Patrol and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) facilities which 

were never designed for more than temporary detention of children. 

When shelter space is found for these children, it is generally in another State 

away from the border. This requires DHS law enforcement personnel to escort these 

children frequently on a commercial air flight. On average, it costs $1,622 to escort 

one child. In fiscal year 2013, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) escorted 

more than 23,000 children at a cost of more than $37 million. In fiscal year 2012, 

ICE escorted just over 12,000 children at nearly $19.5 million. 

There has been a large and growing increase in the number of unaccompanied 

alien children entering this country annually. What are the major factors driving 

this increase? 

Answer. Generally migration push and pull factors are not static and can be very 

fluid and even cyclical. With regard to unaccompanied alien children (UACs), a myriad of reasons are motivating this migration, which include but are not limited to 

family reunification, violence in the home country, especially due to the rise in 

transnational criminal organizations and gangs, poverty in the countries of origin, 

and the perception that once they enter the United States they will be allowed to 

remain. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) remains committed to working with our partners at U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Department of Justice to better understand what 

is motivating the continued increase of UAC migration. For example, in February 

2013, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), through the DHS Working Group 

on UACs, launched ‘‘Dangers of the Journey to Cross the Border,’’ a non-branded 

public awareness campaign in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to highlight 

the dangers of the journey north. Campaign materials for radio, television and print 

media were placed in popular media outlets in all three countries. The goal of this 

campaign is to dissuade potential migrants, particularly 12- to 17-year-olds from El 

Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, from embarking on the dangerous trip north 

to attempt to enter the United States illegally via Mexico. The campaign was live 

in Central America from January to July 2013 and continues today with assistance 

from Federal and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) partners. The campaign 

was coordinated across DHS components, and with interagency partners, NGO representatives, and Central American Embassy representatives to ensure that the 

message resonated with the target audience. 

Equally important is the U.S. Government’s engagement with other actors. This 

includes with the countries of origin, especially the Governments of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras; international organizations, such as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; regional bodies, such as the Regional Conference on Migration; and non-governmental organizations. These parties are key 

players to better understand and address the root causes for migration and also assist with the safe reintegration for those children who do not stay in the United 

States. Continued engagement and programs tailored to prevention and reintegration are instrumental to deterring the continued migration of UACs to the United 

States. 

Question. The growth of this issue has a large impact not only on the Department 

of Homeland Security’s budget, but on the budgets of a number of agencies and departments funded by Congress. Does this budget request provide the resources your 

Department needs to fully meet its legal obligations to care for these children? 

Answer. ICE and CBP are not funded separately for the care or transportation 

of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) but rather accomplish this task through 
45 

their normal operating budget. Several DHS components are involved in processing 

and caring for UAC prior to their transfer to U.S. Health and Human Services 

(HHS). The increased inflow of UACs has significantly impacted operations at CBP 

and ICE and resulted in significant increases in costs associated with manpower 

and direct travel costs. ICE manpower costs associated with escort services both domestically and internationally have been impacted. 

Question. Given that this issue touches a number of Departments, it requires a 

whole-of-Government approach. What additional steps do you think the Government—not just your Department—needs to take to responsibly address this issue? 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security remains committed to developing 

and implementing policies and procedures that take into account the needs and 

safety of each unaccompanied child we encounter. Developing a whole U.S. Government approach remains essential to addressing these issues whereby the U.S. Government align our existing policies and procedures in a manner that recognizes the 

special vulnerabilities of this population and, uniformly develop new policies and 

procedures that build on existing best practices. 

As such, DHS is working very closely with the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) to continue to closely track the rising trend of unaccompanied alien 

children (UAC) traveling to the United States, primarily from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Both departments are working together to develop shortterm and long-term goals. In the short-term, DHS and HHS operators meet bi-weekly to discuss day-to-day operations and develop effective measures to streamline existing procedures and processes to assist with the quick and safe transfers of UAC. 

For example, DHS and Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) have streamlined the 

UAC referral process by conducting dual notification to both ORR and ICE to expedite both placement and transport of the UAC. In addition DHS and HHS have developed effective information sharing tools to reduce length of stay in CBP facilities, 

such as daily capacity reports and interagency access to operational databases, this 

level of engagement between the two Departments has been essential to managing 

the operational and fiscal impacts on both Departments in their work along the 

Southwest border. 

Furthermore, in the January 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, HHS, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), DHS and Department 

of State (DOS) was directed to develop a long-term interagency strategy to address 

the challenges presented by the growing number of UAC arriving in the United 

States. This group is currently reviewing the U.S. Government’s UAC policies and 

operations to develop and/or identify efficiencies within and across agencies. These 

discussions include reviewing mechanisms, across the U.S. Government, to reduce 

the flow patterns, identify alternative program/process models to process, transport 

and transfer UAC that focus on streamlining the process while ensuring the needs 

and safety of the child are considered, and review existing UAC services to address 

area of improvement. 

Equally important is the U.S. Government’s engagement with other actors. These 

partners include the governments of the primary countries of origin, which are Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras; international organizations such as 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; regional bodies such as the Regional Conference on Migration and non-governmental organizations. These partners help the U.S. Government better understand and address the root causes of 

migration and assist with the safe reintegration of those children who are returned. 

Continued engagement and programs tailored toward prevention and reintegration 

are instrumental to deterring the continued migration of UACs to the United States. 

INCREASE IN ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSINGS

Question. One measure of how well the Government is doing at securing our borders is tracking the number of apprehensions of illegal crossers at the border. From 

a low of just over 340,000 apprehensions in fiscal year 2011, there has been a steady 

increase in the number of aliens apprehended by the Border Patrol to nearly 

421,000 in fiscal year 2013. At this rate, we could expect nearly 500,000 apprehensions by the end of this year. While this does not compare to the almost 1.2 million 

apprehensions in fiscal year 2005, this is a disturbing trend. 

The Rio Grande Valley sector of the Border Patrol has surpassed the Tucson sector as the busiest crossing area along our Southwest border. Now 44 percent of all 

undocumented aliens apprehended along the Southwest border are entering through 

the Valley. Over the past 6 months, these apprehensions have grown by 72 percent 

as compared to the same period in 2013. 

Most troubling is the skyrocketing increase in the apprehension of unaccompanied 

alien children. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, there 
46 

is estimated to be an 815-percent increase in child apprehensions by the end of this 

fiscal year compared to fiscal year 2011. There were 6,500 children apprehended in 

fiscal year 2011 but in fiscal year 2013 that number rose to nearly 25,000 unaccompanied children. 

Clearly this is a growing problem and we must do more to tackle it. 

To what can we attribute this increase in illegal border crossings and what more 

can we do to get a handle on it? 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) remains committed to developing and implementing policies and procedures that take into account the needs 

and safety of each unaccompanied alien child (UAC) we encounter. Recognizing the 

unique strains the short-term care of UAC places on DHS operational components 

as well as the intricacies of managing the external relationships, DHS instituted an 

internal UAC working group in 2011. This group, co-led by DHS’s Office of Policy 

and Civil Rights Civil Liberties with representations from U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and other DHS offices, is tackling several internal topics. External agency coordination with the Department of Health and Human 

Services, the Department of Justice and other agencies as required. DHS continues 

to review its contingency planning to ensure that operations are minimally impacted 

in the event of an emergency. CBP launched a successful unbranded public awareness campaign aimed at children, particularly 12- to 17-year-olds, and their families 

from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Children, especially young girls, who 

migrate to the United States without the protections of their parents or legal guardians often face myriad dangers on the dangerous trek north to attempt to enter the 

United States illegally via Mexico. The campaign was live in Central America from 

January to July 2013 and continues today with assistance from Federal and NGO 

partners. The campaign was coordinated across DHS components, and with interagency partners, NGO representatives, and Central American Embassy representatives to ensure that the message resonated with the target audience. 

The goal of the campaign is to dissuade potential undocumented migrants from 

El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras and includes both the children themselves 

and their parents or guardians. 

Feedback from a survey conducted at the conclusion of the campaign found it to 

be highly credible, reaching over 70 percent among every population segment 

(Youths: 73 percent, Parents: 73 percent). The campaign’s affinity level was the 

highest value (86 percent) being capable of capturing people’s imagination and reflect their concerns. 

The high level of the campaign’s credibility was the result of reinforcing real instances that respondents had experienced firsthand or through a close relationship. 

DHS has also led a successful public awareness campaign (Dangers of the Journey), conducted successful ICE Field Office Juvenile Coordinator training(s) that included a cross section of participants from the DHS and U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Service, and launched nationwide the CBP ‘‘Know What to Expect 

Video.’’ DHS also continues to assess its operational and fiscal needs to manage this 

population by responding to specific influx or emergency events by implementing 

and conducting planned operations. 

Equally important is the U.S. Government’s engagement with other actors. These 

include with the countries of origin, especially the Governments of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras; international organizations, such as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; regional bodies, such as the Regional Conference on Migration; and non-governmental organizations. These parties are key 

players to better understand and address the causes for migration and also assist 

with the safe reintegration for those children who do not stay in the United States. 

Continued engagement and programs tailored to prevention and reintegration are 

instrumental to deterring the continued migration of UACs to the United States. 

Question. Given the increase in crossings, I am concerned about some of the reductions in your budget to immigration enforcement, including to detention beds 

and alternatives. Are we returning to the bad old days of ‘‘catch and release’’ because we will not have the resources to enforce our immigration laws? 

Answer. The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request proposes resources sufficient to fund 30,539 immigration detention beds. This bed level is consistent with 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) stated enforcement priorities 

and recent policy guidance and will allow ICE to continue to detain those aliens that 

fall into ICE’s civil enforcement priorities or are subject to mandatory detention by 

statute, while shifting lower risk aliens into Alternatives to Detention (ATD) programs. Without a mandated minimum number of detention beds required by past 

appropriations, ICE is able to avoid inefficiencies and budget resources based on 

need. The requested bed level of 30,539 accommodates the current fiscal year 2014 
47 

mandatory detained population (22,417 year-to-date average as of March 31, 2014) 

and provides a sufficient number of beds dedicated to the accommodation of higher 

risk, non-mandatory detainees who present a risk to public safety, while placing 

lower risk, non-mandatory individuals in lower cost ATD programs. Although they 

are not detained, ATD participants are subject to monitoring and reporting and are 

placed in proceedings with the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s immigration courts. Moreover, the President’s budget calls for an increase in funding for 

ATD programs in the amount of $2.7 million. 

CUTS TO ICE TRANSPORTATION AND REMOVAL PROGRAM

Question. There has been a growth in the number of people illegally crossing our 

Southwest border. Given scarce resources, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) has established detention and removal priorities. These priorities are criminal 

aliens, repeat immigration violators, and recent border crossers. 

In fiscal year 2013, 216,180 aliens—or 59 percent—of the total 368,344 aliens removed from the United States by ICE personnel were convicted criminals. ICE is 

also responsible for the transportation of unaccompanied alien children from where 

they are encountered along our borders to shelters operated by the Office of Refugee 

Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services. In fiscal year 

2012, ICE escorted just over 12,000 children at a cost of nearly $19.5 million. In 

fiscal year 2013, that number nearly doubled to more than 23,000 children at a cost 

of more than $37 million. 

Even if Congress agrees to fund a lower number of detention beds for next year, 

ICE still will require a robust transportation budget to remove aliens who meet its 

immigration priorities as well as transport even more children to appropriate official 

shelters. Yet the budget request for the transportation and removal program within 

ICE is $48 million less than what was appropriated in fiscal year 2014. 

How much of the total Transportation and Removal Program funding (and what 

proportion) was dedicated to transporting UACs to ORR in the past 3 full fiscal 

years 2011–2013? 

Answer. While under the current appropriation structure UAC transport is funded 

under the Transportation and Removal Program (TRP) programs, projects, and activities budget line, ICE has developed a cost model to assist in breaking out the 

costs specific to UAC. The estimated costs fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013 

are as follows: 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 ESTIMATED UAC COSTS 

# UAC Man hours Man hour cost 2 Transport cost Total cost 

Encounters ....................................... 6,068 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Local Transfer to HHS 3 ................... 3,042 5,407 $249,277 $539,144 $788,421 

Air Charter Transfer to HHS 4 .......... 980 ........................ ........................ 514,730 514,730 

Commercial Transfer to HHS 5 ......... 1,993 7,088 326,746 2,351,592 2,678,338 

Transfer to ICE staging 1 ................. 816 ........................ 386,593 ........................ 386,593 

Air Charter Removal 4 ...................... 69 ........................ ........................ 36,144 36,144 

Commercial Removal 6,7 .................. 53 1,260 58,102 98,390 156,491 

Total ................................... 6,068 13,755 1,020,718 3,540,000 4,560,718 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 ESTIMATED UAC COSTS 

# UAC Man hours Man hour cost 2 Transport cost Total cost 

Encounters ....................................... 11,997 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Local Transfer to HHS 3 ................... 6,014 10,691 $492,844 $1,065,937 $1,558,781 

Air Charter Transfer to HHS 4 .......... 1,938 ........................ ........................ 1,017,668 1,017,668 

Commercial Transfer to HHS 5 ......... 3,941 14,013 646,007 4,649,316 5,295,324 

Transfer to ICE staging 1 ................. 1,613 ........................ 784,455 ........................ 784,455 

Air Charter Removal 4 ...................... 136 ........................ ........................ 71,460 71,460 

Commercial Removal 6,7 .................. 104 2,492 114,872 194,526 309,398 

Total ................................... 11,997 27,196 1,253,724 6,998,908 8,252,632 
48 

FISCAL YEAR 2013 ESTIMATED UAC COSTS 

# UAC Man hours Man hour cost 2 Transport cost Total cost 

Encounters ....................................... 20,750 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Local Transfer to HHS 3 ................... 10,401 18,491 $852,389 $1,843,644 $2,696,033 

Air Charter Transfer to HHS 4 .......... 3,353 ........................ ........................ 1,760,158 1,760,158 

Commercial Transfer to HHS 5 ......... 6,817 24,237 1,117,289 8,041,453 9,158,743 

Transfer to ICE stagings 1 ............... 2,789 ........................ 1,373,610 ........................ 1,373,610 

Air Charter Removal 4 ...................... 235 ........................ ........................ 123,598 123,598 

Commercial Removal 6,7 .................. 180 4,310 198,675 336,452 535,127 

Total ................................... 20,750 47,038 3,541,964 12,105,305 15,647,269 

Notes: 

1Man hour costs is detention cost requirement. Detention requirement based upon aliens booked into an ICE facility with subsequent 

bookout to an ORR facility; ALOS is assumed to be 3 days per PBNDS standards; fiscal year 2013 bed rate is $118.88 plus salary requirement of $45.29; fiscal year 2014 bed rate is $119.86 plus salary. 2 Cost per hour based on fiscal year 2013 actual payroll/5,972 officers/2,080 base hours. 

3 Local transfers are effectuated on buses. Cost per bus seat is $177.26 based upon contract data. 

4 Air charter costs are estimated at $525 per seat based upon contract costs. 

5 Cost of commercial tickets estimated at $323; includes costs for two officers for every 2.25 aliens; includes $300 in other expenses (hotel, rental cars, etc.) per officer estimated from MCA. 6 Cost of commercial tickets estimated at $323; includes costs for two officers for every alien; includes $300 in other expenses (hotel, rental cars, etc.) per officer estimated from MCA. 7 Assumes 50 percent 2-day trips and 50 percent 1-day trips. 

Question. Is ICE deliberately trying to prevent the removal of convicted criminals 

by such a deep cut in this program? 

Answer. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prioritizes the removal 

of individuals who pose a danger to our national security, public safety, or border 

security. These priorities include individuals convicted of certain crimes, with a particular emphasis on violent criminals, felons, and repeat offenders. The President’s 

fiscal year 2015 budget requests funding for 30,539 immigration detention beds. The 

requested bed level of 30,539 accommodates the current fiscal year 2014 mandatory 

detained population (22,417 year-to-date average as of March 31, 2014) and provides 

for a sufficient number of beds to accommodate the high-risk, non-mandatory detainees who present a risk to public safety, while placing lower risk, non-mandatory 

individuals in lower cost alternatives to detention programs. 

As a result, ICE assesses that the President’s budget request will allow it to continue to remove convicted criminals and other priority aliens who pose a risk to public safety and national security. 

Question. Does ICE not anticipate that its transportation costs for alien children 

will increase next year, because the rate of growth indicates just the opposite? 

Answer. Currently, the fiscal year 2014 apprehension trend reflects a significant 

increase in the removal of unaccompanied alien children from the fiscal year 2013 

level, the transportation and removal program budget is based on the total number 

of removals that are projected for fiscal year 2015. The fiscal year 2015 President’s 

budget assumes an average daily population (ADP) of 30,539 which is 3,461 below 

fiscal year 2014. At 30,539 ADP, we project a savings of $26 million in transportation and removal program costs. 

FUNDING FOR ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

Question. Your budget proposes to reduce detention bed capacity by more than 3,400 beds with a corresponding savings of $185 million. Supporting budget documents justify this cut by claiming, ‘‘ICE will ensure the most cost-effective use of 

our appropriated funding by focusing the more-costly detention capabilities on priority and mandatory detainees, while placing low-risk, non-mandatory detainees in 

lower cost alternatives to detention programs.’’ There clearly remains a large illegal 

alien population which needs to be placed in some kind of a detention capacity, yet 

you provide less than a $3 million increase to the Alternatives to Detention program. Many Members of Congress are skeptical that this Administration is serious 

about securing our borders so we can move forward with legislation to provide needed reforms to our broken immigration system. Unfortunately, this budget provides 

further support to immigration-reform opponents’ beliefs that the Administration 

will permit illegal aliens to reside in our communities without any type of supervised release. 

Given the proposed reduction in detention beds, why is there not a higher level 

of funding requested for the Alternatives to Detention program? 

Answer. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) exercises its detention 

authorities in accordance with the requirements of immigration law, precedent decisions, policy and the Federal courts. ICE ensures the most cost-effective use of its 
49 

funding by focusing detention capabilities on priority and mandatory detainees 

while placing lower risk, non-mandatory detainees in lower cost alternatives to detention. The Alternatives to Detention program is an important piece of ICE’s immigration enforcement strategy. ICE considers alternatives to detention where appropriate and legally authorized. These include bond, order of recognizance, order of supervision, telephonic monitoring, or global positioning system monitoring. Funding 

for the program has exponentially increased since fiscal year 2012. In fiscal year 

2013, the President’s budget requested an additional $19 million, from $72.4 million 

to $91.4 million (a 21-percent increase). ICE was operating under a continuing resolution through fiscal year 2014, which limited ICE’s resources. The President’s fiscal 

year 2015 budget requests $2.7 million above fiscal year 2013 and 2014 levels. 

Question. Does this funding level reflect the Administration’s skepticism towards 

detention alternatives? 

Answer. The Alternatives to Detention program is an important and effective 

piece of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) immigration enforcement strategy. To illustrate this, ATD’s compliance court appearance rates are 

below. 

COMPLIANCE RATES BY FISCAL YEAR 

[Figures in percent] 

Fiscal year 2014 through March Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2012 

FS TO Total FS TO Total FS TO Total 

Success Rate .......................... 92.9 85.3 90.5 93.5 89.5 92.3 93.0 88.0 91.5 

Failure Rate ............................. 7.1 14.7 9.5 6.5 10.5 7.7 7.0 12.0 8.5 

Absconder Rate ....................... 5.9 6.4 6.1 5.3 4.5 5.1 5.6 3.7 5.0 

COURT APPEARANCE RATES BY FISCAL YEAR 

Court Appearance Stats 

Fiscal year 

2014 through March 

Fiscal year 

2013 

Fiscal year 

2012 

FS FS FS 

EOIR Attendance Rates (percent) .................................................. 99.4 99.6 99.6 

EOIR Non Attendance Rate (percent) ............................................ 0.6 0.4 0.4 

No. of Attended .............................................................................. 6,757 17,822 16,043 

No. of Scheduled ............................................................................ 6,795 17,897 16,101 

EOIR Final Hearing Attendance Rates (percent) ........................... 94.3 96.7 97.6 

EOIR Final Hearing Non Attendance Rates (percent) ................... 5.7 3.3 2.4 

No. of Attended .............................................................................. 626 2,185 2,353 

No. of Scheduled ............................................................................ 664 2,260 2,411 

Funding for the program has exponentially increased since fiscal year 2012. In fiscal year 2013, the President’s budget requested an additional $19 million, from $72.4 million to $91.4 million (a 21-percent increase). ICE was operating under a continuing resolution through fiscal 

year 2014, which limited ICE’s resources. The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget requests $2.7 million above fiscal year 2013 and 2014 levels. The Administration is committed to ensuring alternate detention options are available for whom ICE has determined traditional detention 

is neither mandatory nor appropriate. Data Notes: —FS = Full service, TO = Technology only 

—Compliance Rates are defined as the following— 

—Success Rate: The percent of participants who were terminated from ATD and were compliant during their time in ATD. 

—Failure Rate (Absconder and Violator Rate): The percent of participants who were terminated from ATD due to failure to comply 

with program policies or absconded from the program. 

—Absconder Rate: The percent of participants who absconded from the program. 

—Court data is only tracked for full service participants as it is contractually required. ICE cannot provide technology only participant 

court data. Data from Behavioral Interventions, Inc. 

HONORING ICE DETAINERS

Question. A number of jurisdictions around the country have opted not to honor 

ICE requests to place a person in the custody of local law enforcement on detainer 

so that ICE can determine their legal status. At the same time, ICE claims that 

local authorities do not have the right not to honor these detainers. 

Recently, a senior ICE official testified that the increase in not honoring detainers 

has ‘‘gotten to the point where it’s a community safety issue.’’ 

Please quantify how these decisions are having a potential negative impact on 

public safety. 

Answer. Thus far in calendar year 2014, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has identified nearly 1,300 aliens who were released from State and 

local jails because ICE detainers were not honored by law enforcement agencies. 
50 

This has a serious potential to negatively impact community safety when criminals 

are released into the general public. 

These aliens are released into the community where they can recidivate and not 

only pose a danger to the public safety but also a risk to ICE officers as they attempt to locate and arrest them. Arresting these individuals outside of a secure environment like a jail when our detainers are not honored poses an increased risk 

to officer safety. 

Question. Also, please describe the impact on ICE resources, including agent 

workload, resulting from these local decisions. 

Answer. Immigration detainers are a crucial part of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) efforts to remove criminals who are in Federal, State, or 

local custody and whose release into the community may undermine public safety. 

The form I–247, Immigration Detainer-Notice of Action, notifies a Federal, State, or 

local law enforcement agency that ICE intends to assume custody of an individual 

once he or she is no longer subject to detention by the law enforcement agency. To 

enable ICE to assume custody, a detainer requests that the law enforcement agency 

maintain custody of an alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays) after he or she would otherwise be released. 

Thus far in calendar year 2014, ICE has identified nearly 1,300 individuals who 

were released from State and local jails because ICE detainers were not honored by 

law enforcement agencies. Arresting these individuals outside of a secure environment if our detainers are not honored poses an increased risk to officer safety, and 

equates to an additional cost of approximately $3,900 per at-large criminal arrest, 

requiring approximately 34 work-hours. 

IMMIGRATION DATA AND PRIORITIES

Question. One of things that the subcommittee would greatly benefit from would 

be more comprehensive and timely data about how the Department is managing its 

border and immigration enforcement responsibilities. 

How many individuals are being apprehended, where are they being apprehended, 

and how do they fit into the Department’s enforcement priorities? 

Answer. Please reference the below chart reflecting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) apprehensions in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 (year-to-date). 

FISCAL YEAR 2013 ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS APPREHENSION THREAT LEVEL BY 

AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY 

Area of responsibility 

Fiscal year 2013 arrests by threat level 

ICE threat 

level 1 

ICE threat 

level 2 

ICE threat 

level 3 

Non-criminal 

immigration 

violator 

Total 

Atlanta ............................................................................. 5,988 3,429 3,434 4,749 17,600 

Baltimore ......................................................................... 731 267 475 1,105 2,578 

Boston .............................................................................. 1,474 356 478 1,640 3,948 

Buffalo ............................................................................. 889 204 107 511 1,711 

Chicago ............................................................................ 3,395 2,236 2,807 3,573 12,011 

Dallas ............................................................................... 6,422 3,124 4,405 2,022 15,973 

Denver .............................................................................. 1,786 1,366 1,100 625 4,877 

Detroit .............................................................................. 1,529 1,160 1,387 1,361 5,437 

El Paso ............................................................................. 1,195 415 553 1,106 3,269 

Houston ............................................................................ 4,827 2,786 2,622 3,716 13,951 

Los Angeles ...................................................................... 9,570 4,531 4,666 6,396 25,163 

Miami ............................................................................... 3,813 1,529 1,812 4,196 11,350 

New Orleans ..................................................................... 2,234 1,590 2,546 2,745 9,115 

New York City .................................................................. 1,796 811 1,199 1,827 5,633 

Newark ............................................................................. 1,116 326 631 2,380 4,453 

Philadelphia ..................................................................... 2,172 583 812 1,416 4,983 

Phoenix ............................................................................. 2,886 1,501 2,514 4,166 11,067 

Salt Lake .......................................................................... 1,959 1,356 1,863 1,035 6,213 

San Antonio ..................................................................... 4,172 3,787 13,262 4,513 25,734 

San Diego ........................................................................ 1,607 651 1,781 2,499 6,538 

San Francisco .................................................................. 7,554 3,227 4,134 5,885 20,800 

Seattle .............................................................................. 2,183 994 1,430 2,558 7,165 

St. Paul ............................................................................ 1,584 1,302 1,342 1,318 5,546 

Washington ...................................................................... 1,545 1,315 1,229 1,554 5,643 
51 

FISCAL YEAR 2013 ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS APPREHENSION THREAT LEVEL BY 

AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY—Continued 

Area of responsibility 

Fiscal year 2013 arrests by threat level 

ICE threat 

level 1 

ICE threat 

level 2 

ICE threat 

level 3 

Non-criminal 

immigration 

violator 

Total 

Fugitive Operations Support Center ................................ 8 ................ ................ 5 13 

Unassigned Area of Responsibility .................................. 275 116 183 942 1,516 

FISCAL YEAR 2014 YEAR-TO-DATE U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AND 

REMOVAL OPERATIONS APPREHENSION THREAT LEVEL BY AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY 

Area of responsibility 

Fiscal year 2014 year-to-date arrests by threat level 

ICE threat 

level 1 

ICE threat 

level 2 

ICE threat 

level 3 

Non-criminal 

immigration 

violator 

Total 

Atlanta ............................................................................. 2,662 1,561 1,261 1,864 7,348 

Baltimore ......................................................................... 268 159 212 490 1,129 

Boston .............................................................................. 459 168 210 627 1,464 

Buffalo ............................................................................. 400 87 54 285 826 

Chicago ............................................................................ 1,441 1,194 1,226 1,461 5,322 

Dallas ............................................................................... 2,858 1,647 1,846 969 7,320 

Denver .............................................................................. 699 597 377 230 1,903 

Detroit .............................................................................. 751 519 540 570 2,380 

El Paso ............................................................................. 477 157 254 482 1,370 

Houston ............................................................................ 2,533 1,552 1,385 1,945 7,415 

Los Angeles ...................................................................... 4,390 2,224 1,827 2,794 11,235 

Miami ............................................................................... 1,393 715 724 1,581 4,413 

New Orleans ..................................................................... 1,087 828 841 1,031 3,787 

New York City .................................................................. 800 454 552 829 2,635 

Newark ............................................................................. 513 180 259 1,041 1,993 

Philadelphia ..................................................................... 984 284 311 820 2,399 

Phoenix ............................................................................. 972 643 1,048 1,495 4,158 

Salt Lake City .................................................................. 744 626 856 439 2,665 

San Antonio ..................................................................... 1,607 1,362 4,464 2,380 9,813 

San Diego ........................................................................ 862 431 850 1,393 3,536 

San Francisco .................................................................. 2,893 1,079 1,249 1,601 6,822 

Seattle .............................................................................. 879 492 604 917 2,892 

St. Paul ............................................................................ 653 567 461 436 2,117 

Washington ...................................................................... 575 546 473 523 2,117 

FOSC ................................................................................ 4 ................ ................ 3 7 

Unassigned Area of Responsibility .................................. 148 139 121 452 860 

The ‘‘area of responsibility’’ refers to the ERO field office to which the officer conducting the arrest is assigned. The arrests listed under 

‘‘FOSC’’ are conducted by officers assigned to the Fugitive Operations Support Center in Williston, Vermont, although the arrests may take 

place in another location. The arrests listed under ‘‘unassigned area of responsibility’’ refer to arrests conducted by officers not assigned to 

an ERO field office in the ICE case management system. 

Fiscal year 2014 year-to-date data was updated as of March 29, 2014, (ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS) v.1.16 as of March 31, 

2014, ENFORCE Integrated Database (EID) Extract as of March 29, 2014). Fiscal year 2013 data are historical and remain static. 

Arrest criminality is based on apprehension threat level. The apprehension threat level is associated with the person’s ICE arrest and it reports only on convictions for crimes occurring on or prior to the date of that ICE arrest. ICE began reporting this as of October 1, 2010. 

Threat levels reflect the priorities outlined in former Director John Morton’s June 2010 memorandum entitled ‘‘ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities effective October 1, 2010.’’ Since fiscal year 2011, ICE has defined criminality as whether or not an alien has an ICE threat 

level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal immigration violator). For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE 

personnel refer to the following offense levels: level 1, level 2, and level 3 offenders. Level 1 offenders are those aliens convicted of ‘‘aggravated felonies’’ as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes each punishable by more than 

1 year, commonly referred to as ‘‘felonies.’’ Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of any other felony or three or more crimes each punishable by less than 1 year, commonly referred to as ‘‘misdemeanors.’’ Level 3 offenders are aliens convicted of misdemeanor crime(s) punishable by less than 1 year. 

Starting in fiscal year 2013, ERO arrests include all ERO programs. ERO programs include Detention and Deportation, Fugitive Operations, 

Alternatives to Detention, Criminal Alien Program, Detained Docket Control, Non-Detained Docket Control, Violent Criminal Alien Section, Joint 

Criminal Alien Response Team, Juvenile, Law Enforcement Area Response, and 287(g). Prior to fiscal year 2013, 287(g) data was not included. 

Question. How many meet ICE’s statutory or policy criteria for detention? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2013, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) recorded encountered 193,357 encounters after a criminal arrest by law enforcement 

agencies criminal immigration violators. Of these individuals, 192,912 met one of 

ICE’s enforcement priorities (e.g., criminal alien, repeat immigration violator, or recent border crosser) and were booked in for detention. The total average daily popu-
52 

1 Based upon option year 4 ISAP II contract prices for legal stage, contract management, and 

assigned technology across both the full-service and technology-only components, and the use 

of high-low-high reporting, which includes recurring case reviews that, depending on the participant’s compliance with release conditions, may result in higher or lower levels of case management and technology assignment which in turn affects reporting and associated costs. These 

days can also be non-consecutive days of enrollment. 

lation in ICE detention in fiscal year 2013 was 33,788. Fifty percent of all fiscal year 

2013 ICE book-ins derived from a Customs and Border Protection apprehension. 

In fiscal year 2014 (year-to-date), ICE ERO encountered recorded 82,640 encounters after a criminal arrest by law enforcement agencies criminal immigration violators. Of these individuals, 77,765 met one of ICE’s enforcement priorities (e.g., 

criminal alien, repeat immigration violator, or recent border crosser) and were 

booked in for detention. The total average daily population in ICE detention in fiscal 

year 2014 year-to-date is 31,447. 56 percent of all fiscal year 2014 year-to-date bookins derived from a Customs and Border Protection apprehension. 

Question. How many are put on Alternatives to Detention or some other non-detention form of supervision, and which enforcement priority levels do they fit into? 

Answer. Please reference the below chart reflecting Alternatives to Detention enrollments by priority status from fiscal years 2012–2014 (year-to-date). 

Criminal 

enrollments 

Priority— 

non-criminal 

enrollments 

Non-priority— 

non-criminal 

enrollments 

Total enrollments 

Fiscal year 2014 thru Jan 2014 ................................... 2,210 1,900 370 4,480 

Fiscal year 2013 year-end snapshot 1 ......................... 7,268 6,462 1,150 14,880 

Fiscal year 2012 ........................................................... n/a n/a n/a 15,997 

In fiscal year 2012, criminality, priority—non-criminal, and non-priority—non-criminal enrollments were not captured. As a result, this information is designated n/a. 1 In fiscal year 2013, a total of 6,240 ‘‘priority—non-criminal enrollments’’ and ‘‘non-priority—non-criminal enrollments’’ were not captured 

between October 2012 and January 2013. As a result, this data is only available beginning in February 2013. Priority and criminality enrollment statistics were pulled on a monthly basis and combined to create fiscal year statistics. Monthly enrollments are counts of individuals, 

but individuals may have been re-enrolled in subsequent months. 

Enrollment data is from ATD service providers. Participant Reports, criminal and priority enrollments are pulled on a monthly basis from 

ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS). IIDS is a data warehouse that contains dynamic data extracts from the Enforcement Integrated Database (EID). 

Criminal designation is based on an alien’s removal case threat level. ATD Enforcement Priorities are defined as a non-criminal alien with 

one of the following conditions: charged with a specific subset of IN A code 212 or 237, has a final order, a recommended supervision case 

category of 3, 10, 11, 12, 16, 8C, 8E, 8F, 8G, 8H, or 8I, was arrested by Border Patrol, or has a pending criminal charge. 

Approximately 3.5 percent of submitted A-numbers fail to return a record, the status is unknown, and it is not included in the data set. 

Question. On average, how many days does it take to keep people on ATD before 

the cost benefits outweigh the average days of someone who is physically detained? 

Answer. With an average bed per day rate of $119.86 and an average length of 

stay in custody of 31.1 days, on average it costs U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) $3,727.65 to detain an alien. The average cost per participant under 

the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program II (ISAP II) contract is $4.50 per 

participant per day on average. This translates into 828 1 days of alternatives to detention monitoring before the cost benefit is negated compared to that of detention. 

Question. How many criminal vs. non-criminal aliens were removed in fiscal years 

2009–2013? (Please provide both actual numbers and the percent of each). 

Answer. Please reference the below chart reflecting removals by criminality from 

fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013. 

FISCAL YEARS 2009–2013 REMOVALS BY CRIMINALITY 

Fiscal year Convicted 

criminals 

Convicted 

criminal percentage of total removals 

(percent) 

Non-criminal 

immigration 

violator 

Non-criminal 

immigration violator percentage 

of total removals (percent) 

Total 

Fiscal year 2009 ...................... 136,343 35 253,491 65 389,834 

Fiscal year 2010 ...................... 195,772 50 197,090 50 392,862 

Fiscal year 2011 ...................... 216,698 55 180,208 45 396,906 

Fiscal year 2012 ...................... 225,390 55 184,459 45 409,849 

Fiscal year 2013 ...................... 216,810 59 151,834 41 368,644 

Data are historic and remain static. Removals include returns, which include voluntary returns, voluntary departures and withdrawals under Docket Control. 
53 

Starting in fiscal year 2009, ICE began to ‘‘lock’’ removal statistics on October 5th at the end of each fiscal year and counted only the 

aliens whose removal or return was already confirmed. Aliens removed or returned in that fiscal year but not confirmed until after October 

5th were excluded from the locked data and thus from ICE statistics. To ensure an accurate and complete representation of all removals and 

returns, ICE will include the removals and returns confirmed after October 5th into the next fiscal year. [The number of removals in fiscal 

year 2009, excluding the ‘‘lag’’ from fiscal year 2008, was 387,790. The number of removals in fiscal year 2010, excluding the ‘‘lag’’ from 

fiscal year 2009, was 373,440. This number does not include 76,732 expedited removal cases which ICE closed on behalf of CBP in fiscal 

year 2010. Of those 76,732 cases, 33,900 cases resulted from a joint CBP/ICE operation in Arizona. ICE spent $1,155,260 on those 33,900 

cases. The number of removals in fiscal year 2011, excluding the ‘‘lag’’ from fiscal year 2010, was 385,145. The number of removals in fiscal year 2012, excluding the ‘‘lag’’ from fiscal year 2011, was 402,919. Fiscal year data lag/case closure lag is defined as the physical removal of an alien occurring in a given month; however, the case is not closed in ENFORCE Alien Removal Module until a subsequent fiscal 

year after the data is locked. Since the data from the previous fiscal year is locked, the removal is recorded in the month the case was 

closed and reported in the next fiscal year removals. This will result in a higher number of recorded removals in a fiscal year than actual 

departures. ICE has defined criminality as whether or not an alien has a criminal conviction recorded in the Crime Entry Screen of its data 

system.] 

DELAYS IN PROCESSING APPLICATIONS FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS OF U.S. CITIZEN

SPOUSES

Question. There have been recent media reports claiming Americans seeking 

‘‘green cards’’ for their foreign spouses or immediate family members are experiencing delays in processing of these applications due in part to the focus of U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicators on processing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The stories claim that what used to take 5 months has 

now stretched to upwards of 15 months—keeping families separated far longer than 

should be necessary. 

What are the actual facts behind these claims? 

Answer. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has experienced an 

increase in processing times for numerous benefit types, including petitions for 

spouses filed by United States citizens. In building capacity at USCIS Service Centers to handle the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals requests, the petitions for 

immediate relatives of U.S. citizens were transferred to the National Benefits Center (NBC) in Missouri. Soon thereafter, the NBC encountered a higher than anticipated vacancy rate resulting from as many as 50 percent of qualified job seekers 

declining offers of employment, which affected NBC processing times. USCIS has 

addressed these longer processing times by continuing to hire staff and by transferring cases to locations better able to handle additional work. This has improved 

USCIS’s ability to adjudicate these immediate relative petitions in a timely manner 

and we now anticipate reducing the processing time of immediate relative petitions 

to an average of 5 months or less by this summer. 

While a relatively few cases may have had processing times of 15 months, the average processing time for all immediate relative petitions filed by U.S. citizens has 

been well below this figure for many years. 

Question. Currently how long is it taking to process spousal/family green cards 

compared with March 2011? 

Answer. The current processing time for family-based form I–485 is 6 months. In 

March 2011 the processing time was 4.6 months. The current processing time for 

immediate relative form I–130 is 7.4 months. In March 2011 the processing time 

was 5.8 months. 

Question. What is needed to reduce this backlog and provide the level of timely 

service deserved by people who are adhering to our immigration laws? 

Answer. USCIS has expanded its capacity to adjudicate backlogged petitions and 

applications by reallocating workload among our centers, hiring additional staff, and 

expanding the use of overtime. USCIS expects to reduce the processing time of immediate relative form I–130s to an average of 5 months or less by this summer. 

USE OF INCREASED FEES TO PAY FOR CUSTOMS OFFICERS

Question. Last year, the President’s budget called for hiring 1,877 new Customs 

and Border Protection officers (CBPOs) through an increase in the COBRA and immigration user fees and 1,600 new officers through direct appropriations. The Department made a strong case—validated by an independent study—for the need for 

more officers to expedite travel and trade. According to your budget request, an additional 2,000 CBPOs is projected to add nearly 66,000 new jobs, add $4 billion to 

gross domestic product, and result in 46,000 more seizures of illegal items, including 

potentially over $5.5 million in counterfeit and fraudulent goods. 

The Senate version of the fiscal year 2014 bill concurred in one of the fee proposals. However, due to extremely vocal opposition by outside special interests, the 

final fiscal year 2014 bill rejected any fee increase and ended up funding 2,000 new 

officers from direct appropriations. In fiscal year 2016, it will cost more than $350 

million just to sustain those 2,000 new officers. While I strongly support hiring more 

officers, clearly this Committee cannot afford to pay for any additional CBP officers 

through direct appropriations. 
54 

As it did last year, your budget proposes to hire 2,000 additional CBP officers via 

the same increase in the COBRA and immigration user fees. Ultimately, Congress 

was unwilling to accept these increases last year. How can you convince the Congress to take a different position this year? 

Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s cost of inspectional services has 

steadily increased while the rates for inspectional fees intended to support key parts 

of CBP’s operations have not been increased since 2007 for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) fees and 2001 for the Immigration 

User Fees (IUF). 

IUF fees are intended to fully support the cost of CBP’s immigration inspectional 

activities. However, in fiscal year 2013, CBP only recovered 76 percent of its costs 

for immigration inspectional services from the IUF fees. Had IUF been adjusted annually for inflation since its creation, the air and commercial vessel passenger fees 

would have been $12.31 in fiscal year 2013. CBP is proposing a $2 fee increase from 

the current $7 rate to $9 for IUF air and commercial vessel passengers, well below 

their inflationary level. 

While COBRA was not statutorily intended to be full cost recovery, given the hierarchical framework of those items the fees reimburse; CBP believes the percentage 

of cost recovery for COBRA is below what was originally intended. In fiscal year 

2013, CBP only recovered 50 percent of the costs eligible to be reimbursed by 

COBRA fee revenue. For example, had the COBRA fees been adjusted annually for 

inflation since its creation, the air and commercial vessel passenger fee would have 

been $10.66 in fiscal year 2013. CBP is proposing an increase from the current rate 

of $5.50 to $7.50 for the COBRA commercial air passenger fee in fiscal year 2015, 

well below its inflationary level, with proportional increases for the additional fees 

governed by COBRA. 

Current deltas in CBP’s cost recovery for the activities supported by COBRA and 

IUF fees are made up with CBP’s annual appropriations. Not increasing the fees 

will continue to burden CBP’s appropriated resources and will result in diminished 

capabilities for CBP as each year the buying power of these fees decreases. The proposed fee increases in the fiscal year 2015 budget, supporting up to an additional 

2,000 CBPOs will not only support CBP’s goal to apply the findings of the Workload 

Staffing Model identified CBPO requirement at U.S. Ports of Entry for fiscal year 

2015, but will continue to do so with the goal of more efficiently and effectively accomplishing CBP’s trade and travel facilitation mission, and position CBP to better 

address the growing needs associated with increasing trade and travel. 

To address these needs, the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget requests funding 

for new hand-held screening equipment, resources to begin replacing large and 

small scale Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) systems, and support for new CBPOs and 

support staff. While these requests are critical to increase efficiencies (e.g., handheld inspection equipment) and prevent the loss of ground gained (e.g., replacement 

of aging NII equipment), the most notable step to address the workload need is additional CBPOs, along with the appropriate level of mission and operational support 

staff. These strategies and the resources necessary to accomplish this mission have 

been outlined in CBP’s fiscal year 2014 Resource Optimization Strategy report. With 

these proposed fee increases, CBP could potentially recover 99 percent of current 

IUF eligible costs, 99 percent of current COBRA eligible costs for customs 

inspectional activity in the air environment, 19 percent for COBRA eligible expenses 

in the land environment, and 98 percent for COBRA eligible expenses in the sea 

environment in fiscal year 2015. 

The projected cost recovery in fiscal year 2015 assumes fiscal year 2013 costs and 

service levels and does not take into consideration an estimated 3–4 percent growth 

in passenger volume in future fiscal years or infrastructure requirements assumed 

in CBP’s Resource Optimization Strategy. Even with increasing volume and requirements in future fiscal years, the proposed increase in collections, with an increase 

in the air passenger environment alone assuming current service levels, will mean 

greater security, lower wait times, and increased services for those traveling to the 

United States. 

Question. What is the status of hiring and training the 2,000 new CBP officers 

we funded in the fiscal year 2014 act? 

Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Office of Human Resource 

Management is planning to publish new CBPO Job Opportunity Announcements in 

late spring and summer 2014 to support hiring surge requirements. Additional vacancy announcements will be opened as necessary in 2015 to support remaining hiring requirements. A critical component in supporting this hiring initiative is the Office of Internal Affairs’ (IA) role in conducting polygraph examinations and background investigations within the required timeframes. We estimate that IA will 

need to clear at least 4,300 applicants in total for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 to meet 
55 

CBP’s hiring requirements. CBP will meet this requirement and have sufficient candidates to place into academy classes, to onboard all 2,000 new CBP officers, as well 

as address attrition hiring goals by the end of fiscal year 2015. 

Question. Do you and FLETC have sufficient resources to perform polygraphs and 

background investigations and then train the 2,000 CBPOs from fiscal year 2014? 

If not, how much in additional resources do you and FLETC require? 

Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has developed a plan to have 

sufficient resources to place all 2,000 new CBPOs into academy classes and on board 

by the end of fiscal year 2015 through additional contract support. A request for proposal was announced on FedBizOpps on March 18, 2014, for certified polygraph support, and CBP expects to award the contract this summer. CBP is continuously 

monitoring resource needs and progress towards the hiring of the 2,000 new CBPOs 

and will address any additional resource needs should they develop. 

REDUCTION IN CBP FLIGHT HOURS

Question. This Committee strongly supports border security and has consistently 

added more funds for critical air and marine assets as well as funds to operate 

them. We cannot adequately protect our borders when your budget cuts funds to fly 

planes and operate boats. In 2014, Congress specifically added funds to sustain 

107,000 flight hours, returning you to the fiscal year 2010 level. But the funding 

level requested in this budget reduces flight hours to about 73,000 hours, equaling 

the unacceptably low fiscal year 2103 level. 

Given all of the border security efforts and the counterdrug mission, how can you 

justify a $33 million reduction to CBP flight hours? 

Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) air assets have become more 

effective and flexible as its 10-year strategic recapitalization effort has progressed, 

and the numbers of types of aircraft have been consolidated as the fleet has been 

standardized. The total aircraft population is declining as aged assets are retired. 

The flexibility, number, and types of assets are critical components of the flight hour 

equation, as are the priorities input to the flight hour allocation process. Over the 

years, CBP has noted that there is not always a consistent correlation between the 

flight hours allocated in a given year and mission results, but on average an increase in sorties can improve results and increase situational awareness across the 

borders and maritime patrol lanes. When faced with difficult budget decisions, CBP 

chose to manage fluctuating flight hour allocations so as to take full advantage of 

the enhanced capabilities of its assets. Missions with solid intelligence and the highest potential for gain are emphasized over missions that do not directly contribute 

to CBPs core needs, or may require more intensive effort to gain the added situational awareness. CBP’s Office of Air and Marine (OAM) will always respond to missions where officer safety could be at risk and to humanitarian missions. However, 

within the overall CBP priorities that include the Southwest border, the drug source 

and transit zone, and counter-drug operations along the maritime approaches to 

Puerto Rico, sorties that strictly enhance intelligence, strictly support other Federal, 

State, and local not directly involved with Department of Homeland Security missions, provide logistical support, or are not reimbursed, will be limited or eliminated 

from the mix of missions. 

P–3 SERVICE LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM

Question. Congress has supported CBP’s long-term plan to extend the service life 

of the P–3 aircraft another 18–20 years. The P–3 patrol aircraft have been conducting counter drug missions in the source, transit, and arrival zones of the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific for over two decades. In fiscal year 2013 these patrol aircraft disrupted shipments of over 119,000 pounds of bulk cocaine transiting from 

South America to Mexico and the United States. For this fiscal year, CBP has allocated the P–3 program 200 flight hours in the Gulf of Mexico to address the specific 

threat to the Gulf Coast and Puerto Rico, and 300 hours off the California coast and 

Baja to stem the flow of drugs to the California Coast. 

The P–3 plan—submitted to Congress in November 2008, and fully funded at the 

requested level each year—called for the service life extension of 14 P–3s, with final 

funding in fiscal year 2015. To date, nine P–3s have been completed, two aircraft 

have been partially completed, and three more remain to be completed through the 

first half of fiscal year 2016. I understand that a small amount of funding is needed 

to complete the remaining aircraft, yet no funds are included in the budget request. 

It seems pound-wise and penny-foolish to have spent so much time and money to 

procure the remaining wing-sets to upgrade these aircraft only to leave the last two 

to three unfinished. 

Why not complete the program? 
56 

Answer. The effectiveness of the CBP P–3 long range patrol aircraft as a counterdrug asset is well-documented. Over the past 8 years, the P–3 wing has disrupted 

over 1.28 million pounds of bulk cocaine destined for Mexico and the United States, 

valued at over $96 billion. The P–3 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) has 

proven the most efficient way to ensure that these valuable assets are available for 

the next 18–20 years. 

In recognition of the strong desirability to finish the SLEP and retain all 14 aircraft, and taking advantage of the tremendous efficiencies achieved by the program 

in the past year and a half, CBP is determined to find a way forward to complete 

work on the last three aircraft. The CBP OAM has been conducting a reconciliation 

of all SLEP obligations and expenses, and refining its estimates for the work to be 

completed on the last aircraft to ensure that full advantage is taken of the efficiencies gained to date. CBP expects to develop a potential way forward to fund the 

remaining work in fiscal year 2014, combining internal budget offsets and recoveries 

from prior year funded activities with reduced cost estimates and, provided it is successful, intends to consult with the Committees on the potential solutions. 

Question. What are the impacts to the total Federal Government effort in the 

counternarcotics mission in the source and transit zone if CBP reduces its assets? 

Answer. Currently CBP is the largest aerial Force Provider to the Joint Interagency Task Force South providing approximately 39 percent of the Multi-Role (Air 

and Maritime Interdiction) Patrol Aircraft. CBP P–3s were instrumental in 64 percent of the cocaine interdictions. CBP P–3s currently average over 22 pounds of cocaine seized per flight hour by tactically position aircraft in only the highest converging threat vectors within the source and transit zone via a fused intelligence 

approach and regional effort through the interagency and participating Partner and 

Allied Nations. These efforts to counter illicit trafficking are a big piece to the overall effort to aid in the stabilization and reduction of corrosive effects with Mexico, 

Central and South America. 

DHS MORALE

Question. Mr. Secretary, DHS continues to rate at the bottom of employee satisfaction surveys and suffers from low employee morale. The Office of Personnel Management’s 2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey showed that the Department’s 

employees have little job satisfaction and limited faith in their leadership. The Department ranks at the bottom in both categories. 

How can we expect the Department to perform well when it greatest resource, its 

people, have little faith in their leaders? As you begin your tenure at DHS, what 

will you do to improve job satisfaction and instill leadership your employees can be 

proud of? 

Answer. I have assigned a high priority to providing the DHS workforce with the 

leadership that they need to perform the mission. I am bringing in a new leadership 

team, and have already filled the positions of Commissioner, Customs and Border 

Protection; the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs Directorate; 

the Inspector General; Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis; and Under 

Secretary for Science and Technology. I am anxious to fill the remaining key leadership vacancies as quickly as I can. 

Despite low leadership scores, it is important to note that DHS employees have 

stayed focused on and committed to the DHS mission. The vast majority of employees report that they like their jobs; derive a sense of personal accomplishment from 

their jobs; when needed they put in extra effort to get the job done; and are constantly looking for better ways to do their jobs. Recent efforts to strengthen employee satisfaction and improve faith in leadership include a renewed emphasis on 

leader development and a robust communications strategy. The importance of frequent communication from DHS senior leadership across the Department in the effort to improve employee morale and engagement cannot be overstated. Our greatest 

asset as a Department is our people. I intend to foster a work environment that promotes the professional development of our employees, enhances workforce engagement, encourages innovation and creativity and connects employees to the mission, 

the Department and their co-workers. 

Since coming on board as Secretary I have been meeting with employees all over 

the country to get a sense of what their issues are and how much they know about 

efforts underway within the Department to improve engagement. Two-way communication is key. I also expect the highest levels of integrity from everyone on the 

senior leadership team and am holding them accountable for accomplishing results. 

Action planning across the Department has become more robust with a renewed 

focus on root causes in order to identify areas of challenge that need improvement. 
57 

Once the areas are identified we are soliciting employee input, at the Component 

level, to collaborate on solutions. 

COHESIVE DHS STRUCTURE

Question. In December 2013, the DHS Inspector General released a report describing management challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security. One 

of the major concerns in this report was the lack of cohesion and a ‘‘stovepiping’’ 

mentality which sometimes occurs as a result of the current DHS structure. This 

structure can cause confusion among the components, hindering the ability of the 

workforce to carry out its mission. 

While I recognize that you have not been on the job that long Mr. Secretary, have 

you noticed a ‘‘stovepipe’’ mentality at DHS during your brief tenure? 

Answer. One thing I have observed in my time as Secretary are the many 

strengths of the Department, starting with the professionalism, skill, and dedication 

of its people and the rich history and tradition of its Components. As the Secretary, 

it is my job to maintain these strengths, which have led to many successes over the 

Department’s relatively short life, while identifying ways to enhance the cohesion 

of the Department as a whole. Although progress has been made, DHS has yet to 

reach its full potential as an organization. 

Question. If so, how do you plan to develop a cohesive environment within DHS 

that supports information sharing, communication and unity among the components 

and leadership to further reach the goal of ‘‘One DHS?’’ 

Answer. Such potential is difficult to achieve and takes even the best organizations many years. Effective execution of operations is our goal, but the difficult 

budget environment provides a catalyst for us to build and mature our organization 

into one that is greater than the sum of its parts—one that operates with much 

greater unity of effort. 

The focus of my efforts is improving our planning, programming, budgeting, and 

execution processes through strengthened Departmental structures and increased 

capability. We must have better traceability between strategic objectives, budgeting, 

acquisition decisions, operational planning, and mission execution to improve Departmental cohesiveness and operational effectiveness. 

I intend to accomplish this not by centralizing the decisionmaking authority and 

processes within an opaque DHS Headquarters, but rather to transparently incorporate DHS components into unified decisionmaking processes and the analytic efforts that inform decisionmaking. My goal is better understanding of the broad and 

complex DHS mission space and empowering DHS components to effectively execute 

their operations. 

To accomplish this, I have directed actions ‘‘Strengthening Departmental Unity of 

Effort’’ in a memorandum to Departmental leadership on April 22, 2014, along four 

main lines of effort: inclusive senior leader discussion and decisionmaking forums 

that provide an environment of trust and transparency; strengthened management 

processes for investment, including requirements, budget, and acquisition processes, 

that look at cross-cutting issues across the Department; focused, collaborative Departmental strategy, planning, and analytic capability that support more effective 

DHS-wide decisionmaking and operations; and enhanced coordinated operations to 

harness the significant resources of the Department more effectively. 

These actions, when accomplished, will support the Department’s primary objective, the effective execution of our missions, while helping us mitigate the impacts 

of the current fiscal austerity. 

SECURING THE CITIES

Question. I am concerned about the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office’s Securing 

the Cities (STC) program. Through this program, DHS works with State and local 

authorities to ensure that our adversaries cannot use uncontrolled nuclear material 

to threaten our cities. Your budget proposes a $10 million cut to STC, while at the 

same time suggesting an expansion into a third metropolitan area. I am concerned 

that this reduction in funding, which amounts to a 45-percent cut, will delay the 

implementation of this initiative in a third location. 

Can you provide me with some assurance that you have the necessary resources 

and a coherent plan for preventing the unimaginable tragedy of a nuclear weapon 

or dirty bomb detonation in one of our cities? 

Answer. In May 2012, DNDO delivered a congressionally mandated report titled 

Securing the Cities: Strategy and Evaluation. In addition to programmatic goals, objectives, performance measures and cost estimates, the report included a plan to implement the program in our highest risk urban areas using a phased approach. The 

fiscal year 2015 President’s budget reflects difficult choices, but includes funds to 
58 

support the program’s second implementation (in the Los Angeles/Long Beach area) 

and a third implementation (in a region to be selected in fiscal year 2014). The initiation of a fourth implementation will be delayed until fiscal year 2016. 

However, multiple programs across the United States Government contribute to 

reducing the risk of nuclear terrorism. Every program described in the recently submitted Global Nuclear Detection Architecture Joint Annual Review (2014) contributes towards protecting our Nation. As indicated in the review, the total investment 

for these programs was $823 million in fiscal year 2013. In addition, other Government efforts that are outside the scope of the review, contribute to the prevention 

of nuclear terrorism. These include: securing radiological and nuclear materials 

(e.g., through the Global Threat Reduction Initiative) and technical nuclear forensics 

efforts that deter nations from facilitating rouge actors. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

CYBERSECURITY

Question. What plans exist or have been considered for the Department to establish a National Cyber Exercise Center to foster cross-sector and intergovernmental 

training and collaboration, share best practices for cyber exercises with the public 

and private sector, and develop high-quality training and exercises for use by defenders of critical infrastructure? 

Answer. As part of the DHS/NCCIC, the Cyber Exercise Program’s mission, goals, 

and approach is to be a source to foster cross-sector and intergovernmental training 

and collaboration, share best practices for cyber exercises with the public and private sector, and develop high-quality training and exercises for five major constituencies (Federal Departments and Agencies; Internal DHS (including NCCIC); State, 

local, tribal, and territorial governments; private sector; and international partners). 

Over that time, we have conducted a significant number of national and State level 

exercises. 

The NCCIC conducted four major operational floor exercises in March, May, July, 

and September 2013 and has continued to do so once per quarter in fiscal year 2014. 

The NCCIC also conducted 38 no-notice floor exercises and three international communications tests in fiscal year 2013, in addition to 11 NCCIC partner Tabletop Top 

Exercises (TTX) (with partners such as DOE, ES–ISAC, TRANSCOM, a telecommunications company, DC3, GSA, Canada, HHS, NCCIC liaison officers, and 

others). As of April 15, 2014, there have been 39 no-notice exercise drills for NCCIC 

floor personnel in fiscal year 2014. 

Exercises help to better validate policies, plans, procedures, processes, and capabilities that enable preparation, prevention, response, recovery, and continuity of operations; and through exercises, the NCCIC can analyze media and/or malware to 

determine the cause and effect of probable intrusions into critical systems. Exercises 

also provide indicators to mitigate and prevent future intrusions. 

I–130 APPLICATION BACKLOG

Question. I understand that stand-alone I–130 applications for the immediate relatives of United States citizens have been seriously backlogged, causing very long 

waits for family reunification. 

I understand that USCIS needed to prioritize processing the DACA applications, 

but what is the Department’s plan to alleviate the backlog for these other highly 

deserving applications where U.S. citizens sometimes have to wait almost a year to 

receive an adjudication of their petitions? And what changes to the process is the 

Department considering ensuring that once the backlog is eliminated that this 

doesn’t happen again? 

Answer. USCIS is mindful of the need to process a U.S. citizen’s form I–130 carefully and expeditiously. This need is defined by the immigration system’s goal of 

preserving family unity. It is for this fundamental reason that USCIS has been focused on reducing delays in the processing of form I–130s for several months. 

Last October, in an effort to expedite the adjudication of these cases, USCIS 

began transferring stand-alone form I–130s filed by U.S. citizens for their immediate relatives from USCIS’s National Benefits Center to its Nebraska, Texas, and 

California Service Centers. This shift has improved USCIS’s ability to adjudicate 

the cases in a timely manner. USCIS expects the processing of form I–130s to return an average of 5 months or less by this summer. 

USCIS is committed to maximizing operational efficiency by maintaining a flexible and nimble organizational structure that shifts staff capacity and rebalances 

workloads to help mitigate the possibility of backlogs that could result from unfore-
59 

seen changes in demand. As more benefit types are added to the Electronic Immigration System and are entirely paperless, the agency will be able to rebalance 

workloads much more quickly and without the shipping of paper files between field 

offices, service centers, and the National Benefits Center. USCIS will also apply lessons learned from its staffing experience under the DACA program to inform staffing strategies that may be necessary to handle workload surges or new immigration 

benefit types in the future. 

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

Question. The Senate Judiciary Committee began debating S. 744, a comprehensive immigration reform bill, nearly a year ago. I chaired six hearings, followed by 

five markups spanning 3 weeks, to consider the bill, which the Senate passed last 

June with a strong bipartisan vote. The sweeping immigration reform legislation 

will help unite families, boost the economy, and bring millions out of the shadows 

and into our legal immigration system. Since then, the House of Representatives 

has drafted immigration reform principles that fall well short of the bipartisan bill 

we passed. Since then, our country has lost billions in potential tax revenue. And 

since then, more families continue to be torn apart every day by deportations. 

Do you feel as urgently as I do that the House of Representatives needs to take 

up the Senate-passed comprehensive immigration reform bill? 

Answer. Yes. As previously stated, the administration is committed to supporting 

commonsense reform that creates an earned path to citizenship, continues to 

strengthen our border security, holds employers accountable, and brings our immigration system into the 21st century. 

Question. Can you assure me and the rest of the Nation that reforming our broken immigration system is a top priority for you and the Department? 

Answer. Comprehensive immigration reform remains a top priority. The administration is committed to supporting commonsense reform that creates an earned path 

to citizenship, continues to strengthen our border security, holds employers accountable, and brings our immigration system into the 21st century. 

USE-OF-FORCE POLICY

Question. On March 7, 2014, U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher, released 

the agency’s use-of-force policy and issued a directive on how personnel should respond to threats. The memorandum states that since 2010, agents have been assaulted with rocks 1,713 times, and that deadly force was used 43 times, resulting 

in 10 deaths. Among them, was Jose Rodriguez, a 16-year-old who was shot multiple 

times, including in the back. I respect that there is an ongoing investigation in this 

case. However, as it relates to funding for use-of-force training: 

Is the real impact of the directive? How is it different from the guidance previously in place that allowed deadly force to be used in a manner that resulted in 

10 deaths? 

Answer. The Border Patrol agent position is a demanding job with great responsibility where agents are required to make split-second decisions in circumstance that 

are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving as they encounter not only illegal entrants, but also human and drug smugglers, cartel and gang members, as well as 

other transnational criminal organizations. The job is extremely dangerous and 

agents can be placed in life-or-death situations unexpectedly. This directive was implemented to provide further guidance to the Border Patrol workforce to lessen the 

likelihood of deadly force situations and reduce the risk of injury or death to agents 

and the public. Reiterate the directive clarifies existing policies and offers agents 

alternate courses of actions and tactics designed to decrease the likelihood of deadly 

force encounters. 

Question. How much does the Department actually spend on training Border Patrol agents? 

Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has budgeted $23.2 million from its 

National Training Plan account for basic and advanced training for Border Patrol 

agents. 

Question. With the change in the use-of-force policy, will all Border Patrol agents 

have to renew their training? If not, how are agents to be educated about the new 

policy to ensure compliance? 

Answer. Border Patrol agents train with their firearms and less-lethal use of force 

weapons on a quarterly basis. U.S. Custom and Border Protection’s Office of Training and Development is collaboratively working with the Office of Border Patrol 

(OBP) to design and implement new training scenarios and introduce new equipment in order to expand agents’ readiness and minimize the risk to the agents, the 

public and subjects encountered by agents. OBP’s supervisory cadre will continue 
60 

to ensure that less-lethal equipment is available for use by line agents. Additionally, 

supervisors are implementing Chief Michael Fisher’s memo during muster briefings 

and agents in training at the academy will receive added use of force scenarios. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

Question. I am very concerned by reports that individuals held in short-term Customs and Border Protection custody, including in holding cells at Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, ports of entry, and secondary inspection areas, do not always receive basic protections, and regularly complain of verbal and physical abuse, inadequate food and water, denial of medical care and other basic human rights. This 

is fundamentally unacceptable. I know you share my commitment to ensuring anyone in Federal custody is treated with the dignity and respect every human being 

deserves. 

Will the Department consider developing and implementing enforceable shortterm custody standards within the coming months? Is the Department able to commit to using resources to ensure that agencies collect and report statistics on the 

individuals detained in short-term custody facilities? 

Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is committed to ensuring anyone in Federal custody is treated with the dignity and respect every human being 

deserves. 

CBP is fully committed to promptly processing all persons in CBP custody and 

facilitating their transfer to another agency or entity or their release, as appropriate. Every effort is made to transfer a detainee out of CBP custody as soon as 

operationally feasible. CBP holds all detainees in rooms that are safe, secure, and 

clean. If anyone detained by CBP appears to be ill or injured, or medical attention 

is sought, CBP ensures the detainee has access to medical care. CBP ensures basic 

necessities, such as food, snacks, drinking water, properly equipped restrooms, and 

hygiene supplies are also available. Aliens are notified of communication privileges 

with consular or diplomatic officers of their country of nationality, and they are provided access to telephones for such purposes, if requested. 

The 2008 Hold Rooms and Short Term Custody directive is the national policy for 

the short term custody of persons arrested by Border Patrol agents and detained 

in hold rooms at Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, and processing facilities. It 

also contains requirements for the handling and processing of juveniles, family units 

and Unaccompanied Alien Children. The policy was reviewed by representatives 

from both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Civil Rights and 

Civil Liberties and the DHS Inspector General. The policy is currently under review 

and efforts are underway to update and revise the policy as appropriate. 

U.S. Border Patrol uses the e3 database to process all apprehensions and to 

record all detainee custodial actions. The Enforcement Systems Branch, Statistics 

and Data Integrity Unit use the metrics captured by the e3 system to generate statistical reports. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is committed to using the necessary resources to capture, maintain and evaluate all available data from the e3 

database. Body worn cameras have become a best practice among large police departments across the country. Evidence indicates these cameras serve to clear officers from false accusations, improve the judicial process, and reduce civil rights violations. These devices protect both law enforcement officers and those with whom 

they interact. I am confident our Federal officers and agents would benefit from that 

protection. 

Question. The number of unaccompanied immigrant children arriving in the 

United States continues to rise. As Federal officers and agents apprehend these children, it is crucial that we promptly identify those who are escaping persecution, are 

victims of trafficking, or are unaccompanied minors so that we can ensure they 

treated appropriately and receive the support they need. 

What is the Department doing to ensure that our Federal agents and officers in 

the Department receive proper training to accurately identify these individuals? 

Answer. Body worn cameras have become a best practice among large police departments across the country. Evidence indicates these cameras serve to clear officers from false accusations, improve the judicial process, and reduce civil rights violations. These devices protect both law enforcement officers and those with whom 

they interact. I am confident our Federal officers and agents would benefit from that 

protection. 

Question. Do you intend to use funds allocated to Customs and Border Protection 

or other agencies to implement the camera pilot program committed to by the agency? And, if so, when, where, and on what scale will Customs and Border Protection 

begin implementing a pilot program? 
61 

Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is looking into the possibility 

of using body worn cameras on agents and officers. As a first step, CBP is preparing 

to conduct a ‘‘proof of concept’’ and has used funds allocated for this to determine 

the impact that body worn cameras have on operations (e.g., time off the line to don/ 

doff/download cameras; information technology storage requirements), the potential 

challenges in integrating body worn cameras into CBP’s diverse work environments, 

and the technical requirements for those work environments. As part of this proof 

of concept, CBP will also engage in an analysis of other law enforcement agencies 

that have adopted the use of cameras. Such analysis will inform us of the benefits 

as well as the potential problems related to integrating such cameras into the operational environment. Many factors must be considered including privacy concerns 

related to our officers and agents as well as the subjects they encounter. 

If the proof of concept reveals acceptable/manageable impacts on U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection’s (CBP) field operations, CBP will engage industry to identify 

those systems that meet our unique and varying environmental and operational 

needs. CBP will continue to keep you updated as this process proceeds. 

Question. Customs and Border Protection staffing shortages at international airports continue to cause lengthy and persistent delays for those entering the country. 

Last year Congress provided Customs and Border Protection with the resources to 

hire additional officers, and your budget request includes a proposal for additional 

hiring. 

What is the Department’s plan to address the Customs and Border Protection 

staffing shortages at airports and how long will it take the Department to hire, 

train, and deploy additional officers? 

Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is committed to ensuring the 

security of our Nation’s borders, while facilitating legitimate travel and trade. CBP 

has implemented new initiatives and is pursuing proposals to increase workforce capability by: 

—Maximizing the use of current resources through increased trusted traveler enrollments; employing mobile technology to streamline processes and relieve certain infrastructure constraints; increasing risk segmentation through enhanced 

targeting/pre-departure initiatives, and through new automated scheduling 

practices; 

—Implementing and effectively overseeing new authorities that provide greater 

flexibility to work with stakeholders in funding requests for service and addressing infrastructure constraints; and 

—Continuing to implement business transformation initiatives to reduce costs and 

mitigate staffing requirements. 

Based on a clear demonstration of staffing needs by CBP—with support from local 

governments, business groups and the trade and travel industry—the recently 

passed fiscal year 2014 omnibus includes funding for 2,000 additional CBP officers 

(CBPOs). Released on March 4, 2014, the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposes user fee increases that would fund an additional 2,000 CBPOs. 

The additional 2,000 officers provided in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus were allocated based on needs identified by CBP’s Workload Staffing Model across air, land 

and sea ports with the greatest demonstrated need, as well as the current operational environment at time of on-boarding (which involves the overall hiring process including recruitment, pre-employment vetting, selection, academy training, port 

assignment, etc.). CBP announced the allocation of these officers on March 31, 2014. 

Overall 44 ports in 18 States will receive additional staffing that will reduce wait 

times and help facilitate legitimate trade and travel. 

CBP has an aggressive plan to recruit, hire, and train the highest caliber individuals to get them to our frontlines by the end of calendar year 2015. This hiring process accounts for the strict and rigorous employment standards (medical, fitness, 

polygraph, and background investigation) for qualified applicants to become CBPOs. 

Additionally, once an applicant is hired, they will begin a training process that includes pre-academy, basic academy and post-academy requirements to provide them 

with the knowledge and skills to effectively carry out their duties as a CBPO. 

The additional CBPOs will make a positive impact for frontline operations; however, CBP continues to face operational challenges and a significant portion of the 

staffing shortage remains. While recognizing the success in business process improvements and increase in CBPOs, the Workload Staffing Model results continue 

to show a need for additional officers. The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request fully funds this need through a combination of increases. 

Question. The Coast Guard’s 2011 High Altitude study determined the Coast 

Guard requires three heavy and three medium icebreakers to accomplish its Arctic 

missions. Today, the Coast Guard operates only one heavy icebreaker, Polar Star, 

and one medium icebreaker, Healy. Polar Star has between 6 and 9 years of service 
62 

life remaining and Healy is aging as well. The Coast Guard’s 2013 business case 

analysis study of the Polar Sea indicates the estimated cost to refit the Polar Sea 

for service is $99.2 million over 4 years. Conversely, the estimated cost to design 

and build a new icebreaker is $1 billion, and the new ship would not enter service 

for at least 8 years. I’m hoping you can comment on the path toward recapitalizing 

our polar fleet while maintaining a viable bridging strategy between our current 

fleet and the construction of a new heavy class icebreaker. 

The President’s Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for the Arctic Region designated the Department of Homeland Security as the lead agency for several vital Arctic objectives. I am particularly interested in your leadership in sustaining Federal capability to conduct maritime operations in ice-impacted waters. 

While the Coast Guard is the primary provider of icebreaking capability, it is far 

from the only stakeholder in the Arctic. The Department of Defense, the National 

Science Foundation and other Federal agencies rely on the Coast Guard’s 

icebreaking capability to accomplish their missions. In fact, the Department of Defense contributed $329 million of the $365 million cost of constructing Healy. 

As the lead agency for sustaining our Nation’s presence in ice-impacted waters, 

what steps have you taken to explore options to spread the cost of both refits and 

new construction across the Federal agencies that rely on the Coast Guard’s 

icebreaking capability? 

Answer. Given the importance of this asset, the functions it serves, the Coast 

Guard is working with stakeholders across Government to capture the input necessary to develop the requirements for a new polar icebreaker. The resulting Operational Requirements Document is expected to be completed in the spring of 2015. 

As the project develops, we will review the existing MOUs that underlie the current 

operational model for providing icebreaking services to the interagency stakeholders 

and other users. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JON TESTER

Question. I introduced legislation to give recognized tribal governments the ability 

to request disaster relief directly from the President that was passed as a provision 

of the Sandy Recovery and Investment Act. However, Senator Begich and I are concerned that developing the implementation framework is taking too long. While 

back in Montana, I heard from tribal members who had participated in large teleconferences with FEMA, but were unable to provide meaningful input due to the 

size of the calls. We all know resources are tight throughout the Federal Government, but FEMA has emphasized their commitment to this provision. It’s important 

that we get FEMA folks out to tribal lands to help these sovereign nations develop 

their emergency management capabilities. 

Can you commit to keeping an eye on FEMA in how they continue to implement 

this provision and make sure the outreach to our tribes is there? 

Answer. We are committed to engaging and supporting tribal communities in the 

areas of emergency management and preparedness. FEMA is in the process of finalizing a proposed Tribal Consultation Policy, which will build from the Department’s 

Tribal Consultation Policy, to better provide guidance on how program offices should 

engage in regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials 

in the development of Federal policies that have direct, significant tribal implications, and to strengthen the government-to-government relationship between the 

United States and Indian tribes. FEMA has developed an extensive and inclusive 

outreach process to consult with tribes under both the proposed Tribal Consultation 

Policy and the Sandy Recovery and Improvement Act (SRIA) of 2013 initiated Declarations Guidance through face to face engagement with tribes, whenever and 

wherever practical, both from HQ and through the FEMA regions. Tribal input directly impacted how we are conducting outreach to the tribes for the draft Pilot Declarations Guidance consultation that began on April 3, 2014. Our efforts have been 

improved based on comments received from previous outreach efforts, and we will 

be closely monitoring all future consultations to ensure meaningful engagement. 

The SRIA amendment to the Stafford Act, allowing a tribe the option to request 

its own declaration, was a significant and historic step reflecting tribal sovereignty 

and self-determination. The continued implementation of this new authority remains a high priority for FEMA. Upon passage of the law, the Administration’s goal 

was to enable tribal nations the immediate option of requesting emergency and 

major disaster declarations directly. For this reason, FEMA has been using its current declarations regulations, which govern declaration requests for States, to process declaration requests from tribal governments, while the agency developed tribalspecific declaration procedures. On March 1, 2013, just over a month from the date 
63 

of the Stafford Act amendments passing, the President signed the first declaration 

under this historic law, approving a major declaration for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians due to severe storms that impacted their reservation. To date, seven 

tribes have requested eight declarations using these regulations, and the President 

issued six disaster declarations under this new authority. 

The agency’s ultimate goal is to develop regulations to govern declaration requests 

from tribes; however, the rulemaking process will be lengthy. FEMA is committed 

to, and has set aside resources, to conduct in person consultation sessions in Indian 

Country for this Sandy Recovery Improvement Act authority. FEMA, through our 

regional offices and the regional tribal liaisons, is working with individual tribes 

and tribal organizations to hold in-person meetings during the consultation over the 

next 120 days. In the coming weeks as the locations and dates are finalized, FEMA 

will be announcing these sessions and inviting tribal leaders and emergency management directors to discuss and consult on the current draft of the Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance. We will also use the upcoming listening sessions to learn more 

about tribal concerns. This guidance, when final, will start the pilot phase of tribal 

declarations implementation eventually leading to the final rulemaking. 

Question. This budget proposes to consolidate almost all of FEMA’s preparedness 

grant programs into a new, comprehensive National Preparedness Grant Program. 

We’ve seen similar grant consolidation proposals under education, Interior and elsewhere over the years. And we always hear the same two concerns: that some of 

these grant programs will simply wither away; they’re tucked under a much larger 

program never to be seen again; and that rural applicants are almost always at a 

disadvantage when applying to comprehensive grant programs because they are 

competing against a large pool of applicants. 

Can you provide reassurance that critical grant programs like Operation 

Stonegarden aren’t going to dry up under this proposal—especially for northern border counties, where the Federal Government relies on local law enforcement to partner in border security? And what is being done to ensure that rural applicants 

aren’t at a disadvantage when applying for grants? 

Answer. Maintenance and sustainment of core law enforcement prevention capabilities—including fusion centers, countering violent extremism and State, territory 

and local information sharing—remain key Administration priorities, and law enforcement activities previously funded under other grants, such as Operation 

Stonegarden and the Port and Transit grant programs will continue to be eligible 

activities under the proposed National Preparedness Grant Program. 

The National Preparedness Grant Program also will continue to support State, 

territory, and local law enforcement efforts to understand, recognize, and prevent 

pre-operational activity and other crimes that are precursors or indicators of terrorist activity, in accordance with applicable privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties 

protections. Such efforts include: 

—Maturation and enhancement of State and major urban area fusion centers, including training for intelligence analysts and implementation of Fusion Liaison 

Officer Programs; 

—Implementation of the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative, including training for frontline personnel on identifying and reporting suspicious 

activities; 

—Continued implementation of the ‘‘If You See Something, Say Something TM’’ 

campaign to raise public awareness of indicators of terrorism and violent crime. 

As part of the fiscal year 2015 National Preparedness Grant Program proposal, 

FEMA transmitted a legislative proposal to authorize the new consolidated approach. The legislative proposal retains the requirement for grantees to allocate at 

least 80 percent of the total amount of grant funding to ‘‘local units of government’’, 

which ensures that resources are distributed to the frontline first responders. 

While FEMA cannot prescribe the makeup of any statewide governance structure, 

the agency has issued guidelines on how States should engage with their various 

partners to carry out their Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments 

and investment justifications. To ensure that States are adequately engaging with 

local governments, rural communities, port and transit agencies, urban areas, nonprofit organizations, and other ‘‘whole of community’’ partners, FEMA will require 

that the State Administrative Agency submit: 

—A detailed description of the Senior Advisory Committee’s composition and an 

explanation of key governance processes, including how the Senior Advisory 

Committee is informed by the State or territory’s Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, State Preparedness Report data reflecting capability 

shortfalls and the approach to address shortfalls in core capabilities; 

—A description of the frequency with which the Senior Advisory Committee will 

meet; 
64 

—How existing governance bodies such as Urban Area Working Groups and Transit Security Working Groups will be leveraged by the Senior Advisory Committee; and 

—A detailed description of how decisions on programmatic priorities are made 

and how those decisions will be documented and shared with its members and 

other stakeholders as appropriate; and a description of defined roles and responsibilities for financial decisionmaking and meeting administrative requirements. 

Question. CBP has chosen not to extend a pilot program to expand the hours of 

operation at the Port of Wild Horse—a port of entry just north of Havre, Montana. 

They cite a lack of cost-effectiveness for doing so. But the problem is that they don’t 

have accurate data because our Canadian counterparts didn’t extend operating 

hours on their side of the border for the full duration of this pilot project. As you 

know, facilitating trade along the northern border and improving cross-border commerce is critical to our economic development and job creation. That is why former 

Commissioner Alan Bersin was a staunch proponent of this initiative. And it is why 

I strongly believe an extension of the current pilot project to a full 3-year study, in 

full coordination with our Canadian counterparts, is critical. I strongly encourage 

the Secretary to take another look at extending this pilot project at Wild Horse. 

Mr. Secretary, can you assure me that such a project would be completed in full, 

with close coordination with our Canadian counterparts? 

Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) understands that this issue 

is important to the Bear Paw region and its business community. At the same time, 

CBP must carefully balance the needs of staffing at different locations throughout 

the United States. 

CBP’s close collaboration with stakeholders has allowed us to strengthen the 

United States economy by facilitating legitimate trade and travel. Since fiscal year 

2009, CBP has conducted annual extended hour pilots at Wild Horse, Montana, 

most recently in October 2013. 

During the past several years, CBP and the Canada Border Services Agency have 

extended the summer-hour season at Wild Horse in an effort to stimulate commercial traffic and assess the viability of an extended operational day. CBP joined with 

local stakeholders to actively promote extended summer hours in Montana and Canada, the brokerage community, and the U.S. and Canadian trucking associations. 

In addition, CBP changed the commercial permit requirements at Wild Horse in 

order to encourage increased use of the port. 

Despite these efforts, extended hours pilots have not increased commercial traffic 

at the port. In the October 2013 pilot, truck traffic during extended hours decreased 

31.6 percent from the previous year, which was 39.7 percent lower than October 

2011. Traveler volume during extended hours dropped 28.1 percent from October 

2012, while the number of morning and afternoon travelers crossing from Canada 

increased by 9.9 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively. In addition, no trucks entered 

the United States during 83.1 percent of the pilot’s 124 added operational hours, 

and extended hour utilization by all travelers fell as the month progressed and daylight decreased. 

We share stakeholder disappointment that the pilot outcomes did not meet expectations. CBP had high hopes that the initiatives, which required CBP to reallocate 

resources from other ports, would tangibly benefit the regional economy. Based on 

these results and current resource availability, we are unable to pursue further pilots at Wild Horse at this time. I pledge that CBP will continue to explore initiatives 

with stakeholders, consistent with available resources that will sustain and grow future commercial traffic at Wild Horse. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL COATS

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DATA

Question. Provide for the record a chart showing the number of criminal removals, 

the number of non-criminal removals, and the total removals made in fiscal years 

2012, 2013, and 2014 year-to-date. Please breakout the number of convicted criminals and non-criminals who were permitted to voluntarily depart, voluntarily return, or withdraw their application for admission for these time periods. 

Answer. Below, please find details for ICE removals and returns in fiscal years 

2012, 2013, and 2014 year-to-date (YTD). Returns are further broken out by those 

ICE cases in which a voluntary departure was confirmed, a voluntary return (VR) 

was witnessed, and a withdrawal for admission was permitted (withdrawal permitted—I–275 issued). 
65 

FISCAL YEARS 2012–2014 YEAR-TO-DATE REMOVALS AND RETURNS BY CRIMINALITY 

Removal type 

Fiscal year 2012 Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2014 year-to-date 

Convicted 

criminal 

Non-criminal 

immigration 

violator 

Total Convicted criminal Non-criminal immigration violator Total Convicted criminal Non-criminal immigration violator Total 

Returns ....................................................................................................................... 24,705 38,657 63,362 18,237 17,869 36,106 4,908 3,191 8,099 

Withdrawal Permitted—I–275 Issued .............................................................. 123 1,058 1,181 94 735 829 43 278 321 Voluntary Departure Confirmed ........................................................................ 9,205 10,445 19,650 6,845 4,977 11,822 2,535 1,601 4,136 Voluntary Return Witnessed .............................................................................. 15,377 27,154 42,531 11,298 12,157 23,455 2,330 1,312 3,642 

Removals .................................................................................................................... 200,685 145,802 346,487 198,573 133,965 332,538 82,142 58,935 141,077 

Total Removals ............................................................................................. 225,390 184,459 409,849 216,810 151,834 368,644 87,050 62,126 149,176 

Fiscal years 2012–2013 data are historical and remain static. Fiscal year 2014 data are updated through 3/29/2014 (IIDS v1.16 run date of 3/31/2014; EID as of 3/29/2014). Removals include returns, which include voluntary returns, voluntary departures and withdrawals under Docket Control. ERO removals include aliens processed for expedited removal (ER) and turned over to ERO for detention. Aliens processed for ER and not detained by ERO are primarily processed by Border Patrol. CBP should be contacted for those statistics. Starting in fiscal year 2009, ICE began to ‘‘lock’’ removal statistics on October 5th at the end of each fiscal year and counted only the aliens whose removal or return was already confirmed. Aliens removed or returned in that fiscal year 

but not confirmed until after October 5th were excluded from the locked data and thus from ICE statistics. To ensure an accurate and complete representation of all removals and returns, ICE will include the removals and returns confirmed after October 5th into the next fiscal year. The number of removals in fiscal year 2009, excluding the ‘‘lag’’ from fiscal year 2008, was 387,790. The number of removals in fiscal year 2010, excluding the ‘‘lag’’ from fiscal year 2009, was 373,440. This number does not include 76,732 expedited removal cases which ICE closed on behalf of CBP in fiscal year 2010. Of those 76,732, 33,900 cases resulted from a joint CBP/ICE operation in Arizona. ICE spent $1,155,260 on those 33,900 cases. The number of removals in fiscal year 2011, excluding the ‘‘lag’’ from fiscal year 2010, was 385,145. The number of removals in fiscal year 2012, excluding the ‘‘lag’’ from fiscal year 2011, was 402,919. The number of removals in fiscal year 2013, excluding the ‘‘lag’’ from fiscal year 2012, was 363,144. 

Fiscal year data lag/case closure lag is defined as the physical removal of an alien occurring in a given month; however, the case is not closed in EARM until a subsequent fiscal year after the data is locked. Since the data from the 

previous fiscal year is locked, the removal is recorded in the month the case was closed and reported in the next fiscal year removals. This will result in a higher number of recorded removals in a fiscal year than actual departures. 
66 

Question. Provide for the record a chart showing the total number of ICE detainees by priority category (level of criminality, recent border crosser, fugitive, noncriminal) in fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 year-to-date. 

Answer. The chart below contains fiscal years’ 2012, 2013, and 2014 year-to-date 

number of aliens booked into U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

custody. ICE is unable to provide a further breakout of non-criminal book-ins by priority category. 

FISCAL YEARS 2012–2014 YEAR-TO-DATE INITIAL BOOK-INS BY CRIMINALITY 

Interior Versus Border 

Criminality Fiscal year 2012 

Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2014 

year-to-date 

Interior: 

ICE threat level 1 ............................................................................................. 77,968 72,753 31,112 

ICE threat level 2 ............................................................................................. 43,794 39,709 17,894 

ICE threat level 3 ............................................................................................. 62,015 48,627 18,046 

Non-criminal immigration violators .................................................................. 88,114 60,114 18,894 

Total .............................................................................................................. 271,891 221,203 85,946 

Border: 

ICE threat level 1 ............................................................................................. 11,685 12,043 4,640 

ICE threat level 2 ............................................................................................. 12,251 13,453 5,407 

ICE threat level 3 ............................................................................................. 42,167 49,983 17,942 

Non-criminal immigration violators .................................................................. 139,529 143,875 82,709 

Total .............................................................................................................. 205,632 219,354 110,698 

Grand Total .......................................................................................... 477,523 440,557 196,644 

Fiscal years 2012–2013 data are historical and remain static. Fiscal year 2014 data are updated through 3/29/2014 (ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS) v1.16 run date of 3/31/2014; ENFORCE Integrated Database (EID) as of 3/29/2014). 

Initial book-ins represents the initial book-in of a detention stay. 

Detention data excludes those held in Office of Refugee and Resettlement (ORR) and Mexican Interior Repatriation Program (MIRP) facilities 

as well as U.S. Marshals prisoners. 

Book-in criminality is based on removal case threat level. The ICE threat levels reflect the priorities outlined in Director Morton’s June 2010 

memorandum entitled ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities effective October 1, 2010. ICE has defines criminality as whether or not an 

alien has a criminal conviction. For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel refer to the following offense levels: level 1, level 2, and level 3 offenders. Level 1 offenders are those aliens convicted of ‘‘aggravated felonies,’’ as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two (2) or more crimes each punishable by more than 1 year, commonly referred to 

as ‘‘felonies.’’ Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of any other felony or three or more crimes each punishable by less than 1 year, commonly referred to as ‘‘misdemeanors.’’ Level 3 offenders are aliens convicted of ‘‘misdemeanor’’ crime(s) punishable by less than 1 year. 

Fiscal years 2012–2013 border initial book-ins are identified by the apprehension method associated with the arrest that led to ICE deten- tion. Apprehension methods include: boat patrol, crewman/stowaway, patrol border, patrol interior, inspections, transportation check (aircraft, 

bus, freight and passenger trains). All other apprehension methods are considered interior initial book-ins. 

For fiscal year 2014 year-to-date, an interior book-in is defined by individuals that are identified or apprehended in the United States by 

an ICE officer or agent. The ICE arresting agency includes the following Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security 

Investigations (HSI) arresting agency programs: 287g Program, Alternatives to Detention, ERO Criminal Alien Program, Detained Docket Control, 

Detention and Deportation, Law Enforcement Area Response Unit, Non-Detained Docket Control, Juvenile, Fugitive Operations, Violent Criminal Alien Section, Joint Criminal Alien Response Team, Probation and Parole, Quick Response Team, User Fee Investigations, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Non-User Fee Investigations, HSI Criminal Arrest Only, and Intelligence. Interior book-in also includes the following United States Citi- zenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and other arresting agency programs: Examinations, Adjudications, Asylum, Office of the Principal 

Legal Advisor, Default program area for interface records, and PICS Default value—for user initialization only. The USCIS and Other Programs 

make up 48 total cases for fiscal year 2014 year-to-date. 

In support of the U.S. Border Patrol’s Consequence Delivery System, ICE participated in the Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP) by detaining, 

transporting, and removing Mexican border crossers. In an effort to disrupt smuggling operations and deter future illegal entry, ICE transported and removed these subjects in a different area of the country from where they were apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol. These cases required only short-duration detention stays. While ICE continues to participate in ATEP along the Texas/Mexico border, ICE scaled back its participation in ATEP in June 2013. 

For fiscal year 2014 year-to-date, a border book-in is defined by individuals apprehended at the immediate border while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States. The CBP arresting agency includes the following programs: Border Patrol, Inspections, Inspections-Air, Inspections-Land, and Inspections-Sea. 

Question. Please provide the number of detainees by priority category (level of 

criminality, recent border crosser, fugitive, non-criminal) who were removed or deported from the country in fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 year-to-date. 

Answer. Please see the below chart of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removals for fiscal years 2012–2014 (year-to-date). 
67 

FISCAL YEARS 2012–2014 YEAR-TO-DATE REMOVALS 

Interior Versus Border 

Criminality Criminality/ICE priorities Fiscal year 

2012 

Fiscal year 

2013 

Fiscal year 

2014 

year-todate 

Interior: 

ICE Threat Level 1 ......................................... Convicted Criminals .................... 59,202 52,935 22,377 

ICE Threat Level 2 ......................................... Convicted Criminals .................... 31,639 26,203 11,483 

ICE Threat Level 3 ......................................... Convicted Criminals .................... 44,441 30,977 11,289 

Non-Criminal Immigration Violators .............. Immigration Fugitives ................. 5,131 2,742 1,000 

Non-Criminal Immigration Violators .............. Repeat Immigration Violators ..... 19,043 10,358 4,045 

Non-Criminal Immigration Violators .............. Other Removable Aliens .............. 21,514 10,336 3,604 

Total .......................................................... ...................................................... 180,970 133,551 53,798 

Border: 

ICE Threat Level 1 ......................................... Convicted Criminals .................... 18,752 21,224 9,127 

ICE Threat Level 2 ......................................... Convicted Criminals .................... 18,164 20,995 8,925 

ICE Threat Level 3 ......................................... Convicted Criminals .................... 53,192 64,476 23,849 

Non-Criminal Immigration Violators .............. Immigration Fugitives ................. 5,292 3,256 1,162 

Non-Criminal Immigration Violators .............. Repeat Immigration Violators ..... 67,362 61,896 25,232 

Non-Criminal Immigration Violators .............. Other Border Removals ............... 66,117 63,246 27,083 

Total .......................................................... ...................................................... 228,879 235,093 95,378 

Grand Total ...................................... ...................................................... 409,849 368,644 149,176 

Fiscal years 2012–2013 data is historical and remains static. 

Fiscal year 2014 data is updated through 03/29/2014 (ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS) v1.14 run date 03/31/2014; ENFORCE Integrated Database (EID) as of 03/29/2014). 

An interior removal is defined by individuals removed by ICE that are identified or apprehended in the United States by an ICE officer or 

agent. A border removal is defined as individuals apprehended at or near the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials 

while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States. 

Removals include returns, which include voluntary returns, voluntary departures and withdrawals under Docket Control. 

Starting in fiscal year 2009, ICE began to ‘‘lock’’ removal statistics on October 5th at the end of each fiscal year and counted only the 

aliens whose removal or return was already confirmed. Aliens removed or returned in that fiscal year but not confirmed until after October 5th were excluded from the locked data and thus from ICE statistics. To ensure an accurate and complete representation of all removals and returns, ICE will include the removals and returns confirmed after October 5th into the next fiscal year. The number of removals in fiscal year 

2009, excluding the ‘‘lag’’ from fiscal year 2008, was 387,790. The number of removals in fiscal year 2010, excluding the ‘‘lag’’ from fiscal year 2009, was 373,440. This number does not include 76,732 expedited removal cases which ICE closed on behalf of CBP in fiscal year 2010. Of those 76,732, 33,900 cases resulted from a joint CBP/ICE operation in Arizona. ICE spent $1,155,260 on those 33,900 cases. The number of removals in fiscal year 2011, excluding the ‘‘lag’’ from fiscal year 2010, was 385,145. The number of removals in fiscal year 

2012, excluding the ‘‘lag’’ from fiscal year 2011, was 402,919. The number of removals in fiscal year 2013, excluding the ‘‘lag’’ from fiscal year 2012, was 363,144. 

Fiscal year data lag/case closure lag is defined as the physical removal of an alien occurring in a given month; however, the case is not closed in EARM until a subsequent fiscal year after the data is locked. Since the data from the previous fiscal year is locked, the removal is recorded in the month the case was closed and reported in the next fiscal year removals. This will result in a higher number of recorded re- movals in a fiscal year than actual departures. 

ERO removals include aliens processed for expedited removal (ER) and turned over to ERO for detention. Aliens processed for ER and not detained by ERO are primarily processed by Border Patrol. CBP should be contacted for those statistics. 

The ICE threat levels reflect the priorities outlined in Director Morton’s June 2010 memorandum entitled ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities effective October 1, 2010. Since fiscal year 2011, ICE has defined criminality as whether or not an alien has an ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal immigration violator). For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel refer to the following offense levels: level 1, level 2, and level 3 offenders. Level 1 offenders are those aliens convicted of ‘‘aggravated 

felonies,’’ as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes each punishable by more than 1 year, commonly referred to as ‘‘felonies.’’ Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of any other felony or three or more crimes each punishable 

by less than 1 year, commonly referred to as ‘‘misdemeanors.’’ Level 3 offenders are aliens convicted of ‘‘misdemeanor’’ crime(s) punishable 

by less than 1 year. Prior to fiscal year 2011, ICE used SC levels 1, 2, and 3 for prioritization purposes. 

If an alien was identified by more than one priority they were defaulted to the highest priority based on the following hierarchy (ordered 

highest to lowest): convicted criminal, immigration fugitives, repeat immigration violator, other border removals/other removable aliens. 

Other Removable Aliens: This category includes those aliens who entered unlawfully or entered lawfully and violated conditions of admission; aliens who may also fall into the above priorities but cannot be verified in the data available to ICE (e.g., criminals with no conviction 

information recorded in ICE systems). 

Question. For fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 to date, please provide the unique 

number of individuals encountered by ICE, booked into ICE custody, and then released, by forms of supervision and conditions of release, including bond, ICE supervision, orders of recognizance, or combination. Please also breakout these same individuals by ICE priority category and the number of days in detention. 

Answer. Please see the below chart of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for fiscal years 2012–2014 year-to-date. 
68 

FISCAL YEAR 2014 RELEASES WITH AN ICE APPREHENSION PROGRAM 

Release reason 

Convicted criminals Non-criminal immigration violators (NCIV) 

Total ICE threat 

level 1 

ICE threat 

level 2 

ICE threat 

level 3 NCIV total NCIV fugitives 

NCIV reinstatements NCIV other 

ATD—Alternatives to 

Detention .............. 183 284 354 599 7 28 564 1,420 

Bonded Out .............. 1,750 2,798 3,776 3,801 7 33 3,761 12,125 

Order of recognizance 594 626 996 2,119 26 11 2,082 4,335 

Order of supervision 1,619 405 433 731 70 151 510 3,188 

Paroled ..................... 12 5 7 492 2 ................ 490 516 

Prosecutorial Discretion ....................... 63 41 56 196 6 6 184 356 

Total ............ 4,221 4,159 5,622 7,938 118 229 7,591 21,940 

Fiscal year 2014 year-to-date data updated through 3/29/2014 (ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS) v1.16 run date of 04/03/2014; ENFORCE Integrated Database as of 3/29/2014). 

Book-out data excludes Office of Refugee Resettlement and Mexican Interior Repatriation Program facilities, as well as U.S. Marshals prisoners. 

Releases reflect final book-outs with a case and release reasons of alternatives to detention, bond, order of recognizance, order of supervision, paroled, and prosecutorial discretion and excludes removals, deaths, and proceedings terminated. 

The final book-out criminality is defined by whether or not an alien has the ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal). ICE 

threat level is based upon the most serious convicted crime(s) (except overturned convictions) for the alien’s case up until the point of departure. The ICE threat levels reflect the priorities outlined in Director Morton’s June 2010 memorandum entitled ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities effective October 1, 2010. Since fiscal year 2011, ICE has defined criminality as whether or not an alien has an ICE 

threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal immigration violator). For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel refer to the following offense levels: level 1, level 2, and level 3 offenders. Level 1 offenders are those aliens convicted of ‘‘aggravated felonies,’’ as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes each punishable by 

more than 1 year, commonly referred to as ‘‘felonies.’’ Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of any other felony or three or more crimes each punishable by less than 1 year, commonly referred to as ‘‘misdemeanors.’’ Level 3 offenders are aliens convicted of ‘‘misdemeanor’’ crime(s) 

punishable by less than 1 year. 

The ICE arresting agency includes the following Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) arresting agency programs: 287g Program, Alternatives to Detention, ERO Criminal Alien Program, Detained Docket Control, Detention and Deportation, Law Enforcement Area Response Unit, Non-Detained Docket Control, Juvenile, Fugitive Operations, Violent Criminal Alien Section, Joint 

Criminal Alien Response Team, Probation and Parole, Quick Response Team, User Fee Investigations, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Non-User Fee Investigations, HSI Criminal Arrest Only, and Intelligence. 

FISCAL YEAR 2013 RELEASES WITH AN ICE APPREHENSION PROGRAM 

Release reason 

Convicted criminals Non-criminal immigration violators (NCIV) 

Total ICE threat 

level 1 

ICE threat 

level 2 

ICE threat 

level 3 NCIV total NCIV fugitives 

NCIV reinstatements NCIV other 

ATD—Alternatives to 

Detention .............. 639 1,004 1,509 1,763 51 85 85 4,915 

Bonded Out .............. 3,645 5,357 8,451 8,285 178 23 54 25,738 

Order of recognizance 1,635 1,838 3,478 7,103 275 33 269 14,054 

Order of supervision 3,922 760 799 1,471 86 273 9 6,952 

Paroled ..................... 34 11 25 141 6 3 132 211 

Prosecutorial Discretion ....................... 115 82 142 426 3 7 416 765 

Total ............ 9,990 9,052 14,404 19,189 599 424 18,166 52,635 

Fiscal year 2013 data was rerun for program data (IIDS v1.16 run date of 4/03/2014; EID as of 3/29/2014). 

Book-out data excludes Office of Refugee Resettlement and Mexican Interior Repatriation Program facilities, as well as U.S. Marshals pris- oners. 

Releases reflect final book-outs with a case and release reasons of ATD, bond, order of recognizance, order of supervision, paroled, and 

prosecutorial discretion and excludes removals, deaths, and proceedings terminated. The final book-out criminality is defined by whether or 

not an alien has the ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal). ICE threat level is based upon the most serious convicted 

crime(s) (except overturned convictions) for the alien’s case up until the point of departure. The ICE threat levels reflect the priorities outlined 

in Director Morton’s June 2010 memorandum entitled ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities effective October 1, 2010. Since fiscal year 

2011, ICE has defined criminality as whether or not an alien has an ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal immigration violator). For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel refer to the following offense levels: level 1, level 

2, and level 3 offenders. Level 1 offenders are those aliens convicted of ‘‘aggravated felonies,’’ as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes each punishable by more than 1 year, commonly referred to as ‘‘felonies.’’ Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of any other felony or three or more crimes each punishable by less than 1 year, commonly referred to as ‘‘misdemeanors.’’ Level 3 offenders are aliens convicted of ‘‘misdemeanor’’ crime(s) punishable by less than 1 year. 

The ICE arresting agency includes the following Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) arresting agency programs: 287g Program, Alternatives to Detention, ERO Criminal Alien Program, Detained Docket Control, Detention and Deportation, Law Enforcement Area Response Unit, Non-Detained Docket Control, Juvenile, Fugitive Operations, Violent Criminal Alien Section, Joint 

Criminal Alien Response Team, Probation and Parole, Quick Response Team, User Fee Investigations, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Non-User Fee 

Investigations, HSI Criminal Arrest Only, and Intelligence. 
69 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 RELEASES WITH AN ICE APPREHENSION PROGRAM 

Release reason 

Convicted criminals Non-criminal immigration violators (NCIV) 

Total ICE threat 

level 1 

ICE threat 

level 2 

ICE threat 

level 3 NCIV total NCIV fugitives 

NCIV reinstatements NCIV other 

ATD—Alternatives to 

Detention .............. 282 283 581 981 65 19 897 2,127 

Bonded Out .............. 3,792 6,033 10,618 15,985 827 22 15,136 36,428 

Order of recognizance 1,002 884 2,215 5,949 581 32 5,336 10,050 

Order of supervision 4,801 643 659 1,834 64 157 1,613 7,937 

Paroled ..................... 29 8 12 59 5 2 52 108 

Prosecutorial Discretion ....................... 72 46 64 250 3 8 239 432 

Total ............ 9,978 7,897 14,149 25,058 1,545 240 23,273 57,082 

Fiscal year 2012 data was rerun for program data (IIDS v1.16 run date of 04/03/2014; EID as of 3/29/2014). Book-out data excludes Office of Refugee Resettlement and Mexican Interior Repatriation Program facilities, as well as U.S. Marshals prisoners. 

Releases reflect final book-outs with a case and release reasons of alternatives to detention, bond, order of recognizance, order of supervision, paroled, and prosecutorial discretion and excludes removals, deaths, and proceedings terminated. 

The final book-out criminality is defined by whether or not an alien has the ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal). ICE 

threat level is based upon the most serious convicted crime(s) (except overturned convictions) for the alien’s case up until the point of departure. The ICE threat levels reflect the priorities outlined in Director Morton’s June 2010 memorandum entitled ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities effective October 1, 2010. Since fiscal year 2011, ICE has defined criminality as whether or not an alien has an ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal immigration violator). For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel refer to the following offense levels: level 1, level 2, and level 3 offenders. Level 1 offenders are those aliens convicted of ‘‘aggravated felonies,’’ as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes each punishable by 

more than 1 year, commonly referred to as ‘‘felonies.’’ Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of any other felony or three or more crimes each punishable by less than 1 year, commonly referred to as ‘‘misdemeanors.’’ Level 3 offenders are aliens convicted of ‘‘misdemeanor’’ crime(s) 

punishable by less than 1 year. 

The ICE arresting agency includes the following Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) arresting agency programs: 287g Program, Alternatives to Detention, ERO Criminal Alien Program, Detained Docket Control, Detention and Deportation, Law Enforcement Area Response Unit, Non-Detained Docket Control, Juvenile, Fugitive Operations, Violent Criminal Alien Section, Joint 

Criminal Alien Response Team, Probation and Parole, Quick Response Team, User Fee Investigations, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Non-User Fee 

Investigations, HSI Criminal Arrest Only, and Intelligence. 

FISCAL YEARS 2012–2014 (YEAR-TO-DATE) AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY (ALOS) FOR RELEASES 

WITH AN ICE APPREHENSION PROGRAM 

Criminality 

ALOS (in days) for releases with an ICE 

Apprehension Program 

Fiscal year 2012 Fiscal year 2013 

Fiscal year 

2014 yearto-date 

ICE Threat Level 1 ............................................................................................................. 79.05 80.77 100.13 

ICE Threat Level 2 ............................................................................................................. 38.99 35.86 39.31 

ICE Threat Level 3 ............................................................................................................. 25.83 24.74 28.67 

Non-Criminal Immigration Violator .................................................................................... 21.53 17.10 15.86 

Fugitives .................................................................................................................... 16.46 15.25 17.13 

Reinstatements ......................................................................................................... 68.85 79.00 62.26 

Other ......................................................................................................................... 21.38 15.72 14.44 

Total ...................................................................................................................... 35.06 34.50 39.80 

Fiscal years 2012–2013 data was rerun for program data (IIDS v1.16 run date of 04/03/2014; EID as of 3/29/2014). Fiscal year 2014 data 

updated through 3/29/2014 (IIDS v1.16 run date of 04/03/2014; EID as of 3/29/2014). 

Book-out data excludes Office of Refugee Resettlement and Mexican Interior Repatriation Program facilities, as well as U.S. Marshals prisoners. 

Releases reflect final book-outs with a case and release reasons of alternatives to detention, bond, order of recognizance, order of supervision, paroled, and prosecutorial discretion and excludes removals, deaths, and proceedings terminated. 

The final book-out criminality is defined by whether or not an alien has the ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal). ICE 

threat level is based upon the most serious convicted crime(s) (except overturned convictions) for the alien’s case up until the point of departure. The ICE threat levels reflect the priorities outlined in Director Morton’s June 2010 memorandum entitled ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities effective October 1, 2010. Since fiscal year 2011, ICE has defined criminality as whether or not an alien has an ICE threat level (convicted criminal) or not (non-criminal immigration violator). For purposes of prioritizing the removal of aliens convicted of crimes, ICE personnel refer to the following offense levels: level 1, level 2, and level 3 offenders. Level 1 offenders are those aliens convicted of ‘‘aggravated felonies,’’ as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or two or more crimes each punishable by 

more than 1 year, commonly referred to as ‘‘felonies.’’ Level 2 offenders are aliens convicted of any other felony or three or more crimes each punishable by less than 1 year, commonly referred to as ‘‘misdemeanors.’’ Level 3 offenders are aliens convicted of ‘‘misdemeanor’’ crime(s) 

punishable by less than 1 year. 

The ICE arresting agency includes the following Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) arresting agency programs: 287g Program, Alternatives to Detention, ERO Criminal Alien Program, Detained Docket Control, Detention and Deportation, Law Enforcement Area Response Unit, Non-Detained Docket Control, Juvenile, Fugitive Operations, Violent Criminal Alien Section, Joint 

Criminal Alien Response Team, Probation and Parole, Quick Response Team, User Fee Investigations, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Non-User Fee Investigations, HSI Criminal Arrest Only, and Intelligence. 

The average length of stay represents the average amount of time from initial book-in to final book-out for an alien’s detention stay. 
70 

In support of the U.S. Border Patrol’s Consequence Delivery System, ICE participated in the Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP) by detaining, 

transporting, and removing Mexican border crossers. In an effort to disrupt smuggling operations and deter future illegal entry, ICE transported and removed these subjects in a different area of the country from where they were apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol. These 

cases required only short-duration detention stays. While ICE continues to participate in ATEP along the Texas-Mexico border, ICE scaled back 

its participation in ATEP in June 2013. 

Question. For fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 year-to-date, please provide a 

breakdown of individuals on the non-detained docket by forms of supervision and 

conditions of release, including bond, ICE supervision, orders of recognizance, or 

combination. For the same time period, please provide a breakdown of those individuals on the non-detained docket enrolled in the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program by type of ATD. 

Answer. The non-detained docket is fluid and changes on a daily basis as cases 

move onto the detained docket or are closed. Therefore, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is providing information that can be found in the year-end 

snapshot of its database and the snapshot is current as of March 29, 2014. 

The chart below shows the latest release reason for those non-detained docket 

cases that had a history of ICE detention. Most cases on the non-detained docket 

do not have a detention history and therefore do not contain requested details such 

as the form of supervision or condition of release. 

FISCAL YEARS 2012–2014 YEAR-TO-DATE NON-DETAINED DOCKET BY RELEASE REASON 

Release reason 

Fiscal year 2012 

year-end 

snapshot 

Fiscal year 2013 

year-end 

snapshot 

Fiscal year 2014 

as of 03/29/14 

snapshot 

Total Non-Detained Docket ........................................................................ 1,681,862 1,781,368 1,841,810 

Bonded Out ................................................................................................ 242,055 262,447 276,991 

Order of Recognizance ............................................................................... 111,324 150,177 176,943 

Order of Supervision .................................................................................. 60,149 69,836 75,546 

Office of Refugee Resettlement ................................................................. 2,256 4,639 5,342 

Paroled ....................................................................................................... 36,106 40,028 43,399 

Proceedings Terminated ............................................................................. 1,660 1,686 1,871 

Prosecutorial Discretion ............................................................................. 347 918 1,153 

All Other Release Reasons ........................................................................ 36,307 38,405 39,676 

No Detention tied to the case ................................................................... 1,191,658 1,213,232 1,220,889 

Fiscal years 2012 and 2013 data represent snapshots of the non-detained docket at year end, and are historical and remain static. Fiscal 

year 2014 data updated through 3/29/2014 (ICE Integrated Decision Support v1.16 run date of 3/31/2014; ENFORCE Integrated Database as 

of 3/29/2014). 

‘‘All Other Release Reasons’’ include release reasons such as ‘‘Alternatives to Detention,’’ and cases in which the alien may have been removed or departed the United States but whose case has not yet been closed in ICE’s case management system. This category may also contain other release reasons such as ‘‘Processing Disposition Changed Locally’’ or other various reasons. 

FISCAL YEARS 2012–2014 YEAR-TO-DATE ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION BY TYPE 

Fiscal year 2012 

year-end 

snapshot 

Fiscal year 2013 

year-end 

snapshot 

Fiscal year 2014 

as of 03/29/14 

snapshot 

Total ATD .................................................................................................... 23,121 22,977 21,919 

Full Service ................................................................................................ 12,828 12,253 11,137 

Technology Only ......................................................................................... 10,293 10,742 10,782 

Question. For fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 year-to-date, please provide information on the final case dispositions (e.g. removed, returned, granted voluntary departure, and/or granted another form of relief) for aliens on the non-detained docket 

by forms of supervision and conditions of release, including bond, ICE supervision, 

orders of recognizance, or combination. In addition, show the average number of 

days on the docket for these aliens in each type of supervision. 

Answer. ICE is unable to provide the final case dispositions for aliens on the nondetained docket by forms of supervision and conditions of release or the average 

number of days on the docket for aliens in each type of supervision without case 

specific information. 

ICE is providing information that can be found in the year-end snapshot of its 

database and the snapshot as of March 29, 2014. 

In fiscal year 2012, ICE conducted 346,487 removals and 63,362 returns. In fiscal 

year 2013, ICE conducted 332,538 removals and 36,106 returns. 
71 

The below chart shows the latest release reason for those non-detained docket 

cases that had an ICE book-in. Most cases on the non-detained docket do not have 

a detention history that can be tied to the case and therefore do not contain the 

requested details as to the form of supervision or condition of release. 

FISCAL YEARS 2012–2014 YEAR-TO-DATE NON-DETAINED DOCKET BY RELEASE REASON 

Release reason 

Fiscal year 2012 

year-end 

snapshot 

Fiscal year 2013 

year-end 

snapshot 

Fiscal year 2014 

as of 03/29/14 

snapshot 

Total Non-Detained Docket ........................................................................ 1,681,862 1,781,368 1,841,810 

Bonded Out ................................................................................................ 242,055 262,447 276,991 

Order of Recognizance ............................................................................... 111,324 150,177 176,943 

Order of Supervision .................................................................................. 60,149 69,836 75,546 

Office of Refugee Resettlement ................................................................. 2,256 4,639 5,342 

Paroled ....................................................................................................... 36,106 40,028 43,399 

Proceedings Terminated ............................................................................. 1,660 1,686 1,871 

Prosecutorial Discretion ............................................................................. 347 918 1,153 

All Other Release Reasons ........................................................................ 36,307 38,405 39,676 

No Detention tied to the case on the Non-Detained Docket—No Release 

Reason ................................................................................................... 1,191,658 1,213,232 1,220,889 

Fiscal years 2012–2013 data represent snapshots of the non-detained docket at year end, and are historical and remain static. Fiscal year 

2014 data updated through 3/29/2014 (ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS) v1.16 run date of 3/31/2014; ENFORCE Integrated Database 

(EID) as of 3/29/2014). 

‘‘All Other Release Reasons’’ include release reasons such as ‘‘Alternatives to Detention,’’ and cases in which the alien may have been removed or departed the United States but whose case has not yet been closed in ICE’s case management system. This category may also contain other release reasons such as ‘‘Processing Disposition Changed Locally’’ or other various reasons. 

FISCAL YEARS 2012–2014 YEAR-TO-DATE ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION BY TYPE 

Fiscal year 2012 

year-end 

snapshot 

Fiscal year 2013 

year-end 

snapshot 

Fiscal year 

2014 as of 

03/29/14 

snapshot 

Total ATD ............................................................................................................................ 23,121 22,977 21,919 

Full Service ........................................................................................................................ 12,828 12,253 11,137 

Technology Only ................................................................................................................. 10,293 10,742 10,782 

Question. For fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 year-to-date, please provide the 

final case dispositions (e.g. removed, returned, granted voluntary departure, and/or 

granted another form of relief) of participants in the ATD program. 

Answer. The table below displays final case dispositions for fiscal years 2012, 

2013, and 2014 (through February). 

Final case disposition Fiscal year 

2012 

Fiscal year 

2013 

Fiscal year 

2014 

through 

February 

0—Withdrawal Permitted—I–275 Issued ........................................................................ 9 6 1 

3—Voluntary Departure Confirmed ................................................................................... 1,414 1,134 268 

6—Deported/Removed—Deportability .............................................................................. 503 546 131 

8—Excluded/Removed—Inadmissibility ........................................................................... 909 1,213 347 

9—Voluntary Return Witnessed ........................................................................................ 6 2 1 

A—Proceedings Terminated .............................................................................................. 840 780 213 

B—Relief Granted ............................................................................................................. 462 451 140 

E—Charging Document Canceled by Immigration and Naturalization Service ............... 102 119 50 

L—Legalization—Permanent Residence Granted ............................................................. 60 56 12 

Z—Z-Special Agricultural Worker—Permanent Residence Granted ................................ 6 2 1 

Grand Total ........................................................................................................... 4,311 4,309 1,164 

Data Notes: 

—Final case dispositions based on case status code pulled from ICE Integrated Decision Support (IIDS). IIDS is a data warehouse that 

contains dynamic data extracts from the Enforcement Integrated Database (EID). 

—ATD Termination codes were not used in this analysis because they are not necessarily indicative of an individual’s final case disposition, only an individual’s reason for exiting the ATD program. Case status code is a more concrete indication of final case outcome. 

—Data pulled by the Statistical Tracking Unit. 
72 

—Fiscal year 2012 case closure codes 0–9 pulled from IIDS 10/5/2012, EID as of 10/3/2012. 

—Fiscal year 2013 case closure codes 0–9 pulled from IIDS 10/6/2013, EID as of 10/4/2013. 

—Fiscal year 2014 case closure codes 0–9 pulled from IIDS 3/10/2014, EID as of 3/8/2014. 

—Fiscal years 2012–2014 case closure codes A–Z pulled from IIDS 4/4/2014, EID as 4/2/2014. 

Fiscal year 2012 terminations Fiscal year 2013 terminations Fiscal year 2014 through February terminations 

Termination code Count Percent Termination code Count Percent Termination code Count Percent 

A ......................... 1,175 6.7 A ................ 1,445 5.4 A ................ 413 4.7 

B ........................ 773 4.4 B ............... 942 3.5 B ............... 309 3.5 

C ........................ 371 2.1 C ............... 560 2.1 C ............... 266 3.0 

D ........................ 512 2.9 D ............... 800 3.0 D ............... 271 3.1 

E ......................... 357 2.0 E ................ 544 2.0 E ................ 279 3.2 

F ......................... 256 1.5 F ................ 166 0.6 F ................ 40 0.5 

G ........................ 11,104 63.3 G ............... 19,249 71.5 G ............... 6,023 68.4 

H ........................ 173 1.0 H ............... 269 1.0 H ............... 113 1.3 

I .......................... 240 1.4 I ................. 207 0.8 I ................. 125 1.4 

J ......................... 980 5.6 J ................ 1,267 4.7 J ................ 519 5.9 

K ......................... 259 1.5 K ................ 259 1.0 K ................ 102 1.2 

L ......................... 1,208 6.9 L ................ 969 3.6 L ................ 238 2.7 

M ........................ 120 0.7 M ............... 131 0.5 M ............... 63 0.7 

Unknown ............ 23 0.1 Unknown ... 130 0.5 Unknown ... 48 0.5 

Grand 

total.

17,551 100.0 Grand total 26,938 100.0 Grand total 8,809 100.0 

1 Data from BI Inc. Population Reports 

TERMINATION CODES 

Type Description 

Favorable Outcomes: 

A ...................................................... Departure Verified (Final Order of Removal) 

B ..................................................... Relief/Benefit Granted (cancellation of Removal, Adjustment of Status, Asylum, 

or Admission) 

L ...................................................... Departure Verified (Voluntary Departure) 

M ..................................................... Departed the United States while in proceedings 

Neutral Outcomes: 

G ..................................................... No Longer Required to Participate (As determined by ERO for various reasons) 

H ..................................................... Arrested by ICE for Removal (Final Order—Active Participant) 

I ....................................................... Pending Departure Verification (Final Order of Removal or Voluntary Departure) 

J ...................................................... Arrested by other Law Enforcement Agency 

K ...................................................... Other (No longer required to report: medical or deceased) 

Unfavorable Outcomes: 

C ..................................................... Pre-Order Program Absconder (Terminated from ATD) 

D ..................................................... Post-Order Program Absconder (Terminated from ATD) 

E ...................................................... Pre-Order Program Violator 

F ...................................................... Post-Order Program Violator 

Question. Please provide the analysis that underpins the Administration’s assertion that there is only a need for 30,500 detention beds. And please provide an assessment of the impact that lower detention rates will have on successful removal 

of illegal aliens, to include consideration of the total cost to the taxpayer over time, 

effect on border security effectiveness, impact on interior enforcement, and impact 

on the aliens themselves as they accumulate ‘‘equities’’ on the non-detained docket. 

Answer. The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget requests funding for 30,539 immigration detention beds. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reviewed 

the historical average number of aliens apprehended who are subject to the Immigration and Nationality Act and mandatory detention provisions. The requested bed 

level of 30,539 accommodates the current fiscal year 2014 mandatory detained population (22,417 year-to-date average as of March 31, 2014) and provides for a 36-percent increase in detention population to accommodate the higher risk, non-mandatory detainees who present a risk to public safety. Lower risk, non-mandatory individuals may be placed by ICE in lower cost alternatives to detention programs. 
73 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Question. The Screening Partnership Program supports airports that opt to have 

private sector screening companies rather than TSA operations. Under this program, TSA still oversees security by contracting for screening services. Congress has 

spoken repeatedly about the value of this program in providing an avenue for innovation and competition. At the same time, it has been difficult for airports that want 

to participate to actually get through the process. One reason why seems to come 

down to technicalities in cost calculations. While I understand that this program 

will likely always be controversial, the actual cost of these two options should not 

be up for debate—this is a knowable feature of the landscape. This subcommittee 

directed TSA to undertake an independent assessment over the coming year to take 

this cost issue off the table. 

What is the status of this review, and will you ensure that TSA makes any 

changes necessary to its processes to ensure a fair and open competition for private 

sector screening? 

Answer. As directed by the Fiscal Year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) released a request for quote on April 

16, 2014, to solicit an independent analysis of the Screening Partnership Program’s 

Federal cost estimate methodology. Once the contractor delivers the final report, the 

Government Accountability Office has 90 days to review and brief Congress on the 

results. TSA is committed to ensuring a fair and open application process. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

COAST GUARD RECAPITALIZATION PLAN—NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTERS AND OFFSHORE

PATROL CUTTERS

Question. Secretary Johnson, I want to thank you for your support of DHS operations in and around my State, including, but not limited to the United States Coast 

Guard. I hope you will have the opportunity to soon visit Alaska and see the hard 

working men and women of the Department of Homeland Security. 

As we discussed a few months ago, the recapitalization of the Coast Guard’s assets is a priority that we both share and I am happy to see that you requested funding for the eighth national security cutter (NSC) in this year’s budget request. The 

national security cutter is the Coast Guard’s most sophisticated ship, and they continue to deploy to the Bering Sea. These national security cutters are filling the role 

of the older high endurance cutters that have past their useful life. 

Currently, one high endurance cutter, the Munro is homeported in Alaska. Cutters from California or Hawaii conduct all other Alaska patrol deployments. The 

Munro is over 40 years old and there is no planned replacement for it in Kodiak. 

Would you consider taking another look at the Coast Guard’s homeporting strategy and locating a national security cutter in Kodiak? 

Answer. Homeporting of the national security cutters (NSCs) was carefully evaluated by the Commandant of the Coast Guard to ensure greatest operational efficiency in supporting the Coast Guards multiple missions. 

In addition to the NSC, the Coast Guard is also designing the offshore patrol cutter (OPC). I see this year’s budget request includes $20 million to continue the preliminary design evaluation of this ship. 

Question. Are there plans to use the offshore patrol cutter in Alaska? 

Answer. Yes, the Coast Guard plans to use the OPC year-round in Alaskan waters. 

Question. If so how many national security cutters, if any, does the Coast Guard 

plan to homeport in Alaska? And when are they expected to begin coming online 

and start operating? 

Answer. There are currently no plans to homeport a national security cutter in 

Alaska. 

POLAR ICEBREAKERS

Question. We also need to talk about our icebreaking capability. The Coast Guard 

High Latitude Study in 2011 identified that to fulfill the statutory missions the 

Coast Guard needed three heavy and three medium icebreakers. Right now there 

is only one operational heavy icebreaker in our national fleet with one recently 

taken out of service. This year’s request includes $6 million to continue to study and 

plan for a new polar icebreaker. We don’t appear to be moving very quickly to build 

a new icebreaker, while other countries including Russia, China, and Canada are 

all building new icebreakers. 
74 

How many heavy icebreakers are needed keep us safe and protect our Arctic interests? 

Answer. Current Arctic seasonal icebreaking demands and national needs can be 

met with existing Coast Guard assets. 

Question. Does the Coast Guard have plans for additional icebreaking capability 

as a part of an Arctic strategy? 

Answer. Per the Coast Guard’s 2013 Arctic Strategy, the Coast Guard will continue to monitor evolving Arctic activities, and re-invest, where funding allows, to 

overcome potential gaps and shortfalls. The current icebreaking capability is sufficient to meet current operational demands. 

Question. Are there any plans to recapitalize and return the non-operational Polar 

Sea to service? 

Answer. There are no plans to recapitalize and return the non-operational Polar 

Sea to service. 

ARCTIC

Question. Secretary Johnson, the President released the Implementation Plan for 

the National Strategy for the Arctic Region in January. This plan lists the Department of Homeland Security as the lead agency for seven objectives as well as a supporting agency for many others. Your budget requests $2.1 million for Arctic operations. 

What level of priority are these Arctic objectives? 

Answer. Ensuring that the Coast Guard is prepared to meet its statutory mission 

obligations in the Arctic is a priority for the Service and the Coast Guard is taking 

a measured approach in this regard. The Coast Guard is working to support the implementation of the National Strategy for the Arctic Region in conjunction with the 

implementation of the Coast Guard’s Arctic Strategy. These strategies are complementary to each other and both recognize that the intensity of Coast Guard activity in the Arctic will be developed commensurate with changes in Arctic activity. 

Question. How will you implement your Arctic plan in the next fiscal year? 

Answer. There are a number of actions that are taking place in fiscal year 2015 

to support implementation of the National Strategy for the Arctic Region and the 

Coast Guard Arctic Strategy. These include: 

—Conducting annual Arctic Shield Operations; 

—Establishment of the (International) Arctic Coast Guard Forum; 

—Establishment of an Arctic Policy Board under the rules of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act; 

—Continue support within the International Maritime Organization for the development of a mandatory Polar Code; 

—Continue development of the interagency polar icebreaker Operational Requirements Document; 

—Work towards finalizing the Bering Strait Port Access Route Study; 

—Provide support to the Department of State to development priority for U.S. 

Chairmanship of the Arctic Council (2015–2017). 

COAST GUARD OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES

Question. Secretary Johnson, I am concerned with the planned reduction of $15 

million in the Coast Guard budget for what is referred operational efficiencies. This 

reduction seems to contradict the Coast Guard’s drive to increase proficiency across 

the service. 

Can you please describe what the operational efficiencies that are being reduced? 

Answer. The $15 million operational efficiency scales cutter, boat, and aircraft resource hours using risk-based prioritization of patrols and operational activities to 

achieve savings in fuel and variable maintenance. This proposal will preserve search 

and rescue, urgent security activities, and operational hours to meet minimum proficiency standards. 

Question. How will this reduction affect Coast Guard operations in Alaska? 

Answer. Operational Commanders will maintain the flexibility to shift resources 

to address the greatest risks and threats in the maritime environment. This reduction is not expected to impact the Coast Guard’s response posture in and around 

Alaska. 

NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY

Question. The April 2013 National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan directs DHS 

(as a National Ocean Council member) to implement what has been described as 

a ‘‘fundamental shift’’ in the way that the Federal Government manages ocean, 

coastal, and Great Lakes resources by adopting an ‘‘ecosystem-based management’’ 
75 

(EBM) approach. Specifically, EBM must be incorporated into environmental planning and review processes by 2016. In addition, the National Ocean Council (which 

includes DHS) is directed to ‘‘complete formal interagency partnership 

agreements... regarding coordination and leveraging efforts to achieve EBM.’’ 

In addition, in regions where all States decide not to participate on a regional 

planning body to carry out the marine planning initiative, Federal agencies are 

nonetheless directed to ‘‘identify and address priority science, information, and 

ocean management issues associated with marine planning as described in the Executive Order.’’ 

Alaska is a State that has decided not to participate in a regional planning body, 

and I am concerned that Federal agencies, including DHS, are pushing forward 

without due regard to Alaska’s prerogative to opt out of a regional planning body. 

Could you please describe in detail any DHS actions that have been or will be 

taken in Alaska in response to the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan’s directive to incorporate EBM into environmental planning and review processes and 

complete formal interagency agreements in furtherance of EBM? 

Answer. The Coast Guard is working with other Federal, State, local, and tribal 

experts to improve Arctic environmental incident prevention and response to ensure 

coordinated agency action, minimize the likelihood of disasters, and expedite response activities. The Implementation Plan includes the ongoing efforts of the Coast 

Guard to conduct a Waterway Analysis and Management System assessment and 

Port Access Route Study for the Bering Strait, ports, and other navigable waterways 

in western and northern Alaska as one of its priority actions. When completed, this 

action will lead to improved navigational safety, efficiency, and environmental stewardship for the region. 

Another initiative in which DHS/Coast Guard is involved is interagency cooperation to better coordinate domestic energy development and permitting in Alaska 

under Executive Order 13580 (Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska), of July 12, 2011. That Executive order makes specific reference to the need to promote orderly and efficient decisionmaking regarding the issuance of permits and the conduct of environmental 

reviews for both onshore and offshore energy development. This interagency coordination is leading to integrated Arctic management, which is a key component of 

EBM. 

Question. Could you please describe in detail any DHS actions that have been or 

will be taken in Alaska in response to the National Ocean Policy Implementation 

Plan’s directive for Federal agencies to participate in the marine planning initiative? 

Answer. The Coast Guard District 17 Commander took the lead early on in organizing Federal agencies in the Alaska region to prepare for the development of marine planning initiatives. This includes reaching out to other Federal agencies to 

identify subject-matter experts, leaders, and resources to enhance coordination and 

implementation of Federal programs designed to enhance the safe, secure, and prudent management of Federal waters and missions in the region. This was done in 

consultation with experts and leaders across the Federal Government, the State of 

Alaska, local communities, tribes, academia, industry, and the general public to promote mutual understanding and cooperation across a wide range of relevant initiatives. Additionally, the 17th Coast Guard District has reached an informal agreement with the National Ocean Council and the State of Alaska to work within existing processes and mechanisms to further National Ocean Policy objectives in Alaska. 

FEMA/GALENA

Question. On June 25, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration in 

response to flooding that devastated the Yukon River community of Galena and severely impacted other river villages in the Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) and Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP) regions. FEMA established a Disaster Field Office in Anchorage and mobilized staff from around the country. Most 

had no understanding of the short building seasons and geographic constraints associated with responding to a rural Alaska disaster. During a July meeting at the Disaster Field Office we also came to learn that FEMA HQ was not affording the Federal coordinating officer with the flexibility to address these unique conditions and 

to some extent was micromanaging the disaster. In response to that meeting, I 

wrote FEMA Administrator Fugate and DHS Acting Inspector General Edwards 

asking that they send senior teams to Galena. The DHS Inspector General’s office 

sent a three-person senior team in September while FEMA sent some HQ managers. 

Neither the FEMA Administrator, the Deputy Administrator nor the Associate Administrator in charge of the Recovery Division visited Galena last summer. We lost 
76 

much of the 2013 construction season because FEMA was not prepared. While 

FEMA has done substantial planning for the 2014 season, DHS oversight is necessary to ensure that the plan is properly executed. 

When you visited with me before your confirmation we discussed FEMA’s response to the May 2013 flooding disaster that devastated the Athabasca Indian village of Galena on the Yukon River and surrounding Native villages. By July it became apparent to me that FEMA was not well prepared to address a disaster in 

a remote Native village. Many of the reservists on the ground were poorly trained 

and we heard that FEMA headquarters was micromanaging the recovery and not 

in a good way. I wrote a letter to Administrator Fugate and to the DHS Inspector 

General asking that the ship be righted. A copy of this letter was provided to your 

staff. To their credit, senior Inspector General officials traveled to Galena to inspect 

the situation. Senior FEMA HQ officials did not. The 2014 construction season is 

upon us. 

My question is: Can we expect that FEMA will do better in 2014 than it did in 

2013. The recovery in Galena is as important to me like the recovery from Katrina 

and Rita is to Senator Landrieu, and the Sandy recovery is to the New York and 

New Jersey delegations. Can we get some high level attention and remove the obstacles that stand in the way to the recovery of these traditional Native communities? 

Answer. Each Stafford Act declaration is important to FEMA. Throughout the 

process of response and recovery efforts in Alaska, FEMA took rigorous and innovative actions to provide housing assistance to eligible applicants to include implementing Permanent Housing Construction (PHC). FEMA quickly deployed its Direct 

Housing Assessment Team (DHAT) which identifies the most appropriate means of 

providing temporary housing assistance, taking into account the needs of the eligible applicants, availability of temporary housing resources in the community, and 

the unique logistical considerations associated with providing housing assistance in 

a remote village like Galena. The DHAT, in coordination with the State-Led Disaster Housing Task Force (SLDHTF) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), evaluated potential construction options and determined PHC was the 

most appropriate housing assistance option for some applicants. PHC was implemented in phases to fill gaps due to additional costs associated with bringing in 

building material (direct shipping) and labor to support the repair of individual 

homes. 

In addition, FEMA engages early with our Grantees (States/tribes/local governments) in preparation of a disaster. An example of this is the Other Needs Assistance (ONA) provision of our Individuals and Households Program. ONA Administrative Option Selection form (FEMA form 010–0–11) contains a ‘‘standard personal 

property line item list’’ for States/tribes to approve or modify. States and tribes are 

provided an opportunity to ‘‘add-on’’ any additional items that are prevalent in their 

State/tribe and are not included in the standard list. The additional items requested 

by the State of Alaska included various items, such as a fish wheel, rifle, fishing 

gear, hunting gear, etc. to support subsistence activities. For example, the ‘‘hunting 

gear’’ included a sleeping bag, tent, tarp, knife, camp stove, food storage and game 

storage bags. These were approved in February 2013, 5 months before the disaster. 

FEMA had the ability to pay for those items under ONA at the time of the disaster, 

within 3 days of the declaration. Therefore, ONA was awarded without delay and 

provided an opportunity to supply food for the winter. 

Due to the remoteness of some traditional Native communities such as Galena, 

FEMA’s Public Assistance program funded a responder support camp last summer. 

The responder camp remains operational, and it houses 40 individuals. FEMA and 

State staff, along with FEMA and State-sponsored volunteers, utilized the camp. It 

provides washing and drying capabilities along with showers and three meals. Due 

to the number of volunteers assisting in the rebuilding of the community and the 

lack of infrastructure capabilities of Galena, the camp will be expanded in June to 

support an additional 60 volunteers. The camp is expected to be available through 

September 1, 2014. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

VISA WAIVER PROGRAM AND POLAND

Question. Secretary Johnson, I was pleased to speak with you following your visit 

to Krakow this past February. I appreciate that you took the time to discuss the 

importance of expanding the Visa Waiver Program with your Polish counterpart. Poland is an important strategic ally to the United States. It is important to show 
77 

faith with a longtime friend that has shown faith with us, standing by us in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. 

President Obama has repeatedly expressed his commitment to bringing Poland 

into the Visa Waiver Program. 

Secretary Johnson, how important is it to the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) to bring our close ally and friend Poland into the Visa Waiver Program? 

Answer. As you mention and as the President has noted, Poland is a strong ally 

of the United States. The President and I support Poland’s accession to the Visa 

Waiver Program. Unfortunately, Poland does not yet meet the strict eligibility requirements of the Visa Waiver Program contained in current law. Poland’s nonimmigrant visitor visa refusal rate remains above the statutory threshold of 3 percent. Additionally, Poland has not yet signed all of the information sharing agreements required for Visa Waiver Program eligibility. 

DHS places great importance on bringing Poland into the Visa Waiver Program 

once it meets the eligibility requirements. In the meantime, DHS cannot bring Poland into the program because DHS’s authority to do so is constrained by current 

law. 

Question. How many other countries are in line to join the program? 

Answer. No countries not already in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) currently 

fulfill all of the statutory requirements for VWP designation. DHS has been working 

with a very small group of countries on the VWP’s security and information sharing 

requirements in anticipation that they will become eligible for designation at some 

point in the future. These countries also need to meet the nonimmigrant visitor visa 

refusal rate threshold of 3 percent. DHS cannot begin the designation process until 

this and all the additional eligibility requirements are met. Based on the Department of State’s fiscal year 2013 visa refusal data, DHS does not anticipate designating any countries into the Visa Waiver Program during the remainder of this fiscal year. 

Question. Opponents of VWP expansion argue that it is a risk to American Security. Can you outline the security agreements Poland will enter into with the United 

States prior to joining? How will these agreements enhance American Security? 

What has the Polish Government already done to ensure Poland is not an entry 

point for terrorists into the United States? 

Answer. There are three information sharing instruments that countries conclude 

prior to the start of the Visa Waiver Program designation process in order to meet 

VWP statutory requirements for information sharing. The first is the Agreement on 

Preventing and Combating Serious Crime. This agreement provides for the reciprocal exchange of biographic and biometric data, along with any relevant underlying 

information, for purposes of preventing, detecting, and investigating serious criminal activity. Poland and the United States concluded substantive negotiations on 

this agreement in July 2012. 

The second is the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6 (HSPD–6) arrangement (Integration and Use of Screening Information). Under this arrangement, the 

United States provides the foreign partner with access to an extract of the Terrorist 

Screening Database in exchange for the foreign partner’s list of known and suspected terrorists. Poland has already signed an HSPD–6 arrangement with the 

United States. 

The third is an agreement to report information to INTERPOL on lost and stolen 

passports. To fulfill this requirement, countries must complete a memorandum of 

understanding or an exchange of diplomatic notes documenting their intent to report information on lost and stolen passport through INTERPOL. VWP countries 

are expected to report lost and stolen passport data on a daily basis. Poland has 

completed the exchange of diplomatic notes, and reports data on lost/stolen passport 

to INTERPOL on a daily basis. 

These agreements enhance American security by increasing the quantity and the 

quality of data available for identifying foreign travelers of potential concern. Primarily as a result of the Visa Waiver Program requirement to report lost and stolen 

passport information, over 65 percent of the records contained in INTERPOL’s travel document database are provided by Visa Waiver Program countries. The Agreement on Preventing and Combating Serious Crime has already resulted in the identification and incarceration of serious criminals based on the exchange of biometric 

information with Visa Waiver Program partners. Information gathered through the 

HSPD–6 arrangement has resulted in the confirmation of several terrorist identities, made existing watch list profiles more accurate, and added new identities to 

our watch list holdings. 

Poland employs a broad range of tools to diminish the risk that terrorists would 

use its territory as a transit point for travel to the United States. These tools include standardized risk-based screening procedures at border crossings, use of the 
78 

European Union’s Schengen Information System database to screen inbound travelers against derogatory information held by European governments, vetting of all 

applicants for asylum and refugee status against a common European database, and 

use of targeted advance passenger information to identify travelers of interest before 

they arrive at Polish ports of entry. Polish law enforcement and security officials 

frequently exchange information with their counterparts in the United States Mission to Poland, ensuring that any known travelers of concern are identified well in 

advance of any potential travel to the United States. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Senator LANDRIEU. And without further business, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., Wednesday, March 12, the hearing 

was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene 

subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(i) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Coats, Senator Daniel, U.S. Senator From Indiana: 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 64 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 6 

Johnson, Hon. Jeh, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security ..................... 1 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 9 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 35 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 7 

Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana: 

Opening Statement of ...................................................................................... 1 

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

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 35 

Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont, Questions Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 58 

Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland, Questions Submitted by ............................................................................................................... 76 

Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Questions Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 73 

Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Questions Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 60 

Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana, Questions Submitted by ..... 62 

(iii) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 35 

Alternatives to Detention (ATD): 

Funding for ....................................................................................................... 48 

Immigration ...................................................................................................... 27 

Applications for Immigration Benefits of U.S. Citizen Spouses, Delays in 

Processing ............................................................................................................. 53 

Arctic ......................................................................................................................... 74 

Operations ......................................................................................................... 23 

Aviation Security Fee Proposals ............................................................................. 42 

Border: 

Patrol Agent Staffing ....................................................................................... 15 

Security ............................................................................................................. 18 

Coast Guard: 

Cutters, Creative Financing for ...................................................................... 43 

Fleet ................................................................................................................... 12 

Operational Efficiencies ................................................................................... 74 

Recapitalization Plan—National Security Cutters and Offshore Patrol 

Cutters ........................................................................................................... 73 

Customs: 

And Border Protection (CBP): 

Facilities ..................................................................................................... 31 

Flight Hours, Reduction in ....................................................................... 55 

Officers, Use of Increased Fees to Pay for ...................................................... 53 

Cybersecurity ........................................................................................................... 58 

Collaborative Effort .......................................................................................... 16 

Education .......................................................................................................... 13 

Einstein Program ............................................................................................. 18 

Research ............................................................................................................ 23 

Secret Service Capabilities .............................................................................. 29 

Data Center Consolidation ...................................................................................... 22 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS): 

Morale ................................................................................................................ 56 

Structure, Cohesive .......................................................................................... 57 

Disaster: 

Funding Resiliency ........................................................................................... 40 

Relief Fund (DRF) ............................................................................................ 32 

Spending—Federal Status and State Responsibility ..................................... 38 

Einstein Program, Cybersecurity ........................................................................... 18 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/Galena .................................. 75 

Flood Maps ............................................................................................................... 36 

Galena/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) .................................. 75 

Grants: 

Consolidation Proposal ..................................................................................... 34 

Mitigation Grants ............................................................................................. 17 

I–130 Application Backlog ...................................................................................... 58 

Icebreakers ............................................................................................................... 25 

Illegal Border Crossings, Increase in ..................................................................... 45 

Immigration: 

Alternatives To Detention (ATD) .................................................................... 27 

And Customs Enforcement (ICE): 

Data ............................................................................................................ 64 

Detainers, Honoring .................................................................................. 49 
Page

iv 

Immigration—Continued 

And Customs Enforcement (ICE)—Continued 

Transportation and Removal Program, Cuts to ...................................... 47 

Data and Priorities ........................................................................................... 50 

Employment Creation Immigration Visa Program ........................................ 17 

Reform ............................................................................................................... 14 

Comprehensive .......................................................................................... 59 

Repatriation ...................................................................................................... 28 

Jones Act .................................................................................................................. 34 

National: 

Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) .......................................................... 26 

Flood Insurance ................................................................................................ 11 

Program (NFIP) Reform ........................................................................... 35 

Ocean Policy (NOP) .......................................................................................... 74 

Security Cutter (NSC): 

Funding ...................................................................................................... 22 

Home Porting ............................................................................................. 24 

Northern Border ...................................................................................................... 16 

P–3 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) ........................................................ 55 

Poland, Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and ............................................................. 76 

Polar Icebreakers ..................................................................................................... 73 

Protecting Federal Cyber Networks ....................................................................... 37 

Public-Private Partnerships .................................................................................... 29 

REAL ID Program ................................................................................................... 33 

Secret Service Capabilities, Cybersecurity ............................................................ 29 

Securing The Cities (STC) ...................................................................................... 57 

State and Local Preparedness Grants Reorganization ......................................... 40 

Surveillance Drones: Privacy Rules ....................................................................... 30 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ..................................................... 73 

Officer Safety and Security, Enhancing ......................................................... 43 

Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) .................................................................. 44 

Use-of-Force Policy .................................................................................................. 59 

Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and Poland .............................................................. 76 

Æ